• Abstract

    Justifications for Party Autonomy in the Context of Jurisdiction Agreements

    Dr. Brooke Adele Marshall
    University of New South Wales

    Thursday, 12 September – 4:00 pm
    Room W 201, Faculty of Law – Professor-Huber-Platz 2, 80539 Munich

    This paper is concerned with normative reasons for respecting jurisdictional party autonomy. Justifications for the enforcement of exclusive jurisdiction agreements have not been comprehensively explored in the literature, which is surprising given their wide acceptance. Jurisdiction agreements overall have received significantly less theoretical attention than choice-of-law clauses.

  • Abstract

    The Proper Law of Arbitration and Jurisdiction Agreements

    Dr. Carlo de Stefano
    Roma Tre University

    Saturday, 14 September – 9:00 am
    Room V 005, Faculty of Law – Professor-Huber-Platz 2, 80539 Munich

    This paper analyses the issue of the proper law of arbitration and jurisdiction agreements, namely the law that is applicable to their substantive validity. In relation to arbitration agreements, Article V(1)(a) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 (the “New York Convention”) sets forth a two-pronged rule providing for the application of the law elected by the parties (loi d’autonomie) or, in the absence thereof, the law of the country of the seat of the arbitral proceedings or lex (loci) arbitri. While the law of the seat of arbitration is usually applied in civil law jurisdictions to determine the substantive validity of arbitration clauses, the common law of England has traditionally enforced its preference for the application of the law governing the main or matrix contract (lex contractus), especially where the latter was chosen by the parties.

  • Abstract

    Stoppage Time:
    Staying Proceedings after Haaretz.com v

    Prof. Stephen G.A. Pitel
    Western University, Ontario

    Saturday, 14 September – 9:00 am
    Room W 201, Faculty of Law – Professor-Huber-Platz 2, 80539 Munich

    In Haaretz.com v Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28 the Supreme Court of Canada reversed two lower courts and held that the plaintiff’s libel proceedings in Ontario should be stayed because Israel was the clearly more appropriate forum.  The case concerned defamation over the internet.  The plaintiff, a resident of Ontario, alleged that an Israeli newspaper defamed him.  Most readers of the story were in Israel but there were over 200 readers in Ontario.  The decision offers several interesting observations about the discretionary staying of proceedings.

  • Abstract

    Jurisdiction Basis in Cross-border Tourist-Consumer Protection Matters in Borderless Global Tourism Market in the E-commerce Era: A comparative Analysis of China, the EU and the USA

    Zhen Chen
    University of Groningen

    Saturday, 14 September – 9:00 am
    Room V U107, Faculty of Law – Professor-Huber-Platz 2, 80539 Munich

    Protecting foreign tourists is a brand-new issue in private international law in China, which is extremely significant under the One Belt One Road Initiative (OBOR or B&R initiative or BRI). OBOR initiative will inevitably promote the development of Silk Road tourism, and accordingly, an increasing amount of foreign-related tourism disputes will arise. Meanwhile, Silk Road tourism is faced with the fast-changing technology and increasingly-popularized internet usage, E-tourism is imposing new challenges on the traditional legal rules and regulations. Additionally, cross-border tourist-consumers nowadays are travelling in a borderless global tourism market in terms of the diversity and sophiscation of tour activity participants, ranging from international travel agents, airlines, hotels to cruise lines.