Private International Law in Context of Globalization: from Privatization to Fragmentation

  • Maria V. Mazhorina Kutafin Moscow State Law University
Keywords: globalization, non-state regulation, private international law, applicable law, lex mercatoria, UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT, denationalization of law, fragmentation of law

Abstract

Globalization has changed the face of the world, gave rise to the restructuring of society, the transformation of the state and its sovereignty and led to the «denationalization» of law. Today, the future of law is formed, which must be adequate to the new society. The greatest changes occur in international private law, where we are witnessing an increase in the number of norm-making actors with norm-making being adhocratic in nature; strengthening and modification of the delocalization process of law, standardization and the search for new legal identity; an unprecedented growth of the bulk of non-state regulation norms and searching for ways to legitimize them; the active development of alternative non-state and supranational systems for transboundary dispute resolution; paradigmatic shifts in the field of law, due to the interpretation of the concept of “rules of law”; updating of the institute of autonomous legal qualification, etc. The privatization of law contributes to its fragmentation, which in the framework of private international has two areas of development: normative and institutional. All this creates an effect of “parallel” social realities, with two, in fact, colliding systems of regulating transboundary relationships and two dispute resolution systems based on state law and non-state law, developing. The emerging new society and a new civilization form the request for a new law, which is in search of its new identity. Incurred in connection with this doctrines of global /transnational /non-state law require their understanding and conceptualization, and a new social practice: lexinformatica, lex digitalis, lex electronica or lex networkia, sportiva lex, lex constructionis, lex laborisinternationalis, — need to be adopted to the modern paradigm of private international law. The article explores the multi-layered normative pluralist architecture, and makes some assumptions about the future regulatory landscape with regard to cross-border private-law relations. The emerging world order, the center of which is the global economy with supporting cross-border private-law relations, still governed by the law emanating from the state, but the latter loses its regulatory monopoly, and therefore require a rethinking of the normative superstructure and the formation of a new legal language, able to explain and comprehend the effects of globalization in the legal field.

Author Biography

Maria V. Mazhorina, Kutafin Moscow State Law University

Associate Professor, Department of Private International Law, Kutafin Moscow State Law University, Candidate of Juridical Sciences. Address: 9 Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya str., 125593, Moscow, Russian Federation. Email: mazhorinamaria@gmail.com

References

Basedow J. (2016) Pravo otkrytykh obshchestv — chastnoe i gosudarstvennoe regulirovanie mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy: obshchiy kurs mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava [The law of open societies: private ordering and public regulation in the conflict of laws]. Moscow: Norma, 382 p. (in Russian)

Berger K. (2010) The creeping codification of the new lexmercatoria. Dordrecht: Kluwer Law International, 464 p.

Castells M. (2010) The information age. Economy, society, and culture. The rise of the network society. N.Y.: Wiley, 656 p.

Cohen J. (2012) Globalization and sovereignty: Rethinking legality, legitimacy, and constitutionalism. Cambridge: University Press, 453 p.

Cotterrell R. (2012) What is transnational law? Law & Social Inquiry, vol. 37, issue 2, pp. 500-524.

Domingo R. (2010) The new global law. Cambridge: University Press, 213 p.

Globalization and Private Law. (2010) Ed. by M. Faure. Cheltenham: Edgar Publishing, 488 p.

Minow M. (2017) Alternatives to the state action doctrine in the era of privatization, mandatory arbitration, and the internet: directing law to serve human needs. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, vol. 52, p. 146-167.

Michaels R. (2013) Dreaming Denationalized Law without a state: scholarship on autonomous international arbitration as utopian literature. London Review of International Law, vol. 1, issue 1, p. 35-62.

Scott C. (2009) Transnational law as a proto-concept. German Law Journal, vol. 10, issues 6/7, p. 859-876.

Sieber U. (2010) A. legal order in a global world — the development of a fragmented system of national, international, and private norms. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law. Vol. 14, p. 1-49.

Twining W. (2000) Globalization & legal theory. Cambridge: University Press, 296 p.

Vedeneev Yu.A. (2017) Yuridicheskaya nauka v sisteme mezhdistsiplinarnykh svyazey [Legal science in the system of interdisciplinary relations]. Lex Russica, no 6, p. 9-31.

Zumbansen P. (2013) Transnational private regulatory governance: ambiguities of public authority and private power. Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 76, p. 117-138.

Zumbansen P. (2012) Transnational comparisons: theory and practice of comparative law as a critique of global governance. Comparative Research in Law & Political Economy. Research Paper, no 1, p. 1-2.

Published
2018-03-03
How to Cite
MazhorinaM. V. (2018). Private International Law in Context of Globalization: from Privatization to Fragmentation. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, (1), 193-217. https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2018.1.193.217
Section
Law in the Modern World