Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Dynamism of Civil Procedure - Global Trends and Developments pp 19–44Cite as

The New Comparative Civil Procedure

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 48))

Abstract

This chapter carries the themes outlined in Chap. 1 forward. We are of the view that changes now occurring in civil procedure around the world, many of them discussed in detail in the following chapters may force a reappraisal of conventional comparative understandings and approaches. Most significantly, this chapter suggests that comparative civil procedure today has moved beyond the traditional binary classification into Common and Civil law. Looking into various aspects of civil procedure we note not only the mutual influences of Common and Civil law, in what is typified in the convergence of the classic models but also the coherent procedural approaches present in hybrids and trans-systemic procedural systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For classic discussions of these issues see: John Henry Merryman “On the Convergence (and Divergence ) of the Civil Law and the Common Law” 7 Stan. J. Int’l L. 357 (1981); Mathias Reimann “The Progress and Failure of Comparative Law in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century” 50(4) Am. J. Comp. L. 671 (2002); cf.: Pierre Legrand “European Legal Systems Are Not Converging” 45(1) Int’l & Comp. L. Q. (1996).

  2. 2.

    Cf.: See: Arthur T. von Mehren “The Rise of Transnational Legal Practice and the Task of Comparative Law” 75 Tul. L. Rev. 1215 (2001); Antonios Platsas “Comparative law as the ideal means of convergence of the national financial systems in the world of globalization ” 7(2) Coventry L. J. 53 (2002).

  3. 3.

    See: Esin Örücü “Looking at Convergence through the Eyes of a Comparative Lawyer” 9(2) Elec. J. Comp. L. (2005). [http://www.ejcl.org/92/art92-1.html#par23].

  4. 4.

    See: Nathan Cortez “International Health Care Convergence : The Benefits and Burdens of Market-Driven Standardization” 26 Wis. Int’l L.J. 646, 649 & fns. 5–6 (2008); Sjef van Erp “Different Degrees of Convergence: A Comparison of Tort Law (Example: Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services) and Property Law” 6(3) Elec. J. Comp. L. (2002)[http://www.ejcl.org/63/art63-4.html](“In tort law, sometimes a strong degree of convergence can be found, whereas in property law it is much more difficult to find even a limited degree of convergence. Still, also in the area of property law civil and common law show more resemblances than might seem at first glance.”); also see: Fernanda G. Nicola “Family Law Exceptionalism in Comparative Law” 58 Am. J. Comp. L. 777 (2010)(noting that “[t]oday, family law is, to a surprising degree, at the center of comparative law inquiries committed to legal unification.”).

  5. 5.

    See: J.A. Jolowicz “Civil Litigation: What’s it for?” 67(3) Cambridge L. J. 508 (2008) at p. 513 and fn. 15 (citing French Prof. René Morel).

  6. 6.

    See: J.A. Jolowicz “Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil Procedure” 52(2) In’tl & Comp. L. Q. 281 (2003) at p. 286.

  7. 7.

    See: Remme Verkerk “Comparative aspects of expert evidence in civil litigation” 13 Int’l J. of Evidence & Proof 167 (2009), at p. 176.

  8. 8.

    See: H. Patrick Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World (Oxford UP, 4th edition. 2010), at p. 144 & fn. 47. On the pejorative sense of the term see: Cullen Murphy “God’s Jury: the Inquisition and the Making of the Modern World” (Mariner Books, 2012) (established by the Catholic Church in 1231, the Inquisition continued in one form or another for almost seven hundred years. Although mostly associated with the persecution of heretics and Jews and with burning at the stake the targets of Inquisitions were more numerous and its techniques more ambitious. The Inquisition pioneered surveillance, censorship, and “scientific” interrogation.)

  9. 9.

    See: Sir Basil Markesinis “French System Builders and English Problem Solvers: Missed and Emerging Opportunities for Convergence of French and English Law” 40 Tex. Int’l L.J. 663 (2005), at p. 666.

  10. 10.

    Among the unique characteristics of jus commune civil procedure, some of them are still reflected in current civil practice – that it attributed a monopoly to the written elements, that it discouraged any direct contact between the adjudicating body and the parties and that it unfolded piecemeal resulting in cases of enormously long duration – civil proceeding lasting several decades were not unusual. See: Mauro Cappelletti “Social and Political Aspects of Civil Procedure – Reforms and Trends in Western and Eastern Europe” 69 Mich. L. Rev. 847 (1970–1971), at 847–850 (cite from p. 847).

  11. 11.

    See: Markesinis, 40 Tex. Int’l L.J., id. at p. 675 et seq. (Part III).

  12. 12.

    See: Linda S. Mullenix “Lessons from Abroad: Complexity and Convergence ” 46 Vill. L. Rev. 1 (2002), at p. 12.

  13. 13.

    See: Markesinis, 40 Tex. Int’l L.J., id. at pp. 664–665.

  14. 14.

    See: Won Kidane “The Inquisitorial advantage in Removal Proceedings” 45 Akron L. Rev. 647, 654 (2011–2012).

  15. 15.

    See: Mullenix, Vill. L. Rev, id. at 13; also: Edward F. Sherman, “Transnational Perspectives Regarding the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” 56 J. Legal Educ. (2006) 510, at pp. 511–512. For a plethora of similar statements to this effect see: Thomas D. Rowe. Jr. “Authorized Managerialism Under the Federal Rules – and the extend of Convergence with Civil-Law Judging” 36 We. U. L. Rev. 191 (2007–2008) at p. 203 et seq.; On the English case, where the English courts not possess extensive ‘case management’ powers see: Neil Andrews “Chapter 16: Case Management and Procedural Discipline in England &Wales: Fundamentals of an Essential New Technique” 31 IUS Gentium 335 (2014); also: Kenneth M. Vorrasi “Note: England’s Reform to Alleviate the Problems of Civil Process: A Comparison of Judicial Case Management in England and the United States” 30 J. Legis. 361 (2004). On possible application of the ‘managerial judge’ model in common law jurisdictions see: James Fowkes “Civil Procedure in Public Interest Litigation: Tradition, Collaboration and the Managerial Judge” 1(3) Camb. J. In’tl & Comp. L. 235 (2012).

  16. 16.

    See: Mullenix, Vill. L. Rev, id. at 14–19; see, similarly, Thomas D. Rowe. Jr., id. at 210–211; Scott Dodson “The Challenge of Comparative Civil Procedure : Civil Litigation in Comparative Context, by Oscar G. Chase, Helen Hsershkoff, Linda Silberman, Yashuei Taniguchi, Vincezo Varano & Adrian Zuckerman, 2007 St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, p. 607” 60 Ala. L. Rev. 133 (2008), id. at pp. 148–149.

  17. 17.

    See: Thomas D. Rowe. Jr., id. at 209–210; Richard L. Marcus “Putting American Procedural Exceptionalism into a Globalized Context” 53 Am. J. Comp. L. 709 (2005), at pp. 729–731. Also see: Peter L. Murray “Privatization of Civil Justice ” 15 Willamette J. Int’l L. & Disp. Resol. 133 (2007); M. Henry Martuscello II “The State of the ADR Movement in Italy: the Advancement of Mediation in the Shadows of the Stagnation of Arbitration” 24 N.Y. Int’l L. Rev. 49 (2011). On the imposition of legal costs on litigants who have refused a reasonable offer as leverage to contain costs and expedite the resolution of civil dispute see: Pablo Cortés “A comparative review of offers to settle – would an emerging settlement culture pave the way for their adoption in continental Europe?” 32(1) C.J.Q. 2013, 42.

  18. 18.

    See: Edward F. Sherman, id. at p. 512; Richard L. Marcus, id. at 723.

  19. 19.

    See: Thomas D. Rowe. Jr., id. at 207.

  20. 20.

    See: Geoffrey C. Hazard & Angelo Dondi “Responsibilities of Judges and Advocates in Civil and Common Law: Some Lingering Misconceptions Concerning Civil Lawsuits” 39 Cornell Int’l L. J. 59 (2006), pp. 62–64 (cite: p. 62).

  21. 21.

    See: Mullenix, Vill. L. Rev, id. at pp. 20–22; http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2013/us-district-courts.aspx. For an interesting discussion of the decline of the civil jury trail in America see: Anthony J. Scirica, Chief Judge “Judge’s Response to Professors Hazard and Truffo” 25 Penn St. Int’l L. Rev. 519, 527–530 (2006).

  22. 22.

    See: Mathias Reimann “Chapter 1: Cost and Fee Allocation in Civil Procedure: A Synthesis” 11 IUS Gentium 3, 9 & fn. 24 (2012).

  23. 23.

    See: Mathias Reimann, IUS Gentium, id. at pp. 8–16.

  24. 24.

    See: Mullenix, Vill. L. Rev, id. at pp. 26–28.

  25. 25.

    See: Dodson, Ala. L. Rev. id. at p. 146.

  26. 26.

    See: Mullenix, Vill. L. Rev, id. at pp. 22–24.

  27. 27.

    See: Samuel P. Baumgartner “Class Action and Group Litigation in Switzerland” 27 Nw. J. Int’l L. & Bus. 301, 308–309 (2007) (cite: p. 301). Also: Antonio Gidi “Class Actions in Brazil – A Model for Civil Law Countries” 51 Am. J. Comp. L. 311 (2003).

  28. 28.

    For example, Samuel Issacharoff & Geoffrey P. Miller examine the European aversion of American style class action, and wonder whether the concerns are, at the end of the day, mostly cultural and if so, will Europe fail to ward off class action, as it failed against Starbucks and Macdonald’s? See: Samuel Issacharoff & Geoffrey P. Miller “Will Aggregate Litigation Come to Europe” 62 Vand. L. Rev. 179, 180–181 (2009).

  29. 29.

    See: Csongor István Nagy “Comparative Collective Redress from A Law and Economic Perspective: Without Risk There is No Reward!” Colum. J. Eur. L. 469 (2013); also: Stefano M. Grace “Strengthening Investor Confidence in Europe: U.S.-Style Securities Class Actions and The Acquis Communautaire” 15 J. Transnat’l L. & Pol’y 281 (2006); Roald Nashi “Note: Italy’s Class Action Experiment” 43 Cornell Int’l L.J. (2010) 147. On the internal EU debate until 2010 see: Christopher Hodges “Collective redress in Europe: the new model” 29(3) C.J.Q. 370 (2010).

  30. 30.

    See: Mark A. Behrens, Gregory L. Fowler & Silvia Kim “Global Litigation Trends” 17 Mich. St. J. Int’l L. 165, 172–173 (2009). On the Japanese alternative to the class action – the Representative Action see: Carl F. Goodman “Japan’s New Civil Procedure Code: Has it Fostered A Rule of Law Dispute Resolution Mechanism?” 29 Brook. J. Int’l L. 511, 589–592 (2004).

  31. 31.

    See: Edward F. Sherman, id. at p. 514–515 (cite: from p. 514); Scott Dodson & James M. Klebba “Global Civil Procedure Trends in the Twenty-First Century” 34 B.C. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 1 (2011), at pp. 15–16.

  32. 32.

    See: Dodson, Ala. L. Rev. id. at pp. 144–145 (cite: p. 145); also See: Mullenix, Vill. L. Rev, id. at pp. 24–26.

  33. 33.

    See: Dodson & Klebba, id. at p. 8.

  34. 34.

    See: Mullenix, Vill. L. Rev, id. at pp. 24–25 (cite: p. 24).

  35. 35.

    See: Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. “Civil Procedure in Comparative Perspective” 49 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. 2d Ser. (Canada) 657 (2010), at pp. 662–663.

  36. 36.

    Vernon Valentine Palmer (ed.) Mixed Jurisdictions Worldwide: The Third Legal Family (Cambridge UP, 2nd edition, 2012) at pp. xiii (cite), 625–631.

  37. 37.

    Palmer, id. at pp. 3–5 (cite: p. 3). Perhaps the number of mixed jurisdictions is actually higher: Palmer observes that “[t]he prevailing perceptions of lawyers and judges, for example, help to explain why today Texas and California are not regarded as mixed jurisdictions in the classical sense. They are called common law states, yet they were once Spanish possessions in which Spanish law fully applied. Even now, they still retain important parts of this civilian heritage in their trial procedure , property and land titles, water law, matrimonial systems, and so forth.” See: Vernon Valentine Palmer “Quebec and Her Sisters in the Third Legal Family” 54 McGill L.J. 321, 342 (2009). On the background to the creation of mixed jurisdictions see: William Tetley, id.

  38. 38.

    Palmer, id. at p. xiv; also see p. 4.

  39. 39.

    See: Maurice Tancelin, Introduction, in F.P. Walton, The Scope and Interpretation of the Civil Code 1 (Wilson & Lafleur Ltee, 1907, reprinted by Butterworths, 1980), and in more detail: William Tetley “Mixed Jurisdictions : Common Law V. Civil Law (Codified and Uncodified)” 60 La. L. Rev. 677 (2000), at pp. 679–680.

  40. 40.

    See: William Tetley, id. at pp. 684.

  41. 41.

    See: Esin Örücü, Elspeth Attwooll & Sean Coyle, eds. Studies in Legal Systems: Mixed and Mixing (Kluwer, 1996).

  42. 42.

    See: Daniel Visser “Book Review: Mixed Jurisdictions Worldwide: The Third Legal Family. By Veron Valentine Palmer (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, 2001.” 78 Tul. L. Rev. 2329 (2004) also Palmer, id. at p. 11 & fn. 28. This realization that arguably no legal system is ‘pure’ from foreign influences means that a jurisdiction becomes a ‘mixed’ one at a hard-to-determine point, when the level of contribution from a second legal family raises doubts as to its identity as belonging to the first family. As a jurist from Israel I am aware that my country is often described as one of the ‘mixed jurisdictions’ but am of the opinion that the common law traditions in Israeli law are dominant enough to comfortably leave us within the purview of that legal family. See: Vernon Valentine Palmer “Mixed Legal Systems … and the Myth of Pure Laws” 67 La. L. Rev. 1205, 1208–1209 (2007); Eliezer Rivlin “Israel as a Mixed Jurisdiction” 57 McGill L.J. 781 (2012).

  43. 43.

    For such a discussion see: Esin Örücü, Introduction in: Esin Örücü, ed. Mixed Legal Systems at New Frontiers (Wildy, Simmonds & Hill Publishing, 2010) pp. 1–8.

  44. 44.

    See: Esin Örücü, Preface & Introduction in: Esin Örücü, ed. Mixed Legal Systems, id. at pp. vii, 8; http://www.mixedjurisdiction.org/; also see: Maria Otero “Bibliography: Mixed Jurisdictions ” 39 Int’l J. Legal Info. 73 (2011).

  45. 45.

    See: Palmer, McGill L.J., id. at p. 342 (2009).

  46. 46.

    See: Peter Gottwald “Comparative Civil Procedure ” 22 Ritsumeikan L. Rev. 23 (2005)(Italics – in the original).

  47. 47.

    See: Palmer, McGill L.J., id. at p. 343 (2009).

  48. 48.

    See: Colin Picker “International Law’s Mixed Heritage: A Common/Civil Law Jurisdiction” 41 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1083, 1126 (2008).

  49. 49.

    See: Picker, id. at p. 1127.

  50. 50.

    See: Picker, id. at p. 1128. Also see: David Parratt “Tales of the Unexpected: Procedural Rule Change and Their (Unintended) Consequences” 12(1) Elec. J. Comp. L. (2008)(arguing that changes to Scottish civil procedure in the 19th century pushed Scots law away from its Civilian heritage and in the direction of common law).

  51. 51.

    See: Richard A. Epstein “Reflection on the Historical Origins and Economic Structure of the Law Merchant” 5 Chi. J. Int’l L. 1 (2004); Charles Donahue, Jr. “Medieval and Early Modern Lex Mercatoria: An Attempt at the Probatio Diabolica” 5 Chi. J. Int’l L. 21 (2004); Michael Douglas “The Lex Marcatoria and the Culture of Transnational Industry” 13 U. Miami Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 367, 370–371 (2006).

  52. 52.

    See, for a critical view: Leon E. Trakman “the Twenty-First-Century Law Merchant” 48 Am. Bus. L.J. 775 (2011). On the meaning of transnational law see: Roger Cotterrell “What is Transnational Law?” 37 L. & Soc. Inquiry 500 (2012).

  53. 53.

    See: Stephen McAuley “Achieving the Harmonization of Transnational Civil Procedure: Will the ALI/Unidroit Project Succeed?” 15 Am. Rev. Int’l Arb. (2004) 231. Also: Leon E. Trakman “From the Medieval Law Merchant to E-Merchant Law” 53 U. Toronto L.J. 265 (2003); “From St. Ives to Cyberspace: The Modern Distortions of the Medieval” ‘Law Merchant’ 21 Am. U. Int’l L. Rev. 685 (2006).

  54. 54.

    See: Samuel P. Baumgartner “Is Transnational Litigation Different?” 25 U. Pa. J. Int’l Econ. L. 1297, 1300 (2004); also Samuel P. Baumgartner “Book Review: Transnational Litigation in the United States: The Emergence of a New Field of Law (Reviewing Gary B. Born & Peter B. Rutledge, International Civil Litigation in the United States,” (Wolters Kluwer, 4th ed. 2007)) 55 Am. J. Comp. L. 793 (2007) On what transnational law means, generally, see: Reza Dibadj “Panglossian Transnationalism” 44 Stan. J. Int’l L. 253 (2008).

  55. 55.

    The increase in their number can be attributed to a growing global presence of multinational corporations, combined with the broad reach of American class action attorneys. See: Antonio Gidi “The Recognition of U.S. Class Action Judgments Abroad: the Case of Latin America” 37 Brook. J. Int’l L. 893, 894 (2012); also: Tanya J. Monestier “Transnational Class Actions and the Illusory Search for Res Judicata” 86 Tul. L. Rev. 1 (2011).

  56. 56.

    See: Madeleine Tolani “U.S. Punitive Damages before German Courts: A Comparative Analysis with Respect to the Ordre Public” 17 Ann. Surv. Int’l & Comp. L. 185 (2011) also Gidi, Brook. J., id.

  57. 57.

    See: http://www.unidroit.org/instruments/transnational-civil-procedure; http://www.ali.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publications.ppage&node_id=76.

  58. 58.

    See: Neil Andrews “The Three Paths of Justice Court Proceedings, Arbitration, and Mediation in England; Chapter 2: Principles of Civil Justice” 10 IUS Gentium 25 (2012) (‘Chapter 2’) at p. 42–43 (cite: p. 43).

  59. 59.

    See: Neil Andrews, Chapter 2, id. at p. 41.

  60. 60.

    See: Neil Andrews, Chapter 2, id. at p. 41.

  61. 61.

    See: Neil Andrews, Chapter 2, id. at pp. 41–42.

  62. 62.

    See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedJSchol/2005/17.html.

  63. 63.

    See: Anthony J. Scirica, id. at p. 522 (Italics – added). Also see: Stephen McAuley, id. at pp. 249–249.

  64. 64.

    See: Edward F. Sherman, id. at pp. 517.

  65. 65.

    See: Mullenix, Vill. L. Rev, id. at p. 24.

  66. 66.

    See: Geoffrey Hazard, Penn St. Int’l L. Rev., id. at p. 499 et seq.

  67. 67.

    See: Michele Taruffo “Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil Procedure : An Evidentiary Epistemology” 25 Penn St. Int’l L. Rev. 509 (2006–2007).

  68. 68.

    See: Anthony J. Scirica, id. at p. 527.

  69. 69.

    See: ALI/UNIDROIT, Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, Rule 29–4, at 144 (Cambridge University Press, 2006); Edward F. Sherman, id. at pp. 512.

  70. 70.

    See: ALI/UNIDROIT, Principles, id. at Rule 12.3, at 111; Edward F. Sherman, id. at pp. 515.

  71. 71.

    See: Richard L. Marcus, id. at 709. Also see: James R. Maxeiner “Pleading and Access to Civil Procedure: Historical and Comparative Reflections of Iqbal, A Day in Court and A Decision According to Law” 114 Penn. St. L. Rev. 1257, 1264–1265 (2010).

  72. 72.

    See: Paul R. Dubinsky “Is Transnational Litigation a Distinct Field? The Persistence of Exceptionalism in American Procedural Law” 44 Stan. J. Int’l L. 301, 302–306 (cite: pp. 303 & 306 (2008)).

  73. 73.

    See: Richard L. Marcus, id. at p. 738.

  74. 74.

    See: Dubinsky, id. at p. 306 also see pp. 356–357. Also see: Thomas O. Main “The Word Commons and Foreign Laws” 46 Cornell Int’l L.J. 219 (2013).

  75. 75.

    See: Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., Michele Taruffo, Rolf Sturner, Antonio Gidi “Introduction to the Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil Procedure ” 33 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 769 (2001).

  76. 76.

    See: Simona Grossi “Rethinking the Harmonization of Jurisdictional Rules” 86 Tul. L. Rev. 623 (2012).

  77. 77.

    See: Peter Gottwald “The European Law of Civil Procedure” 22 Ritsumeikan L. Rev. 37 (2005).

  78. 78.

    For example, in England, The Human Rights Act 1998, which took effect in October 2000 made the European Convention on Human Rights directly applicable in English Court. See: Gottwald, 22 Ritsumeikan L. Rev. 37, id. at p. 37; See: Neil Andrews, Chapter 2, id. at pp. 25–26; http://human-rights-convention.org/.

  79. 79.

    See: http://human-rights-convention.org/; for analysis see: Neil Andrews, Chapter 2, id. at pp. 26–40.

  80. 80.

    Known as the Brussels I Convention; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_Regime. See: Gottwald, 22 Ritsumeikan L. Rev. 37, id. at p. 37; Gerhard Wagner “Harmonization of European Civil Procedure – Policy Perspectives” in: X. E. Kramer and C. H. van Rhee (eds.) Civil Litigation in a Globalising World (Asser Press, The Netherlands, 2012) 93 at p. 94 (also available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1777233); http://curia.europa.eu/common/recdoc/convention/fr/c-textes/_brux-textes.htm.

  81. 81.

    See: Gottwald, 22 Ritsumeikan L. Rev. 37, id. at pp. 37–38; Gerhard Wagner, id. at p. 95.

  82. 82.

    And after 1988 – with the parallel Lugano Convention which was concluded with the EFTA states of that time. See: Gottwald, 22 Ritsumeikan L. Rev. 37, id. at p. 38.

  83. 83.

    See: Gerhard Wagner, id. at pp. 95–96 (cite: p. 95); Gottwald, 22 Ritsumeikan L. Rev. 37, id. at p. 38.

  84. 84.

    See: Gottwald, 22 Ritsumeikan L. Rev. 37, id. at pp. 38–39 (cite: at p. 39).

  85. 85.

    See: Gerhard Wagner, id. at p. 96.

  86. 86.

    See: Gerhard Wagner, id. 93 (Italics – added).

  87. 87.

    See: Zampia Vernadaki “Civil Procedure Harmonization in the EU: Unravelling the Policy Considerations” 9(2) J. of Contempt. E. Res. 297, 298 (2013).

  88. 88.

    See: Gerhard Wagner, id. 93.

  89. 89.

    See: Zampia Vernadaki, id. at p. 299. Also see: Eva Storskrubb “Civil Procedure and EU Law – A Policy Area Uncovered” (Oxford Studies in European Law, 2008); Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/commercial/eu-procedures/index_en.htm.

  90. 90.

    See: Zampia Vernadaki, id. at p. 299.

  91. 91.

    See: http://conflictoflaws.net/2013/the-eli-unidroit-project-from-transnational-principles-to-european-rules-of-civil-procedure-1st-exploratory-workshop/; http://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/projects/current-projects-contd/article/from-transnational-principles-to-european-rules-of-civil-procedure/?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=137874&cHash=30981e5bc9618fbff47b45f915463642.

  92. 92.

    See: C. H. van Rhee “Civil Procedure: A European Ius Commune?”, id. at pp. 589, 597 (cite).

  93. 93.

    See: John W. Cairns, id. at pp. 664–665, 694–695.

  94. 94.

    See: Parratt, id. at p. 1.

  95. 95.

    See: Marianne Roth “Towards procedural economy: reduction of duration and costs of civil litigation in Germany” 20 C.J.Q. 102 (2001).

  96. 96.

    See: Geoffrey P. Miller “The Legal-Economic Analysis of Comparative Civil Procedure ” 45 Am. J. Comp. L. 905 (1997).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Radzyner School of Law, The Interdisciplinary Center, POB 167, Natan Alterman St., Herzliya, 46150, Israel

    Guy I. Seidman

Authors
  1. Guy I. Seidman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guy I. Seidman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law Faculty, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Colin B. Picker

  2. The Interdisciplinary Center, The Radzyner School of Law, Herzliya, Israel

    Guy Seidman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Seidman, G.I. (2016). The New Comparative Civil Procedure. In: Picker, C., Seidman, G. (eds) The Dynamism of Civil Procedure - Global Trends and Developments. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 48. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21981-3_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation