Traditionally, conflict of law rules designate only national substantive law as the applicable law. Many unifying and harmonizing substantive law instruments of both States and non-State organizations, however, are designed specifically for application to cross-border relationships. Achieving this objective is, generally, hindered by conflict of law rules. The requirements which non-national law needs to fulfil in order to be accepted as the law governing a cross-border relationship deserve clarification. Not only uniform law, such as the CISG and the envisaged European substantive law instrument for the law of obligations, but, particularly, instruments which are aimed at harmonizing substantive law, challenge the established systems of conflict of laws. In seeking a positive approach towards the application of a law other than national law various aspects need to be considered: (1) is the decision taken by a court or an arbitral tribunal; (2) what field of law (contract/delict/tort or family relationships) is involved; and (3) the objective or subjective (choice by the parties) designation of the applicable law.

Traditionally, conflict of law rules designate only national substantive law as the applicable law. Many unifying and harmonizing substantive law instruments of both States and non-State organizations, however, are designed specifically for application to cross-border relationships. Achieving this objective is, generally, hindered by conflict of law rules. The requirements which non-national law needs to fulfil in order to be accepted as the law governing a cross-border relationship deserve clarification. Not only uniform law, such as the CISG and the envisaged European substantive law instrument for the law of obligations, but, particularly, instruments which are aimed at harmonizing substantive law, challenge the established systems of conflict of laws. In seeking a positive approach towards the application of a law other than national law various aspects need to be considered: (1) is the decision taken by a court or an arbitral tribunal; (2) what field of law (contract/delict/tort or family relationships) is involved; and (3) the objective or subjective (choice by the parties) designation of the applicable law.

Is the unification and harmonisation of (international) family law in Europe necessary? Is it feasible, desirable and possible? Reading the different contributions to this book may certainly inspire those who would like to find the right answers to these questions.

The enhanced cooperation mechanism allows at least nine Member States to introduce secondary EU law which is only binding among these Member States. From an internal market perspective, enhanced cooperation laws are unique as they lie somewhere between unilateral Member State laws and uniform European Union law. The law creates harmonisation and coordination between the participating Member States, but may introduce trade obstacles in relation to non-participating Member States. This book reveals that the enhanced cooperation mechanism allows Member States to protect their harmonised values and coordination endeavours against market efficiency. Values which may not be able to justify single Member State's trade obstacles may outweigh pure internal market needs if an entire group of Member States finds these value worthy of protection. However, protection of the harmonised values can never go as far as shielding participating Member States from the negative effects of enhanced cooperation laws. The hybrid nature of enhanced cooperation laws - their nexus between the law of a single Member State and secondary EU law - also demands that these laws comply with state aid law. This book shows how the European state aid law provisions should be applied to enhanced cooperation laws. Furthermore, the book also develops a sophisticated approach to the limits non-participating Member States face in ensuring that their actions do not impede the implementation of enhanced cooperation between the participating Member States.

This book analyses the complex system of contract law operating in the Greater Bay Area and examines the independent legal systems of Hong Kong, Macau and China in light of the region’s rapid economic integration. The book explores the differences between these systems in theory and in practice, and identifies the challenges and pathways to legal harmonisation in the region.

European private law has hitherto tended to be conceptualised firmly around ideas of unity and harmony. Yet the discourse within other areas of European law, notably constitutional law scholarship, visibly adopts pluralist perspectives. This book seeks to bridge the gap between 'public' and 'private' law by looking at European private law from various pluralist positions and by investigating old and new ways in which to understand legal pluralism in general. It fills a gap in the wide literature on legal pluralism, as the first book entirely dedicated to offering an insight into legal pluralism from the vantage point of the private law domain. The book addresses critically issues such as what pluralism really means in private law and what conceptions of pluralism it embodies, including discussion about the outer boundaries of any of the pluralist understandings. Contributions address comparative, critical, historical, theoretical and normative aspects. The book provides an opportunity to engage innovatively with problematic conceptual issues which inform the work of European private law scholars, including the debate on the Common Frame of Reference Poject of the European Commision.

Private international law (PIL) problems have existed for centuries when people from various territories and religious and social groups engaged in mutual contacts. Some of the core issues of this discipline have been critically reviewed during the so-called conflicts revolution which took place during the twentieth century in the American academic literature and court practice. However it seems that not much discussion on methodologies of PIL has developed since then. This book, inspired by the Law and Economics approach, introduces the concept of efficiency into PIL, aiming to show new dimensions of traditionally important issues. First, this author challenges the traditional understanding that uniform law is always more desirable than PIL, and raises questions on the rationale and possibility of the unification of PIL. Second, territoriality has been understood to exclude PIL. This book clarifies why such understanding does not hold in the twenty-first century especially in the field of intellectual property, and argues that a one-sizefits-all model would not be appropriate in the context of cross-border insolvency.