For the readers who don’t regularly read www.conflictoflaws.net, I wanted to point out a post with a roundup of conflict of laws articles published in the past several months. While most papers focus on European law, the following are written on common law issues:
- A. Rushworth, ‘Assertion of ownership by a foreign state over cultural objects removed from its jurisdiction‘ (2008) Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 123 – 129.
Discusses the Queen’s Bench Division judgment in Iran v Barakat Galleries Ltd on preliminary issues in an action to recover antiquities taken without permission from Iran, examining whether the court had jurisdiction to enforce foreign law by returning property to a foreign sovereign.
This case was also previously discussed on this blawg.
- J. Davies, ‘Breach of intellectual property warranties and jurisdiction‘ (2008) 19 Entertainment Law Review 111 – 113. Abstract:
Comments on the Chancery Division judgment in Crucial Music Corp (Formerly Onemusic Corp) v Klondyke Management AG (Formerly Point Classics AG) on whether to set aside service out of the jurisdiction in a dispute about warranties in a copyright licensing agreement for music. Considers the place of performance and the place where damage was sustained within the meaning of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1988 art.5.
- Y. Amin & A. Rook, ‘Capacity to marry and marriages abroad’ (2008) 152 Solicitors Journal 8 – 10. Abstract:
Examines the Court of Appeal ruling in Westminster City Council v IC on whether: (1) the marriage of a British man with severe learning disabilities conducted over the telephone to a woman in Bangladesh, which was valid according to Sharia law was recognised as a valid marriage according to English law, where it was accepted by the parties that the man lacked the capacity to marry in accordance with English law; (2) the court’s inherent jurisdiction was usurped by the Mental Capacity Act 2005; and (3) the court could prevent the man leaving the jurisdiction to travel to Bangladesh.
- W. Shi, ‘Review: Private International Law and the Internet (2007) by Dan Jerker B. Svantesson’ (2008) 13 Communications Law 64 – 65.
- D. Rosettenstein, ‘Choice of law in international child support obligations: Hague or vague, and does it matter? – an American perspective’ (2008) 22 International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 122 – 134. Abstract:
Discusses, from a US perspective, the choice of law rules under the draft Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and other Forms of Family Maintenance. Considers the significance and value of these rules, and compares them to the regime applicable in US child support proceedings.
Additionally, I also note the following (yet) unpublished paper by Mr. Antonin Pribetic:
- ‘Staking Claims against Foreign Defendants in Canada: Choice of Law and Jurisdiction Issues Relating to the In Personam Exception to the Lex Situs Rule for Foreign Immovables’. Excerpt from the abstract:
With respect to foreign immovables, Canadian courts have misapplied, and at times, ignored the lex situs rule and the in personam exception in the jurisdictional context. Part of the problem stems from a judicial preference to apply the lex situs rule as exclusively a choice of law rule, while allowing for the in personam exception as a corollary to the “real and substantial connection” test and the factors enumerated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Muscutt v. Courcelles.