Introduction
International trade laws are generally consistent since they emerge from conventions and practices that are not new to most European countries. The different nations that comprise Europe have various laws that concern commercial practice and trade. Various regulations and conventions have been formulated with the intention of dealing with the hurdles that arise from the conflict of laws. There are set principles that guide the way that the European regime approaches these issues. The interpretation of these principles is however a hurdle to their application in the various European states.
Discussion
The Rome Convention dictates the terms that govern contractual obligations in international disputes. This is however somewhat controversial because of the different interpretations between two legal systems. The result is that what is considered to be contractual in one nation may be seen as tortious in another. The convention must be put into force whenever there is an alternative between two legal options. The nation in which the contracting party that has been sued is headquartered is usually awarded the jurisdiction of the case. Another consideration is the location of the commercial activities that the corporation is involved in. These activities are usually part of the subject of the legal action. A European country cannot allow proceedings of a commercial case that has already been launched another country’s judicial system. The court is forced to stay the proceedings until the case comes to a conclusion in the foreign country. This policy is known as lis alibi pendens. This has been successful in reducing conflict between the laws of European countries. Articles 19, 21-23 deal with this issue. The policy avoids contradictory judgements being issued by two countries judicial systems.
The application of the various conventions and regulations are also dependent on a number of factors. These factors include bankruptcy or arbitration. They determine the suitability of a particular nation’s justice system in dealing with the commercial dispute. The courts determine which legal system is more suited to the case in hand. The principle of forum non conveniens is applied in this instance. The factor of forum shopping and its subsequent injustice is put into account. This has been successful in ensuring that the needs of justice for commercial cases are met. The Brussels regime is the overall set of policy rules for international commercial matters of legal nature. It includes the Brussels Convention and the Brussels I Convention. It also comprises the Lugano Convention. A case concerning European law is Lloyd J. In Pearce v. Ove Arup. In this instance national law was abandoned. This was because the ‘Double Actionability’ rule had ceased to exist. This is the case when the defendants are legal residents of the EU. The case of Expandable Grafts v. Boston Scientific (1998) deals with the issue of contradictory judgements. The Court of Appeals considers the ruling of another court in the determination of its judgement. It cites the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This court deliberated over Kalfelis v. Schroeder. The Court of Appeals created a wide connection of laws with the desire to reduce the chance of the occurrence of opposing judgments. The European considers instances where a branch of an international organization is involved in a legal tussle. There are several considerations that contribute to the resolution of such a case. One is the headquarters of the organization and the scope of commercial activities that occur in the area where the violation is said to have taken place.
The Regulation supports the use of jurisdiction agreements. The jurisdiction agreement can grant jurisdiction the courts of a particular jurisdiction. This means that a case concerning the two parties cannot be determined by any other court apart from the one that has been granted jurisdiction. This court must however stay its proceedings until the courts of another country declare that they do not have jurisdiction over the case. This is the event whereby a case has been launched in courts that do not have jurisdiction according to a jurisdiction agreement. This is depicted in the case of Erich Gasser GmbH v. MISAT Srl, Case 116/02. It was argued that this principle might lead to injustice since the involved parties might choose to delay the case by launching applications in courts that do not have the relevant jurisdiction. A second case that evaluates the factor of jurisdiction agreements is Allianz SpA v West Tankers Inc. Case C-185/07. It was decided that one party in a legal dispute cannot stop another from continuing proceedings in a foreign court by way of a restraining order. The ECJ has thus undermined the stature of these jurisdictional agreements. This is because it is possible for one to intervene with justice by launching legal applications in courts that are not covered by the jurisdiction agreement. The court has therefore undermined the usefulness of such jurisdictional agreements. The delay of cases due to the fact that proceedings have been launched in an irrelevant jurisdiction causes the importance of jurisdictional agreements to come under significant doubt. The regulation supports such agreements but this support becomes delayed and weakened if one of the parties launches proceedings in a court that is not covered by the jurisdiction agreement.
Conclusion
Commercial activities can never be devoid of disputes. The disputes become more complicated when the concerned parties are from different nations. These nations have different trade laws. These disputes must be solved in a legal manner that the existent nations are in agreement with. This has led to the creation of conventions that govern international trade. Various cases have shown how the European regime deals with conflicts of laws.
Reference List
Hayward, R. (2006) Conflict of Laws, 4th edn, Cavendish Publishing Limited.
Baumgartner, S. P. (2003) The proposed Hague Convention on jurisdiction and foreign judgments: trans-atlantic lawmaking for transnational litigation. Mohr Siebeck.
Solovay, N. & Reed, C. K. (2003)The Internet and dispute resolution: untangling the Web. Law Journal Press.
Brand, R. A. & Herrup, P. (2008) The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: commentary and documents. Cambridge University Press.
Seatzu, F. (2003) Insurance in private international law: a European perspective. Hart Publishing.