Explore the vast range of titles available.

The English Court of Appeal and German 'Bundesgerichtshof' recently decided that Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation applies to asymmetric jurisdiction clauses. This article contends that while this conclusion is sound, separating the 'clause' into two 'agreements' to reach it is not. This disaggregation prevents a solution to the anomaly that Article 31(2) creates for asymmetric clauses, where a lender sues under its option and the borrower subsequently sues in the anchor court. This article proposes a solution, based on a uniform characterisation of the clause as a whole, which protects the lender's option and mitigates the risk of parallel proceedings.

Jurisdiction clauses commonly feature in high-value international contracts. Recently, these clauses are also increasingly utilised in international trust instruments. At common law, a contentious issue vis-à-vis exclusive jurisdiction clauses in trust deeds has been whether they should be upheld in the same way as their contractual equivalents. In obiter remarks in Crociani v Crociani , in 2014, the Privy Council stated that these clauses should be afforded less weight in trusts than in contracts. However, as this paper seeks to demonstrate, the reasoning underpinning the treatment of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in trust deeds in this manner is questionable. The paper's key contention is that exclusive jurisdiction clauses in trust deeds should be enforced in the same way as those in contracts. Accordingly, an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a trust instrument should be upheld, unless the claimant can establish a strong cause why the matter should be litigated elsewhere.

This article delves into the critical aspect of exclusive jurisdiction in Vietnamese law, particularly focusing on disputes emerging from international commercial contracts relating to immovable property. The main objective is to demystify the types of disputes that are encompassed under this exclusive jurisdiction and to propose a requisite level of connection to Vietnamese immovable property for such jurisdiction to be applicable. Through a comprehensive analysis, the study reveals varying interpretations by Vietnamese courts regarding the scope of this jurisdiction rule. A notable finding is the contrasting jurisdictional approaches between domestic and foreign arbitrators in handling disputes connected to international commercial contracts involving immovable property. This discrepancy highlights the urgency for Vietnam to align its legal framework with global standards. The paper emphasizes the significance of this harmonization, not only for legal clarity and consistency but also for enhancing the attractiveness of Vietnam’s legal environment for international investors.

The Recast of the Brussels I Regulation (1215/2012/EC) reforms EU law on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters and includes long-awaited changes designed to prevent the use of the abusive tactic known as the Italian Torpedo to frustrate choice-of-court agreements. The new rules give priority in determining jurisdiction to a court designated by a prima facie valid agreement, even if litigation underway elsewhere was first in time. While this development has been broadly welcomed, it is unclear if the Recast's solution applies to related actions underway in other states as well as identical actions. Using a recent case from the Irish Supreme Court, in this article, we highlight that this possible omission could create significant problems, and calls into question the comprehensiveness of the Recast's solution to the problem of the Italian Torpedo.

The article scrutinizes some of the surprising commonalities in the reasonings of two recent decisions by two separate judicial forums: the ITLOS’s judgment in the M/V Norstar case and the award of an ad hoc arbitral tribunal in the Enrica Lexie case. One key connection between the two decisions is their heavy reliance on the Lotus judgment of the PCIJ. Another similarity between the two disputes is that both of them revolve around the concept of exclusive flag state jurisdiction under UNCLOS Article 92(1) and adjacent questions of jurisdiction on the high seas. The article is going to subject both decisions to criticism and argue that some of the more problematic positions adopted by the tribunals in both cases amount to no more than obiter dicta – thus establishing an additional parallel with Lotus, which also received heavy criticism for its controversial obiter dictum. The two tribunals’ new-found interest in Lotus also provides an opportunity to discuss the utility and legal weight of Lotus as a precedent in the face of a century of developments in treaty law and judicial practice. In this sense, this article builds on and attempts to continue the recent trend in scholarship advocating for a renewed appreciation of the Lotus case against the backdrop of decades of criticism against it. Accordingly, the article aims to facilitate a better understanding of all three disputes, the principles they applied, and the dynamics of international adjudication and international law in general.

Los ordinariatos personales para fieles provenientes del anglicanismo están abiertos a aquellos anglicanos que individual o corporativamente quieren ser recibidos en la Iglesia católica manteniendo sus tradiciones pastorales, litúrgicas y espirituales. En este artículo se analiza quiénes pueden ser miembros de un ordinariato personal y si los fieles de un ordinariato son también fieles de la diócesis donde tienen su domicilio o quasidomicilio.

Chinese judicial practice demonstrates great diversity in enforcing exclusive jurisdiction clauses. In practice, the derogation effect of a valid foreign jurisdiction clause is frequently ignored by some Chinese courts. It may be argued that these Chinese courts fail to respect party autonomy and international comity. However, a close scrutiny shows that the effectiveness of an exclusive jurisdiction clause has close connections with the recognition and enforcement of judgments. If the judgment of the chosen court cannot be recognized and enforced in the request court by any means, the request court may take jurisdiction in breach of the jurisdiction clause in order to achieve justice. Chinese judicial practice demonstrates the inevitable influence of the narrow scope of the Chinese law in recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. It is submitted that the Chinese courts do not zealously guard Chinese jurisdiction, or deliberately ignore party autonomy and international comity. Instead, the Chinese courts have considered the possibility of enforcement of judgments and the goal of justice. Applying the prima facie unreasonable decision test is the best the courts can do in the specific context of the Chinese law. The status quo cannot be improved simply by reforming Chinese jurisdiction rules in choice of court agreements. A comprehensive improvement of civil procedure law in both jurisdiction rules and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is needed.

The Sino-U.S. agreement of May 1943 that granted the U.S. military exclusive criminal jurisdiction over its troops in China was a continuation of extraterritorial rights that the United States supposedly abolished the previous January. In light of the earlier British-U.S. negotiations on the same issue, China was an integral part of a legal regime that during World War II shielded globally deployed U.S. troops from local laws. The Chinese Guomindang (GMD) government's renewal of the 1943 agreement in June 1946 extended the wartime legal privileges of U.S. troops into an era of precarious peace in China and set a precedent for the Status of Forces Agreements between the United States and various allies during the Cold War. The demonstrations after the Shen Chong Incident in late 1946, a largely nationalist movement that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) co-opted, highlighted the inadequacy of public indignation and CCP manipulation in mounting a consistent legal effort to challenge the entrenched extraterritorial privileges of U.S. troops and restore Chinese jurisdiction. The GMD government also lost the opportunity to use the jurisdictional issue to demonstrate its nationalist credentials to an agitated public.

'Investing with Confidence: Understanding Political Risk Management in the 21st Century' is the latest book in a series based on the MIGA–Georgetown University Symposium on International Political Risk Management. The most recent symposium brought together almost 200 senior practitioners from the political risk insurance (PRI) industry, including investors, insurers, brokers, lenders, academics, and members of the legal community. This volume addresses the key issues relevant for investors today, including arbitration, understanding and pricing for risk, and new developments in investments through timely assessments from 15 experts in the fields of international investment, finance, insurance, law, and academia. Contributors to this volume examine key political risk issues including claims and arbitration, perspectives on pricing from private, public and multilateral providers, and explore new frontiers in sovereign wealth funds and Islamic finance. The volume begins with a look back to the founding of International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and MIGA and the respective visions for both of these important institutions. It continues with a review of new developments in global finance and risk management, including Islamic finance and sovereign wealth funds, and provides an investor perspective of what drives the decision making process on procuring political risk insurance. The volume then turns to consider methodologies of pricing from the private, public, and multilateral perspectives, and examines the expropriation and the pledge of shares. This section focuses on key legal questions such as understanding expropriation and the outcome of arbitration hearings, the latter being particularly relevant given the number of cases currently before arbitral panels. The volume concludes with an overview of the key thoughts raised by the authors and the implications for investors going forward. 'Investing with Confidence' offers valuable insights for practitioners and investors alike and is particularly relevant in today's uncertain markets.

El estudio tiene por objeto el comentario de la STC 185/2012, de 17 de octubre, que declara inconstitucional el término «favorable» como condición imprescindible del informe del Ministerio Fiscal que el legislador establecía para que el juez pudiese decretar la custodia compartida de los hijos menores por sus progenitores separados cuando estos discrepaban entre ellos sobre la misma. La inconstitucionalidad declarada es doble: porque tal regulación vulneraba el principio de reserva jurisdiccional en favor de los jueces y tribunales que dispone el art. 117.3 CE y porque lesionaba el derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva garantizado en el art. 24.1 CE. La Sentencia tiene un Voto Particular disidente suscrito por varios Magistrados, que niega tales tachas: de un lado, poniendo como ejemplos algunas determinaciones legales sobre cuya constitucionalidad no hay duda y que en consecuencia avalarían la regulación cuestionada; y, de otro y sobre todo, fundando esa juicio de conformidad constitucional del precepto cuestionado en la doctrina del propio Tribunal acerca de la noción de «densidad normativa», que ampara al legislador para regular pormenorizadamente las materias objeto de su atención. El comentario pretende demostrar que los ejemplos con los que se compara en el Voto Particular la regulación declarada inconstitucional no son equiparables a ésta y que tal doctrina constitucional sobre la «densidad normativa» no resultaba aplicable tampoco a la misma. De modo que la imposibilidad de que el juez decretase la custodia compartida de menores en caso de desacuerdo de sus progenitores sobre ella si el informe del Fiscal era contrario (o simplemente neutro o inexistente) era, en efecto, disconforme con la exclusividad jurisdiccional de los jueces y no se compadecía con la tutela judicial efectiva en juego en tales supuestos.The study is about the STC 185/2012, which asserted the unconstitutionality the «favorable» term as a prerequisite of the report of the Public Prosecutor which the legislator established so the judge could impose the joint custody of the children by their parents separated when they disagreed among themselves for that type of custody. The unconstitutionality declared is twofold: because such regulation violated the principle of jurisdictional reservation in favor of the judges and courts proclaimed in the art. 117.3 CE, and because it quite the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed in the art. 24.1 CE. The decision has a dissenting opinion signed by four judges, which denies such studs: on the one side, taking as examples some legal determinations envelope whose constitutionality is no doubt and, that consequently warrantee the questioned regulation; on the other side, and above all, founding that his trial constitutional conformity in the Court’s doctrine about the notion of «normative density», which covers the legislator to regulate detail matters. The comment aims to demonstrate that the examples that are compared in the dissenting opinion declared unconstitutional regulation are not comparable to this, and that such a constitutional doctrine about the «normative density» was not applicable either to the same. So the impossibility that the judge imposed the shared custody of children in case of disagreement of the parents about it if the report of the Prosecutor was opposite (or simply neutral or non-existent) was, indeed, non-conforming with the jurisdictional exclusivity of the judges and violated the right to effective judicial protection at stake in such cases