Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T02:26:24.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Value-added Norms, Local Litigation, and Global Enforcement: Why the Brussels-Philosophy failed in The Hague

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Gralf-Peter Calliess

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the early Nineties the Hague Conference on International Private Law on initiative of the United States started negotiations on a Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Hague Convention“). In October 1999 the Special Commission on duty presented a preliminary text, which was drafted quite closely to the European Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Brussels Convention“). The latter was concluded between the then 6 Member States of the EEC in Brussels in 1968 and amended several times on occasion of the entry of new Member States. In 2000, after the Treaty of Amsterdam altered the legal basis for judicial co-operation in civil matters in Europe, it was transformed into an EC Regulation (the “Brussels I Regulation”).

Type
Special Issue
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 12: Special issue - The Political Economy of Jurisdiction for Human Rights. Papers from the 2nd International German Law Journal Workshop, Duke University Law School, 29 Oct 2004 , 01 December 2004 , pp. 1489 - 1498
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Schack, Hundert Jahre Haager Konferenz für IPR. Ihre Bedeutung für die Vereinheitlichung des Internationalen Zivilverfahrensrechts, RabelsZ 1993, 224; ibid., Perspektiven eines weltweiten Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsübereinkommens, ZEuP 1993, 306.; Baumgartner, The Proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements, 2003.Google Scholar

2 Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, adopted by the Special Commission on 30 October 1999: www.hcch.net/e/conventions/draft36e.html; Preliminary Document No 11 – Report of the Special Commission, drawn up by Peter Nygh and Fausto Pocar, http://www.hcch.net/doc/jdgmpd11.doc.Google Scholar

3 For an overview of the activities aiming at an “European Area of Justice” in civil matters see http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/fsj/civil/recognition/fsj_civil_recognition_general_en.htm Google Scholar

4 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, OJ L 12/1 of 16 January 2001: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_012/l_01220010116en00010023.pdf; It is called “Brussels I Regulation” since there exists as well a “Brussels II”-Regulation concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters.Google Scholar

5 Black, Commodifying Justice for Global Free Trade: The Proposed Hague Judgments Convention, 38 Osgoode Hall L.J. (2000) 237; Traynor, An Introductory Framework for Analyzing the Proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters: U.S. and European Perspectives, 6 Ann. Surv. Int'l & Comp. L. (2000) 1.Google Scholar

6 http://www.hcch.net/doc/jdgm2001draft_e.doc; see the report of the German participant to the negotiations Wagner, Die Bemühungen der Haager Konferenz für Internationales Privatrecht um ein Übereinkommen über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und ausländische Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen. Ein Sachstandsbericht nach dem 1. Teil der Diplomatischen Konferenz, IPRax 2001, 533.Google Scholar

7 See “Some reflections on the present state of negotiations on the judgments project in the context of the future work programme of the conference”, submitted by the Permanent Bureau, Preliminary Document No 16 of February 2002: www.hcch.net/doc/gen_pd16e.doc Google Scholar

8 “The Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, submitted by Avril D. Haines for the Permanent Bureau, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002: www.hcch.net/doc/gen_pd17e.doc Google Scholar

9 “Reflection paper to assist in the preparation of a convention on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters”, prepared by Andrea Schulz, First Secretary, Preliminary Document No 19 of August 2002: www.hcch.net/doc/jdgm_pd19e.doc Google Scholar

10 Preliminary Draft Convention on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements, Draft Report drawn up by Masato Dogauchi and Trevor C. Hartley, Preliminary Document No 25 of March 2004: www.hcch.net/doc/jdgm_pd25e.pdf, Introduction, page 6.Google Scholar

11 HCPIL Special Commission on Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, WORK. DOC. No 110 E, Revised (May 2004), www.hcch.net/doc/jdgm_wd110_e.pdf Google Scholar

12 Baumgartner, The Proposed Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements 95 (2003).Google Scholar

13 Benson, The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State (1990); Benson, The Evolution of Law, in: The Encyclopedia of Public Choice (Rowley/Schneider eds. 2003).Google Scholar

14 Berman, Law and Revolution (1983) (German edition 1991, p. 146, 468).Google Scholar

15 Quoted in Summers, A Formal Theory of the Rule of Law, Ratio Juris 1993, 127.Google Scholar

16 Mead, Mind, Self, and Society (1934)Google Scholar

17 Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971); Habermas, Faktiziät und Geltung (1992), Engl. Translation (William Rehg): Between Facts and Norms (1996).Google Scholar

18 Mankowski, See, Europäisches Internationales Privat- und Prozessrecht im Lichte der ökonomischen Analyse, in: 118 Vereinheitlichung und Diversität des Zivilrechts in transnationalen Wirtschaftsräumen (Ott/Schäfer eds. 2002).Google Scholar

19 See Buchner, Kläger- und Beklagtenschutz im Recht der internationalen Zuständigkeit 48 (1998).Google Scholar

20 See Geimer, Internationales Zivilprozessrecht, p. 16 notes 37, 38 (4th ed. 2001).Google Scholar

21 Frydman, See/Rorive, , Regulating Internet Content through Intermediaries in Europe and the USA, Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 2002, 41, 46; Michaels, Territorial jurisdiction after territoriality, in: Globalisation And Jurisdiction 105, 116 (Slot/Bulterman eds. 2004)., Karavas/Teubner, The horizontal effect of Fundamental Rights on ‘Private Parties’ within autonomous Internet Law, in: 4 German Law Journal No. 12 (1 December 2003), 1335-1358, available at: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdf/Vol04No12/PDF_Vol_04_No_12_1335-1358_European_Teubner_Karavas.pdf.Google Scholar

22 ECJ, Decision of 20 February 1979 (C 120/78) “Cassis de Dijon”; and the Commission White Paper on the Single Market COM (1985) 310; see also Epiney in: KOMMENTAR ZU EUV UND EGV (C. Calliess/Ruffert eds., 2nd Ed. 2002), Art. 28 EGV (EC-Treaty) No. 20 et seq.Google Scholar

23 Schwintowski, , Freier Warenverkehr im europäischen Binnenmarkt, RabelsZ 38 (2000); Calliess, Heimatstaatprinzip und Europa-Pass im europäischen Finanzmarktrecht: Wettbewerb der Finanzdienstleister oder der Finanzplätze?, in: Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht (EWS) 432 (2000).Google Scholar

24 On the Brussels I Regulation see, generally Junker, Vom Brüsseler Übereinkommen zur Brüsseler Verordnung – Wandlungen des Internationalen Zivilprozessrechts, in Recht Der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 2002, 569 ff; Gillies, A Review of the New Jurisdiction Rules for Electronic Consumer Contracts within the European Union', 2001 (1) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT); Reich/Gambogi/Carvalho, Gerichtsstand bei internationalen Verbrauchervertragsstreitigkeiten im e-commerce. Die EG-Verordnung 44/2001 vom 22.12.2000 und der Haager Konventionsentwurf über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen, in: Verbraucher und Recht 269 (2001).Google Scholar