"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de maîtrise en droit des affaires" / Ce mémoire aborde les différentes questions juridiques se présentant lorsqu'une partie cherche à fàire reconnaître et à exécuter au Québec, dans le contexte d'une faillite, une sûreté présentant des liens avec plus d'une juridiction canadienne. Plus précisément, le présent ouvrage traite des questions de juridiction se présentant dans de telles circonstances, particulièrement devant quel tribunal des procédures judiciaires doivent être intentées et à l'intérieur de quelle juridiction ces procédures doivent être entamées. Par ailleurs, les questions entourant l'interaction entre la Loi sur la faillite et l'insolvabilité et les dispositions législatives provinciales sur l'exécution et l'ordre de collocation de sûretés dans le contexte d'une faillite présentant des liens avec plus d'une juridiction canadienne sont abordées. De plus,la problématique entourant l'étendue de la reconnaissance au Québec de sûretés créées à l'étranger sera développée. Pour ce faire, une étude comparative des régimes mis en place au Québec et dans les juridictions canadiennes de common law en matière de sûretés sera effectuée. Enfin, la dernière partie de ce mémoire traitera des règles applicables à la reconnaissance au Québec de jugements originant d'une autre juridiction canadienne en matière de reconnaissance et d'exécution de sûretés. / This dissertation addresses the legal issues that must face a party seeking to recognize and enforce in Quebec, in the context of bankruptcy, a security linked to more than one canadian jurisdiction. In that regard, this paper deals with the issues of jurisdiction arising under those circumstances, more specifical1y the determination of the Court before which legal proceedings must be introduced and the jurisdiction where those proceedings must take place. Also, the questions surrounding the interaction between the Bankruptcy and insolvency Act and the provincial legislation pertaining to the enforcement and order of payment of securities is developped in the context of a bankruptcy affecting goods located in more than one canadian jurisdiction. Moreover, the extent ofthe recognition in Quebec of securities created in another canadian jurisdiction is assessed. In doing so, a comparative study of the schemes put in place in Quebec and the other Canadian jurisdictions is completed. Final1y, the last part of this paper focuses on the rules applicable to the recognition in Quebec of judgments originating from other Canadian jurisdictions dealing with the recognition and enforcement of securities.

"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures En vue de l'obtention du grade de maîtrise en droit" / Un auteur a dit: «L'association d'idée avec la girafe se présente immédiatement à l'esprit, en donner une définition est difficile, mais chacun reconnaît l'animal». Tel est le cas pour la notion de contrat international qui apparaît souvent comme évidente, mais lorsqu'il est question de donner une définition précise la tâche s'avére complexe. L'internationalité du contrat a fait l'objet de plusieurs études et recherches dans le but de délimiter cette notion. La doctrine et la jurisprudence ont élaboré deux méthodes de qualification: économique et juridique; sans pour autant définir le contrat international de façon nette, claire et précise. Le but visé par cette étude est d'essayer d'établir le lien entre la possibilité de fraude à la loi et la problématique de la définition du contrat international; par le biais d'une étude comparative entre le droit civil (français, québécois, tunisien), la common law (Royaume-Uni, Canada, États-Unis), le droit dans les pays à commerce d'État et le droit conventionel. / One author said : «L'association d'idée avec la girafe se présente immédiatement l'esprit, en donner une définition est difficile mais chacun reconnaît l'animal». This is the case for the notion of international contract, whose definition is often presumed to be self-evident, but in reality constructing a precise definition is a very complicated task. The international nature of a contract has been the subject of many studies and much research has been dedicated to this topic, aIl with the goal of formulating a clear definition. Legal doctrine and jurisprudence have succeeded in qualifying international contract as legal or economic without actually defining it in any constant, clear or precise manner. The aim of this study is to make an attempt at establishing a link between possible evasion of the law and the problem of defining international contract; this will b e a chieved v ia a comparative s tudy of c ivill aw (France, Quebec, Tunisia), common law (United Kingdom, Canada, United States) law in countries where the economy is state-run and international treaty law.

Com a globalização e o constante aumento do fluxo internacional, tanto de mercadorias como de pessoas, observou-se o incremento dos negócios jurídicos com conexão internacional. A escolha da lei aplicável aos estatutos pessoais dividiu-se doutrinariamente entre defensores do elemento de conexão nacionalidade, como Mancini, e defensores do elemento de conexão domicílio, como Savigny. Cada vez mais conflitos envolvendo negócios jurídicos multijurisdicionais se tornaram uma realidade submetida aos tribunais internos dos países, de modo que a residência habitual surge como uma solução à dicotomia existente entre nacionalidade e domicílio. Nesse contexto, a finalidade da presente dissertação é analisar a incidência do elemento de conexão residência habitual no mundo globalizado e a incidência da residência habitual no direito internacional privado brasileiro. Para desenvolver os objetivos propostos, o estudo divide-se em dois capítulos. No primeiro capítulo é abordado o debate doutrinário existente na definição de residência habitual enquanto elemento de conexão, bem como a relação que possui com o domicílio – diferenciando-se domicílio em países de common law e de civil law. Neste primeiro momento ocorre também a análise do surgimento da residência habitual como elemento de conexão a determinar a lei aplicável, as suas primeiras utilizações pelas Convenções da Haia, previsões em legislações internas de diferentes países e também em âmbito unional através da União Europeia. O segundo capítulo destina-se à incidência da residência habitual no direito internacional privado brasileiro com a sua previsão em convenções já ratificadas pelo Brasil, bem como ao reconhecimento deste elemento de conexão no cenário brasileiro. Compreende, ainda, o estudo de julgados brasileiros que já utilizaram o critério da residência habitual e o futuro deste elemento de conexão no direito internacional privado brasileiro. Destacam-se as tentativas de atualização da Lei de Introdução às Normas do Direito Brasileiro que já previram a inserção do elemento de conexão residência habitual de forma subsidiária ao domicílio. Em conclusão, tem-se que a atualização legislativa do direito internacional privado brasileiro deve inserir o elemento de conexão residência habitual, em ascensão no mundo atualmente, com primazia, e não de modo subsidiário como os projetos anteriores. A primazia do critério residência habitual permite a aplicação da lei mais próxima à vida da pessoa ou à relação jurídica multiconectada, e ainda harmoniza o direito internacional privado, permitindo que o domicílio e a nacionalidade sejam utilizados de modo subsidiário. / With globalization and the constant increase of the international flow of both goods and people, it was observed the increase of the legal transactions with an international connection. The choice of law applicable to personal statutes was divided doctrinally between defenders of the connecting factor of nationality as Mancini and defenders of the connecting factor of domicile as Savigny. More and more conflicts involving multijurisdictional legal business have become a constant reality submitted to the domestic courts of the countries, so that habitual residence emerges as a solution to the dichotomy existing between nationality and domicile. In this context, the purpose of this dissertation is to analyze the incidence of the connection factor of habitual residence in the globalized world and the incidence of habitual residence in Brazilian private international law. In order to develop the proposed objectives, the study is divided into two chapters. The first chapter addresses the doctrinal debate existing in the definition of habitual residence as connecting factor, as well as the relation that has with the domicile - differentiating domicile in countries of common law of civil law. In this first moment there is also the analysis of the emergence of habitual residence as an connecting factor to determine the applicable law, its first uses by the Hague Conventions, provisions in internal legislation of different countries and also in a unional scope through the European Union. The second chapter focuses on the incidence of habitual residence in Brazilian private international law with its prediction in conventions already ratified by Brazil, as well as the recognition of this connecting factor in the Brazilian scenario. It also includes the study of Brazilian judges who have already used the criterion of habitual residence and the future of this connecting factor in Brazilian private international law. It analyzes the attempts to update the Brazilian private international law that have already predicted the insertion of the connecting factor of habitual residence in a subsidiary form to the domicile. In conclusion, it is noticed that the legislative update of Brazilian private international law must insert the connecting factor of habitual residence, rising in the world today, with primacy, and not in a subsidiary way as the previous projects. The primacy of habitual residence allows the application of the law closest to the person's life or to the multi-connected legal relationship, and also harmonizes private international law, allowing domicile and nationality to be used in a subsidiary manner.

La thèse propose d'abolir, pour les besoins du droit international privé, les différents cloisonnements de la phase précontractuelle en retenant une approche unitaire du processus de formation du contrat. Dans cette perspective, il est proposé de dépasser la distinction entre les relations précontractuelles informelles et celles qui sont formalisées par un contrat préparatoire, de même que la distinction entre la phase précontractuelle et le contrat définitif. L'attraction du contrat projeté conduit à emprunter le rattachement de ce dernier pour désigner la loi applicable aux relations précontractuelles. Cette solution pourrait, dans la mesure du possible, être transposée dans le domaine des conflits de juridictions en retenant la compétence du juge du contrat projeté. / The doctoral dissertation proposes to abolish, for the purpose of private international law, the compartmentalisation of the pre-contractual phase by adopting a unitary approach to the contract formation process. In this perspective, it is proposed to overcome the distinction between unformal pre-contractual relations and pre-contractual relations formalized by a preparatory contract, as well as the distinction between the pre-contractual phase and the final contract. The attraction of the intended contract leads to use its connecting factor in order to determine the law applicable to pre-contractual relations. This option could, whenever possible, be extended to conflicts of jurisdictions by considering that the competent judge is the judge of the intended contract.

就第一章緒論部分而言，在第一節中，首先闡明本文之研究動機與目的，尤其說明在我國研究海牙國際私法公約，有何實益，其次說明本文之研究方法。 在研究海牙國際私法公約前，勢必先對海牙國際私法會議予以簡介，故第二章在第一節中，先對海牙國際私法會議之沿革與發展予以簡介，並在第二節中，對二次世界大戰後所通過之公約，做一分析歸納比較，俾說明海牙國際私法公約之特色所在。 海牙國際私法會議雖逾百年歷史，但世代流轉，滄海桑田，通過之公約多如牛毛，許多公約已不合時宜，或為新公約所取代，或參加國紛紛退出公約，或公約因參與國不足致未曾生效，或昔日之參加國已不復存在。職是，本文之重點，係置於近四十年來重要公約之比較分析，至第一次世界大戰前、兩次世界大戰間，以及戰後初期之海牙國際私法公約，一般而言效果不彰 ，故僅於本文第三章、第四章、第五章略述其梗概，或有其國際私法法制史上之意義。 第六章針對近四十年來主要之海牙國際私法公約，予以分析比較，遇有值得我國法制借鏡之處者，即穿插其間予以說明，希能使本文除單純法制史與比較法層面之研究外，或能對現今我國國際私法解釋論與立法論，略盡棉薄之力。 第七章則為本文之總結。 第一章 緒論 第一節 研究動機與目的..............................................................................1 第二節 研究方法...........................................................................................8 第三節 論文之主要章節架構......................................................................9 第二章 海牙國際私法會議簡介 第一節 海牙國際私法會議之沿革與發展...............................................10 第一項 海牙國際私法會議之濫觴.........................................................10 第二項 海牙國際私法會議之早期發展................................................10 第三項 海牙國際私法會議之常設機構................................................12 第四項 海牙國際私法會議之召開........................................................13 第五項 海牙國際私法會議之經費........................................................14 第六項 歷次海牙國際私法會議通過之公約.......................................14 第二節 海牙國際私法公約之架構...........................................................19 第一項 組成順序類似..............................................................................19 第二項 多以「慣居地」為連繫因素....................................................21 第三項 一般條款之結構.........................................................................26 第四項 最後條款之結構........................................................................ 28 第三章 第一次世界大戰前之海牙國際私法公約 第一節 關於婚姻之公約........................................................................... 30 第二節 關於夫妻身分與財產關係之公約............................................. 31 第三節 關於離婚及分居之公約.............................................................. 32 第四節 關於未成年人之監護公約.......................................................... 33 第五節 關於成年人之監護公約.............................................................. 34 第四章 兩次世界大戰間之海牙國際私法公約 第一節 關於外國判決承認與執行公約................................................. 36 第二節 關於破產公約............................................................................... 36 第三節 關於繼承之公約........................................................................... 40 第四節 關於民.事訴訟之公約.................................................................. 41 第五節 小結................................................................................................. 42 第五章 一九五○年代之海牙國際私法公約 第一節 海牙國際私法會議第七屆會議.................................................. 43 第二節 海牙國際私法會議第八屆會議.................................................. 45 第三節 海牙國際私法會議第九屆會議.................................................. 46 第六章 近代之海牙國際私法公約 第一節 海牙關於收養國際私法公約...................................................... 49 第一項 一九六四年公約........................................................................ 50 第一款 公約適用範圍.........................................................................50 第二款 管轄機關..................................................................................51 第三款 收養之準據法.........................................................................51 第四款 核准收養之要件.....................................................................53 第五款 無效或撤銷收養之要件........................................................54 第六款 外國收養之承認.....................................................................54 第七款 小結...........................................................................................55 第二項 一九九三年公約........................................................................ 56 第一款 公約適用範圍..........................................................................57 第二款 收養之實體要件.....................................................................57 第三款 中央主管機關與受任機構....................................................58 第四款 國際收養程序..........................................................................60 第五款 國際收養之承認與效力.........................................................61 第六款 小結............................................................................................62 第三項 綜合分析.......................................................................................63 第二節 海牙關於司法與非司法民商文書 之外國送達國際私法公約.............................................................66 第一項 適用範圍.......................................................................................66 第二項 司法文書之送達..........................................................................67 第一款 向應受送達國中央主管機關提出請求..............................67 第二款 應受送達國中央主管機關之作為.......................................68 第三款 其他送達管道..........................................................................69 第四款 送達費用..................................................................................73 第五款 傳票之送達..............................................................................74 第三項 非司法文書之送達......................................................................75 第四項 小結................................................................................................75 第三節 海牙關於外國民商事判決承認與執行公約..............................77 第一項 前言...............................................................................................77 第二項 公約適用之範圍.........................................................................78 第三項 承認、執行外國裁判之要件...................................................79 第一款 積極要件..................................................................................79 第二款 消極要件..................................................................................81 第四項 結論...............................................................................................83 第四節 海牙關於承認外國離婚與法定分居之國際私法公約.............85 第一項 公約適用之範圍..........................................................................85 第一款 僅限於外國離婚與法定分居................................................84 第二款 限於公權力機關依程序作成者............................................86 第二項 承認之要件..................................................................................86 第一款 積極要件..................................................................................86 第二款 消極要件..................................................................................88 第三項 審查之原則..................................................................................89 第四項 對國內法之啟示.........................................................................91 第五節 海牙關於交通事故之國際私法公約..........................................92 第一項 公約適用之範圍....................................................................... 93 第一款 積極範圍..................................................................................93 第二款 消極範圍..................................................................................94 第二項 準據法之規定.............................................................................94 第一款 以交通事故發生地為原則....................................................94 第二款 人損以車輛登記國法為例外................................................95 第三款 物損之準據法..........................................................................97 第四款 侵權行為地交通安全法規之考量........................................97 第三項 對我國法之啟示...........................................................................97 第六節 海牙關於民商事件在國外調查證據公約..................................100 第一項 請求外國調查證據之範圍........................................................100 第二項 中央主管機關之設置.................................................................101 第三項 請求之提出..................................................................................101 第一款 請求函之載明.........................................................................101 第二款 請求函之語文.........................................................................102 第四項 被請求機關處理程序................................................................102 第一款 審查請求是否與本公約相符...............................................102 第二款 通知調查證據之時地............................................................103 第三款 決定在場人員.........................................................................103 第四款 決定調查證據之方法與程序...............................................103 第五款 強制採證措施之採行............................................................103 第六款 採證結果之回覆.....................................................................103 第五項 拒絕調查證據之事由................................................................104 第一款 證據持有人之事由.................................................................104 第二款 被請求機關之事由.................................................................104 第六項 領事官員或特派員外國調查證據...........................................104 第一款 應具之要件..............................................................................104 第二款 雙方代理之規範.....................................................................105 第三款 得請求提供強制力.................................................................105 第四款 得以代表為之..........................................................................105 第五款 執行職務之方式.....................................................................106 第七項 檢討與啟示..................................................................................106 第七節 海牙關於產品製作人責任國際私法公約..................................108 第一項 公約適用之範圍........................................................................109 第二項 用語定義.....................................................................................109 第一款 「商品」之定義....................................................................109 第二款 「損害」之定義....................................................................109 第三款 「被請求負損害賠償責任人」之定義.............................110 第四款 請求權人之定義....................................................................110 第五款 本公約決定之事項................................................................110 第三項 涉外商品製作人責任之準據法...............................................110 第一款 第一優先順位︰直接受害人慣居地法.............................111 第二款 第二優先順位︰損害造成地法..........................................111 第三款 第三優先順位︰被請求負損害賠償責任者主要營業所 在地國法...................................................112 第四款 例外規定..................................................................................113 第四項 對我國法之啟示..........................................................................114 第八節 海牙關於國際遺產管理國際私法公約.......................................115 第一項 國際證書之意義..........................................................................115 第二項 證書之發給.................................................................................. 115 第一款 發給國與發給機關..................................................................115 第二款 發給之準據法..........................................................................116 第三款 發給之程序...............................................................................117 第三項 證書之承認、保全或緊急措施............................................... 118 第一款 證書之承認...............................................................................118 第二款 保全或緊急措施.......................................................................118 第三款 證書之拒絕承認.......................................................................119 第四項 證書之使用與效力.......................................................................120 第五項 證書之取消、修改與中止..........................................................121 第六項 不動產之管理...............................................................................122 第七項 檢討與分析....................................................................................122 第九節 海牙關於外國扶養之公約.............................................................125 第一項 海牙關於外國扶養裁判之承認與執行公約...........................125 第一款 公約之適用範圍.......................................................................126 第二款 承認與執行之要件..................................................................127 第三款 承認與執行之程序..................................................................129 第四款 檢討與啟示...............................................................................130 第二項 海牙關於扶養準據法公約........................................................ 131 第一款 公約適用之範圍.......................................................................131 第二款 扶養之準據法...........................................................................133 第三款 我國法之檢討..........................................................................134 第十節 海牙關於婚姻成立及承認公約....................................................137 第一項 前言..............................................................................................137 第二項 婚姻成立之準據法....................................................................138 第一款 形式要件..................................................................................138 第二款 實質要件..................................................................................139 第三項 婚姻之承認..................................................................................140 第一款 積極要件...................................................................................141 第二款 消極要件...................................................................................142 第四項 對我國法之啟示..........................................................................144 第十一節 海牙關於夫妻財產制之國際私法公約....................................146 第一項 前言................................................................................................146 第二項 適用範圍........................................................................................147 第三項 準據法............................................................................................148 第一款 第一優先順位︰當事人意思自主........................................148 第二款 第二優先順位︰夫妻之屬人法.............................................148 第三款 第三優先順位︰關係最切國法.............................................151 第四款 小結............................................................................................152 第四項 分析與檢討....................................................................................152 第一款 尊重當事人意思自主..............................................................152 第二款 當事人慣居地連繫因素優於當事人本國之連繫因素.....154 第三款 屈服條款之訂立......................................................................155 第四款 注重兩性平權..........................................................................156 第五項 對我國法之啟示...........................................................................156 第十二節 海牙關於代理國際私法公約....................................................158 第一項 公約之範圍...................................................................................158 第二項 本人與代理人間之關係.............................................................159 第三項 本人與第三人間之關係.............................................................160 第一款 意定準據法..............................................................................160 第二款 法定準據法..............................................................................160 第四項 對我國之啟示..............................................................................161 第十三節 海牙關於國際間誘拐兒童民事部分公約..............................163 第一項 返還兒童之要件.........................................................................165 第一款 積極要件..................................................................................165 第二款 消極要件..................................................................................167 第二項 中央主管機關.............................................................................167 第一款 中央主管機關之設置............................................................168 第二款 中央主管機關之任務............................................................168 第三項 返還之程序.................................................................................168 第一款 申請之提出.............................................................................169 第二款 申請之受理.............................................................................169 第三款 中央主管機關之處置............................................................169 第四款 司法或行政機關之處置........................................................170 第四項 探視權..........................................................................................173 第五項 檢討與啟示.................................................................................173 第十四節 海牙關於訴訟救助公約...........................................................175 第一項 訴訟救助之要件與範圍...........................................................175 第一款 要件.........................................................................................175 第二款 範圍.........................................................................................176 第二項 權責機關之設立與功能..........................................................176 第一款 中央主管機關.......................................................................176 第二款 轉交機關................................................................................177 第三項 申請程序....................................................................................177 第一款 向轉交機關提出申請..........................................................177 第二款 向他國適格機關申請..........................................................178 第四項 擔保之免除...............................................................................178 第五項 檢討與分析...............................................................................178 第十五節 海牙關於信託準據法與承認公約.........................................180 第一項 公約適用之範圍.......................................................................180 第一款 積極範圍.................................................................................180 第二款 消極範圍.................................................................................181 第二項 涉外信託之準據法...................................................................182 第一款 當事人意思自主原則............................................................182 第二款 關係最切國法.........................................................................182 第三項 外國信託之承認........................................................................183 第四項 結論.............................................................................................184 第十六節 海牙關於國際商品買賣契約準據法公約.............................185 第一項 公約適用之範圍........................................................................185 第一款 積極規定.................................................................................185 第二款 消極規定................................................................................186 第二項 國際商品買賣契約之準據法..................................................187 第一款 實質效力準據法...................................................................187 第二款 形式效力準據法...................................................................188 第三項 準據法之適用...........................................................................188 第四項 檢討與分析...............................................................................189 第一款 實質準據法方面..................................................................189 第二款 形式準據法方面..................................................................194 第十七節 海牙關於遺產繼承準據法公約.............................................196 第一項 前言............................................................................................196 第二項 適用範圍...................................................................................197 第一款 限定以準據法問題為規範對象........................................197 第二款 原則上不包括遺產管理事項............................................197 第三款 原則上不包括信託事項.....................................................198 第四款 其他排除事項......................................................................198 第三項 繼承之準據法..........................................................................199 第一款 當事人意思自主原則之採用............................................199 第二款 以統一主義為原則.............................................................200 第三款 以分割主義為例外.............................................................201 第四項 準據法適用之範圍.................................................................201 第五項 繼承契約之準據法.................................................................201 第一款 繼承契約之意義.................................................................201 第二款 當事人有選擇時之準據法................................................201 第三款 當事人未選擇時之準據法...............................................202 第四款 當事人意思自主與公序良俗之平衡..............................203 第六項 其他一般條款..........................................................................204 第一款 世界主義與反致之適用....................................................204 第二款 同時死亡之規定.................................................................204 第三款 農業用等資產之特別規定...............................................204 第四款 無人繼承之規定.................................................................205 第七項 對我國法之啟示.....................................................................205 第十八節 海牙關於涉外親權責任之管轄、準據法、承認與執行 以及親權責任與保護兒童措施之合作公約.....................208 第一項 公約適用之範圍....................................................................208 第一款 積極範圍.............................................................................208 第二款 消極範圍.............................................................................209 第二項 管轄權.....................................................................................209 第一款 以慣居地或現所在地管轄為原則.................................209 第二款 管轄權移轉之例外情形..................................................211 第三款 一事不再理與管轄恆定原則..........................................211 第三項 準據法.....................................................................................212 第一款 準據法之範圍....................................................................212 第二款 公權力機關之措施適用法庭地法.................................212 第三款 當事人私人行為適用兒童慣居地國法.........................212 第四項 外國親權責任之承認與執行..............................................213 第一款 請求承認與執行之要件...................................................213 第二款 請求承認與執行之適格人員..........................................213 第三款 承認與執行之程序...........................................................214 第五項 保護兒童之國際合作...........................................................214 第一款 中央主管機關之建立.......................................................214 第二款 中央主管機關之職權.......................................................215 第三款 其他關於國際合作之事項..............................................215 第六項 檢討與分析...........................................................................216 第七章 總結....................................................................................................217 附錄一：致外交部函 附錄二：外交部函覆 / It is a itroduction of Hague conventions on private international law.

Ce mémoire aborde les différentes questions juridiques se présentant lorsqu'une partie cherche à fàire reconnaître et à exécuter au Québec, dans le contexte d'une faillite, une sûreté présentant des liens avec plus d'une juridiction canadienne. Plus précisément, le présent ouvrage traite des questions de juridiction se présentant dans de telles circonstances, particulièrement devant quel tribunal des procédures judiciaires doivent être intentées et à l'intérieur de quelle juridiction ces procédures doivent être entamées. Par ailleurs, les questions entourant l'interaction entre la Loi sur la faillite et l'insolvabilité et les dispositions législatives provinciales sur l'exécution et l'ordre de collocation de sûretés dans le contexte d'une faillite présentant des liens avec plus d'une juridiction canadienne sont abordées. De plus,la problématique entourant l'étendue de la reconnaissance au Québec de sûretés créées à l'étranger sera développée. Pour ce faire, une étude comparative des régimes mis en place au Québec et dans les juridictions canadiennes de common law en matière de sûretés sera effectuée. Enfin, la dernière partie de ce mémoire traitera des règles applicables à la reconnaissance au Québec de jugements originant d'une autre juridiction canadienne en matière de reconnaissance et d'exécution de sûretés. / This dissertation addresses the legal issues that must face a party seeking to recognize and enforce in Quebec, in the context of bankruptcy, a security linked to more than one canadian jurisdiction. In that regard, this paper deals with the issues of jurisdiction arising under those circumstances, more specifical1y the determination of the Court before which legal proceedings must be introduced and the jurisdiction where those proceedings must take place. Also, the questions surrounding the interaction between the Bankruptcy and insolvency Act and the provincial legislation pertaining to the enforcement and order of payment of securities is developped in the context of a bankruptcy affecting goods located in more than one canadian jurisdiction. Moreover, the extent ofthe recognition in Quebec of securities created in another canadian jurisdiction is assessed. In doing so, a comparative study of the schemes put in place in Quebec and the other Canadian jurisdictions is completed. Final1y, the last part of this paper focuses on the rules applicable to the recognition in Quebec of judgments originating from other Canadian jurisdictions dealing with the recognition and enforcement of securities. / "Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de maîtrise en droit des affaires"

Un auteur a dit: «L'association d'idée avec la girafe se présente immédiatement à l'esprit, en donner une définition est difficile, mais chacun reconnaît l'animal». Tel est le cas pour la notion de contrat international qui apparaît souvent comme évidente, mais lorsqu'il est question de donner une définition précise la tâche s'avére complexe. L'internationalité du contrat a fait l'objet de plusieurs études et recherches dans le but de délimiter cette notion. La doctrine et la jurisprudence ont élaboré deux méthodes de qualification: économique et juridique; sans pour autant définir le contrat international de façon nette, claire et précise. Le but visé par cette étude est d'essayer d'établir le lien entre la possibilité de fraude à la loi et la problématique de la définition du contrat international; par le biais d'une étude comparative entre le droit civil (français, québécois, tunisien), la common law (Royaume-Uni, Canada, États-Unis), le droit dans les pays à commerce d'État et le droit conventionel. / One author said : «L'association d'idée avec la girafe se présente immédiatement l'esprit, en donner une définition est difficile mais chacun reconnaît l'animal». This is the case for the notion of international contract, whose definition is often presumed to be self-evident, but in reality constructing a precise definition is a very complicated task. The international nature of a contract has been the subject of many studies and much research has been dedicated to this topic, aIl with the goal of formulating a clear definition. Legal doctrine and jurisprudence have succeeded in qualifying international contract as legal or economic without actually defining it in any constant, clear or precise manner. The aim of this study is to make an attempt at establishing a link between possible evasion of the law and the problem of defining international contract; this will b e a chieved v ia a comparative s tudy of c ivill aw (France, Quebec, Tunisia), common law (United Kingdom, Canada, United States) law in countries where the economy is state-run and international treaty law. / "Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures En vue de l'obtention du grade de maîtrise en droit"

Malgré la fréquence des périodes de crises financières, les États ne bénéficient pas d’un mécanisme d’insolvabilité. Prenant acte de cette absence de régulation institutionnelle, notre recherche poursuit un double objectif : identifier les outils existants pour traiter l’insolvabilité de l’État et évaluer leur efficacité. L’insolvabilité de l’État présente plusieurs spécificités. La première découle de l’absence de régulation en la matière : à défaut de mécanisme d’insolvabilité applicable, c’est le juge qui est susceptible d’être saisi. La seconde relève de la personne du débiteur. La qualité souveraine de la partie débitrice influe sur les modalités de concrétisation de l’insolvabilité. Dans une telle situation, l’État est tenté d’intervenir unilatéralement sur sa dette, soit pour annuler les contrats de prêt, soit pour les suspendre ou les modifier. Enfin, la troisième spécificité réside dans la personne des créanciers. Ceux-ci ne forment pas un tout uniforme. Ils sont issus d’ordres juridiques divers et poursuivent des objectifs variés. Pour répondre à chacune de ces difficultés, le droit international privé constitue un outil privilégié, du moins à l’égard des créanciers privés. Face aux difficultés soulevées par l’insolvabilité de l’État, le résultat est cependant contrasté. Lors de la question de l’accès au juge, le droit international privé se révèle décevant. Il n’est pas apte à satisfaire un traitement unitaire de l’insolvabilité. En revanche, les mécanismes substantiels de droit international privé apportent des progrès significatifs. S’ils sont adaptés, ils sont susceptibles d’assurer une certaine régulation de l’insolvabilité étatique. / Despite the large number of sovereign debt crises around the world over the centuries, international law on the matte is still very much underdeveloped. There exists no bankruptcy regime applicable to sovereign states. With this lack of institutional regulation in mind, our research aims at identifying a set of tools that can be used in order to provide a satisfactory treatment of state insolvency. State insolvency has specific characteristics. Firstly, due to the lack of regulation, the judge is the only authority that can be seized in case of insolvency. Secondly, being a sovereign powers in order to repudiate or modify sovereign debt. It can also declare a moratorium. Thirdly, the insolvency involves various creditors who each have different goals. They come from different legal orders. Private international law is a primary tool to tackle these issues, at least when creditors are private persons. However, the results of this research are contrasted. Private international law is unable to address the difficulties related to the access to the courts. Before judges, the treatment of State insolvency can only be fragmentary. By contrast, at a substantial level, some private international law mechanisms can sustain progress. If they are adjusted, they ensure a certain amount of state insolvency regulation.

Com a globalização e o constante aumento do fluxo internacional, tanto de mercadorias como de pessoas, observou-se o incremento dos negócios jurídicos com conexão internacional. A escolha da lei aplicável aos estatutos pessoais dividiu-se doutrinariamente entre defensores do elemento de conexão nacionalidade, como Mancini, e defensores do elemento de conexão domicílio, como Savigny. Cada vez mais conflitos envolvendo negócios jurídicos multijurisdicionais se tornaram uma realidade submetida aos tribunais internos dos países, de modo que a residência habitual surge como uma solução à dicotomia existente entre nacionalidade e domicílio. Nesse contexto, a finalidade da presente dissertação é analisar a incidência do elemento de conexão residência habitual no mundo globalizado e a incidência da residência habitual no direito internacional privado brasileiro. Para desenvolver os objetivos propostos, o estudo divide-se em dois capítulos. No primeiro capítulo é abordado o debate doutrinário existente na definição de residência habitual enquanto elemento de conexão, bem como a relação que possui com o domicílio – diferenciando-se domicílio em países de common law e de civil law. Neste primeiro momento ocorre também a análise do surgimento da residência habitual como elemento de conexão a determinar a lei aplicável, as suas primeiras utilizações pelas Convenções da Haia, previsões em legislações internas de diferentes países e também em âmbito unional através da União Europeia. O segundo capítulo destina-se à incidência da residência habitual no direito internacional privado brasileiro com a sua previsão em convenções já ratificadas pelo Brasil, bem como ao reconhecimento deste elemento de conexão no cenário brasileiro. Compreende, ainda, o estudo de julgados brasileiros que já utilizaram o critério da residência habitual e o futuro deste elemento de conexão no direito internacional privado brasileiro. Destacam-se as tentativas de atualização da Lei de Introdução às Normas do Direito Brasileiro que já previram a inserção do elemento de conexão residência habitual de forma subsidiária ao domicílio. Em conclusão, tem-se que a atualização legislativa do direito internacional privado brasileiro deve inserir o elemento de conexão residência habitual, em ascensão no mundo atualmente, com primazia, e não de modo subsidiário como os projetos anteriores. A primazia do critério residência habitual permite a aplicação da lei mais próxima à vida da pessoa ou à relação jurídica multiconectada, e ainda harmoniza o direito internacional privado, permitindo que o domicílio e a nacionalidade sejam utilizados de modo subsidiário. / With globalization and the constant increase of the international flow of both goods and people, it was observed the increase of the legal transactions with an international connection. The choice of law applicable to personal statutes was divided doctrinally between defenders of the connecting factor of nationality as Mancini and defenders of the connecting factor of domicile as Savigny. More and more conflicts involving multijurisdictional legal business have become a constant reality submitted to the domestic courts of the countries, so that habitual residence emerges as a solution to the dichotomy existing between nationality and domicile. In this context, the purpose of this dissertation is to analyze the incidence of the connection factor of habitual residence in the globalized world and the incidence of habitual residence in Brazilian private international law. In order to develop the proposed objectives, the study is divided into two chapters. The first chapter addresses the doctrinal debate existing in the definition of habitual residence as connecting factor, as well as the relation that has with the domicile - differentiating domicile in countries of common law of civil law. In this first moment there is also the analysis of the emergence of habitual residence as an connecting factor to determine the applicable law, its first uses by the Hague Conventions, provisions in internal legislation of different countries and also in a unional scope through the European Union. The second chapter focuses on the incidence of habitual residence in Brazilian private international law with its prediction in conventions already ratified by Brazil, as well as the recognition of this connecting factor in the Brazilian scenario. It also includes the study of Brazilian judges who have already used the criterion of habitual residence and the future of this connecting factor in Brazilian private international law. It analyzes the attempts to update the Brazilian private international law that have already predicted the insertion of the connecting factor of habitual residence in a subsidiary form to the domicile. In conclusion, it is noticed that the legislative update of Brazilian private international law must insert the connecting factor of habitual residence, rising in the world today, with primacy, and not in a subsidiary way as the previous projects. The primacy of habitual residence allows the application of the law closest to the person's life or to the multi-connected legal relationship, and also harmonizes private international law, allowing domicile and nationality to be used in a subsidiary manner.

Com a globalização e o constante aumento do fluxo internacional, tanto de mercadorias como de pessoas, observou-se o incremento dos negócios jurídicos com conexão internacional. A escolha da lei aplicável aos estatutos pessoais dividiu-se doutrinariamente entre defensores do elemento de conexão nacionalidade, como Mancini, e defensores do elemento de conexão domicílio, como Savigny. Cada vez mais conflitos envolvendo negócios jurídicos multijurisdicionais se tornaram uma realidade submetida aos tribunais internos dos países, de modo que a residência habitual surge como uma solução à dicotomia existente entre nacionalidade e domicílio. Nesse contexto, a finalidade da presente dissertação é analisar a incidência do elemento de conexão residência habitual no mundo globalizado e a incidência da residência habitual no direito internacional privado brasileiro. Para desenvolver os objetivos propostos, o estudo divide-se em dois capítulos. No primeiro capítulo é abordado o debate doutrinário existente na definição de residência habitual enquanto elemento de conexão, bem como a relação que possui com o domicílio – diferenciando-se domicílio em países de common law e de civil law. Neste primeiro momento ocorre também a análise do surgimento da residência habitual como elemento de conexão a determinar a lei aplicável, as suas primeiras utilizações pelas Convenções da Haia, previsões em legislações internas de diferentes países e também em âmbito unional através da União Europeia. O segundo capítulo destina-se à incidência da residência habitual no direito internacional privado brasileiro com a sua previsão em convenções já ratificadas pelo Brasil, bem como ao reconhecimento deste elemento de conexão no cenário brasileiro. Compreende, ainda, o estudo de julgados brasileiros que já utilizaram o critério da residência habitual e o futuro deste elemento de conexão no direito internacional privado brasileiro. Destacam-se as tentativas de atualização da Lei de Introdução às Normas do Direito Brasileiro que já previram a inserção do elemento de conexão residência habitual de forma subsidiária ao domicílio. Em conclusão, tem-se que a atualização legislativa do direito internacional privado brasileiro deve inserir o elemento de conexão residência habitual, em ascensão no mundo atualmente, com primazia, e não de modo subsidiário como os projetos anteriores. A primazia do critério residência habitual permite a aplicação da lei mais próxima à vida da pessoa ou à relação jurídica multiconectada, e ainda harmoniza o direito internacional privado, permitindo que o domicílio e a nacionalidade sejam utilizados de modo subsidiário. / With globalization and the constant increase of the international flow of both goods and people, it was observed the increase of the legal transactions with an international connection. The choice of law applicable to personal statutes was divided doctrinally between defenders of the connecting factor of nationality as Mancini and defenders of the connecting factor of domicile as Savigny. More and more conflicts involving multijurisdictional legal business have become a constant reality submitted to the domestic courts of the countries, so that habitual residence emerges as a solution to the dichotomy existing between nationality and domicile. In this context, the purpose of this dissertation is to analyze the incidence of the connection factor of habitual residence in the globalized world and the incidence of habitual residence in Brazilian private international law. In order to develop the proposed objectives, the study is divided into two chapters. The first chapter addresses the doctrinal debate existing in the definition of habitual residence as connecting factor, as well as the relation that has with the domicile - differentiating domicile in countries of common law of civil law. In this first moment there is also the analysis of the emergence of habitual residence as an connecting factor to determine the applicable law, its first uses by the Hague Conventions, provisions in internal legislation of different countries and also in a unional scope through the European Union. The second chapter focuses on the incidence of habitual residence in Brazilian private international law with its prediction in conventions already ratified by Brazil, as well as the recognition of this connecting factor in the Brazilian scenario. It also includes the study of Brazilian judges who have already used the criterion of habitual residence and the future of this connecting factor in Brazilian private international law. It analyzes the attempts to update the Brazilian private international law that have already predicted the insertion of the connecting factor of habitual residence in a subsidiary form to the domicile. In conclusion, it is noticed that the legislative update of Brazilian private international law must insert the connecting factor of habitual residence, rising in the world today, with primacy, and not in a subsidiary way as the previous projects. The primacy of habitual residence allows the application of the law closest to the person's life or to the multi-connected legal relationship, and also harmonizes private international law, allowing domicile and nationality to be used in a subsidiary manner.