Flux des sites DIP

In a decision of 14 July, the Swedish Supreme Court clarified whether standing to bring maintenance proceedings is governed by the law applicable to the maintenance obligation appointed by the 2007 Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations or by the law of the forum under the principle of lex for regit processum. […]

The Ravenna Summer School on Cross-Border Litigation (Università di Bologna) is organizing its III Reunion on 19-20 November 2026 in Bologna (Italy).  The program of the reunion will include two sessions dedicated to the presentations of young researchers:  Session I: Rules of cross-border jurisdiction in times of conflicts and growing unilateralism   Session II: Recognition and enforcement […]

Susanne Gössl (Bonn), Frederick Rieländer (Bremen), and Benedikt Schmitz (Groningen) are happy to announce the creation of the European Group on the Digitalisation of Justice (EGDJ), a Chapter-based collaborative research network dedicated to analysing, evaluating, and shaping the ongoing digital transformation of judicial systems across Europe. It focuses on end-users, the judiciary as well as public administrations, and broader systematic changes.

EGDJ is intra-disciplinary, reflecting all areas of procedural law, including private international law. It is also comparative, as it delineates and compares existing approaches to the digitalisation of justice in Europe. Furthermore, it aims to provide EU-wide solutions that streamline digitalisation across the entire bloc.

Inspired by the insights of a comparative symposium held in Groningen in May 2026, EGDJ is launching with the Netherlands and Germany as its inaugural chapters. A chapter represents either a country or a region and is headed by one or more “leads”. Chapters must participate in group-wide projects but may also conduct their own national initiatives. Leads are responsible for convening a group of scholars, practitioners, and policymakers from all procedural fields of law (PIL, civil procedure, administrative procedure, criminal procedure). The number of members for each chapter is not limited. A Chapter can also be a pre-existing group on national level.

Given EGDJ’s clear aspiration to be truly European, we are now looking for interested persons to take on the position as lead for their country/region. For a list of already existing Chapters, see: https://egdj.org/who-we-are/. This list will be updated on a rolling basis.

After passing of the (soft!) deadline, we will convene an online meeting to discuss the ins and outs of this new European Group on the Digitalisation of Justice, inviting you to directly influence its future direction.

Express your interest before 1 October 2026

Please send an email to the EGDJ coordinators at info@egdj.org, containing the following:

• Your name, position, and professional affiliation
• The country/region you would like to represent
• Your motivation for doing so
• And, if applicable, prior experience in the area of digitalisation of justice

The soft deadline to express your interest is before 1 October 2026. You may send an email at a later stage, too, but this might not be in time for the inaugural online meeting.

Questions?

If you have any questions, please contact Benedikt Schmitz at b.schmitz@rug.nl.

The third issue of the Journal du droit international for 2026 has been released. It contains one article and several case notes relating to private international law issues. In their contribution, Gustavo Cerqueira (University of Nice) and Nicolas Nord (University of Strasbourg / CIEC) analyse the Brazilian draft general act on private international law (Commentaire […]

In the context of the annual meeting of the European Group of Private International Law (GEDIP), hosted this year by the Faculty of Law of Maastricht University, a half-day hybrid workshop titled The “Brussels Effect”: A Brussels I Regulation for the World?  will be held on 17 September 2026. Following the European Commission’s report on […]

This announcement has kindly been provided by Matthias Lehmann and Lukas Petschning (University of Vienna).

On 30 November and 1 December 2026, the University of Vienna (Section for Comparative, Uniform and Private International Law) will host a conference entitled „Conflict of Laws in International Arbitration“.

Four thematic sessions will consider current issues revolving around the law governing (1) arbitrability and the arbitration agreement, (2) the conduct of proceedings, (3) privilege and document production, as well as (4) the merits of the dispute. The panels include academics and practitioners from Asia, Europe, and the Americas, with plenty of time reserved for discussion and networking.

Early winter is an optimal time to visit Vienna, and Christmas markets will already be in full swing. A Mulled Wine Reception in the evening of the first conference day will hopefully spread a festive mood among participants, and will be followed by the optional Conference Dinner at Vienna City Hall.

The preliminary agenda for the conference is now available here.

Registration is possible here and free of charge for full-time academics, students, and public servants; early-bird prices of EUR 80 are still available for other participants.

A charge of EUR 60 applies for the optional conference dinner.

We are looking forward to welcoming many of you to Vienna!

The author of this post is Johan Tufte-Kristensen who is an Associate Professor of Private and Procedural Law at the University of Copenhagen. In a decision of 12 June 2026, the Danish Supreme Court ordered a Cypriot-registered company to provide security for costs in appeal proceedings in Denmark. The decision concerned a question of interest […]

This announcement has kindly been shared with us by Roger Michalski (University of Oklahoma).

We are excited to announce that the Third Conflict of Laws Annual Workshop (CLAW3) will be hosted by the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School on Friday, November 13, 2026 with a welcome dinner the night before. The CLAW aims to provide a forum to discuss new work in conflict of laws. The CLAW welcomes work on all aspects of conflict of laws, including civil, criminal, domestic and transnational conflict of laws. We welcome all those writing and working in the field of conflict of laws to attend.

Call for Papers

Those wishing to present a paper for discussion should submit a one-page abstract by September 18. Please email abstracts in Word or PDF format to roger.michalski@ou.edu, asimowitz@willamette.edu, and krooseve@law.upenn.edu.

Logistics

The CLAW will provide meals for registrants. Participants must cover travel and lodging costs. We will provide information about reasonably priced hotels as the date approaches.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

All the best,

Kim, Roger, & Aaron

Augustin Gridel (University of Nancy, France) has posted Registered Shares in Private International Law -A French and European Perspective on SSRN. The abstract reads: The private international law rules governing the ownership of shares have long rested on the modalities of their transfer, which afforded considerable significance to the form they take (registered or bearer). […]

Keio University Law School in Tokyo (KLS) will be hosting a seminar entitled “Keio University Law School Book Series Seminar:  Hart’s Studies in Private International Law – Asia” at Room 2B12 in South Building, Keio University Mita Campus, on Friday, 25 September 2026, from 3 to 4pm.

As the readers of ConflictofLaws.net are well aware, Studies in Private International Law – Asia is a forum for discussion and analysis of private international law issues in Asian jurisdictions, which is published under Hart’s celebrated series Studies in Private International Law.  This seminar aims to provide an overview of the book series to the audience. Legal practitioners, government officials, academics and students who are interested in Asian law, private international law (broadly defined) and/or law and development are welcome to join.

The seminar will be followed by a networking tea, during which interested participants may explore future publication opportunities in the Studies in Private International Law – Asia series and other Hart Publishing outlets with Justice Anselmo Reyes (General Editor of Studies in Private International Law – Asia and International Judge at Singapore International Commercial Court) and Dr Roberta Bassi (Publisher at Hart Publishing).

There is no registration fee for this event, but registration is required for catering purposes. Visit here to register.

 

Programme

3.00pm Opening remarks by Professor Hiroshi MATSUO (Vice Dean and Director of Global LLM Program at Keio University Law School) 3.10pm Book series introduction by Justice Anselmo Reyes and

Dr Roberta Bassi 3.30pm Experience sharing by Dr Nobumichi TERAMURA (Associate Professor at Keio University Law School) 3.40pm Q&A 4pm End of the seminar and networking tea

SPIL-A series seminar Keio

By Faraz Firouzi Mandomi

Iran’s use of property measures against critics abroad is no longer hypothetical. In March 2026, Iran’s Prosecutor-General’s Office warned Iranians living abroad that support for, or cooperation with, states regarded by Iran as hostile could result in confiscation of their property. Reuters reported the warning on the basis of statements carried by Iranian state media.

The policy has since acquired a more concrete form. In May 2026, Amnesty International reported judicial orders to identify, freeze and seize bank accounts, properties and other assets belonging to persons accused of cooperating with “enemy states” or “hostile media”. Iranian authorities had reportedly announced measures affecting more than 750 persons inside and outside Iran, including journalists living abroad.

Administrative measures adopted in 2026 have also brought security screening into the use of consular powers of attorney. A circular concerning power of attorney issued abroad required inquiries where such instruments were presented in Iran and contemplated prosecutorial action where the grantor was identified as an opponent of the Islamic Republic abroad.

For present purposes, this situation can be described as political immobilization. Ownership may formally remain intact, while access to the legal mechanisms required to sell, mortgage, partition or administer the property is conditioned by political or security considerations.

The immediate concern is one of human rights. A separate question arises in private international law once the consequences of such measures are relied upon before courts outside Iran.

Property and the Lex Situs

The conventional starting point is the lex rei sitae. Article 966 of the Iranian Civil Code provides that possession, ownership and other rights over movable and immovable property are governed by the law of the country in which the property is situated. Proprietary questions concerning land situated in Iran therefore fall, in principle, under Iranian law.

That rule does not dispose of every dispute connected with Iranian property. A transaction involving land in Iran may also generate questions of contractual liability, restitution, succession, matrimonial property or insolvency before a foreign court. Those questions require separate characterization and may be governed by a law other than the law governing title itself.

Suppose, for example, that an Iranian resident abroad contracts to sell property in Tehran but cannot complete the transaction because the authorities prevent the use of a power of attorney on security grounds. Proceedings may subsequently be brought abroad for repayment or damages. The foreign court would first have to determine the nature of the claim and the law applicable to it. An Iranian administrative instruction addressed to prosecutors, consular authorities, notaries or registries does not automatically govern contractual liability in another legal system.

An additional distinction is important. The Iranian restriction might appear before the foreign court simply as a fact explaining why performance could not occur. In that situation, public policy cannot make the factual impediment disappear. A different problem arises where a party asks the forum to attribute legal effect to the measure itself, whether through the applicable foreign law, a claimed proprietary consequence, or recognition of an Iranian decision.

Human Rights and Public Policy

Human rights do not replace ordinary conflicts rules, nor do they ordinarily operate as connecting factors permitting a court to disregard foreign law merely because its application produces an objectionable result.

Their influence is nevertheless visible within established mechanisms of private international law. A useful contemporary restatement appears in the Institut de Droit international’s 2021 Resolution on Human Rights and Private International Law. Article 8 provides that, in assessing whether the application of foreign law designated by conflicts rules complies with international public policy, due consideration must be given to human rights, notably the principle of non-discrimination. Public policy therefore remains an exceptional control mechanism, not a competing choice-of-law rule. It may permit the forum to refuse effect to a consequence of otherwise applicable foreign law that is incompatible with its fundamental principles.

The distinction between territorial effectiveness and legal effect abroad is familiar in conflicts jurisprudence. In Luther v Sagor, English courts accepted the proprietary consequences of Soviet confiscatory legislation concerning property situated within Soviet territory. Oppenheimer v Cattermole demonstrated that such deference was not unlimited where foreign legislation was fundamentally incompatible with public policy. In Kuwait Airways v Iraqi Airways, the House of Lords likewise began from ordinary choice-of-law principles concerning proprietary rights but refused effect to Iraqi confiscatory legislation on public-policy grounds. Belhaj v Straw subsequently discussed Oppenheimer and Kuwait Airways within this public-policy line of authority.

The comparison is doctrinal, not historical. The Iranian measures are not equated with Soviet nationalization, Nazi persecution or Iraqi confiscation. These authorities instead illustrate that the territorial operation of foreign law and the legal consequences accorded to it by another legal system are separate questions.

Iranian law will ordinarily govern proprietary rights in assets situated in Iran. The private international law issue arises only when a consequence of the Iranian measure is invoked before a foreign court. The forum must first characterize the issue, determine the applicable law and establish the scope of the relevant foreign rule. Only then can public policy become relevant. Where the consequence for which legal effect is sought rests on discrimination based on political opinion or opposition activity, human-rights considerations may properly enter that assessment.

Political immobilization thus becomes a private international law problem when a measure effective within Iran is invoked as the basis for legal consequences outside Iran.

The second edition of Conflict of Laws Within the UK by Kirsty J Hood, Senator, College of Justice, Scotland, has been published by Oxford University Press. The blurb reads: The operation of conflict of law rules within the UK has changed drastically since the first edition of Conflict of Laws Within the UK published in […]

The Faculty of Law at Lund University is inviting applications for one or two doctoral positions. The call is directed to four specific fields of law: fiscal law, private international law, constitutional law and procedural law. Of particular interest to the readers of this blog is, of course, the possibility to pursue a doctoral project […]

The Hague Academy of International Law Summer Course provides an opportunity each year to engage with some of the most significant questions currently shaping private international law, bringing together established scholars and emerging researchers from around the world. As part of the 2026 Session, noted on this blog, the editors of the EAPIL blog invited […]

by Sibusiso Mabaso, Lecturer in Private International Law, University of South Africa

For many years, South African private international law relied on the lex domicilii matrimonii as connecting factor to determine the legal system applicable to the proprietary consequences of a marriage. The lex domicilii matrimonii is interpreted as the husband’s domicile at the time of entering into the marriage. This rule was firmly entrenched in South African law since it was formally adopted in Frankel’s Estate v The Master & Another 1950(1) SA 220 (A) and reinforced in subsequent decisions, the latest being LE v LA 2024 (5) SA 539 (GJ). Despite the courts’ reliance on this rule, it became increasingly evident that it is not compatible with South Africa’s Constitutional commitment to equality, dignity and non-discrimination (Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996). The Westen Cape High Court has finally addressed this discriminatory connecting factor in a judgment delivered on 24 June 2026 in Pringle v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (2468 / 2024) [2026] ZAWCHC 343.

The challenge to the lex domicilii matrimonii emerged from a divorce dispute between Nina Pringle (applicant) and Ian Norman Pringle (third respondent), both of whom, at the time of their marriage, were domiciled outside South Africa. The marriage between the parties also took place outside South Africa, therefore South African private international law rules came into play in the case. The applicant challenged the application of the lex domicilii matrimonii rule on the basis that it automatically preferred the husband’s domicile at the time of the marriage, which has the result that the rule discriminates against women and fails to accommodate same-sex marriages.

The applicant argued that the lex domicilii matrimonii is inconsistent with the Constitution in that it discriminated between spouses on the on grounds of sex, gender and sexual orientation. Historically, the rule developed from patriarchal assumptions that the husband was the head of the family and that the wife’s identity followed his (para 60 of the case). Although such assumptions show the legacy of earlier legal systems, they have long since been rejected by South African constitutional jurisprudence. What is also interesting is that, while the wife’s domicile of dependence was abolished through the Domicile Act 3 of 1992, the lex domicilii matrimonii continued to determine the proprietary consequences of marriage according to the husband’s domicile. The applicant therefore challenged validity of the lex domicilii matrimonii, that this rule no longer serves any legitimate purpose within a constitutional democracy founded on equality and human dignity (para 3.1 of the Pringle case).

The court concurred with the applicant’s argument. It held that the lex domicilii matrimonii rule unfairly discriminates based on sex, gender and sexual orientation, which renders the rule inconsistent with the Constitution (paras 70 & 72). The court acknowledged that there exists no rational justification to continue employing the husband’s domicile when South African law has already abolished the idea that a married woman’s legal identity is dependent upon her husband (para 64). The court further acknowledged that the rule failed to accommodate same-sex marriages (para 67). In arriving at this conclusion, the court recognised that the common law must evolve to reflect the values enshrined in the Constitution, specifically where private international law rules perpetuate historical inequalities.

The court’s declaration that the rule is unconstitutional and invalid in terms of s 172(1)(a) of the Constitution, means that it had to pronounce a just and equitable replacement (s 172(1)(b)) that will determine the legal system applicable to the proprietary consequences of marriages with an international element. In this vein, the court used its powers to develop the common-law by drawing inspiration from international instruments such as the 1978 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Matrimonial Property Regimes and the European Union’s Matrimonial Property Regulation 2016/1103 (paras 85 – 93). The court developed a new hierarchical applicable law framework. The new rule prioritises party autonomy by enabling spouses to choose the legal system that will govern the proprietary consequences of their marriage, this is subject to the chosen system having a substantial link to either or both spouses (para 2.1. of the order). Should there be no choice made by the spouses or their choice has no substantial connection to them, the applicable law is determined successively by the parties’ common domicile, common habitual residence, common nationality and finally, the legal system with the closest connection to the spouses (para 2.5 of the order). The court also considered the South African Law Reform Commission’s (SALRC) Project 100E, Review of Aspects of Matrimonial Property Law, Discussion Paper 160, that considered the constitutionality of the lex domicilii matrimonii and any suitable replacement. The court departed from the SALRC Discussion Paper 160 in respect of the choice of the applicable law. The court pronounced that there should be a substantial connection between the parties and the designated legal system (para 95).

The new common-law rule developed by the court has retrospective effect; subject to certain exceptions. Firstly, where spouses concluded an antenuptial contract choosing the law governing the proprietary consequences of their marriage, the new rule will not apply for two years from the date of the order, allowing the parties time to amend their contract if necessary (para 3.1 of the order). Secondly, in the absence of a choice of law by the parties, the new rule shall not apply if it would lead to substantial prejudice (para 3.2 of the order). Thirdly, the order will not disturb vested rights or invalidate transactions and decisions already taken under the previous lex domicilii matrimonii rule (para 3.3 of the order). Finally, the new rule will not apply to marriages already dissolved by death or divorce before the date of the order (para 3.4 of the order).

The court’s declaration of invalidity and replacement of the lex domicilii matrimonii rule marks a significant development in South African private international law. Unlike the previous rule, which by default preferred the husband’s domicile, the new framework recognises the equal status of spouses while advancing legal certainty and flexibility in international marriages. The court’s adoption of connecting factors internationally applied and recognised as best practice, advances harmonisation between South African private international law and other jurisdictions. It also promotes predictability for parties involved in cross-border relationships.

The judgement is widely welcomed, given the fact that many experts in the field have long criticised and called for the rule to be replaced. The courts did not wait for legislative intervention to align the South African law with internationally accepted principles. This indicates that the courts are prepared to ensure that common-law rules align with the constitution. Some aspects still need to be explored, namely the practical application of the concept of “closest connection” and the extent to which courts will interpret the requirement of a “substantial connection” when spouses exercise their right to choose a legal system. Another aspect that would need to be explored is the court’s order that the new common-law rule shall not apply to existing marriages if it would lead to substantial prejudice. The meaning of substantial prejudice will require interpretation from our courts. These issues will undoubtedly be addressed through future scholarship and litigation.

Nevertheless, Pringle marks the demise of the lex domicilii matrimonii which was rooted in outdated patriarchal assumptions and confirms that South African private international law must develop in line with the Constitution.

This post was contributed by Dr. Ivo Hlaváček. The case law on cross-border portability of personal status has developed quickly. Coman, Pancharevo, K.S., Mirin and now Cupriak-Trojan share a structural feature that has drawn less attention than their outcomes. In each, the status was acquired while the Union citizen was genuinely residing in another Member […]

Alex Mills (University College London) has posted Private International Law and Property in Outer Space: ‘Finders, Keepers’ or ‘the Province of All Mankind’? on SSRN. The abstract reads: This chapter considers the possible role of private international law with respect to property in outer space, with a focus on space mining activities. The law which […]

Giesela Rühl (Humboldt University of Berlin) has posted Regulating Contracts across Borders: The Role of Private International Law on SSRN. The abstract reads: Private international law – or conflict of laws, as it is commonly referred to in the United States – deals with the co-existence of different legal systems and determines which state’s law applies […]

Breakdown of the Rules-Based International Order
– What Role for Private International Law?

Following the first Private International Law Festival in 2022 (conference report),  on 24-25 September 2026, the University of Edinburgh Law School and the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, generously supported by the Lindemann Foundation, will cohost the second Private International Law Festival at Edinburgh University’s splendid Playfair Library in Edinburgh. Two days of conflict of laws, plus a Ceilidh!

The program is here, a flyer is here. As to the Ceilidh, no prior expertise is expected, but you can take a look here.

Registration is open until August 28, please register here.

 

 

Private International Law and Children’s Rights Law by Tine Van Hof, Senior Researcher and Guest Lecturer at the University of Antwerp, Belgium, has been published by Bloomsbury Publishing. The blurb reads: How do private international law and children’s rights law interact-and conflict-in international child abduction cases? This book examines the relationship between two legal fields […]