There is no discretion (on forum non convenience or other grounds) in favor of courts of another State. • Secondly, the Hague Convention provides that any other court seized but not chosen must dismiss the case unless the exceptions listed in the Hague Convention apply (Article 6). A jurisdiction agreement is thus effectively enforced and avoids parallel proceedings. • A third key feature of the Hague Convention is that it provides an international framework to recognize and enforce judgments. A judgment rendered by the court of a member State must be recognized and enforced by the courts of other member States (Article 8) unless one of the exceptions established by the Hague Convention applies (Article 9).
International commercial arbitration is a mode of solving disputes with regards to various commercial activities that parties agree to trade on. The immense increase in inter-state trade and the links so forged between the enterprises across borders help develop the international methods of dispute resolution. Arbitration is exemplified as having numerous distinct advantages over proceedings
It is not a case of (sometimes criticised, sometimes admired) dynamic interpretation since the judgment did not even attempt to reason out the fine distinctions and nuances concerning “fair dealing”, “fair use” and “enumerated exceptions”. The judgment, in fact, went beyond the realms of extant jurisprudential understanding without even discussing them especially when precedents are binding in a common law jurisdiction like India. Of course, the judiciary in India is free to take an altogether different path in jurisprudence and interpretation. But it should be mandatorily based on reason. Reason pervades the Indian polity, thanks to Constitutionalism and Rule of Law.
The constitutions did not make this distinction making all aspects of the right subject to limitations. The Kenyan and South African constitutions allow limitations if it is provided by law and can be reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society. This is a very broad limitation that can be extended and applied to many things. The Indian limitation clause, in contrast; provides the right subject to ‘public order, morality and health’. Morality as ground for limitation is very broad; as there is no universal definition of morality, anything may be justified on this ground.
The courts would not invalidate any positive law on ground that it violates the contents of the Rule of Law. However, in A.D.M Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla . Popularly known as Habeas Corpus case, an attempt was made to challenge the detention orders during the Emergency on the ground that it violates the principles of the Rule of law as the “obligation to act in accordance with rule of law….. is a central feature of our constitution system and is a basic feature of the constitution”. Though the contention did not succeed and some justice even went on to suggest that during on emergency the emergency provisions themselves constitute the Rule of Law, yet if the reasoning of all the five opinions is closely read it becomes clear that the contention was accepted, no matter it did not reflect in the final order passed by the court. Therefore, even in spite of the unfortunate order to the effect that the doors of the court during an emergency are completely shut for the detenus, it is gratifying to note that the concept of Rule of Law can be used as a legal concept.
India remains one of the few liberal democracies sin the world to have not signed, supported or ratified the international convention governing “refugees”. There are numerous reasons given by the Government of India for not acceding to the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of the refugees. It is essential to take into consideration of the fact that the 1951 UN Convention came during came when the country had just got its independence from the British. It had taken the stance of “non-aligned” during the Cold war. The term “refugee” is prima facie defined as per Eurocentric nature there was quite speculation that the Convention would be one of the strategies of the Cold War against the Communist bloc.
From the reading, “an example, it was part of traditional international law for ships on the high sea to display a specific pattern of colors like red, green and white lights at nighttime. The united states supreme court in 1872 ruled that what had been merely custom was now enforceable international law” ( . p.161). Scholarship and Expertise explains that several students and jurists have written books, journals, and articles about international laws. It is not possible for someone to create international laws.
Registration of Certification Marks • Overview: – Some countries include certification marks under the umbrella of “collective marks.” – Some countries regulate certification marks separately, as their own category of trademark. – Some countries (e.g., Japan) have no legal protection for certification marks. – Requirement: include a set of rules or specifications governing the use of the mark. – Most countries require that the mark not be misleading as to the character or significance of the mark (i.e., not likely to be taken as something other than a certification mark). – Some countries require the owner to show that registration is in the public interest and to the public advantage.
In Gee v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. , Wilde B. said: “ I think that, although an excellent attempt was made in Hadley v. Baxendale to lay down a rule on the subject, it will be found that the rule is not capable of meeting all cases; and when the matter comes to be further considered, it will probably turn out that there is no such thing as a rule as to the legal measure of damages applicable in all cases.” As a result, case of Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc compounded confusion in respect of the principle of remoteness of damages as it established a new legal test for remoteness instead of applying rule in the Hadley’s case. In that case, the time charterer of a ship was nine days late in redelivering the ship to the owner’s disposition. The owner had meanwhile made a very profitable contract to charter the ship to another charterer following on at the end of the defendant’s charter. The consequence of the defendant’s delay under the first charter was that the second charterer became entitled to cancel its contract because the ship could not be made available on the agreed date. A compromise settlement was made between the owner and the second charterer, but, freight rates having declined in the meantime, the owner lost a large part of the benefit of the very profitable follow-on
Consumers are protected from the unconscionability behavior and contracts under ACLs20 and ACLs21 in common law. Section 20 provides that a corporation must not engage in conduct that is unconscionable “within the meaning of the unwritten law”. Section 21 of the ACL goes on to protect consumers in relation to the supply of acquisition of goods or services from a person. In Australia the state and Commonwealth governments have incited legislation which sole purpose is to regulate and deal with unfair and unconscionable contracts. These acts include, Trade Practices Act 1974, Contract Reviews Acts 1980 NSW and the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Commonwealth).