This study proposes a multilateralist method of choice of law in
order to alleviate the great disarray that currently exists in
American choice law. In the early 20th century, there was a
fairly-uniform multilateralist method of choice law. In the 1920s
and 30s, however, scholars adn courts began to reject this method.
Viewed as too mechanical the method sometimes resulted in the
choice of law of a state with only a tenuous connection to the
controversy. Currently, state courts use four different approached
to choice law with numerous material variations. This study rejects
these approaches on normative, constitutional, and practical
grounds. Instead, it advocates that courts adopt a multilateralist
approach to choice of law that is forum- and content-neutral and
that respects the rights of both individuals and states. The study
also argues that such an approach should satisfy a constitutional
standard that requires a court not choose one state's law when
another state has a significantly closer connection to
controversy.
The proposed method consists of two parts. The first part
determines the states that have created legal relations applying to
the dispute. When more than one state has created a legal realtions
applying to the dispute. When more than one state has created a
legal relation that applies to the controversy, the second part
adopts the law of the state that had the closest connection. The
study then applies the suggested method to numerous choice of law
problems.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!