The Experts below are selected from a list of 43644 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Veerle Van Den Eeckhout - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Private International Law in an era of globalisation neutral Private International Law an analysis through the lens of protection of weak c q vulnerable parties
2020Co-Authors: Veerle Van Den EeckhoutAbstract:Private International Law (“PIL”) has the reputation of being by nature a “neutral” field of Law: under the impulse of the German legal scholar Von Savigny PIL was set up in continental Europe in the 19th century as a neutral and apolitical abstract reference system. By 2020, “modern” tendencies have also found acceptance in PIL. The “protection principle”, for instance, is seen as one of those modern tendencies that do not “blindly” follow a particular legal system; where relevant, PIL intends to offer a special (PIL) protection to parties that are considered “weak” in PIL, such as employees and consumers. Other modern tendencies and techniques such as “party autonomy” and “overriding mandatory rules”, including tendencies which purposefully try to achieve a specific goal – and whereby the dogma of neutrality is abandoned –, have also entered PIL in several instances. At the same time, by 2020, it is ever more recognised that PIL actually plays a specific role in (discussions about) globalisation – and that PIL can in no way be called “neutral” in its impact. The way in which PIL-questions are answered can have far-reaching consequences. In any event, a specific enactment and handling of PIL rules, can in its impact have more “liberalising” or more “regulating” effects, facilitating or complicating in this respect the protection of weak parties/human rights/environment/… When discussing future developments in PIL, some are in favour of assigning a more “regulating” role to PIL. In times of globalisation the question arises in any case how PIL rules – whereby currently a process of Europeanisation of PIL rules is taking place – are currently shaped c.q. could be (further) shaped with regard to the future, how PIL rules could or should be questioned, which possibilities/restrictions/complications also exist for PIL if PIL and PIL interests are in competition with various other interests, concerns and principles: to what extent exactly is PIL neutral and to what extent can and may PIL's attitude (still) be “neutral” in future? Viewed and formulated more broadly and more abstractly, PIL’s role in a globalising society is at issue here. The study of ongoing developments in PIL itself and in PIL in its interaction with other disciplines from the perspective of “protection of weak c.q. vulnerable parties” allows carrying out the analysis to which current developments invite. Carrying out an analysis looking through the lens of protection of weak c.q. vulnerable parties allows carrying out the analysis that current developments need and demand.
-
vrijheid en bescherming van kwetsbare personen in het internationaal privaatrecht freedom and protection of vulnerable parties in Private International Law
2020Co-Authors: Veerle Van Den EeckhoutAbstract:Dutch Abstract: In deze bijdrage worden enkele beschouwingen vanuit internationaal privaatrechtelijk perspectief geformuleerd omtrent “vrijheid” en vrijheidsbeperking. Gefocust wordt op de algemene dynamiek van voortschrijdende Europeanisatie van het ipr, met bijzondere aandacht voor diverse actuele thema’s, met name inzake arbeidsovereenkomsten, consumentenovereenkomsten en aansprakelijkheid van multinationals voor schending van mensenrechten cq milieuverontreiniging. Zowel directe als indirecte verschijningsvormen van vrijheid cq partijautonomie worden blootgelegd, daarbij de verhouding tussen vrijheid en bescherming van kwetsbare partijen in het ipr explorerend. English Abstract: In this contribution, a number of considerations are formulated from a Private International Law perspective about “freedom” as well as about restriction of freedom. The focus is on the general dynamics of the ongoing Europeanisation of PIL, particularly with attention to various topical issues, namely regarding employment contracts, consumer contracts, and non-contractual liability of multinationals for human rights violations and environmental pollution. Both direct and indirect manifestations of freedom cq party autonomy are exposed, exploring thereby the relationship between “freedom” and “protection of vulnerable parties” in Private International Law.
-
Private International Law and the ongoing process of revising the posting directive pil in a legal political force field
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Veerle Van Den EeckhoutAbstract:Private International Law has entered openly in the surf of a topical, fierce debate. The author demonstrates that consideration is needed for the way PIL-rules will be shaped in the final version of the revision of the Posting Directive.
-
i could be brown i could be blue i could be violet sky over een aan de gang zijnde paradigmaverschuiving in het internationaal privaatrecht i could be brown i could be blue i could be violet sky on an ongoing paradigm shift in Private International Law
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Veerle Van Den EeckhoutAbstract:In deze bijdrage illustreert de auteur hoezeer internationaal privaatrecht in diverse huidige spanningsvelden en krachtenvelden zijn plaats dient te vinden. In this paper the author demonstrates how Private International Law needs to find its place in various current force fields.
-
internationaal privaatrecht een discipline in de luwte of in de branding van heftige juridisch maatschappelijke debatten Private International Law a discipline out of the wind or in the surf of fierce legal social debates
2015Co-Authors: Veerle Van Den EeckhoutAbstract:Dutch Abstract: Van oudsher wordt het vakgebied van het ipr bestudeerd als een vrij geisoleerd vakgebied. Weinig aandacht wordt besteed aan de impact van ipr-regels op de beoordeling van publiekrechtelijke aanspraken gesteund op familierechtelijke verhoudingen. Bij nader toezicht blijkt nochtans hoezeer een welbepaalde omgang met ipr-regels een belemmerend effect heeft op de uitoefening van die aanspraken. Dit noopt tot kritische analyse. Onderkenning van deze dynamieken doet ook de behoefte groeien te toetsen in hoeverre de afdwingbaarheid van mensenrechten zoals de bescherming van gezinsleven midddels een welbepaalde hantering van ipr-technieken wordt "gefrustreerd".English Abstract: The article provides an examination of the extent to which Private International Law currently frustrates the enforceability of Human rights such as the protection of family life.
Xandra Kramer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a common discourse in european Private International Law a view from the court system
How European is European Private International Law, 2019Co-Authors: Xandra KramerAbstract:This paper dicusses the institutional framework and judicial infrastructure for the application of European Private International Law, and how these can contribute to the Europeanisation of court practice in Private International Law cases. First it addresses the question of why we should have a European court practice at all.Then it turns to the court practice from the perspective of the dialogue between national courts and the European court of justice. Next, it discusses the existing infrastructures in a number of Member States, and the role of emerging International commercial courts in this regard. It is concluded that fostering a European court practice on Private International Law is not an end itself but a means to an end, and that is to secure the effectiveness of judicial cooperation, primarily through the proper application of the European instruments. There seems to be little evidence that European Private International Law is not European enough. On the contrary, the present rules seem to be functional at the national level, and fundamental reform at the EU or the national level is therefore unnecessary. The more important challenges result from the UK’s exit from the European Union and from global perspectives. These call for a reflection on the question of how and to what extent the pan-EU legal order and the national legal orders can be usefully tied together, and for an outward look with regard to the relation to third countries in Europe and beyond. Finally, the challenges of migration, security, financial stability, and environmental protection call for a global approach to Private International Law questions and necessitates the EU to reach out to International organizations, notably the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
-
the rome ii regulation on the Law applicable to non contractual obligations the european Private International Law tradition continued introductory observations scope system and general rules
Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht, 2008Co-Authors: Xandra KramerAbstract:textabstractThe establishment of Regulation No 864/2007 on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II) is a landmark for European Private International Law. The regulation of torts in the European Union has a history of forty years, starting with the preparation of the Rome Convention in 1967. As was the case with its thorny counterpart, the Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I), negotiations have been difficult. It is also for the first time, that the efforts to develop European conflict-of-Law rules and the negotiations have attracted such serious cross-Atlantic attention, especially from scholars in the United States (US). Not only have Americans and other non-Europeans bothered to publish on the (draft) Rome II Regulation, they have also interacted in the Brussels negotiations, at the invitation of the European Parliament's rapporteur for Rome II. This contribution provides an outline of the background (section 2), scope (section 3), and system of the Regulation (section 4) and an analysis of the two general conflict rules laid down in Article 4 (section 5) and 14 (section 6). The question is whether in methodology and content this Regulation stands in the European tradition, or whether it takes a new direction. Another question is whether it offers a predictable but at the same time a sufficiently flexible system of conflict rules. The Rome II Regulation proves that it is difficult to reach a satisfactory compromise between legal certainty and flexibility in order to do justice in an individual case, while fulfilling the Law and economics criteria of simple and predictable rules. The Regulation provides many special rules as well as general and special exceptions that are occasionally ambiguous and make the outcome sometimes unpredictable. Nevertheless, it is concluded that the Rome II Regulation in spite of its fLaws, is an acceptable instrument that furthers the harmonization of conflict of Laws in Europe.
-
the rome ii regulation on the Law applicable to non contractual obligations the european Private International Law tradition continued introductory observations scope system and general rules
Social Science Research Network, 2008Co-Authors: Xandra KramerAbstract:The establishment of Regulation No 864/2007 on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II) is a landmark for European Private International Law. The regulation of torts in the European Union has a history of forty years, starting with the preparation of the Rome Convention in 1967. As was the case with its thorny counterpart, the Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I), negotiations have been difficult. It is also for the first time, that the efforts to develop European conflict-of-Law rules and the negotiations have attracted such serious cross-Atlantic attention, especially from scholars in the United States (US). Not only have Americans and other non-Europeans bothered to publish on the (draft) Rome II Regulation, they have also interacted in the Brussels negotiations, at the invitation of the European Parliament's rapporteur for Rome II. This contribution provides an outline of the background (section 2), scope (section 3), and system of the Regulation (section 4) and an analysis of the two general conflict rules laid down in Article 4 (section 5) and 14 (section 6). The question is whether in methodology and content this Regulation stands in the European tradition, or whether it takes a new direction. Another question is whether it offers a predictable but at the same time a sufficiently flexible system of conflict rules. The Rome II Regulation proves that it is difficult to reach a satisfactory compromise between legal certainty and flexibility in order to do justice in an individual case, while fulfilling the Law and economics criteria of simple and predictable rules. The Regulation provides many special rules as well as general and special exceptions that are occasionally ambiguous and make the outcome sometimes unpredictable. Nevertheless, it is concluded that the Rome II Regulation in spite of its fLaws, is an acceptable instrument that furthers the harmonization of conflict of Laws in Europe.
Alex Mills - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
towards a public International perspective on Private International Law variable geometry and peer governance
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Alex MillsAbstract:This paper argues that Private International Law rules constitute a form of International ‘public’ ordering or global governance, and it explores some of the implications of this argument for the International development of Private International Law. It begins by examining the theoretical foundations for this perspective as well as its historical context and justification, arguing that it is more coherent and more consistent with pre-modern conceptions of the subject. It then turns to examine recent developments in federal systems – the European Union, Canada and Australia – which demonstrate the emergence of a similar ‘public’ perspective on Private International Law at a regional level. The paper then considers two major problems with the idea that developments within federal systems can be transplanted or applied by analogy at the International level, as well as the potential of two ideas which present responses to these problems. The first problem is that of hierarchy – the complexity of the relationship between federal and International developments – and the idea examined in response is that of variable geometry. The second problem is that of heterarchy – the absence of institutional structures comparable to those in federal systems to support International developments – and the idea of peer governance is examined as a response to this issue. The paper concludes that these ideas have a potentially important impact on a range of International Law questions, and that they should form a key part of the research agenda for studies of global governance both within and beyond the context of Private International Law.
-
the confluence of public and Private International Law justice pluralism and subsidiarity in the International constitutional ordering of Private Law
2009Co-Authors: Alex MillsAbstract:A sharp distinction is usually drawn between public International Law, concerned with the rights and obligations of states with respect to other states and individuals, and Private International Law, concerned with issues of jurisdiction, applicable Law and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in International Private Law disputes before national courts. Through the adoption of an International systemic perspective, Dr Alex Mills challenges this distinction by exploring the ways in which norms of public International Law shape and are given effect through Private International Law. Based on an analysis of the history of Private International Law, its role in US, EU, Australian and Canadian federal constitutional Law, and its relationship with International constitutional Law, he rejects its conventional characterisation as purely national Law. He argues instead that Private International Law effects an International ordering of regulatory authority in Private Law, structured by International principles of justice, pluralism and subsidiarity.
-
The Private History of International Law
International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2008Co-Authors: Alex MillsAbstract:Introduction This Chapter examines and challenges the foundational narratives of International Law, looking at the ‘Private’ history of the relationship between International norms and Private International Law. By exploring the intersecting histories of public and Private International Law, it discredits the myth that these are necessarily discrete, distinct disciplines, with independent, parallel trajectories. A typical history of Private International Law is ‘intrinsic’, a history of the development of legal doctrine within the discipline. Theories or approaches are presented chronologically, in a series of ‘epochs’ or competing ‘paradigms’. The story of their succession is told as a historical fact, without significant attention to contextual factors, suggesting the discipline is propelled forwards by internal dynamics. These limitations are the consequences of choices which reflect a theory of what is important and relevant. The typical history of Private International Law thus chooses to tell us only the story of Private International Law as the discipline is conceived today – a genealogical history of Private International Law as a discrete, autonomous, national discipline. The focus in this Chapter is on the history of the theory of Private International Law, as expressed through the most influential writers and theorists in International Law. It is not a history of the rules or practice of Private International Law, but an exploration of the influence of different ideas of Private International Law as expressed by International legal theorists, including theorists not traditionally viewed as a part of the history of the discipline of Private International Law.
Izolda Takacs - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Law applicable to contracts in the european union a competition between rome i regulation other sources of eu Law and directive Law as implemented
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Tamas Dezso Ziegler, Izolda TakacsAbstract:EU Private International Law ("PIL") was significantly different before the recent Private International Law boom. Before 1998, there had been only fragmented and miscellaneous conflict-of-Laws provisions in the acquis communautaire, focusing on specific areas. Most provisions were to be found in directives dealing with substantive Law, i.e. the conflict-of-Laws rules were merely extensions to the regulations in certain areas. Adopting such rules was common in the fields of consumer protection (i.e. consumer contract Law) and insurance Law. The article tries to summarize these rules and analyse their connection with the latest Law, i.e. with the provisions of the Rome regulation on the Law applicable to contracts.
Ronald A Brand - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
of magnets and centrifuges the us and eu federal systems and Private International Law
2019Co-Authors: Ronald A BrandAbstract:This chapter is part of a tribute to Professor Alberta Sbragia upon her retirement at the University of Pittsburgh. Professor Sbragia, a political scientist, has contributed much to to the understanding of the development of the European Union and its institutions. She has been a wonderful colleague. In my tribute to her, I consider the federal systems in the United States and the European Union as viewed through the lens of Private International Law. While some may be hesitant to refer to the European Union as a “federal” system, when viewed in the context of Private International Law it becomes apparent that the EU system is both more centralized and more predictably developed than is its counterpart in the United States. I have referred to this comparison in the past as resulting in the EU magnet and the US centrifuge. In this chapter, I trace my personal experience in dealing with the development of Private International Law for over 25 years at the Hague Conference on Private International Law. This experience has provided the opportunity for first-hand observation of the evolution of EU competence in Private International Law and its effect on global developments. Using my personal experience in the process, I review the developments which have led to centralization of Private International Law within the European Union, consider how the federal system in each of the United States and the European Union has influenced this area of the Law, and draw conclusions about how each has used its own federal approach in this area of the Law to influence global development of the Law.
-
th e evolving Private International Law substantive Law overlap in the european union
Social Science Research Network, 2014Co-Authors: Ronald A BrandAbstract:This chapter, written for the FESTSCHRIFT FUR ULRICH MAGNUS (Sellier European Law Publishers 2014), considers three areas in which, either through legislation or through the decisions of the European Court of Justice, Private International Law rules found in the Brussels I Regulation have overlapped with substantive Law rules to create uncomfortable – and sometimes undesirable – results. These examples arise at the overlap of (1) the CISG Article 31 rules on delivery of goods and the Brussels I Recast Regulation Article 7(1) (original Article 5(1)) contract jurisdiction rules; (2) national rules on contract formation and the Brussels I Recast Regulation Article 25 (original Article 23) rules on choice of court; and (3) consumer protection and the rules of the Brussels I Recast Regulation on jurisdiction in consumer cases. After discussing each of these overlapping areas of Law, the chapter provides comments on how, together, these concerns demonstrate the need to avoid using Private International Law rules for the purpose of either implementing substantive Law goals or for creating new rules that conflict with their substantive Law counterparts.