INTERNATIONAL LAW
W.B. Fisch, Fall 2001
Assignments #34
3. International Comity
HILTON V. GUYOT, p. 749 (US 1895): what is "international
comity"? Is it a rule of law?
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO. V. CALIFORNIA, p. 750 (US
1993)
-
what is the nature of the dispute?
-
what is the basis of application of US law?
-
what other country has jurisdiction to prescribe with respect
to the conduct at issue?
-
on what basis?
-
is there a "true conflict" between its rules and the US rules?
-
How would the court resolve the conflict if there were one?
-
How does "international comity" differ from "balancing"?
-
Is it clear that Hartford Fire repudiates Timberlane?
-
Compare Restatement of Foreign Relations Law §403,
over
-
If U.S. courts are too aggressive, what responses might other
countries make?
-
refuse to recognize judgment?
-
authorize counter-judgment? e.g., "blocking laws",
n. 5 p. 761-2
4. Forum non Conveniens
PIPER AIRCRAFT CO. V. REYNO, p. 762 (U.S. 1981)
-
What kind of jurisdiction is involved here? Is it different
from the previous cases?
-
Is it clear whose law would apply to the merits of the case
-
if it stayed in the US?
-
If it moves to Scotland?
-
On what ground is it decided that the US court should not
exercise jurisdiction?
-
Will the action in fact be filed in Scotland by these plaintiffs?
Should that matter?
Janis on the Bhopal Case, p. 772 (1987)
-
Who is seeking relief in US courts? On what theory of jurisdiction?
-
On what ground does the plaintiff resist dismissal? Should
it be relevant?