November 2017 - international litigation blog
0
archive,date,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,select-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,select-theme-ver-3.4,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-4.12.1,vc_responsive
 

November 2017

November 30, 2017 In Jurisdictional issues, Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments By Quentin Decleve

China Signs The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements

On 12 September 2017, the People’s Republic of China (China) signed The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (the Convention).

This Convention aims at encouraging international judicial cooperation by requiring courts of member States (i) to respect exclusive forum clauses agreed upon by parties in their commercial agreements (Chapter II of the Convention); and (ii) to recognise and enforce judgments and court decisions rendered by a court of a contracting state designated in a choice of court agreement (Chapter III of the Convention).READ MORE

0
November 27, 2017 In Investment Court System By Quentin Decleve

Latest Developments on Multilateral Investment Court – EU Commission Holds Stakeholder Meeting

As I have already discussed in previous articles, the European Commission (the Commission) has been pushing forward a proposal for the establishment of a multilateral investment court (the Multilateral Investment Court) in order to address the numerous criticisms concerning existing investor-State dispute resolution (ISDS) mechanisms.

In essence, the Commission’s proposal aims at dealing with procedural issues arising in the context of ISDS. In this vein the Commission proposes:

(i) The creation of a Multilateral Investment Court which would have exclusive jurisdiction to rule on investment claims and would therefore render forum-shopping and multiple parallel proceedings impossible;

(ii) That this Multilateral Investment Court would consist of a First Instance Tribunal and an Appellate Tribunal;

(iii) That judgments would be made by publicly appointed judges; and

(iv) That proceedings would be transparent; and

(v) That all interested parties would have a right to intervene.READ MORE

0