Argentina is one of the most developed countries in the Latin American region, whichcertainly stimulates the legislator to pay great attention to improving the nationalregulation of cross-border relations. The Private International Law of Argentina was firstcodified in the Civil Code (1869), but always developed mainly through the “internationaldimension”, and the “national dimension” always had a “residual” character and didnot adequately reflect modern trends in the regulation of private international relations.In 2015, the new Civil and Commercial Code entered into force in Argentina, Title IV“Provisions of Private International Law” of which contains a rather large-scale and detailedregulation of the issues of Private International Law and International Civil Procedure. TheArgentine legislator has chosen the path of intra-branch complex codification of PIL /ICP — in the act of general codification of civil law the rules for selecting the applicablelaw and jurisdictional norms are included as a separate special section. Compared withthe previous regulation, the new PIL of Argentina underwent significant modernization,primarily under the influence of the European approaches — the Swiss PIL Law and theEU regulations on jurisdiction, applicable law and enforcement of foreign judgments. Thearticle analyzes the most significant novelties affecting the institutions of the General Partof PIL: the establishment of the content of foreign law, the qualification of legal notions,the renvoi, flexible connecting factors, the autonomy of will of the parties, the techniqueof dépeçage and the adaptation of conflict rules. It is concluded that, in general, the newPIL of Argentina produces a positive impression. On the other hand, there are a numberof serious shortcomings in the regulation of general issues of the PIL, in particular: 1) therenvoi institution is formulated very broadly and indefinitely; 2) there is no special rule onprior, preliminary and collateral conflict issues; 3) the institution of qualification of legalnotions is not legally regulated. It appears that these shortcomings are the costs of theintra-branch method of codifying PIL, and they could have been avoided if Argentina hadfollowed the path of complex autonomous codification of PIL / ICP.