Agrégateur de flux

The OSAKA UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW (OULR) is a prestigious international academic journal on law and politics with a rich history. Published annually by the Graduate School of Law and Politics at Osaka University since 1952, the OULR offers a valuable platform for discussing and sharing information on Japanese law and politics, all presented in English and other foreign languages including French and German from a comparative law perspective.

The OULR’s ultimate goal is to foster debate and facilitate the exchange of ideas between Japanese and international scholars, while promoting and disseminating original research in the fields of Japanese law and politics and other related areas.

 

That said, the latest volume (No. 72) features some papers that might be of interest to the readers of this blog, as well as researchers and practitioners of private international law. These papers highlight important legal developments in China, particularly in the areas of international civil procedure and sovereign immunity.

 

Hongman QIN, Yongping XIAO, and Xiaoke LUO

New Developments in Chinese International Civil Procedure Law: A Perspective from the Fourth Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States

Asbtract:

This paper explores and compares the 2023 amendments to the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China with the corresponding rules in the Fourth Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. It finds that China’s new rules on international civil jurisdiction, the doctrine of forum non conveniens, service and evidence-taking abroad, and the structured mechanisms for recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments are clearer and more detailed for respecting other countries’ sovereignty and facilitating the participation of Chinese and foreign parties in litigation before Chinese courts. These updates reflect China’s efforts to modernize its legal framework, enhance judicial efficiency, align with international norms, promote cross-border legal cooperation, and ensure the protection of national interests while facilitating cross-border legal interactions.

 

Zhengxin HUO

A Landmark Change from Absolute to Restrictive Immunity: A Commentary on Foreign Sovereign Immunity Law of the People’s Republic of China

Abstract:

On 1 September 2023, the Chinese national legislature adopted the ‘Law of the People’s Republic of China on Foreign State Immunity’. Comprising 23 articles, the Law represents a landmark change in China’s foreign state immunity doctrine from absolute to restrictive immunity. The Law deals with a foreign state’s immunity and property from civil lawsuits in Chinese courts and judicial enforcement in the People’s Republic of China, representing a new chapter for foreign states in Chinese courts. The adoption of the restrictive immunity doctrine significantly increases the scope of proceedings to be pursued against foreign states with respect to their commercial transactions and enforcement actions to be implemented against foreign states’ commercial assets within China. Parties entering commercial transactions with foreign states will benefit from this law in the event that a dispute arises, and thus, enforcing their rights against a state in Chinese courts becomes necessary.

 

These papers are available online for free—just click and save them to your preferred device!

You can find all past issues of the OULR in the Osaka University Journal Repository. [here].

 

I personally had  the opportunity to publish an article on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Japan in the OULR in the past.

 

The OULR also welcomes submissions in foreign languages, including French or German. Those who are interested in having their research published in the OULR, please refer to our Guide for Authors [available here]. As a tradition, the submission deadline for manuscripts is the first Tuesday of the first week of November. All details about submissions can be found in the Guide for Authors.

 

For those able to read Portuguese, 3 new books of great interest have been published in the last months.

In January 2025, Professor Luís de Lima Pinheiro published a new, 4th edition of Volume I of the treatise on Private International Law. In more than 600 pages, the book gives an introduction to Conflict of Laws and deals with the General Part of this field. Along with the in-depth analysis of all those subjects, a comprehensive list of legal literature can be found at the beginning of each Chapter.

In November 2024, Professor Dário Moura Vicente published the 5th volume of his PIL “Essays” collection. It gathers 22 scholarly contributions of the author divided into five categories, namely general issues of Private International Law, jurisdiction and recognition of foreign judgments in the EU, international unification of Private Law, the information society and its international regulation, and international arbitration.

And in October 2024, Professor Elsa Dias Oliveira published a book on Conflict of Laws in the EU. It deals with the «general part» issues that for decades have been puzzling many European private international lawyers, due to the fact that for some of them, such as renvoi or ordre public, we may find explicit rules in many PIL regulations, while for others, such as characterization or the application of foreign law, that is not the case.

Lauren Clayton-Helm and Ana Speed (both Northumbria University) are hosting a Modern Law Review funded conference at Northumbria University Law school on the 24th April entitled ‘Gender-based violence across borders: challenges and opportunities to establishing routes to safety in a migratory world’.

Further information can be found on the poster.

There will be space for up to 40 attendees.

Registration is mandatory under this link.

The Faculty of Law of the University of Bremen is recruiting a doctoral researcher in Private International Law, Civil Law and Legal Theory (‘wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter’ m/w/d; salary group 13 TV-L), part time 50 per cent, starting in 2025, for a duration of 36 months.

The researcher will provide scientific services in teaching to the extent of 2 SWS, and will be expected to work towards a PhD-thesis (doctor iuris) under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Gralf-Peter Calliess, in the research focus of the professorship, namely, private international law, civil procedure, arbitration, antitrust law and legal theory.

Candidates shall hold a first state examination in law (Staatsprüfung) or comparable academic university degree (graduation among the top 20 per cent of the year). A very good command of the German language is required, while a good command of English and/or other foreign language skills is an additional asset.

Deadline for applications with a letter of motivation, CV and certificates: 25th of March of 2025. For further information, please the legally binding call for applications (in German) to be found here or contact Margrit Knipper: knipper@uni-bremen.de.

Commission / Croatie (Décharge de Biljane Donje II)
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour impose des sanctions financières à la Croatie pour n’avoir pas géré de manière adéquate des déchets mis en décharge présentant une menace pour la santé humaine et l’environnement

Commission / Allemagne (Directive lanceurs d’alerte)
Rapprochement des législations
Manquement d’État : cinq États membres sont condamnés à des sanctions financières pour défaut de transposition de la directive « lanceurs d’alerte »

D. K. (Dessaisissement d’un juge)
Droit institutionnel
Indépendance des juges : la décision de dessaisir un juge de ses affaires doit être fondée sur des critères objectifs et précis

Cymdek
Transport
Droits des passagers aériens : une carte d’embarquement peut suffire à prouver une réservation confirmée sur un vol

On 27 February 2025, the research services of the European Parliament published on line a briefing authored by David de Groot, entitled Surrogacy: The legal situation in the EU, setting out the legal situation in the EU regarding surrogacy. The document provides a good, well-researched and easy-to-follow introduction to the topic. In 17 pages, it […]

A new paper by Michael Green, A Plea for Private International Law (Conflict of Laws), was recently published as an Essay in the Notre Dame Law Review Reflection. Michael argues that although private international law is increasingly important in our interconnected world, it has fallen out of favor at top U.S. law schools. To quote from the Essay:

Private international law has not lost its jurisprudential import. And ease of travel, communication, and trade have only increased in the last century. But in American law schools (although not abroad), private international law has started dropping out of the curriculum, with the trend accelerating in the last five years or so. We have gone through US News and World Report’s fifty top-ranked law schools and, after careful review, it appears that twelve have not offered a course on private international law (or its equivalent) in the last four academic years: Arizona State University, Boston University, Brigham Young University, Fordham University, University of Georgia, University of Minnesota, The Ohio State University, Pepperdine University, Stanford University, University of Southern California, Vanderbilt University, and University of Washington. And even where the course is taught, in some law schools—such as Duke, New York University, and Yale—it is by visitors, adjuncts, or emerita. It is no longer a valued subject in faculty hiring.

I could not agree more. Nor am I alone. Although Michael did the bulk of the research and writing for the Essay, he shared credit with a number of scholars who endorse the arguments set forth therein. This list of credited co-authors includes:

Lea Brilmayer (Yale Law School)
John Coyle (University of North Carolina School of Law)
William S. Dodge (George Washington University Law School)
Scott Dodson (UC Law San Francisco)
Peter Hay (Emory School of Law)
Luke Meier (Baylor Law School)
Jeffrey Pojanowski (Notre Dame Law School)
Kermit Roosevelt III (University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School)
Joseph William Singer (Harvard Law School)
Symeon C. Symeonides (Willamette University College of Law)
Carlos M. Vázquez (Georgetown University Law Center)
Christopher A. Whytock (UC Irvine School of Law)
Patrick Woolley (University of Texas School of Law).

In addition to his empirical findings about the declining role of Conflict of Laws in the U.S. law school curricula, Michael seeks to explain precisely why the class matters so much and why it has fallen out of favor. He argues convincingly that part of the decline may be attributed to poor branding:

We suspect that part of the problem is that many American law professors and law school administrators are unaware that conflict of laws is private international law. One of us is an editor of a volume on the philosophical foundations of private international law, and in conversation several law professor friends (we won’t name names) told him that they weren’t aware that he worked on private international law, even though they knew that he worked on conflicts. Reintroducing conflicts to the law school curriculum might be as simple a matter as rebranding the course to make its connection with international law clear, as Georgetown has done.

He also considers—and rightly rejects—the notion that this is an area about which practicing attorneys can easily educate themselves. To quote again from the Essay:

Another argument that the disappearance of conflicts from the law school curriculum is not a problem is that a practitioner can identify a choice-of-law issue and get up to speed on the relevant law in short order. The truth, however, is that one is unlikely to recognize a choice-of-law issue without having taken conflicts. We have often been shocked at how law professors without a conflicts background (again, we are not naming names) will make questionable choice-of-law inferences in the course of an argument, based on nothing more than their a priori intuitions. They appear to be unaware that there is law—and law that differs markedly as one moves from one state or nation to another—on the matter. One can recognize a choice-of-law issue only by knowing what is possible, and someone who has not taken conflicts will not know the universe of possibilities.

The Essay contains a host of additional insights that will (fingers crossed) help to reinvigorate the field of private international law in the United States. Anyone with an interest in conflicts (or private international law) should read it. It can be downloaded here.

A version of this post also appears at Transnational Litigation Blog.

The author of this post is Lydia Lundstedt, who is an Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer at Stockholm University and Linköping University. In the interest of transparency, the author makes known that she previously wrote an expert legal opinion on behalf of BSH Hausgeräte. On 25 February 2025, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice […]

Dans l’affaire du boycott des publicités sur CNews et celle des méga-bassines de Sainte Soline, la Cour de cassation a vérifié l’absence d’ingérence disproportionnée dans l’exercice de la liberté d’expression. 

en lire plus

Building on the success of the two previous editions (here and here), a new edition of the EAPIL Winter School is currently being organized by the European Association of Private International Law and the Department of Law, Economics and Cultures of the University of Insubria in Como, in cooperation with the Law Faculty of the […]

On behalf of Aleksandrs Fillers (Riga Graduate School of Law), we are happy to share the following conference announcement; more information can also be found here.

The European Union (EU) has become a central player in private international law (PIL) on the European continent. The scope of EU PIL is extensive and constantly poses challenges to scholars and courts. The objective of the Riga Private International Law Conference is to discuss the current weaknesses of EU PIL and share suggestions for improvements. The conference topics cover all areas of EU Private International Law, including private international law for divorces, maintenance, commercial contracts, torts, and more.

The conference will be held in Riga, Latvia, at the Riga Graduate School of Law on 7–8 June 2025.

Please submit abstracts of no more than 300 words to Associate Professor Dr Aleksandrs Fillers (aleksandrs.fillers@rgsl.edu.lv) by 15 April 2025.

We will notify you about the acceptance of papers by 1 May 2025. To cover the costs of lunches and administrative expenses, we foresee a moderate fee of EUR 30.

Directly after the conference, we intend to prepare a book proposal under the working title “Improving European Private International Law.” The proposal will be based on selected papers, and we aim to publish it with an international publishing house with broad distribution.

The European Commission has published on 26 February 2026 a proposal for a directive amending Directives 2006/43, 2013/34, 2022/2464 and 2024/1760 concerning certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements, as part of its Omnibus Simplification Package. The explanatory memorandum highlights that business associations have raised concerns about the regulatory burden resulting, inter alia, from […]

The Unipar project partners are organising a stakeholders’ meeting on the EU’s proposal on filiation/parenthood, domestic private international law, human and children’s rights, and EU law. The meeting will be held in Brussels on 13 and 14 March, and will be livestreamed for persons who wish to follow.

The programme is available on the Unipar website. There you will also find the registration link for online participation.

Unipar is co-funded by the European Union. It is a two-year project that comments on the EU’s proposal on private international law on filiation, but also investigates the larger context of filiation/parenthood across borders. The first outcome is a report on the impact on parentage of the EU acquis.

This month starts with the publication, on Thursday 6, of the decision in case C-395/23, Anikovi, reported here, on the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 (Brussels II ter Regulation) and its relation to an international treaty between a Member State and a third one. The Sofiyski rayonen sad (Sofia District Court, Bulgaria) referred to the […]

OGEL Special Issue on ‘Space Mining: National and International Regulation for and against Commercial Mining of Outer Space Resources’ will include dispute resolution over space mining plans as well as dispute resolution among participants in space mining operations – state vs state and space versus corporations and corporations versus corporations.

Outer Space clearly involves interesting private international law issues.

Proposals should be submitted to the editors by 31st March 2025, with final papers to be submitted before 31st May 2025.

For more information, please refer to here.

 

ConflictofLaws.net will be hosting an ad-hoc virtual roundtable on the Commission’s Rome II Report

on 11 March 2025, 12pm–1.30pm.

The conversation will focus on the long-awaited report published by the Commission on 31 January 2025 and its implications for a possible future reform of the Regulation.

The event will feature the following panellists:

Rui Dias
University of Coimbra

Thomas Kadner Graziano
University of Geneva

Xandra Kramer
Erasmus University Rotterdam

Eva Lein
University of Lausanne &
British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Tobias Lutzi
University of Augsburg

Everyone interested is warmly invited to join via this Zoom link.

Background to Case C-537/23 Società Italiana Lastre SpA (SIL) v Agora SARL, in which the CJEU held yesterday, is here.

The choice of court clause that is the subject of the proceedings reads

the court of Brescia [(Italy)] will have jurisdiction over any dispute arising from or related to this contract. [SIL] reserves the right to bring proceedings against the purchaser before another competent court in Italy or elsewhere.

When I understood late in 2024 that there had been no hearing and that neither would there be an AG Opinion, I suspected this most likely indicated that nothing earthshattering would be held, rather that the CJEU would give the kind of straightforward replies as I flagged in my post on the referral.

I was wrong! : surprisingly in my view the Court has held asymmetry IS covered by BIa and that it is in principle perfectly kosher.

The case deals with asymmetric aka hybrid aka unilateral choice of court, on which readers will find plenty of posts when entering these search strings on the blog.

Article 25’s lex causae rule (which law determines whether unilateral choice of vcourt is valid) reads in relevant part

‘1.      If the parties, regardless of their domicile, have agreed that a court or the courts of a Member State are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, that court or those courts shall have jurisdiction, unless the agreement is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that Member State. …. “(emphasis added)

Recital 20 adds

20)      Where a question arises as to whether a choice-of-court agreement in favour of a court or the courts of a Member State is null and void as to its substantive validity, that question should be decided in accordance with the law of the Member State of the court or courts designated in the agreement, including the conflict-of-laws rules of that Member State.’

As I noted in the Handbook and elsewhere, the insertion into the Regulation of the lex fori prorogati rule often does not assist. In particular, where parties expressly make choice of court non-exclusive or where they designate a plurality of specifically identified courts, the lex fori prorogati is not immediately ascertainable. Neither is it in the event of so-called ‘unilateral’ or ‘one-sided’ choice of court. At the very least for these cases which are not solved with the new lex fori prorogati rule, parties are best advised to continue to (or start to) make separate and express choice of law for unilateral and non-exclusive choice of law.

Recital 20, whose status is uncertain anyway on account of it being a mere recital, is in my view extraordinarily unhelpful in conjuring up renvoi to the lex causae mix.

The CJEU first of all and as is standard for BIa, reminds us [30] that the concept of ‘null and void as to its substantive validity’ must be given an autonomous, EU law meaning, “which must be established by reference to the usual meaning of those terms in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they are used and the objectives pursued by the legislation of which they form part.”

[31] ‘Substantive’ ordinarily would refer to ‘questions of fact or law which the [national, GAVC] court must decide’ at the merits stage. However [32] here the reference to substantive validity clearly means something else ,namely “that provision indicates which national law applies as regards whether, notwithstanding the fact that all of the conditions of validity laid down in that article are satisfied, such an agreement is null and void on other grounds under that national law.”: in other words ‘that provision is merely a conflict-of-laws rule’.

[33] the Court observes that recital 20 “has wording analogous” to A25. When it cites recital 20 however it quotes incompletely, namely “‘where a question arises as to whether a choice-of-court agreement in favour of a court or the courts of a Member State is null and void as to its substantive validity, that question should be decided in accordance with the law of the Member State of the court or courts designated in the agreement’.”

Leaving out the reference to renvoi is disingenuous imo, and it is not the first time the CJEU completely ignores recital 20’s inclusion of renvoi: see C-519/19 Ryanair v DelayFix where it did exactly the same.

[36] continuing with statements which reveal nothing new to the seasoned conflicts eye, the CJEU recalls that A25 itself only discusses the existence and expression of consent, hence that ‘substantive validity’

“covers the general causes of nullity of a contract, namely, in particular, those which vitiate consent, such as error, deceit, violence or fraud, and incapacity to contract, causes which, unlike the conditions of validity pertaining to the agreement conferring jurisdiction themselves, are not governed by the Brussels Ia Regulation but by the law of the Member State whose courts are designated.

[40] the Court refers to the travaux to point out that A25 was meant to mirror the 2005 Choice of Court Convention on this point: see A5 of that Convention (“The court or courts of a Contracting State designated in an exclusive choice of court agreement shall have jurisdiction to decide a dispute to which the agreement applies, unless the agreement is null and void under the law of that State.”) and A6(a) (“A court of a Contracting State other than that of the chosen court shall suspend or dismiss proceedings to which an exclusive choice of court agreement applies unless – a) the agreement is null and void under the law of the State of the chosen court;…”

Like professor Cuniberti, I am a bit puzzled by the reference to the 2005 Convention seeing as it only applies to exclusive choice of court.

[39] is then the reminder of BIa’s core DNA: reasonable foreseeability of forum for defendant and ease of identification of forum for the claimant (reference here to C-774/22 FTI Touristik which itself had referred to Inkreal.

Now, [42]

the terms ‘have agreed’, …cannot be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary for such a clause to be formulated in such a way that the competent court can be determined on its wording alone. It is sufficient that the clause state the objective factors on the basis of which the parties have agreed to choose a court or the courts to which they wish to submit disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them. Those factors, which must be sufficiently precise to enable the court seised to ascertain whether it has jurisdiction, may, where appropriate, be determined by the particular circumstances of the case being examined by the court…” (reference ia to Hőszig).

Put another way, [44]

the condition that the parties ‘have agreed’ on a court or courts of a contracting State or a Member State includes a requirement of precision in order to be valid.

or [45]

an agreement conferring jurisdiction must, in order to be valid, identify with sufficient precision the objective factors on the basis of which the parties have agreed to choose a court or the courts to which they wish to submit disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them.

This [46] also assists in the attainment of the objectives of foreseeability, transparency and legal certainty, set out in recitals 15 and 16 BIa.

[48] the Court recalls asymmetry of choice of court being specifically dealt with viz the weaker party to an insurance contract, a consumer contract or an employment contract.

[50]

“as regards those contracts, Article 25(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation, read in conjunction with Articles 15, 19 and 23 thereof, expressly governs the situations in which an asymmetric agreement conferring jurisdiction is valid and those in which it is not.”

[51]

“Therefore, it must be held that the validity of an agreement conferring jurisdiction in view of its alleged asymmetry must be examined having regard not to criteria relating to the causes of an agreement being ‘null and void as to its substantive validity’, within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation, but to autonomous criteria which are derived from that Article 25 as interpreted by the Court.”

I do not understand the leap (“therefore”): the Court seems to reason that seeing as BIa for protected categories imposes conditions curtailing asymmetry, such asymmetry is a BIa-covered condition of validity, not one which A25 refers to an applicable national law. The CJEU in my view could just as well have reasoned with reference to the protected categories being an exception to the rules otherwise applicable, that the asymmetry discussed there is an outlier in what is otherwise an area covered by the lex fori prorogati.

Having thus held that the validity of asymmetric choice of court is to be determined using BIa and not using an applicable law causae, the CJEU then goes on to hold whether BIa does or does not allow them.

[55] Party autonomy, protected by BIa, means the parties must not necessarily designate the courts of a single and the same Member State (or [58] Lugano Convention States). [57] The existence of forum shopping possibilities in the application of the special jurisdictional rules of A7, too, supports the room which BIa leaves for proceedings being brought in various Member States.

[60] The wording of the clause at issue: ‘another competent court …elsewhere’ however leads to the possibility of a third State court, neither an EU or Lugano State court, having jurisdiction. This [61] leads an “an increased risk of conflicts of jurisdiction arising which would be detrimental to legal certainty, since the application of those national rules would be likely to lead to divergent answers..”

The Court’s conclusion therefore is

In the light of the forgoing considerations, the answer to the second question is that Article 25(1) and (4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement conferring jurisdiction pursuant to which one of the parties thereto may only bring proceedings before the sole court that it designates whereas it permits the other party to bring proceedings before, in addition to that court, any other competent court, is valid, in so far as, first, it designates courts of one or several States which are either Members of the European Union or parties to the Lugano II Convention, secondly, it identifies objective factors which are sufficiently precise to enable the court seised to ascertain whether it has jurisdiction, and, thirdly, it is not contrary to the provisions of Articles 15, 19 or 23 of that regulation and does not derogate from an exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Article 24 thereof.

A surprising outcome as far as I am concerned, and one which as I noted, oddly was taken without the benefit of an AG Opinion.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, para 2.349.