Search results

This book is the first in Europe dealing in a joint manner with the issue of application of foreign law both by judicial and non-judicial authorities in the European Union. It provides a very relevant and exhaustive analysis and will become a highly useful tool for all legal practitioners - lawyers, judges, notaries, land registries, academics, ministry officials, public servants, prosecutors etc. - from the European Union and abroad. Key features - Detailed analysis of the solutions provided by the respective legal systems in every EU Member State and their treatment by case law - A general comparative study rendering a comprehensive overview of the existing situation in Europe - National reports from all 27 EU Member States - Proposal of some basic principles for a future European instrument

In 1936 the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws promulgated the Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act. To date the Act has been adopted by twenty-eight jurisdictions, including Washington. Although the purpose of the Act was commendable, and the modernization it sought to achieve greatly needed, it seems that further action, either judicial or legislative is needed in some of the states where it has been adopted. Reform is particularly necessary in Washington. This comment will explore the Washington law prior to the enactment of the Uniform Act, the intent of the Act, and the actual effect that its enactment has had upon the existing law. The operation of the Uniform Act in the other jurisdictions will be discussed with a view toward exposing both its strengths and weaknesses. A comparison of the rule as to judicial notice of the law of the various states by the federal courts will also be made. Finally, there will be suggestions for improvement, both in the way of judicial interpretation and of legislative action.

Intro -- Series Editors' Preface -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- List of Contributors -- List of Cases -- List of Statutes and Instruments -- 1. Introduction -- I. Purpose -- II. An Overview of International and Regional Developments -- III. Scope: Treatment of and Access to Foreign Law in Asia -- IV. Summary -- 2. China -- I. Introduction -- II. The Chinese Conflict of Laws Regime -- III. Ascertainment of Foreign Laws -- IV. The Threshold of 'Failing to Ascertain Foreign Laws' -- V. Possible Future Development on Treatment of Foreign Law in China -- VI. Access to Chinese Law -- 3. Hong Kong -- I. Introduction -- II. Foreign Law before Judicial Authorities -- III. Foreign Law in Other Instances -- IV. Access to Hong Kong Law -- V. Reforms and Future Directions -- VI. Conclusion -- 4. Taiwan -- I. Treatment of Foreign Law -- II. The Status of Foreign Law -- III. Application of Foreign Law in Other Matters Involving Foreign Elements -- IV. Foreign Languages' Translations of National Laws -- V. Approaching Foreign Laws: The Future Development of Asia -- VI. Conclusion -- 5. Japan -- I. Introduction: Status of Choice of Law Rules -- II. Foreign Law before Judicial Authorities -- III. Foreign Law in Other Instances -- IV. Access to Japanese Law -- V. Access to Foreign Law: Future Developments in Asia -- 6. South Korea -- I. Introduction -- II. Foreign Law before Judicial Authorities -- III. Access to Korean Law -- IV. Access to Foreign Law -- V. Conclusion -- 7. Singapore -- I. Introduction -- II. Status of Choice of Laws Rules -- III. Foreign Law before Judicial Authorities -- IV. Establishment of Foreign Law in the Singapore Courts -- V. Judicial Review/Appeal -- VI. Foreign Law before Other Authorities -- VII. Access to Law -- VIII. Conclusion -- 8. Malaysia -- I. Introduction -- II. Status of Choice of Laws Rules.

Sital Kalantry (Seattle University Law School) has posted Foreign Law in Dobbs: The Need for A Principled Framework (14 ConLawNOW 37 (2023)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: This article critiques the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's...