Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Rome I Regulation – A Dangerous Proposal?

August 29, 2006/1 Comment/in /by Martin George
image_pdfimage_print

Stuart Dutson (Linklaters) has written an article in the Journal of Business Law (J.B.L.): A dangerous proposal – the European Commission's attempt to amend the law applicable to contractual obligations. Here is the abstract:

This article analyses the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I). Explores the proposed changes to the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980, the Rome Convention. The article welcomes some of the proposals, including the ability for parties to choose non-State bodies of law, but argues that two are dangerous, focusing on the provisions on applicable law in the absence of choice and the application of foreign mandatory rules.

Journal of Business Law J.B.L. (2006) September Pages 608-618.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Martin George https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Martin George2006-08-29 11:12:472006-11-25 15:19:18Rome I Regulation – A Dangerous Proposal?
1 reply
  1. Luca Di Nunzio says:
    June 26, 2007 at 4:32 pm

    I’m writing my thesis. This article is really interesting on my work.
    Thanks

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • From Symbolism to Substance: Comity and Judicial Reform in South Africa’s Foreign Judgments Regime September 15, 2026
  • Persistent and Reasonable Efforts in the Field of Cross-Border Service of Documents. Continuation or Stay of Proceedings? September 12, 2026
  • Speaking for the Dead: Idziski and the Forum for Post-Mortem Likeness Claims September 7, 2026
  • Book Review: Andrew Dickinson and Alexander Thompson, The State Immunity Act 1978 (OUP, 2025) September 7, 2026
  • Political Immobilisation of Iranian Diaspora Property: Lex Situs, Human Rights and Public Policy August 22, 2026
  • The Demise of the Lex Domicilii Matrimonii in South African Private International Law August 18, 2026
  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
Link to: ECJ Interpretation of Art 6(1) of the Brussels I Regulation Link to: ECJ Interpretation of Art 6(1) of the Brussels I Regulation ECJ Interpretation of Art 6(1) of the Brussels I Regulation Link to: Land, Security in Land and the Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000 Link to: Land, Security in Land and the Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000 Land, Security in Land and the Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top