Recognition Jurisdiction and the Hague Choice of Court Convention
Ronald A. Brand
University of Pittsburgh - School of Law
June 23, 2010
LIBER AMICORUM KREŠIMIR SAJKO, Hrvoje Sikiric, Vilim, Boucek, & Davor Babic, eds., Forthcoming
University of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-23
This chapter, written to honor Professor Krešimir Sajko of the University of Zagreb, considers the question of personal jurisdiction in U.S. courts at the stage of submission of a foreign judgment for recognition. Existing cases dealing with both recognition of foreign judgments and with the recognition of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention fail to provide a clear position on (1) whether either personal jurisdiction or quasi in rem jurisdiction through the presence of the judgment/award debtor’s assets is required, and (2) if quasi in rem jurisdiction is relied upon, just what allegation or proof of the presence of the judgment/award debtor’s assets within the jurisdiction is necessary. The analysis here ends with the conclusion that due process for purposes of recognition jurisdiction may be satisfied based on concepts of consent that are fundamental to the operation of both the New York Convention and the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Such a result would place the United States in a position consistent with its future treaty partners under the Hague Convention on the matter of recognition jurisdiction.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 28
Keywords: Recognition Jurisdiction, Personal Jurisdiction, Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction, Foreign Judgments, Foreign Arbitral Awards, U.S. Courts, New York Convention, Hague Convention On Choice Of Court Agreements, Professor Krešimir Sajko, University Of Zagreb
Date posted: June 29, 2010
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.735 seconds