Skip to main content
×
Home
Uncertain Causation in Tort Law
  • Export citation
  • Recommend to librarian
  • Recommend this book

    Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

    Uncertain Causation in Tort Law
    • Online ISBN: 9781316414774
    • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316414774
    Please enter your name
    Please enter a valid email address
    Who would you like to send this to? *
    ×
  • Buy the print book

Book description

This discussion of causal uncertainty in tort liability adopts a comparative approach in order to highlight the important normative, epistemological and procedural implications of the various proposed solutions. Occupying a middle ground between the legal perspective and the philosophical views that are at stake when it comes to the resolution of tort law cases in a context of causal uncertainty, the arguments will be of great interest to legal scholars, legal philosophers and advanced tort law students.

    • Aa
    • Aa
Refine List
Actions for selected content:
Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Send to Kindle
  • Send to Dropbox
  • Send to Google Drive
  • Send content to

    To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to .

    To send content to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

    Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

    Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

    Please be advised that item(s) you selected are not available.
    You are about to send:
    ×

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
×
AdeboyejoB.M., Aug. 6, 2011: “Protocols for Cross-Border Cases … Will They Work?”, ABA Now, available at http://www.abanow.org/2011/08/protocols-for-cross-border-cases-%25E2%2580%25A6-will-they-work/.
BassettD.L., 2011: “The Future of International Class Actions”, Southwestern International Law Journal, 18: 21.
BermannG.A., 2012: “The ‘Gateway’ Problem in International Commercial Arbitration”, Yale Journal of International Law, 37: 1.
BlackabyN., et al., 2009: Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (Leiden: Kluwer Law International).
BoltJ.W. & Wheatley J.K., 2006: “Private Rules for International Discovery in U.S. District Court: The U.S.-German Example”, UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs, 11: 1.
BornG.B., 2009: International Commercial Arbitration (Leiden: Kluwer Law International).
BornG.B., 2010: International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing (Leiden: Kluwer Law International).
BornG.B & Rutledge P.B., 2007: International Civil Litigation in United States Courts (New York: Aspen Publishers).
BorrisC., 2011: “Arbitrability of Corporate Law Disputes in Germany”, in KlaassenC.J.M., et al. (Eds.), Onderneming en ADR (Leiden: Wolters Kluwer).
BresciaR.H., 2009: “Tainted Loans: The Value of a Mass Torts Approach to Subprime Mortgage Lending”, University of Cincinnati Law Review, 78: 1.
BrowerC.H.II, 2011: “Arbitration and Antitrust: Navigating the Contours of Mandatory Law”, Buffalo Law Review, 59: 1127.
BrulardY. & Quintin Y., 2001: “European Community Law and Arbitration – National Versus Community Public Policy”, Journal of International Arbitration, 18: 533.
BucknerC.J., 2004: “Toward a Pure Arbitral Paradigm of Classwide Arbitration: Arbitral Power and Federal Preemption”, Denver University Law Review, 82: 301.
BucknerC.J., 2006: “Due Process in Class Arbitration”, Florida Law Review, 58: 185.
BurchE.C., 2008: “Litigating Groups”, Alabama Law Review, 61: 1.
BurchE.C., 2009: “Securities Class Actions as Pragmatic Ex Post Regulation”, Georgia Law Review, 43: 63.
BushkinI.T., 2005: “The Viability of Class Action Lawsuits in a Globalized Economy – Permitting Foreign Claimants to be Members of Class Action Lawsuits in the U.S. Federal Courts”, Cornell Law Review, 90: 1563.
BuxbaumH.L., 2006: “Transnational Regulatory Litigation”, Virginia Journal of International Law, 46: 251.
CabraserE.J., 2004: “Human Rights Violations as Mass Torts: Compensation as a Proxy for Justice in the United States Civil Litigation System”, Vanderbilt Law Review, 57: 2211.
CamposS.J., 2011: “The Future of Mass Torts … And How to Stop It”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra, 159: 231.
ColangeloA.J., 2011: “A Unified Approach to Extraterritoriality”, Virginia Law Review, 97: 1019.
CrookJ.R., 2006: “Lessons Learned Over Twenty-Five Years”, in Permanent Court of Arbitration, International Bureau (Ed.), Redressing Injustices Through Mass Claims Processes: Innovative Responses to Unique Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
CrooksE. & Mapstone N., Jan. 4, 2012: “Chevron’s Ecuador Case Takes a New Twist”, Financial Times.
CrossK.H., 2011: “Investment Arbitration Panel Upholds Jurisdiction to Hear Mass Bondholder Claims Against Argentina”, ASIL Insights, 15.
DixonJ.C.L., 1997: “The Res Judicata Effect in England of a U.S. Class Action Settlement, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 46: 134.
DubinskyP.R., 2008: “Is Transnational Litigation a Distinct Field? The Persistence of Exceptionalism in American Procedural Law”, Stanford Journal of International Law, 44: 301.
EffronR.J., 2008: “Disaster-Specific Mechanisms for Consolidation”, Tulane Law Review, 82: 2423.
EpsteinD., et al., 2008: International Litigation: A Guide to Jurisdiction, Practice, and Strategy (Leiden: Brill).
FellasJ. & Warne D., 2004: “Choice of Forum Under United States and English Law”, in FellasJ. (Ed.), Transatlantic Commercial Litigation and Arbitration (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
FrickJ.G., 2001: Arbitration and Complex International Contracts (Leiden: Kluwer Law International).
GaillardE. & Savage J., 1998: Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (Leiden, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International).
GelowitzM., Feb. 19, 2010: “Court Certifies Class Action Against Imax: Liability May be Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You”, Lawyer’s Weekly, available at http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section+article&artcileid=1103.
GloverJ.M., 2012: “The Structural Role of Private Enforcement Mechanisms in Public Law”, William and Mary Law Review, 53: 1137.
GonzalezA., Jan. 5, 2012: “Chevron Case Could Last for Years”, Wall Street Journal.
GruenwaldJ., Sept. 1, 2011: “Justice Department Gives AT&T Merger Plan Zero Bars”, National Journal, available at http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/justice-department-gives-at-t-merger-plan-zero-bars-20110831.
HenslerD.R., 1995: “A Glass Half Full, a Glass Half Empty: The Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Mass Personal Injury Litigation”, Texas Law Review, 73: 1587.
HenslerD.R., 2000: Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation).
HenslerD.R., 2009: “The Globalization of Class Actions: An Overview”, in HenslerD.R., et al. (Eds.), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622: 1.
HenslerD.R., et al. (Eds.), 2009: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622 [hereinafter The Annals].
HinshawA., Jan. 11, 2011, “So It’s Come to This”, ADR Prof Blog, available at http://www.indisputably.org/?p=1958.
HodgesC., 2009: “England and Wales”, in HenslerD.R., et al. (Eds.), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622: 105 [hereinafter Hodges, C., England].
HodgesC., 2009: “European Union Legislation”, in HenslerD.R., et al. (Eds.), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622: 78 [hereinafter Hodges, C., Europe].
HodgesC., 2009: “What Are People Trying to Do in Resolving Mass Issues, How Is It Going, and Where Are We Headed?”, in HenslerD.R., et al. (Eds.), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622: 330 [hereinafter Hodges, C., Resolving].
HoggP.W., 2011: Constitutional Law of Canada (Toronto: Carswell).
HoggP.W. & McKee S.G., 2010: “Are National Class Actions Constitutional?”, National Journal of Constitutional Law, 26: 279.
KalajdzicJ., et al., 2009: “Canada”, in HenslerD.R., et al. (Eds.), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622: 41.
KerrM., 1997: “Concord and Conflict in International Arbitration”, Arbitration International, 13: 121.
KingsburyB., et al., 2005: “The Emergence of Global Administrative Law”, Law & Contemporary Problems, 68: 15.
KnoxJ.H., 2011: “The Unpredictable Presumption Against Extraterritoriality”, Southwestern Law Review, 40: 635.
KoenigT.H., 2008: “Crimtorts: A Cure for the Hardening of the Categories”, Widener Law Journal, 17: 733.
KristjánsdóttirE. & Simerova B., 2006: “Processing Claims for ‘Other Personal Injury’ Under the German Forced Labour Compensation Programme”, in Permanent Court of Arbitration, International Bureau (Ed.), Redressing Injustices Through Mass Claims Processes: Innovative Responses to Unique Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
KröllS.M., 2009: “The ‘Arbitrability’ of Disputes Arising From Commercial Representation”, in MistelisL.A. & Brekoulakis S.L. (Eds.), Arbitrability: International and Comparative Perspectives (Leiden: Kluwer Law International).
LammC.B. & Aqua J.A., 2002–03: “Defining the Party – Who Is a Proper Party in an International Arbitration Before the American Arbitration Association and Other International Institutions”, George Washington International Law Review, 34: 711.
LandauT., 2003: “The Requirement of A Written Form for An Arbitration Agreement: When ‘Written’ Means ‘Oral’”, in van den BergA.J. (Ed.), International Commercial Arbitration: Important Contemporary Questions (Leiden: Kluwer Law International).
LewJ.D.M., et al., 2003: Comparative International Commercial Arbitration (Leiden: Kluwer Law International).
MainT.O., 2010: “The Procedural Foundation of Substantive Law”, Washington University Law Review, 87: 801.
MayerT.V.H. & Sigler P., 2004: “Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Defendants in the United States and England”, in FellasJ. (Ed.), Transatlantic Commercial Litigation and Arbitration (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
MichaelsR., 2006: “Two Paradigms of Jurisdiction”, Michigan Journal of International Law, 27: 1003.
MilesJ.C., et al., 1910: Digest of English Civil Law, Book II (London: Butterworth).
MonestierT.J., 2010: “Personal Jurisdiction Over Non-Resident Class Members: Have We Gone Down the Wrong Road?”, Texas International Law Journal, 45: 537.
MonestierT.J., 2011: “Transnational Class Actions and the Illusory Search for Res Judicata”, Tulane Law Review, 86: 1.
MonestierT.J., 2012: “Is Canada the New “Shangri-La” of Global Securities Class Actions?”, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 32: *1.
MulheronR., 2004: The Class Action in Common Law Legal Systems: A Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Hart).
MulheronR., 2009: “The Case for an Opt-Out Class Action for European Member States: A Legal and Empirical Analysis”, Columbia Journal of European Law, 13: 409.
MulheronR., 2012: “The Recognition, and Res Judicata Effect, of a United States Class Actions Judgment in England: A Rebuttal of Vivendi”, Modern Law Review, 75: 180.
MullenixL.S., 2011: “Promethus Unbound: The Gulf Coast Claims Facility as a Means of Resolving Mass Tort Claims – A Fund Too Far”, Louisiana Law Review, 71: 819.
NagaredaR.A., 2007: Mass Torts in a World of Settlement (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
NagaredaR.A., 2009: “Aggregate Litigation Across the Atlantic and the Future of American Exceptionalism”, Vanderbilt Law Review, 62: 1.
Nolan-HaleyJ.M., 2012: “Is Europe Headed Down the Primrose Path With Mandatory Mediation?”, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 37: 981.
OstragerB.R., et al., 1999: “Andersen v. Andersen: The Claimants’ Perspective”, American Review of International Arbitration, 10: 443.
Permanent Court of Arbitration, International Bureau (Ed.), 2006: Redressing Injustices Through Mass Claims Processes: Innovative Responses to Unique Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Permanent Court of Arbitration, International Bureau (Ed.), 2009: Multiple Party Actions in International Arbitration (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
PetersonL.E., Aug. 7, 2008: “Argentina Faces a Third Treaty Claim by Hold-Out Bond-Holders: Experts Differ as to Prospects”, available at http://www.iareporter.com/articles/20091001_54.
PlatteM., 2002: “When Should an Arbitrator Join Cases?”, Arbitration International, 18: 67.
PlatteM., 2003: “An Arbitrator’s Duty to Render Enforceable Awards”, Journal of International Arbitration, 20: 307.
RauA.S. 2008: “Arbitral Jurisdiction and the Dimensions of ‘Consent’”, Arbitration International, 24: 199.
Reuters, Aug. 17, 2011: “AT&T Sues Customers Seeking to Block T-Mobile Deal”, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/17/us-tmobile-att-lawsuits-idUSTRE77G59020110817.
RingeW. & Hellgardt A., 2011: “The International Dimension of Issuer Liability – Liability and Choice of Law From a Transatlantic Perspective”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 31: 23.
RussellT.L., 2010: “Exporting Class Actions to the European Union”, Boston University International Law Journal, 28: 141.
RutherglenG., 2012: “Wal-Mart, AT&T Mobility and the Decline of the Deterrent Class Action”, Virginia Law Review in Brief, 98: 24.
SaumierG., 2005: “USA-Canada Class Actions: Trading in Procedural Fairness”, Global Jurist Advances, 5: 1.
SimardL.S. & Tidmarsh J., 2011: “Foreign Citizens in Transnational Class Actions”, Cornell Law Review, 97: 87.
SmitH., 2004: “Class Actions and Their Waiver in Arbitration”, American Review of International Law, 15: 199.
SmithD.G., 2009: “An Administrative Approach to the Resolution of Mass Torts?”, University of Illinois Law Review, 2009: 895.
SpaconeA.J., 2000: “Strict Liability in the European Union – Not a United States Analog”, Roger Williams University Law Review, 5: 341.
SteensonM. & Sayler J.M., 2009: “The Legacy of the 9/11 Fund and the Minnesota I-35 W Bridge Collapse Fund: Creating a Template for Compensating Victims of Future Mass-Tort Catastrophes”, William Mitchell Law Review, 35: 524.
StiggleboutM., 2011: “The Recognition in England and Wales of United States Judgments in Class Actions”, Harvard International Law Journal, 52: 433.
StrongS.I., May 23, 2005: “Backyard Advantage: New Rules Mean That U.S. Companies May Be Forced to Litigate Across the Pond”, Legal Times 28: 43.
StrongS.I., 2008: “Enforcing Class Arbitration in the International Sphere: Due Process and Public Policy Concerns”, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 30: 1.
StrongS.I., 2009: “The Sounds of Silence: Are U.S. Arbitrators Creating Internationally Enforceable Awards When Ordering Class Arbitration in Cases of Contractual Silence or Ambiguity?”, Michigan Journal of International Law, 30: 1017.
StrongS.I., 2010: “Class Arbitration Outside the United States: Reading the Tea Leaves”, in HanotiauB. & Schwartz E.A. (Eds.), Dossier VII: Arbitration and Multiparty Contracts 183 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Tea Leaves].
StrongS.I., 2010: “From Class to Collective: The De-Americanization of Class Arbitration”, Arbitration International, 26: 493 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., De-Americanization].
StrongS.I., 2010: “Jurisdictional Discovery in United States Federal Courts”, Washington and Lee Law Review, 67: 489 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Jurisdictional Discovery].
StrongS.I., 2010: “Opening More Doors Than It Closes: Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds International Corp.”, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 2010(4): 565 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Doors].
StrongS.I., 2011: “Class and Collective Relief in the Cross-Border Context: A Possible Role for the Permanent Court of Arbitration”, The Hague Yearbook of International Law 2010, 23: 113 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., PCA].
StrongS.I., 2011: “Collective Arbitration Under the DIS Supplementary Rules for Corporate Law Disputes: A European Form of Class Arbitration?”, ASA Bulletin, 29: 45 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., DIS].
StrongS.I., 2011: “Jurisdictional Discovery in Transnational Litigation: Extraterritorial Effects of United States Federal Practice”, Journal of Private International Law, 7: 1 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Transnational Litigation].
StrongS.I., 2012: “Arbitration of Trust Disputes: Two Bodies of Law Collide”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 45: 1157 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Trust].
StrongS.I., 2012: “Does Class Arbitration ‘Change the Nature’ of Arbitration? Stolt-Nielsen, AT&T and a Return to First Principles”, Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 17: 201 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., First Principles].
StrongS.I., 2012: International Commercial Arbitration: A Guide for U.S. Judges [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Guide].
StrongS.I., 2012: “Mandatory Arbitration of Internal Trust Disputes: Improving Arbitrability and Enforceability Through Proper Procedural Choices”, Arbitration International 26: 591 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Trust Procedures].
StrongS.I., 2012: “Regulatory Litigation in the European Union: Does the U.S. Class Action Have a New Analogue?”, Notre Dame Law Review 88: 899 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Regulatory Litigation].
StrongS.I., 2012: “Resolving Mass Legal Disputes Through Class Arbitration: The United States and Canada Compared”, North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation 37: 921 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Canada].
StrongS.I., 2013: Class, Mass, and Collective Arbitration (New York: Oxford University Press) [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Class, Mass]
StrongS.I., 2013: “Collective Consumer Arbitration in Spain: A Civil Law Response to U.S.-Style Class Arbitration”, Journal of International Arbitration 30: 495 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Spain].
StrongS.I., 2013: “Cross-Border Collective Redress in the European Union: Constitutional Rights in the Face of the Brussels I Regulation”, Arizona State Law Journal 44: 233 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Brussels I].
StrongS.I., 2013: “Cross-Border Collective Redress and Individual Participatory Rights: Quo Vadis?”, Civil Justice Quarterly 32: 508 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Quo Vadis].
StrongS.I., 2013: “Mass Procedures as a Form of ‘Regulatory Arbitration’ – Abaclat v. Argentine Republic and the International Investment Regime”, The Journal of Corporation Law 38: 259 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Regulatory Arbitration].
StrongS.I., 2014: “Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic: Heir of Abaclat? Mass and Multiparty Proceedings”, ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal 29: 149 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Ambiente Ufficio].
StrongS.I., 2014: “Beyond International Commercial Arbitration? The Promise of International Commercial Mediation”, Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 45: 11 [hereinafter Strong, S.I., Mediation].
StrongS.I. & Dries J.J., 2005: “Witness Statements Under the IBA Rules of Evidence: What to do About Hearsay?”, Arbitration International, 21: 301.
StrongS.I. & Williams L., 2011: Tort Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
SusskindL.E. & Crump L. (Eds.), 2008: Multiparty Negotiation, vol. 3, Complex Litigation and Legal Transactions (London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.).
SzalaiI.S., 2008: “Aggregate Dispute Resolution: Class and Labor Arbitration”, Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 13: 399.
TushnetM., 1986: “The Constitution of Religion”, Connecticut Law Review, 18: 710.
TzankovaI. & Scheurleer D.L., 2009: “The Netherlands”, in HenslerD.R., et al. (Eds.), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 622: 149.
van den BergA.J., n.d.:“Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards”, in United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, available at http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/crefaa/crefaa.html.
WajertS., 2011: A Comment on the EU’s Working Paper: “Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress”, http://www.masstortdefense.com/2011/05/articles/a-comment-on-the-eus-working-paper-towards-a-coherent-european-approach-to-collective-redress/.
WalkerJ., 2010: “Are National Classes Constitutional? A Reply to Hogg and McKee”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 48: 95.
WassermanR., 2011: “Transnational Class Actions and Interjurisdictional Preclusion”, Notre Dame Law Review, 86: 313.
WeidemaierW.M.C., 2007: “Arbitration and the Individuation Critique”, Arizona Law Review, 49: 69.
WestonM., 2006: “Universes Colliding: The Constitutional Implications of Arbitral Class Actions”, William & Mary Law Review, 47: 1711.
WillgingT.E., et al., 1996: “An Empirical Analysis of Rule 23 to Address the Rulemaking Challenges”, New York University Law Review, 71: 74.
WillgingT.E. & Lee E.G.III, 2010: “From Class Actions to Multidistrict Consolidations: Aggregate Mass-Tort Litigation After Ortiz”, University of Kansas Law Review, 58: 775.
Agreement between the Argentine Republic and the Republic of Italy on the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed 22 May 1990, available at Investment Instruments Online Bilateral Investment Treaties, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, http://www.unctadxi.org/templates/docsearch____779.aspx (allowing user to search for BITs by country) [hereinafter Argentina-Italy BIT].
Civil Procedure Rules 1999, Part 19.III.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “Towards a European Horizontal Framework for Collective Redress”, COM(2013) 401/2 [hereinafter European Commission Communication].
Draft Commission Recommendation of 11 June 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law, C(2013) 3539/3 [hereinafter European Commission Draft Recommendation].
Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, Mar. 18, 1965, 575 U.N.T.S. 159 [hereinafter ICSID Convention].
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 Apr 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts [1993] OJ L95/29.
Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, art. 5(3), 2001 O.J. (L 12) 1 (EC) [hereinafter Brussels I Regulation].
Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters [2008] OJ L 136/3.
European Commission (EC), Public Consultation: Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress, SEC(2011) 173, Feb. 4, 2011 [hereinafter European Commission, Public Consultation].
European Parliament, Resolution of 2 February 2012 on “Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress”, P7_TA(2012)0021 [hereinafter European Parliament, Resolution]
European Parliament and Council Directive 98/27/EC of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests [1998] OJ L16/51 [hereinafter European Parliament, Directive on Injuctions].
Green Paper, Consumer Collective Redress, COM(2008) 794 (27 November 2008).
Organization of American States, Inter-American Convention on Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards, May 14, 1979, 1439 U.N.T.S. 87 [hereinafter Montevideo Convention].
Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), [2012] OJ L351/1 [hereinafter Brussels I Recast].
United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 330 U.N.T.S. 38 [hereinafter New York Convention].
Abaclat (formerly Beccara) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated August 4, 2011, available at http://italaw.com/documents/AbaclatDecisiononJurisdiction.pdf [hereinafter Abaclat Award].
Abaclat (formerly Beccara) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Dissenting Opinion dated October 28, 2011, available at http://italaw.com/documents/Abaclat_Dissenting_Opinion.pdf [hereinafter Abaclat Dissent].
Alemanni v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/8, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated November 17, 2014, available at http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4061.pdf [hereinafter Alemanni Award].
Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. (formerly Alpi) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated February 8, 2013, available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC2992_En&caseId=C340 [hereinafter Ambiente Ufficio Award].
Valencia v. Bancolombia (Colom. v. Colom.), digest by Zuleta Digest for Institute for Transnational Arbitration (ITA) (Arb. Trib. from the Bogotá Chamber of Comm. 2003), available at http://www.kluwerarbitration.com [hereinafter Valencia v. Bancolombia].
Brief of American Arbitration Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party, Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010) (No. 08–1198), at 22–24 [hereinafter AAA Brief].
Brief of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners, Stolt-Nielsen SA v AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010) (No. 08–1198) p. 17 [hereinafter Chambers Brief].
American Arbitration Association (AAA), International Dispute Resolution Procedures, effective June 1, 2009, available at www.adr.org [hereinafter AAA International Rules].
American Arbitration Association (AAA), Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitrations, effective Oct. 8, 2003, available at www.adr.org [hereinafter AAA Supplementary Rules].
American Arbitration Association (AAA) Searchable Class Arbitration Docket, available at www.adr.org.
American Bar Association (ABA), Protocol on Court-to-Court Communications in Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Class Actions and Notice Protocol: Coordinating Notice(s) to the Class(es) in Multijurisdictional Class Proceedings (Aug. 2011), available at http://www.cba.org/cba/resolutions/pdf/11-03-A-bckd.pdf.
American Law Institute (ALI), Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communications in Cross-Border Cases, available at http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court/practice_and_procedure/practice_directions_and_notices/General/Guidelines%20Cross-Border%20Cases.pdf [hereinafter ALI, Guidelines].
American Law Institute (ALI), Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation (2010) [hereinafter ALI, Principles].
American Law Institute, Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971) [hereinafter ALI, Restatement].
Canadian Bar Association (CBA), Consultation Paper: Canadian Judicial Protocol for the Management of Multijurisdictional Class Actions 6–7 (June 2011).
Chevron, Ecuador Lawsuit, http://www.chevron.com/ecuador/.
Chevron in Ecuador, “These Three Men Think They Have Power to Kill Ecuadorians’ Judgment Against Chevron: Here’s Why They Can’t – It’s Against the Law”, Feb. 11, 2012, available at http://www.chevroninecuador.com/ (reposted from The Chevron Pit, Feb. 22, 2012, available at http://thechevronpit.blogspot.com/2012/02/these-three-men-think-they-have-power.html).
Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (DIS) Supplementary Rules for Corporate Law Disputes, effective 15 September 2009, available at http://www.dis-arb.de/download/DIS_SRCoLD_%202009_Download.pdf [hereinafter DIS Supplementary Rules].
Global Class Actions Exchange, available at http://globalclassactions.stanford.edu/.
Institute for European Tort Law, The Basic Principles of Tort Law From A Comparative Perspective, available at http://conflicts.ectil.org/.
International Bar Association (IBA), Submission to European Commission Consultation on Collective Redress (April 28, 2011), available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2011_collective_redress/iba_awg_en.pdf [hereinafter IBA Submission].
International Bar Association (IBA), Guidelines for Recognising and Enforcing Foreign Judgments for Collective Redress (Oct. 16, 2008), available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2011_collective_redress/iba_guidlines_en.pdf [hereinafter IBA Collective Redress].
International Bar Association (IBA), Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Commercial Arbitration (May 22, 2004), available at http://www.ibanet.org/Publications/publications_IBA_guides_and_free_materials.aspx [hereinafter IBA, Conflicts].
International Bar Association (IBA), Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration (May 29, 2010), available at http://www.ibanet.org/Publications/publications_IBA_guides_and_free_materials.aspx [hereinafter IBA, Evidence].
International Law Association (ILA), Final Report on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards 2002 (ILA Final Report), available at http://www.ila-hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/19.
JAMS Class Action Procedures, effective May 1, 2009, available at www.jamsadr.com/rules/class_action.asp.
Law Society, Multi-party Action Information Service, available at http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/productsandservices/services/multiparty.law
Montevideo Convention Status, available at http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/b-50.html.
New York Convention, Status, available at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html [hereinafter New York Convention Status].
New York University Institute for International Law and Justice, available at http://www.iilj.org/GAL/GALworkingdefinition.asp.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Recommendation on Consumer Dispute Resolution and Redress (2007), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/50/38960101.pdf.
PIP Breast Implants and Mass Torts in Europe, Mass Tort Litigation Blog, available at http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/mass_tort_litigation/.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 22
Total number of PDF views: 427 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 816 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.