Private international law and choice-of-law clauses

Author(s):  
Faadhil Adams ◽  
Thalia Kruger
2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (3) ◽  
pp. 665-696
Author(s):  
Alison Xu

AbstractThis article explores a solution to the choice-of-law issues concerning both voluntary and involuntary assignments arising in a domestic forum. The focus is on English private international law rules relating to cross-border assignments. A distinction is made between primary and extended parties as the foundation for choice-of-law analysis. Drawing on insights from the distinction of the use value and exchange value of debts found in economics, this article proposes a new analytical framework for choice-of-law based on a modified choice-of-law theory of interest-analysis.


Author(s):  
Hook Maria

This chapter examines the choice of law rules that determine the law applicable to international contracts in New Zealand, comparing them to the Hague Principles. Private international law in New Zealand is still largely a common law subject, and the choice of law rules on international commercial contracts are no exception. The general position, which has been inherited from English common law, is that parties may choose the law applicable to their contract, and that the law with the closest and most real connection applies in the absence of choice. There are currently no plans in New Zealand for legislative reform, so the task of interpreting and developing the choice of law rules continues to fall to the courts. When performing this task, New Zealand courts have traditionally turned to English case law for assistance. But they may be willing, in future, to widen their scope of inquiry, given that the English rules have long since been Europeanized. It is conceivable, in this context, that the Hague Principles may be treated as a source of persuasive authority, provided they are consistent with the general principles or policies underlying the New Zealand rules.


Author(s):  
Heiss Helmut

This chapter looks at Liechtenstein perspectives on the Hague Principles. Rules on choice of law, including international commercial contract law, have been codified by virtue of the Act on Private International Law 1996 (Liechtenstein PILA). The Liechtenstein PILA does not expressly state that conventions will take precedence over national laws. However, it has been held by the Liechtenstein Constitutional Court that international treaties are of at least equal status to regular national laws and that national law must be interpreted in line with public international law. Moreover, an international convention will often be considered to be a lex specialis and be given precedence over national rules on that ground. Liechtenstein courts will refer first of all to (old) Austrian case law and legal literature when dealing with matters pertaining to the parties’ choice of law. Whenever these sources leave ambiguity to a specific question, Liechtenstein courts may and most likely will consider other persuasive authorities. The Hague Principles may constitute such persuasive authority.


Author(s):  
Gebremeskel Fekadu Petros

This chapter reflects on Ethiopian perspectives on the Hague Principles. Ethiopia does not have a codified law regulating matters of private international law, nor is there detailed case law from which one could derive key principles of the subject. While the shortage of private international law in Ethiopia is evident, the problem is most severe in the area of applicable law. In relation to party autonomy in choice of law, the Federal Supreme Court’s Cassation Division has handed down some interesting decisions, and these indeed have the force of law in Ethiopia. Nevertheless, the approach of the Ethiopian courts in respect of party autonomy is not very developed and clear, including in the field of international commercial contracts. While it would be prudent for Ethiopian courts to refer to the Hague Principles as persuasive authority, this requires awareness of the existence of the Hague Principles. In the long term, the Hague Principles will surely find their way into Ethiopian law.


2001 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 373-412
Author(s):  
Peter Stone

The entry into force on 1st March 2001 of Regulation 1347/2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and in Matters of Parental Responsibility for Children of Both Spouses (‘the Matrimonial Regulation’) amounts to a landmark in the harmonisation of private international law at European Community level. It deals with direct judicial jurisdiction, and the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, but not choice of law, in respect of divorce, separation and annulment of marriage, and of custody (in a broad sense) of children of both spouses when determined on the occasion of matrimonial proceedings. It is the first EC measure to enter into force dealing with private international law in family matters, and is likely to be followed up by further such measures, especially in relation to child custody when dealt with independently of any matrimonial proceedings.


Author(s):  
Torremans Paul

This chapter provides an overview of the historical development of private international law as well as current theories on the subject. It first traces the early history and later development of private international law in England before discussing the varied approaches to private international law in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. In particular, it considers the theory of vested or acquired rights, local law theory, and the American revolution. Two general approaches common to most of the ‘revolutionaries’ are highlighted: the first is rule selection or jurisdiction selection, and the second is true and false conflicts. There are several rule-selection techniques such as governmental interest analysis approach, the comparative impairment approach, principles of preference, interpretation of forum policy, and choice of law factors. The chapter also examines the Europeanisation of private international law and concludes with an assessment of the theoretical or doctrinal basis of English private international law.


Author(s):  
Wendy A. Adams

SummaryThe distinction between formal and essential validity in Anglo-Canadian choice of law regarding marriage is an illogical bifurcation that unnecessarily invalidates same-sex relationships contracted in foreign jurisdictions. The Supreme Court of Canada has recently reformulated certain rules of private international law, taking into account both the constitutional and sub-constitutional imperatives inherent in a federal setting and the need for order and fairness when co-ordinating diversity in the face of increasing globalization. Reform of the choice of law rules regarding the validity of foreign marriages should proceed accordingly with the result being that a marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere. No principled reason exists to deny recognition to same-sex relationships validly contracted in other jurisdictions, nor to differentiate between the rights and obligations arising from the legal status of same-sex and different-sex relationships.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document