Talk:Conflict of laws

Law Top‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: Law Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

International private law

Hi... just thought I should say that I'm kind of working round all sorts of international private law-related articles at the moment. My interest in it is that I've just sat my Honours exams in it. By contrast with other legal topics it doesn't seem to have had too much interest. I hope I'm not stepping on too many people's toes here. If someone could provide a North American input though, that might be helpful. Most of what I know concerns Scotland (my own lex domicilii and lex patriae!), England and the European dimension. --Killiedaft 22:32, 24 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good overview. I agree this is much undervalued area of the law, and poorly understood by many practitioners. I hope to contribute (carefully) to this page in due course. I am domiciled in Indonesia so I hope the perspective will help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suastiastu (talk • contribs) 23:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are always pleased to see new helpers — there is now a reasonable coverage of Conflict so your comments generally would be appreciated. David91 02:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Material removed

"=Non-geographical conflict of laws== Certain states apply multiple systems of law in one geographical area. For example, Sharia and national law (for ex-pats) co-exist in several Gulf states where common law has influenced the commercial code; also in several Indian states customary laws of certain castes and religions are enforceable on group members. Courts in such states apply principles of private international law (appropriately modified) to resolve the conflict."

This strikes me as controversial. In many states, there is a need to reach an accommodation between customary laws and modern municipal laws. This becomes more difficult where, as in Islamic countries, the religion may have the status of ordre public. I have not peviously encountered the idea that the relationship between the customary/religious laws and a secular system would be regulated by a Conflict system. The systems that I am familiar with have simply produced a statute regulating the relationship in line with contemporary culture rather than having a meta-system such as Conflict in place. I am also confused at the idea that one sovereign state might permit "ex-pats" (whoever they are?) to use their domilicary/habitual residence laws to regulate their own behaviour. Quite apart from the constitutional problems, this would seem to introduce major elements of uncertainty into the ordinary commercial dealings within that state. Is it supposed to apply to visitors from every other state? Thus, before letting this go live, I must ask you please to give some detailed explanation of how this works in the relevant countries and cite verifiable authority so that we can all reach a proper understanding of this material. Many thanks. David91 13:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well-known phenomena in PIL. There are: 1) territorial conflicts of laws in federal states (like in USA - interstate conflicts); 2) temporal conflicts (conflict between previous and succeeding legal act); 3)ethnic (personal) conflicts of laws (between muslim, christian laws). For example, we know very well that in Israel questions of marriage are left for rabbis. They are subject to judaism, and rabbis therefore couldn't marry muslim arabs or christians. The same is true about Saudi Arabia and Jordan, where marriages are made according to muslim law only. As for India, they have separate laws for Christian, Muslim and Hinduism marriages. Please also note that Joseph Story was touching that issue in his Commentaries on Conflict of Laws when he was discoursing on the differences between Christian civilised nations laws and others. While his "comments" are abusive for non-Christian nations, he meant this Muslim and Hinduist poligamy issues too. European scholars from multinational Switzerland(!!!), France (Arabs and French), Poland (don't have to tell) recognise these ethnic (personal) conflicts of laws and have respective dedicated passages in their textbooks. Ethnic (personal) conflicts happen not only in federal states (Switzerland), but also in unitarian states (France). Also in Early Medeival Europe during Franc Empire rule, individuals where adjudged according to their personal law, e.g. Roman was adjudicated by Roman law, and Barbarian - according to the law of his tribe, whether Gall, or Celt. See Franc truths texts. Vlad fedorov 09:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imgaine what is being referred to is the phenomenon of legal pluralism. I understand in some states the personal law applied (e.g. in matters of fmily law) can vary according to e.g. the religion of the person to whom it is applied. Like David91 I've not heard before of a direct comparison being made with private international law. In dualist states (i.e. states in whcih international law does not ipso facto form part of the muncipal law) those states may, to an extent, transform international law in to norms of domestic law (e.g. in the USA by allowing treaties to form part of US law but only so long as they do not conflict with the US Consititution) but I would not have described the rules that govern when this occured as a "conflict system". --Lucifer(sc) 14:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello collegues

Hello guys,

I have noticed that we have:

two large bias on common law system. Everything is taken from the common law POV.
too small section dedicated to the COL/PIL history.
too small section on European PIL and International conventions in PIL.

Anyway, it is nice to meet collegues in Wikipedia. :-) Vlad fedorov 08:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud question

hey guys, i just have one question and i can't seem to find an answer to in anywhere on the net or wikipedia, do i'm using the talk page here. suppose that i live in country A and i commit internet fraud in country B through there servers whilst i still live in country A, now, country B finds out about my activities and tries to prosecute me but i live in country A could wither country A or B prosecute me for my fraud? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.161.81 (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use the reference desk for questions. Talk pages are for discussing the article only. 82.95.254.249 13:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of law

The Choice of law article and this one should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.31.81 (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split

I propose a split, because "Private international law" is obviously altogether slightly different matters from the "Conflict of Laws" that were being talked about by Joseph Story, notwithstanding of the attempts by such authors as John Greenwood Collier of the Trinity Hall, Cambridge, et al., of deliberately confusing and inflating the two together for the purpose of selling his books, and being picked up by unsuspecting "lay readers" of less solid intellectual calibres and foundations, one of whom started this very article, amongst and along with a whole series of others. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, this is my first WIKI post. It's a topic I know a lot about -- I'm a professor of law and teach the subject. I'm common law trained but also expert in EU/Continental traditions, so have some opinions. The first is that it would be a MISTAKE to split PIL from conflict of laws. They are the same topic, essentially. Conflict of laws is the common law terminology, while private international law is the terminology used in the civil law world. WIKI should not perpetuate the misunderstandings between these 2 great legal traditions, but rather seek to bridge them so that communication and understanding are possible. I'm not sure how this works, but I'm a strong vote in favor of not splitting. I also agree with comment above under CHOICE OF LAW label that they should be combined. This is correct. Again, these are all different labels used to talk about the same basic sets of issues. What gets tricky is that there is so little agreement about how to bundle them. I've done a good deal of writing about it, trying to find ways to make sense of it, so am willing to help, though I have different writing priorities at the moment, but to some degree they overlap so I will try to add my perspective when time allows. For me, as a first time poster to WIKI, I still need to figure out how the process works.HelsBelles (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No to split. In continental Law, Private International Law is the same as "Conflict of Laws", though the latter term is never used and Private International Law is the only expression used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.238.149 (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose split: Both terms are used interchangeably. See:
- Briggs (2008). The Conflict of Laws. Section A. The nature of the subject, pp. 2–3.
- Clarkson; Hill (2006). The Conflict of Laws. Section 1 I B. Terminology, pp. 2–3.
- Collins, ed. (2006). Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws. Section "The name of the subject", p. 36 (paras. 1-087 et seq.).
- Hay; Borchers; Symeonides (2010). Conflict of Laws. Chapter 1. II. Definitions — Conflict of Laws — Private International Law, pp. 1–3.
- McClean; Beevers (2009). The Conflict of Laws. Section "Private international law", pp. 4–5 (para. 1-006).
- North; Fawcett (1999). Cheshire and North's Private International Law. Section "The name of the subject", pp. 13–14.
- Rogerson (2013). Collier's Conflicts of Laws. Section "The name", pp. 3–4.
- Symeonides (2008). American Private International Law. § 1 Scope and coverage, pp. 15–16 (para. 2). --RJFF (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Conflict of laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]