Conflicting Views on the Restatement (Third) of Conflict of Laws
The American Law Institute is currently drafting the Restatement (Third) of Conflict of Laws. Lea Brilmayer (an eminent scholar of conflict of laws and a professor at Yale Law School) and Kim Roosevelt (the Reporter for the Restatement (Third) and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School) recently engaged in a spirited debate about the current state of that project. Brilmayer and Daniel Listwa argued here that the current draft needs less theory and more blackletter rules. Roosevelt argued in response that the critics identify a problem that does not exist and propose a solution that would make things worse.
This exchange — the latest back-and-forth in a conversation between these interlocutors — is likely to prove illuminating to anyone curious about the status of the Restatement (Third) in the United States.
Thanks for pointing out to this interesting debate, John.
I guess a number of European scholars have a clear view on many issues debated in the US, but they also wonder whether it would really serve any purpose participating in this debate. The US choice of law revolution was build on the rejection of everything European scholars have built (what Lea Brilmayer calls the ‘old learning’) and the view that most of our doctrines were ‘escape devices’.