INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, WilmerHale
courts where proceedings can be conducted in English. Despite these new arrivals, the impact on the English courts that some considered would result from Brexit has not materialised: UK exports of legal services continue to grow exponentially, second in size only to the United States. Middle East and Asia The establishment of international-facing courts in Europe follows an earlier trend in the Middle East and Asia. In the UAE in particular, the Courts of the finan- cial free zones of the Dubai International Finan- cial Centre and Abu Dhabi Global Market and the Qatar International Court are starting to rival London as the commercial court of choice for many international litigants. Elsewhere in Asia, the Singapore International Commercial Court, the Astana International Financial Centre Court and the China International Commercial Court all specialise in the resolution of cross-border commercial disputes and, for the most part, use English as the language of proceedings. Cas- es in these courts are often decided by senior judges and lawyers drawn from multiple juris- dictions (except in the China International Com- mercial Court, where the judges are exclusively Chinese). The establishment of international courts in the Middle East and Asia certainly reflects the east- ward shift in economic growth and opportunity. However, all these courts are ultimately mod- elled on the Commercial Court of England and Wales. The USA In the USA, many of the unilateralist and protec- tionist trade policies of the Trump administra-
tion largely remained in place under the Biden administration. In his presidential campaign, Trump advocated for further protectionist meas- ures, including a 20% blanket tariff on imports. It remains to be seen whether this policy will be implemented but it is safe to say that US protec- tionism will continue in the forthcoming Trump administration. More broadly, in recent years the USA has become increasingly hostile towards interna- tional trade treaties that commit the USA to resolving disputes by arbitration or other means of international dispute resolution. The USA has withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and has ruled out joining the Comprehen- sive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacif- ic Partnership (CPTPP). It has also renegotiated trade agreements with Mexico and Canada (NAFTA) and South Korea (KORUS). State courts in jurisdictions such as New York and California nevertheless remain attractive choices when international litigants enter into jurisdiction agreements. Where no jurisdiction agreement exists, the US Supreme Court has scaled back US courts’ power to assume juris- diction over foreign companies in disputes that have arisen outside the USA (Goodyear Dun- lop Tires Operations SA v Brown, Daimler AG v Bauman, BNSF Railway Co v Tyrrell and Bristol- Myers Squibb v Superior Court of California). This change is welcomed by foreign litigants who are anxious about the US courts exercising jurisdiction over disputes that have no connec- tion to the USA. In 2024, the US Supreme Court has continued its long tradition of supporting international arbi- tration. In Smith v Spizziri, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split over whether Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 3 requires a court to
9
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook