СООТНОШЕНИЕ КОЛЛИЗИОННЫХ НОРМ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ ДОГОВОРОВ И НАЦИОНАЛЬНОГО ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА В РЕГУЛИРОВАНИИ ДОГОВОРНЫХ ПРАВООТНОШЕНИЙ С ИНОСТРАННЫМ ЭЛЕМЕНТОМ (НА ПРИМЕРЕ СОГЛАШЕНИЯ О ПОРЯДКЕ РАЗРЕШЕНИЯ СПОРОВ, СВЯЗАННЫХ С ОСУЩЕСТВЛЕНИЕМ ХОЗЯЙСТВЕННОЙ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ)

The last decades have been marked by the extensive Europeanisation of conflict of laws rules. Traditionally, national conflict of laws rules in Continental Europe were aimed at determining the closest connection between the legal relation and the putatively applicable law. This universal objective was often combined with more local objectives: the achievement of certain substantive policies of the forum through conflictual mechanisms. The Europeanisation of conflict of laws rules poses a legitimate question: do EU conflict of laws rules pursue identical or similar policies as national conflict of laws rules? The issue may be approached using different methods. One approach is inductive – the analysis of conflict of laws rules found in EU secondary law and their comparison with national conflict of laws rules. Another approach is deductive – the analysis of the Treaty basis for EU conflict of laws rules, in order to identify whether this constitutional framework prescribes certain policies that may be different from those used in national conflict of laws rules. This contribution is devoted to the second method and analyses whether the recognition clause found in Article 81 TFEU has any meaningful influence on the nature and scope of EU conflict of law rules.

As a general rule, an express written agreement on applicable law is the most successful in the event of a dispute. However, the wording of the agreement, particularly when terms such as «law» and «legislation» are used, can cause significant difficulties in the law enforcement process. The practice of Russian courts and the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation has established the position that the parties' choice of «Russian Federation law» means, first and foremost, their choice of international treaties of the Russian Federation which are an integral part of its legal system and, as far as they are concerned, of Russian regulations. Difficulties in the practice of the International Commercial Arbitration Court are caused by the interpretation of the phrase «Russian Federation law» used in applicable law agreements. In some decisions it is understood as covering only Russian regulatory acts, in others it is understood as implying also international agreements of the Russian Federation. This problem is most acute in the application of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, as the Convention allows the parties to exclude its application. This problem is compounded by the fact that the legislator himself uses various terms in formulating conflict of laws rules. For example, as part of the conflict of laws regulation of contractual legal relations with a foreign element, the Agreement of the countries of the Union of Independent States on the procedure for settling disputes related to business activities uses the term «legislation» and the Civil Code of the Russian Federation uses the term «law». In this regard, we support Oleg Malkin's position on the expediency of using the term «law» both in national conflict of laws rules and in international treaties concluded by the Russian Federation. We believe that if the parties choose the «legislation of the Russian Federation», the ap-plication of international treaties of the Russian Federation will only be justified if the parties themselves confirm that they did not intend to exclude their validity. In the absence of a common position of the parties on this issue, the court and the arbitral tribunal will be forced to interpret the said phrase in the light of its literal meaning and in the light of Art. 3 and 7 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as covering only domestic legal acts and excluding (if such exclusion is permissible) international agreements. While acknowledging that in a number of cases the parties to applicable law agreements do not see any difference between the terms «law» and «legislation», we will point out the following. In the absence of an agreed position on the contrary, an express agreement must be interpreted only in accordance with its literal meaning, and a party that does not understand such meaning will suffer the adverse consequences of its misunderstanding. In this regard, the parties to international private law relations should once again be reminded of the recommendation to formulate the texts of applicable law agreements as precisely and unambiguously as possible.

EU private international law (EU PIL) plays an important role regarding an effective functioning of the EU internal market and the development of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. In the context of weaker contracting party protection, the EU has enacted numerous directives providing for substantive protective rules regarding contracts involving consumers, employees and other weaker parties. On the other hand, EU PIL provides conflict rules that determine the law applicable to cross-border contracts (Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations), including special rules regarding the aforementioned contracts. When, as a result of the conflict rules of the Rome I Regulation, a non-Member State law is applicable, the substantive protective rules of the respective EU directives are not applied. Therefore, both areas of law must be coordinated. This study answers whether EU PIL and EU secondary law are well coordinated regarding the protection of weaker contracting parties and, when not, how can they achieve a mutual understanding. After analysing the different conflict rules that EU PIL (specifically, the Rome I Regulation) offers regarding the protection of weaker contracting parties, and their interaction with several EU directives, a call for a more EU-focused PIL method is made. This is, the difference between intra-EU and extra-EU situations regarding the application of EU directives protecting weaker contracting parties and involving EU mandatory law should be more reflected in the Rome I Regulation, and some text proposals are suggested in this regard.

Cases of conflict of laws arise in situations related to living wills and to euthanasia, like in many other private law cases, from diffferences between legal systems. Except for derogations imposed for justified reasons, most notably in some common law countries, capacity and personal status are governed by the personal law of the individual concerned. The countries where euthanasia is legal carefully control its implementation requiring the fulfillment of specific conditions, in defect of which euthanasia remains a criminal offfense. In application of the principles previously stated, declarations of advance directives developed by foreign nationals or domiciliaries must fulfil the conditions prescribed by the applicable foreign personal law of the patient, and ultimately comply with the mandatory rules of the place where the person is hospitalized. Euthanasia has been the subject of moral, religious, philosophical and legal, as much as of human rights debate. Keywords:advance directives; conflict rules; euthanasia; human rights; private international law

The subject of consideration in this article are the legislative provisions and legal positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the field of legal regulation of property relations with a "foreign element". The first stage of the study is the analysis of the conflict of laws rules contained in the Civil Code and determining the choice of applicable law to property relations with a "foreign element". The author proceeds from the fundamental thesis about the predestination in the end of the regulation of international property relations by the pecu- liarities of the substantive regulation of such relations. In this regard, it is argued that the conflict-of-laws regulation of international property relations in Russian law cannot be considered optimal, since there is precisely insufficient consideration of the specifics of substantive legal regulation. The article analyzes the content of the norms of Articles 1205 - 1207 of the Civil Code. The problems associated with the application of these norms are caused by the definition of the "real statute" and those issues that are included in the scope of the real statute. As a result of the analysis, proposals are formulated to improve the legal regulation of property relations with a "foreign element" in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Further, the guiding explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on relevant issues are analyzed. The legal positions of the Supreme Court affect several aspects of conflict of laws regulation. In this regard, the article pays attention to the problem of choosing the law to be applied to non-documentary securities. The extension of the proprietary statute to non-documentary securities is questioned. At the same time, a legislative norm is proposed that allows for the election of a competent law and order in this case. The legal position regarding the election of the right to a collateral legal relationship with a "foreign element" is also analyzed. As a result, it is concluded that in the relevant explanations on the application of conflict of laws rules, there is insufficient consideration of the specifics of substantive legal regulation and some underestimation of the systematic approach in the interpretation of legal norms. The implementation of the proposals made would contribute to greater efficiency and harmonization of conflict-of-laws regulation of international property relations, since these proposals embody the idea of conditionality of conflict-of-laws rules by the nature of civil material legal relations and the peculiarities of civil law regulation.

ORDRE PUBLIC (PUBLIC ORDER)

THE APPLICATION OF RELIGIOUS LAW AS A CONSEQUENCE OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW In Puccini's opera Madame Butterfly , the protagonist argues that Japanese divorce law does not apply to her marriage, since she married a US citizen. She therefore does not consider herself to be available for marriage after her husband abandoned her. Which law is applicable to situations involving international elements is determined by rules on the conflict of laws. These rules foresee relevant connecting factors, such as the habitual residence, domicile or nationality of the persons concerned in order to determine the law that is most closely connected to the pertinent legal question. Von Savigny refers to the seat ( Sitz ) or home ( Heimat ) of a legal relation. Conflict of law rules can thus in principle lead to the application of every legal order worldwide. It is one of the fundamental principles of private international law that all legal systems are considered equal. The application of conflict of law rules is termed a ‘leap into the unknown’. The applicable law is selected independently of political considerations or policy objectives by means of an abstract and policy-neutral reference system. It can thus be said that the rules on the conflict of laws are apolitical in nature. However, Von Savigny saw the principle of the equality of all legal systems as strongly related to Christianity as a unifying element, more specifically as a common bond of spiritual life embracing the most diverse nations and casting their characteristic differences more and more into the background. His understanding excludes legal orders based on the Jewish faith, Islam and nonmonotheistic religions. While the rules on the conflict of laws generally refer to legal orders of territorial nation states, they also respect the state's decision to declare subsets of rules to be applicable, for instance bodies of regional or religious law. Especially in matters relating to the family, the concerned individuals’ religious affiliation is oft en deemed relevant. The application of religious law, most often ‘Islamic law’, in European countries has therefore habitually been the result of conflict of laws mechanisms. It is by no means a new occurrence.

The article examines a legal phenomenon that has not received a generalized legal characteristic, its research in international family law is fragmentary. The reasons for the “lame” relationships are analyzed: differences in conflict of laws regulation, incorrect application of conflict of laws rules, discrepancy between substantive regulations, conflict of jurisdictions; it is concluded that “lame” relationships are the result of the interaction of conflict of laws, substantive and procedural norms, leading to an undesirable legal effect. The author expresses doubts about the effectiveness of such a method of eliminating “lame” relationships as the convergence of legal systems, suggesting to pay attention to the competing traditional conflict tools and the opposite methodological approach — recognition, the potential of which is underestimated and insufficiently studied. Recognition is seen not as an alternative to conflict method, but as an additional way to overcome “lame” relationships. Replacement of national conflict of laws rules in cross-border family disputes is illustrated by the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Attention is drawn to the existing models of recognition in common law countries and continental legal tradition, the legal nature and place of the norms of Russian family legislation on recognition are analyzed. иThe mechanism of recognition of foreign administrative procedures and decisions, foreign documents in the Russian Federation is assessed. The author comes to the conclusion that implementation in domestic law of various approaches to the recognition of foreign court decisions, administrative procedures and documents issued by the competent authorities of foreign states, proposing to unify them within the framework of a uniform recognition procedure that excludes uncertainty and internal contradictions.

Legal conflicts system puts forward new issues for international private law. This has been developed simultaneously in various countries about conflict rules, and many countries strive to contribute to a number of international organizations related to international treaties. Referred to agency legal application of the convention and compared the provisions of Rome Convention, this article will study application of international law and explore and research agency.

The article is devoted to the conflict of laws regulation of torts under Rome II (Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 “On the law applicable to non-contractual obligations”) and under the Russian legislation. The analysis of the Rome II provisions and the relevant norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (including significant changes made to the Code by the Federal Law of the Russian Federation, dated 30 September 2013) identifies current trends in the development of conflict of laws regulation of torts and the impact of the Rome II Regulation on the Russian legislation. The author notes that in the Russian legislation, as well as in Rome II, the operation of the basic conflict of laws rule is combined with the operation of special conflict of laws rules; the possibility to use the autonomy of the will of the parties in conflict of laws of torts is extended; the use of the principle of closer connection with the tort is allowed, though in a more restricted form than in Rome II. The author regards the whole complex of the conflict of laws rules on torts in the modern Russian legislation as the result of development towards softening of the basic conflict of laws rule aimed at the creation of a more flexible framework for conflict of laws regulation of torts. Here the provisions of the Rome II served as a sample in many ways.

The article deals with provisions on the law applicable to filiation in the proposal of 7 December 2022 for a Council Regulation on parenthood in cross-border situations. I focus on selected issues by presenting comparative remarks. The aim of the analysis is to assess consequences of choices made in particular provisions, indicate gaps and unclear points, and suggest how to remedy the identified deficiencies. This concerns, firstly, the manners of determining the applicable law, including the problems of anticipating that law when it is to be identified before birth or conception, and of understanding the term ‘at the time of birth’. In that part, I also propose adding one more subsidiary conflict rule. Secondly, the scope of application of the proposed conflict rules is discussed, including the characterisation of the material validity of such legal acts as, on the one hand, anticipated joint acknowledgment of co-maternity, multiple-parenting agreements and surrogacy agreements, and on the other hand, consent to medically assisted procreation. Thirdly, I present examples of the EU Member States’ overriding mandatory rules related to filiation and consider whether the future regulation should allow the application of such rules. The last part contains predictions as to recourse, under the regulation, to the public policy exception. The paper’s general conclusion is that the proposed conflict-of-laws regime is, in principle, well-constructed, but a number of additions and clarifications, compiled at the end of the article, would be advisable.L’article traite des dispositions relatives à la loi applicable à la filiation prévues dans la proposition du 7 décembre 2022 de règlement du Conseil relatif à la parentalité dans les situations transfrontalières. Je me concentre sur des questions choisies en présentant des remarques comparatives. L’objectif de l’analyse est d’évaluer les conséquences des choix opérés dans la création de dispositions particulières, d’indiquer les lacunes et les points flous, et de suggérer comment remédier aux défauts identifiés. Cela concerne, tout d’abord, les modalités de détermination de la loi applicable, y compris les problèmes d’anticipation de cette loi lorsque celle-ci doit être identifiée avant la naissance ou la conception, et la compréhension de la notion de « au moment de la naissance ». Dans cette partie, je propose également d’ajouter une autre règle de conflit subsidiaire. Deuxièmement, le champ d’application des règles de conflit proposées est discuté, y compris la qualification de la validité au fond d’actes juridiques tels que, d’une part, la reconnaissance conjointe anticipée de la comaternité, les conventions de multiparentalité et les contrats de gestation pour autrui et, d’autre part, le consentement à la procréation médicalement assistée. Troisièmement, je présente des exemples de règles d’application immédiate des États membres de l’UE pertinentes en matière de filiation et j’examine si le futur règlement devrait permettre l’application de telles règles. La dernière partie contient des prédictions quant au recours, sous le règlement, à l’exception d’ordre public. La conclusion générale de l’article est que le régime de conflit de lois proposé est, en principe, bien construit, mais qu’un certain nombre de complétions et de clarifications, compilées à la fin de l’article, seraient souhaitables.Der vorliegende Beitrag befasst sich mit den Bestimmungen über das auf die Abstammung anwendbare Recht gemäß dem Vorschlag vom 7. Dezember 2022 für eine Verordnung des Rates über die Elternschaft bei grenzüberschreitenden Sachverhalten. Ich konzentriere mich auf ausgewählte Fragen, zu denen ich rechtsvergleichende Überlegungen anstelle. Ziel der Analyse ist es, die Folgen der in bestimmten Bestimmungen getroffenen Entscheidungen zu bewerten, Lücken und Unklarheiten aufzuzeigen, und Vorschläge zu machen, wie die festgestellten Mängel behoben warden können. Dies betrifft zunächst die Art und Weise, wie das anwendbare Recht bestimmt wird, einschließlich der Probleme, dieses Recht zu antizipieren, wenn es vor der Geburt oder Empfängnis zu bestimmen ist, und den Begriff „zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt“ zu verstehen. In diesem Teil schlage ich auch vor, eine weitere subsidiäre Kollisionsnorm hinzuzufügen. Daraufhin erörtere ich den Anwendungsbereich der vorgeschlagenen Kollisionsnormen, einschließlich der Charakterisierung der materiellen Geltung von Rechtshandlungen, wie der vorweggenommenen gemeinsamen Anerkennung der Mitmutterschaft sowie Mehrfach-Elternschafts- und Leihmutterschaftsvereinbarungen einerseits und der Zustimmung zu medizinisch unterstützter Fortpflanzung andererseits. Sodann zeige ich Beispiele für vorrangig geltende zwingende Vorschriften von EUMitgliedstaaten in Bezug auf die Abstammung auf und prüfe, ob die künftige Verordnung die Anwendung solcher Vorschriften zulassen sollte. Der letzte Teil meines Beitrages enthält Prognosen bezüglich der Berufung auf den Ordre-Public-Vorbehalt im Rahmen der Verordnung. Die zusammenfassende Schlussfolgerung des Beitrages lautet, dass das vorgeschlagene Regime an Kollisionsrechtsnormen im Prinzip gut strukturiert ist, dass aber eine Reihe von Ergänzungen und Präzisierungen erforderlich sind.El artículo trata de las disposiciones sobre la ley aplicable a la filiación en la propuesta de 7 de diciembre de 2022 de Reglamento del Consejo sobre la paternidad en situaciones transfronterizas, se centra en determinados temas y presenta comentarios de derecho comparado. El objetivo del análisis es evaluar las consecuencias de las decisions tomadas en determinadas disposiciones, indicar lagunas y puntos poco claros, y sugerir cómo poner remedio a las deficiencias detectadas. El análisis se refiere, en primer lugar, a los modos de determinar la ley aplicable, incluidos los problemas de anticipar cuál deba ser esa ley cuando debe identificarse antes del nacimiento o la concepción, y del significado de la expresión ‘en el momento del nacimiento’. En esa parte, también se propone agregar una norma de conflicto adicional de carácter subsidiario. En segundo lugar, se discute el ámbito de aplicación de las normas de conflict propuestas, incluida la calificación de la validez material de actos jurídicos como, por un lado, el reconocimiento conjunto anticipado de comaternidad, los acuerdos de multiparentalidad y de gestación subrogada y, por otro, el consentimiento para el uso de técnicas de reproducción asistida. En tercer lugar, se presentan ejemplos de normas internacionalmente imperativas de los Estados miembros de la UE relacionadas con la filiación y se considera si el futuro reglamento debería permitir la aplicación de dichas normas. La última parte contiene predicciones sobre el recurso, en virtud del Reglamento, a la excepción de orden público. La conclusión general del artículo es que el régimen de conflicto de leyes propuesto, en principio, está bien construido, pero que sería aconsejable realizar una serie de adiciones y aclaraciones que se recogen al final del artículo.

The determination of parentage in cross-border surrogacy is plagued by the dilemma of "limping parentage," where children face legal uncertainty and rights deprivation due to conflicting laws between the state of birth and the receiving state. This study identifies the dual roots of the problem: fundamental conflicts and ineffective application of domestic laws (regarding surrogacy legality, jurisdiction, and conflict rules), and the widespread non-recognition of foreign birth certificates and judgments, primarily due to the sweeping invocation of the public policy (ordre public) exception. To resolve this, the paper proposes a two-pronged approach. At the transnational level, it advocates for stricter limits on the public policy exception, the structured application of the "best interests of the child" principle, and a shift towards a unilateral liberalization mechanism for judgment recognition. At the domestic level, particularly for China, it recommends establishing conflict rules using the child’s place of birth as the connecting factor and creating a substantive rule system for parentage determination centered on genetic ties, supplemented by the "willingness to parent." Complementary legal reforms are also suggested. This combined approach offers a viable pathway to overcome the current legal impasse and systematically protect the rights of children born via surrogacy.

In the era of globalization, state interest’s protection is no longer achieved only through isolation and concentrating on internal affairs, rather the national legislator shall adopt values of an international character to expand the scope of protection for national interests and give them an international dimension, thereby enhancing international cooperation. To ensure the stat’s security, cooperation, and a balance of interests at the international level, it is required that the principle of state sovereignty to be diminished not only internationally but also domestically. In the meantime, this principle has been constrained by the obligations imposed by international law via treaties and international agreements, including criminalizing certain conducts or refraining from criminalizing specific behaviors that are not deemed sufficiently serious. This reflects the political will of the state to avoid international responsibility and sanctions that may not serve its national interests. Hence, criminal law shall keep pace with the evolution of the crime’s forms, patterns, etc. pertaining to the Republic of Iraq which is a federal state that grants, in addition to the legislative authority of federal institutions, the article 121 of its 2005 constitution also has granted the Kurdistan Region the power to exercise legislative authority as well as the authority to enforce and amend the application of federal law in the region regarding matters not within the exclusive jurisdiction of federal authorities under article 110. At the end, all these has led to have disparities and a lack of complementary notion between the penal laws in force in Iraq and those in force in the Kurdistan Region. In the meanwhile, this complementary notion is assumed to exist in which results in dual penal legislative protection for one interest within a state on one hand, and Incompatibility of national law with the international conventions and agreements ratified by the Republic of Iraq on the other hand. Keywords: Harmonization, legislation, international agreements, penal laws, disparities, complementary

International Signals: The Political Dimension of International Competition Law Harmonization

The law applicable to investment disputes is of paramount importance because it can be a determinant of the outcome of the dispute. Disputing parties can choose the law applicable to their dispute. This derives from the principle of party autonomy in international arbitration. The parties’ choice of the applicable law often takes place in tandem with or as part of their consent to arbitration. Treaty partners can insert a clause on applicable law in the investment treaty or indirectly incorporate the provisions on applicable law of various arbitration rules, such as when offering arbitration according to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention) or the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). When an investor accepts the host state’s offer to arbitrate, it also accepts its choice of applicable law as expressed in the treaty and/or in the arbitration rules under which the investor selects to bring the dispute. There are also other ways in which disputing parties can choose the applicable law. For instance, their choice of applicable law can be crystallized in a compromis drafted once a dispute has arisen. In the absence of an express choice of applicable law, the latter is determined on the basis of the default rules found in the arbitration rules which govern the dispute. As an illustration, Article 42(1) of the ICSID Convention provides that, if the parties do not agree on the applicable law, the tribunal shall apply the law of the host state, including its conflict of law rules, “and such rules of international law as may be applicable.” Debates about the identification of the applicable law have often revolved around the relative weight to be accorded to the municipal law of the host state and to international law. Sometimes the tribunal’s failure to apply primarily the investment treaty has been at the heart of debate. Failure to apply the proper law constitutes a ground for annulment under the ICSID Convention (as manifest excess of powers). In non-ICSID Convention arbitration, awards can also be set aside for failure to apply the applicable law (e.g., when the tribunal is perceived to overstep its mandate). However, such annulment or set-aside concerns the effect of failure to apply the applicable law. This is a separate issue and as such it is not covered in the present article.