Litigation Commons^™

M/S Bremen V Zapata Off -Shore Company: Us Common Law Affirmation Of Party Autonomy, Ronald A. Brand

Book Chapters

In the 1972 decision in M/S Bremen v Zapata Off -Shore Company, the U.S. Supreme Court brought together the development of doctrines dealing with party autonomy in choice of court and forum non conveniens. Especially when considered alongside developments favoring arbitration clauses in U.S. courts, the case provides a rich study of conflicts of laws jurisprudence in the twentieth century. This chapter begins with a discussion of fundamental elements of the development of party autonomy in U.S. law and the historical context of the law prior to The Bremen. A brief mention of how one prominent political family …

The Hague Judgments Convention In The United States: A “Game Changer” Or A New Path To The Old Game?, Ronald A. Brand

Articles

The Hague Judgments Convention, completed on July 2, 2019, is built on a list of “jurisdictional filters” in Article 5(1), and grounds for non-recognition in Article 7. If one of the thirteen jurisdictional tests in Article 5(1) is satisfied, the judgment may circulate under the Convention, subject to the grounds for non-recognition found in Article 7. This approach to Convention structure is especially significant for countries considering ratification and implementation. A different structure was suggested in the initial Working Group stage of the Convention’s preparation which would have avoided the complexity of multiple rules of indirect jurisdiction, each of which …

The Circulation Of Judgments Under The Draft Hague Judgments Convention, Ronald A. Brand

Articles

The 2018 draft of a Hague Judgments Convention adopts a framework based largely on what some have referred to as “jurisdictional filters.” Article 5(1) provides a list of thirteen authorized bases of indirect jurisdiction by which a foreign judgment is first tested. If one of these jurisdictional filters is satisfied, the resulting judgment is presumptively entitled to circulate under the convention, subject to a set of grounds for non-recognition that generally are consistent with existing practice in most legal systems. This basic architecture of the Convention has been assumed to be set from the start of the Special Commission process, …

The Continuing Evolution Of U.S. Judgments Recognition Law, Ronald A. Brand

Articles

The substantive law of judgments recognition in the United States has evolved from federal common law, found in a seminal Supreme Court opinion, to primary reliance on state law in both state and federal courts. While state law often is found in a local version of a uniform act, this has not brought about true uniformity, and significant discrepancies exist among the states. These discrepancies in judgments recognition law, combined with a common policy on the circulation of internal judgments under the United States Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, have created opportunities for forum shopping and litigation strategies that …

Understanding Judgments Recognition, Ronald A. Brand

Articles

The twenty-first century has seen many developments in judgments recognition law in both the United States and the European Union, while at the same time experiencing significant obstacles to further improvement of the law. This article describes two problems of perception that have prevented a complete understanding of the law of judgments recognition on a global basis, particularly from a U.S. perspective. The first is a proximity of place problem that has resulted in a failure to understand that, unlike the United States, many countries allow their own courts to hear cases based on a broad set of bases of …

Judicial Policing Of Consumer Arbitration , Edward A. Dauer

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Adhesive consumer arbitration agreements pose questions that go beyond the problems of adhesion contracting generally. This essay describes why standard-form consumer arbitration requirements may be particularly troublesome. Despite its superficial neutrality, arbitration between individual consumers and business entities may be systematically more favorable to the business entities. The rules of arbitration law, however, inhibit effective judicial policing of the consequences of those inequalities. The federal sources of arbitration law further diminish the ability of state-based contract law to police the more subtle abuses. The result is a particularly difficult jurisprudential problem with a specially weakened legal solution. This essay offers, …

First Options Of Chicago, Inc. V. Kaplan And The Kompetenz-Kompetenz Principle , Adrianna Dulic

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

In 1995, the United States Supreme Court in First Options of Chicago, Incorporated v. Kaplan considered whether arbitral tribunals or courts should have the primary power to decide if parties agreed to arbitrate the merits of the dispute and whether the court of appeals should accept the district court's findings of fact and law or apply a de novo standard of review. The Court unanimously held that, unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the court, not the arbitral tribunal. Furthermore, in such a case, …

The Dispute Settlement Understanding Of The Wto Agreement: An Inadequate Mechanism For The Resolution Of International Trade Disputes, Sean P. Feeney

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The 1994 signing of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement marked the initiation of the most far-reaching and comprehensive international agreement on trade in the history of the modern world. The creation of an actual trade organization was a marked improvement over the WTO's predecessor, the 1944 GATT, which never formed an organization per se. Among the many improvements to the GATT, the WTO Agreement substantially changed the mechanism for dispute settlement whenever conflict arose between member states. This change, codified as the Dispute Settlement Understanding ("DSU"), was initially hailed as a great improvement over the GATT dispute settlement provisions. …

Contracting Around Ruaa: Default Rules, Mandatory Rules, And Judicial Review Of Arbitral Awards, Christopher R. Drahozal

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

By specifying that its provisions generally are default rules and listing particular exceptions, the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (“RUAA”) provides much needed certainty and avoids unnecessary litigation, at least compared to the Federal Arbitration Act, which does not always identify which of its provisions are default rules. In one important respect, however, RUAA jettisons that valuable certainty. The RUAA drafters left open (or at least sought to leave open) the question whether parties can contract to expand the grounds for judicial review of arbitration awards beyond those set out in the statute. In other words, the drafters purported not to …

International Arbitral Appeals: What Are We So Afraid Of? , Erin E. Gleason

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

This article will explore the advantages of instituting appellate mechanisms in investor-state disputes and international commercial arbitration. Part II begins with a review of the WTO Appellate Body's development and workings, followed by an analysis of other appellate procedures for international trade law arbitration, including the MERCOSUR system's Permanent Court and the Grain and Feed Trade Association's appeals process. Part III examines the current methods for reviewing investor-state arbitration awards under ICSID and NAFTA. Part III goes on to advocate for the creation of an Appeals Facility, separate from current arbitral institutions, which would be empowered to hear appeals in …

The Rome I Regulation Rules On Party Autonomy For Choice Of Law: A U.S. Perspective, Ronald A. Brand

Articles

This chapter was presented at a conference in Dublin on the (then) new Rome I Regulation of the European Union in the fall of 2009. It contrasts the Rome I rules on party autonomy with those in the United States. In particular, it considers the rules in the Rome I Regulation that ostensibly protect consumers by discouraging party agreement on a pre-dispute basis to the law governing a consumer contract. These rules are compared with the absence of private international law restrictions on choice of forum and choice of law in the United States, even in consumer contracts. The result …

Private Rights And Collective Governance: A Functional Approach To Natural Resources Law, Eric T. Freyfogle

The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8)

4 pages.

"Eric T. Freyfogle, Max L. Rowe Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law"

Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards Against Foreign States Or State Agencies, S. I. Strong

Faculty Publications

Britain's Lord Denning once said that “as a moth is drawn to the light, so is a litigant drawn to the United States.” Certainly, as a pro-arbitration state and a signatory to various international conventions concerning the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the United States seems a natural place to bring an action to enforce an arbitral award against a foreign state or state agency. However, suing a sovereign has not traditionally been a simple task in the United States or elsewhere. Most nations grant foreign states the presumption of immunity, thus denying that their domestic courts have jurisdiction to …

Enforcement Of Foreign Money-Judgments In The United States: In Search Of Uniformity And International Acceptance, Ronald A. Brand

Articles

When international trade and investment increase, so does the need for satisfactory means of dispute resolution. Dispute resolution in national courts requires that litigants consider not only the likelihood of a favorable judgment but also the ability to collect on that judgment. In cases where the defendant’s assets lie in another jurisdiction, collection is possible only if the second jurisdiction will recognize the first jurisdiction’s judgment.

In the international arena, enforcement of United State judgments overseas is often possible only if the United States court rendering the judgment would enforce a similar decision of the foreign enforcing court. This reciprocity …