Cross-border Insolvency, the transition from absolute territorial sovereignty to Modified universalism in the light of customary international law

Subject Areas : Journal of Law and Politics

Afshin Ebrahimifar ¹ , Fathollah Rahimi ² , mehdi montazer ³

1 -
2 - Faculty member of the Department of Law at the Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch
3 - Assistant Professor of Law, Damavand Branch,

Received: 2024-12-05 Accepted : 2025-01-29 Published : 2025-02-26

Keywords: Customary International Law, Cross border Insolvency, Behavioral International Law, Public International Law, Modified Universalism ,

Abstract :

The international Insolvency bankruptcy system requires an unbiased system to select approaches that are consistent with internationally recognized legal standards of international law. Modified universalism provides a set of principles and norms for dealing with cross-border bankruptcy proceedings that focus on efficiency, coherence, minimal exceptions, the jurisdiction of the foreign main proceedings state (center of the debtor’s main interests), and host state sovereign controls (state which approves recognition of a foreign proceeding). This article examines the perspective of cross-border bankruptcy developments in the light of international law. This article pursues to answer the question, what is the perspective of cross-border bankruptcy in international law? The result suggests that considering state practices and the widespread adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency by over 49 countries, the modified universalism seems to  arrive in a new era from a "mere theory" into an "emerging international custom" as a source of the main sources of international law

References:

فهرست منابع
الف- فارسی:
- کتاب
1. زرنشان، شهرام، شکل گیری و شناسائی حقوق بین الملل عرفی،گنج دانش،تهران،1392.
2. کرافورد، جیمز، اصول حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی یان براونلی، ترجمة محمد حبیبی مجنده. ویراست هشتم. قم: انتشارات دانشگاه مفید، ۱۳۹۶.
3. ضیائی بیگدلی،محمدرضا، حقوق بین الملل عمومی،چاپ51،تهران،گنج دانش.
4. کاظمی،علی اصغر،متدولوژی حقوق بین المل،قومس،چاپ اول،تهران،1394.
- مقاله
1. جنیدی، لعیا و حسن اسکندری و بهزاد فرجام، «تأثیر ورشکستگی شرکت‌های مادر و تابعه بر یکدیگر با تدقیق در روابط و مسئولیت متقابل آنها» ،مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دوره : 47، شماره : 2، 1396.
2. سربازیان،مجیدوصادقی،عبدالرضا(1393)"تحلیل سیاست تقنینی آنسیترال، اتحادیه اروپا و حقوق ایران در زمینه شناسایی و اجرای حکم ورشکستگی خارجی"، مجله حقوقی بین المللی(شماره 51 (پاییز- زمستان).
3. حسین زاده،مهدی وراضی،سپیده، حکمتی مقدم،سید محسن" دادگاه صالح در ورشکستگی فراسرزمینی ( بین المللی) (مطالعه تطبیقی در حقوق ایران، آمریکا و قانون نمونه آنسیترال 1977)"، فصلنامه دیدگاههای حقوق قضایی،شماره 71.
4. کلانتری, کیومرث, هادی زاده, رضا. 'بررسی تطبیقی قلمرو تاثیر اکراه در قتل عمد در حقوق کیفری ایران و انگلستان', فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق کیفری, 8(29), pp. 203-231. doi: 10.22054/jclr.2019.11049.1194(1398).
5. محمدی, سام, کدیور, حسام. (1392). 'ابهام در ورشکستگی بین‎المللی؛ در جستجوی دیدگاه مناسب', دانشنامه حقوق اقتصادی, 20(3), pp. -. doi: 10.22067/le.v20i3.34287
6. سید علی هنجنی، تحولات پدایش عرف بین المللی،تحقیقات حقوقی، پاییزو زمستان 371و بهار و تابستان 1372 شماره 11و 12
7. کاویانی, کورُش, قاسمی مقدم, سعیده. (1392). تعیین دادگاه صالح و قانون حاکم در ورشکستگی گروه مؤسسات چندملیتی. پژوهش های حقوق خصوصی, 1(1), 8-35.

ب- انگلیسی:
-Books
1- Moustaira, E, (2019), International Insolvency Law National Laws and International Texts, Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
2- Watters, C, (2019), ‪Globalisation in Transition: Human and Economic Perspectives‬‏, ‪Springer Nature Singapore‬‏.‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬
3- Jokubauskas, R (2024), Cross-Border Insolvency Proceedings Policies and Directives in the European Union, Taylor & Francis.
-Article
1-R Michaels, Private and Public International Law, “German View on Global Issues”, Volume 4, (2008).
2- Wolfgang Nörr Knut, “The Evolution of Law”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 38(1990).
3- Guzman, Andrew T, “Saving Customary International Law”, 27 MICH. J. INT'L L. 115 (2005).
4- Subedi, SP, “International Investment Law”, International Law 4th edn, (2014), OUP.
5-Thirlway, Hugh, “The Sources of International Law” in MD Evans (ed), International Law (4th edn, OUP 2014).
6- Bradley CA and Gulati M, “Withdrawing from International Custom”, (2011) 120 YaleL J 202.
7- Schachter, Oscar, “International Law in Theory and Practice”, (1991), M. Nijhoff Publishers.
8- Shaw, M. N. (2021). “International Law”, (9th ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9- Gaa, Thomas M. “Harmonization of International Bankruptcy Law and Practice: Is It Necessary? Is It Possible?” The International Lawyer 27, no. 4 (1993): 881–909. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40707107.
10- Kent Anderson,” The Cross-Border Insolvency Paradigm: A Defense of the Modified Universal Approach Considering the Japanese Experience.”, 21 U. Pa. J. Int’l L. 679 (2000)
11- Gaa, Thomas M. “Harmonization of International Bankruptcy Law and Practice: Is It Necessary? Is It Possible?” The International Lawyer 27, no. 4 (1993): 881–909. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40707107.
12- Nadelmann, Kurt H. “An International Bankruptcy Code: New Thoughts on an Old Idea.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 1, 1961, pp. 70–82. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/756467. Accessed 31 Mar. 2024.
13- McCormack, Gerard. “Universalism in Insolvency Proceedings and the Common Law.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 32, no. 2 (2012), http://www.jstor.org/stable/41682781.
14- Aaken, Anne van. “Behavioral Aspects of the International Law of Global Public Goods and Common Pool Resources.” American Journal of International Law 112, no. 1 (2018): 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2017.97.
15- Pottow, JAE,” Two Cheers for Universalism: Nortels Nifty Novelty” in JP Sarra and Justice B Romaine (eds), Annual Review of Insolvency Law (Carswell 2015).
16- R Kannan, Supreme Court of Singapore, The cross- border project— a “dual- track” approach’, INSOL International Group of 36 Meeting in Singapore on 30 November 2015

-Cases and Documents
Cases:
Nortel Networks Corp, 2015 ONSC 2987, Re (Ont SCJ [Commercial List])
CLOUT 1483; Daebo Int’l Shipping Co., Ltd. 543 B.R. 47, 54 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015), CLOUT 1626
https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/159705_37_opinion.pdf
https://casetext.com/case/in-re-abengoa-bioenergy-biomass-of-kan-llc-2
https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/159705_37_opinion.pdf
Odwin v Forbes (1814)
Cambridge Gas Transp Corp v Ofcial Comm of Unsecured Creditors,2006: 689.
McGrath v. Riddell (In re HIH Cas. & Gen. Ins. Ltd.), [2008] UKHL 21, 1 W.L.R. 852 (H.L.).
Banque Indosuez SA v Ferromet Resources Inc ,1993: 112.
Tchenguiz & ors v Kaupthing Bank HF [2017] EWCA Civ 83 CA, 2017 WL 00817001
Energotech SARL, In Re, Tribunal de Grande Instance Lure 29 March 2006, [2007] BCC 123
Pacifc Andes Resources Development Ltd and other matters [2016] SGHC 210