Judgments Project

Resumption of the Judgments Project in 2013

United States views on international law [1] in relation to Resumption of the Judgments Project: Over a decade ago, the Member States of the Hague Conference on Private International Law initiated “The Judgments Project,” which originally contemplated harmonization of the rules of jurisdiction of courts and the recognition and enforcement of their judgments across borders. The most notable result of their efforts was a more limited agreement, the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (“COCA”), which was concluded in 2005. In 2011, the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference convened an “Experts' Group” to explore the possibility of resuming the Judgments Project. The Experts' Group agreed that there was some prospect of success for an instrument on the recognition and enforcement of judgments, but there was no consensus regarding further work on an instrument on jurisdictional bases. In 2012, the Council considered the findings of the Experts' Group and divided the project into two parts: (1) a Working Group tasked with preparing proposals for consideration by a Special Commission in relation to provisions that might be included in a possible future instrument relating to recognition and enforcement of judgments; (2) further study by the Experts' Group regarding the feasibility of making provisions in relation to matters of jurisdiction, including parallel proceedings, in the same or another future instrument. Initial meetings of the Working Group and the Experts' Group took place in The Hague in February 2013.

Some Aspects of Resumption of the Judgments Project

In August of 2013, after some disagreement among delegations as to how the work on the Judgments Project should proceed, the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference disseminated to Member States a “Process Paper on Continuation of the Judgments Project,” which proposed (in paragraph 20) the following plan for the timing and agenda of the two groups (the Working Group and the Experts' Group):

(i) the Working Group continue to further advance its work in response to its mandate and report to the Council in 2014; (ii) the Experts' Group inform the Council in 2014 that while its study and discussion on the desirability and feasibility of work on international jurisdiction is suspended to allow all Members of the Groups to have a clearer idea as to the evolution of the work on recognition and enforcement, it intends to resume its work at some point in the future so as to allow Members of the Experts' Group to develop a more informed position on the policy issues at stake in relation to jurisdictional matters; and (iii) at the appropriate time, the Council consider the results of the work of the Working Group and the recommendations of the Experts' Group in order to determine the scope and nature of the future instrument(s).

Developments

The Process Paper is available in full at (Secretary of State website) state.gov/s/l/c8183.htm.

On December 6, 2013, John J. Kim, Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law at the U.S. Department of State, provided U.S. views regarding the proposed plan for the Working Group and the Experts' Group in proceeding with the Judgments Project. The letter from Mr. Kim to Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, is also available at (Secretary of State website) state.gov/s/l/c8183.htm. In response to the Process Paper, Mr. Kim's letter states:

The United States very much appreciates the Permanent Bureau's work in preparing the Process Paper. The Process Paper usefully summarizes the debate among delegations as to how the Judgments Project should proceed—in particular, whether the Conference should focus first on the recognition and enforcement of judgments alone, or whether work should proceed on a dual track including negotiations on direct jurisdiction. …

Details

As you know, the U.S. delegation has expressed its views on the Judgments Project at prior meetings of the Council on General Affairs and Policy. We believe that we must first see if an agreement can be reached on the fundamental objective of the Judgments Project (the recognition and enforcement of judgments) before the Council decides whether it makes sense to pursue work on direct jurisdiction. Further, we believe that the Permanent Bureau and the Member States should focus their limited resources in an area where the prospects for success are more promising.

More

Accordingly, the United States can accept the recommendations made by the Permanent Bureau in paragraph 20 of the Process Paper, subject to certain clarifications. First, we agree that the Working Group should resume its work in response to its mandate and report to the Council on General Affairs and Policy in April 2014.

More

Second, we agree that the Experts' Group should refrain from the study and discussion of the desirability and feasibility of work on international jurisdiction until all Members of the Hague Conference have a clearer idea as to the evolution of the work on recognition and enforcement. The Experts' Group should not meet again until there is a consensus by the Members of the Hague Conference that it is appropriate for the Experts' Group to meet.

Resources

Notes

1. Resumption of the Judgments Project in the Digest of United States Practice in International Law