Droit international général

The third bi-annual conference of the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) will take place in Geneva, Switzerland, on 18-20 June 2026. The conference will present current developments in Private International Law. Presentations will then focus on a proposal to consolidate the current European Private International Law regulations in one single instrument (EuPIL Act), on […]

Reposted from JPIL Conference 2027 | Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät | UZH

 

The 11th Journal of Private International Law Conference will be held in Zurich, Switzerland. Please save the date: 1–3 April 2027.

The conference organizers Tanja Domej (University of Zurich) and Christiane von Bary (University of Zurich), as well as the editors of the Journal, Paul Beaumont (University of Stirling) and Jonathan Harris (King’s College London), are looking forward to welcoming you in Switzerland!

The call for papers is available here (PDF, 137 KB).

 

The Zurich organisers can provide a limited number of travel grants for speakers from low- and lower-middle income economies according to the World Bank classification. For eligible countries, see https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/understanding-country-income–world-bank-group-income-classifica or https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups.

Travel grants will cover the costs of economy class travel (up to CHF 1500), visa costs, and hotel accommodation (the latter will be booked by the organisers). To qualify for a travel grant, speakers must be at least at the postdoc level, affiliated with an academic institution in an eligible country, and unable to cover their travel expenses otherwise.

If you wish to apply for a travel grant, please submit your CV and list of publications in addition to your abstract. Grant recipients will be selected by the organisers based on the quality of the abstract, the personal qualifications of applicants, and the need for financial assistance.

Please note that, as the travel grants are funded by the University of Zurich, similar funding may not be available for future Journal of Private International Law Conferences.

A new Handbook titled ‘European Civil Procedure’ edited by Xandra Kramer, Stefaan Voet and Adriani Dori has been published by De Gruyter Brill. The blurb reads as follows: European civil procedure has emerged as an independent and dynamic field of policy making, research and teaching. Influenced by human rights law, EU consumer law, and resulting […]

The German Society of International Law (GSIL) will be hosting a ‘short conference’ dedicated to “Law without Borders? Extraterritorial Regulation and Unilateral Action” in Munich on 11 and 12 June 2026. While its academic events are usually limited to members of the Society, this particular event has been opened up for other academics working on questions of international law, including doctoral candidates. Participation is free of charge.

The programme can be found here; registration is possible here.

This post was written by Lorène Anthonioz, who is PhD candidate in Private International Law at the University of Geneva and a Research and Teaching Assistant in Private International Law at UniDistance. On 29 January 2026, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court issued a judgment (5A_617/2025) whereby it refused to grant the attachment of Syrian funds held […]

On 15 May 2026, the Faculty of Law of the University of Coimbra will host the conference “Dark Spots of the European Succession Regulation: A Decade of Its Application” (“Pontos Negros do Regulamento Europeu das Sucessões: Uma década da sua aplicação”).

The conference aims to discuss some of the most controversial, uncertain and unresolved issues arising from the first decade of application of the European Succession Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 650/2012). The programme brings together scholars and practitioners from different jurisdictions and legal traditions, combining presentations in Portuguese, Spanish and English.

The event will take place at the Legal Institute’s premises of the Faculty of Law of the University of Coimbra.

The full programme and further information are available here.

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.

On 9 and 10 April 2027, the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich will host the 6th PIL Early Career Researchers’ Conference on “Crises in PIL – Crises of PIL”. The organisers of the conference (Nina Benz, Biset Sena Günes, Torsten Kindt, Peter Moser, Christopher Reibetanz, Alix Schulz, Bianca Scraback, Antonia Sommerfeld and Charlotte Wendland) describe […]

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.

This post was written by Birgit van Houtert (Assistant Professor, Maastricht University) and Marco Pasqua (Examiner, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milan), co-Chairs of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions, based on the materials provided for by Working Group members. The EAPIL Working Group  on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions was established one […]

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

This post was written by Birgit van Houtert (Assistant Professor, Maastricht University) and Marco Pasqua (Examiner, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milan), co-Chairs of the EAPIL Working Group on Anti-SLAPP Directive Transpositions, on behalf of Working Group members. Article 22 of Directive (EU) 2024/1069 (‘Anti-SLAPP Directive’) requires Member States to bring into force […]

In May, the Court of Justice will deliver only one decision, on the interpretation of the European Account Preservation Order Regulation. It will also hold a hearing in a case related to the Rome II Regulation. The hearing will take place on Wednesday 13th; it concerns case C-345/25, Gritxa, a request for a preliminary ruling […]

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 23 April 2026, the EU amended Regulation (EU) 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures against Russia (the ‘Sanctions Regulation’) and established an anti suit injunction for European entities being sued in Russia in violation of jurisdiction clauses. Nine months ago, the EU had already amended the same Sanctions Regulation to establish a variety of remedies allowing […]

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.

The latest issue of the International and Comparative Law Quarterly (Volume 75, Issue 1) features two article of relevance to private international law. Min Kyung Kim and Jonathan Harris, Arbitration versus Insolvency: Balancing Party Autonomy and Public Policy, 129-155 This article examines the tension between arbitration and insolvency in common law jurisdictions. Focusing on the divergence created […]