Hubbry Logo
Conflict of lawsConflict of lawsMain
Open search
Conflict of laws
Community hub
Conflict of laws
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Conflict of laws
Conflict of laws
Conflict of laws
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Conflict of laws
Preliminaries
Definitional elements
Connecting factors
Substantive legal areas
Law enforcement

Conflict of laws (also called private international law) is the set of rules or laws a jurisdiction applies to a case, transaction, or other occurrence that has connections to more than one jurisdiction.[1] This body of law deals with three broad topics: jurisdiction, rules regarding when it is appropriate for a court to hear such a case; foreign judgments, dealing with the rules by which a court in one jurisdiction mandates compliance with a ruling of a court in another jurisdiction; and choice of law, which addresses the question of which substantive laws will be applied in such a case.[2] These issues can arise in any private law context,[2] but they are especially prevalent in contract law[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and tort law.[11]

Scope and terminology

[edit]

The term conflict of laws is primarily used in the United States and Canada, though it has also come into use in the United Kingdom. Elsewhere, the term private international law is commonly used,[1] for example in Switzerland, the Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA) regulates which law should be applied when a dispute has connections with more than one jurisdiction.[12] Some scholars from countries that use conflict of laws consider the term private international law confusing because this body of law does not consist of laws that apply internationally, but rather is solely composed of domestic laws; the calculus only includes international law when the nation has treaty obligations (and even then, only to the extent that domestic law renders the treaty obligations enforceable).[13] The term private international law comes from the private law/public law dichotomy in civil law systems.[14][15] In this form of legal system, the term private international law does not imply an agreed upon international legal corpus, but rather refers to those portions of domestic private law that apply to international issues.

Importantly, while conflict of laws generally deals with disputes of an international nature, the applicable law itself is domestic law. This is because, unlike public international law (better known simply as international law), conflict of laws does not regulate the relation between countries but rather how individual countries regulate internally the affairs of individuals with connections to more than one jurisdiction. To be sure, as in other contexts, domestic law can be affected by international treaties to which a country is party.

Moreover, in federal states where substantial lawmaking occurs at the subnational level, notably in the United States, issues within conflict of laws often arise in wholly domestic contexts, relating to the laws of different states (or provinces, etc.) rather than of foreign countries.

History

[edit]

Western legal systems first recognized a core underpinning of conflict of laws—namely, that "foreign law, in appropriate instances, should be applied to foreign cases"—in the twelfth century.[16]: 9–10  Prior to that, the prevailing system was that of personal law, in which the laws applicable to each individual were dictated by the group to which he or she belonged.[16]: 9–10  Initially, the mode of this body of law was simply to determine which jurisdiction's law would be most fair to apply; over time, however, the law came to favor more well-defined rules.[16]: 12–13  These rules were systematically summarized by law professor Bartolus de Saxoferrato in the middle of the fourteenth century,[16]: 13  a work that came to be cited repeatedly for the next several centuries.[17]

Later, in the seventeenth century, several Dutch legal scholars, including Christian Rodenburg, Paulus Voet, Johannes Voet, and Ulrik Huber, further expounded the jurisprudence of conflict of laws.[16]: 20–28  Their key conceptual contributions were twofold: First, nations are wholly sovereign within their borders and therefore cannot be compelled to enforce foreign law in their own courts.[16]: 28  Second, in order for international conflicts of law to work rationally, nations must exercise comity in enforcing others' laws, because it is in their mutual interest to do so.[16]: 30 Scholars began to consider ways to resolve the question of how and when formally equal sovereign States ought to recognize each other's authority.[18] The doctrine of comity was introduced as one of the means to answer these questions.[18] Comity has undergone various changes since its creation. However, it still refers to the idea that every State is sovereign; often, the most just exercise of one State's authority is by recognizing the authority of another through the recognition and enforcement of another state's laws and judgments.[19] Many states continue to recognize the principle of comity as the underpinning of private international law such as in Canada.[20] In some countries, such as the United States of America and Australia, the principle of comity is written into the State's constitution.[21]

In the United States, salient issues in the field of conflict of laws date back at least to the framing of the Constitution. There was concern, for example, about what body of law the newly created federal courts would apply when handling cases between parties from different states[22] (a type of case specifically assigned to the federal courts[23]). Within the first two decades following ratification of the Constitution, over one hundred cases dealt with these issues, though the term conflict of laws was not yet used.[22]: 235–36  The Constitution created a "plurilegal federal union" in which conflicts are inherently abundant,[24]: 6  and as a result, American judges encounter conflicts cases far more often—about 5,000 per year as of the mid-2010s—and have accumulated far more experience in resolving them than anywhere else in the world.[24]: 10 

Alongside domestic developments relating to conflict of laws, the nineteenth century also saw the beginnings of substantial international collaboration in the field. The first international meeting on the topic took place in Lima in 1887 and 1888; delegates from five South American countries attended, but failed to produce an enforceable agreement.[25] The first major multilateral agreements on the topic of conflict of laws arose from the First South American Congress of Private International Law, which was held in Montevideo from August 1888 to February 1889.[25] The seven South American nations represented at the Montevideo conference agreed on eight treaties, which broadly adopted the ideas of Friedrich Carl von Savigny, determining applicable law on the basis of four types of factual relations (domicile, location of object, location of transaction, location of court).[25]

Soon after, European nations gathered for a conference in The Hague organized by Tobias Asser in 1893.[26]: 76  This was followed by successive conferences in 1894, 1900, and 1904.[26]: 76  Like their counterparts in Montevideo, these conferences produced several multilateral agreements on various topics within conflict of laws.[26]: 76–77  Thereafter, the pace of these meetings slowed, with the next conventions occurring in 1925 and 1928.[26]: 77  The seventh meeting at The Hague occurred in 1951, at which point the sixteen involved states established a permanent institution for international collaboration on conflict-of-laws issues.[26]: 77  The organization is known today as the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH). As of December 2020, HCCH includes eighty-six member states.[27]

As attention to the field became more widespread in the second half of the twentieth century, the European Union began to take action to harmonize conflict of laws jurisprudence across its member states. The first of these was the Brussels Convention agreed in 1968, which addressed questions of jurisdiction for cross-border cases.[28] This was followed in 1980 by the Rome Convention, which addressed choice-of-law rules for contract disputes within EU member states.[29] In 2009 and 2010, respectively, the EU enacted the Rome II Regulation to address choice-of-law in tort cases[11] and the Rome III Regulation to address choice-of-law in divorce matters.[30]

Jurisdiction

[edit]

One of the key questions addressed within conflict of laws is the determination of when the legislature of a given jurisdiction may legislate, or the court of a given jurisdiction can properly adjudicate, regarding a matter that has extra-jurisdictional dimensions. This is known as jurisdiction (sometimes subdivided into adjudicative jurisdiction, the authority to hear a certain case, and prescriptive jurisdiction, the authority of a legislature to pass laws covering certain conduct).[31]: 57–58  Like all aspects of conflict of laws, this question is in the first instance resolved by domestic law, which may or may not incorporate relevant international treaties or other supranational legal concepts.[32]: 13–14  That said, relative to the other two main subtopics of conflicts of law (enforcement of judgements, and choice of law, which are both discussed below), the theory regarding jurisdiction has developed consistent international norms. This is perhaps because, unlike the other subtopics, jurisdiction relates to the particularly thorny question of when it is appropriate for a country to exercise its coercive power at all, rather that merely how it should do so.[32]: 1–4 

There are five bases of jurisdiction generally recognized in international law. These are not mutually exclusive; an individual or an occurrence may be subject to simultaneous jurisdiction in more than one place.[32]: 15, 23  They are as follows:

  • Territoriality—A country has jurisdiction to regulate whatever occurs within its territorial boundaries. Of all bases of jurisdiction, the territoriality principle garners the strongest consensus in international law (subject to various complexities relating to actions that did not obviously occur wholly in one country).[31]: 55–56 
  • Passive personality—A country has jurisdiction over an occurrence that harmed its national.[33]
  • Nationality (or active personality)—A country has jurisdiction over a wrong of which its national is the perpetrator.[34]
  • Protective—A country has jurisdiction to address threats to its own security (such as by pursuing counterfeiters of official documents).[35]
  • Universal—A country has jurisdiction over certain acts based on their intrinsic rejection by the international community (such as violent deprivations of basic human rights). This is the most controversial of the five bases of jurisdiction.[35]

Countries have also developed bodies of law for adjudicating jurisdiction disputes between subnational entities. For example, in the United States, the minimum contacts rule derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution regulates the extent to which one state can exercise jurisdiction over people domiciled in other states, or occurrences that took place in other states.

Choice of law

[edit]

Courts faced with a choice of law issue have a two-stage process:

  1. the court will apply the law of the forum (lex fori) to all procedural matters (including the choice of law rules);
  2. it counts the factors that connect or link the legal issues to the laws of potentially relevant states and applies the laws that have the greatest connection, e.g. the law of nationality (lex patriae) or the law of habitual residence (lex domicilii). (See also 'European Harmonization Provisions': "The concept of habitual residence is the civil law equivalent of the common law test of lex domicilii".) The court will determine the plaintiffs' legal status and capacity. The court will determine the law of the state in which land is situated (lex situs) that will be applied to determine all questions of title. The law of the place where a transaction physically takes place or of the occurrence that gave rise to the litigation (lex loci actus) will often be the controlling law selected when the matter is substantive, but the proper law has become a more common choice.[36]

Contracts

[edit]

Many contracts and other forms of legally binding agreement include a jurisdiction or arbitration clause specifying the parties' choice of venue for any litigation (called a forum selection clause). In the EU, this is governed by the Rome I Regulation. Choice of law clauses may specify which laws the court or tribunal should apply to each aspect of the dispute. This matches the substantive policy of freedom of contract and will be determined by the law of the state where the choice of law clause confers its competence. Oxford Professor Adrian Briggs suggests that this is doctrinally problematic as it is emblematic of 'pulling oneself up by the bootstraps'.[37]

Judges have accepted that the principle of party autonomy allows the parties to select the law most appropriate to their transaction. This judicial acceptance of subjective intent excludes the traditional reliance on objective connecting factors;[38] it also harms consumers as vendors often impose one-sided contractual terms selecting a venue far from the buyer's home or workplace. Contractual clauses relating to consumers, employees, and insurance beneficiaries are regulated under additional terms set out in Rome I, which may modify the contractual terms imposed by vendors.[39]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References and further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Conflict of laws

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Conflict of laws, also referred to as private international law, is the body of legal principles and rules that address situations where a dispute or transaction involves connections to multiple jurisdictions, determining which jurisdiction's laws apply, whether a court has authority to hear the case, and how foreign judgments are recognized and enforced. This field arises from the territorial nature of sovereign states, each with its own legal system, leading to potential conflicts when individuals, businesses, or events span borders, such as in international contracts, marriages, or torts. In practice, conflict of laws divides into three primary components. assesses whether a in the forum state has the power to adjudicate the matter, often based on factors like the defendant's presence, consent, or with the forum to satisfy requirements. involves selecting the to govern the dispute, employing methods such as the most significant relationship test, which weighs contacts like the place of contracting, injury, or domicile against relevant state policies. Finally, recognition and of judgments ensures that decisions from one jurisdiction are given effect in another, subject to principles like , reciprocity, and exceptions to promote and fairness in cross-border interactions. Historically rooted in traditions but applicable across civil and common law systems, conflict of laws has evolved through scholarly works, judicial precedents, and international conventions, such as those from Conference on Private International Law, which aim to harmonize rules for issues like and commercial . In the United States, the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, published by the in 1971, provides influential guidance, shifting from rigid territorial rules to more flexible, interest-based approaches that consider the policies of involved jurisdictions. Globally, the field continues to adapt to modern challenges, including digital transactions and multinational enterprises, underscoring its role in facilitating international commerce and resolving personal status disputes without undue .

Fundamental Concepts

Scope and Terminology

Conflict of laws, also known as private international law, is the branch of law that addresses legal issues arising from private disputes involving foreign elements, such as cross-border contracts, torts, property transactions, and family matters like , , and . It provides rules and principles for determining which jurisdiction's law applies when the laws of multiple jurisdictions could potentially govern the case, ensuring resolution in a manner that respects territorial while promoting fairness in transnational private relations. This field focuses on private actors—individuals, corporations, and other non-state entities—rather than governmental interactions, and it typically arises in civil proceedings where at least one element of the dispute connects to a foreign . A key distinction exists between conflict of laws (private international law) and public international law. Public international law regulates relations between sovereign states, international organizations, and sometimes individuals in the context of state obligations, such as treaties, , and international crimes. In contrast, private international law deals exclusively with conflicts between the domestic laws of different jurisdictions in disputes between private parties, without directly involving state-to-state or enforcement of international norms. This separation underscores that conflict of laws operates within national legal systems to harmonize private cross-border interactions, whereas public international law binds states externally. Central to this field are several core terms that frame the analytical process. The forum refers to the or in which the legal action is brought and heard, serving as the starting point for applying conflict rules. Lex fori denotes the substantive and of that forum, which generally governs matters like , remedies, and judicial administration unless displaced by choice-of-law rules. Lex causae is the body of ultimately selected to govern the merits of the dispute, determined through connecting factors like the place of the wrong or the parties' agreement. Renvoi describes the situation where the forum's choice-of-law rule refers to a foreign , but that foreign law's own conflict rules redirect the matter back to the forum's law or to a third jurisdiction, potentially creating a that courts may accept or reject to avoid endless loops. Finally, serves as an exception allowing the forum to refuse application of the lex causae if it fundamentally contravenes the forum's core principles of justice, morality, or public order, acting as a safeguard against repugnant foreign rules. Conflicts in this domain can be categorized as horizontal or vertical. Horizontal conflicts occur between private parties from different jurisdictions, where the issue is selecting among competing domestic laws to apply to their dispute, such as in an international contract or claim. Vertical conflicts arise in federal systems between the laws of the and those of its constituent states or provinces, typically resolved by the supremacy of , and form an important aspect of conflict of laws in such contexts. These concepts lay the groundwork for subsequent steps like establishing and selecting the applicable .

Domicile and Connections to Jurisdiction

In private international , domicile serves as a primary connecting factor that links an individual to a particular legal system for the purpose of determining or the applicable . It is defined as the place where a has their permanent , combining physical presence with the to reside indefinitely or permanently. Domicile is categorized into three types: domicile of origin, domicile of choice, and domicile of dependence. The domicile of origin is acquired at birth and is typically that of the for legitimate children or the for illegitimate children or those born after the 's death; it is assigned automatically and can revive under certain conditions if a subsequent domicile is abandoned without replacement. Domicile of choice is acquired by an who voluntarily establishes residence in a new country with the animus manendi, or intention to remain there indefinitely, requiring both physical presence and a subjective intent that can be inferred from conduct such as purchasing property or integrating into the community. Unlike origin, it does not revive automatically but must be affirmatively established, and a can hold only one domicile at a time. Domicile of dependence applies to those lacking capacity to choose independently, such as minors under 16 or married women under historical rules (now largely reformed), where it follows that of the head of the household—typically the for children or the for wives—though modern reforms emphasize the domicile of the with whom the resides. Changes in domicile of dependence occur automatically with shifts in the reference person's domicile, but courts may intervene if it would cause detriment to the dependent. Habitual residence has emerged as a modern alternative to domicile, particularly in private , where it is preferred for its objectivity and alignment with factual circumstances over subjective intent. Defined as the place where a has established, on a fixed basis, their permanent or habitual center of interests—assessed through factors like duration of stay, , , and —it emphasizes continuity of residence rather than indefinite intent. Influenced by EU regulations such as the Brussels IIb Regulation (EU 2019/1111) and 593/2008), habitual residence avoids the complexities of domicile's dependency rules and revival doctrines, making it suitable for uniform application across member states; a stay of at least six months often indicates habitual residence, though this is not a strict threshold. Unlike domicile, a can have only one habitual residence at a time, determined by the effective center of their life. Other connecting factors complement domicile and habitual residence in linking parties or assets to legal systems. For natural persons, nationality—based on birth, descent, or —serves as a political and legal tie, particularly in civil law jurisdictions for matters of personal status, though it may not reflect actual connections if the individual resides abroad long-term. For legal persons like companies, the seat (either statutory or real, depending on the 's theory) or place of incorporation determines the applicable and jurisdiction, ensuring the entity's "home" system governs internal affairs. Property connects via situs, the location of the asset, which dictates the governing law for immovables () and often tangibles, while movables may follow the owner's personal connecting factor. These factors play a crucial role in resolving conflicts by identifying the appropriate legal system, thereby establishing over parties or subject matter and selecting the lex causae (law of the cause). In , domicile or often grounds a court's competence, as seen in EU rules where determines authority in . For , they pinpoint the governing rules; for instance, in succession cases, the law of the deceased's domicile at death applies to movable property distribution, ensuring assets are handled according to the personal law most closely tied to the individual, while immovables follow the lex situs. This approach promotes predictability and fairness in cross-border disputes involving personal status, contracts, or .

Historical Development

Ancient and Medieval Origins

The origins of conflict of laws can be traced to city-states, where interstate relations and commercial interactions necessitated rudimentary mechanisms for resolving disputes involving foreigners. In the classical period, poleis like and entered into alliances (symmachiai) and commercial agreements (symbola) and arbitration agreements to handle conflicts arising from and migration, often applying the law of the forum or mutual recognition of judgments to disputes, as evidenced in surviving inscriptions from the 5th and 4th centuries BCE. These practices emphasized pragmatic reciprocity rather than a unified legal code, laying early groundwork for recognizing foreign legal norms in cross-border commerce. In , the ius gentium emerged as a pivotal framework for addressing legal conflicts involving non-citizens, particularly merchants. Developed from the BCE onward, this body of —administered by praetors—drew on customs common to Romans and foreigners to adjudicate disputes in , contracts, and , effectively serving as a proto-conflict of laws system for international . The ius gentium distinguished itself from the strict ius civile applicable only to citizens, promoting uniformity in mercantile matters through principles like , which facilitated enforcement across jurisdictions. During the medieval period, the revival of by the glossators in 11th- and 12th-century introduced debates on integrating local customs with the ius commune, particularly in applying to diverse regional practices in matters like and , reflecting a tension between universal legal principles and regional diversity. itself embodied a universalist , positing the Church's ius as supranational and binding across , which influenced early conflict resolution by prioritizing divine and over territorial statutes in cross-border cases. A landmark development came in the with Bartolus de Saxoferrato's statuta theory, which systematically classified laws as personal (statuta personalia, following the individual's domicile, such as ) or real (statuta realia, tied to territory, like property rules). This distinction, articulated in his commentary on the Digest, provided a foundational method for resolving conflicts by determining which governed based on the statute's nature, profoundly shaping medieval . Building on this, 16th-century jurist Dumoulin advanced a more universalist view, arguing for the broad application of personal laws regardless of forum, emphasizing equity and the ius gentium's role in harmonizing diverse legal traditions. These ideas, rooted in Roman precedents, marked the transition toward a more coherent doctrine of private international in .

Modern Evolution and Codification

In the , the field of conflict of laws saw significant doctrinal advancements through influential treatises that shaped national approaches. Friedrich Carl von Savigny's "System des heutigen römischen Rechts," published between 1840 and 1849, introduced the "seat theory," which posited that the applicable law for a legal relationship is determined by its closest connection or "seat" to a legal system, aiming for uniformity and predictability in . In the United States, Story's "Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, Foreign and Domestic," published in 1834, emphasized the principle of among nations as the basis for recognizing foreign laws, influencing American by balancing with international cooperation. These works marked a shift toward systematic, connection-based rules, laying the groundwork for later codifications without relying on rigid territorialism. The 20th century brought multilateral efforts to harmonize conflict of laws rules, particularly through the Hague Conference on Private International Law, established in 1893. Early conventions included the 1902 Convention on the Settlement of the Conflict of Laws Concerning Marriage, which unified rules on the capacity to marry by referring to each spouse's national law. A landmark later convention was the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which facilitates the prompt return of abducted children across borders to protect their . In the , the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations established uniform choice-of-law rules for contracts, prioritizing party autonomy while providing default connections to the country most closely linked to the obligation. Complementing this, the 2001 Brussels I Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001) standardized and of judgments in civil and commercial matters, enhancing predictability in cross-border disputes. In the United States, the American Law Institute's Restatements formalized conflict of laws principles. The First Restatement of Conflict of Laws, published in 1934, adopted a vested rights approach based on territorial connections, such as the place of injury for torts. The Second Restatement, approved in 1969 and published in 1971, shifted toward a more flexible "most significant relationship" test and interest analysis, incorporating governmental policies and party expectations to better suit modern interstate commerce. Post-World War II developments emphasized party autonomy and predictability to support global trade, reflecting increased . Conventions like the Rome Convention codified parties' freedom to choose applicable law in contracts, subject to safeguards against evasion of mandatory rules, promoting certainty in international transactions. This trend toward harmonization reduced and enhanced enforcement, as seen in the evolution of regulations and Hague instruments, fostering a more unified framework for private .

Jurisdiction

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction determines whether a has to bind a personally in a , particularly in cross-border disputes where parties or events span multiple jurisdictions. This procedural mechanism ensures that exercising power over an individual or entity comports with principles, preventing arbitrary assertions of that could violate fairness or sovereignty concerns. In conflict of laws, serves as a threshold requirement before a can apply its laws or enforce judgments abroad, distinct from substantive choice-of-law rules. Traditional bases for include physical presence, , and domicile. Under the traditional rule established in (1878), a could exercise over a served with process while physically present in the forum state (transient presence), as this implied submission to the 's power. Domicile provides a basis for general , allowing a to hear any claim against a whose permanent home or principal place of business is in the forum, regardless of the dispute's connection to that location. can be express, such as through a forum-selection in a , or implied, via appearance in without objecting to or actions like appointing an agent for . In the United States, modern developments expanded these bases through long-arm statutes, which authorize jurisdiction over non-resident defendants based on specific activities connected to the forum. The seminal International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) decision introduced the "minimum contacts" test, holding that due process permits jurisdiction if the defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." This requires purposeful availment of the forum's benefits and protections, with contacts assessed for quality and nature rather than mere quantity. The test distinguishes specific jurisdiction, where claims arise from or relate to the defendant's forum contacts (e.g., a contract performed in the state), from general jurisdiction, limited to exceptional cases like a defendant's domicile or place of incorporation. Subsequent cases have refined these concepts: in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana (2021), the Supreme Court held that specific jurisdiction applies when claims relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum, even if not directly caused by them, such as accidents involving the defendant's products in the state. For general jurisdiction, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway (2023) upheld consent through registration to do business in the forum as a valid basis, allowing suits on any claim against registered corporations. Long-arm statutes in most states extend to the full limits of constitutional due process, enabling jurisdiction over out-of-state actors via minimum contacts. The "effects doctrine," refined in Calder v. Jones (1984), extends specific in cases where a 's deliberate actions outside the forum cause harm felt principally within it, provided the expressly aimed conduct at the forum. For instance, a libelous article written abroad but circulated and damaging in the forum state satisfies . This test requires an intentional act, foreseeably tortious, expressly targeted at the forum, and harm occurring there, balancing fairness by tying to the defendant's purposeful direction. In the , is harmonized under the Brussels Ia Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012), which prioritizes the defendant's domicile as the primary basis. Persons domiciled in a must generally be sued in the courts of that state, with domicile for individuals determined by and for companies by statutory seat, central administration, or principal place of business. For contracts, lies at the place of performance of the obligation in question, such as delivery of goods or provision of services; disputes involving a branch or agency are heard where it is situated. In torts, courts at the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur have , encompassing both the location of the damaging act and the resulting damage. Parties may agree to submit to a specific court's via choice-of-court agreements, subject to protections against unfair terms. In June 2025, the issued a report on the regulation's application, initiating a formal review to consider potential amendments as of that year. Exceptions to apply to foreign states under doctrines like . In the U.S., the (FSIA) of 1976 provides that a foreign state is presumptively immune from suit but allows jurisdiction if an exception applies, such as commercial activity or rights in property taken in violation of ; then exists over the state without requiring , provided service is proper under the Act. This statutory scheme treats immunity as the sole barrier, with jurisdiction following automatically upon its waiver or inapplicability, reflecting the unique status of sovereign entities in international litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in 2025 that the FSIA does not incorporate constitutional for foreign state defendants, emphasizing service and immunity exceptions as sufficient. Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear cases of a particular type or involving specific subject areas, distinct from its power over the parties involved. In conflict of laws, this doctrine limits judicial competence based on the nature of the dispute, ensuring that only courts with statutory or constitutional authority adjudicate certain matters. For instance, , federal courts have exclusive over admiralty and maritime cases arising under Article III of the , preventing state courts from hearing such claims. In contrast, many civil disputes fall under , where both federal and state courts may hear cases, provided other prerequisites like diversity of citizenship or federal questions are met. This division promotes efficiency by allocating specialized cases to appropriate forums while allowing flexibility in non-exclusive areas. The doctrine of addresses parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions, aiming to prevent conflicting judgments by prioritizing the first court seised of the matter. In the , the Brussels Ia Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012) enforces a strict first-seised rule, requiring courts to stay or dismiss proceedings if a similar case is already pending in another EU , thereby fostering judicial coordination and . This approach contrasts with the more flexible U.S. system, where federal courts under the Colorado River doctrine may abstain from exercising jurisdiction in favor of concurrent state proceedings only in exceptional circumstances, balancing with the federal courts' "virtually unflagging obligation" to hear cases. Such mechanisms in underscore the tension between jurisdictional autonomy and the need to avoid duplicative litigation in cross-border disputes. Forum non conveniens provides courts with discretionary power to dismiss a case if another forum is more appropriate, even when exists. Originating in and codified in various jurisdictions, this doctrine evaluates private interests (e.g., convenience of parties and witnesses, access to evidence) and public interests (e.g., local court congestion, application of foreign law). In the landmark U.S. case Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981), the Court upheld dismissal of a products liability suit filed by Scottish plaintiffs in , ruling that a lower likelihood of recovery in the alternative Scottish forum did not preclude dismissal, as the doctrine focuses on forum adequacy rather than comparative outcomes. This flexibility allows courts to deter and allocate resources efficiently in international conflicts. Anti-suit injunctions serve as an to halt proceedings in foreign courts that threaten the issuing court's or comity principles. Issued sparingly to avoid international friction, these injunctions are justified when foreign litigation is vexatious, interferes with ongoing domestic proceedings, or undermines choice-of-forum agreements. For example, U.S. courts have granted anti-suit injunctions in cases involving parallel patent disputes abroad, provided the injunction respects international obligations under treaties like the Convention. By contrast, EU courts generally restrain from issuing such injunctions against member state proceedings to preserve the Brussels regime's uniformity, opting instead for intra-EU rules. These doctrines collectively manage the complexities of transnational litigation, ensuring jurisdictional limits are respected while promoting orderly .

Choice of Law

General Principles and Approaches

The general principles and approaches in choice of law seek to determine which jurisdiction's law governs a legal issue involving cross-border elements, balancing predictability, fairness, and policy considerations. Traditional approaches emphasized territoriality and vested rights, while modern methods incorporate state interests and relational factors. These frameworks have evolved from historical foundations in the 19th century, adapting to contemporary needs in private international law. The , articulated by in his 1849 treatise System des heutigen römischen Rechts, posits that the applicable law is that of the with the closest connection to the , determined by the "seat" or proper forum of the matter based on its nature—such as for status or domicile for obligations. This approach treats legal relations as inherently tied to a specific , promoting uniformity by referring to the law where the relationship is "seated," rather than the forum's law. Savigny's method influenced European codifications, emphasizing objective connections over subjective factors. In contrast, the vested rights theory, advanced by in his 1834 Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, holds that rights acquired under one jurisdiction's law vest immediately and are enforceable elsewhere, with the forum applying the foreign law only to the extent it recognizes such vested rights without altering their substance. This formalistic doctrine requires characterizing the issue (e.g., as , , or ) to identify the governing law at the point of vesting, typically the place of the act or event creating the right. It underpinned early American conflicts rules, prioritizing territorial and among nations. Modern approaches shifted toward functional analyses in the mid-20th century. Brainerd Currie's governmental interest analysis, developed in the 1950s and 1960s, directs courts to apply the of the state whose policies would be most advanced by the decision, evaluating each jurisdiction's interests in the outcome rather than rigid rules. Currie argued that if only one state has a true interest, its applies; in "true conflicts" with multiple interests, the forum's presumptively governs unless another state's interest is qualitatively stronger. This method, influential in U.S. state courts, rejects mechanical tests in favor of policy-driven resolutions. The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971), promulgated by the , adopts a "most significant relationship" test under § 188, weighing factors such as the place of contracting or injury, the parties' domiciles or residences, the place of performance or business, and the location of the subject matter to select the with the strongest connection to the issue. This flexible approach integrates Currie's analysis with traditional contacts, guided by § 6 principles like predictability, maintenance of interstate order, and ease of determination. It has been widely adopted in U.S. jurisdictions and influences international frameworks. Party autonomy, a cornerstone in commercial contexts, permits parties to select the governing , reflecting and enhancing certainty in transnational dealings. This principle, codified in instruments like the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts (2015), applies by default in cross-border contracts but is limited in non-commercial areas such as or , where mandatory rules prevail. Courts generally uphold such choices unless they contravene fundamental policies. Renvoi, a referral mechanism, occurs when a forum's choice-of- rule points to foreign , which in turn refers back to the forum's or another jurisdiction's, potentially creating a circular process resolved by applying the foreign system's entire conflicts rules (total renvoi) or internal only (partial renvoi). Primarily used in succession and status matters, it aims for international uniformity but is rejected in many U.S. jurisdictions to avoid complexity. Public policy serves as an overriding exception, allowing a forum to refuse foreign law if its application would violate fundamental principles of or public order in the forum state. As articulated in seminal analysis, this is narrowly applied to prevent of repugnant rules, such as those discriminating on protected grounds, but not mere differences in . It ensures the forum's core values are upheld without undermining .

Application to Contracts

In the field of conflict of laws, the application to contracts emphasizes the principle of party autonomy, allowing parties to select the governing law for their agreement, subject to certain limitations. This approach recognizes that contracts are consensual arrangements, where the intentions of the parties should generally prevail in determining the applicable legal framework for issues such as formation, validity, interpretation, and . The European Union's (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008) provides a harmonized framework for contractual obligations within the EU. Under Article 3, parties may choose the governing law explicitly or implicitly, and this choice is respected unless it contravenes overriding mandatory provisions or of the forum state. In the absence of such a choice, Article 4 establishes default rules: for sales of , the law of the country where the seller has its applies; for services, it is the law of the of the . These defaults aim to promote predictability while protecting weaker parties, such as consumers under Article 6, where mandatory rules of the consumer's state cannot be derogated from. In the United States, the approach to choice-of-law in contracts is guided by the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, particularly Section 187, which upholds party autonomy if the chosen has a substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction and does not violate a fundamental policy of a state with a materially greater interest. This section prioritizes the validation principle, under which courts may interpret ambiguous choice-of-law clauses in favor of the that upholds the contract's enforceability. For instance, if no choice is made, Section 188 directs courts to apply the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the contract, considering factors like the place of , contracting, , the of the subject matter, and the parties' domiciles. Key issues in contractual choice-of- include the validity of the choice itself, which is assessed under the chosen or, in some jurisdictions, the law of the seat of if applicable; the interpretation of contractual terms, often governed by the chosen law's rules on contract construction; and the law applicable to performance, which may incorporate closest connection tests to resolve disputes over execution locations. Limitations arise from overriding mandatory rules, such as labor protections or safeguards that cannot be contracted around, and exceptions that prevent enforcement if the chosen law fundamentally offends the forum's core values. For example, contracts under Rome I cannot evade the mandatory protections of the consumer's home state, ensuring fairness in cross-border transactions.

Application to Torts and Delicts

In the field of conflict of laws, the traditional approach to determining the applicable law for torts and delicts has been the doctrine of lex loci delicti, which applies the law of the where the wrongful act or injury occurred. This rule, rooted in the First Restatement of Conflict of Laws, aimed to provide predictability by tying liability to the place of the tort's commission, encompassing both the act causing harm and the resulting damage. , variations emerged, such as lex loci damni, which focuses on the law of the place where the harm or damage is sustained, particularly in cases involving intangible injuries like where the act and effect diverge geographically. The modernized this framework through Regulation (EC) No 864/2007, known as the Rome II Regulation, which governs non-contractual obligations including and delicts in civil and commercial matters. Under Article 4(1), the general rule is the law of the country where the damage occurs, regardless of the location of the causative event or indirect consequences. Article 4(2) refines this by applying the law of the parties' common at the time of damage if applicable, while Article 4(3) provides an : if the tort is manifestly more closely connected to another country—such as through the parties' common or other significant factors—the law of that country governs instead. In contrast, many U.S. jurisdictions have shifted from rigid territorial rules to governmental interest analysis for choice-of- issues, evaluating which state's policies would be most advanced by applying its based on the facts of the case. This approach, pioneered in , assesses the comparative interests of involved jurisdictions in compensating victims, deterring misconduct, or limiting liability, often favoring the of the state with the strongest policy stake. A seminal application appears in Reich v. Purcell (1967), where the rejected Missouri's (the place of the accident) strict cap in a wrongful death suit, instead applying (plaintiffs' domicile) to allow fuller recovery, as Missouri lacked a substantial interest in protecting a non-resident while sought to compensate its injured residents. Special rules address particular tort categories to better align with policy goals. For , the Rome II Regulation's Article 5 prioritizes the law of the victim's if the product was marketed there, cascading to the place of acquisition or harm if marketed accordingly, unless the liable party's residence applies due to unforeseeable marketing; an escape clause allows deviation for manifestly closer connections. In the U.S., under interest analysis or the most significant relationship test of the Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws (§ 145), courts frequently apply the law of the victim's residence when it coincides with the state of intended use or injury, promoting manufacturer accountability to foreseeable users. Similarly, for unfair competition, Rome II Article 6 directs application of the law of the country where competitive relations or consumer interests are likely affected, or for market restrictions, the law of the impacted market, with claimants able to select the forum's law under certain conditions if multiple markets are involved. U.S. courts often follow suit by applying the law of the affected market under interest analysis, focusing on jurisdictions where economic harm to competition is realized to protect local .

Application to Family and Succession Matters

In the realm of , choice-of-law rules for and prioritize personal connecting factors, such as domicile or , to determine capacity and validity, reflecting the intimate and status-based nature of these relationships. For , formal validity is typically governed by the of the place of celebration ( celebrationis), while essential validity, including capacity to marry, is often determined by the of the parties' domicile or at the time of the . The 1978 Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages adopts a similar approach, applying the of the state of celebration for formal requirements and allowing reference to personal for capacity, though remains limited to a few states. In proceedings, the applicable is frequently the lex fori for procedural aspects, but substantive grounds may follow the of the common or of the spouses. Recognition of foreign , however, is assessed under the lex fori of the recognizing state, which evaluates whether the foreign court had and procedural fairness, potentially refusing recognition if it contravenes fundamental principles. Parental responsibility and child abduction matters emphasize the child's habitual residence as the primary connecting factor to ensure stability and proximity to the child's environment. Under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the law of the child's habitual residence prior to removal determines rights of custody, facilitating prompt return to that jurisdiction unless exceptions like grave risk apply. This approach avoids forum shopping and prioritizes the child's best interests by deferring substantive decisions to the familiar legal system. In the European Union, Council Regulation (EU) No 2019/1111 (Brussels IIb), which recast and replaced Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (Brussels IIa) effective 1 August 2022, establishes jurisdiction for parental responsibility based on the child's habitual residence, with automatic recognition of judgments across member states to prevent conflicting decisions. Succession law in conflict of laws balances party autonomy with objective ties to the deceased's life. The EU Succession Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 permits the deceased to choose the law of their nationality to govern the entire succession, exercisable explicitly in a will or implicitly through dispositions, promoting predictability for cross-border estates; absent such choice, the law of the at death applies universally within participating member states. In the United States, choice-of-law for wills often involves renvoi, where courts may apply the foreign jurisdiction's conflict rules, which could remit the case back to the forum's , particularly in determining or formal validity under the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. This mechanism accounts for variances in foreign inheritance rules, such as , ensuring equitable distribution. Public policy serves as a critical limit in applying foreign family and succession laws, allowing refusal where outcomes violate core forum principles. For instance, polygamous marriages valid abroad are often denied recognition in jurisdictions like those in the EU or US if they contravene monogamy as a fundamental policy, preventing legal effects such as spousal inheritance. Similarly, prior to widespread legalization, same-sex unions faced non-recognition under public policy exceptions in states opposing them, though post-Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), such refusals have diminished, with conflicts now focusing on interstate rather than international variances. These exceptions underscore the tension between comity and domestic values in personal status matters.

Application to Property and Insolvency

In private international law, the for disputes distinguishes between immovable and movable assets to determine the governing legal regime for , transfer, and . For immovable , such as or buildings, the predominant rule is lex rei sitae, meaning the law of the situs where the is located governs core issues like validity of , transfers, and encumbrances. This rule ensures certainty and protects local interests, as the situs state has regulatory authority over within its territory; for example, a conveyance of in must comply with French law regardless of the parties' nationalities. Although some jurisdictions have narrowed its scope for peripheral matters like contractual obligations, lex rei sitae remains the default for essential rights in immovables. Movable property, by contrast, is subject to more flexible choice-of-law rules that prioritize the owner's connections over physical . For tangible movables, such as goods or vehicles, the of the owner's domicile (lex domicilii) typically governs succession, capacity to transfer, and proprietary effects, reflecting the mobility of such assets and the owner's habitual legal ties. Intangible movables, including shares, debts, or , are often regulated by the "proper law" determined by the closest and most real connection, such as the governing of the issuing for shares or the place of for contractual debts. This approach, rooted in principles of party autonomy and practicality, avoids the uncertainties of tracking situs for non-physical assets. In the realm of , choice-of-law rules balance and territorialism to manage cross-border asset distribution and creditor claims. The universalist approach, which treats as a single global proceeding, predominates in modern frameworks; under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border (1997), the "center of main interests" (COMI) identifies the for the main proceeding, where the conducts regular administration of its interests, enabling recognition and cooperation across borders. Article 17 of the Model Law defines a foreign main proceeding as one in the COMI state, promoting efficient relief like stays on assets worldwide, while territorialism persists in some jurisdictions (e.g., certain U.S. states) to retain local assets for domestic creditors, limiting universal effects to protect parochial interests. Within the , the Insolvency Regulation (EU) 2015/848 codifies a universalist model tailored to intra-EU cases, applying the of the COMI state (lex concursus) to the opening, conduct, and effects of main proceedings, including asset realization and creditor priorities. COMI is presumed to be the for companies (absent recent relocation) and is objectively ascertainable to prevent (Article 3). Secondary proceedings may open in a where the has an "establishment" (e.g., a with assets), limited to local assets under that state's , but the main practitioner can propose undertakings to avoid them and ensure coordinated distribution (Articles 36 and 38). This hybrid structure fosters unity while accommodating local protections.

Recognition and Enforcement

Foreign Judgments

The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in private international law involves determining whether a decision rendered by a court in one jurisdiction will be given effect in another, typically to allow for its execution, such as through asset seizure or compliance orders. This process is governed by principles of comity, reciprocity, and statutory frameworks that balance respect for foreign judicial authority with protections for local interests. Jurisdiction over the defendant or subject matter serves as a foundational prerequisite for recognition, ensuring the foreign court had a legitimate basis to adjudicate the dispute. In jurisdictions, the approach to recognizing foreign judgments is primarily comity-based, as articulated in the seminal U.S. case Hilton v. Guyot (159 U.S. 113, 1895), which established that a foreign judgment merits recognition if it is final and conclusive on the merits, the rendering court had proper , and there is reciprocity in the treatment of judgments between the jurisdictions involved. Under this doctrine, courts exercise discretion to enforce foreign judgments without reexamining the underlying merits, provided the judgment aligns with principles of international fairness and does not contravene local . This comity principle has influenced recognition practices in other countries, such as the and , where enforcement is sought through procedures like registration under statutory schemes, emphasizing procedural regularity and absence of bias in the foreign proceedings. Within the , the framework for recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is harmonized under Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, known as Ia, which mandates automatic recognition of judgments from member state courts without the need for a special procedure or declaration of enforceability. This regulation applies to judgments that are final and enforceable in the state of origin, prohibiting any review of the foreign court's except in narrowly defined cases, such as where the was not properly served or entered an appearance solely to contest . Ia ensures streamlined enforcement across the by treating judgments as if they were domestic, with limited grounds for refusal, thereby promoting the free circulation of judicial decisions and reducing barriers to cross-border litigation. Despite these facilitative approaches, several defenses may preclude recognition and . A primary defense is lack of by the foreign , where the was not afforded or the lacked a reasonable connection to the dispute, rendering the judgment void . Another key defense is , either intrinsic (affecting the underlying claim) or extrinsic (vitiating the judicial process itself), which allows courts to deny enforcement if the judgment was procured through material or deceit. violations provide a further ground for refusal, applicable when enforcement would contravene fundamental principles of the recognizing jurisdiction, such as norms or core legal values, though this exception is narrowly construed to avoid undermining international . Finally, denial of , including procedural unfairness like absence of a fair hearing or , serves as a defense to protect against judgments obtained in violation of basic standards. In the United States, many states have adopted the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (UFMJRA), promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 2005, to standardize the recognition of money judgments from foreign countries. The UFMJRA provides that a foreign-country judgment qualifying as final, conclusive, and enforceable where rendered is entitled to recognition unless defenses such as lack of , , incompatibility, or incompatibility with another final judgment are established by the debtor. This act applies only to money judgments, excluding those for taxes, fines, or matters, and requires filing the foreign judgment as an action in the recognizing court for , promoting uniformity while incorporating safeguards. As of 2025, 29 states and the District of Columbia have enacted versions of the UFMJRA, facilitating predictable cross-border .

Foreign Arbitral Awards and Public Policy Limits

The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the context of conflict of laws is primarily governed by the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly known as the New York Convention, which has been ratified by 172 states as of 2025. This treaty obligates contracting states to recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforceable in their territories, provided the awards arise from international commercial disputes and meet basic procedural requirements, such as the submission of the authenticated award and the underlying arbitration agreement. The Convention promotes uniformity and predictability by limiting refusals to a narrow set of enumerated grounds under Article V, including invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice or opportunity to present a case, awards exceeding the scope of submission to arbitration, improper composition of the arbitral tribunal or arbitral procedure, and awards that have been set aside or suspended by a competent authority in the country of origin. Complementing the New York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial , adopted in 1985 and amended in 2006, provides a framework for domestic legislation to facilitate the of both foreign and domestic arbitral awards. As of 2025, 127 jurisdictions (93 States) have enacted legislation based on or influenced by the Model Law, which mandates recognition of awards as binding and their upon simple written application to a competent , without re-examination of the merits. A key feature is the doctrine of separability under Article 16, which treats the clause as an autonomous agreement separate from the main , allowing the validity of the clause to be assessed independently even if the primary is challenged. This principle, alongside competence-competence, empowers arbitral tribunals to rule on their own , reducing judicial interference and enhancing efficiency in cross-border disputes. The exception, outlined in Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention and mirrored in Article 36(1)(b)(ii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, serves as a critical but narrowly construed defense against . Courts interpret this exception restrictively, applying an of public policy rather than purely domestic notions, to avoid undermining the Convention's pro-enforcement objectives; for instance, enforcement is typically refused only for fundamental violations such as awards procured by or those enforcing penalties contrary to international norms. Similarly, under Article V(2)(a), refusal is permitted if the subject matter is not arbitrable under the enforcing state's law, but this is limited to matters deemed non-arbitrable by international standards, such as criminal offenses or certain antitrust claims, rather than broad domestic restrictions. This approach ensures that public policy does not become a general escape clause, with judicial decisions emphasizing that mere disagreement with the award's outcome or inconsistency with local law does not suffice. In contrast to the , which often relies on principles of and may involve broader reciprocity or jurisdictional analyses, arbitral awards benefit from greater finality due to the parties' explicit consent to and the treaty-based uniformity of the New York Convention regime. This consensual foundation minimizes challenges to validity and promotes swift enforcement, distinguishing awards from state-issued judgments that lack such inherent party agreement.

References

  1. https://guides.law.byu.edu/conflicts/definitions
  2. https://www.ali.org/publications/restatement-law-second/conflict-laws
  3. https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1459&context=smulr
  4. https://guides.jenkinslaw.org/restatement-conflict-laws
  5. https://libguides.law.ucla.edu/privateinternational
  6. https://www.hcch.net/en/about
  7. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2976&context=lcp
  8. https://law.duke.edu/ilrt/def_terms_3.htm
  9. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/international_law
  10. https://campusguides.lib.utah.edu/c.php?g=160671&p=4171915
  11. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lex_fori
  12. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/4091/Qualification__Classification__or_Characterization_Problem_in_the_Conflict_of_Laws.pdf?sequence=2
  13. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11220&context=mlr
  14. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=faculty_scholarship
  15. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=11205&context=ilj
  16. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3442&context=vlr
  17. https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/wphabitualresidence.htm
  18. https://max-eup2012.mpipriv.de/index.php/Habitual_Residence
  19. https://max-eup2012.mpipriv.de/index.php/Connecting_Factors_%28PIL%29
  20. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e716
  21. https://academic.oup.com/book/56268/chapter/445190515
  22. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7998&context=penn_law_review
  23. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6341&context=penn_law_review
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/preclassical-conflict-of-laws/bartolus-da-sassoferrato-and-the-conflict-of-laws-in-the-middle-ages/56448CED4741B6DE024E35EFA42F94C1
  25. https://academic.oup.com/book/1740/chapter/141370004
  26. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1600774
  27. https://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/lhsemclh/readings/Hatzimihail_Bartolus_RHDI_2007.pdf
  28. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/preclassical-conflict-of-laws/history-and-historiography-in-the-conflict-of-laws/5AE26F4AA974E1171EEB8F56E8BE0DD4
  29. https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_33-1
  30. https://archive.org/details/commentariesonc17storgoog
  31. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/the-old-conventions/1902-marriage-convention
  32. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=32
  33. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:41980D0126
  34. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32001R0044
  35. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/20.500.13051/4094/2/Restatement_of_the_Conflict_of_Laws.pdf
  36. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/party-autonomy-in-private-international-law/historical-and-theoretical-foundations-of-party-autonomy/CED3147C1C0D3452C324B80DFABE84EA
  37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25657643
  38. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-7-1-1/ALDE_00000907/
  39. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/
  40. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/overview-of-personal-jurisdiction-and-due-process
  41. https://www.lexplug.com/topics/civil-procedure/traditional-bases
  42. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/310/
  43. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minimum_contacts
  44. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/long-arm_statute
  45. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/592/351/
  46. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/600/122/
  47. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/465/783/
  48. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/1215/oj/eng
  49. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0268
  50. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1330
  51. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/internl-judicial-asst/Service-of-Process/Foreign-Sovereign-Immunities-Act.html
  52. https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/us-supreme-court-holds-fsia-does-not-require-proof-minimum-contacts-us-court-exercise
  53. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1458
  54. https://academic.oup.com/book/26873/chapter/195916968
  55. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/preclassical-conflict-of-laws/uses-of-history-in-private-international-law/EF22C341935F661EB90B3CF0AC27D4CB
  56. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24311926
  57. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jsinger/files/sf.pdf
  58. https://subscription.westacademic.com/Book/Detail?id=27102&q=Principles%2520of%2520Conflict%2520of%2520Laws
  59. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/mlr/article/3123/&path_info=uc.pdf
  60. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1979&context=facpub
  61. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4635&context=uclrev
  62. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2568175
  63. https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/restatement-second-of-conflict-of-laws-188
  64. https://msgre2.people.wm.edu/2ndRestatement.html
  65. https://www.tysonmendes.com/colorados-approach-to-resolve-a-conflict-of-laws/
  66. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/party-autonomy-in-private-international-law/C20C28D1166FB11147E987D667397013
  67. https://assets.hcch.net/docs/09654ddf-b26f-4751-9dd2-bdc517086366.pdf
  68. https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/context/bjil/article/1004/viewcontent/Party_Autonomy.pdf
  69. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstreams/bc67b853-c599-4592-adad-4efd03aa3088/download
  70. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1370&context=eilr
  71. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5207438
  72. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3182&context=flr
  73. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2767&context=buffalolawreview
  74. https://red.library.usd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3408&context=sdlrev
  75. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32007R0864
  76. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2857&context=lawreview
  77. https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/wstreng/conflicts/02.html
  78. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2d/67/551.html
  79. https://kb.osu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/2e534fc1-df02-5c86-9c15-f51f4dbea09f/content
  80. https://www.idi-iil.org/app/uploads/2017/06/1983_camb_01_en.pdf
  81. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1510&context=djcil
  82. https://www.academia.edu/102300106/Choice_of_law_in_relation_to_matrimonial_property_in_the_21st_century
  83. https://rdo-olr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/olr_2.1_lipstein.pdf
  84. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=24
  85. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1111/oj
  86. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/650/oj/eng
  87. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4518&context=vlr
  88. https://cpilj.law.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2515/2018/10/8.2-Conflicting-Approaches-Legalizing-Same-Sex-Marriage-Through-Conflicts-of-Law-by-Kimberly-N.-Chehardy.pdf
  89. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4175474
  90. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/8424750.pdf
  91. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4547183
  92. https://academic.oup.com/book/26624/chapter/195313090
  93. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R0848
  94. https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/BrandEnforce.pdf
  95. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/159/113/
  96. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2699&context=faculty_scholarship
  97. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2091&context=vjtl
  98. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-4/07-fraud-as-defense.html
  99. https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home?CommunityKey=ae280c30-094a-4d8f-b722-8dcd614a8f3e
  100. https://tlblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2005-Uniform-Act.pdf
  101. https://tlblog.org/enforcing-foreign-judgments-in-non-uniform-act-states/
  102. https://www.newyorkconvention.org/contracting-states
  103. https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/new-york-convention-e.pdf
  104. https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/06-54671_ebook.pdf
  105. https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/commercial_arbitration/status
  106. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guide-challenging-and-enforcing-arbitration-awards/4th-edition/article/arbitrability-and-public-policy-challenges
  107. https://www.charlesrussellspeechlys.com/en/insights/expert-insights/dispute-resolution/2025/public-policy-in-international-arbitration/
  108. https://moulislegal.com/knowledge-centre/levelling-the-playing-field-enforcement-of-arbitral-awards-vs-foreign-court-judgments/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.