Models for Resolving Interlocal Conflicts in Private International Law
Abstract
The application of the law of a country with multiple legal systems is an important institution of the General Part of Private International Law (hereinafter PIL), which has been unfairly overlooked by judicial practice. For the purposes of PIL, the concept of a “state with multiple legal systems” should be interpreted broadly, encompassing internal conflicts of laws across space (interlocal), persons (interpersonal), and time (intertemporal). The provision enshrined in Article 1188 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is applicable to the resolution of all three types of conflicts. This article analyzes one type of internal conflicts — interlocal conflicts — arising in states that include administrative-territorial units with a certain legal autonomy in matters of regulating private law relations. Such conflicts are included within the subject matter of PIL, and PIL conflict rules, due to their general abstract nature, represent a valid legal and technical tool for selecting the applicable law in both international and interlocal conflicts. Several models for resolving interlocal conflicts have been developed in international acts, national legislation and judicial practice: 1) the direct reference model: a) simple; b) extended (complicated); 2) the indirect reference model: a) simple; b) extended (complicated); 3) the synergistic model: a) a subtype of the direct model; b) a subtype of the indirect model. The optimal solution appears to be the use of the synergistic subtype of direct reference, since it allows for the maximum possible balance to be achieved between practical expediency and respect for national legal specifics. This model does not suffer from excessive complexity, increases the certainty and predictability of a court decision, and takes into account the conflict party autonomy. In Russian legislation, the extended indirect model is formally legally enshrined, but the semantic interpretation of the statutory provision given by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation transforms it into an extended direct model. Such practice of the law enforcement agency appears to be entirely adequate and justified. The study utilized methods of comparative law and comparative analysis, as well as historical and formal-logical methods.
References
Álvarez González S. (2006) Derecho internacional privado europeo, plurilegislación civil española y derecho internacional (o ¿para quién legisla el legislador autonómico de derecho civil?). Dereito: Revista juridica da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, no. 15, pp. 263–285.
Álvarez González (2019) Cuestiones de derecho interregional en la aplicación de los nuevos reglamentos comunitarios. In: Jornadas sobre Derecho, inmigración y empresa. Santiago Ripol Carulla (Coord.). Madrid: Colegio Notarial de Cataluña, Marcial Pons, pp. 363–388.
Barten E. (2019) Fundamentals of Private International Law. Vol. 1. Moscow: Statut, 559 p. (in Russ.)
Christandl G. (2013) Multi-Unit States in European Union Private International Law. Journal of Private International Law, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 219–244.
Collier J.G. (2004) Conflict of Laws. Cambridge: University Press, 403 p.
Dmitrieva G.K. (ed.) (2022) Private International Law: Textbook. Moscow: Prospect, 1216 p. (in Russ.)
Goykhbarg A.G. (1928) International Law. Moscow: Publishing House of the People’s Commissariat of Justice, 185 p. (in Russ.)
Krylov S.B. (1930) Private International Law. Leningrad: Priboy, 328 p. (in Russ.)
Landeta G. States with More than One Legal System and UE Rem Regulation. 8th ELRA Annual Publication. Available at: URL: https://www.elra.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Speech-ValenciaGabriel-Alonso.pdf
Lunts L.A. (2002) Course in Private International Law. In three volumes. Moscow: Spark, 1008 p. (in Russ.)
Makarov A.N. (1924) Fundamentals of Private International Law. Moscow: Publishing House of the Commissariat of Justice, 151 p. (in Russ.)
Meškić Z. (2016) Private International Law on Stage — Art. 36 of the Succession Regulation on States with More than One Legal System as a Model for PIL Reforms in South East Europe. Anali Pravnog Fakulteta Univerziteta u Zenici, no. 18, pp. 275-296.
Morris J.H.C. (1966) The Time Factor in the Conflict of Laws. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 422–435.
Nolde B.E. (1912) Essay on Private International Law. In: List F. International Law in a Systematic Exposition. Yuryev: K. Matveyev Printing House, pp. 463-574 (in Russ.)
Peretersky I.S. (1925) Essays on Private International Law of the RSFSR. Moscow: State Publishing House, 144 p. (in Russ.)
Raevich S.I. (1934) Private International Law. Moscow: Soviet Legislation Press, 282 p. (in Russ.)
Spiro E. (1960) The Incidence of Time in the Conflict of Laws. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 357–382.
Tonatiuh Poblano Lere T. (2007) Los conflictos de leyes interprovinciales en el derecho conflictual Mexicano. Mexico: Universidad National Autonoma de Mexico, 124 p.
Tolstykh V.L. (2004) Private International Law: Conflict of Laws Regulation. Sint. Petersburg: Legal Centre Press, 526 p. (in Russ.)
Torremans P. (2021) Historical Development and Current Theories. In: Cheshire, North & Fawcett: Private International Law. Oxford: University Press, pp. 16–39.
Vitta E. (1986) Interlocal Conflict of Laws. In: Lipstein K. (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law. Vol. III. Part 1. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, Charter 9, pp. 1–26.
Zivkovic M. (1982) Primena kolizione norme medunarodnog privatnog prava na pravo drzave sa nejedinstvenim pravnim podrucjem. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu, br. 22, pp. 473–489.
Copyright (c) 2026 Erpyleva N.Yu., Getman-Pavlova I.V., Kasatkina A.S.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
