Views
The DSA/DMA Package and the Conflict of Laws
A couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of speaking about the scope of application of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), which together have been labelled the ‘European constitution for the internet’, at an event at the University of Strasbourg, organized by Etienne Farnoux and Delphine Porcheron. The preprint of my paper, forthcoming at Dalloz IP/IT, can be found on SSRN.
Disappointingly, both instruments only describe their territorial scope of application through a unilateral conflicts rule (following a strict ‘marketplace’ approach; see Art. 2(1) DSA and Art. 1(2) DMA), but neither of them contains any wider conflicts provision. This is despite the many problems of private international law that it raises, e.g. when referring to ‘illegal’ content in Art. 16 DSA, which unavoidably requires a look at the applicable law(s) in order to establish this illegality. I have tried to illustrate some of these problems in the paper linked above and Marion Ho-Dac & Matthias Lehmann have also mentioned some more over at the EAPIL Blog.
Unfortunately, though, this reliance on unilateral conflicts rules that merely define the scope of application of a given instrument but otherwise defer to the general instruments of private international law seems to have become the norm for instruments regulating digital technology. It can be found, most famously, in Art. 3 of the GDPR, but also in Art. 1(2) of the P2B Regulation, Art. 3(1) of the proposed ePrivacy Regulation, and in Art. 1(2) of the proposed Data Act. Instruments that have taken the form of directive (such as the DSM Copyright Directive) even rely entirely on the general instruments of private international law to coordinate the different national implementations.
These general instruments, however, are notoriously ill-equipped to deal with the many cross-border problems raised by digital technology, usually resulting in large overlaps between national laws. These overlaps risk to undermine the regulatory aims of the instrument in question, as the example of the DSM Copyright Directive aptly demonstrates: With some of the most controversial questions having ultimately been delegated to national law, there is a palpable risk of many of the compromises that have been found at the national level to be undermined by the concurrent application of other national laws pursuant to Art. 8 I Rome II.
The over-reliance on general instruments of PIL despite their well-established limitations also feels like a step back from the e-Commerce Directive, which at least made a valiant attempt to reduce the number of national laws, although arguably not at the level of the conflict of laws (see CJEU, eDate, paras. 64–67). The balance struck by, and underlying rationale of, the e-Commerce Directive can certainly be discussed – indeed, given its importance for the EU’s ambition of creating a ‘Digital Single Market’, it should be. The drafting of the DSA/DMA package would arguably have provided the perfect opportunity for this discussion.
The long tentacles of the Helms-Burton Act in Europe (III)
Written by Nicolás Zambrana-Tévar LLM(LSE) PhD(Navarra), Associate Professor KIMEP University (Kazakhstan), n.zambrana@kimep.kz
There has recently been a new and disappointing development in the saga of the Sánchez-Hill, a Spanish-Cuban-US family who filed a lawsuit before Spanish courts against a Spanish Hotel company (Meliá Hotels) for unjust enrichment. Meliá is exploiting several hotels located on land owned by Gaviota S.A., a Cuban company owned by the Republic of Cuba. That land was expropriated by Cuba without compensation, following the revolution of 1959.
Read more
Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2022: Thirty-Sixth Annual Survey
The 36th Annual Survey of Choice of Law in the American Courts (2022) has been posted to SSRN.
The cases discussed in this year’s survey cover such topics as: (1) choice of law, (2) party autonomy, (3) extraterritoriality, (4) international human rights, (5) foreign sovereign immunity, (6) foreign official immunity, (7) adjudicative jurisdiction, and (8) the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Happy reading!
John Coyle (University of North Carolina School of Law)
William Dodge (University of California, Davis School of Law)
Aaron Simowitz (Willamette University College of Law)
News
ELI Extra-Judicial Administration of Justice: 14 February in Vienna
The European Law Institute (ELI) Extra-Judicial Administration of Justice in Cross-Border Family and Succession Matters project is organising its dissemination conference in Vienna on 14 February. At this all-day event (9.00 to 18.00) experts will present their country reports, comparative findings and policy recommendations, in order to discuss these with the audience.
The project investigated the phenomenon that family and succession law matters are increasingly submitted to other authorities than courts. It seeks a to establish a harmonised concept of “courts” in the EU, taking into account the CJEU case law.
More information and the registration form are available on the ELI website.
Virtual Workshop (in English) on February 4: Pietro Franzina on “EU Private International Law at a Time of ‘Broken Multilateralism’ and Growing Geo-Political Tensions”
On Tuesday, February 4, 2025, 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. (CET). Professor Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart) will speak, in English, about the topic
“EU Private International Law at a Time of ‘Broken Multilateralism’ and Growing Geo-Political Tensions”
Multilateralism is in crisis. The role of world organisations in international politics and law-making is increasingly being questioned, as some key actors in the global arena no longer consider cooperation and collective action the best way to address common concerns. While multilateralism is not obsolete, let alone ‘dead’, as some claim, there is a growing consensus that current governance schemes need profound reconsideration. The EU, multilateralism’s staunchest defender, is especially exposed to these developments. While the evolution of multilateralism is set to affect all areas of international cooperation, each field has, arguably, its specificities. What features does cooperation in the field of private international law display in this regard? How can the crisis of multilateralism influence the way in which the EU deals with judicial cooperation, be it through its legislation, in the relations with its neighbours and at the global level? What structural changes are under way in global fora, such as the HCCH, and what is their impact on the EU’s own agenda and methods of work?
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.
Out now: Buxbaum, “Extraterritoriality in Comparative Perspective” (Ius Comparatum)
In an increasingly interconnected world, the application of laws by States beyond their territorial borders is an everyday reality. Yet, almost a century after the (still) leading findings by the PCIJ in the Case of the S.S. “Lotus”, the details of the concept of “extraterritoriality” remain elusive, and one can easily get lost in the multitude of national practices, ranging from “presumptions against extraterritoriality” to be found mostly in federal systems (mostly for sub-units) to “effects doctrines” and the like in certain areas of law such as e.g. (early) in Germany, (later) in the EU’s competition law and today many other jurisdictions, in particular in Asia.
Given this complexity, this latest publication of the Ius Comparatum Series on “Extraterritoriality in Comparative Perspective” edited by Hannah L. Buxbaum offers a great deal of valuable guidance and insights. Featuring the reports from the most recent IACL/AIDC General Congress in Asunción, the volume provides the reader with unique insights by renowned legal scholars into the practices of 14 national jurisdictions (inter alia China, Germany, Japan, Korea, UK, U.S.) and the the European Union (EU). As is explained in the preface to the book:
Much of the vast scholarly literature on extraterritoriality approaches the topic from the outside in, assessing the extraterritorial projection of state law from the perspective of international law and the constraints it places on state authority. The goal of this project is to approach the topic from the inside out. Considering a range of legal systems, the authors investigate the geographic scope that states claim for their own laws, and the mechanisms by which states translate and locally implement principles of international jurisdictional law.