Adeboyejo, B.M., Aug. 6, 2011: “Protocols for Cross-Border Cases … Will They Work?”, ABA Now, available at http://www.abanow.org/2011/08/protocols-for-cross-border-cases-%25E2%2580%25A6-will-they-work/.Google Scholar

Bassett, D.L., 2011: “The Future of International Class Actions”, Southwestern International Law Journal, 18: 21.Google Scholar

Bermann, G.A., 2012: “The ‘Gateway’ Problem in International Commercial Arbitration”, Yale Journal of International Law, 37: 1.Google Scholar

Blackaby, N., et al., 2009: Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (Leiden: Kluwer Law International).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolt, J.W. & Wheatley, J.K., 2006: “Private Rules for International Discovery in U.S. District Court: The U.S.-German Example”, UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs, 11: 1.Google Scholar

Born, G.B., 2009: International Commercial Arbitration (Leiden: Kluwer Law International).Google Scholar

Born, G.B., 2010: International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing (Leiden: Kluwer Law International).Google Scholar

Born, G.B & Rutledge, P.B., 2007: International Civil Litigation in United States Courts (New York: Aspen Publishers).Google Scholar

Borris, C., 2011: “Arbitrability of Corporate Law Disputes in Germany”, in Klaassen, C.J.M., et al. (Eds.), Onderneming en ADR (Leiden: Wolters Kluwer).Google Scholar

Brescia, R.H., 2009: “Tainted Loans: The Value of a Mass Torts Approach to Subprime Mortgage Lending”, University of Cincinnati Law Review, 78: 1.Google Scholar

Brower, C.H. II, 2011: “Arbitration and Antitrust: Navigating the Contours of Mandatory Law”, Buffalo Law Review, 59: 1127.Google Scholar

Brulard, Y. & Quintin, Y., 2001: “European Community Law and Arbitration – National Versus Community Public Policy”, Journal of International Arbitration, 18: 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buckner, C.J., 2004: “Toward a Pure Arbitral Paradigm of Classwide Arbitration: Arbitral Power and Federal Preemption”, Denver University Law Review, 82: 301.Google Scholar

Buckner, C.J., 2006: “Due Process in Class Arbitration”, Florida Law Review, 58: 185.Google Scholar

Burch, E.C., 2008: “Litigating Groups”, Alabama Law Review, 61: 1.Google Scholar

Burch, E.C., 2009: “Securities Class Actions as Pragmatic Ex Post Regulation”, Georgia Law Review, 43: 63.Google Scholar

Bushkin, I.T., 2005: “The Viability of Class Action Lawsuits in a Globalized Economy – Permitting Foreign Claimants to be Members of Class Action Lawsuits in the U.S. Federal Courts”, Cornell Law Review, 90: 1563.Google Scholar

Buxbaum, H.L., 2006: “Transnational Regulatory Litigation”, Virginia Journal of International Law, 46: 251.Google Scholar

Cabraser, E.J., 2004: “Human Rights Violations as Mass Torts: Compensation as a Proxy for Justice in the United States Civil Litigation System”, Vanderbilt Law Review, 57: 2211.Google Scholar

Campos, S.J., 2011: “The Future of Mass Torts … And How to Stop It”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra, 159: 231.Google Scholar

Colangelo, A.J., 2011: “A Unified Approach to Extraterritoriality”, Virginia Law Review, 97: 1019.Google Scholar

Crook, J.R., 2006: “Lessons Learned Over Twenty-Five Years”, in Permanent Court of Arbitration, International Bureau (Ed.), Redressing Injustices Through Mass Claims Processes: Innovative Responses to Unique Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Crooks, E. & Mapstone, N., Jan. 4, 2012: “Chevron’s Ecuador Case Takes a New Twist”, Financial Times.Google Scholar

Cross, K.H., 2011: “Investment Arbitration Panel Upholds Jurisdiction to Hear Mass Bondholder Claims Against Argentina”, ASIL Insights, 15.Google Scholar

Dixon, J.C.L., 1997: “The Res Judicata Effect in England of a U.S. Class Action Settlement, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 46: 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dubinsky, P.R., 2008: “Is Transnational Litigation a Distinct Field? The Persistence of Exceptionalism in American Procedural Law”, Stanford Journal of International Law, 44: 301.Google Scholar

Effron, R.J., 2008: “Disaster-Specific Mechanisms for Consolidation”, Tulane Law Review, 82: 2423.Google Scholar

Epstein, D., et al., 2008: International Litigation: A Guide to Jurisdiction, Practice, and Strategy (Leiden: Brill).Google Scholar

Fellas, J. & Warne, D., 2004: “Choice of Forum Under United States and English Law”, in Fellas, J. (Ed.), Transatlantic Commercial Litigation and Arbitration (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Frick, J.G., 2001: Arbitration and Complex International Contracts (Leiden: Kluwer Law International).Google Scholar

Gaillard, E. & Savage, J., 1998: Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (Leiden, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International).Google Scholar

Gelowitz, M., Feb. 19, 2010: “Court Certifies Class Action Against Imax: Liability May be Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You”, Lawyer’s Weekly, available at http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section+article&artcileid=1103.Google Scholar

Glover, J.M., 2012: “The Structural Role of Private Enforcement Mechanisms in Public Law”, William and Mary Law Review, 53: 1137.Google Scholar

Gonzalez, A., Jan. 5, 2012: “Chevron Case Could Last for Years”, Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar

Gruenwald, J., Sept. 1, 2011: “Justice Department Gives AT&T Merger Plan Zero Bars”, National Journal, available at http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/justice-department-gives-at-t-merger-plan-zero-bars-20110831.Google Scholar

Hensler, D.R., 1995: “A Glass Half Full, a Glass Half Empty: The Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Mass Personal Injury Litigation”, Texas Law Review, 73: 1587.Google Scholar

Hensler, D.R., 2000: Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation).Google Scholar

Hensler, D.R., 2009: “The Globalization of Class Actions: An Overview”, in Hensler, D.R., et al. (Eds.), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hensler, D.R., et al. (Eds.), 2009: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622 [hereinafter The Annals].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinshaw, A., Jan. 11, 2011, “So It’s Come to This”, ADR Prof Blog, available at http://www.indisputably.org/?p=1958.Google Scholar

Hodges, C., 2009: “England and Wales”, in Hensler, D.R., et al. (Eds.), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622: 105 [hereinafter Hodges, C., England].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hodges, C., 2009: “European Union Legislation”, in Hensler, D.R., et al. (Eds.), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622: 78 [hereinafter Hodges, C., Europe].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hodges, C., 2009: “What Are People Trying to Do in Resolving Mass Issues, How Is It Going, and Where Are We Headed?”, in Hensler, D.R., et al. (Eds.), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622: 330 [hereinafter Hodges, C., Resolving].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hogg, P.W., 2011: Constitutional Law of Canada (Toronto: Carswell).Google Scholar

Hogg, P.W. & McKee, S.G., 2010: “Are National Class Actions Constitutional?”, National Journal of Constitutional Law, 26: 279.Google Scholar

Kalajdzic, J., et al., 2009: “Canada”, in Hensler, D.R., et al. (Eds.), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622: 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kerr, M., 1997: “Concord and Conflict in International Arbitration”, Arbitration International, 13: 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kingsbury, B., et al., 2005: “The Emergence of Global Administrative Law”, Law & Contemporary Problems, 68: 15.Google Scholar

Knox, J.H., 2011: “The Unpredictable Presumption Against Extraterritoriality”, Southwestern Law Review, 40: 635.Google Scholar

Koenig, T.H., 2008: “Crimtorts: A Cure for the Hardening of the Categories”, Widener Law Journal, 17: 733.Google Scholar

Kristjánsdóttir, E. & Simerova, B., 2006: “Processing Claims for ‘Other Personal Injury’ Under the German Forced Labour Compensation Programme”, in Permanent Court of Arbitration, International Bureau (Ed.), Redressing Injustices Through Mass Claims Processes: Innovative Responses to Unique Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Kröll, S.M., 2009: “The ‘Arbitrability’ of Disputes Arising From Commercial Representation”, in Mistelis, L.A. & Brekoulakis, S.L. (Eds.), Arbitrability: International and Comparative Perspectives (Leiden: Kluwer Law International).Google Scholar

Ku, J., Feb. 22, 2012: “Time to Get Rid of That Facebook Account”, Opinio Juris, available at http://opiniojuris.org/2012/02/22/time-to-get-rid-of-that-facebook-account/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+opiniojurisfeed+%28Opinio+Juris%29.Google Scholar

Lamm, C.B. & Aqua, J.A., 2002–03: “Defining the Party – Who Is a Proper Party in an International Arbitration Before the American Arbitration Association and Other International Institutions”, George Washington International Law Review, 34: 711.Google Scholar

Landau, T., 2003: “The Requirement of A Written Form for An Arbitration Agreement: When ‘Written’ Means ‘Oral’”, in van den Berg, A.J. (Ed.), International Commercial Arbitration: Important Contemporary Questions (Leiden: Kluwer Law International).Google Scholar

Lew, J.D.M., et al., 2003: Comparative International Commercial Arbitration (Leiden: Kluwer Law International).Google Scholar

Main, T.O., 2010: “The Procedural Foundation of Substantive Law”, Washington University Law Review, 87: 801.Google Scholar

Mayer, T.V.H. & Sigler, P., 2004: “Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Defendants in the United States and England”, in Fellas, J. (Ed.), Transatlantic Commercial Litigation and Arbitration (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Michaels, R., 2006: “Two Paradigms of Jurisdiction”, Michigan Journal of International Law, 27: 1003.Google Scholar

Miles, J.C., et al., 1910: Digest of English Civil Law, Book II (London: Butterworth).Google Scholar

Monestier, T.J., 2010: “Personal Jurisdiction Over Non-Resident Class Members: Have We Gone Down the Wrong Road?”, Texas International Law Journal, 45: 537.Google Scholar

Monestier, T.J., 2011: “Transnational Class Actions and the Illusory Search for Res Judicata”, Tulane Law Review, 86: 1.Google Scholar

Monestier, T.J., 2012: “Is Canada the New “Shangri-La” of Global Securities Class Actions?”, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 32: *1.Google Scholar

Mulheron, R., 2004: The Class Action in Common Law Legal Systems: A Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Hart).Google Scholar

Mulheron, R., 2009: “The Case for an Opt-Out Class Action for European Member States: A Legal and Empirical Analysis”, Columbia Journal of European Law, 13: 409.Google Scholar

Mulheron, R., 2012: “The Recognition, and Res Judicata Effect, of a United States Class Actions Judgment in England: A Rebuttal of Vivendi”, Modern Law Review, 75: 180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mullenix, L.S., 2011: “Promethus Unbound: The Gulf Coast Claims Facility as a Means of Resolving Mass Tort Claims – A Fund Too Far”, Louisiana Law Review, 71: 819.Google Scholar

Nagareda, R.A., 2007: Mass Torts in a World of Settlement (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nagareda, R.A., 2009: “Aggregate Litigation Across the Atlantic and the Future of American Exceptionalism”, Vanderbilt Law Review, 62: 1.Google Scholar

Nolan-Haley, J.M., 2012: “Is Europe Headed Down the Primrose Path With Mandatory Mediation?”, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 37: 981.Google Scholar

Ostrager, B.R., et al., 1999: “Andersen v. Andersen: The Claimants’ Perspective”, American Review of International Arbitration, 10: 443.Google Scholar

Permanent Court of Arbitration, International Bureau (Ed.), 2006: Redressing Injustices Through Mass Claims Processes: Innovative Responses to Unique Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Permanent Court of Arbitration, International Bureau (Ed.), 2009: Multiple Party Actions in International Arbitration (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Peterson, L.E., Aug. 7, 2008: “Argentina Faces a Third Treaty Claim by Hold-Out Bond-Holders: Experts Differ as to Prospects”, available at http://www.iareporter.com/articles/20091001_54.Google Scholar

Platte, M., 2002: “When Should an Arbitrator Join Cases?”, Arbitration International, 18: 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Platte, M., 2003: “An Arbitrator’s Duty to Render Enforceable Awards”, Journal of International Arbitration, 20: 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rau, A.S. 2008: “Arbitral Jurisdiction and the Dimensions of ‘Consent’”, Arbitration International, 24: 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reuters, Aug. 17, 2011: “AT&T Sues Customers Seeking to Block T-Mobile Deal”, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/17/us-tmobile-att-lawsuits-idUSTRE77G59020110817.Google Scholar

Ringe, W. & Hellgardt, A., 2011: “The International Dimension of Issuer Liability – Liability and Choice of Law From a Transatlantic Perspective”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 31: 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russell, T.L., 2010: “Exporting Class Actions to the European Union”, Boston University International Law Journal, 28: 141.Google Scholar

Rutherglen, G., 2012: “Wal-Mart, AT&T Mobility and the Decline of the Deterrent Class Action”, Virginia Law Review in Brief, 98: 24.Google Scholar

Saumier, G., 2005: “USA-Canada Class Actions: Trading in Procedural Fairness”, Global Jurist Advances, 5: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simard, L.S. & Tidmarsh, J., 2011: “Foreign Citizens in Transnational Class Actions”, Cornell Law Review, 97: 87.Google Scholar

Smit, H., 2004: “Class Actions and Their Waiver in Arbitration”, American Review of International Law, 15: 199.Google Scholar

Smith, D.G., 2009: “An Administrative Approach to the Resolution of Mass Torts?”, University of Illinois Law Review, 2009: 895.Google Scholar

Spacone, A.J., 2000: “Strict Liability in the European Union – Not a United States Analog”, Roger Williams University Law Review, 5: 341.Google Scholar

Steenson, M. & Sayler, J.M., 2009: “The Legacy of the 9/11 Fund and the Minnesota I-35 W Bridge Collapse Fund: Creating a Template for Compensating Victims of Future Mass-Tort Catastrophes”, William Mitchell Law Review, 35: 524.Google Scholar

Stigglebout, M., 2011: “The Recognition in England and Wales of United States Judgments in Class Actions”, Harvard International Law Journal, 52: 433.Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., May 23, 2005: “Backyard Advantage: New Rules Mean That U.S. Companies May Be Forced to Litigate Across the Pond”, Legal Times 28: 43.Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2008: “Enforcing Class Arbitration in the International Sphere: Due Process and Public Policy Concerns”, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 30: 1.Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2009: “The Sounds of Silence: Are U.S. Arbitrators Creating Internationally Enforceable Awards When Ordering Class Arbitration in Cases of Contractual Silence or Ambiguity?”, Michigan Journal of International Law, 30: 1017.Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2010: “Class Arbitration Outside the United States: Reading the Tea Leaves”, in Hanotiau, B. & Schwartz, E.A. (Eds.), Dossier VII: Arbitration and Multiparty Contracts 183 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Tea Leaves].Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2010: “From Class to Collective: The De-Americanization of Class Arbitration”, Arbitration International, 26: 493 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., De-Americanization].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2010: “Jurisdictional Discovery in United States Federal Courts”, Washington and Lee Law Review, 67: 489 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Jurisdictional Discovery].Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2010: “Opening More Doors Than It Closes: Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.”, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 2010(4): 565 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Doors].Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2011: “Class and Collective Relief in the Cross-Border Context: A Possible Role for the Permanent Court of Arbitration”, The Hague Yearbook of International Law 2010, 23: 113 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., PCA].Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2011: “Collective Arbitration Under the DIS Supplementary Rules for Corporate Law Disputes: A European Form of Class Arbitration?”, ASA Bulletin, 29: 45 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., DIS].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2011: “Jurisdictional Discovery in Transnational Litigation: Extraterritorial Effects of United States Federal Practice”, Journal of Private International Law, 7: 1 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Transnational Litigation].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2012: “Arbitration of Trust Disputes: Two Bodies of Law Collide”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 45: 1157 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Trust].Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2012: “Does Class Arbitration ‘Change the Nature’ of Arbitration? Stolt-Nielsen, AT&T and a Return to First Principles”, Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 17: 201 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., First Principles].Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2012: International Commercial Arbitration: A Guide for U.S. Judges [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Guide].Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2012: “Mandatory Arbitration of Internal Trust Disputes: Improving Arbitrability and Enforceability Through Proper Procedural Choices”, Arbitration International 26: 591 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Trust Procedures].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2012: “Regulatory Litigation in the European Union: Does the U.S. Class Action Have a New Analogue?”, Notre Dame Law Review 88: 899 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Regulatory Litigation].Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2012: “Resolving Mass Legal Disputes Through Class Arbitration: The United States and Canada Compared”, North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation 37: 921 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Canada].Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2013: Class, Mass, and Collective Arbitration (New York: Oxford University Press) [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Class, Mass]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2013: “Collective Consumer Arbitration in Spain: A Civil Law Response to U.S.-Style Class Arbitration”, Journal of International Arbitration 30: 495 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Spain].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2013: “Cross-Border Collective Redress in the European Union: Constitutional Rights in the Face of the Brussels I Regulation”, Arizona State Law Journal 44: 233 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Brussels I].Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2013: “Cross-Border Collective Redress and Individual Participatory Rights: Quo Vadis?”, Civil Justice Quarterly 32: 508 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Quo Vadis].Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2013: “Mass Procedures as a Form of ‘Regulatory Arbitration’ – Abaclat v. Argentine Republic and the International Investment Regime”, The Journal of Corporation Law 38: 259 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Regulatory Arbitration].Google Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2014: “Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic: Heir of Abaclat? Mass and Multiparty Proceedings”, ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal 29: 149 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Ambiente Ufficio].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strong, S.I., 2014: “Beyond International Commercial Arbitration? The Promise of International Commercial Mediation”, Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 45: 11 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Mediation].Google Scholar

Strong, S.I. & Dries, J.J., 2005: “Witness Statements Under the IBA Rules of Evidence: What to do About Hearsay?”, Arbitration International, 21: 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strong, S.I. & Williams, L., 2011: Tort Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar

Susskind, L.E. & Crump, L. (Eds.), 2008: Multiparty Negotiation, vol. 3, Complex Litigation and Legal Transactions (London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.).Google Scholar

Szalai, I.S., 2008: “Aggregate Dispute Resolution: Class and Labor Arbitration”, Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 13: 399.Google Scholar

Tushnet, M., 1986: “The Constitution of Religion”, Connecticut Law Review, 18: 710.Google Scholar

Tzankova, I. & Scheurleer, D.L., 2009: “The Netherlands”, in Hensler, D.R., et al. (Eds.), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622: 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van den Berg, A.J., n.d.:“Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards”, in United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, available at http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/crefaa/crefaa.html.Google Scholar

Wajert, S., 2011: A Comment on the EU’s Working Paper: “Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress”, http://www.masstortdefense.com/2011/05/articles/a-comment-on-the-eus-working-paper-towards-a-coherent-european-approach-to-collective-redress/.Google Scholar

Walker, J., 2010: “Are National Classes Constitutional? A Reply to Hogg and McKee”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 48: 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wasserman, R., 2011: “Transnational Class Actions and Interjurisdictional Preclusion”, Notre Dame Law Review, 86: 313.Google Scholar

Weidemaier, W.M.C., 2007: “Arbitration and the Individuation Critique”, Arizona Law Review, 49: 69.Google Scholar

Weston, M., 2006: “Universes Colliding: The Constitutional Implications of Arbitral Class Actions”, William & Mary Law Review, 47: 1711.Google Scholar

Willging, T.E., et al., 1996: “An Empirical Analysis of Rule 23 to Address the Rulemaking Challenges”, New York University Law Review, 71: 74.Google Scholar

Willging, T.E. & Lee, E.G. III, 2010: “From Class Actions to Multidistrict Consolidations: Aggregate Mass-Tort Litigation After Ortiz”, University of Kansas Law Review, 58: 775.Google Scholar

Agreement between the Argentine Republic and the Republic of Italy on the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed 22 May 1990, available at Investment Instruments Online Bilateral Investment Treaties, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, http://www.unctadxi.org/templates/docsearch____779.aspx (allowing user to search for BITs by country) [hereinafter Argentina-Italy BIT].Google Scholar

Civil Procedure Rules 1999, Part 19.III.Google Scholar

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “Towards a European Horizontal Framework for Collective Redress”, COM(2013) 401/2 [hereinafter European Commission Communication].Google Scholar

Draft Commission Recommendation of 11 June 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law, C(2013) 3539/3 [hereinafter European Commission Draft Recommendation].Google Scholar

Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, Mar. 18, 1965, 575 U.N.T.S. 159 [hereinafter ICSID Convention].Google Scholar

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 Apr 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts [1993] OJ L95/29.Google Scholar

Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, art. 5(3), 2001 O.J. (L 12) 1 (EC) [hereinafter Brussels I Regulation].Google Scholar

Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters [2008] OJ L 136/3.Google Scholar

European Commission (EC), Public Consultation: Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress, SEC(2011) 173, Feb. 4, 2011 [hereinafter European Commission, Public Consultation].Google Scholar

European Parliament, Resolution of 2 February 2012 on “Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress”, P7_TA(2012)0021 [hereinafter European Parliament, Resolution]Google Scholar

European Parliament and Council Directive 98/27/EC of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests [1998] OJ L16/51 [hereinafter European Parliament, Directive on Injuctions].Google Scholar

Green Paper, Consumer Collective Redress, COM(2008) 794 (27 November 2008).Google Scholar

Organization of American States, Inter-American Convention on Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards, May 14, 1979, 1439 U.N.T.S. 87 [hereinafter Montevideo Convention].Google Scholar

Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), [2012] OJ L351/1 [hereinafter Brussels I Recast].Google Scholar

United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 330 U.N.T.S. 38 [hereinafter New York Convention].Google Scholar

Abaclat (formerly Beccara) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated August 4, 2011, available at http://italaw.com/documents/AbaclatDecisiononJurisdiction.pdf [hereinafter Abaclat Award].Google Scholar

Abaclat (formerly Beccara) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Dissenting Opinion dated October 28, 2011, available at http://italaw.com/documents/Abaclat_Dissenting_Opinion.pdf [hereinafter Abaclat Dissent].Google Scholar

Alemanni v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/8, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated November 17, 2014, available at http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4061.pdf [hereinafter Alemanni Award].Google Scholar

Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. (formerly Alpi) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated February 8, 2013, available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC2992_En&caseId=C340 [hereinafter Ambiente Ufficio Award].Google Scholar

Valencia v. Bancolombia (Colom. v. Colom.), digest by Zuleta Digest for Institute for Transnational Arbitration (ITA) (Arb. Trib. from the Bogotá Chamber of Comm. 2003), available at http://www.kluwerarbitration.com [hereinafter Valencia v. Bancolombia].Google Scholar

Brief of American Arbitration Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party, Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010) (No. 08–1198), at 22–24 [hereinafter AAA Brief].Google Scholar

Brief of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners, Stolt-Nielsen SA v AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010) (No. 08–1198) p. 17 [hereinafter Chambers Brief].Google Scholar

American Arbitration Association (AAA), International Dispute Resolution Procedures, effective June 1, 2009, available at www.adr.org [hereinafter AAA International Rules].Google Scholar

American Arbitration Association (AAA), Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitrations, effective Oct. 8, 2003, available at www.adr.org [hereinafter AAA Supplementary Rules].Google Scholar

American Arbitration Association (AAA) Searchable Class Arbitration Docket, available at www.adr.org.Google Scholar

American Bar Association (ABA), Protocol on Court-to-Court Communications in Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Class Actions and Notice Protocol: Coordinating Notice(s) to the Class(es) in Multijurisdictional Class Proceedings (Aug. 2011), available at http://www.cba.org/cba/resolutions/pdf/11-03-A-bckd.pdf.Google Scholar

American Law Institute (ALI), Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communications in Cross-Border Cases, available at http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court/practice_and_procedure/practice_directions_and_notices/General/Guidelines%20Cross-Border%20Cases.pdf [hereinafter ALI, Guidelines].Google Scholar

American Law Institute (ALI), Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation (2010) [hereinafter ALI, Principles].Google Scholar

American Law Institute, Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971) [hereinafter ALI, Restatement].Google Scholar

Canadian Bar Association (CBA), Consultation Paper: Canadian Judicial Protocol for the Management of Multijurisdictional Class Actions 6–7 (June 2011).Google Scholar

Chevron, Ecuador Lawsuit, http://www.chevron.com/ecuador/.Google Scholar

Chevron in Ecuador, “These Three Men Think They Have Power to Kill Ecuadorians’ Judgment Against Chevron: Here’s Why They Can’t – It’s Against the Law”, Feb. 11, 2012, available at http://www.chevroninecuador.com/ (reposted from The Chevron Pit, Feb. 22, 2012, available at http://thechevronpit.blogspot.com/2012/02/these-three-men-think-they-have-power.html).Google Scholar

Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (DIS) Supplementary Rules for Corporate Law Disputes, effective 15 September 2009, available at http://www.dis-arb.de/download/DIS_SRCoLD_%202009_Download.pdf [hereinafter DIS Supplementary Rules].Google Scholar

Global Class Actions Exchange, available at http://globalclassactions.stanford.edu/.Google Scholar

Institute for European Tort Law, The Basic Principles of Tort Law From A Comparative Perspective, available at http://conflicts.ectil.org/.Google Scholar

International Bar Association (IBA), Submission to European Commission Consultation on Collective Redress (April 28, 2011), available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2011_collective_redress/iba_awg_en.pdf [hereinafter IBA Submission].Google Scholar

International Bar Association (IBA), Guidelines for Recognising and Enforcing Foreign Judgments for Collective Redress (Oct. 16, 2008), available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2011_collective_redress/iba_guidlines_en.pdf [hereinafter IBA Collective Redress].Google Scholar

International Bar Association (IBA), Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Commercial Arbitration (May 22, 2004), available at http://www.ibanet.org/Publications/publications_IBA_guides_and_free_materials.aspx [hereinafter IBA, Conflicts].Google Scholar

International Bar Association (IBA), Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration (May 29, 2010), available at http://www.ibanet.org/Publications/publications_IBA_guides_and_free_materials.aspx [hereinafter IBA, Evidence].Google Scholar

ICSID Cases, available at icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=ListCases.Google Scholar

International Law Association (ILA), Final Report on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards 2002 (ILA Final Report), available at http://www.ila-hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

JAMS Class Action Procedures, effective May 1, 2009, available at www.jamsadr.com/rules/class_action.asp.Google Scholar

Law Society, Multi-party Action Information Service, available at http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/productsandservices/services/multiparty.lawGoogle Scholar

Montevideo Convention Status, available at http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/b-50.html.Google Scholar

New York Convention, Status, available at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html [hereinafter New York Convention Status].Google Scholar

New York University Institute for International Law and Justice, available at http://www.iilj.org/GAL/GALworkingdefinition.asp.Google Scholar

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Recommendation on Consumer Dispute Resolution and Redress (2007), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/50/38960101.pdf.Google Scholar

PIP Breast Implants and Mass Torts in Europe, Mass Tort Litigation Blog, available at http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/mass_tort_litigation/.Google Scholar