“International courtesy” and Russian legal dogma on interjurisdictional cooperation with its shortcomings

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

The article is about “international courtesy” principal evolution and significance. “Comitas gentium” is not so much teaching on recognition of foreign laws effect, based on individual discretion of sole judge, some influential publications are in support of that standpoint, rather this is basic concept of margins of foreign law force in national legal order. The contrary allegation leads to legislative faults. The author asserts that comitas gentium is the principal of International Law compulsory for states but not only directly applicable by discretionally power of judge or arbitrators. That may bring chaos for judicial and arbitration practice without explicit statutory indications.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Yury E. Monastyrsky

Sevastopol State University; Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

Author for correspondence.
Email: monastyrsky@mzs.ru

Doctor of Law, Professor, Professor of the Department of Civil Law and Procedure, Professor of the Department of International Private and Civil Law

Russian Federation, 33 Universitetskaya str., 299053 Sevastopol; 76 Vernadskogo Ave., 119454 Moscow

References

  1. Asoskov A. V. Fundamentals of conflict of laws [Electronic edition]. M., 2017. P. 82 (in Russ.).
  2. Boguslavsky M. M. International Private Law: textbook. 5th ed., rev. and add. M., 2004. P. 413 (in Russ.).
  3. Branovitsky K. L. The principle of reciprocity in International Civil Procedure // Arbitration and Civil Procedure. 2005. No. 8 (in Russ.).
  4. Brun M. I. Essays on the history of Conflict Law. M., 1915. P. 72 (in Russ.).
  5. Get’man-Pavlova I. V. International Private Law: textbook for masters. 4th ed., rev. and add. M., 2015. P. 50 (in Russ.).
  6. Get’man-Pavlova I. V. The concept of “politeness” in the conflict of laws doctrine of Ulrik Huber // Law. HSE Journal. 2013. No. 1. Pp. 38, 39 (in Russ.).
  7. Dzarasov M. E. Legal regulation of the labor of foreign workers // Lex russica. 2014. No. 8. Pp. 940–946 (in Russ.).
  8. Eliseev N. G. Prospects for mutual recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions in relations between Russia and Germany // Law. 2016. No. 12. Pp. 178–191 (in Russ.).
  9. Eliseev N. G. The principle of international courtesy as a prerequisite for the enforcement of foreign judgments // Laws of Russia: experience, analysis, practice. 2006. No. 7. Pp. 73–78 (in Russ.).
  10. Erpyleva N. Yu., Get’man-Pavlova I.V., Kasatkina A. S. Understanding the categories of reciprocity and international courtesy in Russian judicial practice // International Justice. 2023. No. 1 (45). Pp. 94–119 (in Russ.).
  11. Kaisin D. V. The doctrine of international courtesy and the enforcement of foreign judgments in Russia // Law. 2014. No. 6. Pp. 153, 155 (in Russ.).
  12. Kamarovsky L. A. Experience of codification of International Private Law. Conference in The Hague, 1893 // Journal of the Law Society at the Imperial St. Petersburg University. 1894. Book 6. P. 6 (in Russ.).
  13. Kostin A. A. The legal grounds for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Russian Federation: dis. … PhD in Law. M., 2018. P. 170 (in Russ.).
  14. Litvinsky D. V. Issues of recognition and enforcement of judgments of foreign courts: based on the analysis of the law of France and Russia: dis. … PhD in Law. SPb., 2003 (in Russ.).
  15. Litvinsky D. V. Recognition of foreign judicial decisions in civil cases (comparative legal analysis of French legislation, judicial practice and legal doctrine). SPb., 2005 (in Russ.).
  16. Lunts L. A. Course of International Private Law: in 3 vols. M., 2002. P. 129 (in Russ.).
  17. Lunts L. A. Lis alibi pendens in the aspect of the International Civil Process // Soviet Yearbook of International Law. 1963. M., 1965. Pp. 475–477 (in Russ.).
  18. Lushnikova M. V. Conflict of laws regulation of international labor relations: theoretical problems and modern practice // Law. 2011. No. 10. Pp. 68, 69 (in Russ.).
  19. Mandelstam A. N. The Hague Conferences on the Codification of Private International Law. Vol. 1: Codification of Private International Law. St. Petersburg, 1900. Pp. 118, 119 (in Russ.).
  20. Marysheva N. I. Issues of recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions in Russia. rights. 2006. No. 8. Pp. 9–22 (in Russ.).
  21. Muranov A. I. International treaty and reciprocity as grounds for the enforcement of foreign judgments in Russia. M., 2003 (in Russ.).
  22. Muranov A. I., Davydenko D. L. Issues of recognition and (or) enforcement of foreign judgments in Russia // Corporate Lawyer. 2007. No. 3. Pp. 42–46 (in Russ.).
  23. Neshataeva T. N. The Court and generally recognized principles and norms of International Law // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. 2004. No. 3. Pp. 124–140 (in Russ.).
  24. Popov V. V. Issues of proving reciprocity in cases of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments // Issues of Russian Justice. 2021. No. 16. Pp. 280–289 (in Russ.).
  25. Russian Civil Law: textbook: in 2 vols. Vol. I: General part. Property law. Inheritance law. Intellectual property rights. Personal non-property rights / ed. by E. A. Sukhanov. 4th ed., stereotype. M., 2016. P. 74 (in Russ.).
  26. Rubanov A. A. Theoretical foundations of international interaction of national legal systems. M., 1984. Pp. 142–150 (in Russ.).
  27. Sorokina Yu. V. Legal custom as a source of law // North Caucasian legal the messenger. 2022. No. 1. Pp. 35–44 (in Russ.).
  28. Tsaregorodskaya E. V. Legal custom: essence and mechanism of action: dis. … Doctor of Law. Vilnius, 2014 (in Russ.).
  29. Shulakov A. A. Principles of the Dutch conflict of laws doctrine and the legislation of the USA and European countries on International Private Law // Lex russica. 2016. No. 11. P. 118 (in Russ.).
  30. Yablochkov T. M. Course of International Civil Procedure Law // Yablochkov T. M. Proceedings on International Private Law. M., 2009. Pp. 61, 62 (in Russ.).
  31. Allsop J. Comity and Commerce: Address to the 16th Conference of Chief Justices of Asia & the Pacific (8 November 2015). Paras. 23–26. URL: http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/FedJSchol/2015/27.html
  32. Dornis T. W. 5. International Comity: A Doctrine of Self-Restraint // Dornis T. W. Trademark and Unfair Competition Conflicts: Historical-Comparative, Doctrinal, and Economic Perspectives. Cambridge, 2017. Pp. 381–490.
  33. Earl Childress III D. Comity as Conflict: Resituating International Comity as Conflict of Laws // UC Davis Law Review. 2010. Vol. 44. Pp. 11–79.
  34. Hill J. Do Arbitral Errors on the Law Governing the Merits of a Dispute Referred to Arbitration Justify Setting Aside or Non-enforcement of the Award? (8 January 2018). URL: https://legalresearch.blogs.bris.ac.uk/2018/01/do-arbitral-errors-on-the-law-governing-the-merits-of-a-dispute-referred-to-arbitration-justify-setting-aside-or-non-enforcement-of-the-award/
  35. Paul J. R. Comity in International Law // Harvard International Law Journal. 1991. Vol. 32. No. 1. Pp. 3, 4.
  36. Paul J. R. The Transformation of International Comity // Law and Contemporary Problems. 2008. Vol. 71. No. 3. Pp. 19, 20.
  37. Schultz Th., Ridi N. Comity and International Courts and Tribunals // Cornell International Law Journal. 2017. Vol. 50. No. 3. P. 581.
  38. Vischer Fr. General Course on Private International Law // Recueil des Cours: Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. Vol. 232. 1992-I. P. 26.
  39. Yntema H. Y. The Comity Doctrine // Michigan Law Review. 1966. Vol. 65. No. 1. Pp. 18–28.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2025 Russian Academy of Sciences