Transnational litigation

The nature of the arbitration agreement in most legal systems (at least legal systems other than common law) is somewhat unclear. Presently, it is not possible to make any decisive statements as to which theory is the only correct one. On the other hand, it is necessary to examine each arbitration agreement invoked by the parties at the beginning of the proceedings and choose one of the current theories mentioned above. The classification of the arbitration agreement might, under certain circumstances, be the decisive element in determining the rules, i.e. procedural or substantive rules, applicable to the arbitration agreement. In civil law tradtion arbitration agreements may be defined as procedural agreements in broader sense, which does not have effects in proceedings only, but which are of substantial significance for qualitative evaluation of the substantive contractual relation between parties. Nevertheless, despite a mixed nature of arbitration agreements (as well as all jurisdictional agreements), jurisdiction is a procedural and not substantive category in the civil law tradition and jurisdiction remains the procedural condition (procedural requirement). Taking decision on jurisdiction in arbitration by partial award is in contradiction to the concept of jurisdiction as a procedural category, rather an interim award may be used for such decisions. Jurisdictional decisions taken in course of arbitration are, however, not substantive decisions and do not effect any Res Judicata. Some of civil law jurisdictions, completely in compliance with the concept of jurisdiction as procedural category, therefore deny to set-aside jurisdictional awards rendered prior to rendering award(s) on the merits of the dispute. Having any civil law dimension in arbitration, it may cause significant problems to the parties, if the arbitral tribunal decides on jurisdiction by a separate jurisdictional award.

Si tratta del "report" italiano per la sessione in materia di "Optional choice-of-court agreements" a XX Congresso internazionale della Accademia internazionale di diritto comparato, tenutosi a Fukuoka (Giappone) nel luglio 2018. Nel report si analizza la disciplina delle clausole opzionali di scelta del foro alla luce della normativa e della giurisprudenza in materia, per giungere a concludere che tali clausole sono ammissibili e rispettate nel nostro ordinamento processuale.

We can conclude that non-state rules may include both lex mercatoria, i.e. the law of international merchants, which is not perceived in any uniform way, and currently perhaps also selected rules of EU law, provided that no legal relations are involved that have no connection to the European area. Lex mercatoria can be defined as including international trade usages (such as INCOTERMS, which have become rather popular), generally recognised legal principles (for instance, pacta sunt servanda), and collections of principles governing international agreements (e.g. UNIDROIT Principles).

Lex mercatoria can be applied both in arbitration and in litigation based on four theoretical approaches. The first applicable method is subsidiary application, i.e. lex mercatoria is applied within the limits of binding provisions of applicable law – this method does not raise any problems in practice. Another possibility is application equivalent to national legal systems, i.e. based on the conflict-of-laws method. This method is currently considered controversial and is suitable for arbitration, rather than litigation. The third possibility is the preferential application of lex mercatoria – this is, however, a very extreme approach, even within international commercial arbitration, and requires the due assessment of all relevant circumstances. This category may also include negative choice of law, which postulates that the parties opted for lex mercatoria, because they did not choose any applicable law. This is, again, controversial doctrine, which may only be applied if we first take into consideration all of the circumstances of the case, and primarily the will of the parties. The fourth and last possibility is the ex post choice of law.

As concerns practical possibilities of application, the most frequently employed method is the application of non-state rules in connection with arbitration, where the courts control the proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Academics agree that the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award cannot be refused, should the sole grounds for refusal be the fact that the award is based on lex mercatoria. Another possibility of applying non-state rules in courts is application based on domestic laws. The third possibility is the application of non-state rules based on the parties’ choice, i.e. the parties may opt for non-state law. Even if some of the parties disagree, it is possible to envisage the application of non-state rules in litigation, though rather as soft law, i.e. a tool or inspiration for the resolution of the given case. This would be similar to the application of foreign law or foreign case law.

We can also imagine, subject to certain conditions, the application of non-state rules in domestic disputes: (i) if the parties agree to do so, in which case, again, non-state rules would be applied within the limits of binding rules of the applicable law, or (ii) at the court’s discretion. In such case, the court should have regard for any and all circumstances, such as the parties’ experience with international trade, as well as the method of application. The application of non-state rules as soft law can be accepted without objections. Both arbitral tribunals and courts have become more open to non-state rules – for instance, the fact that a decision or award is based on lex mercatoria is not eo ipso contrary to public policy (ordre public).
The application of non-state legal standards is intertwined with the irreplaceable role of a first-rate pre- and post-graduate system of education, and with interactions between extensive practice, on the one hand, and education and training, on the other. This is the reason why schools and other educational institutions must be addressed, and such quality of lectures and courses must be emphasised that will guarantee a high level of theoretical training and high-quality and solid incentives and information from practice. The reason is that this very requirement attains qualified dimensions in the case of trade and legal usages (international, as well as national and regional). The potential of cooperation between educational institutions and international organisations mostly remains untapped – and not only those that create and apply contract templates, unify recommendations, or formulate trade and legal principles, etc.

В заключение можно сказать, что негосударственные правила могут включать в себя, во-первых, lex mercatoria, т. е. право участников международных коммерческих отношений, относительно понимания которого отсутствует единое мнение, во-вторых, в настоящее время, очевидно, и некоторые правовые нормы ЕС, при условии, что речь идет о правоотношениях, в которых отсутствует связь с европейским пространством. Составляющей lex mercatoria можно считать международные торговые обычаи (например, ИНКОТЕРМС, которые в значительной степени стали популярными), общепризнанные правовые принципы или основы (например, pacta sunt servanda) и свод принципов международных договоров (например, Принципы УНИДРУА).

Lex mercatoria может применяться как арбитражами, так и судами общей юрисдикции на основе четырех теоретических подходов. Первым является субсидиарное применение, когда lex mercatoria применяется в рамках когентных положений применяемого права – на практике данный способ применения не встречается с какими-либо проблемами. Вторым вариантом является применение, равноценное национальным правовым системам, т. е. на основании коллизионного метода. В настоящее время данный способ является спорным и применяется скорее арбитражными судами, чем судами общей юрисдикции. Третий вариант – это преимущественное применение lex mercatoria, которое, однако, является крайним случаем даже в контексте международного торгового арбитража, требующего рассмотрения всех существенных обстоятельств. Сюда также можно включить отрицательный выбор права (negative choice), когда предполагается, что стороны, не выбрав применимое право, выбрали именно lex mercatoria. И в данном случае речь снова идет о спорной доктрине, перед применением которой необходимо взвесить все обстоятельства дела и, прежде всего, учесть волеизъявление сторон. Четвертым и последним вариантом является дополнительный выбор права.

С точки зрения практического применения на первом месте (с учетом частоты применения) находится применение негосударственных правил в связи с арбитражным разбирательством, когда суды осуществляют контрольную функцию в ходе разбирательства о признании и приведении в исполнение иностранных арбитражных решений. В этом случае доктрина признает, что нельзя отказать в признании и приведении в исполнение решения иностранного суда только по той причине, что оно основано на lex mercatoria.  Следующим возможным применением негосударственных правил в судах общей юрисдикции является применение на основании национальных правовых норм. Третьим вариантом является применение негосударственных правил на основании выбора сторон, когда стороны могут выбрать негосударственное право. Даже если не все стороны согласны, можно рассматривать возможность применения негосударственных норм судами общей юрисдикции, однако, скорее как т. н. soft law, т. е. в качестве пособия или источника инспирации при рассмотрении и разрешении спора. Аналогично применяется иностранное право или иностранные документы судебной практики.

При определенных условиях также возможно применение негосударственных правил во внутригосударственных спорах. Это, прежде всего, споры, в которых стороны согласуют применение негосударственных правил в рамках когентных положений применяемого права, или по усмотрению суда. В данном случае суд должен рассмотреть все обстоятельства, например, опыт сторон с международной торговлей, а также способ применения. Против применения негосударственных правил как soft law нельзя возражать. В контексте наблюдается растущий интерес арбитражных судов, а также судов [общей юрисдикции/государственных] к негосударственным правилам, который проявляется, например, в том, что основание решения на lex mercatoria еще не означает противоречие публичному порядку.
В связи с применением негосударственных правовых норм важную роль играет качественная вузовская и послевузовская образовательная система и взаимодействие широкой практики с воспитанием и обучением. Поэтому необходимо обращать особое внимание на воспитательные и образовательные учреждения, а также на качество содержания обучения, гарантирующее как высокий уровень теоретической подготовки, так и качественные и обоснованные стимулы и сведения из практики. Именно это требование в торговых и правовых обычаях (международных, а также национальных и региональных) приобретает важность с точки зрения квалификации. В основном остается нереализованным потенциал в области сотрудничества между образовательными учреждениями и международными организациями, причем не только теми, которые занимаются созданием и применением образцов договоров, объединяющих рекомендаций, формулировок торговых и правовых принципов и т. п.

This article presents a study of the so-called ‘unilateral’ (‘optional’, ‘hybrid’) jurisdiction clauses combining arbitration and choice of court options, which business tends to favour as such clauses seek to designate a method of dispute resolution that provides a more favourable position for one of the parties to an agreement and ensure better enforcement against a debtor’s assets. However, there are a growing number of jurisdictions where courts have issued decisions that declare such clauses either invalid or as having a significant defect. This study makes a review of both common law and continental jurisdictions and focuses particularly on a number of decisions issued recently in continental jurisdictions making an assessment of the arguments that are typically employed by courts in order to find that a unilateral clause is invalid. Finally, this study proposes a method of interpretation of unilateral jurisdiction clauses which favours their validity or, where there is a significant defect, proposes partial invalidity and severance instead of invalidity of the entire clause.

Resumo: Aborda-se os chamados métodos online de resolução de disputas (ODR – online dispute resolution) sobretudo para expor um novo ponto de vista sob o qual defendemos o direito processual passa a ser – e precisa ser – também analisado. O uso do ODR tem crescido em conjunto com o desenvolvimento de uma visão moderna do acesso à justiça, no sentido de que não se limita à solução adjudicada estatal e ela não deve ser ofertada como opção imediata e primária; quando o litígio é passível de ser resolvido por outros meios, a intervenção judicial não pode ser considerada sequer necessária ou útil. É o caso, com efeito, de promover e incentivar esses métodos (quando legítimos) para prevenir e evitar conflitos e ações judiciais e não apenas para resolvê-las quando já estiverem em curso (i.e., quando recursos públicos e privados já tiverem sido desnecessariamente despendidos). De forma crucial, aliás, O ODR fora – ou melhor, antes – da esfera judicial é um passo fundamental para cada vez mais se afastar o Brasil da “cultura da sentença” e aproximá-lo da tão desejada “cultura da pacificação”.

Abstract: This paper addresses the so-called online dispute resolution methods (ODR) with the core purpose of presenting a new point of view under which we sustain procedural law is to (and must) be analyzed. The use of ODR has been growing alongside with the development of a modern theory of access to justice, in the sense that it is not limited to court adjudication, which must not be offered as the immediate and primary option; when conflicts can be resolved by other means, court intervention must not be considered even necessary or useful. Thus, it is the case to promote and foster such methods (when proved legitimate) to prevent and avoid conflicts and lawsuits and not only to solve the latter when they are already under way (i.e., when public and private resources would already have been unnecessarily expended). More importantly, ODR outside of – or better, before – the courts consist of a crucial step to increasingly move Brazil away from the existing “culture of the award” and approximate it to the desired “culture of pacification”.

Sostiene el autor que la clave de la eficiencia en el arbitraje no radica tanto en una intervención del árbitro puramente procedimental, externa, cuantitativa, consistente en la poda de plazos o posibilidades probatorias, cuanto en una adecuada y temprana intervención cualitativa, que contribuya a armonizar elementos jurídicos y terminológicos dispares, configurar con claridad los términos del debate sobre el fondo del litigio y trazar los cauces por los que éste deba discurrir. Siendo el arbitraje, además, un verdadero sistema de justicia, la eficiencia requiere el concurso de todos cuantos participan en él: abogados, árbitros y, muy en especial, jueces. De la lealtad de todos y cada uno de ellos dependerá la mayor o menor eficiencia del arbitraje como proceso y como sistema.

The author maintains that the key to efficiency in arbitration does not lie in the arbitrator's purely procedural, external, quantitative intervention, consisting in pruning deadlines or probative possibilities, but rather in an adequate and early qualitative intervention. This early intervention can contribute to harmonize disparate legal and terminological elements, clearly set the terms of the debate on the merits of the dispute, and trace the channels through which this debate will run. In addition, since arbitration is truly a justice system, efficiency requires the participation of all those who intervene in the arbitration process: counsel, arbitrators, and especially judges. The greater or lesser efficiency of arbitration is dependent on the loyalty of each and all of them to arbitration as a process and as a system.

In common law jurisdictions litigants are free to represent themselves in person. A right to self-representation in civil proceedings has been taken for granted as an obvious expression of the right of access to court. Consequently, no attempt has been made to investigate the theoretical justification of self-representation, and mandatory legal representation has never been contemplated. This article identifies three possible reasons for the conflation of the right to litigate in person with the right of access to court: (1) the long history of self-representation, (2) the conceptual perception of procedural rights as necessarily personal, and (3) the empirical belief that litigants in person are typically poor. The article challenges the capacity of these reasons to justify vesting litigants with an unfettered power to decide whether to represent themselves in person or to instruct counsel. It argues that as a matter of principle the right of access to court does not entail a right to self-representation in all circumstances. When a litigant in person lacks the skills and expertise to conduct his or her case competently and imposes a disproportionate strain on court resources, the court should be entitled to require the litigant to obtain legal representation as a prerequisite for proceeding with the case.

The seat of arbitration seems to be one of the most important issues to be agreed within an arbitration agreement. It directly influences a number of issues: arbitrability, determination of the governing law, whether substantive or procedural, and determination of the place for the proceedings on annulment of the arbitral award (and for the exercise of the juge d´appui and supervisory functions of courts with respect to arbitration). The examples of many countries clearly illustrate that the ideas of the denationalization of arbitration are somewhat chimerical, especially because the states desire to preserve a certain degree of control over arbitration; it also demonstrates the fact that the denationalization of arbitration generally does not even correspond to the actual interest of the parties. The reason often inheres in the greater security guaranteed in localized proceedings. Consequently, the denationalization of arbitration has never been fully implemented, and it appears that it has become a very marginal issue.

International treaties therefore have priority over provisions of domestic origin (domestic lex arbitri). This mainly concerns two conventions, namely the New York Convention (1958) and the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (1961). In the field of international arbitration, specifically the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, these two conventions were historically preceded by two international treaty acts. If it is possible to apply both the provisions of bilateral interstate treaties (as mentioned above, primarily the legal assistance treaties) and the provisions of multilateral conventions, then the bilateral treaties are usually prioritized as a quasi lex specialis. Mainly the reflection the bilateral treaties (legal assistance treaties), but often also the reflection of the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (1961) will often be omitted.

How do activist plaintiffs experience the process of human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS)? Answering this question is key to understanding the impact on transnational legal mobilization of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., in which the US Supreme Court sharply limited the scope of the ATS. Yet sociolegal scholars know remarkably little about the experiences of ATS litigants, before or after Kiobel. This article describes how activist litigants in a landmark ATS class action against former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos faced a series of strategic dilemmas, and how disagreements over how to resolve those dilemmas played into divisions between activists and organizations on the Philippine left. The article develops an analytical framework focused on litigation dilemmas to explain how and why activists who pursue ATS litigation as an opportunity for legal mobilization may also encounter strategic dilemmas that contribute to dissension within a social movement.

Among so many writings devoted to the third-party funding phenomenon, very few elaborate on one specific feature of this business model. Rather than a hidden facet, it is a real overarching characteristic, amounting to a fundamental principle of law: the right of access to justice. This aspect may have a potential impact in investment arbitration: serving as a capsule for new perspectives on the third-party funding realm, it may lead us to consider that a third-party funding investment is a protected investment under international investment agreements.
On the other hand, consideration of recent developments and the experience of financial products in the investment arbitration setting may also provide additional grounds to posit such protection.
This article endeavours to assess whether this protection may be accorded to third-party funding business models.

Within the realm of International Relations (IR) and research on Global Governance, one observation is clear. The growth of non-state actors in all the various types have grown exponentially to help states govern and lead their publics. Facebook should be considered as such, a non-state actor (transnational organization) which wields significant influence and power globally.

This course will explore the field of international commercial arbitration, which has become the default method of dispute resolution. Students can expect to study both Philippine and foreign commentaries, statutes and case law on the subject.  Topics include (1) an introduction to the field of commercial arbitration, now the “main” – as opposed to “alternative” – mode of dispute resolution; (2) domestic arbitration in the historical perspective; (3) UNCITRAL Model Law, New York Convention, other treaty frameworks, and their international responses; (4) the arbitration process, from agreement to enforcement; (5) judicial policing of arbitration; (6) the development of the function of arbitration in foreign investment law; (7) arbitration in state contracts; (8) making use of special opportunities for clients; (9) survey of existing Philippine laws and rules on ADR; and (10) arbitration and the Rule of Law.

COMMENTARIES ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
VOL. 2, ISSUE 2, WINTER 2016

EDITOR’S NOTES

We are pleased to present the second issue of Commentaries on Private International Law, the newsletter of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) Private International Law Interest Group (PILIG). As readers of the newsletter know, the name of our newsletter, Commentaries, represents a modest tribute to one of the founding fathers of modern PIL, Joseph Story, by borrowing the name of his seminal book “Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, foreign and domestic,” and only replacing “Conflict of Laws” with “Private International Law” to better reflect the broader object of our discipline today.

The primary purpose of our newsletter is to communicate news on PIL. Accordingly, the newsletter attempts to transmit information on new developments on PIL rather than provide substantive analysis, with a view to providing specific and concise raw information that our readers can then use in their daily work. These new developments on PIL may include information on new laws, rules and regulations; new judicial and arbitral decisions; new treaties and conventions; new scholarly work; new conferences; proposed new pieces of legislation; and the like.

This thesis examines the influence of the governments of the Member States of the European Union (EU) on the decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Part One develops an analytical framework inspired by  Giddens' structuration theory, which offers both a general understanding of the ECJ decision-making process, and helps assess governments' influence in and on that process. It identifies and exposes the evolving internal (i.e. organisational, procedural, substantive and normative) and external (i.e. legal, political, economical and social) structures which impact on judicial decisions at EU level, and agents that take part in and shape this process (i.e. ECJ judges, Advocate General and staff, EC institutions, national judges, individuals, companies, interest groups, academics, journalists, national MPs, actors of the civil society, etc.), so as to provide an understanding of how varying actors-structures combinations may open or close governmental opportunities for influence in and on the ECJ decision-making process.
In Part Two, it engages in an examination of the various means by which national governments participate in that process, by acting either outside the Court, collectively (i.e. control over the Court’s procedures, powers and jurisdictions, over the legal framework, over the political process, etc.) or individually (i.e. criticism of the ECJ, political appointments or non-compliance), or inside the Court, especially by taking part in preliminary reference proceedings. This analysis leads to conclusions on national governments’ capacity to influence Community case law and on the desirability of such influence, within the context of democratic and pluralist decision-making and law-making at EU level.

This research will analyse corporate legal accountability of parent companies for transnational human rights violations committed by a subsidiary. To this end, the paper will first examine the current international status of MNCs regarding their duty to respect human rights and the different legal approaches that would permit the establishment of liability of the parent company at the national level in their home court. We argue the necessity of parent company liability as a means to access substantive justice and to close the current regulatory gap regarding corporate acts and human rights abuses. Via the legal analysis of the cases, we scrutinize the possibility and the methods under each system to bring the parent company and the subsidiary under the home court jurisdiction for foreign subsidiary HR violations. Despite the lack of a parent company liability doctrine, the situational approach and the different views regarding proximity in the corporate structure, determining the presence or the lack of foreign direct liability, we find several patterns and common features that might further determine the possibility to sue the parent company for human rights abuses in their home court and the subsequent potential future legal liability. We do a comparative study to determine the main obstacles to the establishment of jurisdiction over the case and the potential of this new jurisdictional decisions to establish a precedent in future litigation. Finally we consider the possibility of a broadened duty of care in parallel with recent legal developments concerning mandatory HRDD requirements, the need to connect HRDD with jurisprudence to develop expansive liability (a widening of the duty of care) based on the companies HRDD policies and commitments to establish the factual involvement and liability of the parent, and the limits of this approach.

This essay briefly explains how Darul Islam developed, its relationship with Indonesian history and the role it has played in promoting the issue of Jihad in Indonesia. Literally, Darul Islam means Islamic State.  The history of Darul Islam starts with an explanation of the complex character of Kartosuwiryo, the founder of Darul Islam, and his perception of Islam. The essay moves on to explain the complex historical background that led to the birth of Darul Islam and its impact on modern Indonesia. Finally, as it is claimed that Darul Islam is now promoting Jihad, the basic concept of Jihad (referred to in The Concept of Jihad and Islamic Radicalism in Indonesia )  is compared with Darul Islam’s view of Jihad or Holy War. This is particularly important in understanding the driving ideology behind Darul Islam which makes its alleged alliance with Jemaah Islamiyah possible.

There exists no `international bar' regulating the practice of forensic advocacy before international courts and tribunals. Before arbitral tribunals such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and the Iran-US Claims Tribunal, legal argumentation is almost entirely left to the discretion of parties. There has been concern amongst participants in the arbitral process regarding ethical issues that have arisen concerning the conduct of representatives. Through analysis of ICSID procedural rules and jurisprudence, with supplementary reference to other investment arbitral tribunals as well as the Iran-US Claims Tribunal, it is argued that there is a need for procedural reform in order to introduce common and strict ethical standards of conduct for counsel appearing before such tribunals. In the absence of prescribed admission requirements or deontological rules, it is further submitted that ICSID tribunals have an inherent power to protect the integrity of their own proceedings by sanctioning representatives for misconduct. It is recommended that, as part of the progressive professionalisation of the international judicial system, the principles of integrity of arbitral proceedings, fair trial and equality of arms require that all litigants' representatives be subjected to uniform standards of conduct.

Συμβάσεις διεθνών πωλήσεων κινητών πραγμάτων· εφαρμοστέο δίκαιο· ρήτρα παρέκτασης δικαιοδοσίας· προϋποθέσεις κύρους· σχέση του Κανονισμού 1215/2012 με τη Σύμβαση της Χάγης του 2005· περιπτώσεις εφαρμογής· εάν το ένα από τα μέρη κατοικεί στην ΕΕ και το άλλο σε τρίτο κράτος που έχει κυρώσει τη Σύμβαση, θα εφαρμοστεί η Σύμβαση και όχι ο Κανονισμός, ανεξαρτήτως του εάν το παρεκτεινόμενο δικαστήριο βρίσκεται στην ΕΕ ή όχι· εάν και τα δύο μέρη διαμένουν στην ΕΕ και επέλεξαν δικαστήριο κράτους μέλους, θα εφαρμοστεί ο Κανονισμός, χωρίς να ενδιαφέρει το γεγονός ότι τα κράτη μέλη δεσμεύονται από Σύμβαση· όταν ένα μέρος διαμένει σε περισσότερα κράτη, η Σύμβαση υποχωρεί έναντι του Κανονισμού μόνο όταν όλα τα μέρη διαμένουν αποκλειστικά σε κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ ή σε μη συμβαλλόμενα στη Σύμβαση κράτη· η Σύμβαση της Χάγης δεν εφαρμόζεται, σε περιπτώσεις που η ρήτρα παρέκτασης δικαιοδοσίας είναι ασύμμετρη, θεμελιώνει δηλαδή αποκλειστική δικαιοδοσία σε βάρος του ενός συμβαλλομένου και προς όφελος του άλλου.

Επίδοση στο εξωτερικό· πλασματική επίδοση· ένορκη βεβαίωση· επιτρεπτό πλασματικής επίδοσης κλήσης προς λήψη ένορκης βεβαίωσης κατά τη Σύμβαση της Χάγης του 1965.

This dissertation studies the contemporary issues regarding the contracts signed by Tour Operators with their international partners in matters of private international law. The first part discusses the general conditions under which these contracts as signed (how the tourism industry works, which are the fundamental problematics on international contracts etc.). Next there is an analytical reference to major contractual provisions such as jurisdiction and choice of law, continuing with more specific terms such as the “overbooking” provision” and “allotment” agreements. Then a notion has been made to third party rights deriving from these contracts. Last but not least, in the final part a comparison is attempted between the all above mentioned with the contractual practices of the Tour Operators and the problems they face through a “Dodecanese Case Study”.

Climate Change Litigation.
Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law (EiPro), Hélène Ruiz Fabri (ed.), Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law, 2019, https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-mpeipro/e3461.013.3461/law-mpeipro-e3461?rskey=G5tdCF&result=1&prd=MPIL .

Este reporte tiene el objetivo de informar las novedades ocurridas en el Derecho Internacional Privado (Dipr) en América Latina durante el año 2014. De esta manera, el reporte tiene el mero propósito de transmitir información cruda, si se quiere, sobre los nuevos desarrollos en Dipr, sin entrar en el análisis o valoración de la información transmitida. Estas noticias sobre Dipr incluyen información sobre nuevas leyes dictadas por los países latinoamericanos en el área del Dipr, nuevas sentencias juridiciales y laudos arbitrales en la materia, tratados y convenciones recientemente ratificadas, y otras noticias relacionadas. En una palabra, el reporte intenta informar sobre el desarrollo de las fuentes de Dipr en América Latina, a fin de facilitar su análisis y aplicación por los expertos.

This report, co-released by West Coast Environmental Law and the Vanuatu Environmental Law Association, explains how well-established principles of private international law allows the courts and governments of individual countries to take action against fossil fuel polluters. The report also includes the first public proposal for the text of a Climate Compensation Act that clarifies the principles of liability for large-scale greenhouse gas emitters, and which could be enacted by countries around the world.