Law Commons^™

Professor Lowenfeld Responds, Andreas F. Lowenfeld

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Professor Silberman is as usual gracious in acknowledging my writings in various formats, and my efforts to restore conflict of laws to its place as a branch of international law, a place it has occupied in most of the world outside the United States, and occupied here as well in the view of Story and others who wrote before the balkanization of American law in the latter part of the nineteenth century. We have no disagreements on the value of the comparative method in teaching conflict of laws, civil procedure, or international litigation.

This brief response is addressed only to …

Judicial Jurisdiction In The Conflict Of Laws Course: Adding A Comparative Dimension, Linda J. Silberman

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

In this Article, Professor Silberman suggests that comparative law materials can usefully be introduced in the conflict of laws course. She proposes the subject of adjudicatory jurisdiction as a good place to start. She argues that a comparison of the U.S. approach with the English and European approaches (particularly under the Brussels Convention) is evidence of the desirability of a jurisdictional system grounded more on rules and/or discretion rather than on a constitutional standard of reasonableness. She takes issue with the contention of her colleague Professor Andreas Lowenfeld that "reasonableness" has been accepted as an international standard for the assertion …

Conflict Of Laws And Accuracy In The Allocation Of Government Responsibility, Joel P. Trachtman

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

The field of conflict of laws suffers from a lack of theoretical coherence, and therefore fails to provide a satisfactory basis for discourse, adjudication, legislation, and inter-governmental negotiation regarding issues of prescriptive scope. This Article advances a law and economics-based approach to conflict of laws for use in both the domestic and international context. The Article first assesses the theoretical coherence of some principal conflict of laws approaches, analyzing their resolution of four tensions: predictability and adminstrability versus accuracy, unilateralism versus multilateralism, private interest versus public interests, and courts versus legislatures. It refers to Professor Baxter's "comparative impairment" methodology as …