Conflict of Laws Posts
This Essay responds to Lea Brilmayer and Dan Listwa’s criticisms of the Draft Restatement (Third) of Conflict of Laws.
Continuity and Change in the Draft Restatement (Third) of Conflict of Laws: One Step Forward and Two Steps Back?Lea Brilmayer and Daniel B. Listwa
A deep contradiction lies at the heart of the Draft Restatement (Third) of Conflict of Laws. The Draft Restatement embraces a novel theoretical framework—the “two-step” theory—that attempts to integrate the basic tenets of so-called “modern” choice of law theory into a coherent intellectual whole.
On July 16, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court held in Travelers Indemnity Company v. CNH Industrial America, LLC, No. 420, 2017 (Del. Jul. 16, 2018), that a court’s choice of law inquiry in an insurance coverage dispute should focus on the contacts most relevant to the insurance contract rather than the location of the underlying claims.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling is potentially the first final decision requiring a congressional map to be redrawn, but Republicans are calling the ruling “partisan” and the timeline to redraw the map “impossible” and want the nation’s highest court to weigh in.
Choice of law stands as the second “pillar” of contract stabilization, together with stabilization clauses and international arbitration. In fact, choice of law provisions sometimes consist of stabilization clauses in the form of “freezing” by incorporation and inopposability provisions.
The public policy doctrine in the conflict of laws has been often characterised as uncertain and ambiguous. This article aims to examine the doctrine at common law from a theoretical perspective in order to: first, determine whether the substantive considerations which courts have invoked under the public policy doctrine are theoretically justifiable; second, discern principled boundaries around the courts’ exercise of the defence.
At its meeting in New York City on October 19 and 20, The American Law Institute’s Council reviewed drafts for eight projects, with the following outcomes:
Some sixteen years ago, on the occasion of one of many symposia on the possibility of a new Restatement of Conflict of Laws to replace the much derided Second Restatement, Mathias Reimann suggested that a new Restatement should focus on the requirements of what he called “the international age.” Conflict of laws is increasingly international, he pointed out.
Treating internal U.S. conflicts and international conflicts law the same, without distinguishing between them, has always puzzled non-U.S. lawyers and scholars. And nowhere is the question of whether domestic and international conflicts should be treated the same more pressing than in the current work of The American Law Institute.