Intra-Branch Method of Codifying Private International Law (Case of Latin American States)
Abstract
The codification of legislation on Private International Law (PIL) is a process representing the structural and substantive ordering of legal rules to systematize and optimize the regulation of private law relations that have a legally significant connection with the legal order of two or more countries. It is advisable to designate the following methods of codification of PIL. Intra-branch codification — the act of general codification of civil law includes a special section that regulates most of the institutes of PIL. Within the framework of this method, two main forms of its result can be distinguished: a) a simple intra-branch form where the regulation of the general part of PIL and the rules for choosing the applicable law is allocated in a separate section of the Civil Code. The rules of International Civil Procedure (ICP) are fixed in the acts of codification of civil procedure law; b) a complex intra-branch form where the act of codification of civil law includes the institutions of the general part of PIL, conflict-of-laws rules and rules of ICP (jurisdictional and procedural rules). Inter-branch codification — the act of general codification of civil law includes a special section containing the main rules and institutions of PIL. Separate institutions of the Special part of PIL are included as independent sections in the acts of special branch codifications. Autonomous branch codification — the adoption of a special law codifying the general provisions and conflict-of-laws rules of PIL. Complex autonomous codification (full-scale codification of PIL/ICP) — the adoption of a separate law or code containing both the fundamental principles and conflict-of-laws rules of PIL and the main rules of ICP. The modern legislator demonstrates all the variety of forms and ways of codifying PIL, while it is interesting to see what preferences are shown by certain countries. The legislation of Latin American countries is chosen for the analysis, since from the middle of the 19th century to the present time, the processes of codification of PIL are extremely active there. According to the results of the study, it is concluded that the majority of Latin American countries choose the path of intra-branch codification of PIL (its simple or complex form). This method of codification is not free from drawbacks; the best option is a complex autonomous codification, which has a three-part structure: (1) international jurisdiction, (2) applicable law, (3) recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. In writing this study, the authors used the methods of formal logic, comparative law, and the historical method.
References
Albán J. (2012) La ley aplicable a los contratos internacionales. International law. Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, vol. 21, p. 120.
Araujo N., Guedes de C. Saldanha F. (2013) Recent developments and current trends on Brazilian private international law concerning international contracts. Panorama of Brazilian Law, no 1, pp. 73-83.
Arroyo D. (2016) Main characteristics of the new private international law of the Argentinian Republic. Rabels Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht, Bd. 1, S. 130-150.
Belikova K.M. (2010) Legal regulation of trade and codification of private law in Latin American states. Moscow: Justitsinform, 480 p. (in Russian)
Bogdan M. (2012) Private international law as component of the law of the forum. Leiden: Brill, 360 p.
Inshakova A.O. (2011) Private international law. Moscow: RUDN, 374 p. (in Russian)
Kalensky P. (1971) Trends of private international law. Prague: Academia, 308 p.
Kiestra L.R. (2014) The Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on Private International Law. The Hague: Asser Press, 340 p.
Kisil V. (2012) National legislation as a source of private international law. Dovgert A.S., Kisil V.I. (eds.) Private international law. Kiev: Alerta, 376 p. (in Ukranian)
Kisil V. (2014) Modern trends in codification of private international law. Pravo Ukraini, no 2, pp. 89-104 (in Ukranian)
Krutij E.A. (2012) Modern codifications of private international law. Candidate of Juridical Sciences Thesis. Moscow, 236 p. (in Russian)
Kunda I., Gonçalves C. (2010) Practical handbook on European private international law. Civil Justice Programme, 152 p.
Lebedev S.N., Kabatova E.V. (eds.) (2011) Private international law. Moscow: Statut, 400 p. (in Russian)
Lunz L.A. (2002) Course of private international law. Moscow: Spark, 1007 p. (in Russian)
Maekelt T. (1982) General rules of private international law in the Americas: new approach. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, vol. IV, pp. 193-380.
Mota C. (2014) Una aproximación internacional privatista al nuevo código de procedimiento civil de Bolivia de 2013. Revista Boliviana de Derecho, vol. 18, pp. 16-63.
Ortiz de la Torre J. (2020) El nuevo Derecho internacional privado de Puerto Rico: breve nota acerca del sistema conflictual del Título preliminar del Código Civil 1 de junio de 2020. Anales de la Real Academia de Doctores de España, no 2, pp. 261-278.
Parise A. (2017) The Argentine civil and commercial code of 2015: igniting third generation of codes for Latin America. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht, Bd. 3, S. 339-668.
Prosser W. (1953) Interstate publication. Michigan Law Review, no 7, pp. 959-1000.
Rafalyuk E.E. (2010) Unification of private international law in Latin America states. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava, no 5, pp. 88-98 (in Russian)
Rühl G., von Hein J. (2015) Towards a European code on private international law? Rabels Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht, no 4, S. 701-751.
Sadikov O.N. (1962) Conflict in agreements on international rail cargo transportation. Soviet Yearbook of International Law, 1961. Moscow: Academy of Sciences, 529 p. (in Russian)
Silva J. (2018) Construyendo una ley de Derecho internacional privado para México. Anuario Espanol de Derecho Internacional Privado, vol. 18, pp. 703-718.
Sivitsky V.A. (ed.) (2010) Systematization of legislation. Moscow: HSE Publishers, 535 p. (in Russian)
Skakun O.F. (2000) Theory of state and law. Har'kov: Konsum, 704 p. (in Russian)
Shushkanov P.A. (2020) Compliance with the principles of pandect codification in structure of the Russian Civil Code. Mirovoi sudya, no 2, pp. 32-35 (in Russian)
Tille A.A. (1965) Time, space, law. Moscow: Juridicheskaya literatura, 1965. 203 p. (in Russian)
Tiburcio C. (2013) Private international law in Brazil: a brief overview. Panorama of Brazilian Law, no 1, pp. 11-37.
Tuininga K. (2009) Cuban private international law: some observations, comparisons, and suppositions. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, no 3, pp. 433-452.
Vargas J. (2005) The Federal Civil Code of Mexico. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, no 2-3, pp. 229-247.
Velasco I. (1989) El sistema de derecho internacional privado en la republica de Cuba. Revista espanjola de derecho internacional, no 2, pp. 669-674.
Vial M. (2020) International contracts in Latin America: historical slow pace towards the acceptance of party autonomy in choice of law. Revista de Derecho Privado, no 38, pp. 241-276.
Vizcarra A. (2012) Derecho internacional privado en el sistema interamericano. Conferencia pronunciada el seminario de AMEDI. México: University, 23 p.
Zenin I.A. (2021) Civil and commercial law of foreign states. Moscow: Yurait, 227 p. (in Russian)
Zlatescu I., Belu M. (2012) La culture juridique et l'acculturation du droit (rapport national roumain). Legal culture and legal transplants. 18th International Congress of Comparative Law. J. Sánchez Cordero (ed.). Washington: GPO, pp. 859-876.
Zytkiewicz N. (2017) Codification of private international law in Argentina. Kwartalnik prava privatnego, no 2, pp. 297-335 (in Polish)
Copyright (c) 2021 Law Journal of the Higher School of Economics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
