File #2324: "2018_Book_InternationalDisputeResolution.pdf"
Testo
1|Contents|6
1|1 Considerations on the Impact of EU Law on National Civil Procedure: Recent Examples from Belgium|7
2|Abstract|8
2|1.1 Introduction|8
2|1.2 EU Law Requirements for National Civil Procedure: The Overarching Framework|9
3|1.2.1 The Concept of National Procedural Autonomy|9
4|1.2.1.1 Origins|9
4|1.2.1.2 The Issue of Autonomy|10
5|Member States Are Not Autonomous When Enacting Rules of Civil Procedure|10
5|The EU Has an Extensive Competence to Enact Rules of Civil Procedure|12
4|1.2.1.3 The Relevance of Fundamental Rights|14
3|1.2.2 EU Law as a Multiple Constraint on National Civil Procedure|15
2|1.3 Civil Procedure in EU Legislation and EU Case Law: Recent Examples and Impact on the Belgian Legal Order|15
3|1.3.1 National Civil Procedure in the Case Law of the Court of Justice|15
4|1.3.1.1 Introduction|15
4|1.3.1.2 Ex Officio Application of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive|16
5|General|16
5|The 2015 Reform of Default Proceedings in Belgium|18
4|1.3.1.3 Rules on the Reimbursement of Party-Appointed Expert Fees and the IP Enforcement Directive|21
4|1.3.1.4 A Number of Brief Considerations Regarding the Influence of EU Case Law|24
3|1.3.2 EU Rules on Civil Procedure|25
4|1.3.2.1 Introduction|25
4|1.3.2.2 Private Damages Directive|26
5|General|26
5|Impact in Belgium|27
5|Rules on Prescription|28
5|Presumption of Harm|30
4|1.3.2.3 Trade Secrets Directive|31
5|General|31
5|Impact in Belgium|32
5|Remedies and Their Scope|32
5|Protection of Confidentiality in the Course of Judicial Proceedings|33
4|1.3.2.4 A Number of Brief Considerations Regarding the Influence of EU Legislation|33
2|1.4 Different Approaches to Civil Procedure|35
3|1.4.1 EU Approach to Civil Procedure: Sectoral and Functional|35
3|1.4.2 Member State Approach to Civil Procedure: Horizontal and Autonomous|38
2|1.5 Consequences for Civil Procedure at the Member State Level|40
3|1.5.1 The Issue of Fragmentation|40
3|1.5.2 Competence for Regulation of Civil Procedure|42
3|1.5.3 The Future of Civil Procedure Regulation in the EU|43
2|1.6 Concluding Remarks|44
2|References|45
1|2 The Internationalisation of Procedural Law: The Law on Execution and Attachment Orders|48
2|Abstract|48
2|2.1 Introduction|49
2|2.2 The Need for Internationalisation in The Netherlands and Particularly Europeanisation Within the European Union|50
2|2.3 The Importance of the Council of Europe and CEPEJ|53
2|2.4 An Area Suitable for Unification: Execution and Attachment Law|55
2|2.5 What To Do Next?|60
2|2.6 A Short-Term Solution|66
2|2.7 A Solution in the Longer Term|69
2|References|70
1|3 Harmonisation of Conflict of Law Rules in the US? The Example of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments|72
2|Abstract|72
2|3.1 Introduction|73
2|3.2 The Basis of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the US|75
3|3.2.1 Preliminary Remarks|75
3|3.2.2 Federal v. State Law|75
4|3.2.2.1 Hilton v Guyot: The Basis for Recognition of Foreign Judgments|76
4|3.2.2.2 Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins|77
2|3.3 The 1962 and 2005 Acts and the Third Restatement: An Attempt at Harmonisation?|78
3|3.3.1 Preliminary Remarks|78
3|3.3.2 The 1962 Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act|78
4|3.3.2.1 Principles for Recognition Under the 1962 UFMJRA|79
4|3.3.2.2 Refusal Grounds Under the 1962 UFMJRA|79
3|3.3.3 The 2005 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act|80
4|3.3.3.1 Principles for Recognition and Refusal Grounds Under the 2005 UFCMJRA|81
3|3.3.4 The Third Restatement|82
3|3.3.5 Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments|83
2|3.4 Further Attempts to Harmonise the Rules on Recognition and Enforcement|83
3|3.4.1 Preliminary Remarks|83
3|3.4.2 The American Law Institute’s Proposed Federal Statute|84
4|3.4.2.1 Principles for Recognition and Refusal Grounds|85
4|3.4.2.2 The Pros and Cons of the Proposed Statute|86
3|3.4.3 Is Harmonisation the Way Forward for the US’ Recognition and Enforcement Regime?|87
4|3.4.3.1 A Global Level of Harmonisation—The Hague Conventions|88
2|3.5 Conclusion|89
2|References|90
1|4 The Harmonisation of Interim Measures Granted by the Emergency Arbitrator in the European Union|92
2|Abstract|92
2|4.1 Introduction|93
3|4.1.1 The Use of Interim Measures|93
3|4.1.2 The Bodies to Grant Interim Measures|94
3|4.1.3 The Desirability of the Emergency Arbitrator Mechanism|96
2|4.2 Overview of the Current Situation in Interim Measures Granted by the Emergency Arbitrator in the EU|97
3|4.2.1 Leading EU Arbitral Institutions’ Emergency Arbitrator Provisions|98
4|4.2.1.1 Recent Statistics in Practicing Emergency Arbitrator Mechanism|98
4|4.2.1.2 Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings|99
3|4.2.2 EU Member States’ Arbitration Laws|100
2|4.3 Necessity of Harmonisation in Arbitral Interim Measures in the EU|101
3|4.3.1 The Previous Debate Against Harmonisation in Arbitration|102
3|4.3.2 The Need to Build the Internal Market|102
3|4.3.3 Promoting the EU as an Arbitration-Friendly Region|103
2|4.4 Possibility of Harmonisation in Arbitral Interim Measures in the EU|105
3|4.4.1 Previous Experience of Harmonisation of Arbitration in the EU|105
3|4.4.2 Worldwide Harmonisation Experiences in Arbitration|106
4|4.4.2.1 The New York Convention|106
4|4.4.2.2 The UNCITRAL Model Law|107
3|4.4.3 Suggestion|108
2|4.5 Conclusion|109
2|References|110
1|5 Resolving Foreign Direct Investment-Related Disputes in China’s Legal System: What to Expect and How to Understand?|113
2|Abstract|113
2|5.1 Introduction|114
2|5.2 Dispute Settlement Mechanisms for FDI-Related Disputes in China’s Legal System|115
3|5.2.1 Negotiation|115
3|5.2.2 Mediation|116
4|5.2.2.1 Independent Mediation Conducted by Commercial Mediation Commissions|117
4|5.2.2.2 Independent Mediation Conducted by Administrative Organs|118
4|5.2.2.3 Mediation in Administrative Reconsideration|118
4|5.2.2.4 Mediation in Arbitration|119
4|5.2.2.5 Mediation in Litigation|120
3|5.2.3 Commercial Arbitration|121
3|5.2.4 Complaints Coordination for Foreign Investment|122
3|5.2.5 Administrative Reconsideration|122
3|5.2.6 Litigation|123
3|5.2.7 Summary|124
2|5.3 Interpreting China’s DSMs for FDI-Related Disputes from the Perspective of Chinese Ideology|125
3|5.3.1 Guidance for Dispute Resolution from Chinese Ideology|125
4|5.3.1.1 Guidance from Traditional Philosophies|126
5|Harmony First|126
5|Relationship v. Justice|126
5|Informal Methods v. Formal Mechanisms|127
4|5.3.1.2 Guidance from Socialist Morality|127
3|5.3.2 Connection Between Chinese Ideology and the DSMs in China’s Legal System|128
2|5.4 The Influence of China’s Domestic DSMs: Useful to the Development in Other Jurisdictions?|129
2|5.5 Conclusion|130
2|References|130
1|1 Considerations on the Impact of EU Law on National Civil Procedure: Recent Examples from Belgium|7
2|Abstract|8
2|1.1 Introduction|8
2|1.2 EU Law Requirements for National Civil Procedure: The Overarching Framework|9
3|1.2.1 The Concept of National Procedural Autonomy|9
4|1.2.1.1 Origins|9
4|1.2.1.2 The Issue of Autonomy|10
5|Member States Are Not Autonomous When Enacting Rules of Civil Procedure|10
5|The EU Has an Extensive Competence to Enact Rules of Civil Procedure|12
4|1.2.1.3 The Relevance of Fundamental Rights|14
3|1.2.2 EU Law as a Multiple Constraint on National Civil Procedure|15
2|1.3 Civil Procedure in EU Legislation and EU Case Law: Recent Examples and Impact on the Belgian Legal Order|15
3|1.3.1 National Civil Procedure in the Case Law of the Court of Justice|15
4|1.3.1.1 Introduction|15
4|1.3.1.2 Ex Officio Application of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive|16
5|General|16
5|The 2015 Reform of Default Proceedings in Belgium|18
4|1.3.1.3 Rules on the Reimbursement of Party-Appointed Expert Fees and the IP Enforcement Directive|21
4|1.3.1.4 A Number of Brief Considerations Regarding the Influence of EU Case Law|24
3|1.3.2 EU Rules on Civil Procedure|25
4|1.3.2.1 Introduction|25
4|1.3.2.2 Private Damages Directive|26
5|General|26
5|Impact in Belgium|27
5|Rules on Prescription|28
5|Presumption of Harm|30
4|1.3.2.3 Trade Secrets Directive|31
5|General|31
5|Impact in Belgium|32
5|Remedies and Their Scope|32
5|Protection of Confidentiality in the Course of Judicial Proceedings|33
4|1.3.2.4 A Number of Brief Considerations Regarding the Influence of EU Legislation|33
2|1.4 Different Approaches to Civil Procedure|35
3|1.4.1 EU Approach to Civil Procedure: Sectoral and Functional|35
3|1.4.2 Member State Approach to Civil Procedure: Horizontal and Autonomous|38
2|1.5 Consequences for Civil Procedure at the Member State Level|40
3|1.5.1 The Issue of Fragmentation|40
3|1.5.2 Competence for Regulation of Civil Procedure|42
3|1.5.3 The Future of Civil Procedure Regulation in the EU|43
2|1.6 Concluding Remarks|44
2|References|45
1|2 The Internationalisation of Procedural Law: The Law on Execution and Attachment Orders|48
2|Abstract|48
2|2.1 Introduction|49
2|2.2 The Need for Internationalisation in The Netherlands and Particularly Europeanisation Within the European Union|50
2|2.3 The Importance of the Council of Europe and CEPEJ|53
2|2.4 An Area Suitable for Unification: Execution and Attachment Law|55
2|2.5 What To Do Next?|60
2|2.6 A Short-Term Solution|66
2|2.7 A Solution in the Longer Term|69
2|References|70
1|3 Harmonisation of Conflict of Law Rules in the US? The Example of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments|72
2|Abstract|72
2|3.1 Introduction|73
2|3.2 The Basis of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the US|75
3|3.2.1 Preliminary Remarks|75
3|3.2.2 Federal v. State Law|75
4|3.2.2.1 Hilton v Guyot: The Basis for Recognition of Foreign Judgments|76
4|3.2.2.2 Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins|77
2|3.3 The 1962 and 2005 Acts and the Third Restatement: An Attempt at Harmonisation?|78
3|3.3.1 Preliminary Remarks|78
3|3.3.2 The 1962 Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act|78
4|3.3.2.1 Principles for Recognition Under the 1962 UFMJRA|79
4|3.3.2.2 Refusal Grounds Under the 1962 UFMJRA|79
3|3.3.3 The 2005 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act|80
4|3.3.3.1 Principles for Recognition and Refusal Grounds Under the 2005 UFCMJRA|81
3|3.3.4 The Third Restatement|82
3|3.3.5 Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments|83
2|3.4 Further Attempts to Harmonise the Rules on Recognition and Enforcement|83
3|3.4.1 Preliminary Remarks|83
3|3.4.2 The American Law Institute’s Proposed Federal Statute|84
4|3.4.2.1 Principles for Recognition and Refusal Grounds|85
4|3.4.2.2 The Pros and Cons of the Proposed Statute|86
3|3.4.3 Is Harmonisation the Way Forward for the US’ Recognition and Enforcement Regime?|87
4|3.4.3.1 A Global Level of Harmonisation—The Hague Conventions|88
2|3.5 Conclusion|89
2|References|90
1|4 The Harmonisation of Interim Measures Granted by the Emergency Arbitrator in the European Union|92
2|Abstract|92
2|4.1 Introduction|93
3|4.1.1 The Use of Interim Measures|93
3|4.1.2 The Bodies to Grant Interim Measures|94
3|4.1.3 The Desirability of the Emergency Arbitrator Mechanism|96
2|4.2 Overview of the Current Situation in Interim Measures Granted by the Emergency Arbitrator in the EU|97
3|4.2.1 Leading EU Arbitral Institutions’ Emergency Arbitrator Provisions|98
4|4.2.1.1 Recent Statistics in Practicing Emergency Arbitrator Mechanism|98
4|4.2.1.2 Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings|99
3|4.2.2 EU Member States’ Arbitration Laws|100
2|4.3 Necessity of Harmonisation in Arbitral Interim Measures in the EU|101
3|4.3.1 The Previous Debate Against Harmonisation in Arbitration|102
3|4.3.2 The Need to Build the Internal Market|102
3|4.3.3 Promoting the EU as an Arbitration-Friendly Region|103
2|4.4 Possibility of Harmonisation in Arbitral Interim Measures in the EU|105
3|4.4.1 Previous Experience of Harmonisation of Arbitration in the EU|105
3|4.4.2 Worldwide Harmonisation Experiences in Arbitration|106
4|4.4.2.1 The New York Convention|106
4|4.4.2.2 The UNCITRAL Model Law|107
3|4.4.3 Suggestion|108
2|4.5 Conclusion|109
2|References|110
1|5 Resolving Foreign Direct Investment-Related Disputes in China’s Legal System: What to Expect and How to Understand?|113
2|Abstract|113
2|5.1 Introduction|114
2|5.2 Dispute Settlement Mechanisms for FDI-Related Disputes in China’s Legal System|115
3|5.2.1 Negotiation|115
3|5.2.2 Mediation|116
4|5.2.2.1 Independent Mediation Conducted by Commercial Mediation Commissions|117
4|5.2.2.2 Independent Mediation Conducted by Administrative Organs|118
4|5.2.2.3 Mediation in Administrative Reconsideration|118
4|5.2.2.4 Mediation in Arbitration|119
4|5.2.2.5 Mediation in Litigation|120
3|5.2.3 Commercial Arbitration|121
3|5.2.4 Complaints Coordination for Foreign Investment|122
3|5.2.5 Administrative Reconsideration|122
3|5.2.6 Litigation|123
3|5.2.7 Summary|124
2|5.3 Interpreting China’s DSMs for FDI-Related Disputes from the Perspective of Chinese Ideology|125
3|5.3.1 Guidance for Dispute Resolution from Chinese Ideology|125
4|5.3.1.1 Guidance from Traditional Philosophies|126
5|Harmony First|126
5|Relationship v. Justice|126
5|Informal Methods v. Formal Mechanisms|127
4|5.3.1.2 Guidance from Socialist Morality|127
3|5.3.2 Connection Between Chinese Ideology and the DSMs in China’s Legal System|128
2|5.4 The Influence of China’s Domestic DSMs: Useful to the Development in Other Jurisdictions?|129
2|5.5 Conclusion|130
2|References|130