Views
Zamzam on Egyptian Private International Law (in Arabic): Towards Reviving the Golden Age of Egyptian Private International Law
Private international law in Egypt has often been described as being in a state of stagnation. After enormous efforts by the government since the end of the 19th century, and particularly during the beginning of the 20th century, Egypt succeeded in developing a relatively comprehensive PIL framework, covering choice of law (Arts 10–28 of the 1948 Civil Code), international jurisdiction (Arts 28–35 of the 1968 Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure), and the enforcement of foreign judgments (Arts 296–301 the 1968 Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure), alongside other rules scattered across various pieces of legislation. While these rules could be considered relatively modern and well developed, and broadly in line with the general tendencies of comparative law at the time, they have since become quite outdated and, in many respects, old-fashioned. This, however, has not prevented Egyptian law from exerting considerable influence throughout the region, with more recent codifications often reproducing or adapting Egyptian solutions.
Maintenance Duties for a Gestational Surrogate Following Non-Recognition – An Unreported Spanish Judgment
Written by Nicolás Zambrana-Tévar LLM, PhD (KIMEP University)
Facts of the case
An unreported judgment of the Family, Childhood and Capacity Section of the Tribunal de Instancia de Alicante (No. 3), dated 29 April 2026, has attracted attention for ordering a Mexican gestational surrogate to pay child maintenance to the Spanish father for whom she carried a child, despite having no custody, no exercise of parental authority, and no contact rights (here and here).
From Symbolism to Substance: Comity and Judicial Reform in South Africa’s Foreign Judgments Regime
South Africa occupies a strategic position in African and Global South trade networks, yet its economy continues to lag behind its BRICS partners and many of its African peers. A recurring, if underexamined, contributor to this underperformance is the state of its private international law governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (REFJ). The article, published in the Journal of African Law (2026), investigates why and how the principle of comity might help resolve this issue.
The empirical picture is striking. Of the reported South African REFJ cases collated for this study, roughly 44 per cent of foreign judgments brought for enforcement are refused. Contrary to what one might expect, the leading cause is rarely fraud or public policy. Instead, over half of all refusals (53 per cent) turn on a single, narrow ground: the rendering court’s lack of “international competence” under South African law. Under the framework laid down in Jones v Krok (1995), a foreign court is internationally competent only where the debtor was resident in, or voluntarily submitted to, that court’s jurisdiction. Every other basis for jurisdiction recognised elsewhere – the place of contractual performance, the place where harm occurred, or a valid choice-of-court agreement standing alone- is, on the weight of authority, insufficient.
News
International accountability mechanisms of multilateral development banks: lessons drawn from the Cambodia micro-finance cases
Written by Dr. Rishi Gulati, Associate Professor of International Law at UEA Law School and a Barrier specializing in international law
1 Introduction
Multilateral development banks (MDBs) such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the African Development Bank finance large-scale public projects globally and regionally to promote sustainable development and reduce poverty. MDBs require the adherence to environmental and social standards to mitigate harm. However, during project implementation these standards are not always respected and communities may be harmed. Without timely access to justice for affected individuals, basic rights would be compromised, severely undermining the accountability of MDBs as public international organizations (IOs).
Internships at the HCCH
Applications are now open for three- to six-month legal internships at the headquarters of the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH in The Hague, for the period from March to September 2027!
Interns work with our legal teams in the Family and Child Protection Law Division, the Transnational Litigation and Apostille Division, and the Commercial, Digital and Financial Law Division.
Duties may include carrying out research on particular points of private international law and/or comparative law, taking part in the preparation of HCCH meetings, and contributing to the promotion of the HCCH and its work.
Applications should be submitted by Monday, 9 November 2026 at 18.00 (CET). For more information, please visit the Internships Section of the HCCH website.
This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH).
Virtual Workshop (in English) on Tuesday, 3 November 2026: Brooke Marshall in our series on “Current Research in Private International Law”
On Tuesday, November 3, 2026, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CEST).
Brooke Marshall (University of Oxford) will speak, in English, about the topic
“Forum legis in English Law”
About the Speaker:
Brooke Marshall is an Associate Professor of the Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, and a Fellow of St Edmund Hall. Her research examines intersections both within the field of private international law and between the field and other areas of law and legal practice. Her work has a doctrinal foundation in international commercial dispute resolution and engages with normative and comparative questions raised by cross-border relationships.
About the Topic:
An initial determination by an English court as to the law that should apply to a cross-border dispute is commonplace at the jurisdictional stage, directly affecting both the assumption and exercise of jurisdiction. This project, jointly undertaken with Dr Roxana Banu, maps the substantial and increasing role played by choice of law in the jurisdictional enquiry. Focussing on the governing law gateways for service outside the jurisdiction, it provides a theoretical, historical, and doctrinal account of England’s forum legis. We explore its imperial roots, the results it produces in the case law, and whether basing the adjudicatory jurisdiction of English courts on the applicability of English law can be normatively justified in routine commercial cases.
About the Virtual Workshop Series:
The virtual workshop series “Current Research in Private International Law” is organised by Ralf Michaels and Antonia Sittig. The series features leading national and international scholars who present and discuss their work on current developments and research topics in private international law. The workshops are geared to scholars who are researching in the field of private international law, but attendance is open to all individuals having an academic interest (doctoral candidates and students are expressly invited).
The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.
If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.