Article by Leon E. Trakman
Article by Deepa Badrinarayana
Comment by Colleen Murphy
Comment by Noelle Jolin
Article by Karen E. Sandrik
The transnational class action—a class action in which a portion of the class consists of non-U.S. claimants—is here to stay. Defendants typically resist the certification of transnational class actions on the basis that such actions provide no assurance of finality for a defendant, as it will always be possible for a non-U.S. class member to initiate subsequent proceedings in a foreign court. In response to this concern, many U.S. courts will analyze whether the “home” courts of the foreign class members would accord res judicata effect to an eventual U.S. judgment prior to certifying a U.S. class action containing foreign class members. The more likely the foreign court is to recognize a U.S. class judgment, the more likely an American court will include those foreigners in the U.S. class action.
In this Article, we observe that legal regulation of national and international sports competition has become extremely complex and has entered a new era, which provides fertile ground for the creation and evolution of broader legal jurisprudence with potentially widespread influence and application. Our principal aim is to draw these developments to the attention of legal scholars and attorneys not necessarily familiar with sports law. Specifically, the evolving law of sports is having a significant influence on the development of international and national laws, is establishing a body of substantive legal doctrine ripe for analysis from a comparative law perspective, and has important implications for global dispute resolution. For example, the global processes used to establish an international sports antidoping code and to resolve a broad range of Olympic and international sports disputes (which is rapidly creating a body of global private law) provide paradigms of international cooperation and global lawmaking. In addition, judicial resolution of sports-related cases may develop jurisprudence with new applications and influence. Our objective is to generate greater awareness of the importance of sports, not only as a worldwide cultural phenomenon and a significant part of the twenty-first-century global economy, but as a rich source of international and national public and private laws that provide models for establishing, implementing, and enforcing global legal norms.
This Article analyzes the Rome II Regulation, which entered into effect on January 11, 2009, and established uniform choice-of-law rules for noncontractual obligations in the European Union. Rome II is of particular interest to U.S. scholars because its federal and international character and nearly comprehensive scope make it a potential model for a new U.S. Restatement or federal statute. Beginning with its text, context, and legislative history, this Article examines Rome II in the comparative light of state-level codifications in the United States and the general theory of state-interest analysis developed during the American “conflicts revolution.” The Article tests the new EU regulation against the facts of influential conflicts cases of the New York Court of Appeals and argues that it performs well by an interest-analysis standard. An assessment of Rome II as a model for a U.S. codification concludes the Article.
Asking the right question can be as important as giving the right answer. In her book Judging Civil Justice, Dame Hazel Genn forcefully argues that the right question about the civil justice system is not “[h]ow much justice can we afford” but “how much justice can we afford to forego.”Genn has spent her professional lifetime studying methods for resolving civil disputes. A pioneer in empirical legal studies, she has for thirty years interviewed litigants, lawyers, and judges and studied courts, tribunals, and ADR methods. Genn is a clear-eyed observer, deeply sympathetic to the plight of modern courts but unwilling to ignore the politics that underlie the rhetoric of court reform today.. . .