To better appreciate present-day private international law and its future prospects and challenges, we should consider the history and historiography of the field. This book offers an original approach to the study of conflict of laws and legal history that exposes doctrinal lawyers to historical context, and legal historians to the intricacies of legal doctrine. The analysis is based on an in-depth examination of Medieval and Early Modern conflict of laws, focusing on the classic texts of Bartolus and Huber. Combining theoretical insights, textual analysis and historical perspectives, the author presents the preclassical conflict of laws as a rich world of doctrines and policies, theory and practice, context and continuity. This book challenges preconceptions and serves as an advanced introduction which illustrates the relevance of history in commanding private international law, while aspiring to make private international law relevant for history.

Beale, Joseph Henry. Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws. Translated into English by Joseph Henry Beale. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914. 86 pp. Reprinted 2003 by The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. LCCN 2002038864. ISBN 1-58477-294-8. Cloth. $65. * Probably the first doctrine on the conflict of laws, this is a portion of Bartolus' commentary on Justinian's Code and its glosses, his Super Primam et Secundam Partem Codicis Commentaria. Copied often in manuscript, it appeared in print in 1471. It takes into account local customs and statutes, and contains what may be the first clear recognition of the principle that the lex loci governs the validity of a legal act. Bartolus also appreciated the distinction between laws effective only within the territory and laws that might have operation outside the territory, a distinction that assumed great importance in later continental writings on the subject. One of the great medieval commentators, Bartolus di Sassoferrato [1313-1357] was a professor of law at the University of Perugia. His authority as an expositor of Roman law was immense, and it endured for centuries. A practical lawyer, Bartolus attempted to derive principles suitable to his time from the accumulated layers of local, feudal and Roman law.

This fully updated second edition of Jurisdiction in International Law examines the international law of jurisdiction, focusing on the areas of law where jurisdiction is most contentious: criminal, antitrust, securities, discovery, and international humanitarian and human rights law. Since F.A. Mann's work in the 1980s, no analytical overview has been attempted of this crucial topic in international law: prescribing the admissible geographical reach of a State's laws. This new edition includes new material on personal jurisdiction in the U.S., extraterritorial applications of human rights treaties, discussions on cyberspace, the Morrison case. Jurisdiction in International Law has been updated covering developments in sanction and tax laws, and includes further exploration on transnational tort litigation and universal civil jurisdiction. The need for such an overview has grown more pressing in recent years as the traditional framework of the law of jurisdiction, grounded in the principles of sovereignty and territoriality, has been undermined by piecemeal developments. Antitrust jurisdiction is heading in new directions, influenced by law and economics approaches; new EC rules are reshaping jurisdiction in securities law; the U.S. is arguably overreaching in the field of corporate governance law; and the universality principle has gained ground in European criminal law and U.S. tort law. Such developments have given rise to conflicts over competency that struggle to be resolved within traditional jurisdiction theory. This study proposes an innovative approach that departs from the classical solutions and advocates a general principle of international subsidiary jurisdiction. Under the new proposed rule, States would be entitled, and at times even obliged, to exercise subsidiary jurisdiction over internationally relevant situations in the interest of the international community if the State having primary jurisdiction fails to assume its responsibility.