(43,961 words)
ABSTRACTFrancois Rigaux, quoting Savigny, writes in the introduction to his course that mobile conflict is distinguished from the transitional conflict of private international law and the transitional conflict of foreign law, in that "the successive jurisdiction of the conflicting laws results, not from a legislative amendment, but also from the movement of the legal relationship itself". The author examines the question by first focusing on the relations between law, space, and time. He then examines the issue of mobile conflict as an impediment to the implementation of the rule of unification of the forum, mobile conflict in positive law, the complications of mobile conflict, and the question of the relations between the mobile conflict and the conflict of system.
François Rigaux, citant Savigny, écrit en introduction de son cours que le conflit mobile se distingue du conflit transitoire de droit international privé et du conflit transitoire de droit étranger, en ce que « la compétence successive des lois en conflit résulte, non d'une modification législative, mais du mouvement du rapport de droit lui-même ». L'auteur étudie cette question en s'intéressant dans un premier temps aux rapports entre droit, espace et temps. Il étudie ensuite la question du conflit mobile en tant qu'incident de la mise en œuvre de la règle de rattachement du for, le conflit mobile en droit positif, les complications du conflit mobile, et la question de la relation entre conflit mobile et conflit de système.
Purchase
Purchase instant access for 1, 7 or 30 days on the home page of this publication.
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 31 | 31 | 9 |
Full Text Views | 33 | 33 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 67 | 67 | 0 |
(43,961 words)