DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

Project Title: THE CHALLENGES IN IDENTIFYING TRUE OR FALSE

CONFLICTS

Subject: - PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

Name of the Faculty: - D.R NANDHINI CP

Submitted by: -

B. Uday Reddy

2017128

Section-B
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

1. Abstract
2. Introduction

CHAPTER II

1. Basic principles
2. Distinguishing between the 'conflict of rules' situation and the 'pure recognition'
situation
3. Decisions affecting status

CHAPTER III

1. The common law regulation policies

2. Matrimonial decrees
3. Problems illustrated

CHAPTER IV

1. The 'conflict of rules' analysis

2. Solutions to the 'conflict of rules' problem
3. Conclusion
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Any activity big or small is a result of collective efforts of several individuals and this
research paper report is also a sequel of several individuals who have given their valuable
contribution in fulfillment of this project At first I would like to express my profound
gratitude towards my faculty of COMPANY LAW, who has provided me an opportunity to
resent this project and was available with the valuable information whenever it was needed.

I would also like to acknowledge a deep sense of gratitude to my friends and my roommate
for their immense support and guidance.

Last but not the last, my overriding debt continues to all the people who were directly or
indirectly associated with this project.
 ABSTRACT

This thesis presents a novel method to a part of the problem of the Incidental Question inside
the Conflict of Laws. Only instances in which the answer to what has been known as the
principle question depends on popularity of a overseas judgment (the so known as incidental
or initial query) are covered. The problem is analyses as concerning a warfare between
distinctive varieties of conflicts regulations i.e. Choice of regulation policies and recognition
regulations. The thesis examines whether this conflict can be satisfactorily solved by a
worldwide desire for either of these rules. Whilst many writers have taken into consideration
the theoretical base for the war of laws, none has yet particularly as compared the rationales
for preference of law guidelines and reputation policies in an effort to decide whether as a
count of precept one kind of rule should be preferred to the opposite rule. This requires a
sparkling perspective. After rejecting the worldwide solution, the thesis proceeds to study
how a result choosing approach is probably implemented to the existing battle of regulations.
After a short survey of various end result deciding on tactics, it is concluded that the most
suitable method inside the present conflict of rules context is the development of precise
result orientated regulations for each precise category of case. The favored end result should
be dictated by way of the policy of the forum, for the reason that in fact the war is among
battle regulations of the discussion board.

A quantity of particular subjects (including validity of remarriage and matrimonial assets

rights) regarding popularity of fame judgments are taken into consideration intensive. The
methodology followed is as follows: The unique circumstances in which the 'struggle of
guidelines' trouble is probable to arise on the subject of the particular difficulty is defined.
The numerous viable 'preference of rule' rules which might be followed for the particular
issue are taken into consideration. The coverage of English law when it comes to the unique
issue is ascertained and the 'preference of rule' rule which maximum closely offers impact to
that coverage encouraged. The thesis contributes to jurisprudence of Private International
Law in 3 most important approaches: The knowledge of conflicts among one of a kind forms
of war guidelines is of fundamental importance to the whole structure of Private International
Law. This thesis indicates that this hassle is of more significance than previously idea. Whilst
writers have followed a purposeful method to the incidental query, none have attempted to
assemble a series of policies primarily based on discussion board policy. There has been no
preceding try to identify discussion board (right here English) coverage when it comes to the
specific issues selected.
 BASIC PRINCIPLES

According to orthodox principle, there are three separate questions which the Conflicts of
Laws might be required to reply viz: jurisdiction, choice of law and popularity of overseas
judgments. Whilst it's miles clear that the question of jurisdiction will rise up collectively
with both of the opposite two questions and must be decided first; it is less regularly
recognised1 that the latter two questions may additionally rise up collectively in terms of a
particular set of information and that the result may also range depending on whether or not
the case is decided by way of utility of the choice of regulation rule or the recognition of
judgments rule2. The Law Commission3 discover this problem on the subject of remarriage
after a overseas divorce or nullity decree and assert, with none real explanation, that the
popularity rule ought to be favoured.

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE 'CONFLICT OF RULES' SITUATION AND

THE 'PURE RECOGNITION' SITUATION

It is important on the outset to differentiate among

The 'conflict of rules' scenario described above, which is typically seemed as part of the
hassle of the incidental query, and

The 'pure recognition' case,4 in which the foreign judgment for which reputation and/or
enforcement is sought is inconsistent with the choice which might had been reached through
an English Court on the identical information applying English preference of law rules. In the
previous, the actual trouble earlier than the Court has now not itself been determined via a
foreign Court, although its final results depends on whether a overseas judgment is regarded.
The difficulty may be determined both by way of reference to the popularity regulations of
the discussion board or by means of reference to the regulation chosen with the aid of the
forum's choice of regulation guidelines. Whereas, in the second class of case, the scenario is
not perceived or handled as one regarding warfare between the 2 sorts of rule. The Court is
needed to decide whether to comprehend the foreign judgment by reference most effective to

1
“See, however, L. Collins et. al., Dicey and Morris, The Conflict of Laws (1993) 12th. Edn”
2
“Gottlieb (1955) 33 Can. Bar. R. 523 at p. 525 refers to "the conflict of conflicts rules governing the incidental
question." However, he is not referring specifically to the situation where there is a conflict between two
different types of conflicts rules. A different approach may be possible where the conflict is, and is perceived as
being, between a choice rule and a recognition rule.”
3
Law Com. No. 137 para 6.60.
4
Discussed further at Section VIII A infra.
the recognition rules. Since it is not allowed to examine the merits of the case, the selection
of law regulations aren't even referred to as into play.5

Once this difference is grasped, it will be favored that without further evaluation there must
be no assumption that recognition guidelines have to succeed inside the 'warfare of
regulations' scenario, with which this thesis is worried. We will don't forget below the
importance of the desire for the recognition rule in the natural reputation case and latest shifts
within the stability among the selection rules and reputation policies in Private International
Law which might advise that recognition guidelines ought to be favored.

DECISIONS AFFECTING STATUS

This thesis will focus on conditions in which there may be a dispute among the forum and the
lex causae of the difficulty to be decided as to whether a overseas decision affecting status is
powerful. The reason is that it is in this location wherein the trouble has been identified by
means of the Courts and wherein it's miles realized that solutions are required. Although this
trouble can arise in a number of different contexts, the following 4 have been selected for
intensive exam: validity of a remarriage, succession, matrimonial property members of the
family and tort legal responsibility.6

There is a few difficulty in figuring out to what quantity the regulations determining whether
non-judicial modifications of reputation must be known have to be treated as recognition
rules. At first sight, it might appear that on account that we're worried with the rules for
popularity of judgments, the warfare of rules situation cannot stand up in terms of non-
judicial adjustments of popularity. However, this method ignores the fact that during some
areas of law the very equal regulations govern the recognition of judicial and nonjudicial
adjustments of fame. For instance, foreign places formal extrajudicial divorces are regarded
at the same basis as judicial decrees and the guidelines in respect of casual divorces, despite
the fact that one of a kind, are contained within the equal statutory phase as those for
recognition of formal decrees. On the alternative hand, in different regions, such as
legitimation, the policies for popularity are not treated like reputation of judgments rules and
on the opposite are perceived as desire of regulation rules7.

5
“Goddard v Grey (1870) L.R. 6 Q.B. 139. cf. In some jurisdictions, only those judgments which closely
approximate to the results which would have been achieved by application of the forum's choice of law rules
will be recognised (see Von Mehren v Trautman (1968) 81 Harv. L. R. 1601, 1605)”
6
Following a disputed matrimonial decree or adoption order.
7
In the same way as the rules governing recognition of the validity of marriages
No doubt this seemingly anomalous scenario can be defined in sensible phrases. Where it's
far not unusual for a specific fame to be created or decided via judicial decree and the same
or similar rules observe to non-judicial terminations, as with adoptions and divorces, the rules
are treated as reputation of judgments regulations, even though there may be no judgment. In
any occasion, this is the distinction so that it will be followed in deciding which rules are
'reputation guidelines'.

Thus, we will treat the rules for determining the validity of extra-judicial dissolutions,
annulments and adoptions as 'recognition regulations' and consequently inside the scope of
the 'conflict of guidelines' trouble. It have to be pointed, but, that at the same time as different
non-judicial changes of status8 will not be protected in the thesis, the methodology followed
in Part III of this thesis can be appropriate in order to resolve the battle which may stand up
among the 'popularity of reputation' policies, however they're categorized, and choice of law
rules.

The common law regulation policies

At common law, a judgment can best be recognized if the Court granting it has jurisdictional
competence either on the basis of: -

(a) the defendant's residence or

(b) submission to the foreign Court.

Other connections with the foreign Court, together with nationality or that the regulation of
that us of a is the lex causae of the difficulty in dispute, are not enough. In order to qualify for
reputation, the judgment must be a for a set sum and ought to be final. A judgment that is
prima facie entitled to recognition will now not be recognized wherein the defendant
efficiently pleads one of the following defences

(i) the foreign judgment turned into acquired with the aid of fraud;

(ii) the overseas judgment is contrary to public coverage;

(iii) recognition could put into effect at once or circuitously overseas revenue, penal or
different public legal guidelines;

8
“Although frequently the issue of recognition of a 'marriage' can be converted into a recognition of judgments
question by obtaining a nullity decree in the jurisdiction which considers the marriage void”
(iv) the overseas judgment comes in the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980;

(v) the foreign judgment turned into received in lawsuits which have been opposite to herbal
justice;

(vi) the overseas judgment is on a remember formerly determined by means of an English

Court;

(vii) the foreign judgment was given in lawsuits delivered in breach of an settlement for
settlement of disputes.

MATRIMONIAL DECREES

Recognition of divorces, annulments and prison separations (hereinafter known as divorces

and so on.) is now governed by means of the Family Law Act 1986 Part II, which (problem to
saving provisions) supercedes the commonplace regulation regulations for popularity and the
Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations Act 1971. It is viable for marriages to be
terminated via regulation without there being any divorce or annulment 9 wherein case the
common regulation policies could still follow. For the functions of the recognition guidelines,
divorces and so forth. Are divided into three categories:

Divorces granted within the British Isles.

Decrees acquired in a Court of civil jurisdiction in the British Isles are mechanically
acknowledged10. Section 44(2) states that "no divorce or annulment obtained in any a part of
the British Islands shall be appeared as effective in any a part of the UK until granted by way
of a court of civil jurisdiction." The predecessor to this provision 11 reversed the placement at
commonplace regulation.12 The function with regards to trans-country wide divorces is
doubtful and might be mentioned below. Recognition can be refused best on the premise of:-

(i) res judicata or

(ii) that there has been no subsisting marriage at the time of the decree. 13 Overseas divorces
etc received via judicial or other proceedings. Such divorces and so on. Will be regarded if

9
“For example, a Court order of presumption of death and dissolution of marriage (as in Szemik v Gryla (1965)
109 S.J. 175)”
10
Family Law Act 1986 s.44(1)
11
Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 s.16(1).
12
See e.g. Qureshi v Qureshi [1972] Fam. 173.
13
Family Law Act 1986 s.51(2). This defence is not available in respect of nullity decrees.
they may be effective inside the usa in which they are received and one of the events is either
habitually resident in, domiciled 14 in or a countrywide of the usa wherein the divorce is
acquired.

Recognition can be refused on 5 grounds:-

(i) res judicata;

(ii) lack of subsisting marriage;

(iii) insufficient steps were taken to provide word of the lawsuits to one of the parties, having
regard to the nature of the court cases and all of the instances;15

(iv) inadequate opportunity to take part in the lawsuits became given, having regard to the
character of the court cases and all the circumstances or

(v) popularity would be glaringly opposite to public coverage.

The important difference between divorces and many others. Which come inside this
category and people which fall in the 1/3 category is whether the divorce turned into received
through judicial or different lawsuits. There isn't any statutory definition of court cases. There
could now not seem to be any hassle in ascertaining whether or not there had been judicial
court cases. The difficulty arises in determining whether the steps involved in acquiring an
extrajudicial divorce are sufficient to constitute complaints.

The most useful steerage to emerge from the case law may be determined inside the speech of
Oliver LJ in Chaudhary v Chaudhary16. In the context... Of a solemn change of reputation,
[proceedings] need to import a diploma of ritual and as a minimum the involvement of some
organisation, whether or not lay or spiritual, of or regarded via the state having a feature this
is extra than simply probative, despite the fact that Quazi... Certainly suggests that it want
haven't any electricity of veto."

14
Either in the sense used in the foreign country or in the English sense (Family Law Act 1986 s.46(5)).
15
Family Law Act 1986 s.51 (3) (a) (i) For discussion of this provision see D v D (Recognition of Foreign
Divorce) [1994] 1 FLR 38.
16
[1985] 3 All ER WLR 1017 at 1031.
Applying this definition, it is clear that a Pakistani Muslim Family Ordinance talag 17, a
Jewish get18 and a Ghanian Customary Arbitration Tribunal divorce 19 are obtained by court
cases; whereas classical Muslim regulation 'bare' talags 20, other non-judicial Muslim divorces
and Thai consensual divorces are not acquired by using complaints. Which category Hindu
and African and Asian normal divorces are available in should be determined in every case
depending on whether or not there's involvement by using a country regarded 0.33
celebration, together with a regarded panchayat or tribal elders. For ease of exposition,
divorces obtained by way of lawsuits, that are ruled by using segment forty six(1), may be
called formal divorces. Those obtained otherwise than by way of complaints, which are
governed by using section 46(2), will be referred to as casual divorces.

Overseas divorces and many others. Obtained otherwise than by way of lawsuits. Informal
divorces etc. Can be acknowledged if they're effective in the us of a wherein they're received
and they are received within the us of a of domicile of the spouses. Where the spouses are
domiciled in separate nations, it's miles sufficient if the divorce and many others. Is obtained
in a country wherein one is domiciled provided that it's far known through the homestead of
the alternative and neither birthday celebration changed into habitually resident in the United
Kingdom for twelve months earlier than the divorce and so forth. Changed into received. The
following defences are available:-

(i) res judicata;

(ii) loss of subsisting marriage;

(iii) absence of an reputable document certifying the effectiveness of the divorce within the
usa in which it turned into obtained and, where appropriate, that it turned into regarded via
the law of the homestead of the other spouse or

(iv) reputation might be obviously contrary to public coverage.

Thus, it is able to be seen that recognition of informal divorces is more restrictive than that of
formal divorces in 3 essential ways. Firstly, there are less jurisdictional bases available.
Secondly, in terms of formal divorces there is no limit on the relationship of the events with

17
Quazi v Quazi [1980] A.C. 744.
18
See Berkovits (1980) 104 LQR 60.
19
D V D (Recognition of Foreign Divorce) [1994] 1 FLR 38.
20
Chaudhary v Chaudhary [1984] 3 All ER 1017.
the U.K. Thirdly, casual divorces are more likely to be refused popularity on the premise of
public policy21.

Transnational Divorces

Transnational divorces are the ones acquired by using steps taken in multiple country. In R v
Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p. Ghulam Fatima 22, the question arose
whether or not a talaq obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Pakistani Muslim
Family Law Ordinance could be recognised under the Recognition of Divorces and Legal
Separations Act 1971, where the talaq itself became suggested in England and all the
subsequent steps came about in Pakistan. The House of Lords held that the divorce was not
an distant places divorce due to the fact the wording of the statute 23 indicated that a divorce
would best be dealt with as an foreign places divorce where all court cases happened within
the identical overseas jurisdiction. It seems, but, that the provisions of Family Law Act 1986
can't be construed in this way. Thus, at the same time as there does no longer appear to were
any aim to overrule the Fatima decision, this is arguably the result of the exchange inside the
drafting.

However, it must be borne in mind that there are dicta in Fatima which propose that even if
the transnational talaq had fitted inside the scheme of the 1971 Act, it would were refused
recognition on public coverage grounds because it turned into successfully a 'mail order'
greater-judicial divorce received inEngland, which was opposite to the policy24 of what is
now s.Forty four (2) Family Law Act 1986 . However, there may be no purpose why public
coverage must save you reputation of a trans-country wide talaq in which the talaq is said in a
third country, as a minimum in which the latter recognises this type of divorce.

THE PROBLEM ILLUSTRATED

The examples given under, which might be primarily based on variations of the records of
decided instances, illustrate a wide range of situations wherein the war of regulations state of
affairs arises. In the first examples, there is connection with some of distinct problems which
may arise. Thereafter, every example concentrates on one unique difficulty. Extensive
connection with these problems could be made all through the thesis. Whilst this may
21
See derogatory comments of Cumming-Bruce LJ about bare talaqs in Chaudhary v Chaudhary [1984] 3 WLR
1017 at p. 1032.
22
[1986] AC 527
23
Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations Act 1971 section 2.
24
cf. Berkovits (1988) 104 LQR 60,
necessitate the reader in referring back to this section, it changed into determined that the
scope of the trouble might be better illustrated at this level by using starting off all of the
examples together.

Instance 1

Alexander and Natasha are Jews who had been born and brought up in Russia, where they
married. In 1991, they left Russia to to migrate to Israel. Whilst in a transit camp in Vienna,
they were given divorced with the aid of a Jewish get issued below the auspices of the
Rabbinical Court in Vienna. The get is not regarded in Austria or Russia and so could not be
recognized in England. In 1992, Alexander and Natasha arrived and purchased a home in
Israel, where the Get is acknowledged. Alexander has now married Bella, an Israeli
domiciliary, in Israel in which they have got set up their domestic.

The following questions might also rise up

(a) Is Alexander's marriage to Bella acknowledged in England?

(b) On Alexander's loss of life intestate can Natasha succeed to movable and immovable
property of Alexander's situated in England?

(c) What are Natasha's rights under the wedding settlement entered into between her and
Alexander when they married?

In each scenario if the recognition rule prevails Natasha is dealt with as nonetheless validly
married to Alexander. If the selection rule prevails, the position will depend on which
regulation governs the unique issue. Thus, when it comes to troubles governed via English
law, along with succession to immovables in England, the first marriage is still valid.
Whereas, in terms of problems governed by way of Israeli law, which includes Alexander's
capability to remarry and intestate succession to movables, the first marriage will not be
appeared as still subsisting.

Instance 2

Assume that the get is acquired after Alexander and Natasha have become domiciled and
habitually resident in Israel. After a short period of time, Alexander returns to Russia. He
resumes his Russian homestead and marries Bella, a Russian domiciliary. Assume that the
Israeli get isn't always recognised beneath Russian regulation, but is recognized below
English law.

If the recognition policies practice, the primary marriage no longer subsists and the second
marriage can be legitimate for all functions; whereas if the choice guidelines apply, the
primary marriage will be appeared as legitimate when it comes to all topics governed through
Russian law.

Instance 3

Pedro is a domiciled and habitually resident in Brazil. He is married to Evita, who is a

national of and domiciled in Argentina. When the wedding breaks down Evita will become
habitually resident in Mexico, where she later obtains a divorce from Pedro. This divorce isn't
regarded in Brazil or Argentina, however is powerful under Mexican law and prima facie
entitled to recognition under English law. Evita then marries Juan, an Argentinian
domiciliary, in Mexico. They then return to live in Argentina.

(a) Is Evita's marriage to Juan acknowledged in England?

(b) On Evita's loss of life intestate can Pedro prevail to assets of Evita's located in England?

(c) What are Evita's rights below the wedding agreement entered into among her and Pedro
once they married?

If the recognition regulations be triumphant then for all functions Evita is considered as not
married to Pedro, but instead validly married to Juan. If the choice rule prevails, then the
marriage to Pedro still subsists in relation to all problems ruled by using Argentinian
regulation and that to Juan isn't always known at all; whereas it does not subsist in terms of
issues governed by way of Mexican or English law.

Instance 4

Assume that Evita does no longer become habitually resident in Mexico, however obtains the
Mexican divorce with the aid of proxy73 and so the divorce isn't always entitled to
recognition in England. However, anticipate that it's miles entitled to recognition in
Argentina with the aid of distinctive feature of a bilateral treaty with Mexico.

If the popularity rules apply, the primary marriage will subsist for all purposes; whereas if the
choice regulations apply, the second marriage will be valid on the subject of all troubles
governed by way of Argentinian law but the first marriage will subsist on the subject of
issues governed with the aid of English regulation.

Instance 5

Jane and Kevin have been domiciled in Florida. Jane is a U.S. Citizen, however Kevin is a
country wide of Haitii, despite the fact that he has never had any actual reference to that
united states. When their marriage broke down, Kevin again to Haiti and acquired an ex parte
divorce there. Assume that this divorce is recognised in England, but not inside the USA.
Kevin now lives in England, but on a recent experience to Florida, Kevin negligently injures
Jane. Under the regulation of Florida, there may be inter-spousal immunity in tort. Assume
that this immunity continues after separation of the spouses till divorce.

The query to be replied is whether or not Jane is "unmarried" or nevertheless married for the
purposes of suing Kevin in tort. If the recognition rule is implemented she is not married to
Kevin and therefore the immunity does now not follow. If the selection rule applies, the
hassle is complex through the double-barrelled nature of the choice rule in English regulation.
Jane is single in step with the lex fori and married consistent with the lex loci delicti.

Instance 6

Lily and Michael, who're domiciled in New York, acquired a 'weekend' inter partes divorce in
Haiti. Michael is sooner or later killed in New Jersey by way of the negligence of Norman,
who's resident in England. Assume that the divorce is known in New Jersey, however now
not in England.

If the popularity rule is implemented, Lilly is eligible for wrongful death repayment because
she continues to be married to Michael. Again the position underneath the choice rule is not
sincere, due to the fact whilst she is entitled underneath the lex fori, she is not the spouse
underneath the New Jersey lex loci.

THE 'CONFLICT OF RULES' ANALYSIS

In the 'battle of regulations' analysis, the focal point is on a unmarried question. For instance,
in terms of validity of marriage, the query could be whether the birthday party remarrying is
"single" for the purposes of coming into the second one marriage? In relation to succession,
the query might be whether or not the primary partner is
nevertheless married for the purposes of succession as spouse. An suitable question can be
formulated for every state of affairs. In each case, the question may be responded either by
using making use of the applicable preference of regulation regulations or through the use of
the popularity policies to decide the validity of the divorce or nullity decree.

It is submitted that the 'struggle of guidelines" technique holds benefits over the incidental
question method.

(a). The warfare might be perceived as one among the selection of regulation regulations and
the recognition regulations of the discussion board in place of as among the recognition
policies of the discussion board and people of the lex causae. This can also seem like natural
semantics considering the fact that it's far clean that application of the forum's desire policies
outcomes in utility of the recognition policies of the lex causae. However, it's miles
counseled that the difference in evaluation is sizable. Firstly, if the conflict is seen as being
between two exceptional types of domestic rules of the forum, using discussion board policy
to resolve the warfare is effortlessly justified. Secondly, the approach have to keep away from
the discussion board's reputation regulations being preferred for in simple terms parochial
reasons.

(b) Where the question is framed as a unmarried question, it will be simpler to undertake a
'separate issue' approach and to become aware of the relevant coverage considerations.

SOLUTIONS TO THE 'CONFLICT OF RULES' PROBLEM

Adopting the 'struggle of policies' analysis, classes of solution to the trouble may be
recognized. Firstly, a worldwide rule should offer that a particular sort of rule always
prevails. Secondly, precise guidelines can be formulated to provide the favored bring about
each particular type of case. Three feasible international rules are:

1. Always opt for the recognition rule

2. Always decide on the selection of law rule

3. Always select the rule of thumb which is statutory.

CONCLUSION

In recent years, there was an increased emphasis in Private International Law on jurisdiction
and recognition regulations for inter alia the subsequent reasons. The free marketplace
philosophy of the EC has located wonderful emphasis on the free flow of judgments inside
Europe. This has required a completely new approach to the recognition of judgments in
English Private International Law underneath which judgments of Member States have to be
regarded and enforced without assessment of jurisdiction and concern to only restrained
defences. Partly as a result of Above, most latest law in terms of Private International Law
has been concerned with popularity. One hundred sixty five Law Commission
recommendations and Hague Conventions on choice of law problems have not typically
determined their way onto the Statute book.

The emergence of the doctrine of discussion board non convenience has reduced the chance
that instances may be heard in England which require utility of desire of regulation rules168
to determine the governing law. In relation to contract, questions concerning the governing
law often rise up in relation to jurisdiction169 and reputation/enforcement170 in preference
to in a natural desire of regulation context In the non-business sphere, topics in which the lex
fori applies (as an example in relation to divorce and infant custody) are these days greater
frequently litigated than topics in which the choice of regulation rule may additionally refer
to a foreign regulation (consisting of validity of marriage, rights of succession). In a few
regions, the selection of law rule is so unsure (e.G. Tort) that parties are deterred from taking
cases to Court or definitely plead English regulation.

Thus, we are able to see that the reasons for the shift in the balance in favour of jurisdiction
and recognition rules in large part replicate realistic and business realities as opposed to any
notion that such guidelines have intrinsically extra advantage or weight than desire of
regulation regulations. Therefore, in searching for a global answer, we should face up to any
subconscious bias in favour of recognition rules due to latest tendencies and depend upon a
proper analysis of the theoretical basis for every type of rule.