Regulation of the relations arising when courts of law try civil and commercial disputes with a foreign element should ensure fair, legitimate, and timely resolution of these disputes and implementation of judgments delivered by courts. Such regulation is effected via provisions of national legislation of each State, as well as via provisions of international treaties, which should play a crucial role, primarily, as instruments of unification. It is the cross-border nature of such disputes that engenders the need to achieve the utmost unification in the regulation and creation of a truly international civil procedure, which is achieved by unified approaches of national legal regulation and by extensive creation of unified international legal provisions.

The purpose of the article is to analyze today’s regulation of various components of international civil procedure, its origins, traditions, establishment and development over the years of our State’s independence, as well as the prospects for reform and, most importantly, modernization. The article also aims at examining the feasibility of or the need for reforming and modernization of its components in the context of the process of re-codification of civil and international private law which is being prepared by Ukraine.

It is established that today’s domestic legal doctrine, the science of international private law, and theoretical approaches underlying the regulation of separate components of international civil procedure are generally up-to-date and meet “the world standards”. However, the author identified numerous “shortcomings” which call for reform and improvement, and the whole institutions which are straightly outdated, are inconsistent with the global approaches and apparently harm the interests of our State and its citizens. This, for its part, concerns the regulation of judicial immunities of States and their property, international court jurisdiction, and so on.

The author assesses today’s state of regulation, makes a conclusion that a selective approach should be applied to the reform of international civil procedure, places on the agenda the need to take decisive steps, particularly with regard to preparing the regulations aimed at bridging the gaps in national legislation and building it based on modern principles. Besides, the author indicates that it is particularly significant to start, in any of the mentioned formats, the process of negotiation with regard to adopting an international convention on international court jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments, with Ukraine and the European Union as the parties to it.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Cherniak Yu, Instytut pidsudnosti v mizhnarodnomu pryvatnomu pravi krain Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu ta Ukrainy [Institute of Court Jurisdiction in Private International Law of the European Union and Ukraine] (Pretsedent 2008) (in Ukrainian).

Edited books

2. Grazhdanskoe processual’noe ulozhenie Germanii = Deutsche Zivilprozessordnung mit Einf hrungsgesetz: Vvod. Zakon k Grazhd. Proces. Ulozhennju [German Civil ProcedureCode = Deutsche Zivilprozessordnung mit Einführungsgesetz: Introduction. The Law to the German Civil Procedure Code] (per s nem, Volters Kluver 2006) (in Russian).

3. Mezhdunarodnoe chastnoe pravo: inostrannoe zakonodatel’stvo [Private International Law: Foreign Law] (Zhil’cov A i Muranov A sost i nauchn red, Statut 2002) (in Russian). Journal articles 4. Tsirat G, ‘Dvostoronni dohovory pro pravovu dopomohu yak pryklad unifikatsii norm mizhnarodnoho tsyvilnoho protsesu’ [‘Bilateral Treaties on Legal Assistance as an Example of Unification of Provisions of International Civil Procedure’] (2012) 1 Visnyk Verkhovnoho sudu Ukrainy 43–8 (in Ukrainian).

5. Tsirat G, ‘Zahalni tendentsii protsesiv unifikatsii okremykh skladovykh mizhnarodnoho tsyvilnoho protsesu v kintsi XIX – protiahom XX storichchia u riznykh rehionakh svitu’ [‘General Trends in the Processes of Unification of Separate Components of International Civil Procedure at the End of XIX – During XX Century in Different Regions of the World’] [2012] 108 (I) Akt. problemy mizhn. vidnosyn 189–97 (in Ukrainian).

6. Tsirat G, ‘Mizhnarodno-pravove rehuliuvannia vyznannia ta vykonannia inozemnykh sudovykh rishen na prykladi Haazkoi Konventsii pro vykliuchni dohovory pro vybir sudu 2005 r.’ [‘International Legal Regulation of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on the Example of the Hague Convention on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements of 2005’] [2012] 2 (61) Zovnishnia torhivlia: pravo ta ekonomika 185–7 (in Ukrainian).

7. Tsirat G, ‘Osoblyvosti pravovoho statusu inozemnoi derzhavy v mizhnarodnomu tsyvilnomu protsesi. Sudovyi imunitet derzhavy’ [‘Specifics of Legal Status of a Foreign State in International Civil Procedure. Judicial Immunity of the State’] (2012) 3 Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava 379–83 (in Ukrainian).

8. Tsirat G, ‘Pytannia pravovoho statusu inozemnykh fizychnykh ta yurydychnykh osib v mizhnarodnomu tsyvilnomu protsesi’ [‘Issues Pertaining to Legal Status of Foreign Individuals and Legal Entities in International Civil Procedure’] [2007] 70 (II) Akt. problemy mizhn. vidnosyn 186–93 (in Ukrainian).

9. Tsirat G, ‘Pravove polozhennia inozemtsiv u mizhnarodnomu tsyvilnomu protsesi: dosvid mizhnarodno-pravovoi unifikatsii’ [‘Legal Status of Foreigners in International Civil Procedure: Experience of International Legal Unification’] [2011] 9 (133) Visnyk Verkh. Sudu Ukrainy 44–8 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

10. Hirenko O, ‘Suchasni tendentsii rehuliuvannia yurysdyktsiinykh imunitetiv u mizhnarodnomu pryvatnomu pravi’ [‘Today’s Trends in Regulation of Jurisdictional Immunities in Private International Law’] (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, 2009) (in Ukrainian).

11. Korniichuk Ye, ‘Iurysdyktsiini imunitety derzhav ta yikhnoi vlasnosti: tendentsii rozvytku v mizhnarodnomu ta vnutrishnomu pravi’ [‘Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property: Development Trends in International and Domestic Law’] (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2008) (in Ukrainian).