[Hague-jur-commercial-law] Hague treaty on jurisdicftion - April 23 first 2 hours (short summary)]

[James Love]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: April 23 first 2 hours (short summary)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:20:56 -0400
From: Manon Ress <manon.ress@cptech.org>

Can you post this?

April 23, 2004
The morning discussion started with statements by China and the US.  It
seemed clear that every country has reasons not to enforce foreign
judgement and delegates have been trying to define null and
void...courts routinely apply their reasons, some have special
circumstances, tupes of contracts, special protection for some
parties..and art 4 and 7 refelct how it's up to national law of the
court seized.  China had introduced two options:

Article 25
Upon signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, a
Contracting Party may declare that it will not apply the provisions of
the convention to exclusive choice of court agreements matters which are
exclusively governed in its internal law.

The declaration is option 1.

Option 2 is and amendment to Article 16 a) Limitation with respect to
special fields

Upon signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, a
Contracting Party may declare that it will not apply the provisions of
the convention to exclusive choice of court agreements matters in

a) asbestos or other natural resource related matters
b) a joint venture contract which is subject to the exclusive 
jurisdiction of the court of a contracting Party under its law


Note a) is a limitation proposed by Canada in December.

The discussion involved whether it's about a declaration, a limitation 
or revisiting Art 5 and 7.  For the EU a delicate compromise had been 
reached in December and 5 and 7 should not be re-opened.  For some 
delegations (such as the US) it is necessary to go back to allow 
flexibility in the convention.

The problem is to achieve "balance" between flexibility and certainty 
(the goal of the convention is to increase legal certainty for businesses)

Re-opening 5 and 7 was described as opening Pandora'S box.  However, it 
became clear (for some) that "public policy" does not work for every 
country (ie Canada and asbestos or China's joint venture).

Everyone needed a coffe break before the IP discussion that followed.

More later
Manon

-- 
Manon Anne Ress
Consumer Project on Technology
www.cptech.org
PO Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
manon.ress@cptech.org, voice: 1.202.387.8030, fax: 1.202.234.5176