1. In so far as a judgment awards non-compensatory, including exemplary or punitive, damages, it shall be recognised at least to the extent that similar or comparable damages could have been awarded in the State addressed.
　　2. a) Where the debtor, after proceedings in which the creditor has the opportunity to be heard, satisfies the court addressed that in the circumstances, including those existing in the State of origin, grossly excessive damages have been awarded, recognition may be limited to a lesser amount.
　　b) In no event shall the court addressed recognise the judgment in an amount less than that which could have been awarded in the State addressed in the same circumstances, including those existing in the State of origin.
　　3. In applying paragraph 1 or 2, the court addressed shall take into account whether and to what extent the damages awarded by the court of origin serve to cover costs and expenses relating to the proceedings.
　　However, even although the delegation of the United States could make concession on this article, some similar problems still exist. “Large pain and suffering awards may well be seen as ‘excessive’ by other nations” . There is a failed example between the United States and the United Kingdom, which have the same language and same common law system. It is easy to understand the difficulties to be overcome in the Hague Conference which comprise different legal systems, different legal philosophies and different kinds of regimes.
　　Issue 3. The interpretation of the convention
　　How to interpret the convention is another issue. The Brussels Convention and The Lugano Convention work because the Judge of European Community takes the responsibility of the interpretation. However, there is not such a organ in the Hague Conference. This lack will make different comprehensions to the same clause and cause conflicts on jurisdiction. Although the draft in 1999 provides a special article to uniform interpretation , it can hardly be accepted by the member states. Firstly, who will be the first one to apply the convention and if its application is appropriate and in conformity to the original intention of the convention. Secondly, using the case law is not the primary method to many civil law countries. Could the courts of these countries invoke foreign judgments appropriately?

第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 页 共[8]页