Comments on: Case of the Day: ZF Automotive v. Luxshare https://lettersblogatory.com/2022/06/14/case-of-the-day-zf-automotive-v-luxshare/ The Blog of International Judicial Assistance Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:47:19 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Case of the Day: In re Alpene | Letters Blogatory https://lettersblogatory.com/2022/06/14/case-of-the-day-zf-automotive-v-luxshare/#comment-22084 Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:26:07 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=31004#comment-22084 […] Elizabeth McCaul, a New Yorker, under Section 1782. The case raises a question left open in the Supreme Court’s ZF Automotive case. We know from ZF Automotive that an ad hoc arbitral tribunal is not a foreign or international […]

]]> By: Case of the Day: Webuild v. WSP | Letters Blogatory https://lettersblogatory.com/2022/06/14/case-of-the-day-zf-automotive-v-luxshare/#comment-16768 Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:56:11 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=31004#comment-16768 […] know from ZF Automotive itself that not all investment treaty arbitrations come within the scope of Section 1782. The tribunal in […]

]]> By: Case of the Day: Frontera Capital (Case C-722/21) - Folkman LLC https://lettersblogatory.com/2022/06/14/case-of-the-day-zf-automotive-v-luxshare/#comment-3645 Thu, 07 Jul 2022 10:01:06 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=31004#comment-3645 […] to request a preliminary ruling. Regular readers may be able to guess where this is going. In ZF Automotive v. Luxshare, the reach of Section 1782 turned on whether an arbitral tribunal was a “tribunal” as […]

]]> By: Ted Folkman https://lettersblogatory.com/2022/06/14/case-of-the-day-zf-automotive-v-luxshare/#comment-3644 Sat, 18 Jun 2022 02:05:35 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=31004#comment-3644 In reply to kotodama.

Thanks, Kotodama. I don’t think comity is that important in the arbitration context, and I think that while the US approach to comity—unilateral assistance without requiring reciprocity—is the right one, I don’t think anyone thinks anymore that the original purpose of the policy, which was to encourage reciprocity, is likely to bear much fruit.

]]> By: kotodama https://lettersblogatory.com/2022/06/14/case-of-the-day-zf-automotive-v-luxshare/#comment-3643 Fri, 17 Jun 2022 02:46:06 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=31004#comment-3643 I’m surprised you didn’t mention the comity rationale. To me that was the most persuasive, despite being relegated to a single paragraph toward the end of the opinion. And under that rationale, I don’t think a BIT dispute would tend to qualify no matter the particular circumstances. In contrast, the textualism stuff is just awkward and painful to get through. So I naturally second your critique of corpus linguistics wholeheartedly. I know a thing or two about computational linguistics (being how one automates corpus linguistics), and that kind of analysis has no business getting within miles of any legal opinion or brief.

]]>