Conflict of Laws Commons^™

The Impact Of Uniform Law On National Law: Limits And Possibilities, Joel H. Samuels, Jan Kleinheisterkamp

Books and Book Chapters

No abstract provided.

Conflict Of Laws In Massachusetts, Part Ii: Related Problems In Selecting The Applicable Law, Joseph W. Glannon, Gabriel H. Teninbaum

Suffolk University Law School Faculty Works

This article is a survey of conflict of laws principles in Massachusetts. It explains the historical and current Massachusetts approach to conflict of laws issues, and then applies that methodology to a variety of substantive and procedural topic areas. It concludes with recommendations for ways that Massachusetts courts can improve their analysis of these problems to promote fair and consistent outcomes.

Reforming The Law Of Crossborder Litigation: Judicial Jurisdiction, Janet Walker

All Papers

This consultation paper prepared for the Law Commission of Ontario, in association with a Working Group of private international law specialists, considers the current state of the common law in Ontario and the options for codification.

Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The, James L. Kainen, Carrie A. Tendler

Faculty Scholarship

Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …

After The Revolution – Decline And Return Of U.S. Conflicts Of Laws, Ralf Michaels

Faculty Scholarship

Scholars in the US have become uninterested in conflict of laws, at least in the core issues that spurred the conflict of laws revolution, especially questions of method and areas of tort and contract law. Proposals for a new (third) Restatement have not yet led very far. By contrast, new interest comes from the fringes: special political questions and interdisciplinarity. As to the first, I use the example of same‑sex marriages to discuss the extent to which discussions about politics are inseparably linked with discussions over conflict of laws. Conflict of laws is here not a mere additional field in …

Umdenken Für Die Unidroit - Prinzipien: Vom Rechtswahlstatut Zum Allgemeinen Teil Des Transnationalen Vertragsrechts [Rethinking The Unidroit Principles: From A Law To Be Chosen By The Parties Towards A General Part Of Transnational Contract Law], Ralf Michaels

Faculty Scholarship

The most talked-about purpose of the UNIDROIT Principles of International and Commercial Contracts (PICC) is their applicability as the law chosen by the parties. However, focusing on this purpose in isolation is erroneous. The PICC are not a good candidate for a chosen law - they are conceived not as a result of the exercise of freedom of contract, but instead as a framework to enable such exercise. Their real potential is to serve as objective law - as the general part of transnational contract law.

This is obvious in practice. Actually, choice of the PICC is widely possible. National …

The Subprime Crisis And The Link Between Consumer Financial Protection And Systemic Risk, Erik F. Gerding

Publications

This Article argues that the current global financial crisis, which was first called the “subprime crisis,” demonstrates the need to revisit the division between financial regulations designed to protect consumers from excessively risky loans and safety-and-soundness regulations intended to protect financial markets from the collapse of financial institutions. Consumer financial protection can, and must, serve a role not only in protecting individuals from excessive risk, but also in protecting markets from systemic risk. Economic studies indicate it is not merely high rates of defaults on consumer loans, but also unpredictable and highly correlated defaults that create risks for both lenders …

Choice Of Law, The Constitution And Lochner, James Y. Stern

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Mandatory Rules, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

Whether a limitation is jurisdictional or not is an important but often obscure question. In an article published in Northwestern University Law Review, I proposed a framework for courts to resolve the issue in a principled way, but I left open the next logical question: what does it mean if a rule is characterized as nonjurisdictional? Jurisdictional rules generally have a clearly defined set of traits: they are not subject to equitable exceptions, consent, waiver, or forfeiture; they can be raised at any time; and they can be raised by any party or the court sua sponte. This jurisdictional rigidity …

Brochure: The Public/Private International Law Colloquium, University Of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School Of Law

The Public/Private International Law Colloquium

No abstract provided.

Interjurisdictional Competition In Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements: Regulatory Risk Management And The Race To The Bottom, Timothy P. Glynn

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Transdisciplinary Conflict Of Laws Foreword: Cavers's Double Legacy, Karen Knop, Ralf Michaels, Annelise Riles

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

.

Foreign Law Between Domestic Commercial Parties: A Party Autonomy Approach With Particular Emphasis On North Carolina Law, Steven N. Baker

Campbell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Presidential Authority And The War On Terror, Joseph W. Dellapenna

Working Paper Series

Immediately after the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush claimed, among other powers, the power to launch preemptive wars on his own authority; the power to disregard the laws of war pertaining to occupied lands; the power to define the status and treatment of persons detained as “enemy combatants” in the war on terror; and the power to authorize the National Security Agency to undertake electronic surveillance in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. With the exception of the power to launch a preemptive war on his own authority (for which he …

Beyond The Article I Horizon: Congress’S Enumerated Powers And Universal Jurisdiction Over Drug Crimes, Eugene Kontorovich

Faculty Working Papers

This paper explores the Article I limits faced by Congress in exercising universal jurisdiction (UJ) – that is, regulating extraterritorial conduct by foreigners with no affect on or connection the U.S. While UJ is becoming increasingly popular in Europe for the punishment of human rights offenses, Congress's primary use of UJ today is under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. This obscure law allows the U.S. to punish for violating U.S. drug laws foreign defendants on foreign vessels in international waters. The MDLEA's UJ provisions raise fundamental questions about the source and extent of Congress's constitutional power to regulate purely …

Forum Shopping And The Infrastructure Of Federalism., James E. Pfander

Faculty Working Papers

The recent effort of environmentalists and others to secure progressive social change at the state level enacts a familiar ritual in the history of American federalism. Political actors who have found their initiatives blunted at the national level have often turned to the states. With the ebb and flow of political power between two parties over time, arguments about the relative authority of federal and state governments display far more expediency than principle, far more mutability than predictability. States may be more or less progressive than the national government, depending in good measure on the temper of the times and …

Is International Law Coercive?, Anthony D'Amato

Faculty Working Papers

Can international law be enforced against a state? Against a superpower? Various current theories answer in the negative: dualism, consent, domestication, soft law, the New Haven school, and exceptionalism. But this Article claims that international law is enforced all the time by unilateral or multilateral reprisals. The stability of international law over time is a function of the successful working of the reprisal system. In sum, international law is a coercive order.

Why Is International Law Binding?, Anthony D'Amato

Faculty Working Papers

Many writers believe that international law is precatory but not "binding" in the way domestic law is binding. Since international law derives from the practice of states, how is it that what states do becomes what they must do? How do we get bindingness or normativity out of empirical fact? We have to avoid the Humean fallacy of attempting to derive an ought from an is. Yet we can find in nature at least one norm that is compelling: the norm of survival. This norm is hardwired into our brains through evolution. It is also hardwired into the international legal …

Courting Genocide: The Unintended Effects Of Humanitarian Intervention, Jide Nzelibe

Faculty Working Papers

Invoking memories and imagery from the Holocaust and other German atrocities during World War II, many contemporary commentators and politicians believe that the international community has an affirmative obligation to deter and incapacitate perpetrators of humanitarian atrocities. Today, the received wisdom is that a legalistic approach, which combines humanitarian interventions with international criminal prosecutions targeting perpetrators, will help realize the post-World War II vision of making atrocities a crime of the past. This Article argues, in contrast, that humanitarian interventions are often likely to create unintended, and sometimes perverse, incentives among both the victims and perpetrators of atrocities. The problem …

Rules And Institutions In Developing A Law Market: Views From The United States And Europe, Erin O'Hara O'Connor, Larry E. Ribstein

Scholarly Publications

Developments in European choice of law seem to offer the United States a tantalizing opportunity for escape from the chaos of state-by-state choice-of-law rules. Specifically, the Rome Regulations provide the sort of uniform choice-of-law rules that have eluded the United States. Also, decisions of the European Court of Justice that permit firms to adopt home-country rules in some situations seem to facilitate jurisdictional choice by private parties. This top-down ordering of choice-of-law rules contrasts with the seemingly chaotic and decentralized system that prevails in the United States. However, decentralized American-style federalism might have something to offer Europe because choice of …

Three Questions That Will Make You Rethink The U.S.-China Intellectual Property Debate, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 412 (2008), Peter K. Yu

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Commentators have attributed China’s piracy and counterfeiting problems to the lack of political will on the part of Chinese authorities. They have also cited the many political, social, economic, cultural, judicial, and technological problems that have arisen as a result of the country’s rapid economic transformation and accession to the WTO. This provocative essay advances a third explanation. It argues that the failure to resolve piracy and counterfeiting problems in China can be partly attributed to the lack of political will on the part of U.S. policymakers and the American public to put intellectual property protection at the very top …

Appreciating Mandatory Rules: A Reply To Critics, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

It seems that few are pleased with the Court’s recent decision in Bowles v. Russell, in which the Court held the time limit for filing a notice of appeal to be jurisdictional and therefore not susceptible to the unique circumstances doctrine. As I wrote in this original essay, I believe the Court disrupted prior precedent and missed a golden opportunity to develop, in a principled way, a framework for characterizing rules as jurisdictional or not, and I adhere to those views. Three have responded to my essay. Professor Beth Burch criticizes Bowles for some of the same …

The Public-Private Distinction In The Conflict Of Laws, William S. Dodge

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Letting "Privates" Be Private: Toward A Right Of Gender Selfdetermination, Samuel E. Bartos

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note examines the contradictory landscape of transgender jurisprudence, particularly focusing on the legal struggles of transgender individuals to achieve recognition of their gender identity. It highlights the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in In the Matter of the Estate of Marshall G. Gardiner, which denied legal recognition of a transgender individual's marriage, contrasted with more progressive rulings in other jurisdictions. The analysis underscores the need for a consistent and inclusive legal framework to address the rights of transgender individuals, emphasizing the potential for future Supreme Court intervention to establish uniform standards.

Mediation: The Common Sense Solution To Solving The Myriad Choice Of Law Issues In Complex Aviation Accident Cases, Michael J. Holland

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

Six minutes after Swissair First Officer Stefan Loew advised Canadian air traffic control authorities that Swissair Flight 111 had declared an emergency, that electric power had been lost and that the crew was attempting to prepare the cabin for an emergency landing by using flashlights, Swissair Flight 111, an MD-11 aircraft, plunged into the Atlantic Ocean some nine miles off the coast of Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia, resulting in the death of 215 passengers and 14 crewmembers abroad the ill-fated flight.

Liberating The Individual From Battles Between States, Matthias Lehmann

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Current theories of conflict of laws have one common feature: they all consider the question of the applicable law in terms of a conflict between states. Legal systems are seen as fighting with each other over the application of law to a certain case. From this perspective, the goal of conflicts methods is to assign factual situations to the competent rule maker for resolution. Party autonomy presents a problem for this view: if individuals are allowed to choose which law will be applied to their dispute, it seems as if private persons could determine the outcome of the battle between …

Book Review, Ralf Michaels

Faculty Scholarship

reviewing, Denationalisierung des Privatrechts? Symposium anlässlich des 70. Geburtstages von Karl Kreuzer" (Eva-Maria Kieninger ed., Mohr Siebeck 2005))

Preemption And Federal Common Law, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Dissolution Of The Matrimonial Property Regime And The Succession Rights Of The Surviving Spouse, Maria Álvarez Torné

Cornell Law Faculty Working Papers

These pages are addressed to examining the problems arising from the regulation of the dissolution of the matrimonial property regime on the death of one of the spouses in relation to the determination of the succession rights of the surviving spouse in Private International Law (from now on, PIL). I will specifically try to analyse the conciliation difficulties between what is stipulated in each relevant field after the death of one of the spouses. The surviving spouse’s situation often depends on the simultaneous effect of the matrimonial property regime and also of Succession Law. In fact, this study deals with …

The Populist Safeguards Of Federalism, Robert A. Mikos

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Extant legal scholarship often portrays citizens as the catalysts of federalization. Scholars say that citizens pressure Congress to impose their morals on people living in other states, to trump home-state laws with which they disagree, or to shift the costs of regulatory programs onto out-of-state taxpayers, all to the demise of states' rights. Since Congress (usually) gives citizens what they want, scholars insist the courts must step in to protect states from federal encroachments. By contrast, this Article proposes a new theory of the populist safeguards of federalism. It develops two distinct but mutually reinforcing reasons why populist demands on …