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

Pauwelyn on Public International Law and the Conflicts Approach

March 8, 2012/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

Joost Pauwelyn (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva) has posted Public International Law and the Conflicts-Law Approach on SSRN. The abstract reads:

What are the challenges when thinking about public international law through the three dimensional prism of the conflicts-law approach? This contribution describes how international law is based on a “thin consent” paradigm. It then explores challenges that come with this paradigm under each of the conflicts-law three dimensions: law as system (how to open up a specific treaty regime to other legal orders?); law as regulation (how to open up law to non-legal expertise?); and law as governance (how to open up law to informal or para-legal regimes?). In conclusion, a shift is pointed at from “thin consent” to “thick consensus”. This shift affects in particular the parallel universe of transnational standard-setting. Yet, it also finds early reflections in formal international law adjudication.

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 Gilles Cuniberti https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Gilles Cuniberti2012-03-08 12:02:372012-03-08 12:02:37Pauwelyn on Public International Law and the Conflicts Approach

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • 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
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
Link to: Latest Issue of “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (2/2012) Link to: Latest Issue of “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (2/2012) Latest Issue of “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts”... Link to: Bennett on the Presumption against Extra-Territoriality Link to: Bennett on the Presumption against Extra-Territoriality Bennett on the Presumption against Extra-Territoriality
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top