Traditionally, the High Court of Australia has regarded the States of Australia as being "separate countries" for conflict of law purposes and has applied, in a rather formalistic manner, the English common law rules of private international law to resolve intrafederation conflict of laws problems. This paper argues that this approach to intrafederation conflict of laws is inappropriate. Instead, this paper argues that the High Court should follow the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada as exemplified by its decision in Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye. That is, the High Court should forsake its formalistic reasoning and instead approach intrafederation conflict of laws rules in a purposive way i.e. identify the purposes of the conflict of laws rules and ensure that the rules operate in a manner that meets these purposes. The purposes and operation of the intrafederation conflict of laws rules can only be understood in the context of the Australian federal environment. Aspects of this environment, such as a unified national legal system and a constitutional "full faith and credit" requirement, point to the conclusion that Australia is "one country and one nation." The States of Australia should be regarded as partners in federation and the conflict of laws rules that mediate the relationship between the laws of the different States should reflect this overall unity. Applying this purposive, contextual approach to the three major questions of the conflict of laws, this paper suggests the following features of an Australian intrafederation conflict of laws: 1. Unified substantive jurisdiction and broad judicial jurisdiction for Australian courts with effective transfer mechanisms to ensure litigation is heard in the most appropriate court; 2. The elimination, to the extent possible, of the "homeward trend" in choice of law rules so that uniform legal consequences will attach throughout Australia to any particular set of facts; and 3. The effective, unqualified enforcement of sister-State judgments throughout Australia.

Univ., Diss.--Göttingen, 2005. / Literaturverz. S. 176 - 185.

Zugl.: Frankfurt (Main), Universiẗat, Diss., 2008.

Traditionally, the High Court of Australia has regarded the States of Australia as being "separate countries" for conflict of law purposes and has applied, in a rather formalistic manner, the English common law rules of private international law to resolve intrafederation conflict of laws problems. This paper argues that this approach to intrafederation conflict of laws is inappropriate. Instead, this paper argues that the High Court should follow the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada as exemplified by its decision in Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye. That is, the High Court should forsake its formalistic reasoning and instead approach intrafederation conflict of laws rules in a purposive way i.e. identify the purposes of the conflict of laws rules and ensure that the rules operate in a manner that meets these purposes. The purposes and operation of the intrafederation conflict of laws rules can only be understood in the context of the Australian federal environment. Aspects of this environment, such as a unified national legal system and a constitutional "full faith and credit" requirement, point to the conclusion that Australia is "one country and one nation." The States of Australia should be regarded as partners in federation and the conflict of laws rules that mediate the relationship between the laws of the different States should reflect this overall unity. Applying this purposive, contextual approach to the three major questions of the conflict of laws, this paper suggests the following features of an Australian intrafederation conflict of laws: 1. Unified substantive jurisdiction and broad judicial jurisdiction for Australian courts with effective transfer mechanisms to ensure litigation is heard in the most appropriate court; 2. The elimination, to the extent possible, of the "homeward trend" in choice of law rules so that uniform legal consequences will attach throughout Australia to any particular set of facts; and 3. The effective, unqualified enforcement of sister-State judgments throughout Australia. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

No description available.

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

Univ., Diss.--Paris, 2004.

Univ., Diss.--Paris, 2002.

Thesis--Copenhagen. / Summary in English. Bibliography: [404]-414.

Securities on movables are one of the major feature of credit mechanisms. / Under domestic law, this type of guarantee is widely used, specifically in France, Great-Britain and Canada, under different forms. On the other hand, due to legal uncertainties surrounding operations bearing an international character, securities on movables are rarely used in international transactions. / Regrettably, this established fact, particularly illustrated by French law, appears to go against modern tendencies to favour the internationalisation of commercial activities. The analysis of the rules of French private international law in the light of the corresponding rules of English and Canadian law allows us to identify the main obstacles in the international traffic of securities on movables and to propose reforms initiatives. / Consequently, the analysis of several ratified or drafted international conventions which are related to some aspects of securities on movables in an international context can bring suitable solutions to problems raised by the internationalisation of securities. This thesis proposes that these international agreements carrying conflict of law rules or uniform substantive law constitute the most promising means of regulating these mechanisms which are directly connected to modern international financing.