An Insightful Post on a Recent Case
Ted Folkman has a post over at Letters Blogatory discussing a case – CDM Smith v. Atasi – decided by the Federal District Court for the District of of Massachusetts in March 2022. The court first considers whether a judgment rendered by the labor courts of Saudi Arabia is enforceable in Massachusetts. It then goes…
Continue ReadingJam v. IFC: Secondary Liability in Transnational Disputes
Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider a petition for a writ of certiorari in Jam v. International Finance Corp., a case that raises important questions about United States jurisdiction over cross-border disputes. The case most immediately involves the scope of sovereign immunity where a foreign state or international organization takes actions in the United States that contribute to tortious conduct overseas. But the case also has broader implications for secondary liability generally.
Continue ReadingCustomary International Law’s Domestic Status: Reflections After Twenty-Five Years
We are grateful to Bill Dodge for highlighting our 1997 article on the domestic legal status of customary international law. In that article, we critically analyzed what we referred to as the “modern position,” which is the claim made by some academics and the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law that customary international law has…
Continue ReadingService by Email and the Hague Service Convention
The Hague Service Convention was concluded in 1965. So how does the most important means of communication today fit with the Convention?
Continue ReadingUkraine in U.S. Courts
Though far from its most significant impact, the conflict in the Ukraine has implications for litigation in the United States. Unsurprisingly, the Government of Ukraine has sought to pause ongoing litigation in light of the current hostilities. Such filings could provide insight into how the Government Ukraine seeks to characterize those events.
Continue ReadingUnited States Signs the Hague Judgments Convention
On March 2, 2022, the United States signed the Convention of July 2, 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, better known as the Hague Judgments Convention. This post describes the Convention and next steps.
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Revisiting Bradley and Goldsmith’s “Critique of the Modern Position”
Twenty-five years ago, Professors Curtis Bradley and Jack Goldsmith shook the fields of transnational litigation, federal courts, and foreign relations law by questioning the conventional wisdom that customary international law has the status of federal common law. Their article Customary International Law as Federal Common Law: A Critique of the Modern Position, published in the…
Continue ReadingOral Argument in ZF Automotive Generates More Confusion Than Clarity on the Availability of U.S. Discovery for Use in International Arbitration
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two consolidated cases asking whether U.S.-style discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 is available for use in, respectively, international commercial arbitration and investor-state arbitration. These questions stem from a statutory ambiguity that has caused widespread uncertainty in international arbitration, and it may not be resolvable based on statutory interpretation or congressional intent.
Continue ReadingWhytock Challenges the Conventional Wisdom that Transnational Forum Shopping Is Increasing in U.S. Courts
In a recent article, Professor Chris Whytock challenges the claim that transnational forum shopping by foreign plaintiffs is increasing. Using data on approximately 8 million civil actions filed in federal court, Whytock shows that transnational diversity cases represent a small and decreasing percentage of overall litigation.
Continue ReadingForeign Dictators in U.S. Courts
From Augusto Pinochet to Jiang Zemin and Ferdinand Marcos, foreign dictators have for decades faced a range of claims in U.S. courts. But there is also a line of cases in U.S. courts involving dictators as plaintiffs. Over the last decade, authoritarian governments from China, Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela have used the U.S. judicial system to file frivolous claims against political opponents. And these claims appear to be mainly a harassment technique against dissidents and media outlets based in the United States.
Continue Reading