A Different Challenge for the ALI: Herein of Foreign Country Judgments, an International Treaty, and an American Statute

Indiana Law Journal

Volumn 75, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 635-647

  Silberman, Linda J ^a,b   Lowenfeld, Andreas F ^a,c  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034400272     PISSN: 00196665     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (11)

1. See, e.g., Symposium on the American Law Institute: Process, Partisanship, and the Restatements of Law, 26 HOFSTRA L. REV. 573 (1998).
2. See, e.g., Andreas F. Lowenfeld, Nationalizing International Law: Essay in Honor of Louis Henkin, 36 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 121, 127-31 (1997).
3. Many (but not all) states apply the general principles of the Uniform Act even though they have not formally adopted the Act. See Andreas F. Lowenfeld & Linda J. Silberman, United States of America, in ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS WORLDWIDE (Charles Platto & William G. Horton eds., 2d ed. 1993); see also RESTATEMENT (THIRD), supra note 5, §§ 481-482 & reporters' notes. rule to be developed by the courts. See Harold G. Maier, A Hague Conference Judgments Convention and United Stales Courts: A Problem and a Possibility, 61 ALB. L. REV. 1207, 1224-35 (1998). We believe it would be more desirable to specify such a standard in
4. Many (but not all) states apply the general principles of the Uniform Act even though they have not formally adopted the Act. See Andreas F. Lowenfeld & Linda J. Silberman, United States of America, in ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS WORLDWIDE (Charles Platto & William G. Horton eds., 2d ed. 1993); see also RESTATEMENT (THIRD), supra note 5, §§ 481-482 & reporters' notes. rule to be developed by the courts. See Harold G. Maier, A Hague Conference Judgments Convention and United Stales Courts: A Problem and a Possibility, 61 ALB. L. REV. 1207, 1224-35 (1998). We believe it would be more desirable to specify such a standard in
5. See, e.g, Volker Behr, Enforcement of United States Money Judgments in Germany, 13 J.L. & COM. 211 (1994); see also ANDREAS F. LOWENFELD, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments, in INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION AND THE QUEST FOR REASONABLENESS 109, 129-36 (1996).
6. See, e.g, Volker Behr, Enforcement of United States Money Judgments in Germany, 13 J.L. & COM. 211 (1994); see also ANDREAS F. LOWENFELD, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments, in INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION AND THE QUEST FOR REASONABLENESS 109, 129-36 (1996).
7. See generally Ronald A. Brand, Tort Jurisdiction in a Multilateral Convention: The Lessons of the Due Process Clause and the Brussels Convention, 24 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 125, 154-55 (1998); Kevin M. Clermont, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty, 85 CORNELL L. REV. 89, 116-18 (1999).
8. See generally Ronald A. Brand, Tort Jurisdiction in a Multilateral Convention: The Lessons of the Due Process Clause and the Brussels Convention, 24 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 125, 154-55 (1998); Kevin M. Clermont, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty, 85 CORNELL L. REV. 89, 116-18 (1999).
9. See, e.g., Patrick J. Borchers, A Few Little Issues for the Hague Judgments Negotiations, 24 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 157 (1998); Andreas F. Lowenfeld, Thoughts About a Multinational Judgments Convention: A Reaction to the von Mehren Report, 57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 289 (1994).
10. See, e.g., Patrick J. Borchers, A Few Little Issues for the Hague Judgments Negotiations, 24 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 157 (1998); Andreas F. Lowenfeld, Thoughts About a Multinational Judgments Convention: A Reaction to the von Mehren Report, 57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 289 (1994).
11. For doubts about a worldwide convention of this type, see Friedrich K. Juenger, A Hague Judgments Convention?, 24 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 111 (1998).