Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments : are the rules appropriate?

The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is an aspect of private international law, and concerns situations where a successful party to litigation seeks to rely on a judgment obtained in one court, in a court in another jurisdiction. The most common example where the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments may arise is where a party who has obtained a favourable judgment in one state or country may seek to recognise and enforce the judgment in another state or country. This occurs because there is no sufficient asset in the state or country where the judgment was rendered to satisfy that judgment. As technological advancements in communications over vast geographical distances have improved exponentially in recent years, there has been an increase in cross-border transactions, as well as litigation arising from these transactions. As a result, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is of increasing importance, since a party who has obtained a judgment in cross-border litigation may wish to recognise and enforce the judgment in another state or country, where the defendant’s assets may be located without having to re-litigate substantive issues that have already been resolved in another court. The purpose of the study is to examine whether the current state of laws for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Australia, the United States and the European Community are in line with modern-commercial needs. The study is conducted by weighing two competing objectives between the notion of finality of litigation, which encourages courts to recognise and enforce judgments foreign to them, on the one hand, and the adequacy of protection to safeguard the recognition and enforcement proceedings, so that there would be no injustice or unfairness if a foreign judgment is recognised and enforced, on the other. The findings of the study are as follows. In both Australia and the United States, there is a different approach concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered by courts interstate or in a foreign country. In order to maintain a single and integrated nation, there are constitutional and legislative requirements authorising courts to give conclusive effects to interstate judgments. In contrast, if the recognition and enforcement actions involve judgments rendered by a foreign country’s court, an Australian or a United States court will not recognise and enforce the foreign judgment unless the judgment has satisfied a number of requirements and does not fall under any of the exceptions to justify its non-recognition and non-enforcement. In the European Community, the Brussels I Regulation which governs the recognition and enforcement of judgments among European Union Member States has created a scheme, whereby there is only a minimal requirement that needs to be satisfied for the purposes of recognition and enforcement. Moreover, a judgment that is rendered by a Member State and based on any of the jurisdictional bases set forth in the Brussels I Regulation is entitled to be recognised and enforced in another Member State without further review of its underlying jurisdictional basis. However, there are concerns as to the adequacy of protection available under the Brussels I Regulation to safeguard the judgment-enforcing Member States, as well as those against whom recognition or enforcement is sought. This dissertation concludes by making two recommendations aimed at improving the means by which foreign judgments are recognised and enforced in the selected jurisdictions. The first is for the law in both Australia and the United States to undergo reform, including: adopting the real and substantial connection test as the new jurisdictional basis for the purposes of recognition and enforcement; liberalising the existing defences to safeguard the application of the real and substantial connection test; extending the application of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) in Australia to include at least its important trading partners; and implementing a federal statutory scheme in the United States to govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The second recommendation is to introduce a convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The convention will be a convention double, which provides uniform standards for the rules of jurisdiction a court in a contracting state must exercise when rendering a judgment and a set of provisions for the recognition and enforcement of resulting judgments.

What further benefit, if any, might Australia get from the ALI-III Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases?

In 2006, the American Law Institute (ALI) and the International Insolvency Institute (III) established a Transnational Insolvency Project and appointed Professor Ian Fletcher (United Kingdom) and Professor Bob Wessels (Netherlands) as Joint Reporters. The objective was to investigate whether the essential provisions of the ALI Principles of Cooperation among the NAFTA Countries (ALI-NAFTA Principles) and the annexed Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communication in Cross-border Cases (ALI-NAFTA Guidelines) may, with certain necessary modifications, be acceptable for use by jurisdictions across the world. In 2012, Professor Fletcher and Professor Wessels presented the report Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (“ALI-III Report”) to the Annual Meetings of the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute. In 2013, the Australian Academy of Law (AAL) provided support to the authors to undertake research on the possible benefits for Australia of courts and insolvency administrators of referring to the ALI-III Report when addressing international insolvency cases. This AAL project was at the request of the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand. This research Report compares the Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases with the Cross-border Insolvency Act 2008 and the UNCITRAL Model Law as it has been adopted and has force of law in Australia. Further, it examines the Global Guidelines for Court-to-Court Communications in International Insolvency Cases in light of Australian cross-border insolvency and procedural law. Finally, it makes brief reference to and commentary on the Global Rules on Conflict–of-Laws Matters in International Insolvency Cases annexed to the ALI-III Report from the perspective of Australian choice of law rules.

Archimedes, aid/watch, constitutional levers and where we now stand

Archimedes is reported as famously saying: 'Give me a place to stand and I will move the earth.' He was referring to the power of levers. His point was that a person of ordinary capacity with a place to stand, a fulcrum and a level could change the path of planets. This principle of physics is a metaphor for how the common law has moved over the last millennium. Courts have found a stable foundation on which to stand, such as the constitutional bedrock or well-grounded precedent, and, using cases as fulcrums and legal principles as levers, the have moved the law. Australia is at a critical juncture in the development of the law of charities. The High Court of Australia has held that political purposes can be charitable in certain circumstances. The Parliament of Australia has not only enshrined this in a statutory definition of charity but has done so with a preamble to the legislation which affirms the basis for this development in residing in the 'unique nature and diversity of charities and the distinctive and important role that they play in Australia'.

Prosecution of maritime pirates : the national court is dead—long live the national court

Piracy is one of the main maritime security concerns in the contemporary world. The number of piracy incidents is increasing rapidly, which is highly problematic for maritime security. Although international law provides universal jurisdiction for the prosecution of maritime pirates, the actual number of prosecutions is alarmingly low compared to the number of incidents of piracy. Despite many states becoming parties to the relevant international conventions, they are reluctant to establish the necessary legal and institutional frameworks at the national level for the prosecution of pirates. The growing incidences of piracy and the consequential problems associated with prosecuting pirates have created doubts about the adequacy of the current international legal system, which is fully dependent on national courts for the prosecution of pirates. This article examines the possible ways for ensuring the effective prosecution of pirates. Contrary to the different proposals forwarded by researchers in the wake of Somali piracy for the establishment of international judicial institutions for the prosecution of pirates, this article argues that the operationalization of national courts through the proper implementation of relevant international legal instruments within domestic legal systems is the most viable solution. However, this article submits that the operationalization of national courts will not be very successful following the altruistic model of universal adjudicative jurisdiction. A state may enact legislation implementing universal jurisdiction but will not be very interested in prosecuting a pirate in its national court if it has no relation with the piratical incident. Rather, it will be successful if the global community seriously implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention), which obligates the states that have some connection with a piratical incident to prosecute pirates in their national courts.

An Australian perspective on the ALI-III global principles for cooperation in International insolvency cases

In 2012, Professor Ian Fletcher (United Kingdom) and Professor Bob Wessels (The Netherlands) presented a Report to the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute entitled Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (“Global Principles”). This followed their appointment as Joint Reporters to investigate whether the essential provisions of the American Law Institute Principles of Cooperation among the North American Free Trade Agreement Countries with their annexed Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communication in Cross-border Cases may, with certain necessary modifications, be acceptable for use by jurisdictions across the world. This article comments on the Global Principles from the perspective of a jurisdiction which has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency (“Model Law”). In 2008, Australia enacted a standalone statute, the Cross-border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) to which is annexed the Model Law. In that process, it made minimal changes to the Model Law text. Against the background of the 2008 Act, related procedural laws as well as Australia’s general insolvency statutes and recent cross-border insolvency jurisprudence, this article comments on the potential relevance of the Transnational Insolvency Report as a point of reference for Australian courts and insolvency administrators when addressing international insolvency cases. By comparing the Global Principles with the Model Law as closely adopted in Australia, this analysis is a resource for other Model Law jurisdictions when considering the potential relevance of the Global Principles for their own international insolvency practice.

Franklin Barley: Patent law and plant breeders’ rights

This paper considers the relationship between patent law and plant breeders' rights in light of modern developments in biotechnology. It examines how a number of superior courts have sought to manage the tensions and conflicts between these competing schemes of intellectual property protection. Part 1 considers the High Court of Australia case of Grain Pool of Western Australia v the Commonwealth dealing with Franklin barley. Part 2 examines the significance of the Supreme Court of the United States decision in JEM Ag Supply Inc v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc with respect to utility patents and hybrid seed. Part 3 considers the Supreme Court of Canada case of Harvard College v the Commissioner of Patents dealing with the transgenic animal, oncomouse, and discusses its implications for the forthcoming appeal from the Federal Court case of Percy Schmeiser v Monsanto.

The dead poets society: The copyright term and the public domain

In a victory for corporate control of cultural heritage, the Supreme Court of the United States has rejected a constitutional challenge to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act 1998 (U.S.) by a majority of seven to two. This paper evaluates the litigation in terms of policy debate in a number of discourses — history, intellectual property law, constitutional law and freedom of speech, cultural heritage, economics and competition policy, and international trade. It argues that the extension of the copyright term will inhibit the dissemination of cultural works through the use of new technologies — such as Eric Eldred's Eldritch Press and Project Gutenberg. It concludes that there is a need to resist the attempts of copyright owners to establish the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act 1998 (U.S.) as an international model for other jurisdictions — such as Australia.

The grapes of wrath: The Coonawarra dispute, geographical indications and international trade

The famous wine region of Coonawarra in South Australia has been promoted as ’Australia's other Red Centre', emphasizing its terra rossa soil and its cabernet sauvignon. In his atlas of the wine regions of Australia, John Beeston comments upon the rich and contested history of the region: ’Coonawarra is certainly the most famous cabernet sauvignon region in Australia, and some would argue, the most renowned wine region in Australia per se'. A reporter, Penelope Debelle, captures a sense of the legal conflict over the parameters of the boundaries of Coonawarra: ’Behind the name Coonawarra, an inglorious contest is being waged that pits the romance of South Australia's terra rossa cool-climate wine region against the cold commercial reality of the label.'This Chapter tells the story behind the Coonawarra litigation, addressing the parties to the dispute; the legal and historical context of the case; and the immediate impact case, as well as its lingering significance. It considers the ’Coonawarra' case as, very literally, a landmark in Australian jurisprudence in respect of intellectual property. This chapter engages in the methodology of ’legal storytelling'. In the field of new historicism, the use of anecdotes - petite histoire - has been seen as a useful way of challenging grand historical narratives. Joel Fineman has observed that the anecdote is ’the literary form or genre that uniquely refers to the real.' This chapter has three parts. Part 1 outlines the European Community - Australia Wine Agreement 1994, and the operation of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 (Cth). Part 2 considers the various stages of the dispute over the Coonawarra region - moving from the decision of the Geographical Indications Committee, to the ruling of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; and the conclusive decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. Part 3 examines the implications of the Coonawarra litigation for other wine regions of Australia - most notably, the King Valley in Victoria; but also the Hunter Valley in the New South Wales; and the Margaret River in Western Australia. The conclusion considers the ramifications of the European Community-Australia Wine Agreement 2007, which has been initialed by both sides.

Access to essential medicines: Public health and international law

Historically, there have been intense conflicts over the ownership and exploitation of pharmaceutical drugs and diagnostic tests dealing with infectious diseases. Throughout the 1980’s, there was much scientific, legal, and ethical debate about which scientific group should be credited with the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus, and the invention of the blood test devised to detect antibodies to the virus. In May 1983, Luc Montagnier, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, and other French scientists from the Pasteur Institute in Paris, published a paper in Science, detailing the discovery of a virus called lymphadenopathy (LAV). A scientific rival, Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, identified the AIDS virus and published his findings in the May 1984 issue of Science. In May 1985, the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded the American patent for the AIDS blood test to Gallo and the Department of Health and Human Services. In December 1985, the Institut Pasteur sued the Department of Health and Human Services, contending that the French were the first to identify the AIDS virus and to invent the antibody test, and that the American test was dependent upon the French research. In March 1987, an agreement was brokered by President Ronald Reagan and French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, which resulted in the Department of Health and Human Services and the Institut Pasteur sharing the patent rights to the blood test for AIDS. In 1992, the Federal Office of Research Integrity found that Gallo had committed scientific misconduct, by falsely reporting facts in his 1984 scientific paper. A subsequent investigation by the National Institutes of Health, the United States Congress, and the US attorney-general cleared Gallo of any wrongdoing. In 1994, the United States government and French government renegotiated their agreement regarding the AIDS blood test patent, in order to make the distribution of royalties more equitable... The dispute between Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo was not an isolated case of scientific rivalry and patent races. It foreshadowed further patent conflicts over research in respect of HIV/AIDS. Michael Kirby, former Justice of the High Court of Australia diagnosed a clash between two distinct schools of philosophy - ‘scientists of the old school... working by serendipity with free sharing of knowledge and research’, and ‘those of the new school who saw the hope of progress as lying in huge investments in scientific experimentation.’ Indeed, the patent race between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier has been a precursor to broader trade disputes over access to essential medicines in the 1990s and 2000s. The dispute between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier captures in microcosm a number of themes of this book: the fierce competition for intellectual property rights; the clash between sovereign states over access to medicines; the pressing need to defend human rights, particularly the right to health; and the need for new incentives for research and development to combat infectious diseases as both an international and domestic issue.

The High Court and the Marlboro Man: The plain packaging decision

The High Court of Australia’s ruling on the plain packaging of tobacco products is one of the great constitutional cases of our age. The ruling will resonate throughout the world - as other countries will undoubtedly seek to emulate Australia’s plain packaging regime.

Internet privatization, WikiLeaks, and free expression

In late 2010, the online nonprofit media organization WikiLeaks published classified documents detailing correspondence between the U.S. State Department and its diplomatic missions around the world, numbering around 250,000 cables. These diplomatic cables contained classified information with comments on world leaders, foreign states, and various international and domestic issues. Negative reactions to the publication of these cables came from both the U.S. political class (which was generally condemnatory of WikiLeaks, invoking national security concerns and the jeopardizing of U.S. interests abroad) and the corporate world, with various companies ceasing to continue to provide services to WikiLeaks despite no legal measure (e.g., a court injunction) forcing them to do so. This article focuses on the legal remedies available to WikiLeaks against this corporate suppression of its speech in the U.S. and Europe since these are the two principle arenas in which the actors concerned are operating. The transatlantic legal protection of free expression will be considered, yet, as will be explained in greater detail, the legal conception of this constitutional and fundamental right comes from a time when the state posed the greater threat to freedom. As a result, it is not generally enforceable against private, non-state entities interfering with speech and expression which is the case here. Other areas of law, namely antitrust/competition, contract and tort will then be examined to determine whether WikiLeaks and its partners can attempt to enforce their right indirectly through these other means. Finally, there will be some concluding thoughts about the implications of the corporate response to the WikiLeaks embassy cables leak for freedom of expression online.

Legitimidade constitucional da cognição sumária: limites impostos pelo contraditório participativo.

A tese objetiva estruturar os pressupostos constitucionais impostos pelo conteúdo atual e humanizado do contraditório participativo às técnicas de sumarização da cognição. A primeira parte do estudo volta-se ao descortínio do papel do contraditório no sistema processual civil, do seu conteúdo mínimo atual, a partir da experiência internacional, em especial das Cortes de proteção dos direitos humanos, em confronto com o estágio evolutivo da jurisprudência brasileira. A segunda parte estuda as pressões exercidas pela celeridade sobre as fronteiras do contraditório, passando pelo exame dos dados disponibilizados pelo Conselho Nacional de Justiça e por outros institutos, pelo conteúdo do direito à razoável duração dos processos, também com amparo na experiência das Cortes internacionais de proteção dos direitos humanos, com o exame detido das condenações impostas ao Brasil pela Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos e da urisprudência interna sobre o tema, que nega aos prejudicados o direito à reparação dos danos sofridos pelos retardos injustificados. Definidas as bases, segue-se a análise das técnicas de sumarização da cognição, seus fundamentos, objetivos e espécies. A cognição sumária é definida em contraposição à cognição plena, segundo a qual as partes podem exercer, plenamente, em Juízo, os direitos inerentes ao contraditório participativo. O último quadrante se volta à estruturação dos pressupostos constitucionais legitimadores do emprego das técnicas de sumarização da cognição, impostos pelo contraditório como freio às pressões constantes da celeridade. O emprego legítimo das técnicas de tutela diferenciadas que se valem da cognição sumária para acelerar os resultados pressupõe, no quadro constitucional atual, (i) a observância do núcleo essencial do contraditório, identificado na audiência bilateral, em todo o iter da relação processual, (ii) a predeterminação legislativa, para que os cortes cognitivos não venham a ser casuisticamente realizados, (iii) a oportunidade, assegurada às partes, para integrar o contraditório em outra fase ou processo, em cognição plena, bem como (iv) a manutenção do equilíbrio na estabilização dos resultados, não podendo a cognição sumária, porque marcada pela incompletude, ser exaustiva em si. Ao final, depois do exame do caráter renunciável das garantias, é realizada a análise de alguns institutos processuais vigentes, nos quais é possível verificar o traço da sumarização da cognição, seguida da indicação das correções legislativas necessárias à conformação dos modelos aos padrões legitimadores propostos, reequilibrando as bases do sistema processual civil.

A assistência mútua em matéria penal e as penas vedadas no direito brasileiro

A criminalidade transnacional é um dos males da atualidade e tem seu crescimento associado à complexidade dos processos da globalização. Quão mais interligadas estão a economia, cultura e demais comunicações dos Estados, mais vulneráveis estão às ações criminosas. Diante desta constatação a comunidade internacional escolheu o Direito Penal Internacional como um dos instrumentos destinados a fazer frente a este problema contemporâneo. O DPI, como especialização do Direito Penal, atende às exigências da comunidade internacional, por ser constituído pelo binômio criminalização e instituições de repressão e por contemplar dois distintos referenciais, quais sejam o do observador nacional que vê a projeção de seu ordenamento jurídico para fora das fronteiras territoriais e a do observador internacional que vê a projeção das normas internacionais para dentro do território dos Estados. A importância do DPI para o combate ao crime se faz pela pluralidade de espécies de cooperação (administrativa e jurídica) e de formas, que vão desde as mais clássicas como a extradição, a carta rogatória e a homologação da sentença estrangeira às mais modernas como a transferência de presos e a assistência mútua. As formas mais clássicas da cooperação têm se mostrado pouco eficazes e muito burocráticas para alcançar os resultados pretendidos, principalmente pelas barreiras jurídicas impostas pelos Estados, A assistência mútua vai ao encontro das expectativas internacionais, por simplificar a tramitação dos pedidos, em razão da tramitação dos mesmos por Autoridades Centrais e não por vias diplomáticas, por reduzir as barreiras jurídicas, pois há a possibilidade de mitigação do princípio da identidade, a redução dos motivos de recusa e a desnecessidade de submeter ao crivo do Superior Tribunal de Justiça pedidos que notoriamente dispensam juízo de delibação. Embora a assistência mútua traga muitas vantagens para facilitar a persecução penal, o desprendimento às formalidades e às barreiras jurídicas não pode significar desapego às garantias materiais e processuais das pessoas que são os destinatários da ação estatal persecutória, em especial à garantia de não ter contra si aplicadas penas vedadas constitucionalmente (art. 5, XLVII da CF/88). Neste sentido torna-se necessário reconhecer a existência de uma obrigação de não fazer e não cooperar por parte dos Estados que possa ser invocada para obstar atos de cooperação que possam contribuir para a aplicação das penas vedadas.

As sentenças aditivas na jurisdição constitucional

Como o título deixa ver, o trabalho tem como objeto as sentenças aditivas, alvos de uma análise crítica, à luz de pressupostos filosóficos, sociais, políticos e jurídicos. Para isso, fez-se uma visitação à doutrina, nacional e estrangeira, em torno do tema, além de proceder à coleta posicionamentos, emanados das cortes supremas de alguns países expoentes, acerca da matéria em foco. O Supremo Tribunal Federal não poderia ficar como não ficou fora desse universo de pesquisa. O primeiro capítulo trata dos tópicos relativos ao Estado e à Jurisdição, contemplando as relações entre eles para focalizar, com propriedade, a Jurisdição Constitucional. O segundo capítulo traz à discussão a criação judicial do direito e o ativismo judicial, temas correlatos e imprescindíveis ao estudo proposto, porque a sentença aditiva tem, entranhada, uma dose de ativismo judicial. Tem-se, pois, que o criacionismo judicial insere-se nesse contexto e, por isso, carece de uma abordagem descritiva e crítica. O terceiro capítulo versa sobre as cortes constitucionais e o Supremo Tribunal Federal, móveis principais das sentenças aditivas, e que devem ser bem conhecidos para facilitar a digressão do tema-base. O quarto capítulo aborda as decisões no controle de constitucionalidade das normas e seus efeitos, de fundamental importância porque se conectam diretamente com as aditivas. Finalmente, a quinta parte centra-se, no núcleo do tema-objeto da dissertação, contemplando minudências referentes ao assunto, bastante conflituoso ressalte-se , no limite que separa as atribuições de dois Poderes do Estado, o Judiciário e o Legislativo.

Cross-Border Unitization and Joint Development Agreements: An International Law Perspective

Okoye, Adaeze, et al, 'Cross-Border Unitization and Joint Development Agreements: An International Law Perspective', Houston Journal of International Law (2007) 29(2) pp.355-425 RAE2008