4 ms·

So do virtually all other Northern and Western European countries. What you have that they don't have is the English language as the native language. Non UK la

by flexie 8y ago

So do virtually all other Northern and Western European countries. What you have that they don't have is the English language as the native language. Non UK lawyers (as me) chose to UK arbitration etc. because of the language, not because we trust your courts more than the German, French or Dutch courts. Yes, arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in most other countries could be conducted in English, but with UK arbitration we know that we would be able to read the statutes, court rulings etc that the arbitrators read and refer to, in the same language as them.

growlist 8y ago
You might find this of interest: https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-english-law-governs-most-international-commercial-contracts https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-english-law-governs-most-inter...
- NicoJuicy 8y ago
  > QLTS is the official fast-track route that enables foreign lawyers to qualify as solicitors in England and Wales. Not really an independent opinion so it seems. It would surprise me if they suggested something else, considering their business. Everyone can find someone to agree with on the internet :) International people have been judged in "Den Haag" a lot more than anywhere else. Here are my "opinionated" sources: > The International Court of Justice (abbreviated ICJ)[1] is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It settles legal disputes between member states and gives advisory opinions to authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justi... ) > Theresa May has failed to get the EU to agree that Britain will retain a voice at the European court of justice in return for her concession that the Luxembourg court will retain a role in protecting citizens’ rights in the UK after Brexit. ( https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/brexit-uk-fails-to-retain-voice-in-european-court-of-justice https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/brexit-uk-f... ) Personal: haven't ever heard a UK court settle for international affairs. Hague is the only one I remember from events ( eg. Khadaffi, Bemba, ... )
  - growlist 8y ago
    Ad hominem.
    - NicoJuicy 8y ago
      You have 0 objective references. I have at least 1 ( Wikipedia) and 1 that should be pro UK ( UK news paper)
      - growlist 8y ago
        You edited your post later to add those references, then made this comment!
  - hkt 8y ago
    The examples you have given are interesting because they are recent and the province of international agreements. I wonder if English law is used widely in other places and for different agreements as part of a legacy of empire?
    - flexie 8y ago
      In so far as the empire spread the English language. Otherwise, I am not so sure. I have never heard in a negotiation that a party wanted English venue with reference to the British Empire, respect of English courts or similar. It's simply more convenient due to the language. Usually it's a matter of negotiation. In a contract between a French and a German company, the French lawyer will suggest French law and venue, the German lawyer will suggest German law and venue. If either of them have sufficient bargaining power, it may very well prevail. Among equal parties, a compromise would usually involve selecting a "neutral" legal system and venue. English is the language everyone knows, so usually English is chosen. It's not always UK. Sometimes it Hong Kong or Singapore (typically if a party is Asian). Sometimes it's New York. Generally, European lawyers are wary of American courts and American law with its exotic remedies such as punitive damages. Also, between Europeans it seems unnecessary to go to another continent for arbitration.
hkt 8y ago
Good point, but then why not the US, Canada, etc? I suggested in another comment a historical component to this, namely the legacy of the British empire. It seems logical that having exported our governance for a long time our legal system would be well known through the world too.
- pseudolus 8y ago
  >Why not the US, Canada, etc? English law tends to be incorporated into contracts that are made among countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and parts of the Caribbean. However, contracts made between US entities and other entities frequently incorporate the law of the State of New York and even refer all disputes to courts in the City and County of New York so venue is locked down. There's also an increasing tendency for contracts (other than those for services) to incorporate as a legal framework the "United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_Contracts_for_the_International_Sale_of_Goods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_C...
  - hkt 8y ago
    TIL, thank you!

by flexie 8y ago

growlist 8y ago

You might find this of interest: https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-english-law-governs-most-international-commercial-contracts https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-english-law-governs-most-inter...

NicoJuicy 8y ago
> QLTS is the official fast-track route that enables foreign lawyers to qualify as solicitors in England and Wales. Not really an independent opinion so it seems. It would surprise me if they suggested something else, considering their business. Everyone can find someone to agree with on the internet :) International people have been judged in "Den Haag" a lot more than anywhere else. Here are my "opinionated" sources: > The International Court of Justice (abbreviated ICJ)[1] is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It settles legal disputes between member states and gives advisory opinions to authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justi... ) > Theresa May has failed to get the EU to agree that Britain will retain a voice at the European court of justice in return for her concession that the Luxembourg court will retain a role in protecting citizens’ rights in the UK after Brexit. ( https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/brexit-uk-fails-to-retain-voice-in-european-court-of-justice https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/brexit-uk-f... ) Personal: haven't ever heard a UK court settle for international affairs. Hague is the only one I remember from events ( eg. Khadaffi, Bemba, ... )
- growlist 8y ago
  Ad hominem.
  - NicoJuicy 8y ago
    You have 0 objective references. I have at least 1 ( Wikipedia) and 1 that should be pro UK ( UK news paper)
    - growlist 8y ago
      You edited your post later to add those references, then made this comment!
- hkt 8y ago
  The examples you have given are interesting because they are recent and the province of international agreements. I wonder if English law is used widely in other places and for different agreements as part of a legacy of empire?
  - flexie 8y ago
    In so far as the empire spread the English language. Otherwise, I am not so sure. I have never heard in a negotiation that a party wanted English venue with reference to the British Empire, respect of English courts or similar. It's simply more convenient due to the language. Usually it's a matter of negotiation. In a contract between a French and a German company, the French lawyer will suggest French law and venue, the German lawyer will suggest German law and venue. If either of them have sufficient bargaining power, it may very well prevail. Among equal parties, a compromise would usually involve selecting a "neutral" legal system and venue. English is the language everyone knows, so usually English is chosen. It's not always UK. Sometimes it Hong Kong or Singapore (typically if a party is Asian). Sometimes it's New York. Generally, European lawyers are wary of American courts and American law with its exotic remedies such as punitive damages. Also, between Europeans it seems unnecessary to go to another continent for arbitration.

hkt 8y ago

Good point, but then why not the US, Canada, etc? I suggested in another comment a historical component to this, namely the legacy of the British empire. It seems logical that having exported our governance for a long time our legal system would be well known through the world too.

pseudolus 8y ago
>Why not the US, Canada, etc? English law tends to be incorporated into contracts that are made among countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and parts of the Caribbean. However, contracts made between US entities and other entities frequently incorporate the law of the State of New York and even refer all disputes to courts in the City and County of New York so venue is locked down. There's also an increasing tendency for contracts (other than those for services) to incorporate as a legal framework the "United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_Contracts_for_the_International_Sale_of_Goods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_C...
- hkt 8y ago
  TIL, thank you!