Differentiation between Internal and Cross-Border Legal Relationship

The article explores the problems of differentiation between cross-border and internal legal relations based on the criteria relating to the operation of mandatory norms in private international law. A detailed analysis of domestic and foreign legal acts and doctrines allows us to conclude that the criterion for considering legal relationship as internal is the connection of all the substantive circumstances to only one country. The study notes that the significance of this or that element of the legal relationship is not a particular territorial contact, but the presence of a significant public interest provided by law and closely related to territorial contact. In the absence of significant foreign public interests in the legal relationship, this relationship is internal (collision is false). Significant conflicting public interests of foreign law and order related to this or that territorial contact point to the fact that this legal relationship is transboundary (Romano-Germanic doctrine), the collision is true (American doctrine). In order to choose the applicable law in both the domestic and cross-border legal relationship, one should be guided by the principle of the closest relationship allowing for the court to apply the law of the country that is associated with the least damage to the public interests (values) affected by this relationship.

internal legal relationship, false conflict, cross-border legal relationship, true conflict, territorial contact, essential element, public interest, peremptory norms, applicable law, closest relationship

1. Абрамова Е. Н., Аверченко Н. Н., Грачев В. В. [и др.]. Комментарий к Гражданскому кодексу Российской Федерации : учебно-практический комментарий / под ред. д. ю. н., проф. А. П. Сергеева. - Изд. 2-е, перераб. и доп. - М. : Проспект, 2016. - Ч. 3.

2. АсосковА. В. Реформа раздела VI «Международное частное право» Гражданского кодекса РФ // Хозяйство и право. - 2014. - № 2. - С. 3-28.

3. Асосков А. В. Трансграничные и внутренние контракты: пределы автономии воли сторон при выборе применимого права // Вестник гражданского права. - 2011. - Т. 11. - № 4. С. 4-31.

4. Международное частное право : учебник / отв. ред. Г. К. Дмитриева. - 4-е изд., перераб. и доп. - М. : Проспект, 2016.

5. Проблемы гражданского и предпринимательского права Германии : пер. с нем. - М. : Бек, 2001.

6. Symeonides S. C. Choice of Law in Cross-Border Torts: Why Plaintiffs Win and Should // Hastings Law Journal. - 2009. - December. - P. 337-412.

7. Symeonides S. C. Louisiana Conflicts Law: Two «Surprises» // Louisiana Law Abstract. - 1994. - Vol. 54. - № 3. - P. 497-499.

8. Symeonides S. C. Party Autonomy in Rome I and II from a Comparative Perspective // Convergence and Divergence in Private International Law - Liber Amicorum / K. Boele-Woelki, T. Einhorn, D. Girsberger, S. Symeonides (eds.). - Eleven International Publishing, 2010. - Pp. 513-550.

9. Symeonides S. C. The Choice-of-Law Revolution Fifty Years after Currie: An End and a Beginning // University of Illinois Law Abstract. - 2015. - Issue 2.

10. Whittaker S. The Optional Instrument of European Contract Law and Freedom of Contract // COM. Green Paper. - 2010. - 348. - P. 1-24.