Choice of applicable law and tort: change of bias in the conflict model?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22235/rd.v0i8.774Keywords:
freedom of choice, torts, private international law, legislationAbstract
Abstract. It has been suggested that the Regulation (EC) nr. 864/2007, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007, on the law applicable to noncontractual obligations, may imply a shift in the conflict of law rules paradigm. In order to determine if we are truly facing a change of the traditional model, this paper analyses the role of choice of law in conflict of laws from a general perspective, and in the socalled Rome II Regulation.
Downloads
References
Álvarez González, S., “Breves notas sobre la autonomía de la voluntad en el derecho internacional privado”, en Libro Homenaje a J. A. Carrillo Salcedo, Secretariado
de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, 2005, pp. 137-153.
Ancel, B.; Lequette, Y., Grands arrêts de la jurisprudence française de droit international privé, 5.a ed., Dalloz, París, 2006.
Bach, I., “Art. 1”, en P. Huber (ed.), Rome II Regulation, Sellier, 2011.
— “Art. 14”, en P. Huber (ed.), Rome II Regulation, Sellier, 2011.
Bariatti, S., “Th e Law Applicable to the Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights under the Rome II Regulation”, en Litigating Intellectual Property Rights Disputes Cross-Border: EU Regulations, ALI Principles, CLIP Project, Wolters Kluwer, 2010, pp. 63-38.
Basedow, J., “Recent Development of the Confl ict of Laws”, en Japanese and European Private International Law in Comparative Perspective, Mohr Siebeck, 2008, pp. 3-18.
Batiffol, H., “Subjectivisme et objectivisme dans le droit international privé des contrats”, Choix d’articles rassemblés par ses amis, LGDP, 1976, pp. 249-263.
Batiffol, B., “Nota a la sentencia de la Cour de Cassation de 19 de abril de 1988”, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé, 1989, p. 68.
Bertoli, P. “Choice of Law by the Parties in in the Rome II Regulation”, Rivista di Diritto Internazionale, 2009, pp. 696-716.
Bogdan, M., “General Aspects of the Future Regulation”, en Th e Unifi cation of Choice of Law Rules on Torts and Other Non-Contractual Obligations in Europe, Cedam, Padua, 2006, pp. 33-44.
Boskovic, O., “Th e Law Applicable to Violations of the Environment. Regulatory Strategies”, en Th e Regulatory Function of Private Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,
, pp. 188-204.
— La réparation du préjudice en droit international privé, LGDJ, París, 2003.
Bourel, P., Les confl its de lois en matière d’obligations extracontractuelles, LGDJ, París, 1961.
Bouza Vidal, N., “Aspectos actuales de la autonomía de la voluntad en la elección de la jurisdicción y de la ley aplicable a los contratos internacionales”, Cursos Vitoria-Gastéiz, 2004, pp. 31-91.
Brière, C., “Le règlement (CE) n.o 864/2007 du 11 juillet 2007 sur la loi applicable aux obligations non contractuelles (Rome II)”, Journal du Droit International, 2008, pp. 31-74.
Briggs, A., Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008.
Bureau, D., “L’infl uence de la volonté individuelle sur les confl its de lois”, en Mélanges en Hommage à F. Terré, Dalloz, París, 1999, pp. 285-305.
Clavel, S., “Th e Regulatory Function of Law Rules Applying to Contracts for Services in the European Union”, en Th e Regulatory Function of Private Law, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, 2009, pp. 62-87.
De Boer, Th . M., “Party Autonomy and its Limitations in the Rome II Regulation”, Yearbook of Private International Law, 2007, pp. 19-29.
de Miguel Asensio, P., “La lex loci protectionis tras el Reglamento Roma II”, Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional Privado, 2007, pp. 375-406.
de Sousa Gonçalves, A. S., Da responsabilidade extracontratual em direito internacional privado.
A mudança de paradigma, tesis doctoral, inédita, defendida el 2 de marzo de 2012.
del Olmo, P. “Tort and Regulatory Law in Spain”, en Tort and Regulatory Law, Springer, 2007, pp. 251-293.
Dorssemont, F., y van Hoek, A. H., “Collective Action in Labour Confl icts Under the Rome II Regulation”, en Collective Action and Fundamental Freedoms in Europe:
Striking the Balance, Intersentia, 2010, pp. 213-242.
Espiniella Menéndez, A., “La autonomía de la voluntad en el Reglamento (CE) n.o 864/2997, Roma II, sobre la ley aplicable a las obligaciones extracontractuales”,Noticias de la Unión Europea, n.o 299, 2009, pp. 95-109.
Fauverque-Cosson, B., “L’accord procédural à l’épreuve du temps”, en Mélanges en l’honneur de P. Lagarde, 2005, pp. 263-284.
Fernández Rozas, J. C., y Sánchez Lorenzo, S., Derecho internacional privado, Civitas, Madrid, 199.
Fontanellas Morell, J. M., La professio iuris sucesoria, Marcial Pons, Madrid, 2010.
Graziano, T. K., “Freedom to Choose the Applicable Law in Tort- Articles 14 and 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation”, en Th e Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, Martinus Nijhoff , 2009, pp. 112-132.
Guinchard, E., Lamont-Black, S., “Environmental Law - the Black Sheep in Rome II’s Drive for Legal Certainty? Artide 7 of Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations in Context”, 11 Environmental Law Review 161.
Jacquet, J.M.,“Le principe d’autonomie entre consolidation et évolution”, en Liber Amicorum H. Gaudemet-Tallon, Dalloz, París, 2008, pp. 727-745.
Joubert, J., “Les règles de confl it spéciales en matière de délits dans le Règlement du 11 Juillet 2007 (Rome II)”, en Le Règlement communautaire Rome II sur la loi applicable aux obligations non contractuelles, Litec, 2008, pp. 55-84.
Kreuzer, K., “Tort Liability in General”, en Th e Unifi cation of Choice of Law Rules on Torts and Other Non-Contractual Obligations in Europe, Cedam, Padua, 2006,
pp. 45-72.
Kumar, S., “One Size Fits All? An analysis of the Civil, Criminal, and Regulatory Justifi cations for Punitive Damages”, 13 Journal of Consumer & Commercial Law 46.
Lagarde, P. “Le principe de proximité dans le droit international privé contemporain”, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de La Haye, 1986-I, pp. 9-238
Lehmann, M., “Liberating the Individual from Battles between States: Justifying Party Autonomy in Confl ict of Laws”, 41 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 381.
Loquin, E., “La règle de confl it générale en matière de délit dans le Règlement du 11 juillet 2007 (Rome II)”, en Le Règlement communautaire Rome II sur la loi applicable aux obligations non contractuelles, Litec, 2008, pp. 35-53.
Monéger, F., “The Last Ten oules derniers États des États-Unis d’Amérique fi dèles à la lex loci delicti”, en Mélanges en l’honneur de P. Lagarde, Dalloz, París, 2005.
Muir-Watt, H., “Concurrence d’ordres juridiques et confl its de lois en droit privé”, en Mélanges en l’honneur de P. Lagarde, Dalloz, París, 2005, pp. 615-633
— “Rome II et les intérêts gouvernamentaux : pour une lecture fonctionnaliste du nouveau règlement du confl it de lois en matière délictuelle”, en Le Règlement communautaire Rome II sur la loi applicable aux obligations non contractuelles, Litec, 2008, pp. 129-140.
Muir-Watt, H., Cafaggi, F., “Introduction”, en The Regulatory Function of Private Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2009.
Niboyet, J. P., “La théorie de l’autonomie de la volonté ”, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de La Haye, 1927-I, pp. 1-116.
Ogus, A., “Competition between National Legal Systems: A Contribution of Economic Analysis to Comparative Law”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 405.
Pironon, V., “Concurrence déloyale et actes restreignant la libre concurrence”, en Le Règlement communautaire Rome II sur la loi applicable aux obligations non contractuelles, Litec, 2008, pp. 111-128.
Requejo Isidro, M., “Punitive Damages: How Do Th ey Look Like When Seen from Abroad?”, en L. Meurkens y E. Nordin, Th e Power of Punitive Damages (Is Europe
Missing Out?), Intersentia, 2012, pp. 311-335.
Ruda, A., El daño ecológico puro, la responsabilidad civil por el deterioro del medio ambiente, con especial atención a la Ley 26/2007, de 23 de octubre, de responsabilidad medioambiental,Thomson-Aranzadi, Pamplona, 2008.
Seipp, D. J., “The Distinction between Crime and Tort in the Early Common Law”, Boston University Law Review 59.
Symeonides, S. C., “Party Autonomy in Rome I and II from a Comparative Perspective”, copia electrónica en ‹http://ssrn.com/abstract=1697372› (y Neederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht).
Tison, M., “Unravelling the General Good Exception”, en Services and Free Movement in EU Law, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 322-381.
Van Den Eeckhout, V. “Corporate Human Rights Violations and Private International Law. Th e Hinge Function and Conductivity of PIL in Implementing Human Rights in Civil Procedure in Europe: A Facilitating Role for PIL or PIL as a Complicating Factor?”en http://ssrn.com/abstract=1964441
Von Hein, J., “Art. 7”, en Rome Regulations. Commentary on the European Rules of the Confl ict of Laws, Wolters Kluwer, 2011.
— “Art. 14”, en Rome Regulations. Commentary on the European Rules of the Confl ict of Laws, Wolters Kluwer, 2011.
— “Art. 17”, en Rome Regulations Commentary on the European Rules of the Confl ict of Laws, Wolters Kluwer, 2011.
— “Something Old and Something Borrowed, but Nothing New - Rome II and the European Choice of Law”, 82 Tulane Law Review 1663.
VV. AA., Derecho internacional privado. Parte especial, 4.a ed. revisada, Centro de Estudios Sociales y Jurídicos Ramón Carande, Madrid.
Wai, R., “Transnational Liftoff and Juridical Touchdown: the Regulatory Function of Private International Law in an Era of Globalization”, 40 Columbia Journal of
Transnational Law 209.
— “Transnational Private Law and Private Ordering in a Contested Global Society”, Harvard International Law Journal 471.
Weller, M. Ph., “Les rattachements dans les confl its de lois”, en Quelle architecture pour uncode européen de droit international privé?, P. Lang, 2012, pp. 327-334.
Wells, M. L., “A Common Lawyer’s Perspective on the European Perspective on Punitive Damages”, 70 Louisiana Law Review 557.
Zeno-Zencovich, V., “E-commerce from a private law perspective”, en Th e Regulatory Function of European Private Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2009, pp. 275-281.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
