The eleventh edition of the treatise on Droit international privé in the Précis Dalloz series, one of the leading texts on private international law in France, has recently been published (January 2023, 1100 pages).
The previous edition was published ten years ago. The new, fully revised edition has been prepared by Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières (Sorbonne Law school, Paris I University), who was the co-author of the previous editions (alongside the late Yvon Loussouarn and Pierre Bourel), and Sarah Laval (Littoral Côte d’Opale University).
The first part, titled “Common rules governing private international law” (Règles générales de droit international privé), focuses on the general theory of private international law, and adopts an original distinction between “identification of the legal source” (i.e. in the three fields of choice of law, jurisdiction and judgments) and “regime of the foreign norm” (i.e. the regime of the international regularity (or lawfulness) of the foreign norm – law and judgment – and then the regime of the implementation of the foreign norm).
The second part, titled “Special rules governing private international law” (Droit international privé special), is concerned with the special rules applicable in the different fields of private law (i.e. persons, family, property, obligations, businesses). Another sign of originality here is that each of the areas presented contains a preliminary development on the “policy of building connecting factors”.
While the treatise’s foreword is insightful and conceived as a “user’s guide”, I thought it would be interesting to directly ask the two authors about some specific features of this revised edition. They kindly agreed to answer some questions for the readers of the EAPIL blog and I thank them very warmly.
– This treatise takes, in your own words, a “neo-Savignian” approach to private international law. What does this mean?
On the one hand, a neo-Savignian approach to PIL focuses, like under the traditional Savignian approach, on the links between a given legal relationship and a particular country, in order to sort out, in favour of this country, the choice-of-law/choice-of-court issues (including issues related with jurisdiction of foreign courts, in case of a dispute over a foreign judgment dealing with the case) arising out of said relationship. Like Savigny, a neo-Savignian advocate believes that one of these links (or one set of links among them) justifies better than others the precedence of the concerned country as to ruling the relationship at stake through its law or its courts. This creed relies on the idea that the authority of a ruler varies depending on the strength of its links with the governed subject.
When enacting a choice-of-law (or choice-of-court) rule, a lawmaker who follows a neo-Savignian approach picks up the link (or set of links) which, in his opinion, is the most relevant for the kind of relationship covered by the created rule – and which appears to him as showing the “seat” (like Savigny used to say) of the legal relationship in a particular country. This link will therefore become the connecting factor in the choice-of-law rule (or the jurisdictional basis in the choice-of-court rule – including, here again, the jurisdictional standards applied to foreign courts, as provided by the foreign judgment regime) covering the legal relationship at stake. And this “seat country” will consequently have (at least in principle) its law and/or the judgments rendered by its courts enforced, for said legal relationship, by the forum (viz, the country whose choice-of-law/choice-of-court rules apply, assuming that the dispute is brought before that country’s courts).
But on the other hand (and conversely to the Savignian approach), our neo-Savignian approach promotes the idea that legal relationships between private persons in an international setting do not necessarily have only one seat in one country – whose law and courts would thus govern this relationship –, but may well have (and actually often have) several “anchors” or relevant connections to different countries, each of whom being a possible seat or “anchorage”. Two important consequences stem from this: (i) in a given case, the seat relevant for adjudicating the dispute may well prove different from the seat relevant for legislating over it; (ii) moreover, since one must think contemporary choice-of-law and choice-of-court rules (including, as aforementioned, those governing foreign judgments) in terms of domestic rather than international sources (at least in principle), the seat of a given relationship may well vary from country to country.
All this shows that, in our early XXI century, reasoning (as used to do Savigny) in terms of “one seat in one country for one kind of relationship” – at least each time this relationship appears in an international setting – is a bit misleading since it does not correspond to the truth of law as it is experienced by the parties. Our neo-Savignian doctrine admits the possibility of plural seats for a given legal relationship and addresses this occurrence through a set of choice-of-law and choice-of-courts rules which are inspired by Savigny’s thought (search of the most relevant links), as adapted to fit the contemporary legal landscape for private law applying in an international context (plurality of relevant fora enacting varied choice of law and choice of court rules). Accordingly, in a given country, the conflict between the countries (taken as lawmakers or as judgment-makers for the case at stake) with which a legal situation is linked, will be won by the one that has the most relevant relationship with the situation, this relevance being determined by a series of private and public considerations.
Far from being merely neutral, the choice-of-law rules appear as the result of a certain policy implemented by the authors of these rules (the “choice-of-law policy”, distinct from the “substantive policy” enacted by the substantive law chosen as applicable and relevant when it comes to sorting out the substantive issue). The same is true, mutatis mutandis, for the choice-of-court rules.
The neo-Savignian approach also repudiates two popular postulates: (i) the postulate according to which countries are not affected by the solution of conflict of laws (since at a minimum, the authority of the sovereign country, taken as a ruler, vis-à-vis the parties to the legal relationship is at stake when sorting out a choice-of-law/choice-of-court issue); and (ii) also the postulate according to which, in a given case, the applicable law and the jurisdiction of courts are basically disconnected from one another; on the contrary, they are both seen as one side of the exercise of one countries’ power to make “law” (broadly speaking: either by enacting a bill, or by rendering a judgment). The originality of the neo-Savignian approach therefore also lies in a sort of presumption that the country whose courts have jurisdiction over a case often ought to be (and actually, quite naturally) the country whose law governs the relationship (jurisdiction of the forum legis).
– Could you concretely illustrate this neo-Savignian approach?
Let us take one example of a multiple-seat private law relationship; it will be provided by the family chapter of PIL, and more especially, the filiation issue (relation of child to father).
Under French law, the choice-of-law rule points to a country as being the correct lawmaker for filiation where it turns out that the child’s mother has the nationality of that country (C. civ., Article 311-14); whereas the jurisdiction rule points to France as being the correct judgment-maker for filiation where the defendant (often the suspected father) is domiciled in France (CPC, Article 42), or, in case he is not, where he is a French citizen (C. civ., Article 15), or even, as a minimum, where the claimant (the child in a filiation proceeding) is a French citizen (C. civ., Article 14). These rules show that French substantive law on filiation will apply before French courts in a dispute brought before French courts each time that (i) the suspected father is domiciled in France, or at least that he, or the child, has French nationality (so that French courts have jurisdiction); and (ii) the mother is French (so that French substantive law governs the case). In such a case, France gets a plenary power to provide for a substantive regime (both through legislature and through court) for the filiation. The seat of the relation of child to father (at least from the French viewpoint) is located in France, both with respect to the substantive law governing the case and to the court having the final word in the dispute.
Let us assume now that the man is Italian, and the child is a US citizen (since he was born within the US territory, where one assumes also here that his French mother lives with him). In that case, Italian courts claim jurisdiction over the case (Italian Act No 218, 1995, Article 37). Assuming that the claimant brings the dispute against the suspected father before Italian courts, these courts should assert jurisdiction on the filiation issue, since for Italy, the judicial seat of the case is in Italy. As to the legislative seat, it will be provided by the Italian choice-of-law rule, under which the law governing filiation is the law of the country of origin (nationality) of the child (Italian Act No 218, 1995, Article 33), here the law of the relevant US state. Hence the Italian court will not apply the French law, even though the child’s mother is French (and notwithstanding the French choice-of-law rule claiming applicability of French law for that reason).
Typically, under our neo-Savignian approach, the filiation proceeding covers a relation that has not one seat in onecountry, but at least three seats in three countries (France, Italy and the United States), and parties to this relationship should be aware of this data when wondering what is the content of the legal regime governing the substantive issues arising out of their case. One should add here that the country where the filiation proceeding is brought would be well advised not to forget this plural-seat data when it comes to addressing the legal issues arising out of this dispute. It is probably so for France, if recognition of enforcement of the Italian judgment is sought there: even though the French choice-of-law rule claims French substantive law being applicable to the filiation issue (since the mother is French), the foreign judgment regime as set up by French case-law does not rule out the Italian judgment for the mere reason that the Italian court did not enforce French law (but rather the law of the relevant state in the USA).
– The formal presentation of private international law solutions in the treatise is inspired by a “trans-systemic/transnational” pedagogy. The aim is to go beyond the particularistic (i.e., French-oriented) approach to the discipline. Could you elaborate on that?
This presentation divides each PIL development into two parts. The first part is more about rhetoric; it sets the problematics, the principles and the interests at stake for each topic, it lists the different considerations that shall be taken into consideration to solve the choice-of-law/choice-of-court issues, and it suggests a solution according to the neo-Savignian approach. These rhetoric parts are not too deeply invaded by legal data from one particular country or another. Accordingly, at that stage, the book rather sticks to a universalist view of PIL.
The second part of the developments on each issue is a presentation of the rules as they exist in some jurisdictions, would these rules stick to the solutions exposed in the first part or would they differ from them. In this second part, the rules are not only French rules, but European and International (Hague Conventions in particular) rules as well. The purpose of this transnational presentation is to depart from a purely French point of view as well as to understand the extent to which French Law solutions are similar to European and International Law solutions. The outcome of this presentation is that, contrarily to other handbooks on the libraries’ shelves, this recast edition is not merely a book on French PIL, but rather a book on PIL as it is conceived and applied by France, by the European Union and by the international community through international conventions (mainly Hague conventions from the Hague Conference for PIL).
The (private international) law of choice-of-court agreements provides us with a good example of this methodology. In the rhetoric part of the presentation on this issue, the book draws on (i) the relation between the lawfulness of choice-of-court agreements and the question whether the jurisdiction rule is binding or non-binding in law, for the parties; and (ii) the considerations influencing the decision whether such a rule ought to be binding in law or not for the parties. Then, in a series of developments on law as it is in force in some jurisdictions, a quick presentation is made regarding French law, EU law (Brussels I bis Regulation) and the Hague convention on choice of court agreements.
– How do you “present” and “represent” in the treatise the Europeanisation of private international law and, ultimately, EU private international law?
To make a long story short, one can say that there are two possible paths that one can follow in order to present the EU as a lawmaker in the field of PIL.
On the one hand, the traditional way tends to look at the EU from the classical public international law viewpoint. EU member-states are sovereign States bound by an international treaty (Treaty of Rome, 1957 – which was ultimately renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by the Treaty of Lisbon, 2007). From that standpoint, EU PIL is fostered by EU institutions and comes into force in the EU member-states through an international treaty. It is on that basis that it becomes part of the law of each member-state and it ought to work as such.
On the other hand, a more unusual analysis of the EU is to see this entity as a political entity having some features of a sovereign State (nevertheless not all of them, so that it cannot claim being a State from the international law standpoint, but, at a maximum, it may qualify as what is sometimes called a “proto-state”). As such, EU PIL in a member-state differentiates from domestic PIL of this member-state, with some consequences like one in the field of characterization, where, for a member-state court, resorting to domestic definitions for interpreting EU legal categories as used in EU PIL regulations is not appropriate (at least in principle). Similarly, the proto-state notion proves useful for the correct understanding of the function of EU PIL, compared to member-state PIL of domestic origin. This last one may be seen as a tool for fixing the ambit of legislative or judiciary action of a member-state. The first one is seen in the book as delineating the outskirts of each member-state’s private law (as made by a legislature or by a court), whether with regards to each other, or even with regards to non-member-states. It may well be used also as a tool for delineating the outskirts of EU private law where it exists, as the case may be. And finally, the proto-state notion is useful to understand another influence of EU law on EU member-state PIL having a domestic origin: to the extent that EU may be seen as a “proto-federal State”, the interference of EU freedom of persons (Article 21 TFEU) on the law of EU member-states, including PIL of domestic origin, appears as one regarding the lawfulness of the legal provisions composing this domestic law.
One must add that the European influence on the PIL of European countries is not limited to EU law, but may come from other organizations or instruments as well, like the Council of Europe. This international organization is much less integrated than the European Union, and for this reason the book does not see it as a proto-state. But of course, this does not prevent us from scrutinizing the possible incidence of the Council of Europe law (and especially the ECHR case-law) on EU (and EU member-state) PIL, particularly through the reshaping of the public policy defence.
– Could you concretely illustrate your “proto-state” approach of EU PIL?
Article 4.1 of Rome II Regulation and Articles 4, 7, and 45 of the Brussels I bis Regulation read as follows, through the proto-State notion as applied to the European Union:
In principle, under Article 4.1 of Rome II regulation, the EU grants (or recognizes) jurisdiction to legislate in matter of non-contractual obligation to any member-state having sovereignty on the territory where the damage occurs. The same jurisdiction to legislate is recognized in principle by EU PIL to any non-EU country exercising sovereignty on this territory. EU member-states are granted jurisdiction to adjudicate a case in non-contractual obligations under the Brussels I.a regulation (article 4 and 7); but countries having rendered a judgment in this subject matter may be seen as providing a regular ground to their judgment, even though they are not a country selected by these articles, and this is so whether they are (i) an EU member-state (since the origin of the EU member-state judgment is not controlled under article 45.3 of Brussels I.a regulation); or (ii) a non-EU country (since EU PIL does not cover recognition and enforcement of non-EU country judgments).
– For the benefit of the private international law community, what are the two or three major issues which, in your book, seem to you to be at the heart of the reflections to be conducted for the private international law of the future?
The first issue could be a potential harmonization between the answer to the two questions of (i) which law prevails? and (ii) which court has jurisdiction? In France, scholars usually have strong opinions on the separation between these two fields and stick to the postulate that their regulation relies on distinct considerations: whereas the court that has jurisdiction appears to be chosen after purely procedural considerations, the choice of law is usually determined by non-procedural considerations, since the choice-of-law issue may arise outside any proceedings. This presentation neglects the idea that choosing a country’s court instead of another one is not neutral with respect to the outcome of the proceeding and eventually has a strong influence on the solution of the dispute. Therefore, a country exercising a legislative power also has an interest in exercising its judicial power. Taking these elements into consideration might be a good opportunity to review the choice-of-court rules and see to what extent they stick – or could stick – to this approach.
A second issue is about the leeway available to a court when it comes to exercising its jurisdiction over a case presenting relevant links with court’s country. Since the claimant holds a strong sway on the outcome of the proceeding – through the choice of the forum where the dispute is brought –, any country ought to provide its courts with the power to give up the exercise of its jurisdiction over the dispute, each time it turns out that the claimant would have an excessive advantage in suing the defendant before the court of one of the countries whose links with the case are sufficient to trigger its jurisdiction to adjudicate.
A third issue could be the digitalization of international private relations. This digitalization emphasizes the opportunity to depart from a reasoning in terms of mere localization of facts and urges the need to adopt a reasoning in terms of policy advocated for by the choice-of-law/choice-of-court legislature. For these relations, the determination of the applicable law or of the court that has jurisdiction cannot be the result of a search for a country where the facts take place (it is submitted that this country really does not exist), but the result of the comparison between the different public and private interests at stake. Eventually, the relationship arising in a digitalized context has its seat in the country with the most relevant links to it – relevance being here the outcome of an analysis and weighing of the competing interests that one can find, for a country, to be recognized as a ruler (through its laws or courts) for said relationship, and, for the parties to said relationship, that this country be recognized as governing it.