Páginas

segunda-feira, 6 de julho de 2020

SCOTUS grants two important Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act cases: Hungary v. Simon and Germany v. Philipp

A Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos decidiu dois importantes casos sobre imunidade de jurisdição.
Seguem resumos e links.

Republic of Hungary v. Simon
Issue: Whether a district court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for reasons of international comity, in a matter in which former Hungarian nationals have sued the nation of Hungary to recover the value of property lost in Hungary during World War II but the plaintiffs made no attempt to exhaust local Hungarian remedies.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/republic-of-hungary-v-simon/

Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp
Issues: (1) Whether the “expropriation exception” of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” provides jurisdiction over claims that a foreign sovereign has violated international human-rights law when taking property from its own national within its own borders, even though such claims do not implicate the established international law governing states’ responsibility for takings of property; and (2) whether the doctrine of international comity is unavailable in cases against foreign sovereigns, even in cases of considerable historical and political significance to the foreign sovereign, and even when the foreign nation has a domestic framework for addressing the claims.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/federal-republic-of-germany-v-philipp/

segunda-feira, 18 de maio de 2020

Comparative Method and International Litigation

Journal of Dispute Resolution, Forthcoming

U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2020-03

31 Pages Posted: 6 Feb 2020
Ronald A. Brand
University of Pittsburgh - School of Law

Date Written: February 4, 2020

Abstract
In this article, resulting from a presentation at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Comparative Law, I apply comparative method to international litigation. I do so from the perspective of a U.S.-trained lawyer who has been involved for over 25 years in the negotiations that produced both the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. The law of jurisdiction and judgments recognition is probably most often taught in a litigation context. Nonetheless, that law has as much or more importance to the transaction planning lawyer as to the litigator, and affects my focus here for comparative study of developments both in the Hague Conference process and in national (and regional) legal systems during the negotiation of the two treaties with which I have been involved. I look not only at domestic law, but also at treaties and other international legal instruments–the comparative evolution of the law. Moreover, I look at both legal rules and legal systems, addressing the comparative evolution of the institutions that make the law. This includes a comparison of the most influential legal systems at the start of the Hague negotiations. The differences resulting from that comparison ultimately affected the focus of the negotiations and the text of the resulting legal instruments. I end with a set of four conclusions based on these observations and comparisons.

REFERÊNCIA
Brand, Ronald A. Comparative Method and International Litigation (February 4, 2020). Journal of Dispute Resolution, Forthcoming; U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2020-03. Disponível em: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3532035>. Acesso em: 17 mail 2020.