Literatura académica sobre el tema "International public policy exception, foreign judgments"

In contrast with the French approach, the Egyptian Arbitration Law does not explicitly embrace the dichotomy between domestic and international public policy. Yet Egyptian courts have adopted the well-known distinction between domestic and international public policy with respect to conflict of laws, including, mutatis mutandis, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and foreign and international arbitral awards. The weak standard of review by Egyptian courts of whether an arbitration award complies with public policy norms is one of the reasons why Egypt has become an arbitration-friendly seat. A comprehensive review of Egyptian case law illustrates the rejection by the courts in Egypt of the public policy exception, save in very exceptional circumstances.

The Fick case which was decided by the Constitutional Court on 27 June 2013 was the first time since its inception that the Constitutional Court was confronted with the status of a binding international decision within the domestic legal order. It concerned a binding decision by the (now suspended) Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal against Zimbabwe, which was also enforceable in South Africa. A key issue before the Court was whether or not the South African statutory rules of civil procedure for the enforcement of foreign judgments also covered judgments of international courts and tribunals (as anticipated by Article 32(1) of the Protocol on the SADC Tribunal). As none of the relevant statutory legislation was applicable in this instance, the common law remained the only possible avenue through which the SADC Tribunal’s decision could be enforced in South Africa. At the time of the decision, the common law on the enforcement of civil judgments had developed only to a point where it provided for the execution of judgments made by domestic courts of a foreign state (ie decisions of other national courts). The Court was therefore confronted with whether or not an international decision in the form of a cost order of the SADC Tribunal amounted to a “foreign judgment” as recognized by the South African common law. The Court answered this question in the affirmative by relying on those clauses in the Constitution that committed South Africa to the rule of law, as well as its obligations under international law, and to an international-law friendly interpretation of domestic law. Although the decision is to be welcomed and applied the law correctly to the facts of the case, it does raise the issue of the wisdom of equating international judgments with foreign judgments on a more general scale. This relates to the fact that it is generally accepted in most jurisdictions that the recognition and enforcement of a “foreign judgment” can be denied where it would result in a violation of domestic public policy. The public policy exception does not, however, fit well in a regime based on public international law, which does not permit States to use their domestic law as an excuse for not implementing their international obligations.

Societies transfer their basic values to new generations through child custody within the family. Therefore, bringing up children in healthy families is beneficial to society. Despite the importance of maintaining the sustainability of the family, which is the basic unit of society, when family sustainability is not possible, a basic duty of the courts must be to provide the best custody model for the welfare of the child after the dissolution of a marriage. Studies have shown that children have a better psychological state and can more easily overcome the trauma of divorce when the courts rule for joint custody than when the courts rule for sole custody. Joint custody, provided for in many legal systems, is not regulated in Turkish law. Thus, requests for the enforcement of foreign joint custody judgments are rejected by Turkish courts for violating public policy. Turkish courts incorrectly consider foreign law, which provides different rules, as grounds for public policy intervention. In this study, it is found that Turkish courts can rule for joint custody by depending on international conventions. Within this framework, it is not possible to reject the enforcement of foreign joint custody judgments by depending on the public policy exception.

Foreign act of state, the principle that a domestic court will not ‘sit in judgment’ over the acts of foreign countries, is coming under increasing scrutiny, as illustrated by the recent case of Belhaj v Straw (2017). This article traces the emergence of the principle out of traditional rules of private international law that, according to Belhaj, continue to constrain the doctrine. The essay provides a practical guide to the doctrine for use by other judges, who will usually come across act of state in the context of a motion to dismiss or to strike out pleadings. The author reviews five key cases which have considered whether a ‘unifying’ doctrine exists apart from choice of law rules of private international law; whether the principle is one of jurisdiction, non-justiciability, or something different; and the nature of the ‘public policy’ exception. She suggests that the ‘disaggregation’ of act of state into four ‘rules’ posited in Belhaj will remain the organizing framework of the doctrine in the medium term—despite Lord Sumption’s attempts to condense it into one or two rules. She suggests the Supreme Court is departing from the notion of act of state as a broad and inflexible principle of jurisdiction and from the notion that courts should use it in cases where requested by the government to avoid embarrassment to its foreign policy. The author disagrees with the observation, made in Yukos Capital SAR v Rosneft Oil Co (2012), that non-justiciability—the notion that certain issues are inappropriate for domestic courts to adjudicate—has ‘subsumed’ act of state. Rather, it is doubtful that non-justiciability should continue to be regarded as part of the law of act of state. Whether act of state is restricted to acts taking place within the territory of the foreign state, whether it applies to all types of whether it applies to lawful as well as unlawful executive actions, or to judicial acts, still remain uncertain. The greater significance of Belhaj is seen to lie in the Court’s adoption of the public policy exception to act of state in certain circumstances. Five of the seven judges agreed that UK courts should adapt to modern conditions in the form of rules of public policy that are ‘sufficiently fundamental’ to distinguish the conduct in question (in Belhaj, alleged complicity in acts of torture) from other violations of international conventions.

Abstract: A recent judgment by the Sezioni Unite of the Italian Corte di cassazione has ruled on a highly sensible and controversial issue, concerning the compatibility with the Italian public policy of a foreign court order, establishing a bond of filiation between a child born by surrogacy and the intended father, materially the same sex spouse of the biological father, despite the absence of any genetical link. The Sezioni Unite declared that such a court order could not be recognized, as incompatible with the Italian public policy. In so deciding, they appeared to have taken a step back as compared to an earlier judgment delivered by the first civil chamber of the same Corte di cassazione in 2016, where a more favourable attitude had prevailed. As compared to the said earlier judgment, the Sezioni Unite, besides distinguishing the circumstances occurring in the two cases, provided a more flexible reading of the public policy exception in private international law, partly overruling the narrower reading provided in the earlier judgment, which had limited its scope to those principles concerning the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in international and European instruments, as well as in the Italian Constitution. In the conclusions it reaches, the judgment by the Sezioni Unite reveals a substantial alignment with the solution envisaged by the European Court of Human Rights in its Advisory Opinion of 10 April 2019, contemplating adoption by the intended, non-biological parent, as the avenue by which the right of the child to his private life with that parent might be enforced.Keywords: Status filiationis, surrogate motherhood, public policy, recognition of personal and family status, Art. 8 ECHR.Riassunto: Una recente sentenza delle Sezioni Unite della Corte di cassazione ha affrontato una questione molto delicata e controversa, costituita dalla riconoscibilità in Italia di un provvedimento giurisdizionale straniero costitutivo di un rapporto di filiazione tra un minore e il padre di intenzione – materialmente il coniuge dello stesso sesso del padre biologico – in assenza di alcun legame genetico. Nell’affermare che un tale provvedimento non può essere riconosciuto in quanto in contrasto con l’ordine pubblico, le Sezioni Unite sono parse compiere un passo indietro rispetto a una precedente pronuncia della I sezione civile della stessa Cassazione del 2016, nella quale aveva prevalso un approccio di maggiore apertura. Rispetto a tale precedente pronuncia, le Sezioni Unite, oltre a sottolineare le differenze tra le fattispecie che si presentavano nei due casi, hanno adottato una definizione maggiormente flessibile del limite dell’ordine pubblico nel diritto internazionale privato, del quale la precedente decisione della sezione semplice aveva dato una lettura eccessivamente restrittiva, limitandone la portata a quei soli principi internazionalmente condivisi in materia di tutela dei diritti fondamentali e a quegli ulteriori principi che trovano affermazione nella Costituzione italiana. Nelle conclusioni raggiunte, la pronuncia delle Sezioni Unite rivela un sostanziale allineamento con la posizione assunta dalla Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo nel suo parere consultivo del 10 aprile 2019, facendo riferimento all’adozione del minore da parte del genitore d’intenzione privo di legami biologici, come la via attraverso la quale il diritto del minore alla sua vita privata con tale genitore può ricevere tutela.Parole chiave: rapporto di filiazione, maternità surrogata, ordine pubblico, riconoscimento degli status personali e familiari, Art. 8 CEDU.

This article considers if and how Brazilian courts have applied the international public policy exception when deciding whether to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards. In Brazil, like other jurisdictions, according to Article V(2)(b) of the NewYork Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the 'New York Convention'), when a court is faced with a challenge, it has to determine if the public policy exception refers to its national public policy or international public policy. In the past ten years, arbitration in Brazil has gained prominence and the number of challenges to awards, both national and international, has generated several decisions on how Brazilian courts interpret the public policy exemption. This article presents the Brazilian and the international view of what the international public policy is, as well as how the Brazilian and the international view is expressed in their jurisprudence on the topic in order to demonstrate and compare the direction being taken on the public policy exception by Brazilian courts.

On 1 April 2013, the Higher Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation (HAC), Russia's highest commercial court, published Information Letter No. 156 dated 26 February 2013 on its website, in which it approved the Review of Arbitrazh Court Practice in Applying the Public Policy Exception as a Ground for Refusal to Recognize and Enforce Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards (the 'Review') and recommended that it be used as a guidance by all Russian Arbitrazh (commercial) Courts. Violation of public policy is one of the classic and perhaps the most frequently invoked objections to the recognition and enforcement in Russia of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. For this reason, it has been of vital importance for Russian court practice that a more precise definition of public policy, and the extent to which this concept should be applied, be formulated. The Review sets forth the legal positions of HAC based on specific cases where violation of public policy has been invoked. This article provides an overview of the main legal positions expressed in the Review.

Two tenets are central to the Common Law rules for enforcement and recognition of foreign judgments. The first is that, subject to public policy, the enforcing court does not review the substance of the decision; in other words, mistake is no defence. The second is that, apart from ensuring that the judgment was not obtained by fraud or through a breach of the requirements of natural justice, the prime consideration for enforcement is whether the foreign court was competent to issue the judgment; in other words, whether it had jurisdiction.These two tenets are eminently reasonable. A foreign judgment is after all both a judgment—like a local judgment, and foreign—like a right acquired under a foreign law. The validity of local judgments and of foreign unadjudicated rights depends on jurisdiction: local judgments depend on adjudicatory jurisdiction (often defined in the rules of service); foreign rights—on legislative or prescriptive jurisdiction (the jurisdiction of a system to regulate the situation substantively, as defined in choice-of-law rules). It thus seems appropriate to require jurisdiction of foreign judgments too. Local judgments, once final, are never subject to review, and can be attacked on the grounds that they were obtained by fraud only exceptionally. Rights acquired under a foreign law cannot be refused enforcement because of their substance and are subject only to the public policy exception. It thus seems appropriate to immunise foreign judgments from substantive review too. Foreign judgments—adjudicated rights—are of course different from foreign unadjudicated rights in that they are the product of a process. So, as in the case of local judgments, it should nonetheless be possible, in limited circumstances, to examine whether the process was tainted by fraud. So too, they differ from local judgments in that the process from which they emerge is not a local one; it cannot be relied upon in the same way as locally controlled and institutionalised procedures. It thus seems reasonable that, while prevented from reviewing the substance of a foreign decision, the court should be permitted to require of it a minimal level of procedural justice.

The principle of non-review of arbitral awards on the merits is of foundational importance to the finality and enforceability of foreign awards. This paper examines the nature and scope of judicial review of international awards based on the public policy exception by the Indonesian courts. This article argues that the courts review the material findings of facts of the award expansively, relying on the public policy exception. It indicates that the courts do not only review errors in findings of fact, but they also engage in a full and independent re-examination of the factual basis that allegedly gives rise to the public policy violation. In the latter part of this article, the author concludes that the broad scope and meaning ascribed to the public policy exception under the Indonesian Arbitration law and the court's expansive intervention are likely to inhibit the finality of foreign awards in Indonesia.

The ‘public policy’ test is a statutory exception to the enforcement of arbitration awards. The doctrine has its roots in common law. At times, the test has been construed narrowly, and at other times, expansively. What actually constitutes and what is contrary to public policy, however, is never clear. This article seeks to trace the tumultuous development of the public policy doctrine in India, from its beginnings as a common law concept, to arrive at the current understanding of the doctrine and its parameters, in the context of Indian arbitration law. In the process, this article discusses the approach of Indian courts in limiting interference with foreign arbitration awards on the public policy ground. The author argues that it is necessary to further check the public policy exception in India, particularly in the context of enforcement of foreign awards and awards from international commercial arbitration, in view of the Indian government’s aim of making India a ‘hub of arbitration’. international, commercial, arbitration, India, public, policy, development, enforcement, foreign, award.

Le mécanisme des lois de police en droit international privé chinois est un produit importé et sa définition législative est influencée par la définition européenne. Bien que la définition française de loi de police et la définition chinoise ne soient pas textuellement identiques, il nous semble que la notion de loi de police ne change pas selon qu’il s’agit de droit français ou de droit chinois. Cependant, n’étant prévu par le droit positif chinois que depuis 2011, le mécanisme des lois de police est relativement jeune, non seulement au regard de ce mécanisme lui-même mais aussi au regard de ses relations avec d’autres mécanismes de droit international privé ayant des liens avec lui, comme l’exception d’ordre public international. Nous chercherons les expériences françaises en la matière et étudierons la notion française et chinoise de loi de police, d’autres mécanismes de droit international privé en lien avec le mécanisme des lois de police et les illustrations des lois de police dans la jurisprudence. Malgré les critiques, l’application immédiate et impérative est toujours le caractère le plus important des lois de police du for dans l’instance directe, mais ce n’est le cas ni pour l’instance indirecte ni pour les lois de police étrangères. Selon la jurisprudence française et chinoise, le non-respect par le juge étranger ou par un tribunal arbitral de la loi de police de l’État requis n’entraîne pas automatiquement le refus de reconnaissance ou d’exécution. Concernant les lois de police étrangères, le texte législatif chinois est muet, mais cela ne signifie pas que l’application ou la prise en considération de la loi de police étrangère est interdite en droit chinois
The overriding mandatory provisions in Chinese private international law is imported and its legislative definition is incorporated by the European one. Although the French definition of overriding mandatory provisions and the Chinese definition are not textually identical, it seems to us that the notion of overriding mandatory provisions does not change depending on whether it is French law or Chinese law. However, having been provided for by Chinese positive law only since 2011, the overriding mandatory provisions mechanism is relatively young, not only with regard to this mechanism itself but also to its relations with other mechanisms of private international law having links with it, such as the international public policy exception. We will seek French experiences in this area and study the French and Chinese notion of overriding mandatory provisions, other mechanisms of private international law in connection with them and their illustrations in case law. Despite the criticisms, the immediate and mandatory application is always the most important character of the overriding mandatory provisions of the forum in the direct instance, but this is not the case for foreign overriding mandatory provisions or for the indirect instance. According to French and Chinese case law, the non-respect by the foreign judge or by an arbitral tribunal of the overriding mandatory provisions of the requested state does not automatically result in the refusal of recognition or enforcement. Regarding the foreign overriding mandatory provisions, the Chinese legislative text is silent, but this does not mean that their application or take into consideration is prohibited in Chinese law

L’autonomie de la volonté est un principe relatif à la liberté des parties quant au choix de la loi applicable au contrat international. Cependant, ce principe est limité par les règles d’ordre public, et plus généralement les dispositions impératives, réduisant l’étendue de cette autonomie. Afin de perfectionner la mise en application de ces règles tout en garantissant une certaine prévisibilité, il s’avère important d’étudier en détail l’origine et la nature des règles d’ordre public. Une étude comparée avec le droit international privé égyptien s’avère nécessaire pour perfectionner les mécanismes actuels. Le débat conceptuel actuel met en évidence le rôle de la coopération internationale, outre les intérêts purement étatiques, ce qui suscitera un nouvel ordre public transnational, voire supranational
The freedom of choice is a principle referring to the freedom of the parties concerning the choice of the law ruling the international contract. However, this principle is limited by public policy, which reduce the extent of this freedom. In order to improve the application of these rules with a minimum of predictability, it is important to study in detail the origin and nature of the rules of public policy. A comparative study with Egyptian private international law is needed to take advantage from all current mechanisms. The current conceptual debate highlights the role of international cooperation, in addition to purely State interests, which will tend to create a new transnational, or even supranational, public policy

Nous sommes aujourd'hui face à un incontestable déclin du critère de la nationalité en droit international privé. À l'heure de la mobilité croissante des personnes et de l'essor des autres critères de rattachement, il nous faut faire le constat de la marginalisation de la nationalité, pourtant considérée pendant longtemps comme la principale notion en matière de statut personnel, une marginalisation confirmée par les règlements européens et la jurisprudence. Face aux changements dans ce domaine et aux incertitudes qui y sont liées, il est nécessaire d'analyser ces données afin de pouvoir procéder à un bilan et d'énoncer des résolutions pour l'avenir. En effet, l'évolution du droit international privé a conduit à privilégier de nouveaux critères de rattachement, considérés comme plus efficaces et moins discriminatoires que la nationalité, qui sont ainsi plébiscités par le législateur et les juges européens. Il s'agit tout d'abord des critères territorialistes, et particulièrement de la résidence habituelle qui est devenue le rattachement principal, pour la plupart des textes européens, en matière de divorce, de responsabilité parentale ou encore de régime des incapables. L'importance donnée aux individus, reconnus en tant que quasi-sujets de droit international, résultant de l'intervention des droits de l'homme, apparaît comme le principal facteur du déclin de la nationalité. Le principe de non-discrimination et la prise en compte de la volonté des parties, jusqu'à leur désunion et leurs successions, illustrent cet état de fait. Il s'agit alors de savoir, à la lumière des réflexions sur ces nouveaux paradigmes, s'il est encore possible de reconsidérer le rattachement des personnes en revalorisant le critère de la nationalité dans certains domaines, comme cela a été suggéré dernièrement en droit des successions. Nous proposons ainsi une méthodologie permettant aussi bien dans le conflit de lois que dans le conflit de juridictions de déterminer les raisons du déclin de la nationalité. Nous menons également une réflexion sur son irrévocabilité en droit international privé
The decline of the nationality in private international law is nowadays an undeniable reality. The impact of an almost unconditional mobility of European citizens and the emergence of other connecting factors in the personal law result in the weakening of the nationality link, despite its historical role in determining the law applied to an individual. The weakening is confirmed by the modern European legislation and case law. This study seems essential to understand the foundations of nationality as the connecting factor and takes into account the important changes of the nationality and its uncertainty. Indeed, the evolution of the European private international law led to the switch of the connecting factor from nationality toward territorial nexuses. Particular significance is put on the nexus of habitual residence, which is considered to be more efficient and less discriminatory, and is retained by the main European regulations and judgments, not only in case of international divorces or parental authority, but also according to such matters as legal capacity. Furthermore, the superiority of human rights appears to be the essential reason for the acknowledgement of individuals as the quasi-subjects of international law, which resulted in the decline of nationality as a connecting factor. Consequently, the principles of non-discrimination and personal autonomy impact the further fields of personal law, e.g. disunion and heritage. In the light of these new paradigms, it should be questioned if it is possible to overcome the decadence of the nationality and authorize its part in some matters of the European private international law, as it was regulated in the new heritage European regulation. For these reasons, this study propose a methodology that determines the reasons of the fall of nationality as the nexus of the private international law, both in the conflict of laws and in the conflict of jurisdictions, and provides some reflections on its irreversibility

Dans un contexte où le recours au mécanisme des lois de police apparaît de plus en plus fréquent et facilité sur le plan des conflits de lois, la perte d’impérativité que connaissent ces dispositions du fait des solutions libérales retenues sur le plan des conflits de juridictions, conduit à s’interroger sur la possibilité d’apporter des correctifs. En droit positif, l’admission généralisée des clauses de prorogation de for, étatique et arbitral, malgré l’applicabilité d’une loi de police, associée à un système de reconnaissance pratiquement automatique des jugements étrangers et des sentences arbitrales au stade du contentieux de l’exequatur, conduit à rendre ces dispositions globalement semi-nécessaires dans les rapports internationaux. Alors que la mise en œuvre des lois de police devant un for étatique étranger ou arbitral apparaît très incertaine et que la violation de ces dispositions ne fait pas obstacle à la reconnaissance d’un jugement ou d’une sentence qui les aurait négligées, les clauses de prorogation de for apparaissent comme des instruments à la disposition des parties pour se livrer au forum shopping et contourner les impérativités étatiques. Cette solution, paradoxale et peu satisfaisante, compte tenu de l’importance et de la nature des intérêts par principe mis en cause à travers ces dispositions, incite à envisager une solution permettant de restaurer l’impérativité des lois de police dans les conflits de juridictions. Dès lors que ce résultat apparaît comme la conséquence du maintien du principe traditionnel de l’indépendance des compétences législative et juridictionnelle malgré le lien existant entre forum et jus en matière de lois de police, ce constat conduit à s’interroger sur la possibilité de déroger exceptionnellement à ce principe pour consacrer un forum legis impératif et exclusif, fondé sur l’applicabilité d’une telle disposition. Cette solution, restaurant efficacement l’impérativité des lois de police dans leur for d’origine, devrait néanmoins être associée à la mise en place d’un mécanisme de coordination des systèmes permettant de prolonger son efficacité devant les fors étrangers. Il pourrait trouver ses fondements dans certains procédés préexistants, susceptibles d’être adaptés à la réalisation de l’objectif de protection des impérativités étatiques poursuivis. La mise en place de différents mécanismes, apparentés à celui du forum non conveniens, fondés sur un système de coopération interjuridictionnelle ou inspirés de la méthode de référence à l’ordre juridique compétent envisagée par P. Picone, pourrait permettre d’assurer, à l’étranger, le respect des lois de police du for dans des hypothèses différentes. De manière transversale, la restauration de l’impérativité des lois de police pourrait être assurée grâce à un recours à la notion d’ordre juridique prépondérant. Désignant un ordre juridique dont une loi de police mettant directement en cause un intérêt étatique réellement fondamental serait applicable au fond du litige, elle devrait pouvoir fonder la reconnaissance de la vocation plus forte de celui-ci à faire valoir ses vues pour la résolution d’un litige. Elle pourrait fonder à la fois la revendication de compétence juridictionnelle prioritaire de celui-ci pour trancher le différend et un effacement des fors étrangers pour faire prévaloir le point de vue qu’il retient. Une telle solution, étroitement délimitée et justifiée au regard de l’importance des intérêts mis en cause, assurerait une solution satisfaisante permettant à la fois d’articuler harmonieusement la poursuite de la politique libérale qui s’impose dans les conflits de juridictions avec le respect des lois de police et de réconcilier la protection des impérativités étatiques avec la coordination des systèmes
In times of mandatory provisions becoming more and more prevalent, based on conflict of law, the concept of mandatory enforcement appears to be somehow diluted regarding the liberal solutions found in conflicts of jurisdictions. In positive law, mandatory rules do not prevent the enforcement of a forum clause, no more than they are considered during the enforcement stage of decisions. While the application of these rules before foreign courts and arbitrators is very uncertain and does not raise obstacles to the recognition of foreign judgments or arbitral judgment which overlook them, choice of forum clauses has become an instrument of forum shopping in order to avoid mandatory regulations. This solution paradoxically induces a search for a solution to restore there international imperativity. This result has appeared as a consequence of the principle of separation of conflicts of law and conflicts of jurisdictions. That observation leads to ask questions about the possibility of an exemption to this general principle. Indeed, this encourages to consider the possibility to admit a correlation between forum and jus in order to establish imperative and exclusive competence, based on the applicability of such mandatory rules. This forum legis would require to maintain the litigation in its courts and could ensure their application in international relations. However, unilateralism that governs rules of judicial competence should involve the establishment of a mechanism of different legal systems coordination. Depending on the type of mandatory rules concerned, it could be based on an adapted form of forum non conveniens, on international judicial Co-operation processes, or be inspired by the method of reference to the competent legal order envisaged by P. Picone. The deployment of these solutions could be based on using preponderant state notion, that would be the one with the most widely public policy involved. It would lead to the recognition of the strong vocation of it to assert its views for the resolution of a dispute and would justify both the priority jurisdiction of its courts and circumspection of the other jurisdictional authorities to exercise their competence. Such a solution, tightly defined and justified in view of the importance of the interests involved, would provide a satisfactory solution to both harmoniously articulate the pursuit of liberal politics required in conflicts of jurisdictions with respect of public policy, and reconcile the protection of imperativities with the coordination of legal systems

Trust in international actors, from nations in general to specific international governmental organizations and nationalities, can shape how citizens form judgments about international relations. This chapter examines the nature, levels, foundations, and consequences of such trust among mass publics, particularly the US public. Survey data from the past three decades reveal low levels of generalized trust in other nations. This form of trust reflects changes in the international environment along with individual-level demographics, social trust, political trust, partisanship, ideology, and media use. Trust in other nations is linked to an array of foreign policy opinions as well as evaluations of individual nations and trust in international organizations. Citizens’ beliefs about how much they can trust international actors provide them with information shortcuts for forming views about world affairs but may create obstacles to international cooperation.

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly referred to as the New York Convention (Convention), makes the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Contracting States generally much easier than the enforcement of foreign judgments by, inter alia, imposing a presumptive obligation to enforce arbitral awards subject to only a limited number of grounds on which enforcement may be refused. This chapter looks at the different grounds that allow a domestic court to refuse enforcement under the Convention and analyzes the problems that a party trying to enforce a trust award could potentially face. It begins by examining the scope of the Convention under Article I(3), focusing on whether a trust can be characterised as being ‘commercial in nature’. It then considers the grounds for refusal of enforcement under Article V(1) of the Convention, focusing on issues of invalidity (such as consent and form requirements) and incapacity as well as lack of proper notice and representation. Lastly, the chapter examines whether the doctrines of non-arbitrability and public policy, as applied in the place of enforcement, may render an award unenforceable under Article V(2) of the Convention.

Revised and updated to include recent developments since 2013, this new edition provides a detailed guide to the operation of the international rule of State immunity which bars one State's national courts from exercising criminal or civil jurisdiction over claims made against another State. Building on the analysis of its two previous editions, it reviews relevant material at both international and national levels with particular attention to US and UK law; the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of the State and its Property (not yet in force), and also seeks to assess the significance of recent changes in the evolution of the law. Although the restrictive doctrine of immunity is now widely observed by which foreign States may be sued in national courts for their commercial transactions, the immunity rule remains controversial, not only by reason of the recognition of a single State's right to deny a remedy for a wrong — China, a major trading State, continues to adhere to the absolute bar — but also by the exclusion of any reparation or relief for the commission on the orders of a State of grave human rights violations. The complexity and moral challenge of the issues is illustrated by high profile cases. The expanding extraterritorial jurisdiction of national courts with regard to torture in disregard of pleas of act of State and nonjusticiability offers a further challenge to the exclusionary nature and continued observance of State immunity. Recent developments in key areas are examined, including: impleading; public policy and non-justiciability; universal civil jurisdiction for reparation for international crimes; the application of the employment exception to embassies and diplomats; immunity from enforcement and procedural measures; immunity of State officials, and tensions between national constitutional requirements and superior international norms.

AbstractCulture was no exception in Finland’s foreign policy during the Cold War: international cultural relations were one more stage on which the basic play of Finland’s Cold War domestic and foreign policies was performed. In the maze of justifications for improving the state’s capacity to coordinate and direct Finland’s spontaneous cultural relations used by its main Finnish administrators, historical memories, conceptions of desirable directions for Finland’s national development, the necessities of Finland’s geopolitical situation and more concrete notions linked to commercial and economic development appeared fundamentally important. The slow institutionalization of this cultural diplomacy and the activities it conducted aimed at Finland’s geopolitical stabilization and participation in international developments, and the country’s state-led cultural modernization.

This chapter focuses on the restricted character of international public policy and on the fact that though it belongs to each State, many of its fundamental principles are enshrined in human rights conventions and private international law conventions and therefore are shared by all the States Parties to that convention, which enables the integration and articulation of diversity, at either a regional or a universal level. Consequently, the identification of those shared fundamental principles should increase the predictability of results in private international law cases and soften the barrier that the public policy exception imposes regarding foreign laws and judgments. Notwithstanding this, the aforementioned statements do not mean that the role of the public policy exception will disappear. In order to develop this argument, this chapter explains some key concepts such as those of international and domestic public policy, a posteriori and a priori public policy, their differences and similarities. It examines how public policy evolves over time alongside society and how that evolution is reflected in statutory and conventional rules.

Article 33 contains the only exception to Member States’ obligation to recognise and enforce insolvency proceedings and judgments falling within the scope of the EIR. It allows Member State to refuse recognition and enforcement on grounds of a manifest violation of public policy. The commentary analyses how the public policy exception applies to the recognition and enforcement of judgments and the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings. It demonstrates that only the very fundamental principles of a legal system engage the operation of Article 33 and discusses the gross violations of the principles of insolvency law that may qualify as a breach of public policy. In this context the authors underscore that the public policy clause must not be abused in order to second-guess a court’s decision relating to its jurisdiction to open main proceedings.

Automatic recognition of judgments rendered within the course of insolvency proceedings constitutes one of the fundamental principles of the EIR, as recognition is based on mutual trust and is crucial regarding maintenance of the universality of (main) insolvency proceedings. This chapter scrutinizes the mechanism through which recognition operates pursuant to the EIR. Recognition applies only to certain judgments handed down during insolvency proceedings; therefore, we must determine which types of judgment enjoy recognition pursuant to the EIR. Discussion then focuses on the impact of recognizing foreign judgments before exploring the public policy exception, this being the only ground upon which refusal of recognition may be based. As enforcement of judgments in foreign Member States may be necessary, the manner in which the EIR ensures the enforceability of judgments handed down during insolvency proceedings will also be observed.

This chapter discusses the important role of local courts in art law disputes. In several cases, a foreign country as defendant has raised the defence of immunity. With respect to jurisdiction, two different kinds must be distinguished: international jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Subsequently, several questions of the applicable law may become important in art law cases. They range from the law applicable to contracts to the law applicable to succession. If foreign law has to be applied, the result of this application may be changed or modified by public policy of the forum State or, if local law is applicable, foreign mandatory rules may be considered and given effect in the forum State. There are hardly any foreign judgments which had to be enforced in local fora. Most of the cases were decided in the country where the art object or its owner were located and therefore could be enforced in the country of decision.