Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Strecker, S (2014)
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
This thesis researches EU private international law rules relating to contracts, including its historical development, its rules and its policy objectives. In order to evaluate EU private international law and its policy objectives, English and Belgian private international law rules are investigated as exemplars of domestic law systems within the EU. In this approach lies one of the unique contributions to knowledge of the project. In particular the research takes an original and unique approach by investigating issues from an EU as well as a comparative national perspective. English and Belgian law represent different legal histories and systems (common law and civil law) and are therefore representative of the types of compromises that have to be made at an EU level. Moreover, the relevant legal instruments in the area of research have undergone some changes, some of which are significant and very recent. Particular reference must be made here to the Brussels I Regulation recast 2012. Due to its recent nature, very little publications are available, a gap the research wants to help fill by a detailed textual analysis of the relevant provisions. Finally, there is as of yet little detailed research on the EU’s policy objectives in the area of private international law. To some extent this holds true for English and Belgian law as well. The research aims to help fill that gap.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • McClean, D. and Ruiz Abou-Nigm, V., 2012. Morris. The Conflict of Laws. 8th ed.
    • Nygh, P., 1999. Autonomy in International Contracts. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    • North, P. and Fawcett, J.J., 1999. Cheshire and North's Private International Law. 13th ed. London: Butterworths.
    • Pearce, D., Campbell, E. and Harding, D., 1987. Australian Law Schools: A Discipline Assessment for the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing.
    • Pertegás, M., 2005. De EEX-Verordening in de praktijk: enkele knelpunten. In Internationale aspecten van de verschillende taken van het recht, Permanente Vorming Orde van Advocaten, 157. Kortrijk: Larcier.
    • Plender, R. and Wilderspin, M., 2001. The European Contracts Convention. The Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations. 2nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
    • Plender, R. And Wilderspin, M., 2009. The European Private International Law of Obligations. 3rd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
    • Richardson, J.J., ed., 2006. European Union: Power and Policy-Making. 3rd ed.
    • Rogerson, P., 2013. Collier's Conflict of Laws. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Stone P., 2006. EU Private International Law. Harmonization of Laws. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
    • Stone, P., 2010. EU Private International Law. 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Elgar European Law.
    • Symeonides, S., 2010. Party Autonomy in Rome I and II from a Comparative Perspective. In Boele-Woelki, K., et al., 2010. Convergence and Divergence in Private International Law. Liber Amicorum Kurt Siehr. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.
    • Lando, O. and Nielsen, P.A., 2008. The Rome I Regulation. Common Market Law Review, 45(6), 1687.
    • Langer, D., 2000. Arranging and Concluding Contracts on the Internet. Choice of Law and Consumer Protection. The European Legal Forum, 2, 117. Available via: http://www.simons-law.com/library/pdf/e/148.pdf.
    • Magnus, U., 2009. Article 4 Rome I Regulation: The Applicable Law in the Absence of Choice. In Ferrari, F. and Leible, S., 2009. Rome I Regulation: The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations in Europe. Munich: Sellier European Law Publishers.
    • McLachlan, C., 2004. International Litigation and the Reworking of the Conflict of Laws.
    • Law Quarterly Review [online], 120, 580. Available via: Westlaw.
    • Mance, J., 2004. Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements and European Ideals. Law Quarterly Review [online], 120, 357. Available via: Westlaw.
    • Merrett, L., 2006. The Enforcement of Jurisdiction Agreements within the Brussels Regime. International and Comparative Law Quarterly [online], 55(2), 315. Available via: Westlaw.
    • Merrett, L., 2009. Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation: a Comprehensive Code for Jurisdiction Agreements? International and Comparative Law Quarterly [online], p. 545.
    • Morse, C.J.G., 1982. The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations. Yearbook of European Law, 2, 107.
    • Nurmela, I., 2005. Sanctity of Dispute Resolution Clauses: Strategic Coherence of the Brussels System. Journal of Private International Law [online], 1(1), 115. Available via: HeinOnline.
    • Oren, J., 2003. International Jurisdiction over Consumer Contracts in E-Europe.
    • International and Comparative Law Quarterly [online], 52(3), 665. Available via: Westlaw.
    • Brinkibon Ltd. v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft M.B.H. [1983] 2 A.C.
    • British South Africa Co. v De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. [1910] 1 Ch. 354.
    • Cantieri Navali Riunti S.P.A. v N.V. Omne Justitia and Others (the “Stolt Marmaro”) [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 428.
    • Kronhofer v Maier [2004], E.C.R. I-6009.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article