scholarly journals Extraterritoriality in Private International Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 183-194
Author(s):  
L. V. Terenteva
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Definition Of

The paper questions the extraterritorial nature of foreign private law applied by the national law enforcement body in the regulation of cross-border private law relations. In view of the use of common terms “exterritorial” and “extraterritorial” in the framework of international public and private law regulation, it seems necessary to study the extraterritorial effect of foreign private law provisions through the prism of the substantive characteristics of extraterritoriality, formulated in the context of public international law. To this end, the author refers to the definition of extraterritorial jurisdiction as an international legal category and raises the question of how appropriate it is to admit, within the framework of a single definition, “extraterritorial” both the presence and absence of the manifestation of the sovereign will of the state on the territory of which any of the types of jurisdiction of a foreign state is exercised. Taking into account that the manifestation of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of one state in relation to another is realized in the absence of the latter’s sanction for its implementation, the author debates the admissibility of designation as extraterritorial foreign private law, the admissibility and limits of application of which are sanctioned by the national state.

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction at a Crossroads: An Intersection Between Public and Private International Law

1982 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold G. Maier
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Nation States ◽  
International Legal System ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽  
International Systems

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.

scholarly journals RELATIONSHIP AND INTERACTION OF INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC, INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LAW AND NATIONAL LAW

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (88) ◽  
pp. 108
Author(s):  
Aleksandrs Baikovs ◽  
Ilona Bulgakova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Theoretical Research ◽  
Axiomatic Method ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Research Analysis

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the interplay between international public and private law and national law, and to provide an assessment of the theory of public and private law and its interrelationship.Private international law is closely linked to public international law. However, if public international law is an autonomous system of law, then private international law is an integral part of national law, since it governs cross-border private law relations.The objectives of the study stem from its purpose, namely:to clarify the nature and understanding of international public and private law; to clarify the relationship between international public and private law and national (internal) law. The object of the research is the problems of the relation and interrelation of international public and private law.As a result of the study, several conclusions were drawn, which are as follows: 1) public international law is an independent legal system, but private international law is an integral part of national law; 2) there is a relationship between public international law and private international law; 3) general theoretical categories and concepts are partly incompatible with the nature of both international public and private international law; 4) the value, validity, and credibility of contemporary theoretical research in international law largely depends on the inclusion of relevant categories andThe following methods have been used in the research: analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, abstracting, generalization, analogy, idealization, formalization, axiomatic method, systematic and historical research.

Understanding the Functions of Jurisdictional Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Jerker B. Svantesson
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Legal Philosophy ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Important Concept ◽  
Definition Of

This chapter takes us into the domain of legal theory and legal philosophy as it places the questions of Internet jurisdiction in a broader theoretical, and indeed philosophical, context. Indeed, it goes as far as to (1) present a definition of what is law, (2) discuss what are the law’s tools, and (3) to describe the roles of law. In addition, it provides distinctions important for how we understand the role of jurisdictional rules both in private international law and in public international law as traditionally defined. Furthermore, it adds law reform tools by introducing and discussing the concept of ‘market sovereignty’ based on ‘market destroying measures’––an important concept for solving the Internet jurisdiction puzzle.

THE COMMON EUROPEAN SALES LAW, CONSUMER PROTECTION AND OVERRIDING MANDATORY PROVISIONS IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 463-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Bisping
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Border Trade ◽  
The Common ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Common European Sales Law ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThis article analyses the relationship of the proposed Common European Sales Law (CESL) and the rules on mandatory and overriding provisions in private international law. The author argues that the CESL will not achieve its stated aim of taking precedence over these provisions of national law and therefore not lead to an increase in cross-border trade. It is pointed out how slight changes in drafting can overcome the collision with mandatory provisions. The clash with overriding mandatory provisions, the author argues, should be taken as an opportunity to rethink the definition of these provisions.

PRIVATE COMMERCIAL LAW CONVENTIONS AND PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE RADICAL APPROACH OF THE CAPE TOWN CONVENTION 2001 AND ITS PROTOCOLS

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 523-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy Goode
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Commercial Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Radical Approach

It is a remarkable circumstance that with a few honourable exceptions all writers on international law in general and treaty law in particular focus exclusively on public law treaties. Private law conventions, including those involving commercial law and the conflict of laws, simply do not come into consideration. Yet such conventions, like public law conventions, are treaties between States and are governed by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and many of them are of great significance. Their distinguishing feature is, of course, that while only States are parties, private law conventions deal primarily, and often exclusively, with the rights and obligations of non-State parties. So while the treaty is international it does not for the most part commit a Contracting State to any obligation other than that of implementing the treaty in domestic law by whatever method that State's law provides, if it has not already done so prior to ratification.

scholarly journals INTERNATIONAL CIVIL PROCESS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (06) ◽  
pp. 259-262
Author(s):  
Akhmurodov Jakhongir ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Civil Process ◽  
Definition Of

This article examines various opinions regarding the international civil procedure as part of private international law and concludes that international civil procedure is directly related to the definition of applicable law, and that substantive regulation of private law relations complicated by a foreign element is generally impossible in practice without addressing both conflict of laws and procedural problems.

scholarly journals Immunity of International Organizations from the Perspective of International Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
Fatemeh Mihandoost
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
The Government ◽  
Or Organization

<p>The purpose of this study is to identify the international immunity and its type. We also sought to evaluate the immunity of international organizations from the perspective of international law in this study. International organizations have immunity in the implementation of their programs and tasks. In fact, one of the principles of public international law is immunity that prevents the presence of a foreign state in state courts. In some cases, there is a possibility of cancellation of immunity and in other cases withdrawal of immunity is derived from a political mission. These cases include accepting to solve the commercial dispute through arbitration because contrary to the authority of the state judge, judgment to address the dispute is not one of the government figures; therefore, government summoned to court of arbitration is not considered as a violation of state sovereignty. In practice, immunity has changed over the time. In other words, immunity has been modified over time. Research method used in this article is a review of the literature and interviews with experts who examine and compare the rules and regulations and the existing notes at home and abroad, about the immunity of international organizations. In the current situation, international general discipline is contrary to this subject that the government or organization holding immunity, while being aware of that, definitely accepts the condition of turning to a referee, which attracts the other party’s confidence, and then refers to immunity in some stage of inspection or while implementing the sentence. The legal concept of immunity, in general, is the sense that its owner is immune from prosecution, law enforcement, and government officials and they will not be able to chase the holder of such immunity.</p>

Andreas (Andy) Lowenfeld (1930–2014)

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-67
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
International Economic ◽  
New York ◽  
New York City ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
International Economic Law

Andy Lowenfeld, a member of the Board of Editors of this journal from 1978 to 1995, and an honorary editor thereafter, died on June 9, 2014, a few days after his eighty-fourth birthday, in New York City.Everyone who knew him, as friend, or colleague, or student, or client, wondered at his sparkling intellect, infectious humor, imagination, and boundless curiosity. He always questioned. He never took anything for granted. He was no narrow specialist. His interests included aviation law, international economic law, private international law, public international law, and procedural law. More than any other author or practitioner in the United States, he decried “the unconvincing separation between public and private international law” and practiced what he preached.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document