Internal and Cross-Border Conflict of Laws Regulation in the United States of America
Abstract
The relevance of the research is due to the development of cross-border economy relations with involvement of the United States residents and the residents of other countries. Such an interest considers the questions about the correct choice of the applicable law in the framework of legal relations with the participation of U.S. residents carried out in the territory or residents of the different countries covered by the jurisdiction of the United States.
The authors objectives under this article is to consider the basic concepts, as well as some features of resolving conflicts arising between the provisions of the U.S. Federal law, the laws of certain U.S. states with the laws of other countries, as well as, in some cases, with international law. In the framework of the study, the author used various methods, in particular, the dialectical method, methods of analysis, synthesis, the formal legal method, the comparative legal method, as well as the method of analyses of legal acts and judicial precedents. The basic method used in the paper is a comparative method. By applying of this method, the author tries to show the differences between US legislation (as the common law system country) and continental (civil) law countries in relation to the resolving of the conflicts of law. By using of the comparative method, the author also tried to show the differences between the English and the U.S. law. The comparative method also compared with the method of analyses by using of this method the author examined the features of conflict resolution in accordance with statutory legislation, judicial precedents, as well as U.S. doctrine sources. The author provides the basic concepts regarding to the law on conflicts, which contain the main approaches to resolving the conflict of various jurisdictions in the United States. As the results of the research, the author concludes that even if there are separate (special) legal acts, judicial cases, as well as doctrine sources that, it would seem, should help overcome conflicts between different legal systems, given the diversity of legal relations, such collisions will arise in the future, which will push lawmakers to further develop issues of U.S. ‘law on conflicts’ or ‘conflict of laws’.
References
[2] Baxter, W. 1963. Choice of Law and Federal System, Stanford Law Review, 1: 1-42.
[3] Brilmayer, L. 1980. Interest Analysis and the Myth of Legislative Intent, Michigan Law Review, 78.
[4] Brilmayer, L. and O’Connor, G.O. 2015. Conflict of Laws. Cases and Materials. Sevent Edition. Wolters Kluwer. New York.
[5] Cavers, D.F. 1981. The Choice of Law Process. Michigan, 392-431.
[6] Cheatham, E.E. 1941. Sources of Rules for Conflict of Laws. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 430-452.
[7] Childress III, D.E. 2017. International Conflict of Laws and the New Conflicts Restatement. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, 27: 361-379.
[8] Childress III, D.E., Ramsey, M.D. and Whytock, C.A. 2015. Transactional Law and Practice. Wolters Kluwer Law and Business, 1056.
[9] Curry, Br. 1963. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws. Durham, 761.
[10] Florey, K. 2015. Big Conflicts Little Conflicts, Arizona State Law Journal, 47: 654-684.
[11] Gabor, F.A. 1986. Emerging Unification of Conflict of Laws Rules Applicable to the International Sale of Goods. UNCITRAL and the New Hague Convention on Private International Law, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 7(4): 696-726.
[12] Gabor, F.A. 1988. Stepchild of the New Lex Mercatoria: Private International Law from the United States Perspective Symposium: Reflections on the International Unfication of Sales Law. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, 8(3) Winter: 540.
[13] Getman-Pavlova, I.V. and Karimova, L.I. 2015. Kodifikatsiya kollizionnogo regulirovaniya vnedogovornykh obyazatel'stv v shtate Oregon (SSHA), Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki - Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2: 186-201.
[14] Greco, A.J. 2020. A Concise History of United States Resale Price Maintenance Arrangements and its Current Status under State and Federal Laws, Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 11(1): 26-36.
[15] Kegel, G. 1964. The Crisis of Conflict of Laws, Recueil des Cours, 112: 615.
[16] Kosov, M.E. et al. 2020. International Practice of Provision of Guarantees for Implementation of Investment Projects, Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 11(1): 99-106.
[17] Leflar, R. 1966. Conflicts Law: More on Choice-Influencing Considerations, California Law Review, 54: 1584-1598.
[18] Leflar, R., McDougall III, L. and Felix, R. 1986. American Conflicts Law, 4th ed. Charlottesville.
[19] Lusk, H.F. 1961. S.J.D. Business Law Principles and Cases. Fifth Edition, 1957. Shortened translation from English by Yu.E. Militareva and V.A. Dozortseva. Publisher of foreign literature. Moscow.
[20] Monastirsky, Yu.E. 1999. Gospodstvuyushchiye doktriny kollizionnogo prava v SSHA. Dissertation of the candidate, Moscow.
[21] Nafziger, J.A.R. 1990. Resolving International Conflict of Laws by Federal and State Law, 2 Pace Y.B. Int'l L, 67: 67-81.
[22] Rabel, E. 1958. The Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study, Vol. 1: Introduction. Family Law. Michigan.
[23] Rene, D. and Joffre-Spinoza, C. 1966. Osnovnyye pravovyye sistemy sovremennosti. Moscow. Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya.
[24] Sauveplanne, J. 1982. New Trends in the Doctrine of Private International Law and their Impact on Court Practice, Recueil des Cours, 175: 9-98.
[25] Vitta, E. 1982. The Impact in Europe of the American ‘Conflicts Revolution’, Am. J. Comp. L. 30: 1-6.
[26] Zhiltsov, A.N. 1998. Primenimoye pravo v mezhdunarodnom kommercheskom arbitrazhe (imperativnyye normy), Dissertation of the candidate.
*** Oregon statute of Laws. Chapter 15 (Choice of law), https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/chapter/15.
*** Private International Law at the End of the 20th Century: Progress or Regress?, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law / Ed. by S. Symeonides. The Hague, 2000: 512.
*** Restatement of the Law Second Conflict of Laws 2d Chapter 1. Section 6. 1969, Main Vol. The American Law Institute.
*** Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment10.html.
*** U.S. Constitution. art. VI, cl. 2., https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi
*** U.S. Supreme Court. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/159/113/
*** United Nations Convention on the Law of Contracts for International Sale, 1980. Sales No. E.10.V.14, https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/sales/cisg/V1056997-CISG-e-book.pdf
The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher)
This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors.
The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.