Private international climate-change litigation to the test: Lluiya v. RWE, or how Article 17 of Rome II is a GHG emitter’s ace up the sleeve
Dr. Eduardo Alvarez-Armas
Brunel Law School, London
Prof. Nikitas Hatzimihail / Prof. Arnaud Nuyts
University of Cyprus / Université Libre de Bruxelles
Cyprus / Belgium
Dr. Marko Jovanovic
University of Belgrade
Dr. Omar Vanin
University of Padova
Several legal systems grant individuals the possibility to voluntarily end their life when clinical or psychological conditions do not allow to live a “tolerable” life.
This applies, inter alia, to Belgium and the Netherlands (since 2002), Luxembourg (since 2009), Switzerland (formally since 1918, but practiced by special organisations since 1980s), Canada (since 2015, though special legislation is still to be implemented), Colombia (allowed since 1997 and regulated since 2015), and some U.S. States, such as Oregon and California.
Prof. Stephen G.A. Pitel
Western University, Ontario
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.
Dr. Ekin Omeroglu
Kadir Has University Istanbul
Party autonomy principle represents one of the fundamental pillars of private law. In private international law, which deals with legal relationships beyond national borders, the principle of party autonomy is given effect by choice of law rules. Choice of law has been widely recognized in respect of contractual obligations for a long time. However, party autonomy in intellectual property infringement disputes has been an unvalued issue and choice of law by parties was simply considered as non-existent.
Prof. Koji Takahashi
Doshisha University, Kyoto
This paper will consider a range of choice-of-law issues arising from crypto-assets on blockchains.
(1) Contractual issues. Suppose that a contract is concluded pursuant to which bitcoins are offered to purchase goods. Given that cryptocurrencies are not a fiat currency and might not be seen as goods, is that contract to be characterised as a “sale of goods”, a “barter of goods”, or a “barter of service for goods” for the choice-of-law purposes? Aside from the question of characterization, blockchains will not raise particularly difficult choice-of-law questions in contract since party autonomy is almost universally adopted.