Canada

We Still Don’t Know What the State Department Thinks About the Transit Pipelines Treaty

In Bad River Band v. Enbridge Energy Co., the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Judge William M. Conley) found that a pipeline owned by a Canadian company, Enbridge Energy, trespasses on the reservation of the Bad River Band of Chippewa Indians. He ordered the pipeline to shut down by June 16, 2026….

Continue Reading

What Does the State Department Think About the Transit Pipelines Treaty?

On February 8, 2024, the Seventh Circuit heard argument in Bad River Band v. Enbridge Energy Co. Enbridge, a Canadian company, owns and operates a pipeline that transports light crude oil and natural gas liquids from Canadian oil fields to the United States and Ontario. The Bad River Band of Chippewa Indians sued Enbridge for…

Continue Reading

Further Thoughts About Terrorism Exceptions and State Immunity

As regular readers know, Iran has sued Canada at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing that the terrorism exceptions in Canada’s State Immunities Act (SIA) violate customary international law. The United States also has terrorism exceptions in its Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) for actions against state sponsors of terrorism and for actions based on international terrorism in the…

Continue Reading

Governmental and Non-Governmental Acts in Terrorism Exceptions to Sovereign Immunity

The Islamic Republic of Iran (“Iran”) brought proceedings in the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) against Canada on June 27, 2023, alleging that Section 6.1(1) of Canada’s State Immunity Act (SIA), its “terrorism exception,” violates Iran’s sovereign immunities from jurisdiction and enforcement under customary international law. Section 6.1(1) creates an exception to the jurisdictional immunity…

Continue Reading

Why Terrorism Exceptions to State Immunity Do Not Violate International Law

[Editor’s Note: This post also appears at Just Security.] On June 27, 2023, Iran sued Canada at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing that the terrorism exceptions in Canada’s State Immunities Act (SIA) violate customary international law. As Professor Maryam Jamshidi noted at Just Security, it seems that the main target of Iran’s action…

Continue Reading

Microsoft’s Dispute Resolution Provisions Are a Mess

The Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) and its foreign subsidiaries buy goods and services from companies all around the world. To streamline the contracting process, Microsoft has drafted a purchase order that contains standard terms and conditions. This purchase order – viewable here – is used by Microsoft and its subsidiaries in 109 different countries. This agreement…

Continue Reading

If Not Here, Where? Transnational Litigation Against U.S. Tech Companies Around the World

As U.S. courts have narrowed their amenability to transnational litigation, foreign courts have emerged as forums for such litigation. This is strikingly clear in suits against U.S. tech companies, which often cannot be sued at home because of Section 230 immunity. In suits around the world against U.S. tech giants, foreign courts are adapting concepts…

Continue Reading

Throwback Thursday: Equustek v. Google

  This year marks the fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Equustek v. Google, in which Canada’s highest court became one among a select few to order an internet intermediary to remove information from its services on a worldwide basis. The decision in Equustek aroused angst and controversy out of fear…

Continue Reading

Perspectives on the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention from the United States and Canada

On August 29, 2022, the European Union and Ukraine became Contracting Parties to the 2019 HCCH Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, commonly known as the Hague Judgments Convention, thus triggering its entry into force on September 1, 2023. Our article recently posted to SSRN, The 2019…

Continue Reading

Throwback Thursday: Canada, Cannabis, and Forum Selection Clauses

Companies engaged in transnational litigation prefer, as a rule, to litigate disputes at home. Litigating at home allows a party to rely on lawyers and procedures with which it is already familiar. It also forces the other party to bear the costs of litigating in an unfamiliar legal system and (sometimes) in a foreign language….

Continue Reading

Ingrid (Wuerth) Brunk

Vanderbilt Law School
ingrid.wuerth@vanderbilt.eduEmail

William Dodge

UC Davis School of Law
wsdodge@ucdavis.eduEmail

Maggie Gardner

Cornell Law School
mgardner@cornell.eduEmail

John F. Coyle

University of North Carolina School of Law
jfcoyle@email.unc.eduEmail

Zachary D. Clopton

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
zclopton@law.northwestern.eduEmail

Noah Buyon

Duke University School of Law
Bio | Posts

Will Moon

University of Maryland
Bio | Posts

William K. McGoughran

Vanderbilt Law School
Bio | Posts

Chimène Keitner

UC Davis School of Law
Bio | Posts

Catherine Amirfar

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Bio | Posts

Justin R. Rassi

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Bio | Posts

Isabelle Glimcher

Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Bio | Posts

Ben Köhler

Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law
Bio | Posts

Aaron D. Simowitz

Willamette University College of Law
Bio | Posts

Timothy D. Lytton

Georgia State University College of Law
Bio | Posts