Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention 2005: Background, Negotiations, Analysis and Current Status

Paul Beaumont

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The article outlines some of the negotiating history of the failed Hague Judgments Convention (1992-2001) and of the successful Hague Choice of Court Convention (2002-2005). The latter was chosen from amongst the small areas of consensus within the Judgments Convention negotiations. In doing so the article argues that the Permanent Bureau was right in 1992 to argue for a recognition and enforcement Convention that would outlaw exorbitant jurisdictions, what the author describes as a “flexible mixed Convention”, and that the time is ripe for the Hague Conference to begin work again on such a project.

The article does not provide a systematic analysis of the provisions of the Hague Choice of Court Convention but instead reviews the Article by Article analysis made by Ron Brand and Paul Herrup, two of the US negotiators of the Convention, in their book on the Convention. In doing so the article highlights where there are differences of interpretation of the Convention by Brand and Herrup and by Trevor Hartley and Masato Dogauchi, the rapporteurs for the Convention who wrote the official explanatory report. From time to time the author sets out interpretations that differ from those given by both Brand and Herrup and the explanatory report, notably on whether the existence of a choice of court 'agreement' is a concept susceptible to analysis as a question of fact, or is a matter for the law of the forum, or can only be looked at under the rules in the Convention on formal validity and the choice of law rules on substantive validity and capacity. The author also tries to shed some more light on some of the provisions of the Convention to augment what Brand and Herrup and the explanatory report have done, eg on declarations and reservations and the relationship with Community Law.

Finally the article sets out the prospects for the Convention being adopted in some key countries and notes that the signature of the US and the EC in early 2009 will hopefully stimulate many countries to take the steps to become bound by the Convention. It sends the right signal to commerce at this time of global recession if commercial parties are given the opportunity to reduce litigation costs by ensuring that disputes are resolved in the courts that they have chosen in their contracts.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)125-159
Number of pages35
JournalJournal of Private International Law
Volume5
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2009

Fingerprint

interpretation
constitutional state
recession
commerce
European Community
jurisdiction
Law
time
history
costs
community

Keywords

  • choice of court agreements
  • Hague choice of court convention
  • judgments convention
  • mixed convention
  • future work in the Hague
  • uniform interpretation
  • null and void under the law of the state of the CH
  • declarations and reservations
  • relationship with community law
  • ratification and accession to the Hague choice

Cite this

Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention 2005 : Background, Negotiations, Analysis and Current Status. / Beaumont, Paul.

In: Journal of Private International Law, Vol. 5, No. 1, 04.2009, p. 125-159.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{45a7042fe42b483fa7099729ba7bb228,
title = "Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention 2005: Background, Negotiations, Analysis and Current Status",
abstract = "The article outlines some of the negotiating history of the failed Hague Judgments Convention (1992-2001) and of the successful Hague Choice of Court Convention (2002-2005). The latter was chosen from amongst the small areas of consensus within the Judgments Convention negotiations. In doing so the article argues that the Permanent Bureau was right in 1992 to argue for a recognition and enforcement Convention that would outlaw exorbitant jurisdictions, what the author describes as a “flexible mixed Convention”, and that the time is ripe for the Hague Conference to begin work again on such a project.The article does not provide a systematic analysis of the provisions of the Hague Choice of Court Convention but instead reviews the Article by Article analysis made by Ron Brand and Paul Herrup, two of the US negotiators of the Convention, in their book on the Convention. In doing so the article highlights where there are differences of interpretation of the Convention by Brand and Herrup and by Trevor Hartley and Masato Dogauchi, the rapporteurs for the Convention who wrote the official explanatory report. From time to time the author sets out interpretations that differ from those given by both Brand and Herrup and the explanatory report, notably on whether the existence of a choice of court 'agreement' is a concept susceptible to analysis as a question of fact, or is a matter for the law of the forum, or can only be looked at under the rules in the Convention on formal validity and the choice of law rules on substantive validity and capacity. The author also tries to shed some more light on some of the provisions of the Convention to augment what Brand and Herrup and the explanatory report have done, eg on declarations and reservations and the relationship with Community Law.Finally the article sets out the prospects for the Convention being adopted in some key countries and notes that the signature of the US and the EC in early 2009 will hopefully stimulate many countries to take the steps to become bound by the Convention. It sends the right signal to commerce at this time of global recession if commercial parties are given the opportunity to reduce litigation costs by ensuring that disputes are resolved in the courts that they have chosen in their contracts.",
keywords = "choice of court agreements, Hague choice of court convention, judgments convention, mixed convention, future work in the Hague, uniform interpretation, null and void under the law of the state of the CH, declarations and reservations, relationship with community law, ratification and accession to the Hague choice",
author = "Paul Beaumont",
year = "2009",
month = "4",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "125--159",
journal = "Journal of Private International Law",
issn = "1744-1048",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention 2005

T2 - Background, Negotiations, Analysis and Current Status

AU - Beaumont, Paul

PY - 2009/4

Y1 - 2009/4

N2 - The article outlines some of the negotiating history of the failed Hague Judgments Convention (1992-2001) and of the successful Hague Choice of Court Convention (2002-2005). The latter was chosen from amongst the small areas of consensus within the Judgments Convention negotiations. In doing so the article argues that the Permanent Bureau was right in 1992 to argue for a recognition and enforcement Convention that would outlaw exorbitant jurisdictions, what the author describes as a “flexible mixed Convention”, and that the time is ripe for the Hague Conference to begin work again on such a project.The article does not provide a systematic analysis of the provisions of the Hague Choice of Court Convention but instead reviews the Article by Article analysis made by Ron Brand and Paul Herrup, two of the US negotiators of the Convention, in their book on the Convention. In doing so the article highlights where there are differences of interpretation of the Convention by Brand and Herrup and by Trevor Hartley and Masato Dogauchi, the rapporteurs for the Convention who wrote the official explanatory report. From time to time the author sets out interpretations that differ from those given by both Brand and Herrup and the explanatory report, notably on whether the existence of a choice of court 'agreement' is a concept susceptible to analysis as a question of fact, or is a matter for the law of the forum, or can only be looked at under the rules in the Convention on formal validity and the choice of law rules on substantive validity and capacity. The author also tries to shed some more light on some of the provisions of the Convention to augment what Brand and Herrup and the explanatory report have done, eg on declarations and reservations and the relationship with Community Law.Finally the article sets out the prospects for the Convention being adopted in some key countries and notes that the signature of the US and the EC in early 2009 will hopefully stimulate many countries to take the steps to become bound by the Convention. It sends the right signal to commerce at this time of global recession if commercial parties are given the opportunity to reduce litigation costs by ensuring that disputes are resolved in the courts that they have chosen in their contracts.

AB - The article outlines some of the negotiating history of the failed Hague Judgments Convention (1992-2001) and of the successful Hague Choice of Court Convention (2002-2005). The latter was chosen from amongst the small areas of consensus within the Judgments Convention negotiations. In doing so the article argues that the Permanent Bureau was right in 1992 to argue for a recognition and enforcement Convention that would outlaw exorbitant jurisdictions, what the author describes as a “flexible mixed Convention”, and that the time is ripe for the Hague Conference to begin work again on such a project.The article does not provide a systematic analysis of the provisions of the Hague Choice of Court Convention but instead reviews the Article by Article analysis made by Ron Brand and Paul Herrup, two of the US negotiators of the Convention, in their book on the Convention. In doing so the article highlights where there are differences of interpretation of the Convention by Brand and Herrup and by Trevor Hartley and Masato Dogauchi, the rapporteurs for the Convention who wrote the official explanatory report. From time to time the author sets out interpretations that differ from those given by both Brand and Herrup and the explanatory report, notably on whether the existence of a choice of court 'agreement' is a concept susceptible to analysis as a question of fact, or is a matter for the law of the forum, or can only be looked at under the rules in the Convention on formal validity and the choice of law rules on substantive validity and capacity. The author also tries to shed some more light on some of the provisions of the Convention to augment what Brand and Herrup and the explanatory report have done, eg on declarations and reservations and the relationship with Community Law.Finally the article sets out the prospects for the Convention being adopted in some key countries and notes that the signature of the US and the EC in early 2009 will hopefully stimulate many countries to take the steps to become bound by the Convention. It sends the right signal to commerce at this time of global recession if commercial parties are given the opportunity to reduce litigation costs by ensuring that disputes are resolved in the courts that they have chosen in their contracts.

KW - choice of court agreements

KW - Hague choice of court convention

KW - judgments convention

KW - mixed convention

KW - future work in the Hague

KW - uniform interpretation

KW - null and void under the law of the state of the CH

KW - declarations and reservations

KW - relationship with community law

KW - ratification and accession to the Hague choice

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 125

EP - 159

JO - Journal of Private International Law

JF - Journal of Private International Law

SN - 1744-1048

IS - 1

ER -