The third problem of the Journal of Non-public Worldwide Legislation encompasses a particular problem in honour of Professor Trevor Hartley.
It gives as follows (with different analysis articles):
Jacco Bomhoff, Uglješa Gruši? & Manuel Penades Fons, “Introduction to the particular problem in honour of Professor Trevor Hartley”
Jacco Bomhoff, Uglješa Gruši? & Manuel Penades Fons, “Professor Trevor C Hartley’s Bibliography”
Jacco Bomhoff, “Legislation made for man: Trevor Hartley and the making of a “fashionable strategy” in European and personal worldwide legislation”
This text gives an outline and an interpretation of Trevor Hartley’s scholarship within the fields of personal worldwide legislation and EU legislation. It argues that Hartley’s work, starting within the mid-Nineteen Sixties and spanning nearly six many years, exhibits putting affinities with two broader outlooks and genres of authorized discourse which have roots on this similar interval. These might be discovered, firstly, within the strategy of senior English judges dedicated to “internationalising” the battle of legal guidelines within the post-war period; and, secondly, within the so-called “authorized course of” present of scholarship that was particularly influential in American legislation faculties from the late Nineteen Fifties onwards. Studying Hartley’s writings towards these backgrounds will help illuminate, and maybe to some small extent complicate, two labels he himself has given to his personal work: of a “fashionable strategy”, wherein “legislation is made for man, not man for the legislation”.
Adrian Briggs, “What stays of the Brussels I Regulation within the English battle of legal guidelines?”
The paper argues that whether or not we’re involved with retained or assimilated EU legal guidelines, or with guidelines of UK legislation made as shut copies of EU legal guidelines, preliminary encouragement to interpret them as if they have been nonetheless guidelines of EU legislation is coming to be, and needs to be, changed by a cooler realisation that, as they not operate in English legislation as cogs in a fantastic European authorized building, they need to be reassessed and repurposed to serve the needs of home legislation. That may imply, for good or in poor health, that the tangible and intangible impact of the Brussels I Regulation on English legislation is much less, and can come to be a lot much less, than some had supposed.
Hans van Loon, “A view from the Hague”
This text highlights the essential position of Trevor Hartley because the principal writer of the Explanatory Report of the 2005 Hague Alternative of Courtroom Conference. His exhaustive and crystal-clear explanations, for instance on the Conference’s subtle guidelines on mental property and its relation to the Brussels I Regulation, are a long-lasting, indispensable assist to its right interpretation and software. They even make clear some elements of the 2019 Hague Judgments Conference. The article additionally recollects Trevor Hartley’s important position within the European Group for Non-public Worldwide Legislation, of which he has been an unique member since 1991, more often than not as the one consultant of a common-law authorized system. Lastly, this contribution praises Trevor Hartley’s distinctive scholarly and pedagogical qualities, as evidenced notably by his extensively used Worldwide Industrial Litigation.
Linda Silberman, “Trevor Hartley: champion for the Hague Alternative of Courtroom Conference”
This text, in tribute to Professor Trevor Hartley, discusses the controversy between Gary Born and Professor Hartley about whether or not nations ought to ratify the Hague Alternative of Courtroom Conference. It additionally explains how that debate contributed to the conclusions reached by a New York Metropolis Bar Committee that was requested by the USA State Division for its views on ratification of the Conference.
Alex Mills, “Assessing the Hague Conference on Alternative of Courtroom Agreements 2005”
Virtually twenty years after the adoption of the Hague Alternative of Courtroom Conference 2005, it might be an acceptable second to mirror on and assess its legacy to this point. This text, a part of a difficulty paying tribute to the work of Professor Trevor Hartley, notes quite a lot of alternative ways wherein the legacy of the Conference could also be evaluated, significantly appreciating the necessary position of the Explanatory Report co-authored by Professor Hartley. It argues that the Conference shouldn’t be judged merely primarily based on the (admittedly restricted, however maybe rising) variety of state events, but additionally considering its wider affect in quite a lot of totally different respects which can solid a extra constructive gentle on its achievement. These embrace the significance of the Conference to the Hague Convention on Non-public Worldwide Legislation, the tender energy of the Conference, and the position of the Conference in preserving the enforceability of UK judgments primarily based on unique jurisdiction agreements in European Union Member States however Brexit.
Andrew Dickinson, “Anti-suit injunctions – past comity”
This quick article considers a theme rising from Trevor Hartley’s writing on the subject of anti-suit injunctions – the importance of the existence of a global treaty that regulates the circumstances wherein the States involved could or should assert, and will or should decline, jurisdiction with respect to the subject material of the dispute. It examines, specifically, latest case legislation extending the attain of the European Union’s prohibition on anti-suit injunctions inside the Brussels I regime, and the place of anti-suit injunctions inside the framework of the Hague Alternative of Courtroom Conference.
Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, “Iconic asymmetries of our instances: “tremendous Highways” and “jungle tracks” in transnational entry to justice”
Drawing from Hartley’s “Multinational Companies and the Third World: A Battle-of-Legal guidelines Evaluation” the place he exposes the “unequal combat” between highly effective multinational companies and the individuals and communities in “the third world”, suggesting that that is partly a consequence of the deficits of authorized infrastructures therein, this temporary contribution dwells on the worldwide systemic influence of channelling authorized proceedings justiciable within the International South (GS) to courts within the International North (GN). It takes a non-public worldwide legislation and sustainable improvement perspective and attracts consideration to the rhetoric and narratives of interdependence between the “tremendous highways” and the “jungle tracks”- the illustrations utilized by Hartley. The primary argument taken ahead on this paper is that to understand non-public worldwide legislation’s contribution to SDG 16 (peace, justice and robust establishments) responsivity is important in jurisdictional determination making on this context to boost entry to justice for all within the GS.
Grace Underhill, “Masterstroke or misguided? Assessing the proposed parallel proceedings resolution of the Hague Convention on Non-public Worldwide Legislation and the chance of its acceptance in Australia”
A dispute litigated concurrently in two totally different jurisdictions wastes time and assets, and dangers inconsistent judgments. In March 2024, the Hague Conference on Non-public Worldwide Legislation’s Working Group on issues associated to civil and industrial jurisdiction launched its third iteration of draft provisions on parallel proceedings. These provisions signify the groundwork (and one chapter) of a long-awaited worldwide instrument that addresses the belief and declining of jurisdiction. This text canvasses the proposal’s successes and failures in securing the continuance of litigation in a single discussion board. To help, this text selects the instance of Australia, towards whose judicial follow the compatibility of the Working Group’s proposal is examined. This train identifies basic inconsistencies between the 2 schemes. These (probably insurmountable) considerations for judicial follow, alongside bureaucratic stagnation in Australia’s policy-making urge for food on this space should, it’s argued, be balanced towards the robust normative influences for Australia’s accession to such an settlement. This invitations concern for the acceptance of the proposal, and the broader way forward for the Jurisdiction Challenge as an entire.
Tobias Lutzi, “What stays of H Restricted? Recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgments after Brexit: Journal of Non-public Worldwide Legislation”
In its controversial determination in H Restricted, the Courtroom of Justice held that an English affirmation judgment, remodeling two Jordanian judgments into an English one, constituted a judgment within the sense of Articles 2(a) and 39 Brussels Ia and, as such, certified for automated recognition and enforcement in all Member States. The choice has been closely criticized for seemingly violating the rule towards double exequatur and probably opening a backdoor into the European Space of Justice. As the actual door in query has already been closed with the UK’s accomplished withdrawal from the EU, although, artful judgment collectors should look to different Member States. This paper will make an try at figuring out these jurisdictions to which they may look. For this function, it’s going to first argue that for an enforcement determination to fall beneath Chapter III of the Regulation, two necessities have to be fulfilled: It have to be a brand new determination on the judgment debt (quite than a mere declaration of enforceability) and it should have come out of adversarial proceedings. The paper will then look in additional element at a number of jurisdictions which may fulfil these two necessities.
