Private International Law

1. Introduction

Private international law addresses a structural problem that emerges whenever private legal relationships extend beyond the territorial limits of a single state. Commercial contracts are concluded between parties located in different jurisdictions, tortious conduct produces effects across borders, families and successions span multiple legal systems, and assets are held or transferred internationally. In such situations, no overarching legal authority exists to determine, by default, which court should adjudicate the dispute or which national law should govern it. Private international law responds to this absence of hierarchy by supplying coordination rules that organise the interaction of multiple legal systems without denying their sovereignty.

At its most basic level, private international law is concerned with three interrelated questions: jurisdiction, applicable law, and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. First, it determines which state’s courts are entitled to hear a dispute. Second, it identifies the legal system whose substantive rules should govern the merits. Third, it establishes the conditions under which a decision rendered in one state will be given legal effect in another. These three questions form the stable doctrinal core of private international law and structure its analysis across all subject areas (Briggs, 2013; Cuniberti, 2022).

The need for private international law arises directly from the principle of state sovereignty. Each state claims exclusive authority over persons, conduct, and property within its territory and administers justice through its own courts applying its own law. When a legal relationship is connected to more than one state, these claims overlap. Absent coordination rules, such overlap would generate legal uncertainty, encourage opportunistic forum shopping, and lead to conflicting judgments with limited practical enforceability. Private international law mitigates these risks by allocating regulatory authority among states while preserving their equal status as independent legal orders (Dicey, Morris and Collins, 2022).

Historically, the discipline developed as a response to expanding cross-border trade and mobility. Classical theories, most notably associated with Savigny, sought to identify the legal system with the closest connection to a given relationship and to apply that law irrespective of the forum seized (Savigny, 1869). This approach treated private international law as a neutral and scientific method for locating legal relationships within a plural legal landscape. Although modern systems no longer accept the claim of complete neutrality, the underlying coordinating logic remains central.

Contemporary private international law openly balances competing policy considerations. Party autonomy is widely recognised, particularly in contractual matters, yet it is limited by mandatory rules designed to protect weaker parties such as consumers and employees. Legal certainty is promoted through predefined jurisdictional and choice-of-law rules, but flexibility is retained through escape clauses and public policy exceptions. These developments reflect a shift from a purely technical discipline toward one that accommodates regulatory interests and fundamental rights without abandoning its coordinating function (Basedow et al., 2017).

A defining feature of private international law is the conceptual separation between the forum and the applicable law. A court may have jurisdiction to hear a dispute while being required to apply foreign law to resolve it. This separation is essential to the discipline’s operation. It allows disputes to be resolved in procedurally appropriate venues while respecting the substantive policies of the legal system most closely connected to the relationship. At the same time, it places demanding obligations on courts, which must ascertain, interpret, and apply foreign law with accuracy and fidelity (Cheshire, North and Fawcett, 2017).

Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments complete the system. A judgment that cannot circulate beyond the state of origin has limited value in an interconnected world. Private international law, therefore, facilitates legal cooperation by enabling judgments to produce effects abroad, subject to safeguards such as procedural fairness, jurisdictional legitimacy, and respect for fundamental public policy. These safeguards illustrate that private international law promotes cooperation rather than unconditional trust between legal systems (Ní Shúilleabháin, 2025).

Private international law must be distinguished from both public international law and domestic substantive law. Public international law governs relations between states and other international actors, while private international law governs disputes between private parties that cross borders. Domestic substantive law defines rights and obligations; private international law determines which substantive law applies. For this reason, private international law is often described as a framework or meta-level discipline that organises legal diversity rather than eliminating it (Michaels, 2014).

In practical terms, private international law shapes litigation strategy, contract design, risk assessment, and enforcement planning. Jurisdiction clauses, choice-of-law agreements, and arbitration provisions are tools developed precisely to manage cross-border legal uncertainty. For courts, private international law offers a disciplined method for resolving disputes without exceeding legitimate authority. For legal systems, it provides a mechanism for coexistence in a world characterised by legal pluralism rather than uniformity.

2. Conceptual foundations and intellectual history

2.1 Origins in territorial sovereignty

Private international law emerged from the basic premise that law is territorially bounded. In early modern Europe, political authority and legal validity were increasingly tied to the territorial state. Each sovereign exercised exclusive legislative and judicial power within its borders, and no overarching authority existed to resolve conflicts between competing legal systems. When private legal relations extended beyond a single territory—through trade, marriage, inheritance, or mobility—courts faced the problem of determining which law should govern without undermining their own sovereign authority.

Classical territorialism treated law as inseparable from the territory of the sovereign that enacted it. As a result, foreign law was not applied as law in its own right but was often considered a factual element tolerated by the forum for pragmatic reasons. Early conflict rules developed as techniques to manage this tension. They did not deny sovereignty; instead, they operationalised it by identifying connecting factors—such as domicile, location of property, or place of contracting—that justified applying a particular legal system to a cross-border dispute (Dicey, Morris and Collins, 2022).

This explains why no single law applies automatically to transnational disputes. The absence of legal hierarchy between states means that each court must justify its decision to apply foreign law or to recognise foreign acts. Private international law thus developed not as an exception to sovereignty but as a consequence of it: coordination was necessary precisely because sovereignty was absolute within each territory. Early European practice shows that conflict rules arose alongside the consolidation of state authority, not in opposition to it (Basedow et al., 2017).

2.2 Savigny and the modern conflict-of-laws method

The decisive conceptual turn in private international law is associated with Friedrich Carl von Savigny. Rejecting rigid territorialism, Savigny proposed that legal relationships possess an objective “seat” (Sitz des Rechtsverhältnisses) located in the legal system with which they are most closely connected. The task of private international law was therefore to identify this seat and apply the corresponding law, regardless of the forum in which the dispute was adjudicated (Savigny, 1869).

Savigny’s method transformed private international law into a systematic discipline. Conflict rules were no longer ad hoc compromises or expressions of judicial courtesy but abstract rules designed to locate legal relationships within a plural legal order. This approach claimed neutrality: the forum court was not choosing the “better” law but simply identifying the law naturally governing the relationship. In theory, different courts applying the same method would reach the same result, thereby reducing conflicts and forum shopping.

This system-building logic became the foundation of classical private international law. It justified the separation between jurisdiction and applicable law and normalised the application of foreign law by domestic courts. Although later scholarship exposed the limits of Savigny’s neutrality, his framework remains deeply embedded in modern conflict rules, particularly in areas such as property, succession, and contractual obligations, where locating the centre of gravity of a legal relationship remains analytically central (Cheshire, North and Fawcett, 2017).

2.3 Twentieth-century transformations

During the twentieth century, the claim that private international law could remain politically neutral became increasingly difficult to sustain. Industrialisation, mass consumer markets, labour mobility, and the rise of regulatory states altered the nature of private legal relations. Cross-border disputes were no longer limited to relatively equal commercial actors; they increasingly involved structural imbalances of power and public regulatory interests.

As a result, private international law shifted toward policy-sensitive conflict rules. Party autonomy expanded, particularly in contract law, allowing parties to select the governing law and forum. At the same time, mandatory rules and protective connecting factors were introduced to shield consumers, employees, and other weaker parties from disadvantageous choices imposed by stronger counterparts (Cuniberti, 2022).

Regulatory interests also gained prominence. States began to insist on the application of certain domestic rules irrespective of the otherwise applicable law, especially in areas such as competition law, financial regulation, and labour protection. The rise of public policy exceptions grounded in constitutional principles and human rights further constrained the application of foreign law and the recognition of foreign judgments (Michaels, 2014).

These developments did not dismantle the Savignian framework but modified it. Modern private international law continues to rely on connecting factors and system coordination, yet it openly acknowledges that conflict rules embody substantive choices. The discipline thus evolved from a purely technical system into a structured method for balancing sovereignty, market efficiency, and social protection within an increasingly interconnected legal environment.

3. The structural architecture of private international law

3.1 Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction concerns the authority of a court to hear and decide a dispute with cross-border elements. In private international law, jurisdictional rules answer the preliminary and often decisive question of which court is entitled to adjudicate a private dispute involving more than one legal system. These rules do not address the substance of the claim; they allocate adjudicatory authority among states whose courts may all plausibly claim competence based on territorial, personal, or economic connections.

Jurisdictional rules are traditionally grounded in connecting factors such as the defendant’s domicile or habitual residence, the place of performance of an obligation, the location of harmful events, or the situs of property. The selection of these factors reflects a balance between fairness to the defendant, procedural efficiency, and the sovereign interest of the forum state in regulating conduct connected to its territory (Briggs, 2013). In many systems, jurisdiction is structured hierarchically, distinguishing between general jurisdiction, special jurisdiction, and exclusive jurisdiction, each with different normative justifications.

A fundamental distinction must be drawn between adjudicatory jurisdiction and enforcement jurisdiction. Adjudicatory jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to determine rights and obligations through a judgment. Enforcement jurisdiction, by contrast, concerns the power of a state to compel compliance with that judgment through coercive measures, typically exercised where the defendant or assets are located. While a court may validly adjudicate a dispute, its judgment has no practical effect unless it can be enforced, either domestically or abroad. This distinction explains why jurisdictional excess is often tolerated at the adjudicatory stage but constrained at the enforcement stage through recognition rules (Dicey, Morris and Collins, 2022).

3.2 Choice of law

Choice of law addresses the second structural question of private international law: which legal system governs the merits of the dispute. Once a court assumes jurisdiction, it must determine the substantive law applicable to the rights and obligations in question. Choice-of-law rules perform this task by linking legal issues to a particular legal system through predefined connecting factors.

A core principle of private international law is the separation between the forum law and the applicable law. The fact that a court is competent to hear a case does not imply that it should apply its own substantive law. Instead, the forum court may be required to apply foreign law if the conflict rules designate another legal system as more closely connected to the dispute. This separation preserves the substantive expectations of the parties and prevents forum shopping based solely on favourable substantive rules (Cheshire, North and Fawcett, 2017).

Choice-of-law rules may be mandatory or flexible. Some rely on fixed connecting factors, such as the law of the place where immovable property is situated, reflecting strong territorial interests. Others incorporate open-ended criteria, such as the law of the country most closely connected to the relationship, allowing judicial assessment of factual circumstances. Party autonomy further modifies this structure by permitting parties, within limits, to select the applicable law themselves. The legitimacy of this autonomy is justified by respect for private ordering, but it is constrained where overriding regulatory or protective interests are at stake (Cuniberti, 2022).

3.3 Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments

Recognition and enforcement form the third pillar of the structural architecture of private international law. They determine whether and how a decision rendered by a foreign court produces legal effects in the forum state. Recognition refers to the acceptance of the legal effects of a foreign judgment, such as its res judicata effect, while enforcement involves the use of state coercive power to compel compliance with the judgment.

The conditions for recognition and enforcement reflect a balance between international cooperation and sovereign control. Common requirements include the jurisdictional legitimacy of the foreign court, respect for procedural fairness, and compatibility with the forum’s fundamental public policy. These requirements do not entail a review of the merits of the case; instead, they function as threshold safeguards ensuring that the foreign decision meets minimum standards of legitimacy (Ní Shúilleabháin, 2025).

Enforcement represents the ultimate measure of legal effectiveness in private international law. A judgment that cannot circulate beyond the state of origin has limited practical value, particularly in a globalised economy where assets and parties are mobile. At the same time, enforcement is the point at which sovereignty is most acutely engaged, since it requires one state to give coercive effect to the authoritative act of another. Private international law resolves this tension by framing enforcement as a conditional act of legal cooperation rather than an obligation of submission (Basedow et al., 2017).

Together, jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement constitute an integrated architecture. Each element addresses a distinct question, yet none can function coherently in isolation. Their interaction defines private international law as a systematic discipline designed to manage cross-border private disputes in a legally plural world.

4. Sources of private international law

4.1 Domestic sources

Domestic law remains the primary source of private international law. In the absence of a universal conflict-of-laws code, each state determines, within the limits of international coordination, how cross-border private disputes are to be handled by its courts. Two broad structural models dominate: codified systems and common-law systems.

Codified systems, typically found in civil law jurisdictions, organise private international law into comprehensive statutory frameworks. These codes or dedicated statutes set out jurisdictional rules, choice-of-law rules, and recognition and enforcement regimes in a systematic and relatively exhaustive manner. Codification promotes accessibility, predictability, and internal coherence, but it also risks rigidity where social and economic conditions evolve faster than legislative reform (Basedow et al., 2017).

Common-law systems rely more heavily on judicial doctrine and precedent. Conflict rules develop incrementally through case law, guided by principles such as fairness, convenience, and comity. This method allows flexibility and contextual reasoning but can generate uncertainty, especially in areas where competing lines of authority coexist. In these systems, private international law is often closely intertwined with civil procedure, and jurisdictional questions are frequently resolved through procedural doctrines rather than explicit conflict rules (Dicey, Morris and Collins, 2022).

Across both models, civil procedure statutes play a decisive role. Rules on service of process, interim measures, evidence, and enforcement often determine the practical operation of private international law more directly than abstract conflict rules. Judicial doctrine complements these statutory frameworks by interpreting connecting factors, refining public policy exceptions, and adapting conflict rules to new forms of cross-border interaction.

4.2 International treaties

International treaties constitute the most important mechanisms for coordinating private international law across borders. They do not replace domestic conflict rules but harmonise specific aspects of jurisdiction, applicable law, or enforcement in order to reduce uncertainty and facilitate legal cooperation.

The Hague Conference on Private International Law occupies a central position in this process. Its conventions address areas such as jurisdiction agreements, service of documents, taking of evidence, child protection, and the recognition and enforcement of judgments. These instruments aim to create common minimum standards while allowing states to retain significant autonomy in matters not expressly regulated. Their technical focus reflects the pragmatic character of private international law as a discipline oriented toward operational coordination rather than substantive unification (Ní Shúilleabháin, 2025).

UNCITRAL instruments play a complementary role, particularly in commercial and insolvency contexts. Unlike Hague conventions, which often require reciprocal adoption, UNCITRAL model laws are designed for unilateral implementation. This approach facilitates broader uptake while promoting convergence in areas such as cross-border insolvency, international commercial arbitration, and electronic commerce. These instruments illustrate how private international law adapts to global economic integration without relying exclusively on treaty obligations (Cuniberti, 2022).

4.3 Regional integration systems

Regional integration has produced the most advanced forms of harmonisation in private international law. The European Union represents the most developed supranational model, having replaced national conflict rules in key areas with directly applicable instruments governing jurisdiction, applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of judgments.

Within the EU, harmonised rules are based on mutual trust between Member States’ legal systems. Jurisdictional competence is allocated through uniform criteria, and judgments circulate with minimal review. Choice-of-law rules further reinforce legal certainty by ensuring that the same substantive law applies regardless of the forum. This level of integration significantly reduces forum shopping and enforcement risk within the internal market (Briggs, 2013).

The consequences of such harmonisation are profound. Domestic courts operate within a constrained framework that limits discretionary doctrines traditionally associated with private international law. At the same time, the system depends on sustained confidence in the procedural and substantive standards of all participating states. Where that confidence is strained, tensions emerge between uniformity and fundamental legal principles, particularly in relation to procedural fairness and public policy (Michaels, 2014).

4.4 Soft law and judicial dialogue

Beyond binding legislation and treaties, private international law is increasingly shaped by soft law and transnational judicial dialogue. Model laws, restatements, and sets of principles provide guidance without formal binding force. Their influence lies in their persuasive authority and their capacity to crystallise emerging consensus among courts and scholars.

Comparative reasoning has become a routine feature of judicial decision-making in private international law. Courts regularly draw on foreign judgments and academic commentary to interpret open-ended concepts such as closest connection, public policy, and fairness. This practice does not create uniform law, but it fosters convergence and mutual understanding across legal systems (Basedow et al., 2017).

Judicial communication, both formal and informal, further reinforces this trend. Cross-border networks, conferences, and transnational case law reporting contribute to the gradual alignment of conflict-of-laws reasoning. This evolution reflects a broader shift in private international law from isolated national systems toward a dialogical and interconnected legal order, one that remains plural but increasingly coordinated.

5. Scope of application

5.1 The foreign element

Private international law applies only when a legal relationship contains a foreign element. The presence of this element constitutes the minimum threshold of internationality required to trigger conflict-of-laws analysis. Without it, a dispute remains purely domestic and is governed exclusively by the internal law and procedural rules of the forum.

The foreign element refers to any factual or legal connection that links a private relationship to more than one legal system. This connection may arise from the identity of the parties, the location of relevant conduct, the place where legal effects occur, or the location of property. Typical examples include parties domiciled or habitually resident in different states, contracts performed across borders, torts causing damage in multiple jurisdictions, or assets situated abroad (Briggs, 2013).

Private international law does not require multiple foreign elements; a single cross-border connection is sufficient. A contract concluded and performed in one state may still raise private international law issues if one party is domiciled elsewhere. Likewise, a tort committed entirely within one territory may fall within the scope of private international law if the damage is suffered abroad. The decisive factor is not the number of foreign elements but their legal relevance to the dispute (Dicey, Morris and Collins, 2022).

Connecting factors play a central role in identifying and structuring the foreign element. These factors function as juridical links between a legal relationship and a particular legal system. Common connecting factors include domicile, habitual residence, nationality, place of performance, place of harmful event, and situs of property. Their selection reflects normative judgments about which legal system has the strongest claim to regulate a given issue. Once a relevant connecting factor points beyond the forum, private international law becomes operational.

5.2 Subject-matter limits

Not every cross-border dispute falls within the scope of private international law. The discipline is traditionally confined to private law matters, meaning disputes between private persons concerning civil and commercial rights and obligations. This limitation reflects the distinction between private international law and public international law, as well as between private and public domestic law.

Purely public law matters—such as taxation, immigration, criminal law, and administrative enforcement—are generally excluded. These areas are considered expressions of sovereign authority that do not lend themselves to coordination through conflict rules. Foreign public law is therefore not applied as such, and foreign public judgments are not recognised or enforced through private international law mechanisms (Michaels, 2014).

Between these poles lies a growing category of mixed matters, where private rights intersect with strong public regulatory interests. Insolvency illustrates this complexity. Although insolvency proceedings affect private creditors, they are closely linked to public policies concerning market stability and debtor regulation. As a result, insolvency has developed its own hybrid conflict-of-laws regime, combining private international law techniques with elements of regulatory coordination (Cuniberti, 2022).

Competition law presents a similar challenge. Claims for damages arising from anticompetitive conduct involve private enforcement but are grounded in public regulatory objectives. Courts increasingly accept jurisdiction and apply domestic competition rules to foreign conduct producing local effects, thereby stretching traditional territorial limits while maintaining formal classification as private disputes.

Family status matters, including marriage, divorce, filiation, and parental responsibility, further test subject-matter boundaries. These disputes are private in form but implicate public interests related to social policy and the protection of vulnerable persons. Private international law addresses these concerns through specialised connecting factors and heightened public policy control, reflecting the sensitivity of personal status within domestic legal orders (Ní Shúilleabháin, 2025).

The scope of private international law is therefore defined not only by the presence of a foreign element but also by normative judgments about the appropriateness of cross-border coordination. The discipline operates where private autonomy and legal diversity can be reconciled through conflict rules, but it recedes where core sovereign or regulatory interests predominate.

6. Jurisdiction in detail

6.1 Bases of jurisdiction

Jurisdiction in private international law is grounded in connecting factors that justify the exercise of adjudicatory authority by a particular state. These bases of jurisdiction reflect normative choices about fairness to the parties, effective administration of justice, and the legitimate regulatory interests of the forum.

Domicile and habitual residence constitute the primary and most widely accepted bases of jurisdiction. Domicile, traditionally dominant in common-law systems, links jurisdiction to the defendant’s stable legal home. Habitual residence, increasingly favoured in contemporary instruments and civil-law systems, focuses on factual integration rather than formal legal status. Both bases reflect the principle that a person should normally be sued before the courts of the place where they live and conduct their affairs, ensuring foreseeability and procedural fairness (Briggs, 2013).

The place of performance and place of harmful event provide functional jurisdictional links tailored to specific types of disputes. In contractual matters, jurisdiction is often conferred on courts of the place where the obligation in question is to be performed, on the assumption that evidence and commercial context are concentrated there. In tort cases, jurisdiction commonly lies at the place where the harmful event occurred or where the damage was suffered. This approach seeks to balance proximity to the facts with protection against excessive forum shopping in cases involving multistate harm (Cheshire, North and Fawcett, 2017).

Additional bases include presence, nationality, and asset-based jurisdiction. Presence-based jurisdiction, historically significant in common-law systems, allows jurisdiction to be asserted over a defendant physically present within the territory, even temporarily. Nationality-based jurisdiction reflects personal allegiance to the state but is increasingly confined to limited contexts. Asset-based jurisdiction permits courts to assert jurisdiction where property belonging to the defendant is located in the forum, particularly for provisional measures. These bases are often controversial due to their weak connection to the dispute, yet they persist as expressions of residual sovereign authority (Dicey, Morris and Collins, 2022).

6.2 Exclusive jurisdiction

Certain matters are subject to exclusive jurisdiction, meaning that only the courts of a particular state may adjudicate them. Exclusive jurisdiction reflects strong territorial or sovereign interests that override considerations of party convenience or autonomy.

Disputes concerning immovable property are the paradigmatic example. Jurisdiction is reserved to the courts of the state where the property is located, based on the close relationship between land, territorial sovereignty, and public registration systems. Similarly, matters involving status, such as the validity of corporate registration or certain aspects of personal status, may be reserved to the courts of the state with primary regulatory authority (Basedow et al., 2017).

Exclusive jurisdiction is non-derogable. Parties cannot displace it by agreement, and foreign judgments rendered in violation of exclusive jurisdiction are generally denied recognition. This rigidity underscores the limits of private international law coordination where core sovereign interests are engaged. Exclusive jurisdiction thus marks the boundary beyond which jurisdictional pluralism yields to territorial authority.

6.3 Party autonomy and forum selection

Party autonomy occupies a central position in modern jurisdictional design. Through forum selection clauses, parties may agree in advance on the court or courts competent to resolve their disputes. Such agreements promote predictability, reduce litigation costs, and allow parties to align jurisdiction with substantive law and enforcement strategy.

The validity of jurisdiction clauses typically depends on consent, clarity, and procedural fairness. Once validly concluded, these clauses produce both positive effects, by conferring jurisdiction on the chosen court, and negative effects, by excluding the jurisdiction of non-chosen courts. In many systems, courts are required to give priority to the chosen forum and to stay or dismiss parallel proceedings (Cuniberti, 2022).

However, party autonomy is not absolute. Protective regimes impose limits in situations involving structural inequality. Consumers, employees, and insured parties are often shielded from jurisdiction clauses that deprive them of access to their home courts. These limitations reflect the policy judgment that formal consent may not correspond to genuine autonomy in contexts of economic imbalance. Jurisdictional freedom is therefore calibrated against substantive protection goals.

6.4 Parallel proceedings and lis pendens

Parallel proceedings arise when the same or closely related disputes are brought before courts in different states. This situation creates the risk of conflicting judgments, legal uncertainty, and strategic abuse. Private international law addresses these risks through rules on lis pendens and related actions.

Lis pendens rules typically require a court second seized of a dispute to stay proceedings until the jurisdiction of the court first seized is established. This priority mechanism aims to prevent duplication and inconsistency. However, rigid priority rules may invite abuse, particularly where a party initiates proceedings in a slow or inconvenient forum to block litigation elsewhere (Briggs, 2013).

To counter such strategies, some systems introduce flexibility through exceptions for exclusive jurisdiction, jurisdiction agreements, or manifest abuse. These mechanisms illustrate the tension between procedural order and substantive justice, and they reveal how jurisdictional coordination must account for strategic behaviour by litigants.

6.5 Discretionary doctrines

In contrast to rigid rule-based jurisdictional systems, some legal orders retain discretionary doctrines that allow courts to decline jurisdiction even when a formal basis exists. The most prominent example is forum non conveniens, which permits a court to stay proceedings if another forum is clearly more appropriate for the resolution of the dispute.

The application of forum non conveniens involves a multifactorial assessment, including the location of evidence, availability of witnesses, applicable law, and the interests of justice. This doctrine prioritises practical convenience and fairness over formal entitlement to jurisdiction. Its use, however, introduces uncertainty and may disadvantage weaker parties (Dicey, Morris and Collins, 2022).

Comparative divergence is pronounced in this area. Many civil-law and regional integration systems reject broad discretionary jurisdictional doctrines in favour of predictability and uniformity. Common-law systems, by contrast, often regard discretion as essential to preventing jurisdictional overreach. This divergence reflects deeper differences in legal culture and conceptions of judicial authority, and it highlights the absence of a single global model of jurisdiction in private international law.

Together, these jurisdictional rules and doctrines illustrate how private international law balances sovereignty, fairness, and efficiency in allocating adjudicatory authority across borders.

7. Choice of law in detail

7.1 Connecting factors

Choice-of-law rules operate through connecting factors, which link a legal issue to a particular legal system. These factors are not neutral technical devices; they reflect normative judgments about proximity, fairness, and regulatory legitimacy. Their function is to identify the legal order that has the strongest claim to govern the substance of a dispute.

Habitual residence has become the dominant connecting factor in modern private international law. It focuses on factual integration rather than formal legal status and is particularly suited to mobile societies. Habitual residence is valued for its flexibility and its ability to reflect social and economic reality, especially in family law and consumer protection contexts (Ní Shúilleabháin, 2025).

Domicile, historically central in common-law systems, links individuals to a legal system through a legally constructed concept of permanent home. Its strength lies in legal certainty, but its formalism has led many systems to favour habitual residence as a more realistic indicator of connection (Dicey, Morris and Collins, 2022).

Nationality reflects a personal bond between the individual and the state. It remains relevant in matters of personal status and succession in some legal systems, yet it is increasingly criticised for insufficiently reflecting social attachment in a world of migration and dual citizenship.

Situs, the location of property, is the principal connecting factor for rights in immovable property. Its functional justification lies in territorial sovereignty, land registration systems, and the need for certainty in property relations. Unlike other connecting factors, situs is typically rigid and non-derogable (Briggs, 2013).

Finally, the closest connection operates as a flexible standard rather than a fixed link. It allows courts to assess all relevant circumstances and identify the legal system with the most significant relationship to the dispute. This factor enhances adaptability but introduces discretion, which may reduce predictability if applied inconsistently (Cuniberti, 2022).

7.2 Characterisation

Characterisation refers to the classification of a legal issue for the purpose of selecting the appropriate conflict rule. Before a choice-of-law rule can be applied, the court must determine the juridical nature of the issue: contract, tort, property, status, or procedure. This preliminary step is unavoidable and often decisive.

Characterisation is performed by the forum court and is generally governed by forum law. This approach promotes coherence within the forum’s conflict system but may lead to divergent outcomes when different courts classify the same issue differently. For example, a limitation period may be characterised as procedural in one system and substantive in another, leading to the application of different laws (Cheshire, North and Fawcett, 2017).

Divergent characterisation undermines uniformity and predictability. To mitigate this risk, some systems adopt autonomous concepts, particularly in harmonised regimes, where legal categories are defined independently of domestic classifications. Nonetheless, characterisation remains one of the most contested and theoretically complex aspects of choice of law, revealing the limits of technical neutrality in private international law.

7.3 Party autonomy in choice of law

Party autonomy permits parties to select the law governing their contractual relationship. It is justified by respect for private ordering, commercial certainty, and the parties’ superior ability to assess legal risk. In cross-border commerce, choice-of-law clauses are essential tools for managing complexity and reducing transaction costs (Basedow et al., 2017).

This autonomy is not unlimited. Mandatory rules of the forum or of another closely connected state may override the chosen law. Moreover, protective regimes restrict party autonomy in contracts involving weaker parties, such as consumers and employees. In these contexts, choice-of-law clauses cannot deprive the protected party of mandatory protections afforded by the law of their habitual residence or workplace (Cuniberti, 2022).

The boundaries of party autonomy illustrate a central tension in private international law: the balance between freedom of contract and regulatory intervention. Choice of law facilitates predictability, but unqualified autonomy risks enabling the circumvention of social and economic protections.

7.4 Renvoi

Renvoi arises when the conflict rules of the forum refer to a foreign legal system, and the conflict rules of that foreign system refer back to the law of the forum or to a third legal system. The question then arises whether the forum should accept this reference or apply only the foreign substantive law.

Two principal models exist. Under the rejection of renvoi, the forum applies the foreign substantive law while disregarding its conflict rules. Under acceptance of renvoi, the forum follows the foreign conflict rules, potentially resulting in the application of forum law or third-state law. Some systems adopt partial acceptance, particularly where it promotes international harmony of decisions (Briggs, 2013).

Renvoi is of limited relevance in contractual matters, where party autonomy predominates, but it remains significant in succession and status matters. In these areas, acceptance of renvoi may align outcomes across jurisdictions and reduce fragmentation of legal relationships spanning multiple states (Dicey, Morris and Collins, 2022).

7.5 Overriding mandatory provisions

Overriding mandatory provisions are rules that a state considers crucial for safeguarding its public interests and applies irrespective of the law otherwise designated by conflict rules. They differ fundamentally from public policy exceptions, as they operate at the choice-of-law stage rather than at the enforcement stage.

These provisions typically concern labour law, competition law, financial regulation, and consumer protection. Their application reflects the regulatory reach of the forum and, in some cases, the extraterritorial projection of domestic norms. Overriding mandatory rules illustrates how private international law accommodates regulatory interests without abandoning its coordinating function (Michaels, 2014).

The challenge lies in limiting their scope. Excessive reliance on overriding mandatory provisions risks undermining legal certainty and the predictability of choice-of-law outcomes.

7.6 Public policy (ordre public)

The public policy exception permits the forum to refuse the application of foreign law or the recognition of foreign judgments when doing so would violate fundamental principles of the forum's legal order. Public policy operates as a safeguard rather than a routine corrective.

A distinction is commonly drawn between substantive public policy, which concerns the content of foreign law, and procedural public policy, which relates to fairness in judicial proceedings. The latter includes principles such as the right to be heard and equality of arms.

In contemporary private international law, human rights increasingly inform public policy analysis. Violations of fundamental rights recognised by constitutional or international instruments may justify refusal to apply foreign law or to recognise foreign judgments. This development reflects the integration of private international law into broader normative frameworks without transforming it into a system of substantive review (Ní Shúilleabháin, 2025).

7.7 Proof and application of foreign law

The application of foreign law raises procedural challenges. Legal systems differ on whether foreign law is treated as law to be applied ex officio by the court or as fact to be pleaded and proven by the parties. Civil-law systems tend to impose a duty on courts to ascertain foreign law, while common-law systems traditionally place the burden of proof on the parties (Cheshire, North and Fawcett, 2017).

Failure to prove foreign law has significant consequences. Courts may apply forum law by default, dismiss the claim, or rely on presumptions about the content of foreign law. Incorrect proof or misapplication of foreign law undermines both substantive justice and the coordinating purpose of private international law.

The treatment of foreign law thus illustrates a practical limit of choice-of-law rules. The effectiveness of private international law depends not only on doctrinal sophistication but also on institutional capacity to handle legal diversity accurately and efficiently.

8. Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments

8.1 Concept and rationale

Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments constitute the final and decisive stage of private international law. While jurisdiction and choice of law determine how a dispute is adjudicated, recognition and enforcement determine whether the resulting decision has a practical effect beyond the state of origin. A judgment that cannot be recognised or enforced abroad remains territorially confined, regardless of the substantive correctness of the decision.

The central tension in this area lies between mutual trust and sovereign control. On the one hand, effective transnational dispute resolution requires states to accept and give effect to judgments rendered by foreign courts. On the other hand, each state retains sovereign authority over the exercise of coercive power within its territory. Recognition and enforcement rules reconcile this tension by treating foreign judgments neither as automatically binding nor as legally irrelevant, but as candidates for conditional acceptance (Briggs, 2013).

Enforcement should therefore be understood as legal cooperation rather than submission. By enforcing a foreign judgment, a state does not endorse the foreign legal system in general, nor does it relinquish its own authority. Instead, it recognises that the adjudication satisfies minimum standards of jurisdictional legitimacy and procedural fairness that justify giving the decision effect within the forum. This cooperative logic explains why review on the merits is traditionally excluded and why refusal grounds are narrowly framed (Basedow et al., 2017).

8.2 Models of recognition

Private international law has developed several models for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, reflecting different balances between openness and control.

Treaty-based systems represent the highest level of coordination. States agree in advance on jurisdictional standards and refusal grounds, thereby reducing uncertainty and limiting discretionary review. Within such systems, recognition and enforcement are largely automatic once formal requirements are satisfied. Treaty-based regimes promote predictability and circulation of judgments, but their effectiveness depends on reciprocal participation and sustained confidence between states (Ní Shúilleabháin, 2025).

Domestic recognition regimes operate in the absence of applicable treaties. Under these regimes, national law specifies the conditions under which foreign judgments may be recognised and enforced. Typical requirements include jurisdiction of the foreign court, finality of the judgment, procedural fairness, and absence of public policy violations. This model preserves greater sovereign discretion but produces fragmented outcomes across jurisdictions (Cuniberti, 2022).

Reciprocity and common-law approaches occupy a distinct position. In some systems, recognition depends on whether the foreign state would reciprocally recognise judgments from the forum state. Common-law systems have historically relied on concepts such as presence, submission, or agreement to justify recognition. These approaches emphasise jurisdictional legitimacy rather than systemic harmonisation and may restrict enforcement where foreign jurisdictional bases diverge from domestic standards (Dicey, Morris and Collins, 2022).

8.3 Grounds for refusal

Grounds for refusal delineate the limits of legal cooperation. They are not intended to permit substantive reassessment of the dispute but to safeguard fundamental principles of adjudicatory legitimacy.

Jurisdictional defects constitute a primary ground for refusal. If the foreign court exercised jurisdiction on a basis regarded as excessive or illegitimate by the forum, recognition may be denied. This reflects the forum’s refusal to give effect to an adjudicatory authority it does not consider properly founded.

Procedural fairness and due process form a second core category. Recognition may be refused if the defendant was not properly notified, was denied an opportunity to be heard, or if the proceedings were conducted in a manner incompatible with basic procedural justice. These requirements protect individual rights and reinforce confidence in cross-border adjudication (Cheshire, North and Fawcett, 2017).

Public policy and incompatibility operate as residual safeguards. Recognition may be refused where the effects of the foreign judgment would violate fundamental principles of the forum legal order or where the judgment conflicts with an existing domestic or previously recognised foreign decision. Public policy review is exceptional and narrowly construed, reflecting the cooperative orientation of private international law rather than a desire for substantive control.

8.4 Emerging global coordination

Efforts to enhance global coordination in the recognition and enforcement of judgments have intensified in recent decades. The most significant development is the adoption of the Hague Judgments Convention, which seeks to establish common jurisdictional filters and refusal grounds for civil and commercial judgments. The Convention aims to facilitate the circulation of judgments while preserving safeguards for sovereignty and procedural fairness (Ní Shúilleabháin, 2025).

Despite its ambition, structural limits to universal enforcement remain. States differ significantly in jurisdictional philosophy, procedural standards, and conceptions of public policy. Political considerations, asymmetries in judicial capacity, and divergent regulatory priorities further constrain harmonisation. As a result, global coordination in judgment enforcement proceeds incrementally rather than comprehensively.

Private international law thus treats recognition and enforcement as a calibrated process. It enables cross-border effectiveness of judicial decisions while preserving the sovereign prerogative to refuse cooperation in exceptional cases. This balance reflects the discipline’s broader function as a system for managing legal pluralism rather than eliminating it.

9. Arbitration and private international law

9.1 Arbitration as an alternative jurisdictional system

International arbitration operates as an alternative jurisdictional system within the broader framework of private international law. Unlike state courts, arbitral tribunals derive their authority primarily from party consent rather than from territorial sovereignty. This consensual foundation explains both arbitration’s flexibility and its relative detachment from national judicial systems.

Arbitration is not entirely autonomous from state law, but it is structurally distinct from court-based jurisdiction. National courts do not confer jurisdiction on arbitral tribunals; instead, they recognise and support the arbitral process by enforcing arbitration agreements, assisting with evidence and interim measures, and enforcing arbitral awards. Private international law provides the doctrinal tools that organise this interaction between arbitral autonomy and state authority (Born, 2021).

The seat of arbitration functions as the central connecting factor linking arbitration to a particular legal system. The seat determines the procedural law governing the arbitration and identifies the courts competent to exercise supervisory jurisdiction, including setting aside proceedings. Importantly, the seat does not necessarily correspond to the physical location of hearings or to the applicable substantive law. This abstraction allows arbitration to remain geographically flexible while retaining a juridical anchor essential for legal certainty (Redfern and Hunter, 2015).

9.2 Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards

The effectiveness of international arbitration depends on the enforceability of arbitral awards across borders. Private international law facilitates this enforcement through a widely accepted legal framework centred on the New York Convention. This framework obliges national courts to recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards subject to limited and clearly defined refusal grounds.

The enforcement logic differs from that applicable to foreign court judgments. Review of arbitral awards is deliberately narrow and excludes any reassessment of the merits. Courts may refuse enforcement only on grounds such as invalidity of the arbitration agreement, denial of procedural fairness, excess of authority, or incompatibility with public policy. This limited review preserves procedural autonomy while ensuring minimum standards of legitimacy (Born, 2021).

Arbitration thus occupies a distinctive position in private international law. It offers a high degree of predictability and enforceability while remaining dependent on national legal systems for coercive effect. The success of arbitration illustrates how private international law can accommodate non-state adjudication mechanisms without undermining state sovereignty.

10. Procedural cooperation across borders

10.1 Service of documents abroad

Service of documents across borders is a foundational aspect of procedural cooperation. Proper notification of proceedings is a prerequisite of due process, ensuring that defendants are informed of claims against them and given an opportunity to be heard. In cross-border litigation, service presents both practical and legal challenges, including language barriers, differing procedural traditions, and concerns about sovereignty.

Treaty-based service mechanisms standardise and simplify this process. They provide structured channels through which documents may be transmitted and served abroad, reducing uncertainty and delays. These mechanisms balance efficiency with respect for domestic procedural guarantees, reflecting the cooperative ethos of private international law (Briggs, 2013).

10.2 Taking of evidence abroad

The taking of evidence across borders raises additional coordination problems. Courts generally lack authority to compel evidence outside their territory, necessitating judicial assistance through foreign authorities. Letters rogatory and similar instruments enable courts to request assistance in obtaining testimony, documents, or expert reports located abroad.

This process is often slow and subject to domestic limitations. Conflicts may arise where requested measures contradict fundamental procedural principles of the requested state, such as restrictions on pre-trial discovery or protections of privilege. Private international law manages these tensions by emphasising cooperation while acknowledging the procedural autonomy of each legal system (Dicey, Morris and Collins, 2022).

10.3 Interim measures and cross-border enforcement

Interim measures, including asset freezing and provisional relief, play a critical role in preserving the effectiveness of cross-border litigation and arbitration. Without such measures, final judgments or awards may be rendered ineffective by the dissipation of assets or strategic delay.

Private international law faces a structural tension in this area. Urgent relief often requires swift action by courts that may not have jurisdiction over the merits of the dispute. At the same time, states are cautious about exercising coercive power in matters closely connected to foreign proceedings. The resulting framework allows limited provisional measures while reserving full adjudicatory authority to the competent forum (Cuniberti, 2022).

Procedural cooperation thus complements jurisdiction, choice of law, and enforcement. It ensures that cross-border adjudication is not merely formal but capable of producing effective and fair outcomes despite the fragmentation of legal authority across states.

11. Field-specific applications

11.1 Contractual obligations

Contractual obligations represent the paradigmatic field of application of private international law. The organising principle is party autonomy, which allows contracting parties to select the law governing their agreement. This freedom is justified by respect for private ordering, commercial predictability, and the parties’ capacity to assess legal risk in cross-border transactions (Basedow et al., 2017).

Party autonomy is complemented by default choice-of-law rules that apply when no express choice is made. These rules typically rely on objective connecting factors such as the habitual residence of the party performing the characteristic obligation. Their function is to approximate the law the parties would reasonably have chosen, thereby preserving legal certainty.

Mandatory protections limit contractual freedom where significant power imbalances exist. Consumer, employment, and insurance contracts are subject to protective conflict rules that prevent stronger parties from using choice-of-law clauses to evade regulatory safeguards. Regulatory contracts, including those touching on competition or financial stability, may also attract overriding mandatory provisions, reflecting the public interests embedded in ostensibly private agreements (Cuniberti, 2022).

11.2 Non-contractual obligations

Non-contractual obligations, particularly torts, present distinct challenges due to the unpredictability of harmful events and their effects. Traditional choice-of-law approaches favour the place of harm, reflecting the interest of the state where damage materialises. An alternative connecting factor is the place of conduct, which focuses on the location of the act giving rise to liability (Briggs, 2013).

In practice, modern private international law often combines these approaches, allowing flexibility where harm and conduct occur in different states. This flexibility is essential for addressing multistate torts, such as product liability and environmental damage, where conduct and harm may be geographically dispersed.

Digital harms intensify these difficulties. Online defamation, data breaches, and intellectual property infringements produce effects simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions. Choice-of-law rules must therefore balance proximity, foreseeability, and the risk of excessive regulatory reach, illustrating the limits of territorially anchored connecting factors in a digital environment (Michaels, 2014).

11.3 Property law

Property law remains one of the most territorially anchored fields within private international law. Rights in immovable property are governed by the lex rei sitae, the law of the place where the property is located. This rule reflects the close relationship between land, territorial sovereignty, and public registration systems, and it ensures legal certainty in transactions involving immovables (Dicey, Morris and Collins, 2022).

Movable property presents greater complexity. Connecting factors may include the location of the property at the time of the relevant transaction or the habitual residence of the owner. Transnational dealings in securities and intangible assets further complicate this analysis.

The result is fragmentation of transnational property relations. A single economic relationship may be governed by different property laws depending on asset location, undermining coherence. Private international law accepts this fragmentation as the price of respecting territorial authority over property rights.

11.4 Family law and personal status

Family law and personal status matters reveal the tension between private autonomy and public policy in private international law. Jurisdictional competition and forum shopping are common, particularly in divorce and custody disputes, where outcomes may vary significantly across legal systems.

Choice-of-law and jurisdictional rules in this field often prioritise protective considerations over neutrality. Child protection exemplifies this approach. Connecting factors based on the child’s habitual residence aim to anchor jurisdiction and applicable law in the environment most closely linked to the child’s welfare, reducing incentives for strategic relocation (Ní Shúilleabháin, 2025).

Public policy plays a prominent role in family law. Courts exercise heightened scrutiny when applying foreign law or recognising foreign decisions, reflecting the sensitivity of personal status and the social values attached to family relations.

11.5 Succession

Succession law confronts private international law with the challenge of coordinating estate administration across multiple legal systems. Two competing models dominate: unity, under which a single law governs the entire estate, and scission, under which movable and immovable assets are governed by different laws.

Unity promotes coherence and simplifies estate planning, while scission reflects territorial control over immovable property. The interaction between nationality and habitual residence as connecting factors illustrates broader shifts in private international law. Nationality-based approaches emphasise personal affiliation, whereas habitual residence focuses on social and economic integration at the time of death (Briggs, 2013).

Renvoi retains particular importance in succession, as acceptance of foreign conflict rules may facilitate alignment of outcomes across jurisdictions and reduce fragmentation of estates.

11.6 Corporate law and insolvency

In corporate law, private international law must identify the legal system governing a company’s internal affairs. Connecting factors include the place of incorporation and the real seat of management. Divergence between these approaches reflects competing views on regulatory competition and creditor protection (Basedow et al., 2017).

Cross-border insolvency illustrates advanced coordination techniques. The concept of the centre of main interests serves as the primary connecting factor for main insolvency proceedings. It aims to locate proceedings in the jurisdiction most closely connected to the debtor’s economic activity, thereby facilitating collective creditor action and reducing conflicting proceedings.

Insolvency coordination demonstrates how private international law adapts to systemic risk. It blends private law techniques with regulatory objectives, highlighting the discipline’s capacity to respond to complex transnational economic realities without dissolving the boundaries of state authority.

12. Human rights constraints on private international law

Private international law operates within the framework of domestic constitutional law and international human rights obligations. Although traditionally portrayed as a technical discipline concerned with coordination rather than substance, private international law is increasingly shaped by human rights constraints, particularly where jurisdictional rules, choice-of-law outcomes, or recognition decisions affect access to justice and procedural fairness.

The right to a fair trial and access to justice impose concrete limits on how private international law rules may be designed and applied. Jurisdictional doctrines that deny access to any effective forum, or that impose disproportionate procedural burdens on one party, may violate fundamental procedural guarantees. Courts are therefore required to interpret jurisdictional rules in a manner that preserves the practical ability of individuals to assert and defend their rights, especially in cross-border situations involving vulnerable parties or significant power imbalances (Ní Shúilleabháin, 2025).

Human rights considerations are particularly relevant in the assessment of procedural fairness in foreign proceedings. Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments may be refused where the original proceedings failed to meet minimum standards of due process, such as proper notice, equality of arms, and the right to be heard. These requirements do not amount to a review of the merits, but they ensure that private international law does not facilitate the cross-border effects of procedurally defective adjudication (Cheshire, North and Fawcett, 2017).

The principle of proportionality has also emerged as a limiting factor in jurisdictional exclusions and rigid allocation rules. Exclusive jurisdiction provisions and strict priority rules may be legitimate expressions of sovereign interest, but their application must not produce manifestly unjust outcomes. Courts increasingly assess whether the denial of jurisdiction or the enforcement of rigid connecting factors serves a legitimate aim and whether less restrictive alternatives are available. This proportionality analysis reflects the influence of constitutional and human rights reasoning on private international law methodology (Michaels, 2014).

Human rights norms further inform the application of the public policy exception. While public policy has long functioned as a safeguard against unacceptable foreign norms or outcomes, its content has evolved. Contemporary public policy review is increasingly shaped by internationally recognised human rights standards, including protections against discrimination, arbitrary deprivation of rights, and denial of effective judicial protection. This development strengthens the normative coherence of private international law while preserving its exceptional character (Basedow et al., 2017).

Importantly, human rights constraints do not transform private international law into a vehicle for substantive harmonisation. Their function is corrective rather than constitutive. They ensure that coordination between legal systems does not come at the expense of fundamental procedural guarantees and basic standards of justice. Private international law thus remains a system of conflict management, but one that operates within clearly defined normative boundaries imposed by human rights law.

Also read

• Hague Conventions: Global Legal Frameworks for Peace and Private Law

• Jurisdictional Gaps in Subsea Data Cables

• Principles Of Jurisdiction In International Law

• The Nineteenth Century's Impact on Modern International Law

• Diplomatic and Consular Relations

• The Right to Connectivity under the ICCPR

13. Contemporary challenges and future directions

Private international law is increasingly tested by structural transformations in economic activity, technology, and global governance. While its core architecture remains stable, new forms of cross-border interaction expose the limits of traditional connecting factors and coordination mechanisms.

Digital transactions and borderless conduct challenge the territorial assumptions underlying private international law. Online contracts, platform-based services, data processing, and algorithmic decision-making often lack a clear geographic centre of gravity. Harm may occur simultaneously in multiple states, and contractual relationships may be performed in virtual environments detached from any single territory. Traditional connecting factors, such as place of performance or place of harm ris,k either overextension or indeterminacy in this context. Private international law is therefore compelled to recalibrate proximity analysis, often privileging the location of affected users or the economic targeting of a market rather than physical presence (Michaels, 2014).

Mass claims and collective redress represent a further pressure point. Transnational product liability, environmental damage, and data protection breaches increasingly give rise to claims involving large groups of affected persons across multiple jurisdictions. Existing jurisdictional and recognition frameworks were designed for bilateral disputes and struggle to accommodate collective proceedings. Issues of representation, notice, binding effect, and enforcement across borders remain underdeveloped. Private international law must therefore confront the challenge of coordinating collective justice mechanisms without undermining procedural fairness or creating incentives for strategic litigation (Cuniberti, 2022).

The fragmentation of enforcement in geopolitical contexts poses a more overtly political challenge. Sanctions regimes, breakdowns in diplomatic relations, and declining trust between legal systems affect the willingness of states to recognise and enforce foreign judgments. Even where formal legal criteria are satisfied, enforcement may be impeded by political considerations or legislative restrictions. This fragmentation undermines the predictability on which private international law depends and exposes its reliance on stable inter-state relations (Basedow et al., 2017).

Finally, the limits of harmonisation in a multipolar legal order are increasingly apparent. Regional integration projects have demonstrated the benefits of uniform conflict rules, but their extension beyond relatively homogeneous groups of states remains difficult. Divergent conceptions of jurisdiction, procedural fairness, and public policy constrain global convergence. As a result, future development of private international law is likely to proceed through incremental coordination, soft-law instruments, and judicial dialogue rather than comprehensive universal codification.

These challenges do not signal the decline of private international law. They confirm its enduring relevance as a discipline designed to manage legal diversity. Its future lies not in eliminating pluralism but in refining the techniques through which legal systems coexist, cooperate, and occasionally resist one another in an increasingly complex transnational environment.

14. Conclusion

Private international law is best understood as a technique for managing legal diversity rather than as a body of substantive norms. It does not seek to unify private law across borders, nor does it impose hierarchical solutions on competing legal systems. Its function is coordinative: it structures the interaction of multiple sovereign legal orders by allocating jurisdiction, identifying applicable law, and regulating the circulation of judicial decisions. In doing so, it enables cross-border private relations to function in the absence of a global legislator or a unified judicial authority.

This coordinative role explains the enduring architecture of private international law. Jurisdiction determines the forum entitled to adjudicate; choice of law preserves substantive expectations by connecting disputes to the most appropriate legal system; recognition and enforcement transform judgments into effective instruments beyond the state of origin. Each element addresses a distinct aspect of transnational legal pluralism, yet none operates meaningfully in isolation. Their interaction reflects an effort to stabilise private relations without denying the autonomy of national legal systems (Briggs, 2013; Basedow et al., 2017).

At the normative level, private international law continuously balances sovereignty, fairness, and legal certainty. Sovereignty remains central, as states retain ultimate control over adjudication and enforcement within their territory. Fairness is reflected in jurisdictional protections, procedural safeguards, and human rights constraints that limit excessive or abusive exercises of authority. Legal certainty is promoted through predictable connecting factors, respect for party autonomy, and structured recognition regimes. The discipline does not eliminate tensions between these values; it manages them through calibrated rules and carefully circumscribed exceptions (Dicey, Morris and Collins, 2022).

The increasing influence of human rights norms, regulatory interests, and global economic integration has altered neither the purpose nor the relevance of private international law. Instead, these developments have confirmed its adaptability. The discipline has absorbed new concerns—such as access to justice, weaker-party protection, and cross-border enforcement risks—without abandoning its foundational coordinating logic. Even in contexts of geopolitical fragmentation and digital deterritorialisation, private international law continues to provide the primary legal framework through which private actors navigate transnational disputes (Ní Shúilleabháin, 2025).

Private international law, therefore, remains central to global private relations. As cross-border interactions become more frequent and more complex, the need for structured coexistence between legal systems intensifies rather than diminishes. The enduring contribution of private international law lies in its capacity to reconcile legal pluralism with practical effectiveness, offering a disciplined method for resolving disputes in a world defined not by legal unity, but by persistent and unavoidable diversity.

References

1. Basedow, J., Rühl, G., Ferrari, F. and de Miguel Asensio, P. (eds) (2017) Encyclopedia of Private International Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

2. Born, G.B. (2021) International Commercial Arbitration. 3rd edn. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

3. Briggs, A. (2013) The Conflict of Laws. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

4. Cheshire, G.C., North, P.M. and Fawcett, J.J. (2017) Cheshire, North & Fawcett: Private International Law. 15th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

5. Cuniberti, G. (2022) Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Approach. 2nd edn. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

6. Dicey, A.V., Morris, J.H.C. and Collins, L. (2022) Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws. 16th edn. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

7. Michaels, R. (2014) ‘Private International Law’, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

8. Ní Shúilleabháin, M. (2025) ‘Fundamentals of Private International Law from a Comparative Perspective’, Irish Judicial Studies Journal, 9(1), pp. 30–55.

9. Savigny, F.C. von (1869) A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws and the Limits of Their Operation in Respect of Place and Time. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.