James J Fawcett, Máire Ní Shúilleabháin and Sangeeta Shah, Human Rights and Private International Law

Author
Published date01 May 2018
DOI10.3366/elr.2018.0493
Pages315-317
Date01 May 2018

Human rights law is an area readily able to capture both the imagination of students and the attention of tabloid headlines. The same, unfortunately, is not true for international private law (“IPL”). This book takes on the daunting task of exploring the complex intersection between those two areas. It proceeds through the various rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and examines the impact, actual and potential, of those rights on rules of jurisdiction, choice of law, and foreign judgments across the commercial and family aspects of IPL.

The first third of the book is devoted to the right to a fair trial. With a mix of irony and misfortune, the book was published on the same day that the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union (“EU”). However, as the national Scottish rules of civil and commercial jurisdiction found in Schedule 8 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Jurisdiction Act 1982 are based upon the 1968 Brussels Convention, the analysis of the Brussels I Recast contained within Chapter four should retain some value come what may. This is subject to the caveat that the doctrine of forum non conveniens may offer a corrective in the situations where the authors identify potential compatibility issues with certain of the jurisdictional bases (86–88). Chapter four also identifies potential problems with the compatibility of the matrimonial jurisdictional grounds contained in the Brussels II bis Regulation (101), but, unfortunately, the latest proposal to recast that instrument (COM (2016) 411/2) leaves the jurisdiction provisions unchanged.

The text then turns to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under the Brussels Regime. The discussion pre-dates the Grand Chamber decision in Avotiņš v Latvia (2017) 64 EHRR 2, which corrects, along the lines of the criticism found in chapter five (198), the lack of engagement of the Chamber judgment with the “presumption of equivalence” between EU and ECHR obligations. That decision also confirms (at para 96) that Article 6 of the ECHR does protect the execution of foreign final judgments, thus clarifying the previously opaque position as discussed in the book (176). It is unfortunate that the relevant standard for assessing a denial of justice in a state of origin was not discussed by the Strasbourg court, and one hopes that the book's discussion of that issue (185–195) will inform subsequent...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT