Parallel Litigation in Cross-Border Disputes Practice: Comparative Analysis of Foreign Legislation

Abstract

Parallel litigation of cross-border disputes has become a widespread and multifaceted problem in the field of international jurisdiction, which requires research and resolution on the level of the international community and at the level of individual states. The article is devoted to comparative legal analysis of the legislation of foreign states governing parallel litigation, as well as research of relevant law enforcement practice. The author provides a division between the continental law approach and common law approach. Hence, the author examines the relevant provisions of the laws of the USA, UK, Canada, as well as the law of the EU, Switzerland, Turkey and Japan. The need in identifying two common approaches is accounted for the objective principles of legal regulation of relations arising in connection with parallel litigation. On the basis of these principles one can distinguish the following two social legal values as justice and legitimacy, which to some extent dictate the logic and justification of the application of the outlined approaches. The approach of common law countries aimed at the most fair and effective resolution of cross-border dispute due to ability of the court to apply the doctrine of forum non convenience and to accommodate the different circumstances of the case to substantiate its or jurisdiction of a foreign court in respect of the dispute. Continental law approach, in turn, is focused on the predictability and certainty in the resolution of the question of the suspension or on the contrary, on the refusal to suspend the proceedings in connection with parallel proceedings. The specificity of the approach of common law countries is appeared in the ability to justify the legitimacy of parallel processes, which undoubtedly is contrary to the basic provisions of the continental approach according to which the parallel litigation is unacceptable. The parties to cross-border commercial relations, while planning procedural strategy even before the emergence of the dispute, can take into account features of a particular approach in order possible use of the effect of parallel proceedings that may occur, for example, in obtaining a speedy trial prejudicial act. In this regard, it is concluded that at the present stage of development of the rules on international jurisdiction there is no straightforward solution of the problem of parallel litigation.