To simplify matters, and to accommodate those who wish to have foreign language
input on the IFWP list, would it be fair to approximate this to 'quis custodes
ipsos custodiet?'. A question which has never been rigorously or logically
answered in any domain of human affairs? And, consequently, for which there
would be no reason to imagine a breakthrough with DNS and ecommerce? And for
which therefore it might be logical to use the existing set of chess pieces
appropriately?
MM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ellen Rony wrote:
>
> >So I pose a question: Cross-border disputes are not new to commerce. How
> >have jurisdictional issues been handled in the past? Which country's
> rules
> >prevail when they are not in accord and the outcome would differ greatly
> >from one country to the next. Is it merely dependent upon which party is
> >the first to bring a dispute to litigation? Can a cross border dispute be
> >appealed by the losing party in a different, but appropriate,
> jurisdiction?
> >Isn't there a legal, historical jurisdictional record to which we can
> >turn?
>
> Yes - there is a substantial body of private international law on exactly
> these questions, and also a number of treaties. This does not mean that
> the question is clear in every case, and courts in different countries can
> take different views. Large tomes have been written on this subject which
> has developed extensively in particular in the context of shipping.
> Generally (and very broadly) the court chosen by the parties (by contract),
> or the court of the country of a consumer, or the court with the closest
> connection with the dispute will be the appropriate forum. It is not
> generally possible to appeal a judicial decision in a different
> jurisdiction.
>
> However, there are substantial drawbacks to international litigation,
> including the additional expense, the possibility of having to conduct
> litigation in a foreign language, and the difficulties of distance and time
> zones to name but four. These are exacerbated in the context of disputes
> relating to conduct on a Website which may be actionable in more than one
> jurisdiction on different bases. This is the attraction of arbitration in
> a known forum or fora. The European Commission is looking at "on-line"
> arbitration, which seems worth exploring.
>
> There have been suggestions that arbitration should not be mandatory. If
> it is not, then the door will be open to the party with the most financial
> muscle to "forum shop" to put the other party at a disadvantage. Provided
> that arbitration is under clearly understood rules with experienced
> arbitrators, it is just as good a method of dispute resolution as
> litigation in court, (and in general allows appeal to the courts on points
> of law). It is widely used in many arenas, including shipping, insurance
> etc.
>
> Clare Wardle
>
> My views are my own,and not necessarily those of my employer or colleagues.
--
Mark Measday
__________________________________________________________________________
Josmarian SA [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167
French tel/fax: 0033.450.20.94.92
Swiss tel/fax: 0041.22.363.88.00
L'aiuola che ci fa tanto feroci. Divina Commedia, Paradiso, XXII, 151
__________________________________________________________________________
