What legal principles apply when courts in different jurisdictions are simultaneously seised with the same dispute ? This question — of international lis pendens — has long been controversial. But it has taken on new and urgent importance in our age. Globalization has driven an unprecedented rise in forum shopping between national courts and a proliferation of new international tribunals. Problems of litispendence have spawned some of the most dramatic litigation of modern times — from anti-suit injunction battles in commercial disputes, to the appeals of prisoners on death row to international human rights tribunals. The way we respond to this challenge has profound theoretical implications for the interaction of legal systems in today’s pluralistic world. In this wide-ranging survey, McLachlan analyses the problems of parallel litigation — in private and public international law and international arbitration. He argues that we need to develop a more sophisticated set of rules of conflict of litigation, guided by a cosmopolitan conception of the rule of law.

The book seeks to investigate problems relating to the increased interaction between national and international courts, which have resulted in the litigation of the same legal issues before national and international judicial bodies: What is the proper order of the proceedings? Should national and international proceedings take place concurrently? What effect, if any, should be given to decisions of national court in proceedings before an international court and vice versa? In particular, the book advocates the use of judicial comity as a method for mitigating jurisdictional tensions between national and international courts.

This book focuses on major amendments introduced in the Brussels I regulatory framework. The contributions scrutenise the changes introduced in the Brussels Ibis Regulation, a legal instrument that presents a core of the unification of private international law rules on the European Union level. It is one of the first publications addressing all the changes in the Brussels I regulatory scheme, which takes into consideration relevant CJEU case law up to July 2016. The texts, written by legal scholars who have published extensively in the field of private international law and international civil procedure, will add to the development of EU private international law. In addition, the authors’ critical analysis may open further discussions on the topic and so benefit a consistent and harmonised application of the Regulation. In this respect the book takes a different approach than the commentaries which have so far been published. It is primarily meant for legal academics in private international law and practitioners who are regularly engaged in cross-border civil proceedings. It may also be of added value to advanced students and to those with a particular interest in the subject of international litigation and more generally in the area of dispute resolution. Vesna Lazić is a Senior Researcher at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, an Associate Professor of Private Law at Utrecht University and Professor of European Civil Procedure at the University of Rijeka. Steven Stuij is an expert in Private International Law and an external Ph.D. candidate at Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam.

IAI Series No. 2 The International Arbitration Institute (IAI) series on international arbitration is a new periodic series of publications that will focus on cutting edge issues and developments in international arbitration. About the IAI: The International Arbitration Institute (IAI), an organization created under the auspices of the Comité Français de ľ Arbitrage (CFA), was created to promote exchanges in international arbitration. The IAI is designed to promote exchanges on current issues in the field of international commercial arbitration. Its activities include the regular organization of international conferences, colloquiums, as well as conducting various research projects. About the Book: Anti-suit injunctions are a device, originally found in common law countries, whereby a court - which retains its jurisdiction or anticipates to do so and which seeks to protect that jurisdiction or, more generally, the jurisdiction of the forum it deems to be the most appropriate - orders a party to refrain from bringing a claim before the courts of another State or before an arbitral tribunal or, if the party has already brought such a claim, orders that party to withdraw from, or the arbitrators to suspend, the proceedings. In the past few years, the use of anti-suit injunctions in the context of international arbitration has been spreading at a disturbing pace. The courts of many common law countries but also those of civil law tradition frequently resort to this device at a party's request, in order to disrupt the arbitration process or resist the enforcement of the award. How best to resolve those conflicts arising as a result of national courts' differing perspectives on the validity and scope of certain arbitration agreements? Are anti-suit injunctions in conformity with the requirements of public international law? When the courts of certain States enjoin a party to refrain from proceeding with an arbitration, should other courts enjoin them not to enjoin, or should they, like the U.S. Court of Appeal for the 5th Circuit in the Pertamina case, exercise a commandable "self-restriction"? These are just a few of the issues addressed in Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration.