State courts play a fundamental, albeit sometimes maligned, role in supporting international arbitration.This chapter examines how and when that support can be provided.The chapter begins with some procedural considerations such as the finality of the decision and the level of consideration required by courts. It then follows the life cycle of an arbitration proceedings, and take a stage by stage approach to the type of support a court may offer.Particular attention is paid to enforcing the arbitration agreement, assisting with evidentiary matters, and other steps intended to protect the integrity of the arbitration process.The chapter concludes by recognising that whilst specific examples are useful and may identify common situations, in many jurisdictions there is an inherent “catchall” power that courts can exercise.

The pari passu clause in modern sovereign debt instruments may be interpreted and implemented in a manner that it constitutes part of the regulatory framework of sovereign debt restructuring. A careful reading of the NML saga revealed that US courts did not necessarily endorse the so-called ratable payment interpretation in rejecting the legal ranking interpretation; the US courts introduced ratable payment as a matter of injunctive relief for the violation of the pari passu clauses by Argentina and did not provide it as a proper interpretation of the clauses. Alternatively, this study has endorsed a third interpretation of the pari passu clauses according to which these clauses provide additional but limited protection from unfair discrimination among bondholders by the debtor sovereign in the process of debt restructuring. This interpretation may represent an appropriate balance between bondholder protection and respect for debt restructuring. In addition, the ratable payment as injunctive relief can be conceived as a regulatory implementation of pari passu clauses addressing a particular serious category of the breach of sovereign bond contracts.

Chapter 20 covers issues relating to the licensing of patents in the context of technical standard setting. It briefly summarizes the development of standards-development organizations (SDOs) and their policies regarding patents on standards. It then addresses the issue of determining fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory royalty rates, which are required by many SDO patent policies. It also covers patent disclosure requirements under SDO policies (Qualcomm v. Broadcom) and the contours of the nondiscrimination prong of FRAND. Next it addresses the effect of a FRAND commitment on the ability of parties to seek injunctive relief (Apple v. Motorola), and then the effect of the transfer of an underlying patent on the FRAND commitment made by its prior owner.

This chapter describes the distinctive character of the French procedure of judicial review. There can only be review of actual decisions, unlike the use of declaratory judgments in English law. Review is possible of circulars, guidelines and other soft law if they have normative effect. Particularly under the influence of the European Convention, the scope of judicial review has been expanded to many internal measures and the exemption for actes de gouvernement has been reduced. Nullity is a major remedy and, in line with European practice, it has become possible for this to take prospective effect. The ability to issue injunctions against the government is a major development in the past twenty years. The chapter also covers practical matters such as time limits, costs and penalties.

Chapter 9 examines environmental torts with a focus on the special rules and doctrines developed since the 1980s and under the Tort Law (2009) and relevant judicial interpretations of the SPC. Although most pollution-triggered disputes are resolved by mediation, courts offer the crucially important last resort for China’s most aggrieved and stubborn victims of pollution to seek remedies. Their efforts in seeking access to justice have helped shaping and reforming the rules and practice of environmental tort law to address the difficulties in the collection of evidence, assessment of damage, case acceptance by court, and enforcement of judgment. The chapter starts with exploration of the long journey to establish the rule of no-fault liability as an exception to the conventional fault-based liability by both judicial interpretation and legislation. It then examines the causal link between defendant’s acts and plaintiff’s loss or injury and the rule on the shift of burden of proof from plaintiff to defendant. As environmental torts often involve multiple tortfeasors and large number of victims, the chapter further investigates forms of liability among multiple tortfeasors, class action and remedies. It concludes with discussion of judicial mediation as a preferred option for settling disputes in court.

This Chapter examines interim remedies. These allow courts to order remedies to protect rights from immediate and irreparable harm. Part I examines how international adjudicators have recognized the importance of interim relief in enforcing rights to life and health. Domestic courts have applied common law concepts such as the balance of convenience and higher standards for mandatory injunctions that may not be appropriate in the human rights context. Part II examines the irreparable harm standard and suggests that in some contexts, courts should engage in a closer review of the merits of the applicant’s case. Part III examines how proportionality principles can provide principles for decisions about the balance of convenience by calling attention to the legitimacy of the state’s objectives that justify limits on remedies, the tailoring of the remedy to accommodate competing rights and social interests and its overall balance. Part IV argues that interim relief, as an individual remedy, is related to the court’s ability to adjudicate a dispute and provide effective remedies and should not be deterred by potential remedial failure. Even breaches of interim remedies can be the focus of subsequent remedies and focus attention on the irreparable harm caused by some rights violations.

Among the cases at which the author looks in this chapter is one in which a district court issued an injunction against a hate demonstration attacking Koreans planned for an area in which many Koreans live. The decision referred to the right of Korean residents to live in their houses in peace. It referred to the Hate Speech Elimination Act and did not recognize the hate demonstration as expression to be protected constitutionally. In this way, the court privileged the personal right over the constitutional freedom, regarding the ‘peace’ to which these individuals were entitled as including a freedom from mental harm. Moreover, the court held that the feelings and beliefs harboured by those with roots outside of Japan toward their ethnicity are deeply rooted in individual dignity. This enabled it to decide that the hate demonstration’s infringement of the right to dignity was serious. The author criticizes this reasoning and asks whether the court’s use of the Act does not go too far. He proposes instead that the most relevant detail of the case was the fact that the demonstration was planned for an area in which many Koreans are resident, meaning that the utterance of hate speech there would arouse a very real sense of fear and infringe their concrete rights.

This chapter addresses the rights of company members to protect their own interests or those of the company. The chapter focuses on the rights of shareholders in a company limited by share capital, but the principles and rules discussed here apply equally to members of companies limited by guarantee. The legal protections and remedies discussed here can arise in a number of situations.

This chapter addresses a special category of cases in which an asserted patent is, or has been declared to be, essential to the implementation of a collaboratively developed voluntary consensus standard, and the holder of that patent has agreed to license it to implementers of the standard on terms that are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND).This chapter explores how the existence of such a FRAND commitment may affect a patent holder’s entitlement to monetary damages and injunctive relief. In addition to issues of patent law, remedies law, and contracts law, we consider the effect of competition law on this issue.

This chapter provides a critical review of the literature relating to remedies for patent infringement in the context of complex products, with a focus on the underlying theoretical issues of holdup, holdout, and royalty stacking. Issues considered here include: the conceptually appropriate benchmark for a fair return to a patentee; the theory of holdup and mechanisms by which holdup can be mitigated; placing the holdup debate within the context of property rules vs. liability rules; forcing patentees to accept lower royalties though holdout; and a review of empirical evidence related to holdup and royalty stacking.