Conflictoflaws

The following call was kindly shared with us by Aleksandrs Fillers (Riga Graduate School of Law).

This year is marked by growing discussions about revisions of the core EU private international law documents. The 2nd edition of the Riga Private International Law Conference aims to reflect on the possible changes to be encouraged and those to be discouraged. This year the conference will mostly focus on three core ‘general’ EU private international law instruments: Brussels Ibis Regulation, Rome I and Rome II Regulations.

The conference is organized by the Riga Graduate School of Law and will be held online via Zoom on 22 June 2026. Please submit abstracts of no more than 300 words to associate professor Dr. Aleksandrs Fillers (aleksandrs.fillers@rgsl.edu.lv) by 1 June 2026. We will notify you about the acceptance of papers by 5 June 2026.

Selected articles will be published in the Baltic Yearbook of International Law (indexed in Scopus).

The first issue of the Journal of Private International Law for 2026 was published today. It contains the following articles:

Guillaume Laganière, “Foreign law, appellate review and mixed legal traditions in Quebec” This article investigates the appellate review of foreign law findings, with a particular focus on the Canadian province of Quebec, where rules of private law follow the civil law tradition but remain influenced by the common law in relevant areas such as civil procedure and evidence. The first part of the article describes how the procedural treatment of foreign law in Quebec has evolved from a rigid application of English law’s fact doctrine to a more nuanced (and civilian) characterisation in the 1994 Civil Code of Quebec. The second part of the article examines appellate jurisprudence originating in Quebec and suggests that the province’s legal mixity can inform the scope of appellate review, by emphasising the importance of context over the abstract characterisation of foreign law as a whole. Zeno Crespi Reghizzi, “State international responsibility for breach of private international law treaties” As with all treaties, private international law treaties are sources of international obligations, the violation of which forms an internationally wrongful act entailing the international responsibility of the state that has committed it. Despite the scarcity of inter-state disputes on this subject matter, identifying the consequences of the breach of a private international law treaty by a state party could contribute to a better understanding of how these treaties work and whether international state responsibility represents a useful tool to ensure their effectiveness. This study is devoted to these aspects. It explores: (1) the relevant treaty obligations and the state’s conduct potentially qualifying as a breach; (2) the state (or states) entitled to invoke state responsibility for the breach of a PIL treaty and (3) the remedies available. Darius Chan & Sasiy Krishnan, “Charting a path towards harmonisation of privilege rules: a two-stage uniform choice of law rule for privilege in international arbitration“ The lack of certainty in the choice of law rule for privilege in international arbitration has led to a desire to devise uniform guidelines and choice of law rules for legal advice privilege, litigation privilege and settlement privilege. Notwithstanding this, there appears to be no conclusive view on the matter. While issue characterisation generally forms the preliminary backdrop for choice of law questions, the divergent views between the common and civil law traditions on the characterisation of privilege arguably leads to further fragmentation of its choice of law rule, and should be dispensed with. This article proposes a two-stage uniform choice of law rule for the three categories of privilege. At the first stage, the parties’ express choice of law for privilege would be given effect. In the absence of such express choice, the law of the seat governs legal advice privilege and litigation privilege, and the law of the main contract governs settlement privilege. This framework achieves party autonomy, equal treatment to parties and parties’ legitimate expectations, certainty and practicability – all of which are conflict-resolving values. Aleksandrs Fillers, “Extension of consumer protection in EU private international law“ The protection of weaker parties is one of the cornerstones of EU private international law. Consumers are traditionally regarded as typical weaker parties that deserve special protection at the level of private international law. The Brussels Ia Regulation and the Rome I Regulation do not protect all consumers. To be protected, consumers must meet the requirements of Article 17(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation and Article 6(1) of the Rome I Regulation. These provisions include the requirement for the consumer to be domiciled/reside in the state in which the professional pursues or directs its business activity. This puts different consumers on different footing. In this article, the author argues that this differentiation may be justified for the purposes of applying default jurisdictional and conflictual rules. However, this criterion should not determine the scope of other protective rules, notably those that restrict party autonomy in consumer cases. Likewise, the Brussels Ia Regulation has several other provisions that do not protect consumers who fail to meet all the requirements of Article 17(1). The author argues that all these provisions must be de lege ferenda extended to all consumers. Finally, the author argues that for certain types of consumer contracts, the law of the place of conclusion of the contract (lex loci contractus) should be introduced in the Rome I Regulation as a default rule, to ensure better protection of those consumers who do not reside in a state to which the professional pursues or directs its business activities. Felix Berner, “Choice of law rules under pressure – the growing power of state interests and vested rights in private international law“ This article challenges the notion that choice of law consists merely of rules designating an applicable law. Instead, it argues for a system resting on three pillars: choice of law rules, state interests and vested rights. It demonstrates how state interests and vested rights have become much more powerful in recent years, exerting pressure on choice of law rules and the traditional analysis of choice of law methodology. Integrating both state interests and vested rights into the analysis not only helps to paint a more accurate picture of choice of law, but also provides guidance for deciding difficult cases. To show this, the article offers both theoretical reflections and four case studies addressing particularly pertinent choice of law issues. Andreas Hermann, “Navigating the residence for sole traders and other natural persons under the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention“ The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements partially replaces the Brussels Ia Regulation in UK-EU judicial cooperation post-Brexit, underscoring its growing international significance. Although primarily designed for business to business (B2B) contracts, the Convention also applies to non-legal entities (natural persons) such as sole traders. The determination of the parties’ residence is central to legal certainty, as residence functions as a key connecting factor for the Convention’s scope of application and its coordination with other international instruments. While the Convention provides an autonomous definition of residence for legal entities, it remains silent as regards natural persons. Given the Convention’s nature as an international treaty, “residence” must be interpreted autonomously, rather than by reference to national law. Focusing on the structure and operation of the Convention, its interpretation must observe a de minimis threshold excluding mere temporary presence and, particularly in light of Article 26, recognise parties’ “secondary” residences to coordinate the Convention with other instruments. Autonomous interpretation ensures uniform application across Contracting States and enhances the Convention’s effectiveness, both at the level of jurisdiction and of recognition and enforcement. Ross R-S Pey,  “Decoding the oracle: Statutory interpretation in the conflict of laws“ The UK conflict of laws has become increasingly statutory, yet little attention has been paid to how statutory interpretation is used. This omission risks doctrinal inconsistency and unpredictability in international disputes. This article addresses that gap. Using a simple contractual choice-of-law hypothetical, it identifies three interpretative issues: (i) characterising statutes within governing law clauses, (ii) determining when statutes operate as mandatory rules, and (iii) the role of the presumption against extraterritoriality. It provides an account of how purposive interpretation may or may not be used to address issues (i) to (iii). The contribution is twofold. First, it shows that statutory interpretation is fundamental to the conflict of laws. Secondly, it highlights and invites reflection on the role of purposive interpretation in the conflict of laws.

The Chinese Journal of Transnational Law released a landmark Special Issue titled “Cross-Border Protection of Cultural Property”. This issue brings together leading scholars from around the world to explore one of the most urgent challenges in international law today: how to better protect cultural heritages across borders in an increasingly complex global environment. Focusing on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of international law and private law concerning cultural heritage, this issue systematically examines the provenance of cultural property, mechanisms for cross-border restitution, the application of conflict of laws, and the balance of rights between states and individuals, thereby offering a multi-dimensional perspective and institutional insights to advance global cultural heritage governance. The full table of content can be found here.

Editorial: Christa Roodt (Guest Editor), Fortifying the Cross-Border Protection and International Security of Cultural Property and Heritage,

The Editorial highlights a key concern: cultural objects are not just items of value – they embody memory, identity and history. When they are stolen, trafficked or removed, the loss goes far beyond the material. She points out that the key to strengthening the cross-border protection of cultural property lies in improving provenance verification mechanisms and enhancing transparency and traceability through the development of databases and digital tools. At the same time, the due diligence standards established by the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention and relevant EU directives require market participants to rigorously verify the ownership and provenance of cultural property prior to any transaction. However, due to differences in the application of national laws and institutional gaps in non-contracting states, cross-border disputes over cultural property still face numerous challenges. The Editorial further notes that, under the influence of conflict-of-laws rules and public policy exceptions, cultural property is not merely a legal object but may also become entangled in political and economic narratives, highlighting the complexity and urgency of its cross-border protection.

Margaret F Cacot, Civil Forfeiture and Transnational Cultural Property Returns in the United States

This article will examine forfeiture of cultural property involved in transnational disputes. It will focus on the ever-growing body of civil forfeiture actions, or in rem actions, against objects of cultural heritage in the United States, where there has been a shift away from primarily relying on private litigation of cultural property disputes toward civil forfeiture actions brought by the federal government. It will examine how civil forfeiture has proven to be an effective procedural device for courts to adjudicate competing claims to property and to effectuate return to owners, particularly source nations. It will also explore how private international law elements pertain to these actions, such as the application or rejection of foreign national ownership laws in U.S. courts, as well as the possibility of enforcement of foreign transnational forfeiture orders (for example, Italy’s transnational forfeiture order for the ‘Getty Bronze’ in California, the lawfulness of which was recently upheld by the European Court of Human Rights). It will examine the advantages and the downsides of the use of forfeiture as it relates to returns for international cultural heritage and discuss whether the end – that is, restitution to source nations – justifies the means.

Yehya Ikram Ibrahim Badr, Restitution of Stolen Foreign Cultural Property: Choice of Law & Justice

This article examines how choice of law rules shape outcomes in transnational disputes over stolen cultural property, between the country of origin and the good faith possessor of the property. It argues that concept of justice used in designing the choice of law rule used by the court has a deep impact on the design of the choice of law, and inconsequence, the outcome of the dispute. The article examines three choice of law rules: The traditional lex situs rule, which promote predictability but often favours possessors and ‘conflicts justice’, the most significant relationship doctrine that aims at achieving ‘substantive justice’, which may better accommodate the interests of the state of origin but introduce uncertainty and may still favour good faith possessors through forum law bias, and the Belgian lex originis rule, arguing that it offers a more balanced model that combines legal certainty with substantive justice by structurally privileging the law of the country of origin while protecting good-faith possessors. The article emphasizes that, regardless of the connecting factor used, the proving the state of origin’s ownership remains a decisive issue that must not be overlooked.

Ruida Chen, Restitution of Cultural Property in China: In Search of a New Paradigm for Cross-Border Cultural Property Claims

The protection of cultural heritage is increasingly shifting towards favouring the return of cultural property to its people of origin. Evidence of this shift can be found in a more intentional distinction between cultural property rights on the one hand, and traditional rights in rem on the other; the strengthening of international cooperation; as well as the reconstruction of traditional doctrines. The shift can be seen in a series of changes in China’s legislative and judicial developments, as well as international involvement in the resolution of cultural property disputes. The revised Cultural Relics Law of 2024 and the judicial opinions of Chinese courts indicate an attempt to ensure justice for people of origin. China’s practice in global governance by promoting the restitution of protected public goods through international and institutional cooperation also deserves to be assessed. In consideration of China’s role in achieving global justice for cultural property and heritage, these practices have been seen accelerating the paradigm shift, along with an innovative proposal for global solidarity, while the country is still confronting challenges as it is transitioning from that of a traditional source state to more nuanced roles in the global circulation and regulation of cultural property and heritage.

Miros?aw M Sadowski, From Freedom to Return. Restitution and Repatriation of Cultural Objects After Subjugation: Battles, Brazil, and Beyond

When independence is regained, the matters of cultural heritage are oftentimes relegated to the background. While economic reparations are usually more easily enforceable, material ones in the form of cultural objects are typically forgotten, taking a number of years to enforce and requiring complex engagement involving political, diplomatic, publicity and, in certain instances, even illegal actions on behalf of the subjugated country. Thus, the purpose of this article is to take a closer look at such instances of return of cultural heritage, by particularly focusing on the relationship between the matters of return and the questions of identity and collective memory in this respect. In the first part of the article, the more introductory theoretical aspects of the return of cultural objects are analysed, with the author investigating why the return of cultural heritage matters that much and how it may be organised more generally. The second part of the article is devoted specifically to the matters of restitution following armed conflict and in the cases of illicit trafficking. The analysis of various legal theoretical aspects of return of cultural heritage in such instances is illustrated on two case studies, the first related to the restitution of objects looted during World War II and the second to those illegally exported from the Araripe Basin in Brazil. Then, the third part focuses on the question of repatriation of cultural objects removed during the times of colonialism. The legal theoretical analysis is illustrated on two case studies, that of the Tupinambá case to Brazil and its broader impact, demonstrating the Indigenous peoples’ relationship with heritage, and that of the Dundo Museum of Angola, which received objects repatriated thanks to the philanthropic efforts of a singular individual, showing how the lack of available legal solutions motivates innovative approaches to repatriation. Finally, the concluding part sums up the previous research and proposes a new framework for understanding the similarities and differences between restitution and repatriation.

Andreas Giorgallis, Restitution of Objects Unethically Acquired During the Colonial Era: The Intersections of Public and Private International Law

The restitution of colonial cultural objects has become the subject of increasing public and academic interest. However, all too often, the literature tends to focus on the public international law (PubIIL) aspects of the debate. With a few notable exceptions, the PubIIL and private international law (PIL) dimensions of the debate are rarely considered together. In conventional accounts, the two remain separate. Individually addressed, they only tell a fraction of the story. Against this background, and informed by growing discussions on both sides of the garden of international cultural heritage law, this article makes the case for a coordinated approach. It underlines how PubIIL and PIL have failed together but also how they could contribute positively to the restitution of colonial cultural objects in the future. This will be achieved by examining the renowned yet scarcely examined Ethiopian icon of Kwer’ata Re’esu (Christ with the Crown of Thorns). Thus, this article problematises the way in which the restitution of colonial cultural objects is conceptualised, contending that these objects do not belong exclusively to the realms of the public or private, national or international, but rather occupy a liminal space in-between these domains.

Andrzej Jakubowski, Collective and Individual Victims: Cultural Property, Justice and the Politics of Restitution in Poland

The transition from authoritarianism to democracy in Central and Eastern Europe was not merely institutional, but a moral reckoning with totalitarian legacies. In Poland, this reckoning remains incomplete, as unresolved property restitution—compensation for cultural assets seized by Nazi Germany and nationalized after the Second World War—continues to shape public policy and identity. This article argues that Poland’s post-1989 heritage discourse instrumentalizes cultural loss and victimhood to consolidate domestic political agendas rather than to advance genuine cultural justice. Through an analysis of legal acts, policy instruments, and official statements, it demonstrates how the state constructs a collective narrative of national victimhood that often marginalizes individual experiences and their claims to the recovery of cultural loss. The absence of comprehensive restitution laws and Poland’s failure to honour Holocaust-related commitments expose this moral contradiction. Moreover, the victim narrative distorts heritage funding priorities, reinforcing state memory politics. The article calls for reframing heritage discourse towards accountability and inclusive restitution policies.

This issue also published two free contributions:

Xiansen Li, Yige Lu, Developing International Investment Arbitration in China: From ICSID to Non-ICSID Investment Arbitration

In the context of economic globalization, China’s investment cooperation with other countries has become increasingly dynamic, accompanied by a rising number of investment disputes involving both governments and investors. As an important means of resolving international investment disputes, investment arbitration plays a key role in safeguarding the rights and interests of investors and guaranteeing the stability of the investment environment. China is not only one of the most important global investment destinations but also a major exporter of capital, making its investment arbitration practices a focal point of global attention. This article examines the development path and specific strategies for advancing China’s investment arbitration framework. In practice, investment arbitration is primarily categorized into ICSID and non-ICSID arbitration, with notable differences in jurisdiction, procedure, supervision, and enforcement. This article argues that China should promote the development of non-ICSID arbitration while fully utilizing the existing ICSID investment arbitration mechanism. However, the practice of non-ICSID arbitration in China currently faces challenges, including the uncertainty regarding arbitrability, difficulties in applying interim measures, and an incomplete enforcement mechanism. China should take the revision of the Arbitration Law as an opportunity, strengthen the alignment of international investment arbitration systems, accelerate the establishment of domestic investment arbitration norms, and improve judicial supervision mechanisms.

Yuran Shi, Regulation of Advanced Air Mobility: ICAO’s Evolving Role in Aviation Safety and Beyond

Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) operations present significant regulatory challenges to the regulation of civil aviation. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) plays a central and active role in various types of cases of use of AAM. As regards domestic operations, ICAO should refrain from directly intervening in the regulation and instead focus on developing model policies and general principles. Concerning possible international operations, the ICAO may amend existing international air law to accommodate new technologies and operational features brought by AAM. This article analyses pertinent legal issues in various modes of AAM operations to examine how the ICAO can fulfil its responsibilities in ensuring the sustainable and safe development of civil aviation.

A new issue of ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht is now available and includes contributions on EU private law, comparative law and legal history, legal unification, private international law, and individual European private law regimes. The full table of content can be accessed here: https://rsw.beck.de/zeitschriften/zeup.

The following contributions might be of particular interest for the readers of this blog:

• Burkhard Hess: Justizpräsenz im Internet: ein neues Forschungsfeld der Prozessrechtsvergleichung

In the editorial, Justizpräsenz im Internet: ein neues Forschungsfeld der Prozessrechtsvergleichung, Burkhard Hess, examines the digitalisation of court communication across different jurisdictions, identifying it as an emerging field of comparative procedural law. Through a comparative analysis of the online presence of courts, the article explores the functions of websites operated by various courts worldwide. It highlights the growing importance of digital legal communication and argues that regulatory action in this area is necessary, particularly in Germany.

• Jennifer Antomo: Europäische Union und Haager Konferenz für Internationales Privatrecht – ein Plädoyer für mehr Zusammenarbeit und Rücksichtnahme

Jennifer Antomo on Europäische Union und Haager Konferenz für Internationales Privatrecht – ein Plädoyer für mehr Zusammenarbeit und Rücksichtnahme highlights that the EU is not only a member of the Hague Conference and a party to numerous Hague Conventions, but also, in certain respects, its competitor. This article examines the interaction between EU and Hague instruments and legislative initiatives in the past and analyses, how three current EU legislative projects could affect the relationship between the two institutions.

• Wiebke Voß: Auf dem Weg zu einer lex carbonis? Kollisionsrechtliche Herausforderungen des freiwilligen Kohlenstoffhandels

In Auf dem Weg zu einer lex carbonis? Kollisionsrechtliche Herausforderungen des freiwilligen Kohlenstoffhandels, Wiebke Voß demonstrates that despite its growing economic significance, cross-border trade in verified carbon credits remains legally under-theorised, particularly from a conflict-of-laws perspective. Unresolved questions of qualification, intricate constellations of actors, and the involvement of public interests pose methodological challenges for established PIL frameworks. Against this backdrop, the article analyses the resulting legal uncertainties and explores possible avenues for future development, especially in light of recent work by UNIDROIT and the Hague Conference.

 

The issue also features two articles taking a comparative perspective: Ann-Kristin Mayrhofer’s article Die Untermiete in Deutschland, Österreich, Schweiz und Frankreich – Rechtsvergleichende Überlegungen zur Regulierung des „Zweiten Wohnmarkts“ compares the regulations on subletting in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and France. Dominik Dworniczak examines – through a case law analysis – whether, and to what extent, national courts adopt consumer images shaped by EU law, particularly by the Court of Justice, in Europäische Verbraucherleitbilder im Spiegel nationaler Rechtsprechung (Frankreich, Österreich, Polen).

The following announcement was kindly shared with us by Fabienne Jault-Seseke

The 5th issue of Perspectives contentieuses internationales is online.

It is a special issue devoted to a dossier entitled “The Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Face of the Energy Transition,” prepared under the direction of RebeccaLegendre and Denys-Sacha Robin. It provides an opportunity to reflect on the transformations that the extractive sector as a whole is facing as a result of sustainable development policies, as well as on the multiple disputes likely to arise from the difficult reconciliation of competing considerations.

The table of contents is the following :

Introductory Remarks,
by Rebecca Legendre and Denys-Sacha Robin

Les sources de la transition énergétique : quels défis pour le juge ? (The Sources of the Energy Transition: What Challenges for the Judge?)
by Kamalia Mehtiyeva

La souveraineté permanente des Etats sur leurs ressources naturelles . l’épreuve de la transition énergétique :un renouveau teinté d’incertitudes normatives et contentieuses,(Permanent Sovereignty of States over Natural Resources in the Face of the Energy Transition: A Renewal Marked by Normative and Contentious Uncertainties)
by Marie Lemey

Conflit de logiques au forum mondial ? L’arbitre comme juge global des ressources naturelles (Conflict of Rationales at the Global Forum? The Arbitrator as a Global Judge of Natural Resources),
by Lilian Larribère

Le droit et le contentieux de l’OMC en faveur de l’exploitation des communs planétaires : réflexions sur une incohérence structurelle (WTO Law and Litigation in Support of the Exploitation of Global Commons: Reflections on a Structural Inconsistency),
by Joseph Reeves

La juridictionnalisation des relations entre les entreprises minières et les communautés locales (The Jurisdictionalization of Relations between Mining Companies and Local Communities),
by Sandrine Clavel

La protection des forêts tropicales pour le climat et l’encadrement de ses effets pervers, des négociations au contentieux (The Protection of Tropical Forests for Climate Purposes and the Regulation of Its Perverse Effects, from Negotiations to Litigation),
by Julien Dellaux

L’exemple de l’AIFM : un modèle de gouvernance multilatérale dans l’hypothèse d’une exploitation des grands fonds marins ? (The Example of the ISA: A Model of Multilateral Governance in the Event of Deep Seabed Exploitation?)
by Niki Aloupi

Directive vigilance et droit international privé : vers une exploitation des ressources naturelles plus responsable ? (The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and Private International Law: Towards More Responsible Exploitation of Natural Resources?)
by Marie Nioche

La responsabilité. internationale des Etats dans le cadre de l’exploitation des ressources naturelles (State International Responsibility in the Context of Natural Resource Exploitation),
by Sarah Cassela

Written by Hadrien Pauchard (assistant researcher and doctoral student at Sciences Po Law School)

The first issue of the Revue Critique de droit international privé of 2026 has just come off the press and is available online. It contains three articles, nine case notes, and eight book reviews. In line with the Revue Critique’s recent policy, the doctrinal part will soon be made available in English on the editor’s website (for registered users and institutions).

The volume opens with Dr. Sophie Duparc’s (Université Panthéon-Assas) critical look at the interplay between Droit international privé et libertés de circulation : repenser la résolution des conflits de compétences (Private International Law and Freedom of Movement: Rethinking the Resolution of Conflicts of Competence). The expanding influence exerted by European fundamental liberties across all branches of private law indeed raise serious constitutional challenges, which are presented as follows:

Initially observed in company law and with regard to the devolution of patronymics, conflicts between freedom of movement and national rules of private international law now affect more sensitive issues, such as same-sex marriage, homoparental filiation or the change of gender identity. The recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union reveal an ever-increasing supremacy of freedom of movement and the correlative neutralization of divergences of opinion between the Member States. This outcome stems from the Court’s use of an unbalanced proportionality review, primarily designed to protect the European standpoint. In contrast to this approach, it is necessary to underscore the egalitarian nature of the conflict between free movement rights and national rules falling within the competences retained by the Member States. This observation calls for a recalibration of proportionality review: in order to preserve the neutrality of its constitutional function, the Court of Justice ought to take as the starting point of its reasoning the equality of the competing interests, thereby allowing the one carrying the greatest weight in the circumstances of the case to prevail.

In the second article, Antoine d’Ornano (Avocat honoraire, Paris; Attorney at law, New York) focuses on Le juge administratif et les nouvelles énigmes de l’exequatur (Administrative Courts and the New Conundrums of Exequatur). By lifting the public law taboo in a recent landmark decision, the French Conseil d’État brought up important practical concerns regarding the adequacy of the common regime of exequatur for the peculiarities of administrative matters. The judgement’s grey zones are assessed by the author as follows:

The French supreme administrative court has allowed, for the first time, the enforcement of a foreign judgment of an administrative nature. This decision was rendered pursuant to an international convention, which based the characterization of the judgment and subjected its enforcement to the compliance of the public policy of the forum. This case, as it acknowledges that the administrative feature of a foreign judgment does not, in and of itself, prevent its effect in France, raises the questions of the possibility and conditions of its enforcement in the absence of an international convention. The decision would then likely be rendered by the civil courts applying their standard rules on enforcement of foreign judgments. The criteria set by EU regulation Brussels I bis could be applied to assess the administrative nature of all such judgments, whose enforcement should comply with the public policy of the forum including certain domestic principles.

The last piece by Prof. Bettina Rentsch and Alessa Karlinski (Freie Universität Berlin) comments on La révision des conflits de lois en matière de nom en Allemagne – Nouvelle clarté et nouvelles incertitudes (The Reform of German Rules of Conflict of Laws on Personal Names –   New Clarity and New Uncertainties). After contextualising the 2025 reform, the authors peruse the new conflict rules, which introduce truly significant developments but are nonetheless not immune from interpretative shortcomings that could prove of great practical relevance. The article’s abstract reads as follows:

This article discusses the recent reform of the German Conflict Rules on personal names within its legislative context. It addresses practical and legal shortcomings of the previous regime as against its most important innovations, a shift in the objective connecting factor from nationality to habitual residence and extended choice-of-law options. Through these innovations, Germany liberalises the conflict-of-laws regime for names and enhances name bearers’ autonomy. Albeit responding to practical needs in cross-border contexts, the reform also raises questions of interpretation.

The full table of contents is available here.

Previous issues of the Revue Critique (from 2010 to 2025) are available on Cairn.

In the Zimbabwe High Court decision of  Ser and Another v Yong and Another (92 of 2026; HC/SUM 1957/2025) [2026] ZWHHC 137 (8 April 2026), the applicant obtained a freezing (Mareva) injunction from a foreign court in Singapore against assets linked to the respondents and then sought to have that order registered and enforced in Zimbabwe. The respondents resisted enforcement, arguing that the order should not be recognised because it was interlocutory in nature and because a relevant foreign defendant had not been joined to the original proceedings. The dispute therefore arose in the context of an attempt to extend the effect of a foreign asset-preservation order into Zimbabwe against parties and assets within its jurisdiction.

In the words of Wamambo J, “In the present case, the judgment of the 19th of December 2025 is a product of detailed submissions by the parties on the merits of the injunction and is final and definitive in as far as that subject matter relates to the parties herein, who were the protagonists in the Singapore High Court. Whilst the order of 21 July was a temporary injunction, which was the subject of either confirmation or discharge, it has since been confirmed by the judgment of 19 December 2025, and has thus become what is commonly known as a final injunction as it no longer has any return date and is no longer in jeopardy of cancellation at the instance of the respondents as it was prior to 19 December 2025.” In the final analysis, the High Court held that a confirmed Mareva (freezing) injunction issued by a foreign court can be registered and enforced in Zimbabwe, even where a foreign defendant was not joined to the proceedings, provided the order has attained sufficient finality and certainty. The Court rejected technical objections based on non-joinder and instead adopted a functional approach, treating the confirmed injunction as capable of recognition because it created binding and enforceable obligations rather than merely provisional relief. In doing so, the Court signalled a more flexible approach to the finality requirement, distinguishing earlier strict authority that excluded interim orders, and emphasised that the decisive question is whether the foreign order is sufficiently final in effect and enforceable in the issuing jurisdiction, rather than its formal label as “interim.

On Tuesday, May 5, 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).

Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Thomas Pfeiffer (Universität Heidelberg) will speak, in German, about the topic

“Anwaltliche Erfolgshonorare im Internationalen Privatrecht”

In Deutschland dürfte zum juristischen Allgemeinwissen zählen, dass anwaltliche Erfolgshonorare in den USA (und manchen anderen Rechtsordnungen) zulässig und vielfach sogar üblich sind, in Deutschland hingegen früher generell als unzulässig galten und auch heute noch deutlichen rechtlichen Grenzen unterliegen. Im IPR wird meist angenommen, dass sich diese Grenzen auch international zwingend durchsetzen, soweit es um deutsche Anwälte geht. Die schon früher relevante Frage nach Differenzierungen im Einzelnen hat durch die spürbaren Lockerungen der maßgebenden sachrechtlichen Regeln in jüngerer Zeit nochmals an Bedeutung gewonnen.

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.

You are invited to the next Migration Talk organized by the Jean Monnet Chair in Legal Aspects of Migration Management in the European Union and in Türkiye.

Speakers: Dr. Hamed Abdollahpour Ranjbar (Istinye University), Khaled Elazab, MA (Clark University), Yomna Nassar, MA (Koç University), Farah Amayreh (Koç University), Dr. Ibrahim Yigit (Florida State University), Prof. Dr. Janet Molzan Turan (Koç University), and Prof. Dr. Bülent Turan (Koç University)

Title:Stigma in the Lives of Refugees Living in Turkey

Date and Time: Monday, May 4, 2026 – 12:30 PM – 1:20 PM (Turkish Time)
Event Location: via Zoom (The Zoom link shall be provided upon request: migration@bilkent.edu.tr)

The event will be held in English.

Abstract
The research is conducted with Syrian and Afghan refugees living in Istanbul, Turkiye to explore and examine effects of stigma and microaggressions in these populations.
It is based on 8 focus groups separately for men and women, four groups with Syrian refugees and four with Afghan refugees, with 4-10 participants in each group. Participants shared that stigma and microaggressions were central forces shaping every dimension of their daily life, well-being, and future plans. The intensity and ubiquity of these experiences appeared to exceed what is commonly documented in other stigmatized populations, owing in part to the visibility and politicization of refugee identity in the current sociopolitical climate in Türkiye, which allows and condones stigma and microaggressions against these populations. Refugees described that they and their children experienced mental and physical health problems not only due to trauma and difficulties faced before and during migration, but also due to post-displacement stigma and microaggressions that they experienced on a daily basis. Refugees employed a range of coping strategies to deal with these challenges, avoidance of interactions with Turks, forms of identity concealment (e.g., not revealing nationality, changing names, or not speaking their native language in public), avoidance of confrontation, and in some cases educating their neighbors to confront and correct stereotypes.

In the quantitative phase of the research, the research group developed the Refugee Stigma Scale (RSS) informed by the literature and qualitative and quantitative data. The scale includes four theoretical dimensions of stigma: perceived community stigma, experienced stigma, anticipated stigma, and internalized stigma. In a sample of 404 Syrian and 447 Afghan refugees in Türkiye, confirmatory factor analysis supported the hypothesized four-factor structure of the RSS. Results also supported convergent validity of the four subscales showing correlations with validated measures of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), somatic symptoms, post-migration difficulties, and contact experiences.

The research group also developed a subscale assessing microaggressions (subtle/ambiguous discriminatory remarks or behaviors). Convergent validity of the Microaggression Scale for Refugees (MSR) was supported by high correlations between microaggressions and experienced stigma, somatic symptoms, post-migration difficulties, and contact experiences with the host country. Importantly, both experienced stigma and microaggressions contributed independently to explaining variance in psychological and somatic symptoms.

It is also explored the concept of identity denial in the context of refugee stigma using the new scales. Even after many years of immigrating, immigrants can have their new cultural identity (in this case, their Turkish identity) denied or unacknowledged. Based on a survey of 156 young Syrian adults living in Türkiye for many years, the research found that Turkish identity denial was associated with higher depressive symptoms and lower psychological well-being, mediated by perceived and anticipated stigma. Furthermore, a challenged sense of belonging was an independent parallel mediating mechanism by which identity denial was associated with psychological well-being and depressive symptoms.

As report earlier on this blog, the third bi-annual conference of the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) will take place in Geneva, Switzerland, from 18 to 20 June 2026. Under the title “Shaping the Future of Private International Law in Europe – Putting Together the Pieces & Filling Gaps”, the conference will address structural developments, unresolved issues, and emerging challenges in European private international law.  The program is available on the conference’s website.

Registration will close in two weeks, on 17 May 2026. You are welcome to register using this link.

EAPIL is looking forward to seeing you in Geneva!

In an increasingly multipolar world, national and regional actors are reasserting regulatory control over cross-border economic activities. States such as the United States and China, as well as the European Union, are increasingly relying on unilateral measures with extraterritorial reach – particularly in areas such as sanctions, digital regulation, supply chains, competition law, and data protection. At the same time, the multilateral order appears to be under strain: international organizations are being sidelined, agreements are terminated or ignored, and established norms are openly challenged.

To explore the implications of these developments for international (economic) law and the future of global economic cooperation, the German Society of International Law (DGIR) will host a conference in Munich on 11–12 June 2026. Focusing on “Law without Borders? Extraterritorial Regulation and Unilateral Action” the event promises to provide a timely and critical forum for discussing the evolving role of extraterritorial regulation and unilateralism in shaping the international legal order.

Programme

Thursday, 11 June 2026 – National (Regional) Law and Global Markets
The first day will focus on national (regional) law and the regulation of global markets. It will feature presentations by Moritz Renner (Mannheim)  and Romy Klimke (BSP Business and Law School Berlin) followed by a commentary by Andreas Ziegler (Lausanne).

In the evening, Frank Hoffmeister (Brussels) will deliver a practitioner keynote on “The European Union as an Actor in International Economic Law,” followed by a reception.

Friday, 12 June 2026 – Economic Sanctions and International Conflicts
The second day will deal with economic sanctions and international conflicts. Presentations will be delivered Till Patrik Holterhus (Saarbrücken) and Markus Lieberknecht (Osnabrück) followed with a commentary by Tanja Domej (Zurich).

Venue and Registration

The conference will take place at the Carl Friedrich von Siemens Foundation in Munich (Südliches Schlossrondell 23, 80638 Munich). If you wish to join please register before 31 May via this linke: https://eveeno.com/dgir-kurztagung-2026.

The conference is organized by Christian Walter (LMU Munich), Markus Krajewski (FAU Erlangen) and Giesela Rühl (Humboldt University of Berlin). For further questions please contact the organizing team at dgir-kurztagung-2026@jura.uni-muenchen.de.

The Frankfurt Law Review is currently looking for submissions for a special edition dedicated to the topic of Digital Transformation.

Submissions can be drafted specifically for the review but may also be based on seminar papers or other academic assignments; they are accepted until 31 May 2026.

The full call for papers can be found here.

 

Meetings & Events

From 30 March to 1 April, the Experts’ Group (EG) on Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) held its fifth meeting. Pursuant to its mandate, the EG continued to make progress in its study of the jurisdiction and applicable law issues raised by the cross-border use and transfers of CBDCs, including the desirability and feasibility of a possible future instrument on these issues, with particular attention to their use in payments with a cross-border or international element. More information is available here.

From 15 to 17 April 2026, the High-Level Conference on the Universalisation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the Hague Conference on Private International Law was held in Dakar (Senegal). The conference convened ministers and senior officials from French-speaking States in Africa for a high-level discussion on the benefits and practicalities of strengthened engagement with the PCA and the HCCH. More information is available here.

On 8 and 22 April 2026, the first and second meetings of the Working Group on the operation of Article 33 of the 1996 Child Protection Convention were held online, hosted by the Permanent Bureau. Pursuant to its mandate, the Working Group worked on the development of a Model Form for requests under Article 33. More information is available here and here.

 

Upcoming events

The 14th International Forum on the electronic Apostille Programme will take place on 12 and 13 May 2026 in Marrakesh, Morocco. The Forum will provide a unique international platform for governments, organisations, and the private sector to learn more about the benefits of the e-APP, to promote its effective implementation, and to discuss the latest developments in relation to the e-APP worldwide. Interested persons should register via this form no later than Friday 1 May 2026, 5.00 p.m. (CEST). More information is available here.

 

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

On 16–17 April 2026, the elegant setting of Villa Ruspoli in Florence hosted the First National Congress of ASGiC – the Society for the Study of Consensual Justice, titled Giustizia e cooperazione: il valore del consenso (Justice and Cooperation: The Value of Consent). Marked by a large and engaged participation, the event offered a valuable opportunity for both the Society’s members and a wider community of scholars and practitioners to reflect on the role of consent in contemporary conceptions of justice.

The Congress opened with introductory remarks by the Society’s President, Silvana Dalla Bontà, who set out the themes and objectives guiding the initiative. Against this backdrop, the keynote lectures delivered by Tommaso Greco, Andrea Simoncini, and Filippo Danovi developed a first, coherent reflection on consensual justice, identifying a variety of core concepts – trust, consent, justice, solidarity, Constitution, language, and dialogue – that are likely to orient the Society’s future research and activities.

This conceptual framework found further expression in the conferral of honorary membership upon Francesco Paolo Luiso, Marta Cartabia, Adolfo Ceretti, and Luciana Breggia. The laudationes underscored how, from different perspectives – civil procedure, constitutional adjudication, criminology, and judicial practice – their work has contributed to shaping approaches to justice grounded in participation, dialogue, and shared responsibility.

The discussion then broadened through the interdisciplinary roundtable moderated by Pierluigi Consorti. Contributions from Maurizio Biggeri, Marco Cadinu, Marianella Sclavi, Valeria Cantoni Mamiani, Stefano Rozzi, and Luca Toschi moved beyond strict legal analysis, engaging with insights from the social sciences and communication studies to explore more deeply the relationship between interpersonal dynamics and consent.

In her concluding remarks, Vice-President Paola Lucarelli drew together the main threads of the Congress, emphasising the importance of maintaining a close connection between theoretical reflection and practical application. The General Assembly that followed endorsed the Society’s programmatic lines, consolidating the directions that had emerged over the course of the two days.

Looking ahead, ASGiC announced its next steps: a Colloquium to be held in 2027 at the University of Trento and the Second National Congress in 2028 in Taormina, to be organised by founding members Marco Gradi and Antonio Cappuccio of the University of Messina.

In this perspective, the Florence Congress may be construed as the starting point of a broader and ongoing reflection on consensual justice – one that seeks to connect doctrinal inquiry with practice, and to contribute to current debates on more participatory and dialogical models of dispute resolution.

Multinationals and Human Rights in Asia

Edited by Jason Ho Ching Cheung and Kazuaki Nishioka

 

This book investigates the availability in Asian jurisdictions of civil remedies against multinational businesses for human rights abuses.

 

It assesses whether the norms of the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights have taken root in Asia by first considering the international state of play. It then presents case studies of corporate governance and human rights in Asia, before examining emerging issues, and considering how Asia has dealt and can deal with corporate responsibility in connection with those matters. By way of conclusion, the book offers an action plan for implementing the UN Guiding Principles in Asia.

 

Jason Ho Ching Cheung is a Hong Kong barrister and New York attorney practicing from Albert Luk’s Chambers, Hong Kong and Yodoyabashi & Yamagami LPC, Japan. He is also a part-time lecturer at the Graduate School of Law and the Institute for the Liberal Arts at Doshisha University, Japan.

Kazuaki Nishioka is a specially appointed Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Law of Kobe University, Japan.

 

Apr 2026   |   9781509980406   |   328pp   |   Hbk   |    RRP: £100

Discount Price: £80

Order online at www.hartpublishing.co.uk  – use the code GLR BD8 to get 20% off!

Sign up to our email list to receive updates about our new titles.

 

As already announced, there will be an international conference “International Filiation Law in the EU” dealing with questions of filiation law resulting from the EU Parenthood Proposal.

Everybody interested in legal questions of cross-border filiation is welcome. Participation is free, but registration will be required (details follow soon). Any inquiries can be directed to sekretariat.goessl@jura.uni-bonn.de.

 

The programme reads:

Day 1: 24.09.2026

13:00

Martin Böse, Dean of the Law Faculty, University of Bonn: Welcome Address
Susanne Gössl, University of Bonn: Introduction
Ilaria Pretelli, Swiss Institute for Comparative Law: The EU Commission’s Parenthood Proposal (Overview)

14:15

Ulrike Kjestina Janzen, German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection: The Commission’s Parenthood Proposal – Considerations and Policy Interests and Expectations from a Member State’s Perspective
Alina Tryfonidou, University of Cyprus: Filiation and EU Primary Law: The Portability of the Parent-Child Status in CJEU Case-law

15:00

Velina Todorova,  University of Plovdiv & Ilaria Pretelli, Swiss Institute for Comparative Law: The Human Rights Frame in International Filiation Law (1): The Rights of the Child, esp. the Right to Know One’s Origins
Rachele Zamperini, Swiss Institute for Comparative Law: The Human Rights Frame in International Filiation Law (2): LGBTIAQ* Rights and Women’s Rights

16:45

Patrick Wautelet, University of Liège: Many Faces of Birth Certificates in International Filiation Law
Nicolas Nord, ICCS: Filiation Certificate and a Central Registry in the EU

Day 2: 25.09.2026

09:30

Laima Vaige, University of Uppsala: Scope of the EU Parenthood Proposal and Relationship to Other International and EU Instruments
Cristina González Beilfuss, University of Barcelona: Which Rules of Jurisdiction for International Filiation?

11:15

Martina Melcher, University of Graz: How Should the Law Governing International Filiation be Determined?
Susanne Gössl, University of Bonn: Recognition of Court Decisions and the Public Policy Exception in International Filiation Law

12:30

Final Remarks and Conclusions

 

Many thanks to Karim El Chazli  (Consulting and Testifying Expert on Arab Laws) for the tip-off

 

I. Introduction

The field of foreign judgments in the MENA region has witnessed additional legal developments. After Morocco, which adopted in February a new Code of Civil Procedure containing an updated regime for the enforcement of foreign judgments (see my previous on this blog), Saudi Arabia followed suit by adopting a new Execution Law (Nizam at-Tanfidh), approved by the Council of Ministers on 15 April 2026 (27–28 Shawwal 1447 H), which contains rules on the enforcement of foreign judgments. The new law replaces the existing Execution Law promulgated by Royal Decree No. M/53 of 3 July 2012 (13 Sha’baan1433 H).

The Execution Law governs, inter alia, the execution of “titles of obligation” (sanadat tanfidhiyya (pl.), sanad tanfidhi (sing.); lit. “enforceable titles”) in general, as defined by the Law. These include, among others, foreign judgments, foreign arbitral awards, and foreign authentic instruments declared enforceable in accordance with the rules set out in the Law. The new Execution Law (new Article 7) adds to the existing list (former Article 9) mediated settlement agreements concluded abroad. This addition appears to be linked to the fact that Saudi Arabia is a State Party to the 2018 Singapore Convention, which was ratified on 5 May 2020 and entered into force on 5 November of the same year.

 

II. Enforcement Requirements

With respect to the regime applicable to the enforcement of foreign judgments, the new conditions are now laid down in new article 9 of the new Law.

 New Article 9(1) of the 2026 Execution Law reads as follows (loose tentative translation):

1. Without prejudice to the obligations of the Kingdom under international treaties and agreements, the court [the Execution Court] shall not declare enforceable a foreign judgment or order except on the basis of reciprocity and after examining that the following conditions are met:

a) The dispute in which the foreign judgment or order was rendered does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Kingdom.

b) There is no similar case pending in the Kingdom that was filed before the case in which the foreign judgment or order was rendered.

c) The parties to the proceedings in which the foreign judgment was rendered were duly summoned, properly represented, and given the opportunity to defend themselves.

d) The foreign judgment or order has become final, in accordance with the law governing the competent judicial authority that rendered it.

e)  The foreign judgment or order does not conflict with a prior judgment or order—on the same subject matter—rendered by a competent judicial authority in the Kingdom.

f) The foreign judgment or order does not violate the public policy of the Kingdom.

Paragraph 2 deals with the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and foreign mediated settlement agreements, while paragraph 3 deals with the enforcement of foreign authentic instruments.

 

III. Observations

If we compare the new enforcement requirements with those set out in the 2012 Execution Law, we can see that most of them have been reproduced without any significant modification, although in some cases slightly different wording has been used. This is particularly true of the requirements listed in items (c) [service and the right of defence], (d) [finality], (e) [conflicting judgments], and (f) [public policy], as well as of the proviso, which contains a reference to the reciprocity requirement.

At the same time, some significant differences can be observed, particularly with respect to the rules on indirect jurisdiction (1) and the existence of a pending case before Saudi courts (2). Further important clarifications relate to two other fundamental issues: the prohibition of révision au fond (3) and the limitation period for enforcing titles of obligation (4).

 

1. Indirect Jurisdiction

First, the most notable change concerns the control of the indirect jurisdiction of the rendering court. Indeed, under the 2012 Execution Law, the jurisdiction of the foreign rendering court was subject to a double control: first, by verifying that the dispute did not fall within the jurisdiction of Saudi courts (in general, and without any specific limitation); and second, by checking that the rendering court had jurisdiction in accordance with its own rules of international jurisdiction.

The new Execution Law significantly modifies the scope of the jurisdictional requirement and limits it to cases over which Saudi courts have exclusive jurisdiction. In doing so, the Saudi legislator joins other countries in the region that have adopted similar approaches, notably Tunisia (see Béligh Elbalti, “The Jurisdiction of Foreign Courts and the Enforcement of their Judgments in Tunisia: A Need for Reconsideration”, 8(2) Journal of Private International Law (2012) 195, and recently Morocco (see Béligh Elbalti, “The New Moroccan Framework on International Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgment Enforcement – A Preliminary Critical Assessment”, on this blog. For a comparative overview on the various approaches adopted in the MENA region, see Béligh Elbalti, “The recognition of foreign judgments as a tool of economic integration: Views from Middle Eastern and Arab Gulf countries”, in P. Sooksripaisarnkit and S. R. Garimella (eds.), China’s One Belt One Road Initiative and Private International Law (Routledge, 2018) 226; idem, “Perspective from the Arab World”, in M. Weller et al. (eds.), The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention – Cornerstones, Prospects, Outlook (Hart, 2023) 187 ).

The problem with the new rule, however, is that Saudi law on international jurisdiction does not contain clear rules on what constitutes “exclusive jurisdiction.” The relevant provisions on international jurisdiction contained in the Law of Procedure before Sharia Courts (Nizam al-Murafa’at al-Shar’iyya, Royal Decree No. M/1 of 24 November 2013 (22 Muharram 1435H), Articles 24 to 30) do not define or clearly identify which heads of jurisdiction are exclusive. As a result, the scope of the requirement may remain uncertain in practice, which could lead to a restrictive or inconsistent approach in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

 

2. Pending case before Saudi Courts

Item (b) of Article 9 of the new Law is an addition that has no equivalent in Article 11 of the 2012 Execution Law. While this requirement is generally found in the international conventions applicable in the region (notably the 1983 Riyadh Convention and the 1995 GCC Convention), it has almost no equivalent in the domestic legislation of Arab countries (with the notable exception of Lebanon. See Elbalti, “Perspective from the Arab World”, op. cit., 192). It should be noted, however, that Article 9(b) requires that the action previously brought before Saudi courts and still pending be “similar (mumathila)” to the one in which the foreign judgment was rendered. While the terminology used is somewhat vague, this suggests that both actions should involve the same subject matter (as is more clearly required in Article 9(e) concerning conflicting judgments). It is, however, unclear whether this requirement also extends to the identity of the parties.

 

3. Explicit prohibition to review the merits of foreign judgments

Under the 2012 Execution Law, there is no explicit provision prohibiting a review of the merits of foreign judgments. Nevertheless, such a prohibition may be inferred from the imposition of a number of formal and procedural requirements for having foreign judgments declared enforceable. In judicial practice, the principle of the prohibition of révision au fond is frequently affirmed; however, some decisions suggest that it has not always been strictly observed (see Elbalti, “Perspective from the Arab World”, op. cit., 185). The new Law has addressed this issue expressly in Article 4(2), which provides that “Subject to the provisions of Article (9) of the Law, the court shall ensure that the title of obligation satisfies its statutory requirements, without examining the merits of the right forming its subject matter”.

 

4. Limitation period to execution of the titles of obligations

The new Enforcement Law clarifies the limitation period applicable to the execution of titles of obligation. Under new Article 11, execution lapses upon the expiry of ten (10) years from the date on which the title becomes due and enforceable. Although this rule also applies to foreign judgments as titles of obligation (Article 7 of the new Law), the wording of the provision suggests that it concerns foreign judgments only once they have been declared enforceable by the Execution Court. The Law, however, contains no specific limitation period governing the filing of an application for a foreign judgment to be declared enforceable in Saudi Arabia. This suggests that, in principle, judgment creditors may apply at any time for such a declaration. By contrast, once enforceability has been granted, actual execution will be barred upon the expiry of the ten-year limitation period.

 

The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is holding a webinar on Thursday 30 April 2026 at 14:30 (Mexico City time – CST), 22:30 (CEST time). The topic of the webinar is: The HCCH Work Agenda in 2026. Opportunities and Challenges for AMEDIP, which will be presented by Ignacio Goicoechea, Representative of the HCCH Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean (ROLAC) (in Spanish).

The details of the webinar are:

Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86063956094?pwd=dat8bYxVWnLfBbjiNDBY4ijwMlqRo7.1

Meeting ID: 860 6395 6094

Password: AMEDIP

Participation is free of charge.

This event will also be streamed live: https://www.facebook.com/AmedipMX

Contributed by Adriani Dori

Online Research Seminar Series: Call for expressions of interest

Submission Deadline:  Rolling base
Open to: Scholars, practitioners, and early-career researchers

Contact details: ecjc@law.eur.nl

Following the publication of the handbook European Civil Procedure (De Gruyter 2026), the European Civil Justice Centre (ECJC) is pleased to announce a new initiative.

ECJC ‘Civil Justice Conversations’

The ECJC ‘Civil Justice Conversations’ is a new series of online research seminars designed to foster scholarly exchange and collaboration in the field of European civil justice.

Purpose & Scope: Advancing European Civil Justice Dialogue

The seminar series aims to provide a regular forum for the presentation and discussion of research in European civil justice and related fields. It seeks to strengthen academic exchange across jurisdictions and to support the development of ongoing research projects.

Seminar Conception: Interactive & Dialogical Exchange

The seminars are designed as informal and interactive sessions in which participants may:

• Present work-in-progress or more developed research
• Receive constructive feedback on emerging ideas
• Engage in discussion with a designated discussant and a wider audience

Particular emphasis is placed on sessions that bring together contrasting or opposing perspectives, fostering critical and constructive academic dialogue.

Online Format: Accessible, Inclusive & Transnational

While in-person events are also envisaged, the online format has been chosen to:

• Facilitate broad participation across jurisdictions
• Enable regular and accessible academic exchange
• Address practical and budgetary constraints

Participation: Open Call for Scholars & Practitioners

Participation is open to all scholars and practitioners with an interest in European civil justice. Affiliation with the ECJC is not required.

We particularly welcome contributions from Early Career Researchers with a developed idea or ongoing project aligned with the Centre’s thematic areas, including collective actions, digitalisation of civil justice, ADR/ODR, legal aid and litigation funding, and anti-SLAPPs.

Selection will take into account the originality of the proposal, its stage of development, and its alignment with the Centre’s research themes.

How to Apply

Expressions of interest should include:

• A curriculum vitae
• An abstract of the proposed presentation
• Optionally, the name of a potential discussant, if already identified

Please send your application to: ecjc@law.eur.nl

I. Introduction

This is certainly a genuinely interesting case from Bahrain, involving the application of “foreign” Jewish customs in a succession dispute that appears to be between Jewish Bahraini nationals. Although the case seems to lack any foreign element, its relevance to conflict of laws is nonetheless clear, since – to my knowledge – this is the first case in which the applicability of “foreign” religious customs in matters of personal status has been explicitly admitted in what appears a purely domestic case. The case also provides a broader analytical framework, raising questions about the place and applicability of non-state law in private international law (this contrasts of the recent decision of the French Supreme Court denying the applicability of Jewish law, albeit in a different context) and, more generally, about the compatibility of non-Islamic religious norms with domestic public policy frameworks in Muslim-majority legal systems.

 

II. Facts

The case concerns a domestic succession dispute involving Jews in Bahrain. Although the ruling does not expressly state this, the absence of any reference to choice-of-law rules strongly suggests that the parties involved were Bahraini Jews and that the case contained no foreign elements.

Following their brother’s death, Y1 (the deceased’s brother) brought proceedings in 2024 before the High Civil Court against Y2 (the deceased’s nephew) and Y3 (the deceased’s sister), seeking the opening of the estate, the identification of the heirs, an inventory of the assets, and the devolution of the estate. The court ordered the opening of the estate and held that Y1 and Y2 were entitled to equal shares.

X et al. (the deceased’s sisters), who were not parties to the original proceedings, filed a third-party objection seeking annulment of the judgment and a redistribution of the estate among all heirs, including themselves, in equal shares, based on Jewish inheritance customs or, subsidiarily, Islamic law. The objection was dismissed on the merits, and this outcome was upheld on appeal. X et al. then appealed to the Supreme Court of Bahrain, challenging their exclusion from the inheritance.

Before the Supreme Court, X et al. argued that the lower courts had relied on Chapter 27 of the Torah (the Old Testament), a text which, they contended, no longer reflects contemporary Jewish social or religious practice. They maintained that Jewish inheritance rules have evolved over time and that current customs within Jewish communities grant women equal inheritance rights in the absence of a will, an approach adopted by many rabbinical courts worldwide. In the absence of established Jewish inheritance rules or locally recognised custom in Bahrain, they argued that prevailing foreign custom should apply, since it does not conflict with Bahraini public policy.

 

III. Ruling

In its decision of 1 December 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of X et al. holding as follows (detailed summary):

Under Bahraini law, the High Civil Courts have jurisdiction over all personal status matters concerning non-Muslims. Where no statutory rule applies, Article 1 of the Civil Code requires courts to apply the customs of the religious community concerned.

Such customs are not limited to those established locally in Bahrain. If no local custom is proven, courts may apply general or foreign customs, provided that they are genuinely observed by the members of the religion concerned. The application of foreign custom is subject to two conditions: first, that it is actually and consistently followed and regarded as binding within the community, that is, it has not fallen into disuse; and second, that it does not conflict with public policy in Bahrain. Where these conditions are met, the relevant foreign custom governs matters of personal status concerning members of the religion in question.

In this case, the lower court applied Chapter 27 of the Torah on the ground that no local Jewish custom governing the distribution of inheritance existed in Bahrain, thereby excluding any consideration of customs prevailing outside the Kingdom. However, once its existence is established, foreign custom may be disregarded only where it conflicts with a statutory provision or with public policy. The failure to examine whether relevant foreign Jewish inheritance customs existed and satisfied the required conditions—namely, that they are applied in a consistent, continuous, and well-known manner among members of the Jewish faith, that they are regarded by them as binding, and that they do not violate public policy—justifies the quashing of the decision and the remittal of the case.

 

III. Comments

Generally speaking, the application of foreign law in the MENA region has long been a challenging issue question marked by uncertainty and resistance in practice (for a general comparative overview, with a special focus on civil and commercial matters, see Béligh Elbalti, “Choice of Law in International Contract and Foreign Law before MENA Arab Courts from the Perspective of Belt and Road Initiative”, in Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit, Sai Ramani Garimella (eds.), Legal Challenges of China’s One Belt One Road Initiative – Private International Law Considerations (Routledge, 2025), pp. 145-150). Against this background, the acceptance by the Bahraini Supreme Court of the application of foreign customs in matters of personal status in a purely domestic case is all the more noteworthy, insofar as certain conditions are met.

The case raises in particular two fundamental questions: (1) the applicability of non-Muslim legal norms in Bahrain; and (2) the relevance of public policy in this context.

 

1. The applicability of non-Muslim legal norms in Bahrain

a) General Applicable framework

Unlike some non-neighboring countries in the region, where matters of personal status of non-Muslims—whether foreigners or nationals—may be governed by special legislation (see, for example, UAE federal legislation on Civil Personal Status), Bahrain has not adopted any specific legal framework applicable to non-Muslims.

There are, however, a few notable exceptions.

First, the 1971 Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (CCCP) sets out conflict-of-laws rules that are expressly applicable to personal status matters involving non-Muslims (Article 21 of the Bahraini CCCP).

Second, Legislative Decree No. 11 of 1971 regulates inheritance and the devolution of estates of foreign non-Muslims.

Third, Legislative Decree No. 42 of 2002 on Judicial Jurisdiction provides, in Article 6, that disputes relating to the personal status of non-Muslims fall within the jurisdiction of the civil courts, as opposed to the Muslim Sharia courts, which, by contrast, have subject-matter jurisdiction over all disputes relating to the personal status of Muslims, with the exception of certain disputes relating to succession, which fall within the jurisdiction of the civil courts (Article 13). In this context, the Muslim Sharia courts are required to apply Bahrain’s Family Law of 2017 (Law No. 17 of 2017), which to date constitutes the only legislative framework governing family law matters in Bahrain. This law, however, applies exclusively before the Muslim Sharia courts, which lack jurisdiction over disputes involving non-Muslims.

Accordingly, while the civil courts have jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear personal status disputes involving non-Muslims, Bahraini law does not specify the substantive law to be applied by those courts in such matters—except where the parties are foreigners and foreign law is applicable pursuant to Bahraini choice-of-law rules, or where the dispute concerns the succession of foreign non-Muslims, in which case Legislative Decree No. 11 of 1971 applies.

 

b) Customs as a source of law

It is in this context that the Bahraini Supreme Court relied on Article 1 of the Bahraini Civil Code of 2001, which authorizes courts to apply customs (‘urf) in the absence of legislative provisions. The reference to customs is significant, given that Bahraini family law does not contain any provision allowing non-Muslims to invoke the application of their own religious law, unlike several neighbouring jurisdictions in the region (see Article 1(2) of the UAE Personal Status Law of 2024; Article 364 of the Kuwaiti Personal Status Law of 2007; Article 4 of the Qatari Family Law of 2006; and Article 282 of the Omani Personal Status Law of 1997).

The Bahraini Supreme Court’s case law is consistent on this point. In a previous decision of 4 April 2023, the Supreme Court quashed a lower court judgment that had applied the 2017 Bahraini Family Law to a dispute involving spouses of the Bahá’í faith, without examining whether there existed any laws or regulations among members of the Bahá’í faith in Bahrain governing their personal status matters, or whether any customs regulated such matters. Unlike the case discussed here, the 2023 decision did involve a conflict-of-laws issue in the sense of private international law, which was resolved by applying Bahraini law as the lex patriae of the husband (Article 21(3) of the CCCP). It was at then that the Supreme Court emphasized the absence of Bahraini legislation governing personal status matters for non-Muslims and justified recourse to Article 1 of the Civil Code, thereby overruling the lower court’s decision for failing to consider the applicability of Bahá’í law or custom.

However, what is remarkable in the present case is that the court extended the scope of the “customs” referred to in Article 1 of the Civil Code to include “general and foreign (external) customs”, in the absence of a local one (‘urf mahalli). Reference to foreign (external) customs is, however, subject to two cumulative conditions: (1) the foreign customs must be generally observed by members of the relevant religious community, in the sense that they must not have fallen into disuse; and (2) they must not be inconsistent with public policy in Bahrain. With respect to the first condition, the appellants argued that the classical Jewish rule prioritizing male heirs and allowing women to inherit only in the absence of sons has become obsolete in contemporary Jewish social and religious communities. They contended that it has become common practice across Jewish communities worldwide to allow women to inherit on an equal basis, a practice consistently endorsed by rabbinic courts in various legal systems worldwide.

 

2. Consistency with public policy

Another key question concerns whether succession rules that depart from Islamic Sharia should be regarded as contrary to public policy. Given the centrality of Islamic Sharia in the legal systems of many MENA countries, succession rules raise a particularly sensitive issue when they diverge from its principles. This is more so, knowing that, in some jurisdictions, such as Egypt, where non-Muslims are permitted to apply their own religious rules in matters of family law, succession remains governed by a unified regime based on Islamic Sharia, which applies equally to Muslims and non-Muslims.

In the present case before the Bahraini courts, the applicable Islamic Sharia rules would have entitled the deceased’s sisters to inherit, but only on the basis of the principle that a male heir receives a share equal to that of two female heirs (Quran 4:176). In addition, remote male agnates, such as nephews, will be excluded. It is therefore understandable that X et al. invoked Islamic Sharia in the alternative, since, unlike the classical Jewish rule at issue, it would at least secure them a share in the estate, albeit an unequal one (on the reliance of Jewish community on Islamic Sharia courts, see Jessica M. Marglin, “Jews in Shari‘a Courts: A Family Dispute From the Cairo Geniza”, in A. E. Franklin et al. (eds.), Jews, Christians and Muslims in Medieval and Early Modern Times – A Festschrift in Honor of Mark Cohen (Brill, 2014), pp. 207-25).

The central issue, however, is whether an equal division of the estate among all potential heirs, without gender distinction, would raise concerns of Islamic public policy. On this point, comparative practice in the region shows a consistent reluctance to treat divergence from Islamic Sharia rules as such a violation. Courts across the Middle East have generally held that, in disputes involving non-Muslims, the application of foreign or religious rules differing from Islamic inheritance principles does not, in itself, offend public policy (for a detailed analysis from a private international law perspective, see Béligh Elbalti, “Applicable Law in Succession Matters in the MENA Arab Jurisdictions – Special Focus on Interfaith Successions and Difference of Religion as Impediment to Inheritance”, RabelsZ, Vol. 88(4), 2024, pp. 734). Against this background, it is unlikely that the Bahraini courts would consider an equal distribution of the estate among heirs to be contrary to public policy, particularly where the applicable framework already permits recourse to religious or customary norms in the absence of specific legislation.