The fourth issue of the Journal du droit international was just released. It contains two articles relating to private international law, several casenotes and a survey of the case law of the CJEU on EU Private International Law.
The first article is authored by Mohamed Mahmoud Mohamed Salah (Nouakchott, Mauritania). The title is Law confronted to the new forms of regulations of the global economy (Le droit à l’épreuve des nouvelles régulations de l’économie globale). The English abstract reads:
The regulation of what, since the end of the 1980s, is referred to as the global economy poses many legal issues. Structured increasingly around global value chains that link the activities of an enterprise – itself divided into a plurality of entities scattered across multiple countries and thus subject to different national laws – globalization renders particularly difficult attempts at a legal conceptualisation of transnational enterprises. For more than a decade, globalised regulation of the activities of such enterprises has taken the form of CSR, sometimes reinforced by litigation strategies. At the same time, there is also a return to direct regulation by the State, with all the advantages and drawbacks that this implies. The purpose of this study is to analyse the impact of these two legal trends.
The second article is authored by Jeremy Heymann (University of Lyon 3) and Fabien Marchadier (University of Poitiers), and discusses the consequences of the Advisory opinion of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of April 10th, 2019, concerning the recognition in domestic law of a legal parent-child relationship between a child born through a gestational surrogacy arrangement abroad and the intended mother which had been requested by the French supreme court (La filiation de l’enfant né d’une gestation pour autrui pratiquée à l’étranger (à propos de l’avis consultatif de la CEDH, grande chambre du 10 avril 2019)). The English abstract reads:
Intended to further enhance the interaction between the European Court of Human Rights and national authorities and thereby reinforce implementation of the Convention, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the advisory-opinion procedure based on Protocol n° 16 to the Convention gave rise to a tremendous first advisory-opinion. Marking a decisive step in the very long Mennesson legal saga, this opinion shows that the European Court and the French Court of Cassation have been able to use most of the resources offered by this new procedure to establish a fruitful and effective dialogue. However, this opinion still raises, regarding both form and substance, as well as at both normative and institutional levels, many questions.
The full table of contents can be found here.