The Dean Rusk International Law Center at the University of Georgia School of Law is pleased to host Dr. Hanspeter Tschaeni for Coffee and Conversation: International Trade and Economic Law this afternoon.
Dr. Tschaeni is Chief Trade Adviser at Trade Advisers, a consulting firm engaged in activities relating to the British exit from the European Union. He also serves on several World Trade Organization dispute settlement panels.
Previously, Dr. Tschaeni served for more than thirty years in the Swiss Federal Administration, where he was Head of Section on International Economic Law and Deputy Head of Division on Foreign Economic Services, with the rank of ambassador. In that capacity, he participated as legal counsel and headed delegations in negotiations with the European Union and in free-trade agreement negotiations with numerous countries around the globe.
Co-sponsors of the event include Georgia Law’s Business Law Society and the International Law Society.
Professor Michael Lewis Wells, who holds the Marion and W. Colquitt Carter Chair in Tort and Insurance Law here at the University of Georgia School of Law, has posted “Harmonizing European Tort Law and the Comparative Method: Basic Questions of Tort Law from a Comparative Perspective” at SSRN. The review of a book by a Viennese torts scholar is forthcoming in volume 9 of the peer-reviewed Journal of Civil Law Studies.
The manuscript, which forms part of our Dean Rusk International Law Center Research Paper Series at SSRN, may be downloaded here.
Here’s the abstract:
This is a book review of Basic Questions of Tort Law from a Comparative Perspective, edited by Professor Helmut Koziol. This book is the second of two volumes on “basic questions of tort law.” In the first volume, Professor Helmut Koziol examined German, Austrian, and Swiss tort law. In this volume Professor Koziol has assembled essays by distinguished scholars from several European legal systems as well as the United States and Japan, each of whom follows the structure of Koziol’s earlier book and explains how those basic questions are handled in their own systems.
This review focuses on Professor Koziol’s ultimate aim of harmonization, and on the contribution of these essays to that project. Harmonization of tort law across the member states is not just a matter of working out answers to such questions as the content of the liability rule or whether non-pecuniary harm should be recoverable. Harmonization raises an issue of European Union federalism. That question is not explicitly addressed in either volume, yet the value of the project, and prospects for its success, turn on the answer to it. I argue that Professor Koziol has not made a convincing case for EU displacement of member state tort law.