Modern Changes in the Conflict-of-Laws Methodology: The Blending of the Savignian Multilateralism, the American Unilateralism, and the Recognition of Legal Relationships

Maria Anna Zachariasiewicz; Maciej Zachariasiewicz

doi:10.31261/PPPM.2024.35.02

Published: 2025-07-31

Modern Changes in the Conflict-of-Laws Methodology: The Blending of the Savignian Multilateralism, the American Unilateralism, and the Recognition of Legal Relationships

Maria Anna Zachariasiewicz

, Maciej Zachariasiewicz

Section: Articles

https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2024.35.02

Abstract

Over the centuries, the preference for a conflict-of-laws methodology was subject to twists and turns. A number of methods coexisted and continue to compete today. First, the unilateralism involves determining the spatial scope of application of either the forum’s own law or foreign law. This is achieved through the use of one-sided choice-of-law rules or through the functional interpretation of specific substantive provisions. Second, the multilateralism assumes a neutral and territorial localization of the legal situation in question. It seeks to identify the legal system most closely connected to the matter, based on objective connecting factors. The third approach, which is sufficiently distinct from the first two to warrant separate analysis, boils down to recognition of legal events crystallized under foreign law. The article reviews some of the most important trends and developments in the conflict-of-laws, occurring during the second half of the XX century and the first decades of the XXI century, on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. At the outset, it briefly introduces characteristics of the multilateral method as understood in Europe and the unilateralism, focusing on its American version. An attempt is made to show how the unilateral and multilateral methods are intertwined in the US conflicts of laws, with a particular attention devoted to the draft of the Restatement (Third) of the Conflict of Laws. The attention is then transferred back to Europe, putting an emphasis on the expressions of unilateralism, not only in their classic forms of the public policy exceptions and overriding mandatory rules, but also hybrid instruments which essentially constitute a mixture of the multilateral technique and a substantive-result-orientation. The article deals also with recognition as a conflicts method, focusing on the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which effectively ignores the conflict-of-laws analysis, because it is guided by a different imperative, namely to safeguard the free movement within the Union. The article concludes with a suggestion that — although the methodological starting points and accents undoubtedly differ on either side of the Atlantic — a common feature of contemporary developments in conflict-of-laws theory, both in Europe and the United States, is the blend of unilateral and multilateral approaches to solving the conflict-of-law problems. A fundamental distinction between European and American approaches, however, lies in the European reluctance to replace the multilateral method with a unilateral one. The prevailing view in Europe remains that unilateral methodologies may be employed only in exceptional cases, serving as supplementary or corrective mechanisms within the broader framework of traditional conflict-of-laws system, and only in relation to specific institutions or techniques designed to address particular deficiencies. The article posits, nevertheless, that the role of these mechanisms has gained increasing prominence within the traditional framework of private international law. Moreover, it is essential to recognize that they reflect a unilateral methodology grounded in a conceptual premise fundamentally distinct from that of traditional conflict-of-law rules based on neutral connecting factors. Specifically, this alternative approach centers on delineating the spatial scope of application of a substantive rule — whether domestic or foreign — that asserts its relevance, without resorting to a multilateral determination of the applicable law governing the legal relationship in question. The article also attempts to show how the American Restatement (Second) and the current Draft of the Restatement (Third) represent hybrid constructs that blend the “revolutionary” doctrines of interest analysis with elements that remain rooted in traditional, multilateral choice-of-law rules. The authors argue in this context, that while there is no inherent contradiction in combining unilateral and multilateral methodologies within a single conflict-of-laws framework, this can satisfactory be done only if the distinct methodologies are kept separate and understood as having very different premises, with a clear defined role and hierarchy within the system. Both the existing and planned Restatements fail to achieve clarity in that regard, as often reminded by the American conflict scholars themselves.

Keywords:

methodology in private international law , conflict of laws , unilateralism , multilateralism , recognition of legal relationships

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Zachariasiewicz, M. A., & Zachariasiewicz, M. (2025). Modern Changes in the Conflict-of-Laws Methodology: The Blending of the Savignian Multilateralism, the American Unilateralism, and the Recognition of Legal Relationships. Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego (“Problems of Private International law”), 39–108. https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2024.35.02

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The Copyright Owners of the submitted texts grant the Reader the right to use the pdf documents under the provisions of the Creative Commons 4.0 International License: Attribution-Share-Alike (CC BY-SA). The user can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose.

1. License

The University of Silesia Press provides immediate open access to journal’s content under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

2. Author’s Warranties

The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s.

If the article contains illustrative material (drawings, photos, graphs, maps), the author declares that the said works are of his authorship, they do not infringe the rights of the third party (including personal rights, i.a. the authorization to reproduce physical likeness) and the author holds exclusive proprietary copyrights. The author publishes the above works as part of the article under the licence "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International".

ATTENTION! When the legal situation of the illustrative material has not been determined and the necessary consent has not been granted by the proprietary copyrights holders, the submitted material will not be accepted for editorial process. At the same time the author takes full responsibility for providing false data (this also regards covering the costs incurred by the University of Silesia Press and financial claims of the third party).

3. User Rights

Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the article for any purpose, provided they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.

4. Co-Authorship

If the article was prepared jointly with other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.

I hereby declare that in the event of withdrawal of the text from the publishing process or submitting it to another publisher without agreement from the editorial office, I agree to cover all costs incurred by the University of Silesia in connection with my application.

References

Audit B., A Continental Lawyer Looks at Contemporary American Choice-of-Law Principles, “The American Journal of Comparative Law” 1979, vol. 27.
Google Scholar

Ballarino T., Romano G. P., Le principe de proximité chez Paul Lagarde, in: Le droit international privé: esprit et méthodes. Mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Lagarde, Dalloz, Paris 2005.
Google Scholar

Bantekas I., Transnational Talaq (Divorce) in English Courts: Law Meets Culture, “J. Islamic St. Prac. Int’l L.” 2013, vol. 9.
Google Scholar

Barnard C., The UK and Posted Workers: The Effect of Commission v Luxembourg on the Territorial Application of British Labour Law: Case c-319/06 Commission v Luxembourg, Judgment 19 June 2008, “Industrial Law Journal” 2009, vol. 38.
Google Scholar

Basedow J., EU private law: anatomy of a growing legal order, Intersentia 2021.
Google Scholar

Basedow J., Hopt K. J, Zimmermann R., The Max Planck Encyclopedia of European Private Law, 2 Bände, Oxford University Press 2012.
Google Scholar

Basedow J., Rühl G., Ferrari F., De Miguel Asensio P. A., Encyclopedia of private international law, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham 2017.
Google Scholar

Bermann G. A., Public Law in the Conflict of Laws, “Am. J. Comp. L. Supp.” 1986, vol. 34.
Google Scholar

Blessing M., Impact of the extraterritorial application of mandatory rules of law on international contracts. Swiss Commercial Law Series. Vol. 9, Basel—Frankfurt am Main 1999.
Google Scholar

Blom J., Public Policy in Private International Law and Its Evolution in Time, “Netherlands International Law Review” 2003, vol. 50.
Google Scholar

Bodnar A., Obywatelstwo Unii Europejskiej a ochrona praw podstawowych obywateli państw członkowskich, “Zeszyty OIDE” 2008, vol. 9.
Google Scholar

Bogue R. C., Vazquez C. M., Choice of Law as Statutory Interpretation: The Rise and Decline of Governmental Interest Analysis, 2024, https://www.ssrn.com [accessed: 1.01.2025].
Google Scholar

Bonomi A., Mandatory Rules in Private International Law. The quest for uniformity of decisions in a global environment, “Yearbook of Private international law” 1999, vol. 1.
Google Scholar

Boroń J., Dąbroś M., Dziadek Z., Metoda analizy funkcjonalnej — równoprawna metoda kolizyjna?, 2014, vol. 15.
Google Scholar

Brilmayer L., Governmental Interest Analysis: A House Without Foundations, “Ohio St. LJ” 1985, vol. 46.
Google Scholar

Brilmayer L., Interest analysis and the myth of legislative intent, “Michigan Law Review” 1980, vol. 78.
Google Scholar

Brilmayer L., What I Like Most about the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts, and Why it Should not Be Thrown out With the Bathwater, “American Journal of International Law Unbound” 2016, vol. 110.
Google Scholar

Brilmayer L., Listwa D. B., A Common Law of Choice of Law, “Fordham L. Rev.” 2020, vol. 89.
Google Scholar

Brilmayer L., Listwa D. B., Continuity and Change in the Draft Restatement (Third) of Conflict Laws: One Step Forward and Two Steps Back?, “Yale LJF” 2018, vol. 128.
Google Scholar

Brilmayer L., Listwa D. B., A Theory-Less Restatement for Conflict of Laws, Transnational Litigation Blog, https://tlblog.org/a-theory-less-restatement -for-conflict-of-laws/ [accessed: 1.01.2025].
Google Scholar

Bydlinski F., System und Prinzipien des Privatrechts, Wien—New York 1996.
Google Scholar

Calliess G.-P. (ed.), Rome Regulations: Commentary on the European Rules of the Conflict of Laws, Alphen aan den Rijn 2011.
Google Scholar

Cuniberti G., Conflict of laws: a comparative approach: text and cases, Edward Elgar Publishing 2022.
Google Scholar

Currie B., The Constitution and the the Choice of Law: Governmental Interests and the Judicial Function, “U. Chi. L. Rev.” 1958, vol. 26.
Google Scholar

Currie B., The Disinterested Third State, “Law and Contemporary Problems” 1963, vol. 28.
Google Scholar

Currie B., Notes on Methods and Objectives in the Conflict of Laws, “Duke LJ” 1959.
Google Scholar

Czepelak M., Zasada najściślejszego związku jako reguła kierunkowa prawa prywatnego międzynarodowego, “Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego” 2016, vol. 18.
Google Scholar

Dorabialska A., Między normą kolizyjną a instytucją uznania — nazwisko w orzecznictwie TS, “EPS” 2011, vol. 3.
Google Scholar

Dorabialska A., Uznanie stosunku prawnego powstałego za granicą, “Państwo i Prawo” 2012, No. 4.
Google Scholar

Dunbaugh Ill F. M., Negligence-Guest Statute-Right of Recovery, “Miami LQ” 1956, vol. 11.
Google Scholar

Enright M., The Beginning of the Sharpness: Loyalty, Citizenship and Muslim Divorce Practice, “International Journal of Law in Context” 2013, vol. 9.
Google Scholar

Evrigenis D., Interest Analysis: A Continental Perspective, “Ohio St. LJ” 1985, vol. 46.
Google Scholar

Fallon M., Meeusen J., Private International Law in the European Union and the Exception of Mutual Recognition, “Yearbook of Private international law” 2002, vol. 4.
Google Scholar

Fawcett J., Carruthers J., North P., Cheshire, North & Fawcett: Private International Law, Oxford University Press (OUP) 2008.
Google Scholar

Francescakis P., Quelques précisions sur les “lois d’application immédiate” et leurs rapports avec les règles de conflits de lois, “Revue critique de droit international privé” 1966, vol. 55.
Google Scholar

Francq S., Public Policy and Overriding Mandatory Rules as Mirrors of the EU System of Thought and Integration: On the ‘Europeanness’ of Exceptions and Oddities, in: How European is European Private International Law, eds. J. von Hein, E.-M. Kieninger, G. Rühl, Intersentia, Cambridge 2019.
Google Scholar

Fulchiron H., Le mariage entre personnes de même sexe en droit français: refus et/ou reconnaissance?, “Revue internationale de droit comparé” 2010, vol. 62.
Google Scholar

Giunchi E., Muslim Family Law in Western Courts, Routledge, London 2014.
Google Scholar

Guedj T. G., The Theory of the Lois de Police, A Functional Trend in Continental Private International Law — A Comparative Analysis with Modern American Theories, “The American Journal of Comparative Law” 1991, vol. 39.
Google Scholar

Hay P., European Conflicts Law After the American Revolution-Comparative Notes, “U. Ill. L. Rev.” 2015, No. 5.
Google Scholar

Hay P., On the Road to a Third American Restatement of Conflicts Law, “Praxis des internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts” 2022, No. 3.
Google Scholar

Hay P., Borches P., Symeonides S., Conflict of Laws, West 2010.
Google Scholar

Hübner L., Die Integration der primärrechtlichen Anerkennungsmethode in das IPR, “Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht” 2021, vol. 85.
Google Scholar

Juenger F., American and European Conflicts Law, “Am. J. Comp. L.” 1982, vol. 30, No. 1.
Google Scholar

Juenger F., A Third Conflicts Restatement, “Indiana Law Journal” 2000, vol. 75.
Google Scholar

Kadner Graziano T., Reymond M. J., The Application of the Rome I and Rome II Regulations before the Court of Justice of the European Union, in: Rome I and Rome II in Practice, ed. E. Guinchard, Intersentia, Cambridge 2020.
Google Scholar

Katz E., How Automobile Accidents Stalled the Development of Interspousal Liability, “Virginia Law Review” 2008, vol. 94.
Google Scholar

Kegel G., Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Laws and the American Reformers, “The American Journal of Comparative Law” 1979, vol. 27.
Google Scholar

Kessedjian C., Le principe de proximité vingt ans après, in: Le droit international privé: esprit et méthodes, Mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Lagarde, Dalloz, Paris 2005.
Google Scholar

Kim M. K., Overriding Mandatory Rules in International Commercial Disputes: Korean and Comparative Law, Bloomsbury Publishing 2025.
Google Scholar

Korn H. L., The Choice-of-Law Revolution: A Critique, “Colum. L. Rev.” 1983, vol. 83.
Google Scholar

Krzysztofek-Strzała K., Dopuszczalność stosowania prawa szariatu w zakresie spraw rozwodowych i spadkowych w prawodawstwie Unii Europejskiej, “Studia z Prawa Wyznaniowego” 2016, vol. 19.
Google Scholar

Kuipers J.-J., Cartesio and Grunkin-Paul: Mutual Recognition as a Vested Rights Theory Based on Party Autonomy in Private Law, “Eur. J. Legal Stud.” 2008, vol. 2.
Google Scholar

Kuipers J.-J., EU law and Private International Law: The Interrelationship in Contractual Obligations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2011.
Google Scholar

Lagarde P., The European Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations: An Apologia, “Va. J. Int’l L.” 1981, vol. 22.
Google Scholar

Lagarde P., Le principe de proximité dans le droit international privé contemporain: cours général de droit international privé, Martinus Nijhoff 1986.
Google Scholar

Lagarde P., Public Policy, in: International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law: vol. III — Private International Law, ed. K. Lipstein, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1986.
Google Scholar

Lagarde P., La reconnaissance des situations en droit international privé: actes du colloque international de la Haye du 18 janvier 2013, Pédone, Paris 2013.
Google Scholar

Lando O., The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, “Common Market Law Review” 1987, vol. 24.
Google Scholar

Levin H. Y., What Do We Really Know about the American Choice-of-Law Revolution, “Stanford Law Review” 2007, vol. 60.
Google Scholar

Lutzi T., The Scope of the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act: Thoughts on the Conflict of Laws, “Dalloz IP/IT, Forthcoming” 2023.
Google Scholar

Machnikowski P., Gniewek E. (eds.), Zarys prawa cywilnego, C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2018.
Google Scholar

Magnus U., Mankowski P. (eds.), Brussels I Regulation, Sellier, Köln 2007.
Google Scholar

Magnus U., Mankowski P. (eds.), Rome I Regulation, Sellier, Köln 2017.
Google Scholar

Martiny D., Private International Law Aspects of Same-Sex Couples under German Law, in: Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in Europe. National, Cross-Border and European Perspectives, eds. K. Boele-Woelki, A. Fuchs, Intersentia, Antwerp 2012.
Google Scholar

Mataczyński M., Przepisy wymuszające swoje zastosowanie w prawie prywatnym międzynarodowym, Zakamycze, Kraków 2005.
Google Scholar

Meeusen J., Functional Recognition of Same-Sex Parenthood for the Benefit of Mobile Union Citizens — Brief Comments on the CJEU’s Pancharevo Judgment (J. Meeusen — ECJ, 14 December 2021, C-490/20), https://gedip-eg pil.eu/fr/2022/functional-recognition-of-same-sex-parenthood-for-the-benefit -of-mobile-union-citizens-brief-comments-on-the-cjeus-pancharevo-judgment/ [accessed: 1.01.2025].
Google Scholar

Melcher M., (Mutual) Recognition of Registered Relationships via EU Private International Law, “Journal of Private International Law” 2013, vol. 9.
Google Scholar

Meškić Z., Duraković A., Alihodžić J., Hassan S., Handalić Š., Recognition of Talaq in European States — in Search of a Uniform Approach, “Journal of Private International Law” 2023, vol. 19.
Google Scholar

Michaels R., The New European Choice-of-Law Revolution, “Tul. L. Rev.” 2007, vol. 82.
Google Scholar

Mills A., The Confluence of Public and Private International Law: Justice, Pluralism and Subsidiarity in the International Constitutional Ordering of Private Law, Cambridge University Press 2009.
Google Scholar

Mills A., The Dimensions of Public Policy in Private International Law, “Journal of Private International Law” 2008, vol. 4.
Google Scholar

Mills A., Party Autonomy in Private International Law, Cambridge University Press 2018.
Google Scholar

Muller C., European Public Policy and Restriction of Free Movement of Persons in EU Law, “European papers” 2024, vol. 9.
Google Scholar

Pajor T., Metoda analizy interesów w amerykańskim prawie kolizyjnym odpowiedzialności deliktowej, “Studia Prawno-Ekonomiczne” 1987, vol. 39.
Google Scholar

Pasqua M., AG De La Tour’s Opinion in Wojewoda Mazowiecki on Poland’s Refusal to Transcribe a Same-Sex Marriage Certificate, The EAPIL blog, https://eapil.org/2025/04/22/ag-de-la-tours-opinion-in-wojewoda-mazowiecki -on-polands-refusal-to-transcribe-a-same-sex-marriage-certificate/comment -page-1/ [accessed: 1.01.2025].
Google Scholar

Patocchi P., Characteristic Performance: A New Myth In the Conflict of Laws? Some Comments on a Recent Concept In the Swiss and European Private International Law of Contract, in: Études de droit international en l’honneur de Pierre Lalive, eds. Ch. Dominicé, R. Patry, C. Reymond, Basel—Frankfurt am Men 1993.
Google Scholar

Pazdan M., Prawo prywatne międzynarodowe, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2017.
Google Scholar

Pazdan M. (ed.), System Prawa Prywatnego. Vol. 20A. Prawo prywatne międzynarodowe, C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2014.
Google Scholar

Pazdan M. (ed.), System Prawa Prywatnego. Vol. 20B. Prawo prywatne międzynarodowe, C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2014.
Google Scholar

Pilich M., Die Anerkennung der quasi-ehelichen Verhältnisse in Polen aus der kollisions-und europarechtlichen Perspektive, “Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht” 2011, vol. 8.
Google Scholar

Plender R., Wilderspin M., The European private international law of obligations, Sweet & Maxwell, London 2009.
Google Scholar

Popiołek W., Styk prawa prywatnego i publicznego z kolizyjnoprawnego punktu widzenia, “Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego” 2016, vol. 18.
Google Scholar

Radwański Z., Olejniczak A., Prawo cywilne — część ogólna, C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2023.
Google Scholar

Reese W. L., Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second, “Law and Contemporary Problems” 1963, vol. 28, No. 4.
Google Scholar

Rogacka-Łukasik A., Czy przepisy regulujące warunki zatrudnienia pracowników delegowanych, jako przepisy wymuszające swoje zastosowanie, zapewniają ochronę pracownika?, “Roczniki Administracji i Prawa” 2021.
Google Scholar

Roosevelt III K., Jones B., What a Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws Can Do, “American Journal of International Law Unbound” 2016, vol. 110.
Google Scholar

Roosevelt III K., Jones B. R., The Draft Restatement (Third) of Conflict Laws: A Response to Brilmayer & Listwa, “Yale LJF” 2018, vol. 128.
Google Scholar

Savigny F. C. V., System des heutigen römischen Rechts, Band VIII, 1849.
Google Scholar

Skoczyński J., Wpływ prawa wspólnotowego na polskie prawo prywatne międzynarodowe w dziedzinie stosunków pracy, in: Europeizacja polskiego prawa pracy, ed. W. Sanetra, Warszawa 2004.
Google Scholar

Sokołowski M., Współczesne koncepcje amerykańskie w dziedzinie wyboru prawa właściwego na przykładzie zobowiązań deliktowych (przegląd doktryny i orzecznictwa), “Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Społeczny” 1980, vol. 43, No. 3.
Google Scholar

Sołtysiński S., Lex maximi in hac causa momenti: oczekiwana rewolucja czy niepożądany przyczynek w teorii prawa kolizyjnego?, “Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny” 1974, No. 3.
Google Scholar

Symeonides S., The American Choice-of-Law Revolution in the Courts: Past, Present and Future, Martinus Nijhoff 2016.
Google Scholar

Symeonides S. C., The Choice-of-Law Revolution Fifty Years after Currie: An End and a Beginning, “U. Ill. L. Rev.” 2015, No. 2.
Google Scholar

Szabados T., Economic Sanctions in EU Private International Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford 2020.
Google Scholar

Świerczyński M., Prawo właściwe dla zobowiązań deliktowych wynikających z naruszenia zasad ochrony danych osobowych przyjętych w RODO, “Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego” 2020, vol. 27.
Google Scholar

Tryfonidou A., Awaiting the ECJ Judgment in Coman: Towards the Cross-Border Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages in the EU, EU Law Analysis, http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com [accessed: 1.01.2025].
Google Scholar

Van Den Brink M., What’s in a Name Case? Some Lessons for the Debate Over the Free Movement of Same-Sex Couples Within the EU, “German Law Journal” 2016, vol. 17.
Google Scholar

Vischer F., Revolutionary Ideas and the Swiss Statute on Private International Law, in: Convergence and Divergence in Private International Law — Liber Amicorum Kurt Siehr, eds. K. Boele-Woelki, T. Einhorn, D. Girsberger, S. Symeonides, Eleven-Schulthess, The Hague—Zürich 2010.
Google Scholar

Von Hein J., Something Old and Something Borrowed, but Nothing New? Rome II and the European Choice-of-Law Evolution, “Tul. L. Rev.” 2007, vol. 82.
Google Scholar

Wąż P., Delegowanie pracowników do innego państwa celem świadczenia usług, Wydawnictwo CH Beck, Warszawa 2011.
Google Scholar

Weintraub R. J., At Least, to Do No Harm: Does the Second Restatement of Conflicts Meet the Hippocratic Standard, “Md. L. Rev.” 1997, vol. 56.
Google Scholar

Wilman F., The Digital Services Act (DSA)-An Overview, 2022, https://www.ssrn.com [accessed: 1.01.2025].
Google Scholar

Wojewoda M., Transkrypcja aktu urodzenia dziecka, które zostało uznane za granicą, „Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego” 2017, vol. 26.
Google Scholar

Wojewoda M., Transkrypcja zagranicznego dokumentu stanu cywilnego — kilka uwag na temat ewolucji konstrukcji w prawie polskim, “Metryka” 2016, No. 2.
Google Scholar

Wojewoda M., Zakres prawa właściwego dla zobowiązań umownych. Nowa regulacja kolizyjna w konwencji rzymskiej z 1980 r., Wolters Kluwer 2007.
Google Scholar

Wowerka A., Zakres zastosowania statutu personalnego spółki, CH Beck, Warszawa 2019.
Google Scholar

Vischer F., “Revolutionary Ideas” and the Swiss Statute on Private Inetranational Law, in: Convergence and Divergence in Private International Law — Liber Amicorum Kurt Siehr, eds. K. Boele-Woelki et al., The Hague—Zürich 2010.
Google Scholar

Vitta E., The Impact in Europe of the American “Conflict Revolution”, “American Journal of Comparative Law” 1982, vol. 30.
Google Scholar

Zacharasiewicz M., Klauzula porządku publicznego jako instrument ochrony materialnoprawnych interesów i wartości fori, C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2018.
Google Scholar

Zacharasiewicz M., The lease of commercial premises in time of COVID-19: The decision of the german bundesgerichtshof of 12 January 2022 from a Polish perspective, “European Review of Private Law” 2023, vol. 31.
Google Scholar

Zacharasiewicz M., Odmowa uznania w Polsce rozwodu talaq na tle prawnoporównawczym, “Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego” 2020, vol. 27.
Google Scholar

Zacharasiewicz M., Transkrypcja aktów urodzenia dzieci par jednopłciowych, “Studia Prawno-Ekonomiczne” 2019, vol. 111.
Google Scholar

Zacharasiewicz M., Szpunar M., Swoboda przedsiębiorczości i swoboda świadczenia usług a działania związków zawodowych — glosa do wyroku ETS z 18.12.2007 r. w sprawie C-341/05 Laval un Partneri Ltd przeciwko Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet i inni oraz do wyroku z 11.12.2007 r., “Europejski Przegląd Sądowy” 2008.
Google Scholar

Zachariasiewicz M. A., Metoda unilateralna w prawie prywatnym międzynarodowym. Uwagi na marginesie orzeczenia TSUE w sprawie C-135/15 Republika Grecji przeciwko Grigoriosowi Nikiforidisowi, “Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego” 2021, vol. 19.
Google Scholar

Zachariasiewicz M. A., Nowa ustawa o prawie prywatnym międzynarodowym a małżeństwa i związki osób tej samej płci, “Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego” 2012, vol. 11.
Google Scholar

Zachariasiewicz M. A., Nowe prądy w kolizjonistyce Stanów Zjednoczonych i ich wpływ na naukę eurpejską, “Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego” 1995.
Google Scholar

Zachariasiewicz M. A., Nowe tendencje w prawie prywatnym międzynarodowym Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki: ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem stosunków umownych, “Studia Prawnicze” 1980.
Google Scholar

Zarra G., Imperativeness in Private International Law, Asser Press, Springer 2021.
Google Scholar

Published: 2020-11-26

ISSN: 1896-7604

eISSN: 2353-9852

10.31261/PPGOS

Publisher

Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego | University of Silesia Press

Licence CC

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Submit