Archive for the ‘United States’ Category
September 18, 2012
Everyone within reach of a keyboard or a tv remote control has likely heard about the recent mob attacks on US embassies in Libya and Egypt—including the murder of Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador to Libya and three others at the Benghazi consulate– following incendiary protests against the anti-Islamic video, “Innocence of Muslims” on Youtube. I commend readers to the following posts regarding the film producer and convicted fraud artist, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula:
Egypt Independent reports today that an Egyptian court on Tuesday sentenced a Christian Copt teacher to six years imprisonment following convictions for blasphemy against the prophet Mohamed and defamation of President Mohamed Morsy and a plaintiff lawyer: (more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Egypt, Islamophobia, Mitt Romney, Mohamed Morsy, Muhammad, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, United States, YouTube
Posted in Egypt, First Amendment, free speech, Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, United States, United States Constitution | Leave a Comment »
June 6, 2012
S.I. Strong (University of Missouri School of Law) has posted “Navigating the Borders Between International Commercial Arbitration and U.S. Federal Courts: A Jurisprudential GPS”, Journal of Dispute Resolution (forthcoming)/University of Missouri School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-12. Here is the abstract:
To the uninitiated, international commercial arbitration may seem as if it “isn’t all that different” from domestic arbitration or litigation. However, the truth of the matter is that international commercial arbitration is an extremely challenging area of law, full of traps for inexperienced parties.
This is particularly true with respect to the parties’ ability to seek relief from U.S. federal courts. While some advocates may believe that a visit to the judge is the best and fastest way to get results in certain types of procedural disputes, that tactic is often inappropriate in international arbitral proceedings, where the tribunal’s jurisdiction and powers are frequently in tension with the jurisdiction and power of various national courts (since there may be multiple courts that could potentially become involved with a particular matter).
Quite simply, this area of practice is unlike any other, and the only way to avoid making expensive and time-consuming errors is to gain an overview of the process from a specialist’s perspective. This Article provides just that sort of guide, outlining the various ways in which U.S. federal courts can become involved in international commercial arbitration and introducing both basic and advanced concepts in a straightforward, practical manner. However, this Article provides more than just an overview. Instead, it discusses relevant issues on a motion-by-motion basis, helping readers find immediate answers to their questions while also getting a picture of the field as a whole.
Written especially for busy lawyers, this Article gives practitioners, arbitrators and new and infrequent participants in international commercial arbitration a concise but comprehensive understanding of the unique challenges that arise in this complex area of law. Experienced counsel will also find the discussion helpful, not only as a means of explaining the process to clients and junior colleagues but also as a tactical tool to help consider various options in situations where a U.S. federal court may become (or has become) involved in an international arbitral proceeding.
Download a pdf copy of the article at SSRN here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Arbitration, Arbitration award, Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Dispute resolution, Federal Arbitration Act, Law, United States federal courts, University of Missouri School of Law
Posted in ADR, anti-suit injunctions, arbitration, civil procedure, enforcement, international commercial arbitration, International Commercial Law, New York Convention, U.S. Courts, United States | Leave a Comment »
May 1, 2012
A North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Logo. Español: Logotipo del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN). Français : Logo de Accord de libre-échange nord-américain (ALENA). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Marc D. Froese (Canadian University College) has posted “Between Surveillance and Transparency: Trade Policy Review and North American Dispute Settlement at the WTO”. Here’s the abstract:
The Trade Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM) received much scholarly attention when it was first established in 1989, but has been overshadowed of late by dispute settlement processes. This paper examines the relationship between barriers to trade that are flagged by the World Trade Organization’s TPRM and subsequent challenges brought to the Dispute Settlement Body. Placing the TPRM in correlation to dispute settlement raises a question with significant policy implications: can Trade Policy Reviews be used to predict trade challenges? Such an undertaking requires an analysis of the chronologies of the trade policy review process and of the dispute settlement system. Using an empirical method for cross-referencing issues flagged by the TPRM and challenges brought to the Dispute Settlement Mechanism, the paper seeks to assess the efficacy of Trade Policy Reviews for predicting the future of trade litigation between Canada, the United States and Mexico.
Download a pdf copy of the paper from SSRN here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Canada, Canadian University College, Economic Integration, International Economic Law, North American Free Trade Agreement, Policy Review, United States, World Trade Organization
Posted in Canada, Dispute Resolution, Mexico, NAFTA, United States | Leave a Comment »
March 29, 2012
The recent decision in Zakhary v United States of America 2012 CanLII 15690 (ON LA) addresses state immunity in the context of an unjust dismissal complaint filed under Section 240 of the Canada Labour Code. The complainant, Nadia Zakhary, a Canadian citizen, worked as a cashier at the Consulate General of the United States of America in Toronto for 12 years until her dismissal in August, 2010 based upon alleged cashiering mistakes and unauthorized absences from work.
(more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Canada, Canada Labour Code, Consul (representative), Ministry of Labour, Toronto, United States, United States Department of State, United States of America
Posted in international law, jurisdiction, state immunity, State Immunity Act, United States | Leave a Comment »
November 29, 2011
Donald K. Anton (Australian National University (ANU) – College of Law) has posted “Public International Law and International Civil Litigation: From Ecuador to the United States and Back (Twice) – Chevron v. Donzige”, Precedent, forthcoming. Here is the abstract:
This brief note examines the public international law issues arising in the widely publicized case of Chevron v. Donziger. In 1993, Amazonian indigenous communities and remote farmers sued Texaco in the United States, its home jurisdiction, seeking redress for damages caused by Texaco’s operations. From 1993 to 2002 Texaco, and later Chevron when it acquired Texaco, fought to have the case dismissed and moved to Ecuador as the more appropriate forum to try the case. Ultimately, the US action was dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds. However, the dismissal was conditioned on promises by Chevron to accept jurisdiction in Ecuador and satisfy any judgment rendered by an Ecuadorian court. While the action in the US was ongoing, Chevron apparently removed its assets from Ecuador, ensuring that the Ecuadorian plaintiffs would be unable to enforce and collect any judgment in that country. The case was re-filed and tried in Ecuador and was hotly contested for approximately eight years. On 14 February 2011, the Provincial Court of Sucumbios awarded the Ecuadorian plaintiffs $8.6 billion in damages, with $5.6 billion going toward environmental remediation. Anticipating the worst, Chevron took pre-emptive action back in the US, and filed a complaint against the Ecuadorians and their lawyers alleging fraud and conspiracy and seeking injunction enjoining the enforcement of the judgment. On 7 March 2011, the US Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York granted the preliminary injunction, which purported to enjoin the Ecuadorians from seeking to have the Ecuadorian judgment recognised or enforced anywhere in the world outside of Ecuador.
A copy of the article may be downloaded at SSRN here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Chevron, Chevron Corporation, Ecuador, Ecuadorians, Texaco, United States, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Posted in conflict of laws, environmental law, Federal, federal courts, Federal Jurisdiction, federal law, forum non conveniens, injunctions, International, international dispute resolution, international human rights, international law, international litigation, public international law, United States | Leave a Comment »
Antonin I. Pribetic
