不对称管辖权条款和《布鲁塞尔一号》第31(2)条造成的异常现象重新制定了法规

IF 1.6 2区社会学 Q1 LAW

International & Comparative Law Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-04-21 DOI:10.1017/s0020589322000094

Brooke Marshall

{"title":"不对称管辖权条款和《布鲁塞尔一号》第31(2)条造成的异常现象重新制定了法规","authors":"Brooke Marshall","doi":"10.1017/s0020589322000094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The English Court of Appeal and German Bundesgerichtshof recently decided that Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation applies to asymmetric jurisdiction clauses. This article contends that while this conclusion is sound, separating the ‘clause’ into two ‘agreements’ to reach it is not. This disaggregation prevents a solution to the anomaly that Article 31(2) creates for asymmetric clauses, where a lender sues under its option and the borrower subsequently sues in the anchor court. This article proposes a solution, based on a uniform characterisation of the clause as a whole, which protects the lender's option and mitigates the risk of parallel proceedings.","PeriodicalId":47350,"journal":{"name":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ASYMMETRIC JURISDICTION CLAUSES AND THE ANOMALY CREATED BY ARTICLE 31(2) OF THE BRUSSELS I RECAST REGULATION\",\"authors\":\"Brooke Marshall\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0020589322000094\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The English Court of Appeal and German Bundesgerichtshof recently decided that Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation applies to asymmetric jurisdiction clauses. This article contends that while this conclusion is sound, separating the ‘clause’ into two ‘agreements’ to reach it is not. This disaggregation prevents a solution to the anomaly that Article 31(2) creates for asymmetric clauses, where a lender sues under its option and the borrower subsequently sues in the anchor court. This article proposes a solution, based on a uniform characterisation of the clause as a whole, which protects the lender's option and mitigates the risk of parallel proceedings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International & Comparative Law Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International & Comparative Law Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589322000094\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589322000094","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

英国上诉法院和德国联邦法院最近裁定，《布鲁塞尔一号复审条例》第31（2）条适用于不对称管辖权条款。本文认为，虽然这一结论是合理的，但将“条款”分为两个“协议”来达成这一结论并不合理。这种分解阻止了解决第31条第（2）款为不对称条款创造的异常情况，即贷款人根据其选择提起诉讼，借款人随后在主法院提起诉讼。本文提出了一种基于对整个条款的统一描述的解决方案，该解决方案保护了贷款人的选择权，并降低了并行程序的风险。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

ASYMMETRIC JURISDICTION CLAUSES AND THE ANOMALY CREATED BY ARTICLE 31(2) OF THE BRUSSELS I RECAST REGULATION

The English Court of Appeal and German Bundesgerichtshof recently decided that Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation applies to asymmetric jurisdiction clauses. This article contends that while this conclusion is sound, separating the ‘clause’ into two ‘agreements’ to reach it is not. This disaggregation prevents a solution to the anomaly that Article 31(2) creates for asymmetric clauses, where a lender sues under its option and the borrower subsequently sues in the anchor court. This article proposes a solution, based on a uniform characterisation of the clause as a whole, which protects the lender's option and mitigates the risk of parallel proceedings.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

International & Comparative Law Quarterly LAW-

CiteScore

3.20

自引率

10.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The International & Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) publishes papers on public and private international law, comparative law, human rights and European law, and is one of the world''s leading journals covering all these areas. Since it was founded in 1952 the ICLQ has built a reputation for publishing innovative and original articles within the various fields, and also spanning them, exploring the connections between the subject areas. It offers both academics and practitioners wide topical coverage, without compromising rigorous editorial standards. The ICLQ attracts scholarship of the highest standard from around the world, which contributes to the maintenance of its truly international frame of reference. The ''Shorter Articles and Notes'' section enables the discussion of contemporary legal issues and ''Book Reviews'' highlight the most important new publications in these various fields. The ICLQ is the journal of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, and is published by Cambridge University Press.