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

 

 

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

Coming PILAGG Seminars

CANCELLED FRIDAY 13th NOVEMBER 2015: Prof. Neil Walker (Edinburgh Law School)

  • “Global Law and Global Justice: The Gap” (see previous post).
  • Discussant: Prof. David Kinley

 

FRIDAY 4th DECEMBER 2015: Prof. Gunther Teubner (Frankfurt University)

  • The Anonymous Matrix: Human Rights Violations by “Private” Transnational Actors.
  • Do fundamental rights obligate not only States, but also private transnational actors? Since violations of fundamental rights stem from the totalising tendencies of partial rationalities, there is no longer any point in seeing the horizontal effect as if rights of private actors have to be weighed up against each other. On one side of the human rights relation is no longer a private actor as the fundamental-rights violator, but the anonymous matrix of an autonomised communicative medium. On the other side, the fundamental rights are divided into three dimensions: Firstly institutional rights protecting the autonomy of social discourses – art, science, religion – against their subjugation by the totalising tendencies of the communicative matrix; secondly personal rights protecting the autonomy of communication, attributed not to institutions, but to the social artefacts called ‘persons’; and thirdly human rights as negative bounds on societal communication, where the integrity of individuals’ body and mind is endangered.
  • Paper: http://www.fichier-pdf.fr/2015/11/07/globaljustice-engfrz-2015/ (if you can’t download the paper, please send an email to malik.touanssa@sciencespo.fr / the paper will also be sent soon in the email announcing the seminar)
  • Discussant: Prof. Pier-Giuseppe Monateri

 

 

FRIDAY 19th FEBRUARY 2016: Prof. Peer Zumbansen (King’s College)

  • “Unpacking a ‘Not-yet-case’: FIFA as a transnational legal problem: litigation, advocacy and norm-creation”
  • The presentation will, in its first part, explore the promise and challenge of adding “transnational law” to the existing canon of legal doctrinal fields, on the one hand, and legal theories, on the other. In the second part, it will use the current scandal around corruption and labour rights violations by FIFA, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, to discuss practical consequences of understanding law “as transnational”.
  • Discussant: Jacco Bornhoff
  • In preparation of the discussion: What lies before, behind and beneath a case? Five minutes on transnational lawyering and the consequences for Legal Education, Prof. Zumbansen, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2370428

 

FRIDAY 26th FEBRUARY 2016: (date subject to change): Prof. Hans van Loon (Former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law)

  • The international protection of migrants and PIL (TBD)

 

FRIDAY 11th MARCH: Prof. David Restrepo Amariles (HEC)

  • Topic TBD

 

FRIDAY 22nd APRIL 2016: Antonio Marzal (Sorbonne Law School)

  • Conflict of Laws as an Analytical Tool

 

FRIDAY 13th MAY 2016: Prof. Katja Langenbucher (Frankfurt University / Sciences Po)

  • On Law Making for Financial Markets

 

FRIDAY 20th MAY 2016: Prof. Joel Bakan (University of British Columbia):

  • The Invisible Hand of Law: Private Regulation and the Rule of Law
  • The early 1980s— when “politics and ideology . . . turned arse-over-tit,” as E.P. Thompson once described it— was, in the less colorful language of David Harvey, a “revolutionary turning point in the world’s social and economic history.” Law was not immune to the sweeping changes taking place. Until the 1980s, and over the previous half century, law had served (albeit unevenly and incompletely) as the main institutional vehicle for policing corporations in aid of public interests, thereby protecting people, communities, and the environment from corporate excess and malfeasance. Over the course of the 1980s and thereafter, however, law’s protective role began to diminish, and privately promulgated voluntary regimes (hereinafter “private regulation”) emerged in its place. Importantly, no such diminishment occurred in relation to law’s parallel and prominent role in protecting corporations and their interests. Here, state legal regimes continued to operate as robustly as ever; incorporate companies; establish their mandates; protect their rights as “persons”; shield their managers, directors, and shareholders from legal liability; compel their officers to prioritize their “best interests” (typically construed as increasing shareholder value); articulate and enforce their contract and property rights; and repress dissidents and protesters who opposed their growing power. Corporations— indeed, corporate capitalism— could not exist without these legal foundations and supports, which taken together represent a massive infusion of state legal power into society. Despite that massive infusion, many private regulation advocates and commentators presume that globalization eviscerates state legal power, and prescribe, on that basis, that private regimes should take law’s place.
  • Paper: http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/ILJ/upload/Bakan-final.pdf

CANCELLED Fourth PILAGG Seminar / November 13th – Global Law and Global Justice: The Gap, by Prof. Neil Walker (Edinburgh Law School)

CANCELLED

‘GLOBAL LAW AND GLOBAL JUSTICE: THE GAP’

Prof. Neil Walker’s aims is to develop some of the normative implications of the argument in his recent book – ‘Intimations of Global Law’ (Cambridge, 2015). In that book, he examines the new and contested category of ‘global law’ . Global law refers to those emergent or ‘imitated’ aspects of legal doctrine that speak in a global register – applicable in all circumstances regardless of territory, citizenship or other limiting general affiliation. He divides global law into convergence-sponsoring categories (the creation of common political organisations or the application of common substantive standards) and divergence-accommodating categories (the cultivation of functionally specialised regimes or the co-ordination of different regimes  through private international law and other plural-sensitive methodologies). He identifies naive triumphalism, structural fatalism and myopic or disengaged compartmentalism as three pathological attitudes on the part of global jurists that MAY arise from the sheer range and diversity of global law types, and which help account for the profound gap between the practice of global law and our ideal conceptions of global justice. He ends by asking how we might begin to close that gap.

Prof. Neil WALKER (Edinburgh Law School)

 When? On Friday 13th November, 2.30 – 5.30 pm

Where? At Sciences Po Law School, 13 rue de l’Université, 75007 Paris, Salle de réunion (4th floor).

Discussant : Prof. David Kinley (Syndey Law School)

Third PILAGG Seminar – 16th October – Global Law and Interdisciplinary Inquiry, Alexander Panayotov

JURISDICTIONAL POLITICS AND SOCIAL MECHANISMS: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY SYNTHESIS? 

The interdisciplinary collaboration between law and social science has often been hailed as a promising avenue for studying law and globalization. In reality, however, this collaboration has been stymied by diverging disciplinary discourses, conflicting research practices, and incompatible methods for evaluating scholarly findings. I elucidate the possibility conditions for a productive engagement between law and social science. After laying out the obstacles to this engagement, I offer arguments for reconciling the differences.

Specifically, the “Legalization in World Politics” (LWP) framework is used as a starting point to evaluate both the strengths and weaknesses of the social science approaches to law. I contend that both law and social science can engage in a productive cross-fertilization by identifying common unifying themes such as jurisdictional politics. This theme combines social scientists’ strive for generalizations and legal scholars’ fine-grained analysis of complex technical legal issues. The paper defines jurisdictional politics, lays out a generic model for its constitution, and positions it in a transnational context. In this context, I also investigate the promise of deploying social mechanisms to explain both the process of legal change and the emergence of legal order. Four such mechanisms are identified: assertion, diffusion, layering, and conversion. Subsequent examples illustrate their operation. Hopefully, this contribution will stimulate scholars to partake in interdisciplinary work and formulate alternative strategies for exploring their research puzzles.

(Abstract of the paper to be discussed during the seminar)

Alexander PANAYOTOV (NYU)

Discussants : Prof. Véronique CHAMPEIL-DESPLATS (Université Paris X – Méthodologies du droit et des sciences du droit, Dalloz 2014) et Prof. Jérôme SGARD (Sciences Po – CECI, Professeur d’économie politique).

 When? On Friday 16th October, 2.30 – 5.30 pm

Where? At Sciences Po Law School, 13 rue de l’Université, 75007 Paris, Salle de réunion (4th floor).

9th October – Global Legal Pluralism and Private International Law (Prof. Paul Schiff Berman)

 

SECOND PILAGG SEMINAR of 2015/2016 : GLOBAL LEGAL PLURALISM AND PIL 

Global Legal Pluralism is now recognized as an entrenched reality of the international and transnational legal order. Indeed, wherever one looks, there is conflict among multiple legal regimes. Some of these regimes are state-based, some are built and maintained by non-state actors, some fall within the purview of local authorities and jurisdictional entities, and some involve international courts, tribunals, arbitral bodies, and regulatory organizations. 

It has been approximately 20 years since scholars first began pushing the insights of legal pluralism into the transnational and international arena. During those two decades, a rich body of work has established pluralism as a useful descriptive and normative framework for understanding a world of overlapping jurisdictional assertions, both state and non-state. Indeed, there has been a veritable explosion of scholarly work on legal pluralism, soft law, global constitutionalism, the relationships among relative authorities, and the fragmentation and reinforcement of territorial boundaries. 

Thus, the time has come for a survey and analysis of this literature in order to understand the evolution of global legal pluralism as a scholarly trope.  In this essay, I seek to begin such a task by separating out some of the descriptive and normative strands in the scholarly discourse. In addition, I tackle challenges and criticisms of global legal pluralism and aim to refine the field based on recent research. The result, I hope, will be to re-energize and engage global legal pluralism scholarship and push its trajectory forward into another two decades of innovation.

Prof. Paul SCHIFF BERMAN (George Washington University Law School)

Discussant : Jean-Philippe ROBE (Sciences Po, Ecole de droit)

 When? On Friday 9th October, 2.30 – 5.30 pm

Where? At Sciences Po Law School, 13 rue de l’Université, 75007 Paris, Salle de réunion (4th floor).

Colloque d’arbitrage Sciences Po – 22 mai 2014

Colloque d’arbitrage Sciences Po – 22 mai 2014

Afficher la photo contenue dans le message

Le dernier colloque organisé le jeudi 22 mai 2014 par l’Ecole de Droit de Sciences Po portait sur « l’arbitrage international entre sa vocation universelle et les réalités locales ». L’évènement a permis de réunir autour d’une même table Carole Malinvaud, Philippe Leboulanger, Thomas Clay, Horatia Muir Watt, Emmanuel Gaillard ainsi que Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (comme modérateur hors table). Le propos introductif a été présenté par Horacio Grigera Naón (ancien Secrétaire Général de la Cour internationale d’arbitrage de la CCI, et directeur du Center on International Commercial Arbitration de l’American University à Washington D.C.)

Voir le compte rendu complet : Rapport Arbitrage

Afficher la photo contenue dans le message

Featured Alexandre Senegacnik

Exceptionalism in the US Law of International Arbitration – A Report

The debate about the exceptionalism in the US Law of International Arbitration was really fruitful. See the report in: US Arbitration Law – 17 March 2014

Debaters: Franco Ferrari (NYU School of Law), Alejandro M. Garro (Columbia Law School and visiting scholar at SPLS), Linda Silberman (NYU School of Law), Horatia Muir Watt (SPLS), Emmanuel Gaillard (SPLS), and Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (SPLS)

PILAGG-17 mars 2014