The recent Representative Actions Directive 2020/1828/EC is a welcome advance in developing collective redress in Europe. However, this article contends that whilst the Directive is a positive development, shortfalls in its design restrict its potentially transformative impact for consumers. Critical examination is made of the Directive's rules on scope, standing, remedies, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), cross-border claims, funding, awareness and the provision of information. The article further considers whether the Directive will serve to improve co-ordination in civil procedure in this area which has traditionally been very diverse at a Member State level.

Evidentiary rules employed in judicial proceedings are not strictly applied in international arbitration. Although this flexibility with regard to evidentiary matters is often considered a benefit of international arbitration, in certain situations it can lead to unpredictability and conflicts with national law. One such area is the application of evidentiary and testimonial privileges in international arbitration.1 There is very little authority addressing how international arbitrators should proceed when presented with a claim of privilege.

As the gatekeeper of international law, the CJEU determines the effects not only of international agreements but also decisions of compliance review bodies. This article analyses the Court's engagement with rulings of the WTO dispute settlement bodies (DSB) and findings of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC). These case studies demonstrate the varied toolkit used by the CJEU to forge relationships with external regimes, while maintaining the EU's autonomy. The CJEU considers DSB reports and ACCC findings selectively and implicitly, demonstrating a qualified openness to international law and a reluctance to engage in a meaningful dialogue with international quasi-judicial bodies.

Following the enactment of the 2009 Tort Liability Law the product liability system in China is largely complete. This article sketches the development of this system before outlining some of the main substantive provisions in force today and drawing comparisons between the Chinese approach and the US and European provisions. The Article will conclude that China's product liability system provides an interesting case study which enriches the study of global trends and norms in the product liability arena. In line with many other countries, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, the main influence on China has been the EC Directive rather than the US model.

The debate on the recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Australian Constitution is more about how, than whether, this should occur. The two main proposals involve the use of a preamble. One proposes symbolic recognition in a new constitutional preamble with a clause prohibiting use of the preamble in constitutional interpretation. The other would give Parliament power to make laws with respect to Indigenous Australians, but qualify it in a preamble so that it could only be exercised for their ‘advancement’. This article draws on comparative experience of the use of preambles in other common law countries to challenge the assumptions underlying each proposal.

The Treaty of Amsterdam, expected to come into force this year, opened up new horizons in relation to European civil procedure. Article 65 of the revised EC Treaty will bring various aspects of civil procedure within the scope of Community law, in so far as they are “necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market”.1 It states:

Over the last 30 years, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties1 has emerged as one of the most influential instruments of modern international law. The Convention, which was adopted at the UN Conference on the Law of Treaties on 23 May 1969, entered into force on 27 January 1980 and has meanwhile been ratified by more than 80 States.2 Yet, as it does not operate retroactively,3 the scope of application is growing only slowly and its practical importance stems, rather, from the fact that the Convention is widely considered a restatement of customary international law. As early as 1971 the International Court of Justice referred to the articles governing termination for breach of treaty as a codification of the existing law on the subject.4 Since then both international tribunals and national courts have more and more habitually relied on the material provisions of the Convention to ascertain traditional rules of the law of treaties.5

This article deals with a topic at the heart of modern comparative law: codification of private law on a national and European level. It offers a critical assessment of the recent French attempt to redraft the obligations provisions of its civil code, focusing on the revisions to the law of tort or delict. There has been little analysis of these provisions within or outside France. This article examines the key changes proposed and identifies the implications in terms of tort policy.

The last contribution on this topic, which was published in the July 1997 issue of the Quarterly,1 examined the Court's remarkable ruling in CIA Security International S.A. v. Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL,2 in which the Full Court decided that where a member State neglects to notify draft national technical regulations to the Commission in breach of the obligations set out in Directive 83/189,3 it may not rely on those regulations in subsequent proceedings before national courts. The Court's ruling attaches a meaningful penalty to State failure to abide by the obligations of notification stipulated by the Directive. It thereby induces compliance with requirements of transparency on which the Commission pins great faith in its “post-1992” strategy for the management of the internal market. The case law since CIA Security has generated a sufficient number of further illuminating rulings to justify a further tour of the area in this contribution.

In US courts the procedural device of the class action is available by virtue of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to certain conditions, this rule enables one person to bring an action on behalf of a large number of others (the “class members”) and the resolution of such an action, whether it is by way of judgment following trial or by the entry of an order of settlement, has res judicata effect on the class members. In most cases the majority of class members are all resident in the United States.