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

First Issue of 2009’s Revue Critique de Droit International Privé

May 24, 2009/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

Revue Critique DIPThe first issue of the Revue Critique de Droit International Privé was just released.

It contains two articles and several case notes.

The first article is authored by Dominique Bureau, a professor at Paris II University, and Horatia Muir Watt, a professor at Paris Institute of Political Science (commonly known as Sciences Po). The paper explores whether enforcing forum selection clauses when mandatory rules of the forum are applicable, desactivates the imperativity of such rules (L’impérativité désactivitée ?).

The applicability of mandatory regulation or loi de police does not prevent the enforcement of a choice of forum clause in favour of a foreign court.  In France, the Cour de cassation has adhered in turn to a solution already prevailing in other jurisdictions and for which arbitrability of disputes involving social or economic regulation paved the way.  As with arbitration, the progressive liberalisation of requirements for the cross-border movement of  the chosen court’s decision may empower private actors to cross jurisdictional  boundaries and benefit from a quasi-immunity from the constraints of state law. One possible response to such neutralisation of mandatory rules would be to set up a regime which would be dual from the point of view of the subject-matter of the rules involved (i.e. whether they are protective of weaker parties or whether they carry public economic regulation) and transversally applicable whatever the nature of the chosen forum (i.e. similar principles would apply to choice of arbitrator or foreign court), so as to exclude weaker parties from access to jurisdictional autonomy, including as far as arbitration of their disputes is concerned, while, on the other hand, preserving freedom of choice  of forum and, correlatively, a low level of control  in other cases, subject of course to the procedural precautions which Community law now mandates when the dispute falls within its scope.

The second article is authored by Iraqi scholar Harith Al Dabbagh (Mossoul and Saint Etienne Universities). It discusses the issue of marriages between spouses of different religions (Mariage mixte et conflit entre droits religieux et laique). More specifically, the starting point of the discussion is a case of the Supreme Court of Iraq of March 27, 2007, which ruled on the divorce of a christian Iraqi women and a Turkish muslim man. Unfortunately, no abstract is provided.

The table of contents is not yet online.  Articles of the Revue Critique cannot be downloaded.

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 Cuniberti2009-05-24 08:27:572009-05-24 08:32:48First Issue of 2009’s Revue Critique de Droit International Privé

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • 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
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: Dirty Dancing and Stays of Proceedings Link to: Dirty Dancing and Stays of Proceedings Dirty Dancing and Stays of Proceedings Link to: ECJ: Judgment on Art. 15 Brussels I (“Ilsinger”) Link to: ECJ: Judgment on Art. 15 Brussels I (“Ilsinger”) ECJ: Judgment on Art. 15 Brussels I (“Ilsinger”)
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top