Hubbry Logo
Lex lociLex lociMain
Open search
Lex loci
Community hub
Lex loci
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Lex loci
Lex loci
Lex loci
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In conflict of laws, the term lex loci (Law Latin for "the law of the place")[1] is a shorthand version of the choice of law rules that determine the lex causae (the laws chosen to decide a case).[2]

General principles

[edit]

When a case comes before a court, if the main features of the case (particularly the parties and the causes of action) are local, the court will then apply the lex fori, the prevailing municipal law, to decide the case. However, if there are "foreign" elements to the case, the court may then be obliged, under conflict of laws, to consider whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case (see forum shopping). The court must then characterise the issues to allocate the factual basis of the case to its relevant legal classes. The court may then be required to apply the choice of law rules to decide the lex causae, the law to be applied to each cause of action.[3]

Relevant rules include the following.

Lex causae

[edit]

Lex causae (Latin for "law of the cause"), in conflict of laws, is the law chosen by the forum court from the relevant legal systems when it judges an international or interjurisdictional case. It refers to the usage of particular local laws as the basis or "cause" for the ruling, which would itself become part of referenced legal canon.

Conflict of laws regulates all lawsuits involving foreign law if the outcome of a legal action would differ by the laws applied. Once the forum court has ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the case, it must then decide which possible law is to be applied.

Lex concursus

[edit]

The lex concursus (or, sometimes, lex fori consursus) is the Latin term for the "law of the place of insolvency proceedings" relating to cross-border insolvency.[4][5] It is also sometimes used more generally in relation to the distribution of a limited fund within the control of the court.[6]

Lex domicilii

[edit]

The lex domicilii or lex loci domicilii[2] is the Latin term for "law of the domicile" in the conflict of laws. Conflict is the branch of public law regulating all lawsuits involving a "foreign" law element where a difference in result will occur depending on which laws are applied.

Lex fori

[edit]

Lex fori (Latin: the law of the forum) is a choice of law rule. If applicable, it provides that the law of the jurisdiction or venue in which a legal action is brought applies.[7][2]

When a court decides that it should, by reason of the principles of conflict of law, resolve a given legal dispute by reference to the laws of another jurisdiction, the lex causae, the lex fori still governs procedural matters.[8]

Lex loci actus

[edit]

In the conflict of laws, lex loci actus or lex actus[2] is the law of the place where the act occurred that gave rise to the legal claim. This is often confused with lex loci delicti commissi which is where the tort is committed. While typically they both point to the same location, in the case of product liability, for example, the lex loci actus would be the place of manufacturing, while the lex loci delicti commissi would be the place of injury.

Lex loci arbitri

[edit]

The lex loci arbitri is the Latin term for "law of the place where arbitration is to take place" in the conflict of laws. Conflict is the branch of public law regulating all lawsuits involving a "foreign" law element where a difference in result will occur depending on which laws are applied.

When a case comes before a court and all the main features of the case are local, the court will apply the lex fori, the prevailing municipal law, to decide the case. But if there are "foreign" elements to the case, the forum court may be obliged under the conflict of laws system to consider:

  • whether the forum court has jurisdiction to hear the case (see the problem of forum shopping);
  • it must then characterise the issues (i.e., allocate the factual basis of the case to its relevant legal classes); and
  • then apply the choice of law rules to decide which law is to be applied to each class.

The lex loci arbitri is an element in the choice of law rules applied to cases testing the validity of a contract. As an aspect of the public policy of freedom of contract, the parties to an agreement are free to include a forum selection clause or a choice of law clause and, unless there is a lack of bona fides, these clauses will be considered valid. If there is no express selection of a proper law, the courts will usually take the nomination of a forum as a "connecting factor", i.e. a fact that links a case to a specific geographical location. For these purposes, one of the "forums" that may be selected is arbitration. Hence, the fact that the parties have chosen a state as the place of arbitration is an indication that parties may have intended the local law to apply. This indication will be weighed alongside other connecting factors. The state that has the largest number of connecting factors will be the lex causae applied to resolve the dispute between the parties. If there is a tie, the connecting factors which relate to performance will be given a greater weighting.

Lex loci celebrationis

[edit]

Lex loci celebrationis is a Latin term for a legal principle in English common law, roughly translated as "the law of the land (lex loci) where it was celebrated". It refers to the validity of the union, independent of the laws of marriage of the countries involved: where the two individuals have legal nationality or citizenship, or where they live (reside or are domiciled). The assumption under the common law is that such a marriage, when lawfully and validly celebrated under the relevant law of the land, is also lawful and valid. [citation needed]

[edit]

In the United Kingdom, the jurisdiction of England, or England and Wales, as well as in many other legal jurisdictions largely or partly following the British tradition of jurisprudence, in addition to their modified local versions of the English common law, the legal principle behind the legal term was modified, qualified and further elaborated, both by legal developments in the common law (Lord Dunedin's Berthiaume v D'Astous case (HL 1930) (AC 79), in which Dunedin in the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords ruled that "If a marriage is good by the laws of the country where it is effected, it is good all the world over, no matter whether the proceedings or ceremony which constituted marriage according to the law of the place would not constitute marriage in the country of the domicile of one or other of the spouses. If the so-called marriage is no marriage in the place where it is celebrated, there is no marriage anywhere, although the ceremonial proceedings if conducted in the place of the parties’ domicile would be considered a good marriage"), as well as by codification in statute by the Foreign Marriage Act 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 23).[citation needed] Under the English common law, whether a party needs to be present is treated as a formality of the marriage ceremony, so if a proxy marriage is valid by the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated then it will be recognised in England.[9][10]

Lex loci contractus

[edit]
Main article: Lex loci contractus

In the conflict of laws, the lex loci contractus is the Latin term for "law of the place where the contract is made".[11][2]

Lex loci delicti commissi

[edit]
Further information: Conflict of tort laws
The Washington Supreme Court meets in the Temple of Justice in Olympia. There is also a Federal Court. Two courts with overlapping jurisdictions can create a conflicts of law in torts (delict) cases.

The lex loci delicti commissi or lex loci delictus[2] is the Latin term for "law of the place where the delict [tort] was committed"[12] in the conflict of laws. Conflict of laws is the branch of law regulating all lawsuits involving a "foreign" law element where a difference in result will occur depending on which laws are applied.

The term is often shortened to lex loci delicti.

Lex loci protectionis (Schutzlandprinzip)

[edit]

Lex loci protectionis (Latin: "[the] law of the place where the protection is [claimed]") is a choice of law rule applied to cases concerning the infringement of intellectual property (IP) rights, such as copyrights or patents.

It stipulates that the law applied to such cases is the law of the locus protectionis, that is, the law of the country for which legal protection for the intellectual property is claimed.[13] Consequently, the law of the country where the intellectual property was created or registered is not applied.

Lex loci protectionis is generally accepted as the prevailing choice of law rule for IP rights, at least as concerns the existence, validity, scope and duration of the rights.[13] Article 8 (1) of the European Union's Rome II Regulation codifies it as follows:

The law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising from an infringement of an intellectual property right shall be the law of the country for which protection is claimed.

Lex loci rei sitae (or Lex situs)

[edit]

Lex loci rei sitae (Latin for "law of the place where the property is situated"), or simply lex situs,[14] is the doctrine that the law governing the transfer of title to property is dependent upon and varies with the location of the property, for the purposes of the conflict of laws. Conflict is the branch of public law regulating all lawsuits involving a "foreign" law element if a difference in result will occur, depending on which laws are applied.

Lex loci solutionis

[edit]

Lex loci solutionis (Latin: "law of the place of performance"), in conflict of laws, is the law applied in the place of an event.

Lex loci solutionis is one of the possible choice of law rules applied to cases that test the validity of a contract or that deal with a tort. For example, if a person domiciled in Bolivia and a person habitually resident in Germany make a contract by e-mail and agree to meet in Arizona to research a book, there would be several possibly-relevant choice of law rules:

  • the lex domicilii, lex patriae or the law of habitual residence to determine whether the parties had the capacity to enter into the contract;
  • lex loci contractus, which could be difficult to establish since both parties never left their own state (reliance on postal rules for offer and acceptance in the several putative lex causae might produce different results)
  • lex loci solutionis might be the most relevant since Arizona is the most closely connected to the substance of the obligations assumed
  • the proper law
  • lex fori, which might have public policy issues if one of the parties is a minor.

Lex patriae

[edit]

Lex patriae (Latin: law of the fatherland, in modern usage, nationality law), in conflict of laws, is the system of public law applied to a lawsuit if a choice is to be made between two or more laws that would change the outcome.

Locus in quo

[edit]

Locus in quo means, in British common law, the "scene of the event" [15]

The phrase comes from the Latin language, meaning "The place in which".[16][17][18]

In civil cases, locus in quo refers to "the place where the cause of action arose", that is, the land to which the defendant trespassed.[19] In criminal cases, it may be used to refer to the scene of the crime. It may also be used, more generally, as any place mentioned, that is, the venue or place mentioned.[20][21]

See also

[edit]

References

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

Lex loci

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Lex loci is a Latin phrase translating to "the law of the place," referring to a foundational principle in private international law (also known as ) that the legal rules of the where a legal event or transaction occurs govern the and obligations arising from it. This territorial approach ensures predictability and uniformity by applying the law of the situs or location pertinent to the matter, such as the place of a contract's formation or a tort's commission. The origins of the lex loci principle trace back to medieval Italian jurisprudence, particularly the work of Bartolus of Saxoferrato (1313–1357), a prominent commentator on within the ius commune tradition. Bartolus addressed conflicts between local statutes and imperial law by emphasizing territorial application, developing early choice-of-law rules based on the idea that the law of the place (locus regit actum) governs acts performed there to promote validity and public order. His distinctions between personal and real statutes, as well as form and substance, laid the groundwork for later systems, influencing 19th-century scholars like and , who integrated lex loci into modern frameworks. Key applications of lex loci manifest in specific variants tailored to different legal categories. Lex loci contractus dictates that the law of the place where a is executed determines its validity and interpretation. Similarly, lex loci delicti (or lex loci delicti commissi) applies the law of the where a or wrong occurred to resolve liability and . Other forms include lex loci rei sitae for immovable disputes, where the law of the 's governs, and lex loci celebrationis for the formalities of marriages or ceremonies. These rules stem from Bartolus's medieval formulations, which prioritized the place of the act for solemnities and prohibitions. In contemporary practice, particularly in the United States, the strict lex loci approach has faced criticism for producing arbitrary or unjust outcomes in multistate cases, leading to its partial abandonment in favor of more flexible tests. As of 2022, nine states continue to adhere to lex loci delicti for torts to ensure predictability, while many jurisdictions, including , have adopted or incorporated the "most significant relationship" test from the Restatement (Second) of § 145, which weighs factors like the parties' domiciles and the event's location. The approved the torts chapter of the Restatement (Third) of in 2023, promoting further flexibility. For contracts, lex loci contractus remains influential in states following traditional rules, though modern approaches often incorporate party autonomy and closest connection analyses. Overall, lex loci endures as a of territorial sovereignty in , balancing historical precedent with evolving judicial needs.

Overview and Historical Context

Definition and Scope

Lex loci, a Latin term translating to "the law of the place," refers to a foundational principle in private whereby the legal rules of the where a particular legal fact, transaction, or event occurs determine the governing for that aspect of the matter. This approach prioritizes the territorial connection to the event in question, ensuring that the law applied aligns with the location's regulatory framework and considerations. In the context of , lex loci serves as a key choice-of-law rule to resolve disputes involving cross-border elements, such as when parties or events span multiple jurisdictions. It emphasizes territoriality over personal ties like or domicile, applying the of the situs or place of the act to promote predictability and respect for within borders. For instance, in a where a is executed in one country but its performance occurs in another, lex loci might dictate that the of the execution place governs formation, while the performance location's applies to fulfillment obligations. The principle's scope extends broadly to areas like contracts, torts, and property, but it adapts to specific variants tailored to the legal category involved. Its modern relevance has grown amid and the rise of , where transnational transactions challenge traditional territorial boundaries and necessitate clear rules for applicable law. In the , harmonization efforts underscore this, as seen in the (EC) No 593/2008, which codifies choice-of-law rules for contractual obligations and has been retained and amended post-Brexit through the UK's Jurisdiction, Judgments and Applicable Law (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 to address ongoing cross-border needs.

Origins and Evolution

The principle of lex loci, or the law of the place, traces its roots to in the 6th century, as compiled in Justinian's Digest, where territoriality played a central role in governing property rights and obligations. Fragments in the Digest, such as those in Book 41 on the acquisition of property, emphasized that the law applicable to immovables was that of the situs, ensuring that legal effects followed the location of the asset to maintain order in transactions across the empire's diverse regions. This approach contrasted with more personalist rules for citizens but established a foundational territorial framework for resolving disputes involving localized rights and duties. During the medieval period, the lex loci concept was adopted and expanded in canon law and civilian legal systems, particularly through the commentaries of Bartolus de Saxoferrato in the 14th century. Bartolus, in his works on statutory interpretation such as the commentary on the Digest, distinguished between universal (imperial) laws and local statutes, arguing that real statutes—those concerning property and acts—applied territorially under the maxim statuta sua cuique civitati restringenda sunt (statutes should be restricted to their own city). His postglossator method integrated Roman principles with emerging city-state jurisdictions, influencing the ius commune across Europe and laying the groundwork for modern choice-of-law analysis in mixed legal environments. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, lex loci influenced major codifications and scholarly systems, including the French Civil Code of 1804, which in Article 3 emphasized territorial application for certain laws, including those governing immovables by the law of their situs, thereby influencing approaches to cross-border uniformity. This territorial focus was further systematized by Friedrich Carl von Savigny's 1849 treatise System des heutigen römischen Rechts (Volume 8), which proposed a seat theory for legal relations, linking obligations and property to their natural territorial connections rather than rigid formalism, thereby evolving lex loci into a more nuanced multilateral framework adopted in U.S. cases and European doctrines. These developments paved the way for multilateral conventions, such as those emerging in the late 19th century under the influence of international legal societies. Post-World War II, lex loci principles were integrated into global instruments like the 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, which defaults to the law of the country most closely connected to the contract (Article 4), incorporating territorial elements akin to lex loci absent party choice, facilitating trade harmonization. In the , the recast Brussels Ia Regulation (EU No 1215/2012) on , effective from 2015, incorporated territorial connecting factors for enforcement.

Fundamental Principles

Role in Conflict of Laws

In , lex loci functions as a foundational choice-of-law rule that determines the applicable by reference to the where a key legal event or act occurs, serving as a default mechanism when parties have not explicitly selected a governing law through a choice-of-law clause. This approach prioritizes the territorial connection to the place of the relevant act, such as the formation of a contract or the commission of a tort, ensuring predictability and respect for the sovereign interests of that in regulating activities within its borders. For instance, in cross-border contracts without a specified law, courts may apply lex loci contractus—the law of the place where the contract was executed—to assess its validity and interpretation. The application of lex loci balances territorial sovereignty, which emphasizes the authority of the law at the place of the act to govern outcomes arising there, against party autonomy, which permits contracting parties to select their preferred law in many jurisdictions. However, this balance is subject to public policy exceptions, known as ordre public, where a forum court may refuse to enforce the lex loci if it contravenes fundamental principles of the forum's legal system, such as protections against or . These exceptions prevent rigid territorial application from undermining core values, allowing flexibility in multinational disputes while maintaining the rule's role as a baseline for . Lex loci primarily governs substantive issues—such as , obligations, and liabilities—while procedural matters, including rules and statutes of limitations, are deferred to the lex fori, or of the forum , to ensure efficient . This distinction preserves the integrity of the forum's judicial processes without altering the core substantive rules derived from the place of the act. In a hypothetical multinational dispute, such as a negotiated in , signed in , and disputed in a U.S. , lex loci might apply German to validate the agreement's formation, subject to U.S. review, while U.S. procedural rules handle the trial mechanics.

Distinction from Other Choice-of-Law Rules

Lex loci, as a territorial choice-of-law rule, fundamentally differs from lex personalis, which governs an individual's personal status based on their national , domicile, or rather than the location of an event. While lex loci applies the law of the place where a legal act or transaction occurs—such as the situs of a or —lex personalis, including variants like lex patriae ( of nationality) or lex domicilii ( of domicile), regulates matters tied to the person's inherent attributes, such as legal capacity, , or family relationships, ensuring consistency regardless of geographic shifts. For instance, a person's capacity to marry is determined by their lex personalis, not the lex loci of the ceremony. In contrast to lex fori, the law of the forum where the case is litigated, lex loci focuses on substantive derived from the foreign jurisdiction's at the event's , whereas lex fori mandates the application of the forum's procedural rules, such as standards or limitations periods, to maintain judicial and . This distinction ensures that while substantive obligations under lex loci are respected, the forum's procedural framework prevails, preventing the importation of incompatible foreign procedures. Courts may still renounce lex loci application if it contravenes the forum's , underscoring lex fori's overriding role in procedural matters. Lex loci also contrasts with lex causae, the overall "proper " governing the substantive in a dispute, particularly in multifaceted litigation involving multiple jurisdictions; lex loci ties the law strictly to the specific event's , while lex causae may incorporate broader connecting factors like the parties' intent or the dispute's center of gravity to determine the most appropriate governing law. In complex cases, such as international contracts with elements spanning borders, lex causae provides a holistic framework beyond the event-specific rigidity of lex loci, allowing for party autonomy or judicial discretion. The territorial anchoring of lex loci promotes predictability and uniformity in cross-border transactions by vesting at the place of occurrence, reducing forum-shopping risks and facilitating consistent outcomes across jurisdictions, as rooted in the vested theory. This approach contrasts with the more fluid, person- or cause-oriented rules, offering a clear, location-based certainty that supports international . In family law contexts, for example, lex domicilii may briefly intersect by prioritizing personal status over territorial rules for ongoing matters like custody.

Applications in Contracts

Lex loci contractus

Lex loci contractus is a principle in private international that designates the law of the where a contract is executed as the governing law for its formation, interpretation, and formal validity. This rule ensures predictability by tying the contract's essential attributes to the legal framework at the point of creation, rather than subsequent events or intentions. The under lex loci contractus is typically determined by the of the final act that completes the , such as the signing of the document or the of an offer. This focus distinguishes it from rules concerning performance, emphasizing the situs of agreement over fulfillment. For instance, if an offer is made in one and accepted in another, the often controls. A seminal English case illustrating this principle is Hamlyn & Co v AC 202, where the held that governed the validity of an in a executed in between an English firm and a Scottish distillery, despite performance occurring in . The court emphasized that the lex loci contractus——determined the enforceability of the clause, rejecting arguments based solely on the place of performance. In modern applications, lex loci contractus has been largely supplanted by party autonomy in international contexts. Under the (2016), parties may select these principles or another law to govern their agreement, overriding traditional territorial rules like lex loci contractus unless no choice is specified. Similarly, Article 3 of the (EC) No 593/2008 permits parties to choose the applicable law expressly or impliedly for contractual obligations within the EU, with this choice prevailing over the lex loci contractus. This shift prioritizes contractual intent while retaining lex loci contractus as a default in jurisdictions without explicit choice-of-law provisions. In contrast to lex loci solutionis, which addresses obligations at the place of performance, lex loci contractus remains confined to initial validity.

Lex loci solutionis

Lex loci solutionis refers to the of the place where a is to be performed, which governs aspects of fulfillment, discharge, , and remedies associated with that . This principle ensures that obligations related to carrying out the align with the legal expectations at the site of performance, distinct from rules governing formation. Unlike lex loci contractus, which determines the validity and interpretation based on the place of formation, lex loci solutionis operates separately to address execution and breach at the performance site. For instance, if a is formed in but requires in , German would typically apply to issues of breach, , and remedies, even if French governs formation. In the United States, the Restatement (Second) of § 188 (1971) incorporates the place of performance as a key contact in the "most significant relationship" test for determining applicable to contract rights and duties, particularly emphasizing it for performance-related issues. This approach prioritizes the performance location when it bears substantially on the 's obligations, as seen in cases where illegality or mode of performance is at stake, such as Ralli Bros. & Co. v. Compañía Naviera Sota y Aznar, where Spanish at the performance place () invalidated freight payment due to a local decree. Exceptions to strict application of lex loci solutionis include party autonomy, where parties may select a different governing via choice-of- clauses, provided it does not contravene . In the , the (EC) No 593/2008, Article 3, upholds party , while Article 4 employs a closest connection test—factoring in the place of performance among other elements—when no is made, allowing deviation if another manifests stronger ties.

Applications in Torts

Lex loci delicti commissi

Lex loci delicti commissi, meaning "the law of the place where the is committed," is a choice-of-law rule in private that governs the substantive liability and remedies for claims based on the where the wrongful act or the resulting injury occurred. This principle determines which legal system applies to issues such as the existence of a , the , and the assessment of damages in cross-border disputes. Traditionally, it emphasizes the location of the delict's commission to promote predictability and uniformity in resolving tortious obligations. The rule encompasses dual aspects: the place of the wrongful act (lex loci actus) and the place of the harm (lex loci damni), with modern frameworks often prioritizing the latter to better align with the victim's interests. In the , Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), effective from 2007, codifies this by defaulting to the law of the country where the damage occurs, irrespective of the act's location or indirect consequences, unless parties choose otherwise or special rules apply. For instance, Article 4(1) specifies that for non-contractual obligations from torts or delicts, the applicable law is that of the harm's situs, reflecting a shift from rigid traditionalism to a more victim-oriented approach. A landmark illustration is the English case Boys v Chaplin AC 356, where a motor vehicle accident in injured an English ; while Maltese law (lex loci delicti) governed liability and limited to pecuniary losses, the flexibly applied to award general for , rejecting strict adherence to the place of injury. In the United States, lex loci delicti remains the traditional rule in approximately 13 states, such as and New York, where it is typically interpreted as the law of the place of injury (lex loci damni) to determine liability and damages in actions. For example, in Kight v. Carter (1995), the Florida Supreme Court applied lex loci delicti to a multistate car accident, using the law of the state where the injuries occurred for substantive issues, ensuring uniformity despite parties' connections elsewhere. This approach contrasts with the "most significant relationship" test adopted in other jurisdictions under the Restatement (Second) of § 145. Contemporary challenges arise in cyber-torts, where digital acts like online or data breaches span multiple jurisdictions, complicating the identification of a single "place" of commission or harm. Under Rome II, the law of the country sustaining direct damage applies, potentially invoking the "mosaic principle" to apply different laws to distinct elements of harm across borders, as seen in cases involving widespread dissemination. This evolution addresses the borderless nature of online torts, ensuring remedies reflect the locus of significant impact while balancing jurisdictional overlaps.

Lex loci actus

In the context of torts, lex loci actus refers to the of the place where the wrongful act (the "actus") was performed, serving as a connecting factor in choice-of- rules for determining substantive liability in delicts. This principle, historically prominent in systems, applies the of the jurisdiction where the defendant's conduct occurred, particularly useful when the act and resulting harm happen in different places, to assess issues like or wrongfulness of behavior. It contrasts with lex loci damni (place of harm) and forms part of the broader lex loci delicti commissi framework, promoting territorial in attributing responsibility. Traditionally, English courts applied lex loci actus for the wrongfulness of the act, as seen in pre-Boys v Chaplin cases where the site of the conduct governed whether an act was , while the lex fori might handle remedies. For instance, in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1, the court required actionability under both the lex fori and lex loci (interpreted as the place of the act) for claims arising from foreign events, emphasizing the act's location for substantive validity. In modern practice, while many jurisdictions have shifted to more flexible tests, lex loci actus retains influence in civil law systems and residual applications, such as Canadian provinces following traditional rules for intentional s where the act's situs determines intent or standards. This rule aids in cases like cross-border negligence, where the defendant's action in one state causes harm elsewhere; the lex loci actus would govern the standard of conduct, ensuring the law of the acting evaluates if the behavior was wrongful, separate from damage assessment. However, it may be displaced by exceptions for or when the place of harm provides a stronger connection, as under Rome II's (Article 4(3)).

Applications in Property and Succession

Lex loci rei sitae

Lex loci rei sitae, also known as the law of the situs, refers to the legal principle in private that the law of the where immovable is located governs matters concerning its , disposition, mortgages, and succession. This ensures that the validity of transfers, encumbrances, and rights for real , such as or buildings, is determined exclusively by the rules of the situs, regardless of the parties' nationality or domicile. The rationale for applying lex loci rei sitae stems from the principle of territorial sovereignty, which posits that a state exercises exclusive authority over immovable property within its borders to maintain control over , taxation, and public order. This approach prevents external laws from undermining local interests in . In , this rule was affirmed in the case of Re Annesley Ch 692, where the court upheld the application of to the disposition of English immovable despite the testator's French domicile, emphasizing that succession to immovables follows the lex situs to respect territorial . In international contexts, lex loci rei sitae addresses recognition challenges in cross-border transactions involving immovable , requiring compliance with the situs law for validity even when parties invoke uniform conventions like the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG, 1980). While the CISG primarily governs sales of movable goods and excludes direct application to immovables, cross-border deals must still adhere to situs rules for title transfer and enforceability. Exceptions to this strict application are limited; for instance, while movable property may generally be governed by the owner's personal law, immovables remain firmly subject to the lex loci rei sitae to uphold .

Lex situs

Lex situs, in the context of private international law, denotes the law of the where is physically or legally situated, governing the validity, transfer, and creation of interests in both tangible and intangible assets. This principle ensures predictability and protects third-party interests by applying the local law to dealings with assets located within a , particularly for transfers where the situs is assessed at the time of the transaction. For tangible movables, such as or , the lex situs determines the formalities required for conveyance and the priority of competing claims, overriding the parties' if it conflicts with local rules. In succession matters, the application of lex situs varies by property type: it governs immovables (as per lex loci rei sitae), while succession to movables is typically determined by the lex domicilii, the law of the deceased's domicile at the time of death. For transfers of movables, the situs at the moment of transfer governs, distinguishing it from rules based on the owner's domicile. In the English case of Hardwick Game Farm v. Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association 2 AC 31, the affirmed that a for the sale of corporeal movables, even if governed by , requires compliance with the lex situs—in this instance, Scottish law—for the transfer to be effective, highlighting the principle's role in validating delivery and possession. Similarly, in U.S. , the in Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania (1891) recognized that while movables may follow the owner's domicile for some purposes, taxation and transfer of title are controlled by the lex situs to avoid extraterritorial overreach. For intangible assets like shares or debts, the situs is often equated with the location of the underlying documentation or the debtor's residence, ensuring security interests are enforceable under local requirements. Specialized regimes address high-value movables prone to frequent relocation, such as ships and , where traditional lex situs could lead to uncertainty due to shifting locations. The Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (2001), along with its Aircraft Protocol, establishes a supranational framework for registering and prioritizing security interests in , engines, and helicopters, effectively harmonizing rules across signatory states and mitigating lex situs variability by designating the location of the object at registration or transfer. This convention, ratified by over 80 countries as of 2025, facilitates global financing by allowing interests to be recognized internationally without reliance on the instantaneous situs, particularly beneficial for cross-border leases and sales. For ships, ongoing discussions explore extending similar protocols under auspices, though current practice still defers to the lex situs of the vessel's for title transfers. Contemporary challenges to lex situs arise with crypto-assets and blockchain-based intangibles, which lack a physical and exist on decentralized ledgers, complicating the determination of situs for transfers and enforcement. Traditional rules struggle here, as assets like can be controlled from anywhere, prompting jurisdictions to adopt alternative connecting factors such as the of the private key or the platform's server. In 2024, the Law Commission's project on digital assets in private proposed reforms to address proprietary claims, considering factors like the asset's economic ties or controller's residence. Within the EU, the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (), fully applicable since December 2024, harmonizes oversight for crypto issuance and services but defers conflict-of-laws issues to the , leading to calls for specific rules on digital situs to address cross-border insolvencies and tracing. These developments underscore the need to adapt lex situs for borderless assets while preserving its core function of territorial protection.

Applications in Family and Personal Status

Lex loci celebrationis

Lex loci celebrationis is a principle in private that determines the formal validity of a according to the of the place where the is performed. This includes requirements such as the presence of witnesses, the form of the , and officiation by an authorized person, ensuring that compliance with local formalities renders the valid regardless of the parties' domicile. The rule promotes certainty and international recognition by prioritizing the lex loci celebrationis for these procedural aspects, while essential validity—such as the parties' capacity to —is governed separately by their personal . In the British legal tradition, this principle was firmly established in the Privy Council decision of Berthiaume v Dastous AC 79, where Viscount Dunedin emphasized that "locus regit actum," stating that "If a is good by the laws of the country where it is effected, it is good all the world over." In that case, a religious between parties domiciled in was performed in without the required under French law, rendering it invalid under the lex loci celebrationis. The ruling underscored that even if the ceremony aligns with the parties' religious or personal preferences, failure to meet the formal requirements of the celebration place nullifies the for recognition purposes. However, the application of lex loci celebrationis has limits, particularly regarding capacity and substantive effects, which typically follow the personal law of the parties, often the lex domicilii. The Hague Convention on the Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages codifies this distinction in Article 4, applying the lex loci celebrationis solely to formalities while deferring capacity issues to the law designated by each contracting state's rules, and Article 9 ensures recognition unless contrary to . This framework prevents "limping marriages"—valid in form but invalid in substance—and facilitates cross-border recognition among the 3 contracting states (, Luxembourg, and the ). In contemporary contexts, the principle has influenced the recognition of same-sex marriages, particularly following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in (576 U.S. 644, 2015), which mandated nationwide validity and recognition of such unions under the lex loci celebrationis where performed. This ruling, later reinforced by the of 2022, has extended the principle's application to ensure that same-sex marriages celebrated in permissive jurisdictions are honored across U.S. states and, by extension, in international private law analyses. For ongoing marital status, recognition may still intersect with the lex domicilii in non-contracting states.

Lex domicilii

Lex domicilii refers to the law of the domicile in private , which governs an individual's personal status, capacity to act, and certain matters, including obligations and parental . Domicile is defined as the place of a person's , coupled with the intention to remain there indefinitely, serving as the primary connecting factor for determining the applicable legal system in cross-border situations involving personal affairs. This principle ensures that the law most closely linked to an individual's life circumstances applies, promoting predictability and fairness in matters of personal law. There are three principal types of domicile recognized in private . The domicile of origin is acquired automatically at birth and is typically that of the (or the in cases of illegitimacy or parental incapacity), remaining in effect unless superseded; it is involuntary and serves as a default that revives if a subsequent domicile is lost. The domicile of choice arises when a person of full age and capacity establishes residence in a new location with the animus manendi, or fixed intention to settle permanently, thereby voluntarily selecting the governing . Finally, the domicile of dependence applies to minors, married women under certain historical rules, or those lacking legal capacity, aligning their domicile with that of their parent, spouse, or guardian. The landmark English case Udny v Udny (1869) solidified these distinctions, emphasizing that no can have more than one domicile at a time and that the domicile of origin persists until a domicile of is clearly established. In applications to , lex domicilii determines the personal consequences of , such as changes to and capacity, ensuring that the of the parties' domicile at the time of the governs these effects across jurisdictions. For and parental responsibility, it influences decisions on maintenance and rights, particularly where habitual residence aligns with domicile. The 1996 Hague Convention on , Applicable , Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children primarily applies the of the child's to parental responsibility, a concept akin to domicile that prioritizes the child's closest ties for protective measures and custody determinations. This approach facilitates cross-border enforcement while safeguarding the child's . In succession matters, the EU Succession Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 designates the law of the deceased's —functionally equivalent to domicile—as the default applicable law, allowing parties to choose the law of their for greater certainty amid increasing cross-border mobility. The , effective since , harmonizes and recognition of decisions to streamline estate administration in multinational contexts, though it excludes certain and administrative issues.

Applications in Specialized Areas

Lex causae

Lex causae, meaning "the law of the cause" in Latin, refers to the body of that governs the origin or underlying basis of an in a legal dispute involving foreign elements, particularly in private . It determines the applicable law for the merits of the case after choice-of-law rules are applied, focusing on the legal system most closely connected to the substantive issues rather than procedural matters. This principle is especially relevant in claims where the obligation arises from quasi-contractual or equitable grounds, such as , where no formal agreement exists but a benefit has been conferred unjustly. The scope of lex causae extends beyond isolated events or single locations, encompassing the broader context of the obligation's creation in complex or multi-element disputes. Unlike narrower rules tied to a specific place, it identifies the core causal connection, which may involve ongoing relationships or distributed actions across jurisdictions, ensuring the law applied reflects the dispute's fundamental nature. For instance, in cases of mixed claims combining contractual and non-contractual elements, lex causae helps resolve which law governs the intertwined obligations by prioritizing the substantive link. A prominent example appears in the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law of 1987, which employs lex causae for obligations arising from . Under Article 128, the applicable law is that of the underlying legal relationship from which the enrichment stems; if no such relationship exists, it defaults to the law of the state where the enrichment occurred, allowing parties to choose the forum's law in certain circumstances. This approach ensures coherent resolution in cross-border scenarios where enrichment results from interconnected transactions. Lex causae often supplements more location-specific principles like lex loci in multi-jurisdictional cases, providing a flexible mechanism to apply the most relevant substantive law when a single place cannot adequately capture the obligation's origin.

Lex concursus

Lex concursus, also referred to as lex fori concursus, is the governing law of the forum where insolvency proceedings are initiated, applicable to collective actions involving creditors in bankruptcy scenarios. It primarily regulates the administration of the insolvency estate, the ranking and distribution of creditor claims, and the avoidance of pre-insolvency transactions that may prejudice creditors. The applicable jurisdiction is typically determined by the debtor's center of main interests (COMI), which serves as the presumptive location for opening main proceedings and applying this law universally across affected assets and parties. In the , lex concursus is codified under Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on proceedings, the recast version effective since June 26, 2017, which harmonizes cross-border rules among member states. This regulation stipulates that lex concursus dictates all procedural and substantive effects of the proceedings, including the powers of the practitioner, claim priorities, and set-off rights, while allowing limited exceptions for third-party rights in rem or under specific financial contracts. For cross-border group insolvencies, the regulation introduces group coordination proceedings under Articles 61–77, enabling consolidated oversight by a coordinator to facilitate information sharing and joint plans without merging estates, thereby addressing complexities in multinational corporate failures. In the United States, Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, enacted in to implement the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, facilitates recognition of foreign main proceedings and the application of foreign lex concursus in ancillary U.S. proceedings. Upon recognition, U.S. courts may enforce effects of the foreign lex concursus, such as automatic stays on actions and the distribution of assets according to the foreign ranking rules. This approach promotes while permitting U.S. courts to modify relief if it conflicts with under 11 U.S.C. § 1506. Key challenges in applying lex concursus include , where debtors strategically select jurisdictions with debtor-friendly laws to manipulate COMI and gain advantages in proceedings, potentially undermining equality. Additionally, recognition of foreign stays—automatic prohibitions on —can face resistance in non-cooperative jurisdictions, leading to parallel litigations and asset races, as highlighted in critiques of the regulation's COMI presumptions and U.S. Chapter 15's standards. These issues persist despite efforts, emphasizing the need for enhanced international cooperation to mitigate jurisdictional conflicts.

Applications in International and Procedural Matters

Lex fori

Lex fori, meaning "the law of the forum," denotes the law of the jurisdiction in which a or is seized of a case, particularly as it applies to procedural and evidentiary matters in private . This principle mandates the application of the forum's own rules to the conduct of proceedings, the admissibility and proof of evidence, and the enforcement of judgments within that jurisdiction, ensuring uniformity and efficiency in litigation regardless of the parties' connections to foreign laws. The scope of lex fori is confined to procedural elements, deliberately excluding substantive issues such as the underlying rights and liabilities governed by choice-of-law rules like various lex loci. For example, in English courts, is regulated by lex fori under the , which require a claim form to be served on the within four months of issuance, with proof of service satisfying the forum's requirements even if effected abroad. This distinction preserves the forum's control over its judicial processes while deferring substantive determinations to applicable foreign law. In cases involving foreign law, lex fori serves as an overriding mechanism, particularly through the public policy exception, allowing courts to refuse application of or enforcement against rules from other jurisdictions—such as lex loci—that conflict with the forum's fundamental principles of , , or public order. This defensive role of prevents the forum from being compelled to uphold foreign norms incompatible with its core values, as seen in refusals to enforce foreign penal or revenue laws. Such overrides prioritize the forum's integrity without broadly displacing choice-of-law analyses. Contemporary developments reflect efforts to balance lex fori with international harmonization in enforcement matters. The 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, adopted on July 2, 2019, and entering into force for multiple states following ratifications in 2024—including the on July 1, 2025—establishes uniform grounds for recognizing and enforcing judgments across borders, thereby streamlining procedural aspects while respecting each forum's safeguards.

Lex loci arbitri

Lex loci arbitri, also known as the lex arbitri or curial , refers to the of the designated as the seat of , which governs the procedural aspects of the , including the conduct of proceedings, the powers and duties of arbitrators, and the grounds and procedures for challenging or annulling awards. This choice of seat determines the supervisory of local courts, which may intervene in limited circumstances, such as enforcing interim measures or reviewing awards for procedural irregularities. The principle underscores party autonomy in selecting a neutral or favorable legal framework to ensure predictability and enforceability of the arbitral . Key international instruments shaping lex loci arbitri include the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, adopted in 1985 and amended in 2006, which provides a harmonized framework for procedural rules adopted by 93 states in a total of 127 jurisdictions (as of 2025), emphasizing limited court intervention and enforceability of awards. Complementing this is the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), ratified by 172 states, which facilitates cross-border enforcement while respecting the lex loci arbitri for setting aside awards at the seat. These conventions promote uniformity, allowing parties to rely on the seat's for arbitrator , , and without excessive national variations. A prominent example is French governing Paris-seated arbitrations, where the pro-arbitration stance is evident in the minimal judicial intervention, as courts serve primarily as "supporting judges" under Article 1464 of the French Code of Civil , intervening only to appoint arbitrators or enforce awards without disrupting proceedings. This approach upholds the competence-competence , allowing tribunals to rule on their own (Article 1447), and permits parties to waive challenges to awards (Article 1522), reinforcing Paris's status as a leading global hub. Emerging issues in lex loci arbitri include delocalization trends in since 2020, which challenge the traditional territoriality by advocating for more autonomous, "anational" proceedings less tethered to the seat's law, as seen in cases where courts enforce awards despite at the due to perceived bias. This shift, influenced by and the New York Convention's Article VII, aims to prioritize transnational standards over strict national supervision, though it raises concerns about award validity and uniform enforcement.

Other Variants

Lex loci protectionis

Lex loci protectionis, also known as the Schutzlandprinzip, is a foundational principle in intellectual property law stipulating that the protection of IP rights is governed by the law of the country where such protection is sought. This territorial approach ensures that IP rights, such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks, are exclusively enforceable within the borders of the granting jurisdiction, reflecting the sovereign policy choices of each state regarding the scope, duration, and conditions of protection. The principle underscores the non-universal nature of IP, where rights do not automatically extend beyond national boundaries without specific registration or compliance in each territory. This doctrine is enshrined in key international agreements, including Article 5(2) of the for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886), which mandates that authors from member states receive the same protection in other Union countries as nationals of those countries, effectively applying the lex loci protectionis to determine eligibility and extent of rights. Similarly, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Rights (TRIPS, 1994) reinforces territoriality by requiring member states to protect IP under their domestic laws while harmonizing minimum standards, without overriding the need for country-specific enforcement. In practice, the principle applies to infringement actions, such as suits, where claims must be litigated in the country of exploitation or infringement, subjecting the case to that jurisdiction's substantive IP law for validity and remedies. Illustrative cases highlight its application in regional frameworks; for instance, under Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the trade mark, protection for EU-wide trademarks operates on a unitary basis, but infringement proceedings in member states invoke the lex loci protectionis to assess the right's territorial scope alongside procedural rules of the forum. In the digital era, the principle faces evolving challenges with cross-border IP issues, such as unauthorized streaming services accessible globally, where multiple jurisdictions' laws may apply cumulatively under the lex loci protectionis, complicating for right holders. WIPO initiatives, including the 2023 study on online infringement localization, explore adaptations to facilitate cross-border cooperation without abandoning territoriality. As of 2025, WIPO continues to address these issues through initiatives like the Conversation on IP and Frontier Technologies, discussing in online contexts such as AI-generated content. For physical IP assets, such as tangible embodiments of copyrighted works, the principle may intersect briefly with the situs of the property, though the IP right itself remains governed by the protection territory.

Lex patriae

Lex patriae, or the law of , serves as a core connecting factor in within many civil law traditions, applying the national law of an individual to matters of personal status, including legal capacity, relations, and succession. This principle, known as the personality principle, ensures that an individual's core legal attributes remain tied to their citizenship, providing stability across borders. In , for instance, Article 3 of the stipulates that statutes relating to the status and capacity of persons govern French citizens even when residing abroad, while the status of foreign nationals is similarly determined by their national law. In Italy, the 1942 Civil Code reinforces this approach in its Preliminary Provisions, with providing that the personal status and capacity of individuals are governed by the law of their nationality, Article 20 applying national law to relationships such as , and Article 22 directing succession to the national law of the deceased at the time of death. In contrast to lex domicilii, which bases applicable law on an individual's place of residence and is predominant in systems, lex patriae emphasizes as a fixed and enduring link, less susceptible to change through relocation. This distinction is evident in jurisdictions like , where the Codice Civile of explicitly prioritizes over domicile for personal matters, avoiding the variability of residence-based rules. For expatriates, lex patriae offers particular utility by maintaining the continuity of personal status determinations; a citizen of a lex patriae state living abroad retains the benefits and obligations of their national law, such as or marital capacity, irrespective of the host country's domicile rules. This application supports expatriates in cross-border scenarios, ensuring predictable legal outcomes tied to their origin state. Despite its historical prominence, the influence of lex patriae has declined in favor of domicile or habitual residence-based approaches, particularly in jurisdictions and through efforts. systems have long favored lex domicilii for its alignment with actual life circumstances, viewing as insufficiently reflective of personal connections. In the , the Rome III Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 exemplifies this shift for and , establishing habitual residence as the primary connecting factor rather than , with parties able to choose applicable but defaulting to residence-based rules to enhance predictability and proximity to the parties' lives. This evolution reflects a broader trend toward flexible, residence-oriented principles in international .

Locus in quo

Locus in quo, a Latin phrase translating to "the place in which," denotes the specific location where a legal event or cause of action transpired, primarily used to ascertain jurisdiction or venue in proceedings. This concept is foundational in determining the situs of an event for procedural purposes, ensuring that legal actions are anchored to the geographical context of the occurrence. In criminal law, locus in quo plays a pivotal role in establishing venue, particularly under common law principles where trials must occur in the district or county encompassing the offense's location. For instance, English venue rules, rooted in common law, mandate that indictable offenses be tried where the crime was committed, unless statutory provisions or court orders alter this for reasons such as witness convenience or fairness. This requirement upholds the defendant's right to a local jury familiar with the circumstances, as articulated in historical precedents and codified in modern practice. Evidence gathering at the locus in quo further aids prosecution and defense by allowing direct inspection of the scene, such as jury views authorized under Criminal Procedure Rules to clarify spatial details of the alleged act. Traditional methods for determining locus in quo rely on witness testimony, physical documents like maps or contracts specifying locations, and site inspections to corroborate the event's placement. In contemporary practice, especially post-2020, has revolutionized this process, incorporating GPS from mobile devices, vehicle trackers, and to precisely geolocate events with timestamped coordinates. In , such digital evidence is admissible to establish venue under the , with chain-of-custody protocols guided by forensic guidelines from bodies like the Forensic Science Regulator. For instance, GPS from smartphones has been used in cases to confirm the offense site, ensuring compliance with the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. These tools provide irrefutable spatial evidence, often visualized through forensic mapping software to reconstruct paths or positions during the incident. By pinpointing the factual location of events, locus in quo underpins other lex loci principles, supplying the evidentiary foundation needed to apply the appropriate territorial without delving into substantive rules. This factual focus distinguishes it from nationality-based determinations like lex patriae, which prioritize personal status over site-specific analysis.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lex_loci
  2. https://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/lhsemclh/readings/Hatzimihail_Bartolus_RHDI_2007.pdf
  3. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conflict_of_laws
  4. https://tlblog.org/choice-of-law-methodologies-updating-the-list/
  5. https://conflictoflaws.net/2024/out-now-rabelsz-88-2024-issue-1/
  6. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/20.500.13051/4081/2/Territoriality__Public_Policy_and_the_Conflict_of_Laws.pdf
  7. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3182&context=flr
  8. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/conflict-of-laws-in-a-globalized-world/law-applicable-to-intellectual-property-rights-is-the-lex-loci-protectionis-a-pertinent-choiceoflaw-approach/9734E3CA23FD114ED33F8FE7F654C748
  9. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Glossary/UKPracticalLaw/Id249f11c1c9611e38578f7ccc38dcbee
  10. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/preclassical-conflict-of-laws/history-and-historiography-in-the-conflict-of-laws/5AE26F4AA974E1171EEB8F56E8BE0DD4
  11. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/preclassical-conflict-of-laws/bartolus-da-sassoferrato-and-the-conflict-of-laws-in-the-middle-ages/56448CED4741B6DE024E35EFA42F94C1
  12. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/AJA1021545X_97
  13. https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3909&context=umlr
  14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1285822
  15. https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/course_materials/R02%2520Conflict%2520of%2520Laws%2520in%2520NC_Coyle.pdf
  16. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3090&context=wmlr
  17. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1370&context=eilr
  18. https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1720&context=nyls_law_review
  19. https://tlblog.org/primer-on-choice-of-law/
  20. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8417&context=penn_law_review
  21. https://doi.org/10.18662/eljpa/9.2/177
  22. https://irpj.euclid.int/articles/international-litigation-doctrine-of-lex-fori-vs-lex-loci/
  23. https://cnica.org/arbitration-times/navigating-the-legal-landscape-a-guide-to-understanding-lex-fori-lex-arbitri-lex-lociarbitri-and-lex-causae/
  24. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4497&context=caselrev
  25. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4028&context=lalrev
  26. https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=olr
  27. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstreams/66cc853e-510f-455f-9b21-f647df668650/download
  28. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c860d03e7f57ecd46d
  29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1321255
  30. https://www.unidroit.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Unidroit-Principles-2016-English-bl.pdf
  31. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4510&context=vlr
  32. https://www.hofstralawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/32_4HofstraLRev6051975-1976.pdf
  33. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32008R0593
  34. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100103416
  35. https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/lex-loci-delicti-commissi/
  36. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2109&context=wvlr
  37. https://research.rug.nl/files/193362895/1023263x211034103.pdf
  38. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff87960d03e7f57ec1129
  39. https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/1995/83124-0.html
  40. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100103410
  41. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1870/1.html
  42. https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/lex-rei-sitae/
  43. https://lawbhoomi.com/lex-situs/
  44. https://www.quimbee.com/cases/in-re-annesley
  45. https://cisg-online.org/files/commentFiles/Mutiara_Khalifa_1_1_JPILS_2024_Art1_1.pdf
  46. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/lex-situs
  47. https://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=446750
  48. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=4&article=1009&context=michigan_legal_studies&type=additional
  49. https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/3-525-4679
  50. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/141/18/
  51. https://www.unidroit.org/instruments/security-interests/cape-town-convention/
  52. https://www.vedderprice.com/-/media/files/vedder-thinking/publications/2017/03/cape-town-convention-journal-2017.pdf
  53. https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/digital-assets-and-electronic-trade-documents-in-private-international-law/
  54. https://cloud-platform-e218f50a4812967ba1215eaecede923f.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/54/2025/01/Conflicts-full-document-FINAL-pdf-1.pdf
  55. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=88
  56. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b4dc24c2c94e07cccd23b31
  57. https://swarb.co.uk/berthiaume-v-dastous-hl-1930/
  58. https://www.studocu.com/en-gb/document/university-of-glasgow/international-private-law-level-2/6-marriage/97554787
  59. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=88
  60. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/644/
  61. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1282&context=penn_law_review_online
  62. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100103312
  63. https://lawbhoomi.com/concept-of-domicile-in-private-international-law/
  64. https://www.juscorpus.com/law-of-domicile-under-private-international-law/
  65. https://www.uniset.ca/other/css/LR1ScDiv441.html
  66. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/wealth-management/domicile/
  67. https://www.divorcelaws.co.za/domicile-in-divorce-cases.html
  68. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=70
  69. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:201:0107:0134:EN:PDF
  70. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02012R0650-20120705
  71. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/private-international-law-in-commonwealth-africa/conceptual-issues-in-choice-of-law/57A70CB81E2EED3EB818D3F4A9C25017
  72. https://lawbhoomi.com/lex-causae-meaning-and-importance-in-conflict-of-laws/
  73. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/choice-of-law-for-unjust-enrichmentrestitution-and-the-rome-ii-regulation/4CACAAC3C0D3FB9C8A85D26C5AF7B962
  74. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-compendium-of-international-commercial-and-investment-arbitration/applicable-law/428C9D580D94BDBC89A538379F839653
  75. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/HACO/A9789004361201-02.xml?language=en
  76. https://www.lextechinstitute.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/pil_act_1987_as_from_1_4_2020.pdf
  77. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R0848
  78. https://academic.oup.com/book/41059/chapter/349737257
  79. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/iir.1520
  80. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/chapter-15
  81. https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-15-bankruptcy-basics
  82. https://www.iiiglobal.org/file.cfm/12/docs/2010_bronze_georg_schlaefer.pdf
  83. https://ablj.org/mind-the-gap-fighting-forum-shopping-in-transnational-bankruptcies-under-chapter-15-vol-98-issue-2-html/
  84. https://www.elgaronline.com/display/book/9781782547235/b-9781782547235-L_4.xml
  85. https://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/article/procedure-and-the-conflict-of-laws/
  86. https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2023/11/25/understanding-lex-fori-in-international-civil-procedure-principles-and-interplay/
  87. https://academic.oup.com/book/57769/chapter/470882622
  88. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7917fb74-b821-4cce-8e49-765ca74fc5ad
  89. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lex_fori
  90. https://academic.oup.com/book/56285/chapter/445236513
  91. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1366&context=eilr
  92. https://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/journals/UOtaLawTD/2018/18.pdf
  93. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=137
  94. https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2025/07/the-2019-hague-enforcement-convention-enters-into-force-in-the-uk
  95. https://www.acerislaw.com/laws-applicable-to-an-international-arbitration/
  96. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law-mpeipro/e1962.013.1962/law-mpeipro-e1962
  97. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3487&context=faculty_scholarship
  98. https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/06-54671_ebook.pdf
  99. https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/commercial_arbitration/status
  100. https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/new-york-convention-e.pdf
  101. https://www.newyorkconvention.org/english
  102. https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2023/11/paris-as-a-place-of-arbitration-is-paris-an-arbitr
  103. https://avarbitraje.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ANAVI-Nro4-A14-pp-261-276.pdf
  104. https://academic.oup.com/jids/article/15/1/54/7295472
  105. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1053.pdf
  106. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017R1001
  107. https://www.law.kuleuven.be/apps/jura/public/art/58n2/ooh.pdf
  108. https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=622296
  109. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/frontier-technologies/frontier_conversation
  110. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4189&context=faculty_scholarship
  111. https://e-justice.europa.eu/topics/taking-legal-action/where-and-how/which-countrys-law-applies/fr_en
  112. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/16608
  113. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:343:0010:0016:en:PDF
  114. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9534&context=mlr
  115. https://www.provendata.com/blog/what-is-gps-forensics/
  116. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/forensic-science-regulator-newsletters
  117. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2186&context=hastings_law_journal
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.