Views
Political Immobilisation of Iranian Diaspora Property: Lex Situs, Human Rights and Public Policy
Iran’s use of property measures against critics abroad is no longer hypothetical. In March 2026, Iran’s Prosecutor-General’s Office warned Iranians living abroad that support for, or cooperation with, states regarded by Iran as hostile could result in confiscation of their property. Reuters reported the warning on the basis of statements carried by Iranian state media.
The policy has since acquired a more concrete form. In May 2026, Amnesty International reported judicial orders to identify, freeze and seize bank accounts, properties and other assets belonging to persons accused of cooperating with “enemy states” or “hostile media”. Iranian authorities had reportedly announced measures affecting more than 750 persons inside and outside Iran, including journalists living abroad.
Administrative measures adopted in 2026 have also brought security screening into the use of consular powers of attorney. A circular concerning power of attorney issued abroad required inquiries where such instruments were presented in Iran and contemplated prosecutorial action where the grantor was identified as an opponent of the Islamic Republic abroad.
For present purposes, this situation can be described as political immobilization. Ownership may formally remain intact, while access to the legal mechanisms required to sell, mortgage, partition or administer the property is conditioned by political or security considerations.
The immediate concern is one of human rights. A separate question arises in private international law once the consequences of such measures are relied upon before courts outside Iran.
The Demise of the Lex Domicilii Matrimonii in South African Private International Law
by Sibusiso Mabaso, Lecturer in Private International Law, University of South Africa
For many years, South African private international law relied on the lex domicilii matrimonii as connecting factor to determine the legal system applicable to the proprietary consequences of a marriage. The lex domicilii matrimonii is interpreted as the husband’s domicile at the time of entering into the marriage. This rule was firmly entrenched in South African law since it was formally adopted in Frankel’s Estate v The Master & Another 1950(1) SA 220 (A) and reinforced in subsequent decisions, the latest being LE v LA 2024 (5) SA 539 (GJ). Despite the courts’ reliance on this rule, it became increasingly evident that it is not compatible with South Africa’s Constitutional commitment to equality, dignity and non-discrimination (Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996). The Westen Cape High Court has finally addressed this discriminatory connecting factor in a judgment delivered on 24 June 2026 in Pringle v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (2468 / 2024) [2026] ZAWCHC 343.
Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law
Thalia Kruger, University of Antwerp & Senior Research Associate, University of Johannesburg
This piece is based on a paper that I presented at the World Congress on Adults Protection, held in Amsterdam from 8 to 10 July 2026. It is still work in progress.
The World Conference focused on capacity rather than vulnerability and incapacity of Adults. This choice of theme resulted in much discussion on support for the exercise of capacity. Supported decision-making rather than replaced decision-making for an incapacitated person poses challenges for Private International Law, especially of the Von Savigny tradition. Our approach is to first characterise and then find which laws we can apply. But it is exactly this characterisation that is becoming blurry: to be fully in compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities people should be allowed to make decisions, i.e. conclude contracts with the help of others. There should be no boxes of capacitated and incapacitated persons. No longer can only the former conclude contracts, while the latter have to be represented by guardians or other persons with a representation function. In Adult law some concepts are phasing out, while others are being reinterpreted by legislators and courts.
Below, after briefly explaining the move towards supported decision-making in substantive family law and human rights law, I turn to the available legal framework for cross-border cases, then to the difficult question of characterisation, and lastly to cross-border recognition.
News
Lindemann Fellowship for Private International Law: Call for Applications 2026
The Lindemann Fellowship was established in 2024 to support promising academics in Europe in the field of private international law.
Fellows are accepted for a three-year period, with new Fellows joining each year, as existing Fellows complete their tenure.
Book Launch: Commercial Private International Law in Southern Africa
The publication of the open-access Festschrift in honour of Professor Christopher F Forsyth KC, Commercial Private International Law in Southern Africa: Comparative and International Perspectives, has previously been announced on this blog.
Edited by Professor Jan L. Neels and Professor Eesa A. Fredericks, with the assistance of Dr Solomon Okorley, the volume brings together comparative and international perspectives on commercial private international law in Southern Africa.
To celebrate its publication, UJ Press, in collaboration with the editors and the Research Centre for Private International Law in Emerging Countries (RCPILEC), University of Johannesburg, is organising an online book launch, bringing together the editors, the dedicatee himself, and other distinguished guests.
The programme will include addresses by the University of Johannesburg’s leadership, contributions by the editors, and a reply by Professor Christopher F Forsyth and/or Mrs Gillian Charles.
The book launch will take place online. The details are as follows:
Date: 19 October 2026
Time: 13:00–14:00 SAST
Venue: Online
Queries: ujpress@uj.ac.za
OUT now: Multistate Torts in European Private International Law
The new extensive Volume Multistate Torts in European Private International Law was just published by Edward Elgar Publishing. This book is the outcome of the second edition of the EAPIL Winter School in Private International Law. The contributions are based on the lectures given during the course, which took place at the Department of Law, Economics and Cultures, University of Insubria, Como, Italy, from 10 to 15 February 2025. It is edited by Silvia Marino (University of Insubria, Como), Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University, Kraków) and Javier Carrascosa González (University of Murcia).
The chapters discuss the current and future challenges related to the resolution of complex cases of cross-border torts and related damages. Globalisation and digitalisation are particularly crucial in these areas, where the lack of a truly common regulatory fragmentation could leave victims in a situation of helplessness. New challenges, such as distance delicts and the rise of modern social sensibilities, risk affecting the traditional goals of private international law, such as predictability and legal certainty, but especially substantive targets, as the protection of the victim and the enhancement of human rights. The Chapters of this book address these newest challenges with particular regard.