Doctor Legum - LLD / The thesis considers the approaches followed by the European Union with the Brussels Regime, the federal system of the United States of America under the ‘full faith and credit clause’; the inter-state recognition scheme under the Australia and New Zealand Trans- Tasman judicial system; as well as the convention-approach of the Latin American States. It finds that the most suitable approach for the SACU is the negotiation and adoption by all SACU Member States of a multilateral convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, comparable to the 1971 Convention of the Hague Conference on Private International Law; the EU Brussels I Regulation and the Latin-American Montevideo Convention, as complemented by the La Paz Convention. It is imperative that a proposed convention should not merely duplicate previous efforts, but should be drafted in the light of the legal, political and socio-economic characteristics of the SACU Member States. The current legislative provisions in force in SACU Member States are compared and analysed, and the comparison and analysis form the basis of a proposal for a future instrument on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments for the region. A recommended draft text for a proposed Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments for the SACU is included. This draft text could form the basis for future negotiations by SACU Member States.

<p>The Member States of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) have set as their objectives, amongst others, the facilitation of cross-border movement of goods between the territories of the Member States and the promotion of the integration of Member States into the global economy through enhanced trade and investment. Different approaches to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments by Member States and the risk of non-enforcement may lead to legal uncertainty and increased transaction cost for prospective traders, which ultimately act as non-tariff barriers to trade in the region. Trade is critical to Southern Africa, and the ideal is that barriers to trade, of which uncertainty concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments among Member States is one, should be removed. Certainty, predictability, security of transactions, effective remedies and cost are important considerations in investment decision-making / and clear rules for allocating international jurisdiction and providing definite and expedited means of enforcing foreign judgments will facilitate intraregional as well as interregional trade. In addition to trade facilitation, a harmonised recognition and enforcement regime will consolidate economic and political integration in the SACU. An effective scheme for the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil judgments has been regarded as a feature of any economic integration initiative likely to achieve significant integration. While the harmonisation of the rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments has been given priority in other regional economic communities, in particularly the European Union, any similar effort to harmonise the rules on recognition and enforcement of Member States have been conspicuously absent in the SACU &ndash / a situation which needs to receive immediate attention. The thesis considers the approaches followed by the European Union with the Brussels Regime, the federal system of the United States of America under the &lsquo / full faith and credit clause&rsquo / the inter-state recognition scheme under the Australia and New Zealand Trans-Tasman judicial system / as well as the convention-approach of the Latin American States. It finds that the most suitable approach for the SACU is the negotiation and adoption by all SACU Member States of a multilateral convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, comparable to the 1971 Convention of the Hague Conference on Private International Law / the EU Brussels I Regulation and the Latin-American Montevideo Convention, as complemented by the La Paz Convention. It is imperative that a proposed convention should not merely duplicate previous efforts, but should be drafted in the light of the legal, political and socio-economic characteristics of the SACU Member States. The current legislative provisions in force in SACU Member States are compared and analysed, and the comparison and analysis form the basis of a proposal for a future instrument on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments for the region. A recommended draft text for a proposed Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments for the SACU is included. This draft text could form the basis for future negotiations by SACU Member States.</p>

<p>The Member States of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) have set as their objectives, amongst others, the facilitation of cross-border movement of goods between the territories of the Member States and the promotion of the integration of Member States into the global economy through enhanced trade and investment. Different approaches to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments by Member States and the risk of non-enforcement may lead to legal uncertainty and increased transaction cost for prospective traders, which ultimately act as non-tariff barriers to trade in the region. Trade is critical to Southern Africa, and the ideal is that barriers to trade, of which uncertainty concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments among Member States is one, should be removed. Certainty, predictability, security of transactions, effective remedies and cost are important considerations in investment decision-making / and clear rules for allocating international jurisdiction and providing definite and expedited means of enforcing foreign judgments will facilitate intraregional as well as interregional trade. In addition to trade facilitation, a harmonised recognition and enforcement regime will consolidate economic and political integration in the SACU. An effective scheme for the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil judgments has been regarded as a feature of any economic integration initiative likely to achieve significant integration. While the harmonisation of the rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments has been given priority in other regional economic communities, in particularly the European Union, any similar effort to harmonise the rules on recognition and enforcement of Member States have been conspicuously absent in the SACU &ndash / a situation which needs to receive immediate attention. The thesis considers the approaches followed by the European Union with the Brussels Regime, the federal system of the United States of America under the &lsquo / full faith and credit clause&rsquo / the inter-state recognition scheme under the Australia and New Zealand Trans-Tasman judicial system / as well as the convention-approach of the Latin American States. It finds that the most suitable approach for the SACU is the negotiation and adoption by all SACU Member States of a multilateral convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, comparable to the 1971 Convention of the Hague Conference on Private International Law / the EU Brussels I Regulation and the Latin-American Montevideo Convention, as complemented by the La Paz Convention. It is imperative that a proposed convention should not merely duplicate previous efforts, but should be drafted in the light of the legal, political and socio-economic characteristics of the SACU Member States. The current legislative provisions in force in SACU Member States are compared and analysed, and the comparison and analysis form the basis of a proposal for a future instrument on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments for the region. A recommended draft text for a proposed Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments for the SACU is included. This draft text could form the basis for future negotiations by SACU Member States.</p>

Doctor Legum - LLD / The Member States of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) have set as their objectives, amongst others, the facilitation of cross-border movement of goods between the territories of the Member States and the promotion of the integration of Member States into the global economy through enhanced trade and investment. Different approaches to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments by Member States and the risk of non-enforcement may lead to legal uncertainty and increased transaction cost for prospective traders, which ultimately act as non-tariff barriers to trade in the region. Trade is critical to Southern Africa, and the ideal is that barriers to trade, of which uncertainty concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments among Member States is one, should be removed. Certainty, predictability, security of transactions, effective remedies and cost are important considerations in investment decision-making; and clear rules for allocating international jurisdiction and providing definite and expedited means of enforcing foreign judgments will facilitate intraregional as well as interregional trade. In addition to trade facilitation, a harmonised recognition and enforcement regime will consolidate economic and political integration in the SACU. An effective scheme for the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil judgments has been regarded as a feature of any economic integration initiative likely to achieve significant integration. While the harmonisation of the rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments has been given priority in other regional economic communities, in particularly the European Union, any similar effort to harmonise the rules on recognition and enforcement of Member States have been conspicuously absent in the SACU – a situation which needs to receive immediate attention. The thesis considers the approaches followed by the European Union with the Brussels Regime, the federal system of the United States of America under the ‘full faith and credit clause’; the inter-state recognition scheme under the Australia and New Zealand Trans-Tasman judicial system; as well as the convention-approach of the Latin American States. It finds that the most suitable approach for the SACU is the negotiation and adoption by all SACU Member States of a multilateral convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, comparable to the 1971 Convention of the Hague Conference on Private International Law; the EU Brussels I Regulation and the Latin-American Montevideo Convention, as complemented by the La Paz Convention. It is imperative that a proposed convention should not merely duplicate previous efforts, but should be drafted in the light of the legal, political and socio-economic characteristics of the SACU Member States. The current legislative provisions in force in SACU Member States are compared and analysed, and the comparison and analysis form the basis of a proposal for a future instrument on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments for the region. A recommended draft text for a proposed Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments for the SACU is included. This draft text could form the basis for future negotiations by SACU Member States. / South Africa

Benché ampiamente studiata con riferimento al contenzioso interno, la res judicata ha ricevuto minore attenzione nella sua “dimensione internazionale”. Il presente lavoro si propone di esplorare i profili incerti degli effetti di giudicato delle “decisioni non domestiche”, intese come decisioni non provenienti dalle corti del foro, e in particolare delle sentenze straniere e dei lodi arbitrali internazionali. Nel tentativo di superare almeno parte delle incertezze e dei problemi della prassi attuale, in relazione alle sentenze straniere si sostiene che i relativi effetti di giudicato vengano determinati sulla base della teoria dell’estensione assoluta degli effetti, la quale assicura certezza giuridica transnazionale ed è consona alla moderna evoluzione liberale delle norme sul riconoscimento. Quanto ai lodi arbitrali, si propone che le istituzioni arbitrali adottino, nei propri regolamenti, ampie regole preclusive che riflettano la natura e gli obiettivi del procedimento arbitrale. Le soluzioni proposte condividono l’idea che gli effetti di giudicato di una “decisione non domestica” dovrebbero essere determinati in linea di principio dal “sistema” a cui la decisione appartiene, sebbene l’adozione di un approccio unitario risulti problematica quando questioni di giudicato sorgono tra corti statali e tribunali arbitrali in maniera da compromettere l’autonomia dell’arbitrato internazionale. / Although extensively studied in domestic litigation, res judicata has received less attention in its “international dimension”. This work seeks to navigate the uncharted waters of the res judicata effects of “non-domestic decisions”, understood as decisions that are not rendered by the courts of the forum, and in particular of foreign judgments and international arbitral awards. In an attempt to overcome at least part of the uncertainties and problems of the current practice, as regards foreign judgments it is proposed that their res judicata effects be determined based on the theory of the absolute extension of effects, which ensures cross-border legal certainty and accords with the modern liberal evolution of recognition rules. As regards arbitral awards, it is suggested that arbitral institutions adopt, in their regulations, broad preclusive rules that reflect the nature and objectives of the arbitral process. The proposed solutions share the idea that the res judicata effects of a “non-domestic decision” should be in principle determined according to the “system” to which the decision belongs, although the adoption of a unitary approach is challenged when res judicata issues arise between state courts and arbitral tribunals so to jeopardize the autonomy of international arbitration.

Depuis l’entrée en vigueur du Traité d’Amsterdam, le 1er mai 1999 et la « communautarisation » de la coopération judiciaire civile, l’Union européenne a adopté de nombreux instruments applicables aux litiges transfrontaliers, au point que l’on peut aujourd’hui parler d’un « droit judiciaire privé européen ». Or, il est permis de s’interroger sur les principes qui le gouvernent. Par comparaison, le Code de procédure civile français comprend un chapitre entier consacré aux principes directeurs du procès civil. De l’étude des instruments de l’Espace judiciaire civil européen, quatre principes directeurs ont été identifiés : le principe du contradictoire, le principe du rôle actif du juge, le principe de célérité et le principe du dialogue transfrontalier. Il est alors possible, dans une démarche prospective, de s’interroger sur leur éventuelle consécration en droit de l’Union. Un certain nombre d’obstacles ont été relevés mais aucun ne paraît dirimant. Possible, cette consécration semble également souhaitable. Ses différents apports ont en effet été mis en évidence. Il restait à déterminer la base juridique ainsi que l’instrument normatif de cette consécration. À ce titre, l’article 81 du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne relatif à la coopération judiciaire en matière civile pourrait servir de base juridique. Par ailleurs, c’est lavoie du règlement et non celle de la directive qui a été ici privilégiée. / Since the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force on the 1st of May 1999 and the “communitarisation” of judicial cooperation in civil matters, the European Union has adopted many legal instruments relating to cross-border litigation, to the extent that one can now refer to a distinct “European International Private Law”, the governing principles of which have yet to be defined. By comparison, the French Code of Civil Procedure includes an entire chapter devoted to the governing principles applicable to civil trials. Based on a study of the European civil justice area, four governing principles can be identified: the adversarial principle, the principle of the judge’s active role, the principle of urgency and the principle of cross-border dialogue. In prospective terms, it follows that the possibility of these four principles’ being enacted in EU law is a matter worthy of examination. Several obstacles can be identified, none of which appears to be insuperable. Having been recognised as a possibility, such a consecration also seems desirable on the grounds of its several demonstrable advantages. The legal basis and vehicle of the above-mentioned four principles’ legal enshrinement remain to be determined. In this regard, article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pertaining to judicial cooperation in civil matters, couldserve as a legal basis. In terms of implementation, this study also argues in favor of regulations over directives.

The EU jurisdictional scheme, known as the “Brussels Regime”, confers competence to national courts to adjudicate over international matters. The main rule in Article 4(1) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation sets out that the defendant should generally be sued in the courts of the Member State where he is domiciled. For certain subject matters, the scheme allows the action to be brought elsewhere. The raison d’être is to provide an adequate counterbalance to the one-sided rule of Article 4(1). Articles 7(1) and (2) enable the claimant to launch the suit, “in matters relating to a contract”, at the court of the Member State where the contractual obligation was to be fulfilled, and, in “matters relating to tort”, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred. Whether to invoke Article 7 is entirely the claimant’s choice, but the final decision on its interpretation is vested in the Court. Thereby, the manner in which the Court views the provisions will effectively decide the extent of the claimant’s choice to invoke so-called special jurisdiction. It also means that greater emphasis on special jurisdiction will reduce the importance of the main rule in Article 4. Conversely, if the Court were to interpret Article 7 narrowly, its intended effect within the system would be denied. In both cases, the balance between Articles 4 and 7 has been upset. In the former case, the claimant is favoured because of the increased possibilities to choose the forum for the dispute, while in the latter case, the defendant is favoured because he retains the advantage of litigating in his home turf. The starting point for this essay is this very idea of a purported balance between litigants’ interests in EU cross-border litigation. The thesis analyses whether the Court’s case-law on general vis-à-vis special jurisdiction has transitioned from being generally defendant-friendly to claimant-friendly. It is argued that already from the first judgments rendered on the original Brussels Convention in 1976, increasingly more disputes have been launched at special fora, which has amounted to a claimant-friendly scheme. It is also argued that this development has been at the expense of the defendant. Greater choice for the claimant means in turn that the defendant’s ability to foresee before what courts he may be sued has been largely impaired. The thesis highlights how this imbalance is the result of inherent challenges in the Brussels Regime, particularly in relation to how the relevant connecting factors are designated. It is proposed that the unwanted effects of the Court’s practice as well as the shortcomings of the scheme itself are to be considered in the Commission’s evaluationof the Brussels Ibis Regulation, which is presently in the works.