Pas de résumé / Doctorat en droit / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

This thesis examines the intersection between authors' moral rights and conflict-of-laws. The research question has been triggered by two important, interlinked factors. The first is that the currently applicable choice-of-law rules to moral rights are the same as those applicable to copyright. The second concerns the fact that moral rights are different from copyright - both in their nature and in the interest they aim to protect. Since these two factors coincide, it is questionable whether it ought to be the case that moral rights are subjected to the same choice-of-law rules as are applicable to copyright. The thesis therefore aims to discover whether the currently applicable choice-oflaw rules available in the context of moral rights are suitable for achieving the goals and objectives of conflict-of-laws. In the course of this thesis, I evaluate the potential validity of detaching moral rights from copyright in conflict-oflaws and instead attaching it to the characterization model of general personality rights. The research question is mainly addressed from the perspective of Rome I and Rome II Regulations. However, as there is no EU harmonization concerning general personality rights in conflict-of-laws, the examination will be directed towards France and England as examples of civil and common law traditions. Moreover, reference will also be made to CLIP and ALI principles by reason of comparison.

At the beginning of the 21st Century, conflict-of-laws theory lies in tatters. The determination of the applicable law could hardly be more disputed and insecure. At the same time, globalization requires a strong basis on which legal systems can be coordinated. It is therefore high time to reconsider the theory of choice of law. In my analysis, I have focused on the three major players in the conflicts dilemma: individuals, states, and courts. I have tried to show how their roles have changed or should change in order to allow for more justice and global coordination. I have started out with the individuals because they suffer most from the application of a certain law. Today, it is recognized in almost all legal systems that individual parties can choose the law governing their disputes. But this principle does not sit very well with traditional theory of conflicts, which is built on connections to states and state authority. That is why I have tried to give a theoretical justification for party autonomy. Second, I have turned to the states because the reason we have conflicts is the existence of different countries with different legal systems. States claim application for their law either because a case arises in their territory, or because it is connected to their nationals, or because it touches upon their interest. In the modern world, though, it becomes difficult to establish these kinds of connections as social relations are increasingly transcending state borders. In my second article, I have shown that the law of the states has reacted by "de-bordering" itself. The final actor I have examined is the courts. One of the main problems of conflict of laws, in my eyes, is that courts consider themselves as organs of a certain state. I argue in my third article that this is a misconception and that their main preoccupation should be to render a just decision. If that would be accepted, they could very well turn out to be the key organizers of a more just global legal order.

Univ., Diss.--Chambéry, 2005.

Univ., Diss.--Trier, 2006.

Thesis (Revise). / Includes bibliographical references (p. 383-424), bibliographical references and indexes (p. 425-441).

Zugl.: Frankfurt (Main), Univ., Diss., 2009 / Includes bibliographical references (p. 197-211).

This study addresses the modern influence of maritime law on air law. In order to demonstrate that the influence still exists, at least in respect of conflicts of jurisdiction, a comparative analysis of the responsibility of the carriers of goods will be carried out in the light of international conventions. / The thesis will consider the new evolution of maritime law, which today, in many aspects, follows air law. It will become clear that both systems face the same difficulties. In particular, the multiplication of international conventions has weakened the aim of uniformity by admitting different regimes of the carriers' liability. Once the causes of conflicts of jurisdiction have been identified, the thesis will analyze how the conventions attempt to solve those conflicts. The use of forum shopping by the parties and the use of forum non conveniens by the courts, reveals that present international solutions are not satisfactory. The practice in maritime law is to consider a conflict prior to its existence and to permit jurisdiction as well as arbitration clauses. While the former clauses are forbidden in air law, arbitration clauses, although accepted in various international air conventions, have never been used until recently in air law, and only in respect of the financing of major projects. / It is therefore possible to believe today, that the maritime approach can and will be followed in respect of conflicts of carriage of goods by air, thus proving that maritime law does still influence the evolution of air law.

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 1989. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 81-91).

Zugl.: Diss. / Literaturverz. S. [XI], [463] - 492.