Variable Geometry, Peer Governance, and the Public International Perspective on Private International Law

Author(s):  
Alex Mills
2021 ◽  
pp. 19-21
Author(s):  
Н.Д. Эриашвили ◽  
Г.М. Сарбаев ◽  
В.И. Федулов

В представленной статье рассмотрены проблемы коллодирующих привязок в международном частном праве и особенности их правовой регламентации в законодательстве Российской Федерации. Автором проанализированы особенности нормативного закрепления данного типа привязок в системе международных договоров, а также механизм имплементации этих норм в национальном законодательстве различных государств. На основе сложившейся практики применения коллодирующих привязок национальными органами государственной власти обоснована необходимость учета публичных интересов государства в данных правоотношениях. The present article examines the problems of collodizing links in private international law and the peculiarities of their legal regulation in the legislation of the Russian Federation. The author analyzed the peculiarities of this type of binding in the system of international treaties, as well as the mechanism for implementing these norms in the national legislation of various states. On the basis of the established practice of applying collodial links by national authorities, the need to take into account the public interests of the State in these legal relations is justified.


Author(s):  
Lucie Zavadilová

The unification of the conflict-of-law rules in matters of matrimonial property regimes at EU level seeks to mitigate differences in substantive law in particular legal systems. The aim of this contribution is to analyse the doctrine of overriding mandatory provisions and consider the applicability of the public policy exception, which limit the application of the law otherwise applicable determined in compliance with the unified conflict-of-law rules. The question author addresses in this paper is whether these institutes of the general part of private international law provide for sufficient safeguards to protect the fundamental values and public interests of the forum law in matters of matrimonial property regimes.


1982 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold G. Maier

Historically, public international law and private international law have been treated as two different legal systems that function more or less independently. Public international law regulates activity among human beings operating in groups called, nation-states, while private international law regulates the activities of smaller subgroups or of individuals as they interact with each other. Since the public international legal system coordinates the interaction of collective human interests through decentralized mechanisms and private international law coordinates the interaction of individual or subgroup interests primarily through centralized mechanisms, these coordinating functions are usually carried out in different forums, each appropriate to the task. The differences between the processes by which sanctions for violation of community norms are applied in the two systems and the differences in the nature of the units making up the communities that establish those norms tend to obscure the fact that both the public and the private international systems coordinate human behavior, and that thus the values that inform both systems must necessarily be the same.


Author(s):  
Dan Jerker B. Svantesson

This chapter introduces the topic of the book with particular focus on displaying its diversity. It brings attention to the challenges we face, especially due to our current territoriality-focused paradigm. It hints at the tools—the law reform initiatives—needed to solve the Internet jurisdiction puzzle. Finally, this chapter outlines and discusses a set of fundamental assumptions that have impacted how the author views this area of law. Based on those fundamental assumptions, it is argued that the Internet serves humanity best where it caters for cross-border interaction governed by law: law with an appropriate reach determined not merely by national territoriality but also by broader international interests that transcend the public/private international law divide.


2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 298-322
Author(s):  
Stephan Rammeloo

To what extent are Greek saving laws, resulting in payment cuts in the public sector (that is employment conditions), capable of overriding the applicable (German) law? A dispute arising from an employment relationship between the Greek Republic and an employee habitually carrying out work in Germany, gave rise to preliminary questions having regard to the temporal scope of EU Regulation No. 593/2008 (the ‘Rome I Regulation’)1 and, closely related thereto, the functional reach of Article 9(3) of that Regulation in respect of ‘foreign’ mandatory laws, in light of the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU. An analysis of the Advocate General’s Opinion and the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) ruling is followed by critical commentary and suggestions for future EU legislative amendments to the Rome I regime.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document