特定管辖权是否已经消亡,我们是否谋杀了它?在《2019年HCCH判决公约》全球化背景下对布鲁塞尔法规的评价

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
M. Poesen
{"title":"特定管辖权是否已经消亡,我们是否谋杀了它?在《2019年HCCH判决公约》全球化背景下对布鲁塞尔法规的评价","authors":"M. Poesen","doi":"10.1093/ULR/UNAB006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Specific jurisdiction in the European Union (EU) is in a state of flux. While its theoretical foundation varies among legal systems, the explanatory model in EU law—established by the Brussels Ia Regulation—is the close geographical connection between a dispute’s subject matter and a court. It is believed that the court with such a connection is best positioned to judge the matter. Therefore, Article 7 of the Brussels Ia Regulation allocates jurisdiction over subject matters as broadly defined as contracts and torts to the court of an array of predetermined locations. However, in reality the courts so identified will not always have a close connection to the dispute. Nonetheless, the court of that place has jurisdiction. This article will evaluate the legitimacy of denying a more concrete role to the linkage between a forum and a dispute. It will also contrast the current state of play in the EU with the approach taken in the jurisdictional filters featuring in the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.","PeriodicalId":42756,"journal":{"name":"Uniform Law Review","volume":"71 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is specific jurisdiction dead and did we murder it? An appraisal of the Brussels Ia Regulation in the globalizing context of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention\",\"authors\":\"M. Poesen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ULR/UNAB006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Specific jurisdiction in the European Union (EU) is in a state of flux. While its theoretical foundation varies among legal systems, the explanatory model in EU law—established by the Brussels Ia Regulation—is the close geographical connection between a dispute’s subject matter and a court. It is believed that the court with such a connection is best positioned to judge the matter. Therefore, Article 7 of the Brussels Ia Regulation allocates jurisdiction over subject matters as broadly defined as contracts and torts to the court of an array of predetermined locations. However, in reality the courts so identified will not always have a close connection to the dispute. Nonetheless, the court of that place has jurisdiction. This article will evaluate the legitimacy of denying a more concrete role to the linkage between a forum and a dispute. It will also contrast the current state of play in the EU with the approach taken in the jurisdictional filters featuring in the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42756,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Uniform Law Review\",\"volume\":\"71 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Uniform Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ULR/UNAB006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Uniform Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ULR/UNAB006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧洲联盟(EU)的具体管辖权处于不断变化的状态。尽管其理论基础因法系而异,但欧盟法律的解释模式——由《布鲁塞尔条例》确立的——是争端主体与法院之间的密切地理联系。人们认为,有这种关系的法院最有资格对此事作出裁决。因此,《布鲁塞尔条例》第7条将合同和侵权等广泛定义的标的物的管辖权分配给一系列预定地点的法院。然而,在现实中,这样确定的法院并不总是与争端有密切的联系。不过,那个地方的法院有管辖权。本文将评估否认论坛与争端之间联系的更具体作用的合法性。它还将欧盟目前的现状与2019年《海牙判决公约》中采用的管辖权过滤方法进行对比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is specific jurisdiction dead and did we murder it? An appraisal of the Brussels Ia Regulation in the globalizing context of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention
Specific jurisdiction in the European Union (EU) is in a state of flux. While its theoretical foundation varies among legal systems, the explanatory model in EU law—established by the Brussels Ia Regulation—is the close geographical connection between a dispute’s subject matter and a court. It is believed that the court with such a connection is best positioned to judge the matter. Therefore, Article 7 of the Brussels Ia Regulation allocates jurisdiction over subject matters as broadly defined as contracts and torts to the court of an array of predetermined locations. However, in reality the courts so identified will not always have a close connection to the dispute. Nonetheless, the court of that place has jurisdiction. This article will evaluate the legitimacy of denying a more concrete role to the linkage between a forum and a dispute. It will also contrast the current state of play in the EU with the approach taken in the jurisdictional filters featuring in the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.
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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信