• Horea Crişan


In the modern world, every country having a developed legal system has its own set of conflict rules, which form a part of its private law. Such rules differ from one country to another, and these differences tend to undermine the purposes of the rules. For such purposes include the achievement of legal security ( by way of certainty, predictability and uniformity of results , regardless of which country’s courts are involved) for the persons involved. Like any other rules of country’s private law, its conflict rules may be harmonized with those of other countries by means of international treaties, and in this respect much has been achieved by the conventions negotiated at the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

Especially in recent years, further harmonization has been achieved at European level by measures adopted within the framework of the European Union, and it is on such harmonization that the present work is focussed.

Private international law rules do not merely address the problem of reducing the potential for inconsistent legal treatment of disputes. They are not just concerned with achieving a rational or orderly division of regulatory authority. They also involve the normative question of how that ordering of regulatory authority should be achieved. The selection of a particular rule of jurisdiction or choice of law rule is not just a recognition that ( following from justice pluralism ) other legal order should govern; it implies that the connecting factor adopted in that choice of law rule should be the foundation of the division of the regulatory authority of states.