Hardback
Procedure and Private International Law
This collection brings together leading English language journal articles in the area of private international law. It focuses on a range of procedural issues that have particular salience for international litigation including the location of proceedings and discovery, class actions and the aggregation of claims, and the professional responsibility challenges for lawyers practicing in multiple jurisdictions. The articles are accompanied by an original introduction, which provides valuable context and insight for the issues addressed. This comprehensive new title is an essential tool for universities, academic institution libraries and international law scholars.
More Information
Contributors
Contents
More Information
This collection brings together leading English language journal articles in the area of private international law. It focuses on a range of procedural issues that have particular salience for international litigation including the location of proceedings and discovery, class actions and the aggregation of claims, and the professional responsibility challenges for lawyers practicing in multiple jurisdictions. The articles are accompanied by an original introduction, which provides valuable context and insight for the issues addressed. This comprehensive new title is an essential tool for universities, academic institution libraries and international law scholars.
Contributors
40 articles, dating from 1965 to 2015
Contributors include: G.A. Bermann, R.A. Brand, H.L. Buxbaum, G.C. Hazard, Jr., D.R. Hensler, S. Issacharoff, F.K. Juenger, A.R. Miller, S.N. Subrin, L.E. Teitz
Contributors include: G.A. Bermann, R.A. Brand, H.L. Buxbaum, G.C. Hazard, Jr., D.R. Hensler, S. Issacharoff, F.K. Juenger, A.R. Miller, S.N. Subrin, L.E. Teitz
Contents
Volume I
Contents:
Acknowledgements
PART I FORUM NON CONVENIENS
1. Friedrich K. Juenger (1989), ‘Forum Shopping, Domestic and International’, Tulane Law Review, 63, 553–74
2. William L. Reynolds (1992), ‘The Proper Forum for a Suit: Transnational Forum Non Conveniens and Counter-Suit Injunctions in the Federal Courts’, Texas Law Review, 70, 1663–714
3. Allan R. Stein (1985), ‘Forum Non Conveniens and the Redundancy of Court-Access Doctrine’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 133, 781–846
4. Ronald A. Brand (2002), ‘Comparative Forum Non Conveniens and the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments’, Texas International Law Journal, 37, 467–98
5. Ronald A. Brand (2013), ‘Challenges to Forum Non Conveniens’, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 45 (4), Summer, 1003–35
6. Dante Figueroa (2005), ‘Conflicts of Jurisdiction Between the United States and Latin America in the Context of Forum Non Conveniens Dismissals’, University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 37, 119–70
PART II PARALLEL LITIGATION, LIS PENDENS, ANTI–SUIT INJUNCTION
7. James P. George (2002), ‘International Parallel Litigation—A Survey of Current Conventions and Model Laws’, Texas International Law Journal, 37, 499–540
8. Louise Ellen Teitz (2004), ‘Both Sides of the Coin: A Decade of Parallel Proceedings and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Transnational Litigation’, Roger Williams University Law Review, 10 (1), Fall, 1–71
9. N. Jansen Calamita (2006), ‘Rethinking Comity: Towards a Coherent Treatment of International Parallel Proceedings’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, 27 (3), 601–80
10. George A. Bermann (1990), ‘The Use of Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Litigation’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 28 , 589–631
PART III CHOICE OF COURT AGREEMENTS
11. Arturo J. Aballi, Jr. (1968), ‘Comparative Developments in the Law of Choice of Forum’, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics , 1 , 178–207
12. Hannah L. Buxbaum (2004), ‘Forum Selection in International Contract Litigation: The Role of Judicial Discretion’, Willamette Journal of International Law and Dispute Resolution , 12 , 185–210
13. Zheng Sophia Tang (2012), ‘Effectiveness of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses in the Chinese Courts—A Pragmatic Study’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly , 61 (2), April, 459–84
14. Walter W. Heiser (2011), ‘Using Anti-Suit Injunctions to Prevent Interdictory Actions and to Enforce Choice of Court Agreements’, Utah Law Review , 3 , 855–79
15. David Kenny and Rosemary Hennigan (2015), ‘Choice-of-Court Agreements, the Italian Torpedo, and the Recast of the Brussels I Regulation’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly , 64 (1), January, 197–209
16. Jeffrey Talpis and Nick Krnjevic (2006), ‘The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of June 30, 2005: The Elephant that Gave Birth to a Mouse’, Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas , 13 , 1–35
PART IV SERVICE OF PROCESS
17. Arthur R. Miller (1965), ‘International Cooperation in Litigation Between the United States and Switzerland: Unilateral Procedural Accommodation in a Test Tube’, Minnesota Law Review , 49 (6), 1069–132
18. G. Brian Raley (1993), ‘A Comparative Analysis: Notice Requirements in Germany, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States’, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law , 10 (2), 301–34
19. Michael O. Eshleman and Judge Stephen A. Wolaver (2010), ‘Prego Signor Postino : Using the Mail to Avoid the Hague Service Convention’s Central Authorities’, Oregon Review of International Law , 12 (2), 283–367
20. Phillip A. Buhler (2002), ‘Transnational Service of Process and Discovery in Federal Court Proceedings: An Overview’, Tulane Maritime Law Journal , 27 (1), Winter, 1–42
21. David P. Stewart and Anna Conley (2007), ‘E-Mail Service on Foreign Defendants: Time for an International Approach?’, Georgetown Journal of International Law , 38 , Summer, 755–802
Volume II
Contents:
PART I DISCOVERY
1. Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr. (1998), ‘Discovery and the Role of the Judge in Civil Law Jurisdictions’, Notre Dame Law Review, 73 (4), 1017–
28
2. David J. Gerber (1986), ‘Extraterritorial Discovery and the Conflict of Procedural Systems: Germany and the United States’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 34, January, 745–88
3. Stephan N. Subrin (2002), ‘Discovery in Global Perspective: Are We Nuts?’, DePaul Law Review, 52 (2), Winter, 299–318
4. Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley (1988), ‘Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention’, International Lawyer, 22 (4), Winter, 939–88
5. David J. Gerber (1988), ‘International Discovery after Aerospatiale: The Quest for an Analytical Framework’, American Journal of International Law, 82 (3), January, 521–55
6. Hannah L. Buxbaum (2003), ‘Assessing Sovereign Interests in Cross-Border Discovery Disputes: Lessons from Aérospatiale’, Texas International Law Journal, 38, 87–101
7. Kristen A. Knapp (2010), ‘Enforcement of U.S. Electronic Discovery Law Against Foreign Companies: Should U.S. Courts Give Effect to the EU Data Protection Directive?’, Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business, 10 (1), 111–33
8. Okezie Chukwumerije (2005), ‘International Judicial Assistance: Revitalizing Section 1782’, George Washington International Law Review, 37 (3), 649–85
PART II AGGREGATE LITIGATION AND CLASS ACTION
9. Deborah R. Hensler (2009), ‘The Globalization of Class Actions: An Overview’, ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622 (1), March, 7–29
10. Samuel Issacharoff (1999), ‘Group Litigation of Consumer Claims: Lessons from the U.S. Experience’, Texas International Law Journal, 34, 135–50
11. S.I. Strong (2012), ‘Regulatory Litigation in the European Union: Does the U.S. Class Action Have a New Analogue?’, Notre Dame Law Review , 88 (2), 899–971
12. Rhonda Wasserman (2011), ‘Transnational Class Actions and Interjurisdictional Preclusion’, Notre Dame Law Review , 86 (1), March, 313–80
13. Linda Sandstrom Simard and Jay Tidmarsh (2011), ‘Foreign Citizens in Transnational Class Actions’, Cornell Law Review , 97, 87–129
PART III MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICE
14. Detlev F. Vagts (1999–2000), ‘Professional Responsibility in Transborder Practice: Conflict and Resolution’, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 13 (4), 677–98
15. Laurel S. Terry (1993), ‘An Introduction to the European Community’s Legal Ethics Code, Part I: An Analysis of the CCBE Code of Conduct ’, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics , 7 (1), Summer, 1–87
16. Laurel S. Terry (1993), ‘An Introduction to the European Community’s Legal Ethics Code, Part II: Applying the CCBE Code of Conduct ’, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics , 7 (2), Fall, 345–94
17. Catherine A. Rogers (2009), ‘Lawyers Without Borders’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law , 30 (4), Summer, 1035–86
18. Richard S. Pike (2006), ‘The English Law of Legal Professional Privilege: A Guide for American Attorneys’, Loyola University Chicago International Law Review , 4 (1), Fall–Winter, 51–89
19. Janine Griffiths-Baker and Nancy J. Moore (2012), ‘Regulating Conflicts of Interest in Global Law Firms: Peace in Our Time?’, Fordham Law Review , 80 (6), May, 2541–67
Index
Contents:
Acknowledgements
PART I FORUM NON CONVENIENS
1. Friedrich K. Juenger (1989), ‘Forum Shopping, Domestic and International’, Tulane Law Review, 63, 553–74
2. William L. Reynolds (1992), ‘The Proper Forum for a Suit: Transnational Forum Non Conveniens and Counter-Suit Injunctions in the Federal Courts’, Texas Law Review, 70, 1663–714
3. Allan R. Stein (1985), ‘Forum Non Conveniens and the Redundancy of Court-Access Doctrine’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 133, 781–846
4. Ronald A. Brand (2002), ‘Comparative Forum Non Conveniens and the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments’, Texas International Law Journal, 37, 467–98
5. Ronald A. Brand (2013), ‘Challenges to Forum Non Conveniens’, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 45 (4), Summer, 1003–35
6. Dante Figueroa (2005), ‘Conflicts of Jurisdiction Between the United States and Latin America in the Context of Forum Non Conveniens Dismissals’, University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 37, 119–70
PART II PARALLEL LITIGATION, LIS PENDENS, ANTI–SUIT INJUNCTION
7. James P. George (2002), ‘International Parallel Litigation—A Survey of Current Conventions and Model Laws’, Texas International Law Journal, 37, 499–540
8. Louise Ellen Teitz (2004), ‘Both Sides of the Coin: A Decade of Parallel Proceedings and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Transnational Litigation’, Roger Williams University Law Review, 10 (1), Fall, 1–71
9. N. Jansen Calamita (2006), ‘Rethinking Comity: Towards a Coherent Treatment of International Parallel Proceedings’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, 27 (3), 601–80
10. George A. Bermann (1990), ‘The Use of Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Litigation’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 28 , 589–631
PART III CHOICE OF COURT AGREEMENTS
11. Arturo J. Aballi, Jr. (1968), ‘Comparative Developments in the Law of Choice of Forum’, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics , 1 , 178–207
12. Hannah L. Buxbaum (2004), ‘Forum Selection in International Contract Litigation: The Role of Judicial Discretion’, Willamette Journal of International Law and Dispute Resolution , 12 , 185–210
13. Zheng Sophia Tang (2012), ‘Effectiveness of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses in the Chinese Courts—A Pragmatic Study’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly , 61 (2), April, 459–84
14. Walter W. Heiser (2011), ‘Using Anti-Suit Injunctions to Prevent Interdictory Actions and to Enforce Choice of Court Agreements’, Utah Law Review , 3 , 855–79
15. David Kenny and Rosemary Hennigan (2015), ‘Choice-of-Court Agreements, the Italian Torpedo, and the Recast of the Brussels I Regulation’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly , 64 (1), January, 197–209
16. Jeffrey Talpis and Nick Krnjevic (2006), ‘The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of June 30, 2005: The Elephant that Gave Birth to a Mouse’, Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas , 13 , 1–35
PART IV SERVICE OF PROCESS
17. Arthur R. Miller (1965), ‘International Cooperation in Litigation Between the United States and Switzerland: Unilateral Procedural Accommodation in a Test Tube’, Minnesota Law Review , 49 (6), 1069–132
18. G. Brian Raley (1993), ‘A Comparative Analysis: Notice Requirements in Germany, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States’, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law , 10 (2), 301–34
19. Michael O. Eshleman and Judge Stephen A. Wolaver (2010), ‘Prego Signor Postino : Using the Mail to Avoid the Hague Service Convention’s Central Authorities’, Oregon Review of International Law , 12 (2), 283–367
20. Phillip A. Buhler (2002), ‘Transnational Service of Process and Discovery in Federal Court Proceedings: An Overview’, Tulane Maritime Law Journal , 27 (1), Winter, 1–42
21. David P. Stewart and Anna Conley (2007), ‘E-Mail Service on Foreign Defendants: Time for an International Approach?’, Georgetown Journal of International Law , 38 , Summer, 755–802
Volume II
Contents:
PART I DISCOVERY
1. Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr. (1998), ‘Discovery and the Role of the Judge in Civil Law Jurisdictions’, Notre Dame Law Review, 73 (4), 1017–
28
2. David J. Gerber (1986), ‘Extraterritorial Discovery and the Conflict of Procedural Systems: Germany and the United States’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 34, January, 745–88
3. Stephan N. Subrin (2002), ‘Discovery in Global Perspective: Are We Nuts?’, DePaul Law Review, 52 (2), Winter, 299–318
4. Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley (1988), ‘Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention’, International Lawyer, 22 (4), Winter, 939–88
5. David J. Gerber (1988), ‘International Discovery after Aerospatiale: The Quest for an Analytical Framework’, American Journal of International Law, 82 (3), January, 521–55
6. Hannah L. Buxbaum (2003), ‘Assessing Sovereign Interests in Cross-Border Discovery Disputes: Lessons from Aérospatiale’, Texas International Law Journal, 38, 87–101
7. Kristen A. Knapp (2010), ‘Enforcement of U.S. Electronic Discovery Law Against Foreign Companies: Should U.S. Courts Give Effect to the EU Data Protection Directive?’, Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business, 10 (1), 111–33
8. Okezie Chukwumerije (2005), ‘International Judicial Assistance: Revitalizing Section 1782’, George Washington International Law Review, 37 (3), 649–85
PART II AGGREGATE LITIGATION AND CLASS ACTION
9. Deborah R. Hensler (2009), ‘The Globalization of Class Actions: An Overview’, ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622 (1), March, 7–29
10. Samuel Issacharoff (1999), ‘Group Litigation of Consumer Claims: Lessons from the U.S. Experience’, Texas International Law Journal, 34, 135–50
11. S.I. Strong (2012), ‘Regulatory Litigation in the European Union: Does the U.S. Class Action Have a New Analogue?’, Notre Dame Law Review , 88 (2), 899–971
12. Rhonda Wasserman (2011), ‘Transnational Class Actions and Interjurisdictional Preclusion’, Notre Dame Law Review , 86 (1), March, 313–80
13. Linda Sandstrom Simard and Jay Tidmarsh (2011), ‘Foreign Citizens in Transnational Class Actions’, Cornell Law Review , 97, 87–129
PART III MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICE
14. Detlev F. Vagts (1999–2000), ‘Professional Responsibility in Transborder Practice: Conflict and Resolution’, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 13 (4), 677–98
15. Laurel S. Terry (1993), ‘An Introduction to the European Community’s Legal Ethics Code, Part I: An Analysis of the CCBE Code of Conduct ’, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics , 7 (1), Summer, 1–87
16. Laurel S. Terry (1993), ‘An Introduction to the European Community’s Legal Ethics Code, Part II: Applying the CCBE Code of Conduct ’, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics , 7 (2), Fall, 345–94
17. Catherine A. Rogers (2009), ‘Lawyers Without Borders’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law , 30 (4), Summer, 1035–86
18. Richard S. Pike (2006), ‘The English Law of Legal Professional Privilege: A Guide for American Attorneys’, Loyola University Chicago International Law Review , 4 (1), Fall–Winter, 51–89
19. Janine Griffiths-Baker and Nancy J. Moore (2012), ‘Regulating Conflicts of Interest in Global Law Firms: Peace in Our Time?’, Fordham Law Review , 80 (6), May, 2541–67
Index