Drew Holiner and William Hooper, Practical Law: California: a golden opportunity for international arbitration?

This article first appeared on Practical Law’s Arbitration Blog which can be found here.

On 18 July 2018 the State of California passed a new law which expressly enables foreign qualified lawyers to appear in international commercial arbitrations in the state. The new legislation, which takes effect from 1 January 2019, provides that members of a “recognized legal profession in a foreign jurisdiction” and who are “admitted or otherwise authorized to practice as attorneys or counselors at law or the equivalent” can provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related dispute resolution mechanism if certain conditions are satisfied. This is welcome news to the international arbitration community. Until now, following the decision of the California Supreme Court in Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, PC v Superior Court, there had been strict restrictions on foreign lawyers (and in fact any non-Californian lawyers) in providing arbitration services in California.

Now, the Golden State, recently surpassing the United Kingdom as the fifth largest economy in the world, has opened its doors for business as an international arbitration centre. Senate Bill No. 766 brings California in line with most other major arbitral seats and provides an exciting opportunity for lawyers practising in commercial arbitration. The Working Group tasked with the drafting of the bill (which included members of JAMS, Gibson Dunn, and Arnold & Porter) has now set up a California International Arbitration Council with the aim of promoting the state as a hub for international commercial arbitration.

California’s arbitration market is at present relatively small compared with, say, LondonParisGenevaHong Kong, or Singapore. The relaxation of the law and the obvious impetus within the state to put itself on the map as a dispute resolution centre gives room to grow and develop its own identity as a hub.

California’s economic ranking on the world stage is demonstrative of the diversity of its output but one would expect its tech, aerospace and creative industries in particular to offer the greatest opportunities for growth in California-based arbitration. The state’s major non-NAFTA trading partners are in east Asia (particularly the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea) and it is the leading US state for exports to Europe. With international arbitration within the state now open to foreign lawyers, there is much to be said for trading parties in those jurisdictions to start to look to California for effective dispute resolution.

While Senate Bill No. 766 imposes certain conditions on non-Californian lawyers conducting arbitration in the jurisdiction, they are not unduly restrictive and in fact demonstrate the breadth of disputes which Californian arbitration is apt to resolve. The Golden State may have just unveiled a golden opportunity for international arbitration.

 

Now published: “The UK Constitution after Miller: Brexit and beyond”

Hart Publishing has published “The UK Constitution after Miller: Brexit and beyond”, edited by Jack Williams and Professors Mark Elliott and Alison Young.

The judgment of the UK Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is of fundamental legal, constitutional and political significance. The Supreme Court’s judgment discussed the relative powers of Parliament and the Government, the relationship between Westminster and the devolved legislatures, and the extent to which the UK’s membership of the EU had changed the UK constitution, both prior to and even after departure. It also provided further evidence of the emerging role of the UK’s Supreme Court as a

constitutional court, despite the lack of a codified constitution in the UK.

This edited collection critically evaluates the decision in Miller, providing a detailed analysis of the reasoning in the judgment and its longer-term consequences for

the UK constitution through the period of Brexit and beyond. The case is used as a lens through which to evaluate the modern UK constitution and its potential future evolution. Whatever form Brexit may eventually take, the impact that EU membership and the triggering of Brexit has (already) had on the UK’s constitutional settlement is profound. The book will be of great value to anyone interested in the effect of the Miller case and Brexit on the UK’s constitution.

To order (with a 30% discount until 29 July 2018), see here. (After the 29 July 2018, use discount code CV7.)

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS

Foreword by Sir Stephen Sedley

  1. The Miller Tale: An Introduction
    Mark Elliott, Jack Williams and Alison L Young
  2. Prerogative Powers After Miller: An Analysis in Four E’s
    Jack Williams
  3. Miller and the Prerogative
    Anne Twomey
  4. Miller, Treaty Making and the Rights of Subjects
    Eirik Bjorge
  5. Miller, EU Law and the UK
    Paul Craig
  6. Of Power Cables and Bridges: Individual Rights and Retrospectivity in Miller and Beyond
    David Howarth
  7. Constitutional Change and Territorial Consent: The Miller Case and the Sewel Convention
    Aileen McHarg
  8. Sovereignty, Consent and Constitutions: The Northern Ireland References
    Gordon Anthony
  9. The Miller Case and Constitutional Statutes
    Sir John Laws
  10. Sovereignty, Primacy and the Common Law Constitution: What has EU Membership Taught Us?
    Mark Elliott
  11. Miller, Constitutional Realism and the Politics of Brexit
    Richard Ekins and Graham Gee
  12. Miller and the Future of Constitutional Adjudication
    Alison L Young

To order (with a 30% discount until 29 July 2018), see here. (After the 29 July 2018, use discount code CV7.)

Second edition of Jeremy McBride’s book “Human rights and criminal procedure – The case law of the European Court of Human Rights” published

The second edition of Jeremy McBride’s “Human rights and criminal procedure – The case law of the European Court of Human Rights” was published by the Council of Europe in June in English, with a Russian translation being also published by Development of Legal Systems in Moscow.

The book is intended to assist judges, lawyers and prosecutors to take account of the many requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights – both explicit and implicit – for the criminal process when interpreting and applying Codes of Criminal Procedure and comparable or related legislation. It does so through extracts from key rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and the former European Commission of Human Rights dealing with complaints about violations of Convention rights and freedoms in the course of the investigation, prosecution and trial of alleged offences, as well as in the course of appellate and various other proceedings linked to the criminal process. The extracts are significant not only because the mere text of the Convention is insufficient to indicate the scope of what is entailed by it but also because the circumstances of the cases selected give a sense of how to apply the requirements in concrete situations.

For more information, and to purchase a copy of the book, please click here.

Review of the general conditions of entitlement—Ofcom

This article was first published on Lexis®PSL Tax on 20 April 2018.

“TMT analysis: As a continuation of its review of the general conditions of entitlement (GCs), Ofcom has now issued a new statement on emergency planning direction, number withdrawal and guidance on contract termination. Philip Woolfe of Monckton Chambers analyses the changes.

This statement follows on from Ofcom’s statement and consultation of September 2017, which revoked and replaced the previous version of the GCs with effect from 1 October 2018.

Original news

Ofcom publishes statement on emergency planning direction, number withdrawal and guidance on contract termination LNB News 26/03/2018 85.

As part of the review and update of its General Conditions (GCs), Ofcom has published a statement which sets out its conclusions on a number of proposals which it consulted upon at the same time as it published the new GCs. The statement updates a direction which specifies which public bodies may request industry to make arrangements for the restoration of communications services in the event of disasters; sets out new rules for a further extension of Ofcom’s power to withdraw telephone numbers where they are used inconsistently with the national telephone numbering plan or otherwise misused; and provides guidance about procedures for terminating contracts.”

To read full article please click here.

Michael Bowsher QC and SSRN: Tale of Three Regulatory Regimes — Dynamic, Distracted and Dysfunctional: Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States

Abstract

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times — a year marked by genuine progress in public procurement law in some nations, and partial paralysis in others. This article presents the experience of Sweden (as part of the European Union), the United Kingdom (which is slated soon to depart from the EU, via “Brexit”), and the United States (in the first year of the Trump administration). While Sweden and other members of the European Union continue to develop a vital and evolving body of public procurement law, the United Kingdom has been distracted by Brexit, and the United States made, in 2017, almost no regulatory progress at all — though stasis itself yielded some interesting insights. This piece proceeds in three parts, prepared primarily by Andrea Sundstrand (Part II, on Sweden and the European Union), Michael Bowsher (Part III, on the United Kingdom) and Christopher Yukins (Introduction, Part IV on the United States, and Conclusion).

Authors: Michael Bowsher QC, King’s College London, Andrea Sundstrand, Stockholm University and Christopher R. Yukins, George Washington University – Law School

To read the paper, please click here.