A Unified System of International Family Law in the European Union: Which Way Forward?

  • N. A. Baarsma
Chapter

Abstract

In Chapter 8 the future of the Europeanisation of international family law is discussed. The European Commission currently develops a common European system of international family law. According to the Hague Programme, instruments in the field of family law including divorce, maintenance, and matrimonial property should be completed by the year 2011. Moreover, also issues such as personal status, names and adoption have been mentioned as future areas of Union action in the field of private international law. From the failure to reach a compromise on the Brussels IIter-Proposal a number of lessons are drawn for future projects: the Member States should address the choice of law methodology and more transparency and coherence is required. A proper EU system of international family law will constitute a full part of European law, which has repercussions on its content. This does not only mean that the European doctrines of direct effect and primacy apply to EU private international law rules, but also that more specific political goals, such as the promotion of integration and the establishment of the area of freedom, security and justice, are pursued. Moreover, the EU legislature has to respect the legal diversity of the Member States. Due to the high number of objectives attached to the unified choice of law, the underlying choice of law methodology is characterised by a pluralism of methods, within which the principle of the closest connection is the point of departure. This latter principle joins the objectives of legal certainty, predictability and mutual trust. Furthermore, the principle of the closest connection ensures that the legal systems involved are evenly and equally eligible for application. More coherence is not only attained by the development of an EU choice of law methodology, but also by a uniform approach as regards the general doctrines of private international law, such as the public policy exception and characterisation.

Keywords

Member State Legal Certainty Hague Convention Party Autonomy Maintenance Obligation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

Regulations, Conventions, Reports and Other Documentary Sources

  1. Borrás Report. Explanatory Report on the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters, [1998] OJ C221/27Google Scholar
  2. Brussels II-Regulation. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses, [2000] OJ L160/19Google Scholar
  3. Brussels IIbis-Regulation. Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and Matters of Parental Responsibility, [2003] OJ L338/1Google Scholar
  4. Brussels IIter-Proposal. Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters, COM(2006) 399 finalGoogle Scholar
  5. COSAC Report. Report of the subsidiarity and proportionality check on the Brussels IIter-Proposal organised in November 2006 by COSAC, Report No. 1/2006. The COSAC-Report and the Annex thereto are available at: http://www.cosac.eu/en/info/earlywarning/doc/results/.
  6. EC-Treaty. Treaty Establishing the European Community, Amsterdam 2 October 1997, [1997] OJ C340/1Google Scholar
  7. EU-Treaty. Treaty on the European Union of 7 February 1992, [1992] OJ C191/1 (original version), [2010] OJ C83/13 (consolidated version)Google Scholar
  8. Green Paper on Matrimonial Property. Green Paper on conflict of laws regarding matrimonial property regimes, including the question of jurisdiction and mutual recognition, COM(2006) 400 finalGoogle Scholar
  9. Green Paper on Successions and Wills. Green Paper on Succession and Wills, COM(2005) 65 finalGoogle Scholar
  10. Hague Programme. The Hague Programme: Strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, [2005] OJ C53/1Google Scholar
  11. Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations. Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations of 23 November 2007. Protocol to the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family MaintenanceGoogle Scholar
  12. House of Lords Rome III Report. House of Lords—European Union Committee, Rome IIIChoice of Law in Divorce, 52nd Report of Session 2005-06 (HL Paper 272) December 2006Google Scholar
  13. Impact Assessment on Divorce. Commission Staff Working Document – Annex to the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters, SEC(2006) 949Google Scholar
  14. Maintenance Regulation. Council Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, [2009] OJ L7/1Google Scholar
  15. Regulation on enhanced cooperation in the field of divorce. Council Regulation (EU) No. 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, OJ L343/10Google Scholar
  16. Proposal for a Succession-Regulation. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and authentic instruments in matters of Succession and the creation of a European Certificate of Succession, COM(2009) 154 finalGoogle Scholar
  17. Rome I-Regulation. Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), [2008] OJ L177/6Google Scholar
  18. Rome II-Regulation. Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), [2007] OJ L199/40Google Scholar
  19. Stockholm Programme. The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens of 2 December 2009, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/intro/doc/stockholm_program_en.pdf
  20. Tampere Presidency Conclusions. Presidency Conclusions of the Tampere European Council of 15-16 October 1999, available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/00200-r1.en9.htm
  21. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union of 13 December 2007, [2010] OJ C83/46 (consolidated version)Google Scholar
  22. Treaty of Lisbon. Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, 13 December 2007, [2007] OJ C306/1Google Scholar

Books and Articles

  1. Asín Cabrera A (2004) ‘La “communitaurisation” du droit privé de la famille: euro-chauvinisme ou intégration européenne’. In: Impérialisme et chauvinisme juridiques. Schultess, Zurich, pp 169–184Google Scholar
  2. Audit B (2004) L’interprétation autonome du droit international privé. Journal du Droit International 131:789–816Google Scholar
  3. Baarsma NA (2009) European choice of law on divorce (Rome III): where did it go wrong? NIPR 27:9–14Google Scholar
  4. Badiali G (1985) Le droit international privé des Communautés européennes. Recueil des Cours 191:1–182Google Scholar
  5. Ballarino T, Ubertazzi B (2004) On Avello and other judgments: a new point of departure in the conflict of laws? Yearbook of Private International Law, pp 85–128Google Scholar
  6. Basedow J (2005) Spécificité et coordination du droit international privé communautaire. Comité français de droit international privé, Travaux de l’année 2002–2004. Editions Pédone, Paris, pp 275–305Google Scholar
  7. Basedow J (2008) The recent developments of the conflict of laws. In: Basedow J et al (eds) Japanese and European Private International Law in Comparative Perspective, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 4–18Google Scholar
  8. Basedow J (2009) The communitarisation of private international law. RabelsZ 73:455–460Google Scholar
  9. Battifol H (1973) Le pluralisme des méthodes en droit international privé. Recueil des Cours 139:75–148Google Scholar
  10. Baxter WF (1963) Choice of law and the federal system. Stanford Law Review 16:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bertoli P (2006) The court of justice, European integration and private international law. Yearbook of Private International Law 8:375–412Google Scholar
  12. Bischoff JA (2008) Die Europäische Gemeinschaft und die Haager Konferenz für Internationales Privatrecht. ZEuP 334–354Google Scholar
  13. Boele-Woelki K (1999) De toekomst van het IPR na het Verdrag van Amsterdam. In: van Buren-Dee JM et al (eds) Privaatrecht en Gros, Intersentia Antwerpen, pp 355–375Google Scholar
  14. Boele-Woelki K (2008) To be or not to be: enhanced cooperation in international divorce law within the European Union. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, pp 779–792Google Scholar
  15. Bogdan M (2006) Concise introduction to EU private international law. Europa Law Publishing, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  16. Borrás A (2005) Le droit international privé communautaire: réalités, problèmes et perspectives d’avenir. Recueil des Cours 317:313–536Google Scholar
  17. Borrás A (2007) Prinzipien des Internationalen Familienrechts. In: Reichelt G (ed) Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht und IPR. Manzsche, Wien, pp 55–67Google Scholar
  18. Calvo Caravaca AL (2006) The private international law of the European Community. In: Pereznieto Castro L et al (eds) Tradition and innovation of private international law at the beginning of the third millennium. Liber in Memoriam of Professor Friedrich K. Juenger, Juris Publishing, New York, pp 23–44Google Scholar
  19. Caracciolo di Torella E (2004) Under construction: EU family law. European Law Review 29:32–51Google Scholar
  20. De Boer ThM (2004) Forum preferences in contemporary European conflicts law: the myth of a ‘Neutral Choice’. In: Mansel HP et al (eds), Festschrift für Erik Jayme, Sellier. European Law Publishers, München, pp 39–45Google Scholar
  21. De Boer ThM (2008a), Unwelcome foreign law: public policy and other means to protect the fundamental values and public interests of the European Community. In: Malatesta A et al (eds), The external dimention of EC private international law in family and succession matters, CEDAM, Milan, pp 295–330Google Scholar
  22. De Boer ThM (2008b) De grondslagen van de Verordening Rome II. WPNR 6780:988–993Google Scholar
  23. De Boer ThM (2009) The purpose of uniform choice-of-law rules: the Rome II Regulation. NILR  295–332Google Scholar
  24. De Groot G-R, Rutten S (2004) Op weg naar een Europees IPR op het gebied van het personen- en familierecht. NIPR 22:273–282Google Scholar
  25. Dethloff N (2003) Arguments for and against unification and harmonisation of family law in Europe. In: Boele-Woelki K, Perspectives for the harmonisation and unification of family law in Europe, Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 37–64Google Scholar
  26. Dethloff N (2007) Familien- und Erbrecht zwischen nationaler Rechtskultur, Vergemeinschaftung und Internationalität. Perspektiven für die Forschung. ZEuP, pp 992–1005Google Scholar
  27. Duintjer Tebbens H (1990) Private international law and the single European market: coexistence or cohabitation? In: de Boer ThM (ed) Forty years on: the evolution of postwar private international law in Europe. Kluwer, Deventer, pp 49–69Google Scholar
  28. Duintjer Tebbens H (2002) Ein Ziviljustizraum in der Europäischen Union—auf Kosten einer Aushölung der internationalen Zusammenarbeit? In: Baur JF, Mansel HP (eds) Systemwechsel im europäischen Kollisionsrecht. Verlag C.H. Beck, München, pp 171–192Google Scholar
  29. Ehle B (2002) Wege zu einer Kohärenz der Rechtsquellen im Europäischen Kollisionsrecht der Verbraucherverträge (diss. Heidelberg). Peter Lang, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  30. Fallon M (2005) Le principe de proximité dans le droit de l’Union Européenne’. In: Le droit international privé: esprit et méthodes Mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Lagarde. Dalloz, Paris, pp 241–262Google Scholar
  31. Fentiman R (2008) Choice of law in Europe: uniformity and integration. Tulane Law Review 82:2021–2051Google Scholar
  32. Fiorini A (2008a) The codification of private international law in Europe: could the community learn from the experience of mixed jurisdictions? Electronic Journal of Comparative Law  12:1–16Google Scholar
  33. Fiorini A (2008b) Rome III—choice of law in divorce: is the Europeanization of family law going too far? International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 22:178–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fletcher IF (1982) Conflict of laws and European community law. North-Holland Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  35. Friedman LM (1975) The legal system: a social science perspective. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Gannagé L (2001) La hiérachie des normes et les méthodes du droit international privé (diss. Panthéon-Assas, Paris II). L.G.D.J, ParisGoogle Scholar
  37. Gaudemet-Tallon H (2001) Quel droit international privé pour l’union européenne? In: Borchers PJ, Zekoll J (eds) International conflicts of laws for the third millennium, essays in honor of Friedrich K. Juenger. Transnational Publishers, Ardsley, pp 317–338Google Scholar
  38. Gaudemet-Tallon H (2002) De l’utilité d’une unification du droit international privé de la famille dans l’union européenne? In: De Moura Ramos RM et al (eds), Estudos em homenagem à Professora Doutora Isabel de Magalhães Collaço. Livraria Almedina, Coimbra, pp 159–185Google Scholar
  39. Gaudemet-Tallon H (2005) Le pluralisme en droit international privé: richesses et faiblesses (Le funambule et l’arc-en-ciel). Recueil des Cours 312:9–488Google Scholar
  40. Glenn HP (1996) Codification of private international law in Quebec. RabelsZ  60:231–268Google Scholar
  41. Haltern U (2003) Recht als kulturelle Existenz. In: Jayme E (ed), Kulturelle Identität und Internationales Privatrecht. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg, pp 15–50Google Scholar
  42. Hartley TC (2005) The European Union and the systematic dismantling of the common law of conflict of laws. ICLQ 54:813–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hay P, Lando O, Rotunda RD (1986) Conflict of laws as a technique for legal integration. In: Cappelletti M et al (eds), Integration through law. Methods, tools and institutions, Book 2 political organs, integration techniques and judicial process, vol. 1. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 161–258Google Scholar
  44. Heinze C (2008) Bausteine eines Allgemeinen Teils des europäischen Internationalen Privatrechts. In: Baetge D et al (eds) Die richtige Ordnung, Festschrift für Jan Kropholler. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 105–127Google Scholar
  45. Henrich D (2001) Abschied vom Staatsangehörigkeitsprinzip? In: Hohloch G et al (eds), Festschrift für Hans Stoll. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 437–449Google Scholar
  46. Hess B (2001) Die Integrationsfunktion des Europäischen Zivilverfahrensrechts. IPRax 21:389–396Google Scholar
  47. Hess B (2010) Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht. C.F. Müller, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  48. Hilf M (1995) Europäische Union und nationale Identität der Mitgliedstaaten. In: Randelzhofer A et al (eds) Gedächtnisschrift für Eberhard Grabitz. C.H. Beck Verlag, München, pp 157–170Google Scholar
  49. Hohloch G (2007) Rechtswahl als Anknüpfungsprinzip (Zur Bedeutung des Parteiwillens im europäischen Internationalen Privatrecht). In: Frantzen T et al (eds) Rett og toleranse: festskrift til H.J. Thue. Gyldendal Akademisk, Oslo, pp 257–270Google Scholar
  50. Jayme E (1995) Identité culturelle et intégration: le droit international privé postmoderne. Recueil des Cours 251:9–267Google Scholar
  51. Jayme E (2000) Zum Jahrtausendwechsel: Das Kollisionsrecht zwischen Postmoderne und Futurismus. IPRax  20:165–171Google Scholar
  52. Jayme E, Kohler C (2000) Europäisches Kollisionsrecht 2000: Interlokales Privatrecht oder universelles Gemeinschaftsrecht? IPRax  20:454–465Google Scholar
  53. Jayme E, Kohler C (2006) Europäisches Kollisionsrecht 2006: Eurozentrismus ohne Kodifikationsidee? IPRax 537–550Google Scholar
  54. Jänterä-Jareborg M (2003) Foreign law in national courts: a comparative perspective. Recueil des Cours 304:181–385Google Scholar
  55. Jänterä-Jareborg M (2008) Jurisdiction and applicable law in cross-border divorce cases in Europe. In: Basedow J et al (eds) Japanese and European Private International Law in Comparative Perspective. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 317–343Google Scholar
  56. Jessurun d’Oliveira HU (2003) Towards a “European private international law? In: De Witte B, Forder C (eds) The common law of Europe and the future of legal education. Kluwer, Deventer, pp 265–283Google Scholar
  57. Kadner Graziano T (2002) Gemeineuropäisches Internationales Privatrecht: Harmonisierung des IPR durch Wissenschaft und Lehre (am Beispiel der außenvertraglichen Haftung für Schäden). Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 10–14Google Scholar
  58. Kadner Graziano T (2003) Aufstieg, Fall und Renaissance des internationale Perspektive im europäischen Internationalen Privatrecht—Lehren aus der Geschichte. In: Schulze R, Ajani G (eds) Gemeinsame Prinzipien des Europäischen Privatrecht. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, pp 41–86Google Scholar
  59. Kapteyn PJG, VerLoren van Themaat P (1998) Introduction to the law of the European Communities, 3rd edn. edited and further revised by Gormley LW. Kluwer Law International, LondonGoogle Scholar
  60. Kegel G (1953) Begriffs- und Interessenjurisprudenz im IPR. In: Battifol H, Lewald H (eds) Festschrift für Hans Lewald. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel, pp 259–288Google Scholar
  61. Knot JG (2008) Internationale boedelafwikkeling Over het toepasselijke recht op de afwikkeling van nalatenschappen (diss. Groningen). Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  62. Kohler C (2001) Status als Ware: Bemerkungen zur europäischen Verordnung über das internationale Verfahrensrecht für Ehesachen. In: Mansel HP (ed) Vergemeinschaftung des Europäischen Kollisionsrecht. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln, pp 41–53Google Scholar
  63. Kohler C (2003) Der europäische Justizraum für Zivilsachen und das Gemeinschaftskollisions-recht. IPRax 23:401–412Google Scholar
  64. Kohler C (2008a) Zur Gestaltung des europäischen Kollisionsrecht für Ehesachen: Der steinige Weg zu einheitlichen Vorschriften über das anwendbare Recht für Scheidung und Trennung. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht  55:1673–1681Google Scholar
  65. Kohler C (2008b) Einheitliche Kollisionsnormen für Ehesachen in der Europäische Union: Vorschläge und Vorbehalte. Familie Partnerschaft und Recht  193–196Google Scholar
  66. Kreuzer K (2006) Zu Stand und Perspektiven des Europäischen Internationalen Privatrechts. RabelsZ 70:1–88Google Scholar
  67. Kreuzer K (2008a) Was gehört in den Allgemeinen Teil eines Europäischen Kollisionsrechtes? In: Jud B et al (eds), Kollisionsrecht in der Europäischen Union. Jan Sramek Verlag, Wien, pp 1–62Google Scholar
  68. Kreuzer K (2008b) Gemeinschaftskollisionsrecht und universales Kollisionsrecht: Selbstisolation, Koordination oder Integration? In: Baetge D et al (eds), Die richtige Ordnung, Festschrift für Jan Kropholler. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 129–150Google Scholar
  69. Kropholler J (2000) Der Renvoi im vereinheitlichten Kollisionsrecht. In: Gottwald P et al (eds), Festschrift für Dieter Henrich. Verlag Ernst und Werner Gieseking, Bielefeld, pp 393–402Google Scholar
  70. Lagarde P (1986) Le principe de proximité dans le droit international privé contemporaine. Recueil des Cours 196:9–238Google Scholar
  71. Leible S (2004) Parteiautonomie im IPR—Allgemeines Anknüpfungsprinzip oder Verlegenheitslösung? In: Mansel HP et al (eds), Festschrift für Erik Jayme. Sellier. European Law Publishers, München, pp 485–503Google Scholar
  72. Leible S (2007) Der Beitrag der Rom II-Verordnung zu einer Kodifikation der allgemeinen Grundsätze des Europäischen Kollisionsrecht. In: Reichelt G (ed) Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht und IPR. Manzsche, Wien, pp 31–54Google Scholar
  73. Leible S (2009) Rom I und Rom II: Neue Perspektiven im Europäischen Kollisionsrecht. Zentrum für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht, BonnGoogle Scholar
  74. Mance J (2007) Is Europe aiming to civilise the common law? European Business Law Review 18:77–99Google Scholar
  75. Mankowski P (2004) Kulturelle Identität und Internationales Privatrecht. IPRax 24:282–290Google Scholar
  76. Mansel HP (2003) Das Staatsangehörigkeitsprinzip im deutschen und gemeinschaftsrechtlichen Internationalen Privatrecht: Schutz der kulturellen Identität oder Diskriminierung der Person? In: Jayme E (ed) Kulturelle Identität und Internationales Privatrecht. C.F. Müller Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 119–154Google Scholar
  77. Martiny D (2007) Objectives and values of (private) international law in family law. In: Meeusen J et al (eds) International Family Law for the European Union. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 69–99Google Scholar
  78. McEleavy P (2008) The new Hague maintenance convention. ICLQ 984–996Google Scholar
  79. McGlynn C (2000) A family law for the European Union? In: Shaw J (ed) Social law and policy in an evolving European Union. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 224–241Google Scholar
  80. Meeusen J (2006) Op weg naar een communautair internationaal familie(vermogens)recht? Enkele Europeesrechtelijke beschouwingen. In: Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht Europees internationaal familierecht. T.M.C. Asser Press, Den Haag, pp 1–70Google Scholar
  81. Meeusen J (2007) What has it got to do necessarily with the European Union?: International family law and European (economic) integration. The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 2006–2007, pp 329–355Google Scholar
  82. Michaels R (2006) EU Law as private international law? Re-conceptualising the country-of-origin principle as vested rights theory. Duke Law School Legal StudiesGoogle Scholar
  83. Mills A (2009) The confluence of public and private international law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Moran RT, Harris PR, Moran SV (2007) Managing cultural differences, 7th edn. Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, BostonGoogle Scholar
  85. Pataut E (2008) International jurisdiction and third states: a view from the EC in family matters. In: Malatesta A et al (eds), The external dimension of EC private international law in family and succession matters. CEDAM, Milan, pp 123–148Google Scholar
  86. Pertegás M (2007) Beyond nationality and habitual residence. Other connecting factors in European private international law in family matters. In: Meeusen J et al (eds) International family law for the European Union. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 319–340Google Scholar
  87. Pocar F (2008) The “communitarization” of private international law and its impact on the external relations of the European Union. In: Malatesta A et al (eds), The external dimension of EC private international law in family and succession matters. CEDAM, Milan, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  88. Poillot-Peruzzetto S (2005) Les enjeux de la communautarisation. In: Fulchiron H, Nourissat C (eds) Le nouveau droit communautaire du divore et de la responsabilité parentale. Dalloz, Paris, pp 13–37Google Scholar
  89. Poillot-Peruzzetto S, Marmisse A (2001) Le droit international privé communautaire de la famille. Revue des Affaires Européennes, pp 460–468Google Scholar
  90. Pontier JA (1997) Conflictenrecht: grondslagen, methoden, beginselen en belangen (diss. Amsterdam). Ars Aequi Libri, NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  91. Pontier JA (2005) Europees conflictenrecht. Een complexe geschiedenis in vogelvlucht. Vossiuspers UvA, AmsterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Reichelt G (2007) Zur Kodifikation des europäisches Kollisionsrecht–am Beispiel des ordre public. In: Reichelt   G (ed) Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht und IPR. Manzsche, Wien, pp 5–11Google Scholar
  93. Rüberg S (2005), Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Scheidungskollisionsrecht (diss. Konstanz), Available at http://www.ub.uni-konstanz.de/kops/volltexte/2005/1694/pdf/Rueberg.pdf
  94. Rühl G (2008) Rechtswahlfreiheit im europäischen Kollisionsrecht In: Baetge D et al (eds), Die richtige Ordnung. Festschrift für Jan Kropholler zum 70. Geburtstag. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 187–209Google Scholar
  95. Sanada Y (1989) The cultural bases of the Japanese as a key to the myth of the reluctant litigant in Japan: a prelude to the understanding of the Japanese legal culture. In: The Institute of Comparative Law (ed) Conflict and Integration: Comparative Law in the World Today. Chuo University Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  96. Santer J (1999) Préface. In: Rodríguez Iglesias GC et al (eds) Mélanges en hommage à Fernand Schockweiler. Nomos, Baden-Baden, p 15Google Scholar
  97. Sauveplanne JG (1990) Renvoi. In: International encyclopedia of comparative law, Private international law, Chapter 6, vol. III. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  98. Schack H (2001) Das neue Internationale Eheverfahrensrecht in Europa. RabelsZ 65:615–633Google Scholar
  99. Schaub R (2005) Grundlagen und Entwicklungstendenzen des europäischen Kollisionsrechts. Juristen Zeitung 60:328–337Google Scholar
  100. Schulz A (2007) The accession of the European community to the Hague conference on private international law. ICLQ, pp 939–949Google Scholar
  101. Siehr K (2005) Auf dem Weg zu einem Europäischen Internationalen Privatrecht. Zeitschrift für Europarecht, pp 90–100Google Scholar
  102. Siehr K (2008) Die Kodifikation des Europäischen IPR—Hindernisse, Aufgaben und Lösungen. In: Jud B et al. (eds), Kollisionsrecht in der Europäischen Union. Jan Sramek Verlag, Wien, pp 77–95Google Scholar
  103. Sonnenberger H J (2008) Randbemerkungen zu, Allgemeinen Teil eines europäisierten IPR. In: Baetge D et al (eds) Die richtige Ordnung, Festschrift für Jan Kropholler. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 227–246Google Scholar
  104. Spamann H (2001) Choice of law in a federal system and an internal market. Jean Monnet working paper 8/2001Google Scholar
  105. Susanti I (2008) The conflict rules on the protection of migrant workers. Hephaestus, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  106. Symeonides SC (1993) Private international law codification in a mixed jurisdiction: the Louisiana experience. RabelsZ 57:460–516Google Scholar
  107. Symeonides SC (2001) Material justice and conflicts justice in choice of law. In: Borcher PJ, Zekoll J (eds) International conflict of laws for the third millennium, Essays in honor of Friedrich K. Juenger. Transnational Publishers, Ardsley, pp 125–140Google Scholar
  108. Symeonides SC (2009) The conflicts book of the louisiana civil code: civilian, American or original? Tulane Law Review  82:1042–1081Google Scholar
  109. Symeonides SC (2010) American federalism and private international law. Hellenic Journal of International Law, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1612949.
  110. Ten Wolde MH (2004) Will professionals in other countries be able to rely on a European Certificate of Inheritance for all purposes? In: Les Successions Internationales dans l’UE. Perspectives pour une Harmonisation. Deutschen Notarinstitut (DNotI), Würzburg, pp 503–514Google Scholar
  111. Ten Wolde MH (2009) Inleiding Nederlands en Europees Internationaal Privaatrecht, Deel A Algemeen deel en materieel IPR Personen-, familie- en erfrecht. Hephaestus, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  112. Ten Wolde MH, Knot JG (2006) European international law of succession. Hephaestus, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  113. Thoma I (2007) Die Europäisierung und die Vergemeinschaftung des nationalen ordre public. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  114. Thue H (1996) Connecting factors in international family law. In: Lowe N, Douglas G (eds) Families Across Frontiers. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Hague/Boston/London, pp 53–62Google Scholar
  115. Tomasi L, Ricci C, Bariatti S (2007) Characterisation in family matters for purposes of European private international law. In: Meeusen J et al (eds) International family law for the European Union. Intersentia, Antwerpen, p 374Google Scholar
  116. Traest M (2003) De Europese Gemeenschap en de Haagse Conferentie voor het Internationaal Privaatrecht. Maklu, Antwerpen/ApeldoornGoogle Scholar
  117. Uhle A (2004) Freiheitliche Verfassungsstaat und kulturelle Identität. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  118. Van Loon J H A (2006) Over de verhouding tussen het Europees Gemeenschapsrecht en De Haagse Conferentie voor het internationaal privaatrecht. Tijdschrift@ipr.be, pp 100–102Google Scholar
  119. Van Loon JHA, Schulz A (2008) The European community and the hague conference on private international law. In: Martenczuk B, van Thiel S (eds) Justice, liberty, security: new challenges for EU external relations. VUBPress, Brussels, pp 257–299Google Scholar
  120. Van den Eeckhout V (2008) The promotion of fundamental rights by the Union as a contribution to the European Legal Space (III): the role of European private international law. Available at http://refgov.cpdr.ucl.ac.be
  121. Vigand S (2005) La construction de l’espace de liberté, de securité et de justice: vers un droit international privé communautaire de la famille. (diss. Panthéon-Assas, Paris II)Google Scholar
  122. Vischer F (1999) Connecting factors. In: international encyclopedia of comparative law, Private international law, vol III. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 3–33Google Scholar
  123. Vlas P (2009) Alimentatie uit Brussel met een Haags randje. WPNR 6794:293–295Google Scholar
  124. Vlas P (2003) Naar een EG-Verordening Erfrecht? WPNR 6533:393Google Scholar
  125. Vonken APMJ (2006) De internationale beslissingsharmonie nader beschouwd. Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 43:9–125Google Scholar
  126. Weber A (2004) Die Vergemeinschaftung des internationalen Privatrechts (diss. Frankfurt am Oder). TENEA, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  127. Zweigert K (1948) Die dritte Schule im Internationalen Privatrecht. Zur neueren Wissenschaftsgeschichte des Kollisionsrechts. In: Raape L et al (eds), Festschrift für Leo Raape. Rechts- und staatswissenschaftlicher Verlag, Hamburg, pp 35–52Google Scholar
  128. Zweigert K (1973) Some reflections on the sociological dimensions of private international law or what is justice in conflict of laws? University of Colorado Law Review, pp 283–299Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C.ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. A. Baarsma

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations