Available in Russian
Authors: Alexandra Kasatkina, Irina Get’man-Pavlova, Natalia Erpyleva
Keywords: private international law; international civil procedure; legal assistance; Russian judicial practice; principle of reciprocity; principle of international comity
The categories of reciprocity and international comity are well known and often mentioned in Russian judicial practice. However, an analysis of this practice shows that the Russian judicial community does not understand either the genesis, legal nature, or specifics of these concepts. In the minds of judges, “the principle of reciprocity originates from international comity”, although in reality it is exactly the opposite – the principle of reciprocity appeared in law much earlier than international comity and is its basis. Reciprocity and comity in Russian judicial acts are often considered as one principle, although they are different categories that have different legal natures and require different attitudes in their application. In many judicial acts, reciprocity and comity are characterized as universally recognized principles of international law, which seems to be erroneous. Reciprocity can be considered a universally recognized norm of international law, recognized at the universal level, but it is not highly imperative. Comity has a doctrinal origin and is mainly understood as an international custom but still may have legislative fixation. Russian judicial practice is characterized by understanding comity as an international custom. Reciprocity has a customary legal origin and currently is enshrined in international treaties and national legislation. In Russian judicial practice, the principle of reciprocity is applied as a norm of international custom. This approach is correct, but the courts do not distinguish between the concepts of “conflict”, “material” and “procedural” reciprocity, which leads to direct violations of Russian law. In this article, comparative-legal, historical-legal, dogmatic and formal-logical methods are used. In conclusion, the authors propose that an information letter be prepared by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in which, with examples from judicial practice, the principles of reciprocity and international comity are explained, the possibilities and limits of their application are determined, and parameters are established showing compliance with these principles by the courts of other States.
About the authors: Alexandra Kasatkina – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Associate Professor, Deputy Head of the Department of Legal Regulation of Business, Faculty of Law, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia; Irina Get’man-Pavlova – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Associate Professor, Department of Legal Regulation of Business, Faculty of Law, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia; Natalia Erpyleva – Doctor of Sciences in Law, Professor, Head of the Department of Legal Regulation of Business, Faculty of Law, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Erpyleva N., Get’man-Pavlova I., Kasatkina A. (2023) Ponimanie kategoriy vzaimnosti i mezhdunarodnoy vezhlivosti v rossiyskoy sudebnoy praktike [Understanding the categories of reciprocity and international comity in Russian judicial practice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 94–119. (In Russian).
Allsop J. (2015) Comity and Commerce. Federal Judicial Scholarship. Available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedJSchol/2015/27.html (accessed: 10.03.2023).
Barnett P.R. (1999) The Preclusive Effects of a Foreign Judgment in Subsequent Proceedings in England. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy within the University of Oxford. Available at: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:ff4d40d9-9c60-4416-958b-3ecb342d3dfb/download_file?file_format=application%2Fpdf&safe_filename=N12142591.pdf&type_of_work=Thesis (accessed: 10.03.2023).
De Boer Th.M. (2010) Living Apart Together: The Relationship between Public and Private International Law. Netherlands International Law Review, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 183–207.
Carmon H. (2012) Foreign Judgments in Israel: Recognition and Enforcement, Berlin: Springer.
Dodge W.S. (2015) International Comity in American Law. Columbia Law Review, vol. 115, no. 8, pp. 2071–2141.
Eliseev N.G. (2006) Printsip mezhdunarodnoy vezhlivosti kak predposylka privedeniya v ispolnenie inostrannykh sudebnykh resheniy [The principle of international comity as a prerequisite of enforcement of foreign judicial decisions]. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika, no. 7, pp. 73–78. (In Russian).
Fernández Arroyo D.P. (2016) Main Characteristics of the New Private International Law of the Argentinian Republic. Rabels Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 130–150.
Galenskaya L.N. (1983) Mezhdunarodnoe chastnoe pravo: uchebnoe posobie [Private international law: a study guide], Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. (In Russian).
Galenskaya L.N. (2005) Ponyatie vzaimnosti [The notion of reciprocity]. Zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava, no. 3, pp. 3–24. (In Russian).
Goldschmidt W. (1990) Derecho internacional privado. Derecho de la tolerancia. Basado en la teoría tkialista del mundo jurídico, 7th ed., Buenos Aires: Depalma.
Gol’skaya D.Kh. (1980) Pravovye problemy sotrudnichestva sotsialisticheskikh i kapitalisticheskikh stran v delakh o nasledovanii [Legal problems of cooperation of socialist and capitalist states in the cases on inheritance], Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian).
Hausmann R. (2008) Pleading and Proof of Foreign Law – A Comparative Analysis. The European Legal Forum (E), vol. 1, pp. 1–14.
Kheyfets B.S. (1986) Publichnyy poryadok i vzaimnost’ kak usloviya priznaniya i ispolneniya inostrannykh sudebnykh i arbitrazhnykh resheniy [Public order and reciprocity as conditions of recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions and arbitral awards]. In: Bratus’ S.N., Usenko E.T. (eds.) Materialy sektsii prava. Sbornik, podgotovlenyy sektsiey prava Torgovo-promyshlennoy palaty SSSR. Vypusk 37 [Law section materials. Collection of rights, prepared by the section of the USSR Chamber of Commerce and Industry. vol. 37], Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Torgovo-promyshlennoy palaty SSSR, pp. 30–37. (In Russian).
Kostin A.A. (2020) Pravovye osnovaniya priznaniya i prinyatiya resheniy po inostrannym delam v Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Legal basis for recognition and enforcement of foreign judicial decisions in the Russian Federation], Moscow: Statut. (In Russian).
Laurent F. (1880) Droit civil international. Tome premier, Bruxelles: Bruylant-Christophe & cie.
Llewellyn D. (1937) The Influence of Huber’s De Conflictu Legum on English Private International Law. British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 18, pp. 49–63.
Lorenzen E.G. (1918–1919) Huber’s De conflictu legum. Illinois Law Review, vol. 13, pp. 199–242.
Lunts L.A. (2002) Kurs mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava [The course of private international law], in 3 vols., Moscow: Spark. (In Russian).
Mandel’shtam A.N. (1900) Gaagskie konferentsii o kodifikatsii mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava [The Hague conferences on codification of private international law], Saint Petersburg: Tipografiya A.Benke. (In Russian).
Merezhko А.А. (2006) Nauka mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava: istoriya i sovremennost’ [The science of private international law: history and contemporaneity], Kyiv: Takson. (In Russian).
Neshataeva T.N. (2007) Uroki sudebnoy praktiki o pravakh cheloveka: evropeyskiy i rossiyskiy opyt [Lessons of judicial practice on human rights: the European and Russian experience], Moscow: Gorodets. (In Russian).
Niboyet J.-P. (1950) Traité de droit international privé français. Tome VI, Paris: Recueil Sirey.
Nikolyukin S.V. (2017) Mezhdunarodnyy grazhdanskiy protsess i mezhdunarodnyy kommercheskiy arbitrazh: uchebnik [International civil procedure and international commercial arbitration: a study guide], Moscow: Yustitsiya. (In Russian).
Oppenheim L. (1948) Mezhdunarodnoe pravo: mir. Tom 1: Polutom 1 [International law: peace. vol. 1: Subvol. 1], G.Lauterpakht (transl.), Moscow: Inostrannaya literatura. (In Russian).
Paul J.R. (2008) The Transformation of International Comity. Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 19–38.
Perogovskiy V. (1859) O nachalakh mezhdunarodnogo prava otnositel’no inostrantsev u narodov Drevnego mira [On the origins of the international law regarding foreigners and the peoples of the ancient world], Kv: Universitetskaya tipografiya. (In Russian).
Pilenko A.A. (1911) Ocherki po sistematike chastnogo mezhdunarodnogo prava [Essays on the systematics of private international law], Saint Petersburg: Tipografiya M.M.Stasyulevicha. (In Russian).
Rogerson P. (2013) Collier’s Conflict of Laws, 4th ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Romashev Yu.S. (2022) Mezhdunarodnyy obychay v rossiyskoy pravovoy sisteme [International custom in the Russian legal system]. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, no. 3, pp. 195–221. (In Russian).
Schultz T., Ridi N. (2016/2017) Comity: The American Development of a Transnational Concept. Yearbook of Private International Law, vol. 18, pp. 211–244.
Scotti L.B. (2017) Manual de Derecho Internacional Privado. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: La Ley.
Siehr K. (2012) The Selective Paulus Voet being a translation of those sections regarded as relevant to modern conflict of laws, of the De Statutis Eorumque Concursu Liber Singularis (Amstelodami, 1661). Rabels Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 463–468.
Story J. (1834) Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, Foreign and Domestic, in Regard to Contracts, Rights, and Remedies, and Especially in Regard to Marriages, Divorces, Wills, Successions, and Judgments, Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray and Company.
Tedeschi G. (1979) The Law of Laws. Israel Law Review, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 145–163.
Tsimmerman M. (1924) Istoriya mezhdunarodnogo prava (s drevneyshikh vremen do 1918 goda) [History of international law from ancient times till 1918], Prague: Tipografiya russkogo yuridicheskogo fakul’teta v Prage. (In Russian).
Verzijl J.H.W. (1973) International Law in Historical Perspective. vol. 6, Leiden: A.W.Sijthoff.
Watson A. (1992) Joseph Story and the Comity as Errors: A Case Study in Conflict of Laws, Athens, GA; London: The University of Georgia Press.
Watson A. (2006) Lord Mansfield: Judicial Integrity or Its Lack; Somerset’s Case. Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 225–234.
Yntema H.E. (1966) The Comity Doctrine. Michigan Law Review, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 9–32.