Search results

International judicial assistance, which is reasonably well settled in criminal law, is still finding its way in civil matters. Here is a very useful survey of problems in this area, describing how they are being handled in various jurisdictions worldwide. The authors examine service of process abroad, obtaining evidence in crossborder litigation, the impact of sovereign immunity, the application of international conventions, and preferred forms of dispute resolution. Contributors include practitioners from both civil law and common law jurisdictions. Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Territorial limits of jurisdiction — International judicial assistance — Jurisdiction of court to grant application for obtaining evidence abroad — Whether judicial assistance can be claimed in the absence of any treaty arrangementsState immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Administrative proceedings — Application for summons for obtaining evidence from minister of foreign State — Evidence relating to military operations of Indian army in Sri Lanka — Whether Indian Defence Minister entitled to jurisdictional immunity — Whether State military operations constituting a sovereign activitySources of international law — Comity — As basis for international judicial assistance — Obtaining evidence abroad — Whether principle of comity requiring foreign State to make available to municipal courts evidence regarding its sovereign activitiesTreaties — Application — Multilateral treaties — Scope of application — Extension by analogy — Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 1970 — Whether application of Convention may be extended to administrative matters by analogy409War and armed conflict — Armed intervention — Consent of host State — Deployment of Indian forces in Sri Lanka — The law of the Federal Republic of Germany

In a note of June 10, 1980, the Turkish Embassy requested assistance from the Department of State in connection with a child custody proceeding in a Virginia State court. The court had reportedly ruled that, because there was martial law in certain Turkish provinces, Turkey was not a safe place of residence for the children. The Embassy suggested that it was not for the court to "pass judgment about conditions in Turkey about which authoritative information is not in its possession"; rather, it was "the responsibility of the executive to make a policy decision about the visit and residence of U.S. citizens in foreign countries and [to] inform the judicial and legislative bodies."