2016 ASADIP Meeting, University of Buenos Aires, 10 – 11 November

2016 ASADIP Meeting

Asociación Americana de Derecho Internacional Privado organised the 2016 Meeting hosted by the University of Buenos Aires, on 10 – 11 November 2016. The opening keynote lecture on the topic “Do the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts bring any change?” given by Professor Katharina Boele-Woelki, Dean of Bucerius Law School, was introduced by Professor Diego P. Fernández Arroyo from Sciences Po Ecole de Droit. 

 

Program

Wednesday, November 9

20:00 – Cocktail offered by The Hague Conference on Private International Law

 

Thursday, November 10

8:45 – 9:00 – Welcome remarks

  • Mónica Pinto (Buenos Aires, Head of Law School of University of Buenos Aires (UBA).
  • José A. Moreno Rodríguez (Asunción, President of ASADIP)

9:00 – 9:30 – Opening keynote lecture

Katharina Boele-Woelki (Hamburg): “Do the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts bring any change?”

Introduced by Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (Paris)

9:30 – 11:00 – Debate: Who fears non-state legislation for the regulation of international contracts? 

  • Ralf Michaels (Duke)
  • Lauro Gama Jr (Rio de Janeiro)
  • Geneviève Saumier (Montreal)
  • Eugenio Hernández-Bretón (Caracas)

Moderated by Francisco Amallo (Buenos Aires)

11:00 – 11.30 – Break

11:30 – 12:45 – Regulation of international contracts: different options in recent Latin American legislation

  • Pablo Debuchy (Asunción)
  • María Elsa Uzal (Buenos Aires)
  • Gilberto Boutin (Panama)
  • Carlos Odriozola Mariscal (Mexico City)

Moderated by Virginia Aguilar (Mexico City)

12:45 – 14:45 – Lunch

14:45 – 16:15 – The future of international regulation of international contracts

  • Mario A. Oyarzábal (Buenos Aires)
  • Hans van Loon (The Hague)
  • José Angelo Estrella Faria (UNIDROIT, Rome)
  • Sandrine Clavel (Versailles)

Moderated by Dante Negro (Washington DC – OAS)

16:15 – 16:45 – Break

16:45 – 18:15 – Debate: Is the 1980 Vienna Convention on Contracts for the CISG properly applied?

  • Alejandro M. Garro (New York)
  • Alberto Zuppi (Buenos Aires)
  • Franco Ferrari (New York)
  • Jorge Oviedo Albán (Bogota)
  • Carolina Iud (Buenos Aires)

Moderated by José Luis Marín (Medellín)

18:15 – 19:15 – Contractualization of secured transactions

  • Spyridon Bazinas (Vienna, UNCITRAL)
  • Paula María All (Santa Fe)

Moderated by Daniela Vargas (Río de Janeiro)

19:15 – Cocktail offered by the Law School of the University of Buenos Aires (UBA)              

  

Friday, November 11 

09:30 – 11:00 – Interpretation of international contracts by judges and arbitrators

  • María Susana Najurieta (Buenos Aires)
  • Paul Arrighi (Montevideo)
  • Cristian Conejero Roos (Santiago)
  • María Lilia Díaz Cordero (Buenos Aires)

Moderated by Verónica Sandler Obregón (Buenos Aires)

11:00 – 11:30 – Break

11:30 – 13:00 – Debate: Judges or arbitrators for the resolution of international contractual disputes?

  • Eduardo Vescovi (Montevideo)
  • Marilda Rosado (Rio de Janeiro)
  • José Alfredo Martínez de Hoz (h) (Buenos Aires)
  • Pedro Saghy (Caracas)
  • Margie Jaime (Panama)

Moderated by Máximo Bomchil (Buenos Aires)

13:00 – 15:00 – Lunch

15:00 – 16:30 – Weak parties and contractual balance

  • Claudia Madrid Martínez (Caracas)
  • Juan José Obando (San José)
  • Mariela Rabino (Buenos Aires)
  • Luciane Klein Vieira (Campinas)
  • Paula Serra Freire (Caracas)
  • Juan José Cerdeira (Buenos Aires)

Moderated by Ana Elizabeth Villalta (San Salvador)

16:30 – 17:00 – Break

17:00 – 18:30 – Debate: Are there or should there be “Latin American” specificities in the law of international contracts?

  • Julio César Rivera (Buenos Aires)
  • Nadia de Araujo (Rio de Janeiro)
  • Roberto Ruiz Díaz Labrano (Asunción)
  • Aníbal Sierralta Ríos (Lima)
  • Pedro Mendoza Montano (Guatemala)

Moderated by Ricardo Acevedo Peralta (San Salvador)

18:30 – 19:00 – Closing keynote lecture:

Jürgen Basedow (Hamburg): “A theory of party autonomy”

Introduced by Didier Opertti Badán (Montevideo)

19:30 – Reception hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Argentina

 

 

November 25th – Economic Transplants and Transnational Law: A Dialogue, by Katja Langenbucher and Brooke Adele Marshall

FRIDAY 25th November 2016, Prof. Katja Langenbucher (Sciences Po Ecole de Droit and Goethe-University’s House of Finance) & Brooke Adele Marshall (Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law)

 

Economic transplants as a common language? (Prof. Langenbucher)

Processes of “economization” have been observed and described by anthropologists, economists and sociologists (pars pro toto, see the work of Michel Callon). The presentation will focus on a related phenomenon in the world of legal research, law-making and adjudication which I address as “economic transplants“.

I will try, first, to capture reasons for the receptivity of lawyers and policymakers for “transplanting” findings based on economic methodology, both theoretical and empirical, into the law. Second, I shall ask if such “economic transplants“ live up to what they promise as far as legislative work is concerned. Third, economic transplants and the promises they hold are considered in the judicial context.

The presentation will rely on excerpts of a book forthcoming at CUP on “economic transplants“.

 

The CISG or the PICC as the governing law: normative ambiguities, dépeçage and the purportedly chosen law (Brooke Adele Marshall)

The Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts are “soft” private international law rules. They empower parties to choose either State law or soft “rules of law” to govern their contract, regardless of whether they litigate or arbitrate. This paper investigates the relationship between the Hague Principles and two sets of rules of law which parties may choose: the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) or the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). It makes three principal claims. First, the nature of the Hague Principles and their relationship with the PICC or the CISG gives rise to several normative ambiguities which need clarification. Second, the Hague Principles do not limit the parties’ ability to divide their contract at a choice of law level (horizontal dépeçage): parties can influence not only which rules of law govern the contract but also their content. This is undesirable as a matter of principle. It may also facilitate results which the PICC and the CISG do not intend. Third, the Hague Principles provide that the law which the parties purportedly chose determines whether the parties agreed on a choice of law. They also provide a mechanism which designates the law which the parties purportedly chose in standard contract terms. Applied to rules of law, the suitability of these provisions is questionable: alternatives should be explored.

 

When? Friday 25 November, 14:30 – 17:30

Where? at Sciences Po Ecole de Droit, 13 rue de l’université, 75007, Paris, Meeting Room (4th floor, room 410T)

International Conflict of Laws and The Third Restatement: Duke symposium, 4-5 November 2016

Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law

Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law is organising a symposium this weekend, on “International Conflict of Laws and the Third Restatement”. For more details, continue reading:

Overview

Writing in 2000, Mathias Reimann criticized the Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws for being “largely blind to international concerns.” He argued that since international conflict-of- laws issues have become routine, the next restatement of conflict of laws must be attentive to such issues and that, ideally, it would “come with an implied (or better yet express) warranty that all its principles and rules are fit for international use as well [as for domestic use].” With work on the Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws now underway—and with one of its goals being “to pay greater attention to the international context than the Second Restatement did”—it is time to give careful thought to Professor Reimann’s call for a genuinely international restatement. This conference will bring together leading scholars of conflict of laws to meet with the Third Restatement’s reporters to discuss how the reporters might best address international conflict-of- laws issues and take advantage of comparative methods in their work.

 

Program

Friday Nov 4:

1:00-2:00 – Lunch

2:00-2:30 – Introduction

  • 2:00-2:10 (DJCIL Welcome (Laura Revolinski)
  • 2:10-2:17 International and Comparative Aspects of Conflict of Laws: Ralf Michaels (Duke)
  • 2:18-2:25 International Conflict-of-Laws Issues and the Third Restatement: Chris Whytock (Associate Reporter; UC Irvine)

2:30-3:45 – Panel 1: Comparative Law and International Law in the New Restatement: Ralf  Michaels and Chris Whytock (Chairs)

  • Conflict of Laws Codifications: How might conflict-of-laws codifications around the world inform work on the Third Restatement? Symeon Symeonides (Willamette/NYU)
  • International Law and International Conflict of Laws: Donald Earl Childress III (Pepperdine)

4:15-5:45 – Panel 2: International versus Interstate Conflicts: TBD and Kim Roosevelt (Reporter; Pennsylvania), (Chairs)

  • Unilateralism versus Multilateralism in International Cases: Hannah Buxbaum (Indiana)

o Conflict of Laws in Supranational and Federal Systems: How might the experiences of the EU and national federal systems inform work on the Third Restatement, in particular regarding its treatment of interstate and international conflict-of-laws issues? Horatia Muir Watt (SciencesPo)

Saturday, Nov 5:

7:30-8:00 – Breakfast

8:00-10:00 – Panel 3—Specific Issues I: TBD and Chris Whytock (Associate Reporter; UC Irvine), Chairs

  • Jurisdiction: Linda Silberman (NYU)
  • Party Autonomy: Richard Fentiman
  • Torts and Contracts: Patrick Borchers (Creighton)

10:30-12:00 Panel 4—Specific International Conflict-of-Laws Issues II: TBD and Laura Little (Associate Reporter; Temple), Chairs

  • Family Law and Domestic Relations: Marriage and Divorce: Ann Laquer Estin (Iowa)
  • Family Law and Domestic Relations: Children: Louise Ellen Teitz (Roger Williams; Hague Conference)

12:15-1:00 – Closing Remarks with closing discussion: Mathias Reimann (Michigan)

1:00 – Lunch to go

Friday 18th November – (Foreign) Law as Self-Fashioning, by Pierre Legrand

FRIDAY 18th November 2016, Professor Pierre Legrand (Sciences Po Ecole de Droit)

The argument is that no account of (foreign) law — no matter how purportedly descriptive — can prove immune from autobiographical input on the part of the interpreter. It follows that no account of (foreign) law is in a position to claim neutrality, impartiality, objectivity, or truth. Any account of (foreign) law must therefore stand or fall by virtue of its persuasive strength, which depends in important ways on ascription of value to one’s interpretation/speculation on the part of one’s readership or audience.

  • Discussant: Professor Mathias Siems (Professor at Durham University)

Full article by Prof. Pierre Legrand can be available at request to participants of the seminar who register in advance.

Contact: lucia.bizikova@sciencespo.fr 

Obs.: The seminar and the discussion will be held in English. However, it will be possible to address questions in other languages, such as French, Spanish, Italian and German.

When? Friday 18 November, 16:30 – 19:00

Where? at Sciences Po Law School, 13 rue de l’université, 75007, Paris, salle de réunion (4th floor)

 

 

October 19th – Coercion and Autonomy in Transnational Private Law, by Robert Wai

WEDNESDAY 19th October 2016, Prof. Robert Wai (Osgoode Hall Law School, York University)

The turn to transnational law admirably directs analysis of contemporary society towards a realistic sense of the plural, complex normative terrains of transnational relations. This presentation will focus on what the turn to the transnational suggests with respect to equally real questions of power and coercion in transnational private relations. This question will be explored by connecting the transnational law turn of Philip Jessup to the earlier legal realist insights of Robert Hale through a focus on coercion and distribution in transnational private law. The goal is to relate the contemporary emphasis in transnational private law on party autonomy, notably in areas such as arbitration, to older and continuing concerns about “legal and non-legal coercion” in private relations.   Can a turn to transnational private ordering be framed in terms other than party autonomy? In particular, how can transnational private law recognize the role of Hale’s “supposedlly noncoercive state” in constituting various forms of transnational coercive power.

  • Discussant: Horatia Muir Watt

When? Wednesday 19 October, 17:30 – 19:30

Where? at Sciences Po, 27 rue Saint Guillaume, 75007, Paris, room A24 (2nd floor)

October 14th – The Turn Toward Unilateralism in American Choice of Law, by Hannah Buxbaum

FRIDAY 14th October 2016, Prof. Hannah Buxbaum (Maurer School of Law, Indiana University)

In 2000, the European Community filed a lawsuit against RJR Nabisco (RJR) in U.S. federal court, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). After more than fifteen years and a number of intermediate judicial decisions, the litigation came to its likely close in 2016 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community. The Court concluded that certain provisions of RICO did apply to foreign conduct. However, it went on to hold that RICO’s private cause of action does not extend to claims based on injuries suffered outside the United States, denying the European Community any recovery.

This talk will use the RJR case as a springboard to consider a broader trend in the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence, which is to rely exclusively on the “presumption against extraterritoriality,” a tool of statutory interpretation, to resolve international jurisdictional conflicts. This jurisprudence turns away from a broader “reasonableness” analysis, and thus away from a multilateral approach, in considering questions of legislative jurisdiction. It finds an interesting echo in the current draft of the Restatement (Third) of Conflicts, which introduces a form of analysis focused on determining the scope of potentially applicable laws. These trends invite the question whether American conflicts law is taking a turn toward a more unilateral methodology.

  • Discussant: Jeremy Heymann (Professeur à l’Université de Lyon)

When? Friday 14 October, 14:30 – 17:30

Where? at Sciences Po Law School, 13 rue de l’université, 75007, Paris, salle de réunion (4th floor)

October 7th – Rethinking Comparative Law: Mapping Law’s Transformations, by Leone Niglia

FRIDAY 7th October 2016, Prof. Leone Niglia (University CIII of Madrid)

This seminar contributes to comparative scholarly analyses of ‘legal transplants’ and ‘legal change’. Drawing on a combination of legal history, comparative law and legal theory, the seminar introduces a method that is needed towards understanding the current globalisation of law and legal thought including comparing it with past globalisations. On the basis of this new method, the seminar essay sheds light on three unaccounted transformations in transnational law and legal thought in Europe over the last one hundred years that legal comparative thought has contributed to. These transformations need to be taken seriously towards gaining a deeper understanding of the relationships between law, state and post-national governance.

 

  • Discussant: Veronica Corcodel

When? Friday 7 October, at 16:30

Where? at Sciences Po Law School, 13 rue de l’université, 75007, Paris, salle de réunion (4th floor)

September 30th – The Institutional Origins of Corporate Social Irresponsibility, by Paddy Ireland

FRIDAY 30th September 2016, Prof. Paddy Ireland (University of Bristol)

There has never been a shortage of instances of corporate irresponsibility. They do, however, seem to have increased in number in recent years. In this seminar, Prof. Ireland will trace the institutional sources of this problem to the way in which the corporate legal form has been constituted. In some contexts the large joint stock corporations which dominate so much of economic life are closely identified with their shareholders, while in others they are regarded as ‘completely separate’.

He will then explore the nature and historical origins of these schizophrenic ideas about the nature of the relationship between corporations and their shareholders, arguing that they underpin contemporary corporate irresponsibility. He suggests that they are attributable to the emergence in the nineteenth century of the perception of corporations as both separate legal persons and objects of property, and to the transformation of the joint stock company share into a Janus-faced, hybrid legal form which enables shareholders to retain some of the key proprietary privileges of ‘insiders’ (owner-members of companies) while they at the same time enjoy the liability- and responsibility-free privileges of ‘outsiders’ (creditors external to companies).

He will go on to suggest that, as commentators as diverse as Marx, Veblen, Hilferding, and Lippmann observed, the hybrid nature of shareholding could have taken corporate governance in very different directions and, historically, has done so, leading at times to highly ‘financialized’ shareholder-focused forms of governance and at other times to much more ‘socialized’ forms. He concludes by exploring the policy implications of the (re)financialized forms of governance that have emerged in recent years.

  • Discussant: Professor Antoine Lyon-Caen

When? Friday 30 September, 14:30 – 17:30

Where? at Sciences Po Law School, 13 rue de l’université, 75007, Paris, salle de réunion (4th floor)

Pilagg forecast for the Autumn 2016

After the long summer break, we are back with the new calendar for Pilagg seminars in the weeks to come.

This academic year, our first speaker will be Professor Paddy Ireland from the University of Bristol, who will discuss The Institutional Origins of Corporate Social Irresponsibility on Friday 30 September with Professor Antoine Lyon-Caen being his discussant.

October will be especially rich for legal discussions, as Professor Leone Niglia will give a seminar on 7 October and Professor Hannah Buxbaum from Indiana University Maurer School of Law will come one week after him, on 14 October. Professor Robert Wai will then give a workshop on Wednesday, 19 October.

In November, we will organise at least two more Pilagg seminars. On 18 November, Professors Pierre Legrand and Mathias Siems will discuss the (Foreign) Law as Self-Fashioning and finally, on 25 November, Professor Katja Langenbucher and Brooke Adele Marshall will talk about economic transplants and soft law instruments.

For more information, follow our blog.