Suchergebnisse

Preliminary Material -- 1 Access -- 2 Jurisdiction -- 3 Governing Instruments -- 4 Procedure: General Aspects -- 5 Institution of Proceedings -- 6 Written Proceedings Stage: The Pleadings -- 7 Oral Proceedings Stage: The Hearings -- 8 Evidence -- 9 Modes of Termination -- 10 The Decision -- 11 Provisional Measures -- 12 Challenges to the Court's Jurisdiction (Preliminary Objections) -- 13 Counter-Claims -- 14 Intervention under Article 62 of the Statute -- 15 Intervention under Article 63 of the Statute -- 16 Interpretation of Judgments -- 17 Revision of Judgments -- 18 Other Litigation Devises: Joinder, Lack of Appearance, Appeals and Remedies -- 19 Litigation Before Chambers -- 20 Litigation in Advisory Proceedings -- List of Boxes -- Appendixes 1 and 2: List of Decisions -- Appendix 1: List of Decisions of the Permanent Court of International Justice (1920–1939) -- Index.

Das Justizministerium Japans hat dem japanischen Parlament am 2. März 2010 den Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Regelung der internationalen Zuständigkeit übermittelt. Eine englische Übersetzung des Entwurfes findet sich im Anhang 1 zu diesem Beitrag. Der Entwurf soll das Zivilprozessgesetz und das Zivilsicherungsgesetz ergänzen. Der Beitrag stellt einige der charakteristischen Vorschriften des Entwurfes vor, dessen Verfasser augenscheinlich besonderes Gewicht auf flexible Regelungen gelegt haben. Um den Hintergrund der Reform zu illustrieren, gibt der Verfasser zu Beginn einen kurzen Überblick über die einschlägige Rechtsprechung der japanischen Gerichte in den vergangenen 40 Jahren.Dem Entwurf des Justizministeriums gingen der Entwurf einer Arbeitsgruppe, veröffentlicht im Juni 2008, und der Zwischenentwurf des Gesetzgebungsausschusses, veröffentlicht im Juli 2009, voraus. Da der vom Justizministerium im Februar 2010 angenommene Entwurf hinsichtlich seiner einzelnen Bestimmungen das Ergebnis einer Auswahl zwischen verschiedenen Regulierungsalternativen ist, die auch die Entscheidung einschließt, bezüglich bestimmter Fragen auf eine explizite Regelung zu verzichten, dürfte es hilfreich sein, die Genese der einzelnen Vorschriften anhand der beiden Vorentwürfe zu verfolgen. Zu diesem Zweck findet sich im Anhang 2 eine tabellarische Gegenüberstellung aller drei Entwürfe.(die Red.) ; The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) submitted a draft for a new legislation on international jurisdiction to the Diet of Japan on 2 March 2010. An English translation of the draft is presented as Appendix 1. The draft is scheduled to amend the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Provisional Remedies Act. This article highlights a few of the draft's characteristic provisions. Flexibility seems to have been the main priority of its drafters. To illustrate the background of the reform the article starts with briefly summarizing the case law on international jurisdiction that Japanese courts have developed during the last 40 years.The MOJ Draft of 2010 was preceded by a Working Group Draft published in June 2008 and an interim draft of the Drafting Committee published in July 2009. The MOJ Draft adopted in February 2010 is the result of a selection from several choices for each provision, which also included the choice not to create any black-letter rules on certain issues. Therefore it is important and useful to trace the development of each provision in the preparation process by knowing what options the Working Group Draft had proposed and what was taken in the MOJ Draft. Appendix 2 offers a comparative overview of three Drafts in form of a chart.(The Editors)

This book, the first of its kind on Anglophone Cameroon, brings significant local context into the practice of law particularly at a juncture when civil practice has been radically altered by Cameroon's ongoing effort at harmonization of both the substantive and procedural laws applicable in the courts. The book covers a wide spectrum of topics including: the commencement of civil actions, jurisdiction, simplified recovery procedures and measures of execution, provisional execution and stay of execution. It provides a detailed analysis of the relevant rules of court applicable in both the high

A "global" civil procedure has emerged and found its way into debates over procedural reform in both international and domestic arenas. Global civil procedure includes the procedural rules, practices, and social understandings that govern transnational litigation and arbitration. A global civil procedure norm is a norm adopted across courts or arbitration providers with the purpose of making that jurisdiction or provider more competitive in attracting transnational litigation or arbitration. Global civil procedure norms are at stake in multiple present trends and debates, including model laws in commercial arbitration, the procedure of international tribunals, the debate over investment dispute resolution, the rise of courts oriented towards international litigation, and sprawling litigation spanning multiple jurisdictions and fora. On a surface level, the values reflected in global civil procedure seem to be roughly the same across jurisdictions. A common language has emerged around competition for litigation business and procedure values such as efficiency, certainty, and impartiality. Yet different legal systems do not necessarily agree on the purpose of various shared elements of global civil procedure. For democracies, for instance, the purpose of procedural reforms might be to facilitate access to justice. Other countries may favor the same reforms because they facilitate top-down administrative control of judges. Surface agreement can submerge divergent logics that may ultimately lead to very different applications of harmonized rules. This Article begins by introducing the concept of global civil procedure, who uses it, and how. Next, it considers several examples of the phenomenon including conflicts of interest rules for adjudicators, aggregation, and discovery or disclosure rules. Finally, it considers the limits of global civil procedure. Although the rhetoric of procedural competition can be heard across systems, procedural values do not necessarily translate both in terms of enduring divisions between legal traditions and in terms of applications by current political regimes.