On Tuesday, May 5, 2026, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CEST).

Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Thomas Pfeiffer (Universität Heidelberg) will speak, in German, about the topic

“Anwaltliche Erfolgshonorare im Internationalen Privatrecht”

In Deutschland dürfte zum juristischen Allgemeinwissen zählen, dass anwaltliche Erfolgshonorare in den USA (und manchen anderen Rechtsordnungen) zulässig und vielfach sogar üblich sind, in Deutschland hingegen früher generell als unzulässig galten und auch heute noch deutlichen rechtlichen Grenzen unterliegen. Im IPR wird meist angenommen, dass sich diese Grenzen auch international zwingend durchsetzen, soweit es um deutsche Anwälte geht. Die schon früher relevante Frage nach Differenzierungen im Einzelnen hat durch die spürbaren Lockerungen der maßgebenden sachrechtlichen Regeln in jüngerer Zeit nochmals an Bedeutung gewonnen.

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

Registration will close in two weeks, on 17 May 2026. You are welcome to register using this link.

EAPIL is looking forward to seeing you in Geneva!

To explore the implications of these developments for international (economic) law and the future of global economic cooperation, the German Society of International Law (DGIR) will host a conference in Munich on 11–12 June 2026. Focusing on “Law without Borders? Extraterritorial Regulation and Unilateral Action” the event promises to provide a timely and critical forum for discussing the evolving role of extraterritorial regulation and unilateralism in shaping the international legal order.

Programme

Thursday, 11 June 2026 – National (Regional) Law and Global Markets
The first day will focus on national (regional) law and the regulation of global markets. It will feature presentations by Moritz Renner (Mannheim)  and Romy Klimke (BSP Business and Law School Berlin) followed by a commentary by Andreas Ziegler (Lausanne).

In the evening, Frank Hoffmeister (Brussels) will deliver a practitioner keynote on “The European Union as an Actor in International Economic Law,” followed by a reception.

Friday, 12 June 2026 – Economic Sanctions and International Conflicts
The second day will deal with economic sanctions and international conflicts. Presentations will be delivered Till Patrik Holterhus (Saarbrücken) and Markus Lieberknecht (Osnabrück) followed with a commentary by Tanja Domej (Zurich).

Venue and Contact

The conference will take place at the Carl Friedrich von Siemens Foundation in Munich (Südliches Schlossrondell 23, 80638 Munich). If you wish to join please contact the organizing team at dgir-kurztagung-2026@jura.uni-muenchen.de.

Submissions can be drafted specifically for the review but may also be based on seminar papers or other academic assignments; they are accepted until 31 May 2026.

The full call for papers can be found here.

Meetings & Events

From 30 March to 1 April, the Experts’ Group (EG) on Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) held its fifth meeting. Pursuant to its mandate, the EG continued to make progress in its study of the jurisdiction and applicable law issues raised by the cross-border use and transfers of CBDCs, including the desirability and feasibility of a possible future instrument on these issues, with particular attention to their use in payments with a cross-border or international element. More information is available here.

From 15 to 17 April 2026, the High-Level Conference on the Universalisation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the Hague Conference on Private International Law was held in Dakar (Senegal). The conference convened ministers and senior officials from French-speaking States in Africa for a high-level discussion on the benefits and practicalities of strengthened engagement with the PCA and the HCCH. More information is available here.

On 8 and 22 April 2026, the first and second meetings of the Working Group on the operation of Article 33 of the 1996 Child Protection Convention were held online, hosted by the Permanent Bureau. Pursuant to its mandate, the Working Group worked on the development of a Model Form for requests under Article 33. More information is available here and here.

Upcoming events

The 14th International Forum on the electronic Apostille Programme will take place on 12 and 13 May 2026 in Marrakesh, Morocco. The Forum will provide a unique international platform for governments, organisations, and the private sector to learn more about the benefits of the e-APP, to promote its effective implementation, and to discuss the latest developments in relation to the e-APP worldwide. Interested persons should register via this form no later than Friday 1 May 2026, 5.00 p.m. (CEST). More information is available here.

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

The Congress opened with introductory remarks by the Society’s President, Silvana Dalla Bontà, who set out the themes and objectives guiding the initiative. Against this backdrop, the keynote lectures delivered by Tommaso Greco, Andrea Simoncini, and Filippo Danovi developed a first, coherent reflection on consensual justice, identifying a variety of core concepts – trust, consent, justice, solidarity, Constitution, language, and dialogue – that are likely to orient the Society’s future research and activities.

This conceptual framework found further expression in the conferral of honorary membership upon Francesco Paolo Luiso, Marta Cartabia, Adolfo Ceretti, and Luciana Breggia. The laudationes underscored how, from different perspectives – civil procedure, constitutional adjudication, criminology, and judicial practice – their work has contributed to shaping approaches to justice grounded in participation, dialogue, and shared responsibility.

The discussion then broadened through the interdisciplinary roundtable moderated by Pierluigi Consorti. Contributions from Maurizio Biggeri, Marco Cadinu, Marianella Sclavi, Valeria Cantoni Mamiani, Stefano Rozzi, and Luca Toschi moved beyond strict legal analysis, engaging with insights from the social sciences and communication studies to explore more deeply the relationship between interpersonal dynamics and consent.

In her concluding remarks, Vice-President Paola Lucarelli drew together the main threads of the Congress, emphasising the importance of maintaining a close connection between theoretical reflection and practical application. The General Assembly that followed endorsed the Society’s programmatic lines, consolidating the directions that had emerged over the course of the two days.

Looking ahead, ASGiC announced its next steps: a Colloquium to be held in 2027 at the University of Trento and the Second National Congress in 2028 in Taormina, to be organised by founding members Marco Gradi and Antonio Cappuccio of the University of Messina.

In this perspective, the Florence Congress may be construed as the starting point of a broader and ongoing reflection on consensual justice – one that seeks to connect doctrinal inquiry with practice, and to contribute to current debates on more participatory and dialogical models of dispute resolution.

Further images from the event are available here.

Multinationals and Human Rights in Asia

Edited by Jason Ho Ching Cheung and Kazuaki Nishioka

This book investigates the availability in Asian jurisdictions of civil remedies against multinational businesses for human rights abuses.

It assesses whether the norms of the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights have taken root in Asia by first considering the international state of play. It then presents case studies of corporate governance and human rights in Asia, before examining emerging issues, and considering how Asia has dealt and can deal with corporate responsibility in connection with those matters. By way of conclusion, the book offers an action plan for implementing the UN Guiding Principles in Asia.

Jason Ho Ching Cheung is a Hong Kong barrister and New York attorney practicing from Albert Luk’s Chambers, Hong Kong and Yodoyabashi & Yamagami LPC, Japan. He is also a part-time lecturer at the Graduate School of Law and the Institute for the Liberal Arts at Doshisha University, Japan.

Kazuaki Nishioka is a specially appointed Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Law of Kobe University, Japan.

Apr 2026   |   9781509980406   |   328pp   |   Hbk   |    RRP: £100

Discount Price: £80

Order online at www.hartpublishing.co.uk  – use the code GLR BD8 to get 20% off!

Sign up to our email list to receive updates about our new titles.

Many thanks to Karim El Chazli  (Consulting and Testifying Expert on Arab Laws) for the tip-off

I. Introduction

The field of foreign judgments in the MENA region has witnessed additional legal developments. After Morocco, which adopted in February a new Code of Civil Procedure containing an updated regime for the enforcement of foreign judgments (see my previous on this blog), Saudi Arabia followed suit by adopting a new Execution Law (Nizam at-Tanfidh), approved by the Council of Ministers on 15 April 2026 (27–28 Shawwal 1447 H), which contains rules on the enforcement of foreign judgments. The new law replaces the existing Execution Law promulgated by Royal Decree No. M/53 of 3 July 2012 (13 Sha’baan1433 H).

The Execution Law governs, inter alia, the execution of “titles of obligation” (sanadat tanfidhiyya (pl.), sanad tanfidhi (sing.); lit. “enforceable titles”) in general, as defined by the Law. These include, among others, foreign judgments, foreign arbitral awards, and foreign authentic instruments declared enforceable in accordance with the rules set out in the Law. The new Execution Law (new Article 7) adds to the existing list (former Article 9) mediated settlement agreements concluded abroad. This addition appears to be linked to the fact that Saudi Arabia is a State Party to the 2018 Singapore Convention, which was ratified on 5 May 2020 and entered into force on 5 November of the same year.

II. Enforcement Requirements

With respect to the regime applicable to the enforcement of foreign judgments, the new conditions are now laid down in new article 9 of the new Law.

 New Article 9(1) of the 2026 Execution Law reads as follows (loose tentative translation):

1. Without prejudice to the obligations of the Kingdom under international treaties and agreements, the court [the Execution Court] shall not declare enforceable a foreign judgment or order except on the basis of reciprocity and after examining that the following conditions are met:

a) The dispute in which the foreign judgment or order was rendered does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Kingdom.

b) There is no similar case pending in the Kingdom that was filed before the case in which the foreign judgment or order was rendered.

c) The parties to the proceedings in which the foreign judgment was rendered were duly summoned, properly represented, and given the opportunity to defend themselves.

d) The foreign judgment or order has become final, in accordance with the law governing the competent judicial authority that rendered it.

e)  The foreign judgment or order does not conflict with a prior judgment or order—on the same subject matter—rendered by a competent judicial authority in the Kingdom.

f) The foreign judgment or order does not violate the public policy of the Kingdom.

Paragraph 2 deals with the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and foreign mediated settlement agreements, while paragraph 3 deals with the enforcement of foreign authentic instruments.

III. Observations

If we compare the new enforcement requirements with those set out in the 2012 Execution Law, we can see that most of them have been reproduced without any significant modification, although in some cases slightly different wording has been used. This is particularly true of the requirements listed in items (c) [service and the right of defence], (d) [finality], (e) [conflicting judgments], and (f) [public policy], as well as of the proviso, which contains a reference to the reciprocity requirement.

At the same time, some significant differences can be observed, particularly with respect to the rules on indirect jurisdiction (1) and the existence of a pending case before Saudi courts (2). Further important clarifications relate to two other fundamental issues: the prohibition of révision au fond (3) and the limitation period for enforcing titles of obligation (4).

1. Indirect Jurisdiction

First, the most notable change concerns the control of the indirect jurisdiction of the rendering court. Indeed, under the 2012 Execution Law, the jurisdiction of the foreign rendering court was subject to a double control: first, by verifying that the dispute did not fall within the jurisdiction of Saudi courts (in general, and without any specific limitation); and second, by checking that the rendering court had jurisdiction in accordance with its own rules of international jurisdiction.

The new Execution Law significantly modifies the scope of the jurisdictional requirement and limits it to cases over which Saudi courts have exclusive jurisdiction. In doing so, the Saudi legislator joins other countries in the region that have adopted similar approaches, notably Tunisia (see Béligh Elbalti, “The Jurisdiction of Foreign Courts and the Enforcement of their Judgments in Tunisia: A Need for Reconsideration”, 8(2) Journal of Private International Law (2012) 195, and recently Morocco (see Béligh Elbalti, “The New Moroccan Framework on International Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgment Enforcement – A Preliminary Critical Assessment”, on this blog. For a comparative overview on the various approaches adopted in the MENA region, see Béligh Elbalti, “The recognition of foreign judgments as a tool of economic integration: Views from Middle Eastern and Arab Gulf countries”, in P. Sooksripaisarnkit and S. R. Garimella (eds.), China’s One Belt One Road Initiative and Private International Law (Routledge, 2018) 226; idem, “Perspective from the Arab World”, in M. Weller et al. (eds.), The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention – Cornerstones, Prospects, Outlook (Hart, 2023) 187 ).

The problem with the new rule, however, is that Saudi law on international jurisdiction does not contain clear rules on what constitutes “exclusive jurisdiction.” The relevant provisions on international jurisdiction contained in the Law of Procedure before Sharia Courts (Nizam al-Murafa’at al-Shar’iyya, Royal Decree No. M/1 of 24 November 2013 (22 Muharram 1435H), Articles 24 to 30) do not define or clearly identify which heads of jurisdiction are exclusive. As a result, the scope of the requirement may remain uncertain in practice, which could lead to a restrictive or inconsistent approach in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

2. Pending case before Saudi Courts

Item (b) of Article 9 of the new Law is an addition that has no equivalent in Article 11 of the 2012 Execution Law. While this requirement is generally found in the international conventions applicable in the region (notably the 1983 Riyadh Convention and the 1995 GCC Convention), it has almost no equivalent in the domestic legislation of Arab countries (with the notable exception of Lebanon. See Elbalti, “Perspective from the Arab World”, op. cit., 192). It should be noted, however, that Article 9(b) requires that the action previously brought before Saudi courts and still pending be “similar (mumathila)” to the one in which the foreign judgment was rendered. While the terminology used is somewhat vague, this suggests that both actions should involve the same subject matter (as is more clearly required in Article 9(e) concerning conflicting judgments). It is, however, unclear whether this requirement also extends to the identity of the parties.

3. Explicit prohibition to review the merits of foreign judgments

Under the 2012 Execution Law, there is no explicit provision prohibiting a review of the merits of foreign judgments. Nevertheless, such a prohibition may be inferred from the imposition of a number of formal and procedural requirements for having foreign judgments declared enforceable. In judicial practice, the principle of the prohibition of révision au fond is frequently affirmed; however, some decisions suggest that it has not always been strictly observed (see Elbalti, “Perspective from the Arab World”, op. cit., 185). The new Law has addressed this issue expressly in Article 4(2), which provides that “Subject to the provisions of Article (9) of the Law, the court shall ensure that the title of obligation satisfies its statutory requirements, without examining the merits of the right forming its subject matter”.

4. Limitation period to execution of the titles of obligations

The new Enforcement Law clarifies the limitation period applicable to the execution of titles of obligation. Under new Article 11, execution lapses upon the expiry of ten (10) years from the date on which the title becomes due and enforceable. Although this rule also applies to foreign judgments as titles of obligation (Article 7 of the new Law), the wording of the provision suggests that it concerns foreign judgments only once they have been declared enforceable by the Execution Court. The Law, however, contains no specific limitation period governing the filing of an application for a foreign judgment to be declared enforceable in Saudi Arabia. This suggests that, in principle, judgment creditors may apply at any time for such a declaration. By contrast, once enforceability has been granted, actual execution will be barred upon the expiry of the ten-year limitation period.