Journal du droit international: Issue 4 of 2025

The fourth issue of the Journal du droit international for 2025 has been released.

It contains two articles and several case notes relating to private international law issues, including the 2024 case-law review dedicated to EU private international law prepared by Louis d’Avout, Jean-Sébastien Quéguiner, Stefan Huber, Patrick Kinsch, Lukas Rass-Masson, Sixto Sánchez-Lorenzo and Michael Wilderspin.

It is also worth mentioning the publication of three articles resulting from a round table held on 10 April 2025 on ‘Arbitration involving public entities’ during Paris Arbitration Week, authored by C. Lapp, P.-M. Duhamel and E. Silva Romero.

In this first article, Paul Klötgen (University of Lorraine) analyses the concept of forum necessitatis in the light of the public policy exception (L’ordre et la nécessité – Du forum necessitatis comme exception d’ordre public).

The English abstract reads:

The forum necessitatis, which exceptionally and subsidiarily establishes the jurisdiction of French courts in cases where there is a risk of a denial of justice, is nothing more than a form of international public policy argument. The approach of the French Cour de cassation in this respect appears flawless, both in the conditions for using the mechanism and in the terminology used to describe it. Well known in matters of conflict of laws or recognition and enforcement of judgments, the invocation of the ordre public exception can thus also apply to the question of direct jurisdiction; it is a general application mechanism. The forum necessitatis, based on the risk of denial of justice, clearly does not evict any foreign rule of law, but rather a repugnant legal situation. This allows for a renewed perspective on the function of the ordre public in Private international law: the historical dogma, according to which the triggering of the international ordre public exception serves to set aside the normally applicable foreign rule, does not reflect the current state of the law and deserves to be definitively forsaken.

In the second article, Johanna Guillaumé (University of Rouen Normandie) examines the complex issue of the represention of parties residing abroad before a French notary in matrimonial matters (La réception par le notaire français de la convention matrimoniale d’un couple domicilié à l’étranger).

The English abstract reads:

French notaries are obliged to act when requested to do so, and the exceptions to their obligation to act are listed exhaustively in the law. The foreign nature of the relationship is not a reason for refusing to act. For example, a couple living abroad, usually expatriates, may ask the French notary to draw up their marriage contract. Since French diplomatic and consular authorities abroad no longer perform notarial functions, the deed can only be drawn up on French territory. However, this does not necessarily mean that the future spouses have to travel abroad. Insofar as article 1394, paragraph 1, of the French Civil Code authorizes representation to conclude a marriage contract, notarized power of attorney concluding by distance avoids the need for travel. In the presence of a foreign element, it is still necessary to ensure that the article 1394, paragraph 1, is applicable and, if so, that the conditions of authenticity, on the one hand, and of simultaneous presence and consent, on the other, are met. The use of representation also raises the question of compliance with these conditions when drawing up powers of attorney and, consequently, of the use of the principle of parallelism of forms in private international law.

The table of contents of the issue can be accessed here.