Dear Colleague
We are delighted to announce that the first issue of the International Journal of Dispute Settlement has now published online.
We’ve made every article included in this first issue freely available to give you a taster for the journal.
Access the full content of this issue by clicking through.
http://jids.oxfordjournals.org/current.dtl
Brand new to Oxford Journal in 2010!
The International Journal of Dispute Settlement is the only academic journal to cover international dispute resolution from a public and private international law perspective.
It will primarily address fundamental and lasting issues of international dispute settlement, and gives preference to articles of enduring importance concerning significant trends in the field.
The journal will be open to strictly legal approaches as well as to studies inspired by other disciplines, such as legal sociology, legal theory, the history of law, law and political science, and law and economics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your next steps
We hope you enjoy reading this first issue of the International Journal of Dispute Settlement. Don't forget - if you like what you see here, there are a number of things you can do:
1. Sign up for eTOC alerts so the latest articles from the journal are delivered straight to your inbox
2. Recommend this journal to your library. Simply click through and fill in your details. The form should only take a moment to complete.
Warmest regards,
Rachel Mill
Oxford Journals
P.S. Do feel free to forward this on to friends or colleagues who might be interested.
http://jids.oxfordjournals.org/
Keep an eye out for our new-look emails, coming soon.
2010年2月26日 星期五
Wasserman on Transnational Class Actions
Rhonda Wasserman, who teaches at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, has posted Transnational Class Actions and Interjurisdictional Preclusion on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
As global markets expand and trans-border disputes multiply, American courts are pressed to certify transnational class actions – i.e., class actions brought on behalf of large numbers of foreign citizens or against foreign defendants. Defendants typically oppose certification by arguing that European courts will not recognize or accord preclusive effect to a judgment in the defendant’s favor. Thus, defendants fear repetitive litigation on the same claim in foreign courts even if they prevail in an American court.In addressing defendants’ arguments, American courts carefully consider the likelihood that an American judgment will be recognized abroad. But they virtually never consider the preclusive effects, if any, that the judgment or court-approved settlement will receive or which country’s preclusion law will determine those effects. The Article identifies and analyzes significant differences between American preclusion law and the preclusion laws of Europe. In light of these important differences, the Article strongly recommends that courts analyze recognition and preclusion issues separately, rather than conflating them.
As global markets expand and trans-border disputes multiply, American courts are pressed to certify transnational class actions – i.e., class actions brought on behalf of large numbers of foreign citizens or against foreign defendants. Defendants typically oppose certification by arguing that European courts will not recognize or accord preclusive effect to a judgment in the defendant’s favor. Thus, defendants fear repetitive litigation on the same claim in foreign courts even if they prevail in an American court.In addressing defendants’ arguments, American courts carefully consider the likelihood that an American judgment will be recognized abroad. But they virtually never consider the preclusive effects, if any, that the judgment or court-approved settlement will receive or which country’s preclusion law will determine those effects. The Article identifies and analyzes significant differences between American preclusion law and the preclusion laws of Europe. In light of these important differences, the Article strongly recommends that courts analyze recognition and preclusion issues separately, rather than conflating them.
訂閱：
意見 (Atom)