Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, and Dispute Resolution

Introduction

Background

On March 20, 2009, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body adopted the report of the dispute settlement panel in China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (China – IPR).[1] The report addressed three claims brought by the United States alleging that certain Chinese measures are inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

I. Introduction

On March 25, 2008, the United States Supreme Court announced its judgment in Hall Street Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc.,[1] a case involving the exclusivity of the grounds for vacating arbitral awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). As explained below, the decision holds that the disputing parties may not agree to expand the grounds for vacatur beyond those listed in 9 U.S.C. § 10.

On March 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Medellin v. Texas,[1] a case in which a Mexican national on death row in Texas challenged his conviction on the basis that he was not afforded his right of consular notification under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the 2004 decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Mexico v.

Introduction