外国判决在新加坡的承认与执行

外国判决可以通过两种程序在新加坡得到承认与执行.第一种是登记程序,其依据是<英联邦判决相互执行法>或者<外国判决相互执行法>.前者规定了在英联邦国家获得的判决在新加坡的相互执行;后者适用于给与新加坡判决在该外国的承认与执行以互惠待遇的非英联邦成员的国家.登记外国判决的程序规定在<高等法院规则第67号令>中.第二种是重新审理程序,即根据普通法,以外国判决为依据在新加坡法院提起诉讼.     

论我国关于承认与执行外国法院判决制度的立法改革与完善

一国法院的判决一般而言只有域内效力而没有域外效力已是国际私法中普遍承认的原则,但是由于承认与执行法院判决是民事程序的关键阶段并涉及诉讼目的的根本实现,大多数国家从社会、政治、经济、文化等方面的发展需要出发, 除了积极参加有关的国际条约外也通过国内立法规范承认与执行有关外国法院判决制度。我国关于承认与执行外国法院判决制度规定主要包括《中华人民共和国民事诉讼     

外国法院离婚判决的承认与执行问题研究

对我国而言，外国法院离婚判决是指中华人民共和国的人民法院以外的法院，对当事人的婚姻及子女抚养、财产等作出的有强制力的法律文书的总称。一国承认和执行外国法院离婚判决，完全是出于自身的利益，是为了保护本国或本国公民的正当权益。承认和执行外国法院离婚判决的依据主要是国内立法、国际条约和互惠关系。承认外国法院离婚判决是执行外国法院离婚判决的先决条件，但承认外国法院离婚判决并非一定导致执行。相对于外国法院其他民商事判决的承认和执行，我国法律在承认和执行外国法院离婚判决方面，作出了较为具体和宽容的规定。     

加拿大承认与执行外国法院判决制度初探

外国法院判决的承认与执行是国际私法所调整的重要内容 ,英美法系国家将其视为国际私法应解决的三大问题之一。加拿大承认与执行外国法院判决的制度中吸收了英美等国的一些基本原则 ,但也逐渐发展出其自身的特点 ,尤其在近年来 ,加拿大法院逐渐放松了对外国判决承认与执行的限制 ,使外国判决较易在加拿大得到承认与执行。本文即结合加拿大承认与执行制度在实践中的发展趋势 ,阐述其承认与执行外国法院判决的一般要求和主要抗辩。     

外国法院判决的承认和执行条件中的互惠原则

许多国家均采用有条件地承认和执行外国法院判决的制度,其中互惠关系往往被作为条件之一。互惠原则意味着要求发出判决的国家同承认国规定的条件相一致,来承认和执行承认国法院的判决。如在我国,对外国承认和执行我国法院的判决与我国承认和执行外国法院的判决作比较,外国承认和执行我国法院判决的条件比我国严格的,我国亦拒绝该外国法院的判决。判断这种互惠关系的有无,是看两国之间有条约关系或事实互惠关系,还是承认法律的互惠,目前在我国尚有着不同的理解。就此,本文通过分析我国法院的判决来探讨互惠关系的意义。     

从中国对外签订的民商事司法协助条约谈法院判决的域外执行

大多数当事人和律师认为,中国法院的判决无法在外国得到执行,而外国法院的判决也无法在中国得到执行(离婚判决除外),但实际并非如此。截至2015年11月30日,中国已与37个国家签订了双边民事或商事司法协助条约,其中与33个国家的条约中约定了相互承认和执行法院判决的内容,意味着中国法院的判决有机会在这33个国家得到承认与执行,同样,这些国家的法院判决也有机会在中国得到承认和执行。下面笔者对这些条约的内容和适用做一简要分析。     

外国法院民商事判决承认与执行中的自然公正及欺诈例外

内国法院在决定是否承认与执行外国法院民商事判决时,都要审查作出该判决的法院是否具有管辖权、判决是否具有终局性、是否违反本国的公共政策等等,这既是各国的一项固有权力,也是各国有关承认与执行制度中一项必不可少的程序。其中,各国立法和相关国际公约对判决程序的公正性给予了相当程度的关注,这种关注的程度甚至耍超过对判决实体问题的关注。事实上,一项外国法院民商事判决请求内国法院承认与执行时,被请求的法院一定会对作出该判决的程序的正当性进行判断。     

建立国际统一的管辖权和判决承认与执行制度--海牙《选择法院协议公约》述评

海牙国际私法会议于2005年6月所通过的<选择法院协议公约>系迄今为止国际社会在法院管辖权和外国法院判决承认和执行方面意义最为深远的一个公约.本文首先介绍了本文公约产生的背景以及公约的结构.之后,作者就公约中关于统一管辖权的规定进行了较为详细的评述被选择法院行使管辖权的权利和应该行使管辖权的义务、未被选择法院不行使管辖权的义务以及临时保护措施不受公约约束的例外规定.关于公约中所规定的外国法院判决的承认与执行制度作者从六个方面进行了探讨承认与执行外国判决的一般义务、承认与执行外国判决的例外情形、不审查与事实认定、先决问题、损害赔偿问题以及承认和执行外国判决的法律适用问题.     

完善我国承认和执行外国判决制度若干具体问题的探讨

承认外国判决与执行外国判决，是两个既有区别又有联系的问题。承认外国判决，是指内国法院认为该外国判决对当事人权利义务的确认与本国判决具有同等的效力，因而允许本国境内之该案当事人自动履行外国判决所确定的事项，并可以外国判决为理由驳回国内某个人对所判案件提出的异议、执行外国判决是指内国法院按照本国法律的规定．采用强制措施实现外国判决。 各国承认和执行外国判决的方式．主要有以下几种：(一）执行令程序。这种方法是被请求国对外国判决进行审查，如果认为符合本国法律和执行的条件予以承认．即发给执行令（亦称执行状）…     

简论我国区际私法中的间接管辖权问题

间接管辖权,是国际私法中判决的承认与执行时最为常用的审查标准之一.间接管辖权实质是一国法院在承认与执行外国法院的判决之时.用以判断外国法院的管辖权是否适当的一种程序性规则.区际私法也涉及判决的承认与执行问题.因此考察区际私法中的间接管辖权对于区际判决的承认与执行同样意义重大,特别是在我国目前甚为复杂的区际法律冲突情形之下.考察我国现有的区际安排实践,采取多边区际安排形式来规定我国的区际间接管辖权问题较为理想.     

RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS BETWEEN CHINA,JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA IN THE NEW ERA: SOUTH KOREAN LAW PERSPECTIVE

This article discusses the rules for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “South Korea” or “Korea”). Articles 217 and 217-2 of the Civil Procedure Act of Korea and Articles 26 and 27 of the Civil Enforcement Act of Korea provide for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments respectively. Korea has not entered into any bilateral or multilateral treaties regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and is not a party to the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. The article also considers the current undesirable status of recognition and enforcement of judgments in the region consisting of China, Japan and South Korea (hereinafter referred to as “Region”) and suggests a course of action to be taken to improve the situation. The author believes that the experts of the Region should embark upon a project to improve the current situation and that the first step should be to exchange and gather information on the current legal regime of the countries in the Region on the recognition and enforcement of judgments. The author looks forward to future cooperation among the experts in the Region on this topic and is confident that the reciprocity requirement, which currently is a major obstacle to the mutual recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Region, will be overcome in the near future.     

Reconocimiento y ejecución de sentencias mexicanas de divorcio en venezuela

Judges rule their decisions to enforce foreign divorce judgments and therefore to achieve procedural justice. Notwithstanding of that, the enforcement couldface different challenges, not only about its coercive enforcement —lacking of voluntarily compliance of the original decision— but also ju-risdictional/territorial limitations. These limitations are related with the existence of different locations among the place of the original subject matter, the place of its effects and, the place where the enforcement decision will be ruled. However, geographical boundaries should not affect vested rights. Therefore, it is crucial to grant mechanisms that will ensure the enforcement of foreign decisions. Based on two Venezuelan Supreme Court decisions, this document analyses issues related with the enforcement in Venezuela of Mexican divorce judgments, considering both the Inter-American Convention on Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards and Venezuelan domestic rules.     

海牙《选择法院协议公约》对国际商事仲裁的影响

历经十多年的艰苦努力,海牙《选择法院协议公约》终于缔结。公约的目的是制定一个公约从而使法院判决可以在全球范围内得到承认与执行,正如《纽约公约》之于国际商事仲裁一样。公约的缔结有利于该目标的实现,与此同时,该公约的缔结与生效,将会对国际商事仲裁造成相当的影响与冲击,因为该公约所产生的判决承认与执行的国际性效果,将使《纽约公约》对国际商事仲裁所形成的优势变得相当不明显。     

Canada opens the door to enforcing foreign non-monetary orders

The Supreme Court of Canada has overturned the common law rulethat prevented the enforcement of foreign judgments other thanjudgment debts and held that, in certain circumstances, Canadiancourts should give effect to non-monetary orders from foreigncourts.     

Enforcing trust judgments within the European Union: European Enforcement Orders

New rules have been introduced for enforcement of judgmentsin European Member States. Since 21 October 2005, for judgmentsdated after 20 January 2005 it has been possible to use a newenforcement system called the European Enforcement Order aswell as the old system of registering foreign judgments. Thisarticle examines the new rules as they apply to judgments intrust cases.     

Opening the door to enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments in Jersey: Brunei and Bandone v Fidelis and Others [2008] JRC152

The common law rule preventing the enforcement of foreign non-moneyjudgments (set out in Rule 35(1) of Dicey, Morris & Collins)("Dicey") has been amended in Jersey. The Courts now have adiscretion to enforce foreign non-monetary judgments, includingequitable orders such as specific performance, and injunctiveor declaratory relief, which are so vital to effective modernday remedies. In doing so, the Jersey Courts have adopted theapproach taken in the Canadian and Caymanian Courts.     

Holding assets in Israel

This article concerns the use of US asset protection trustsby non-US settlers. After considering the basics of US assetprotection trusts, it examines key issues including fraudulenttransfers, revocability, powers of appointment and the income,gift and estate tax consequences for non-US settlers beforefinally turning its attention to the issues of jurisdictionand the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.     

The United States as an offshore asset protection trust jurisdiction--the world's best kept secret

This article concerns the use of US asset protection trustsby non-US settlers. After considering the basics of US assetprotection trusts, it examines key issues including fraudulenttransfers, revocability, powers of appointment and the income,gift and estate tax consequences for non-US settlers beforefinally turning its attention to the issues of jurisdictionand the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.