"Judicial Convention": Issues of Jurisdiction

Olesia Aleksandrovna Pavlova
{"title":"\"Judicial Convention\": Issues of Jurisdiction","authors":"Olesia Aleksandrovna Pavlova","doi":"10.25136/2644-5514.2023.1.39778","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Cases of July 2, 2019 (The 2019 Convention) offered us the option of universal regulation of recognition and authorization of execution of a foreign judgment. However, is he that good? The aim of the work is to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the new universal legal regulation in relation to the issue of jurisdiction. The author analyzes the approaches used in the national legislation of various states to consolidate the rules of international jurisdiction for the purposes of recognition of foreign judicial decisions. General scientific and special methods of cognition, including formal-logical and comparative-legal, were used as research methods. The article demonstrates the dependence of the legal consequences of accession to the 2019 Convention on the approach implemented in national legislation to the regulation of indirect international jurisdiction, as well as on the ratio of the scope of competence of national courts according to national legislation and the jurisdictional filters established in the 2019 Convention. The conclusion is substantiated that the conclusion of the 2019 Convention on the proposed conditions on indirect international jurisdiction does not meet the interests of the Russian Federation. As a measure to increase the competitiveness of the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, it is proposed to introduce into national legislation legal norms on indirect jurisdiction that consolidate the recognized competence of foreign courts in an amount not exceeding that which defines the competence of national courts to consider cases with a foreign element.\n","PeriodicalId":284936,"journal":{"name":"Международное право","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Международное право","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25136/2644-5514.2023.1.39778","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Cases of July 2, 2019 (The 2019 Convention) offered us the option of universal regulation of recognition and authorization of execution of a foreign judgment. However, is he that good? The aim of the work is to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the new universal legal regulation in relation to the issue of jurisdiction. The author analyzes the approaches used in the national legislation of various states to consolidate the rules of international jurisdiction for the purposes of recognition of foreign judicial decisions. General scientific and special methods of cognition, including formal-logical and comparative-legal, were used as research methods. The article demonstrates the dependence of the legal consequences of accession to the 2019 Convention on the approach implemented in national legislation to the regulation of indirect international jurisdiction, as well as on the ratio of the scope of competence of national courts according to national legislation and the jurisdictional filters established in the 2019 Convention. The conclusion is substantiated that the conclusion of the 2019 Convention on the proposed conditions on indirect international jurisdiction does not meet the interests of the Russian Federation. As a measure to increase the competitiveness of the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, it is proposed to introduce into national legislation legal norms on indirect jurisdiction that consolidate the recognized competence of foreign courts in an amount not exceeding that which defines the competence of national courts to consider cases with a foreign element.
“司法公约”:管辖权问题
2019年7月2日通过的《承认及执行外国民商事判决公约》(以下简称《公约》)为我们提供了对承认和授权执行外国判决进行普遍规制的选择。然而,他真的那么好吗?这项工作的目的是确定与管辖权问题有关的新的普遍法律条例的优点和缺点。作者分析了各国在国家立法中为巩固国际管辖规则而采用的方法,以承认外国司法判决。研究方法采用了一般的科学方法和特殊的认知方法,包括形式逻辑方法和比较法学方法。本文论证了加入《2019年公约》的法律后果取决于国家立法对间接国际管辖权的规定所采取的方法,以及国家法院根据本国立法的权限范围与《2019年公约》确立的管辖权过滤器之间的比例。结论证明,2019年《公约》关于拟议的间接国际管辖权条件的结论不符合俄罗斯联邦的利益。作为提高俄罗斯联邦管辖权的竞争力的一项措施,建议在国家立法中引入关于间接管辖权的法律规范,以不超过规定国家法院审理具有外国因素的案件的权限的数额巩固公认的外国法院的权限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信