Foreign Case Law Sample Clauses

Foreign Case Law. One of the most distinguishable elements dividing selected jurisdictions in two groups consists in the consideration given to foreign decisions. In common law jurisdictions, as per the principle of stare decisis, there is a long-standing tradition to refer to foreign case law as an interpretation aid. It is therefore not a surprise that the highest Courts of the United Kingdom and the United States have regularly examined foreign jurisprudence. Furthermore, because the 1929 Warsaw Convention was written in French and originated from the French government, there was a trend to consider that French law carried substantial weight for interpretation purposes. 166 Xxxx xx Xxxxx, e.a., Précis de méthodologie juridique – Les sources documentaires du droit 164 (2nd edition, Publications des Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis, 2000). 167 Xxx, Xxxx., 27 January 1977, 1 Pasicrisie 574 (1977); Cass., 30 March 2000, C.9.70.176.N. 168 Xxxxxxxxx v. Air Canada, (2014) 3 SCR 340, at 38. 169 See, CJEU, 26 September 2019, GN v. ZU acting for Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx, C-532/18, ECLI:EU: C:2019:788 (Opinion), at 38. 170 CJEU, 9 July 2020, XX x. Vueling Airlines SA, C-86/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:538, at 32: ‘Further- more, it is apparent from the travaux préparatoires relating to the Montreal Convention that […]’. In addition to these two reasons, common law jurisdictions have rapidly acknowledged the importance of having a uniform interpretation of the Conventions that required at least a review of foreign decisions. In the United States, Justice Xxxxxxxx recalled in Xxxxx that: ‘[I]t is our responsibility to give the specific words of the treaty a meaning consis- tent with the shared expectations of the contracting parties’ […].171 The same view is reported in the United Kingdom as follows, in Xxxxxx: It really goes without saying that the international uniformity of interpretation of article 17 is highly desirable.172 However, the value credited to foreign decisions has not systematically been equal to that of domestic case law. In the United Kingdom, Xxxx Xxxxxxx ruled in Xxxxxxxxxx that the value of foreign decisions depended particularly on the Court’s reputation, their binding nature and the reporting system in place. He held that: […] the persuasive value of a particular court’s decision must depend on its rep- utation and its status, the extent to which its decisions are binding on courts of co-ordinate or inferior jurisdiction in its own country and the coverage of the national law ...