Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (32) (remove)
Language
- English (32) (remove)
Keywords
- Private International Law (1)
- comity (1)
- democratic theory (1)
- equality (1)
- equivalence (1)
- forms of government (1)
- institutional design (1)
- jednakost (1)
- majority rule (1)
- međunarodno privatno pravo (1)
Institute
- Bürgerliches Recht (32) (remove)
Theses
(2016)
Offences against the person
(2017)
Private international law (PIL) might seem disconnected from peacebuilding and peacekeeping efforts. However, this perception falls short. PIL, contrary to public international law’s direct peacekeeping potential, indirectly contributes to peace by fostering mutual respect between states. The relationship between PIL and peace stems from the recognition and respect states show for each other’s legal systems. PIL operates on the principle of comity, where states acknowledge the applicability of foreign laws to resolve cases. In essence, while PIL’s impact on peace is indirect and modest, its emphasis on mutual respect and fair treatment contributes to peaceful relations between states, making it an important element in the broader context of peacebuilding and peacekeeping efforts. Private international law (PIL) does not determine substantive fairness for parties but focuses on localizing cases at a meta-level of conflict-of-laws. This localization is guided by party, trade, and regulatory interests, and is rooted in neutrality and respect for other legal systems. While the principle of equivalence and neutrality remains foundational in PIL, exceptions and limitations have been established over time to address specific scenarios, ensuring a balanced approach that respects both foreign legal systems and fundamental legal principles.
On 14 December 2017, the Assembly of States Parties of the Rome Statute decided to activate the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. In doing so, it however seems to have rescinded the Kampala amendment adopted in 2010, and in particular, the need for State Parties to eventually opt out from the Court’s aggression-related jurisdiction. This reversal, while being more in line with the Rome Statute than the Kampala amendment itself, raises new (and old) and challenging legal questions which are highlighted in this article.