Methods and Approaches in Choice of Law: An Economic Perspective

Giesela Rühl
{"title":"Methods and Approaches in Choice of Law: An Economic Perspective","authors":"Giesela Rühl","doi":"10.15779/Z38J35R","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After years of disregard, the law and economics movement has finally taken note of the field of choice of law. However, up until today most of the contributions have focused on specific topics - such as the applicable law in contracts, torts or product liability - and skipped the underlying fundamental issues that determine the general design of choice of law rules: (1) Should courts apply foreign law at all or should they always resort to their own law? (2) Should courts create multistate substantive law specifically designed for international transactions or should they apply the law of one of the states involved? (3) Should choice of law rules resort to the unilateral method and define the reach of forum law only or should they apply the multilateral method and determine the reach of both forum and foreign law? (4) Should courts search for material justice or rather for conflicts justice? (5) Should choice of law strive for legal certainty or rather for flexibility? This article provides a comparative overview as well as an economic analysis of the answers legal scholarship has provided to these questions over time and across countries. It argues that courts should (1) be open towards application of foreign law, (2) apply the law of one of the states involved (3) determine the reach of both foreign and forum law, (4) strive for conflicts justice, and (5) apply rules instead of standards.","PeriodicalId":325917,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Berkeley Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38J35R","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

After years of disregard, the law and economics movement has finally taken note of the field of choice of law. However, up until today most of the contributions have focused on specific topics - such as the applicable law in contracts, torts or product liability - and skipped the underlying fundamental issues that determine the general design of choice of law rules: (1) Should courts apply foreign law at all or should they always resort to their own law? (2) Should courts create multistate substantive law specifically designed for international transactions or should they apply the law of one of the states involved? (3) Should choice of law rules resort to the unilateral method and define the reach of forum law only or should they apply the multilateral method and determine the reach of both forum and foreign law? (4) Should courts search for material justice or rather for conflicts justice? (5) Should choice of law strive for legal certainty or rather for flexibility? This article provides a comparative overview as well as an economic analysis of the answers legal scholarship has provided to these questions over time and across countries. It argues that courts should (1) be open towards application of foreign law, (2) apply the law of one of the states involved (3) determine the reach of both foreign and forum law, (4) strive for conflicts justice, and (5) apply rules instead of standards.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法律选择的方法与途径:经济学视角
经过多年的忽视,法律和经济学运动终于注意到了法律选择的领域。然而,直到今天,大多数的贡献都集中在具体的主题上,如合同、侵权或产品责任中的适用法律,而忽略了决定法律选择规则一般设计的潜在基本问题:(1)法院是否应该适用外国法,还是应该总是诉诸本国法?(2)法院应制定专门针对国际交易的多国实体法,还是应适用所涉国家之一的法律?(3)法律选择规则应采用单方法,只确定法院法的适用范围,还是应采用多边法,既确定法院法的适用范围,又确定外国法的适用范围?(4)法院应该追求物质正义还是冲突正义?(5)法律选择应该追求法律的确定性还是灵活性?这篇文章提供了一个比较的概述,以及一个经济分析的答案,法律学者提供了这些问题随着时间和国家。它认为法院应该(1)对外国法的适用持开放态度;(2)适用所涉国家之一的法律;(3)确定外国法和法庭法的适用范围;(4)争取冲突正义;(5)适用规则而不是标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Maritime Interdiction of North Korean Ships under UN Sanctions The South China Sea as a Challenge to International Law and to International Legal Scholarship Back in the Game: International Humanitarian Lawmaking by States International Law and Corporate Participation in Times of Armed Conflict Reversing the Two Wrong Turns in the Economic Analysis of International Law: A Club Goods Theory of Treaty Membership & European Integration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1