Comparative Law Researches

Comparative Law Researches

Criterion of Closest Connection to applicable law for secured transaction ( A comparative study of European ::::::union:::::: law, American law and Iranian Law)

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
hassan alipour 1
Mohammad Issaei Tafreshi 2
Morteza Shahbazinia 3
mahmood sadeghi 3
1 p.h.d studend in private law Tarbiat Modarres University
2 Professor of Private law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate professor, Department, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
The globalization of economic exchanges has led to different ways of securing transactions, among which the collateral instrument that is the cause of American rights. Although major international exchanges are based on sample contracts, and in practice private international law is fading, the determination of the law governing the contract is still one of the legal concerns of international trade. The principle of the will to determine the law governing the contract is fully accepted. However, it is probable that the contract for the selection of the law will be postponed for various reasons. This has led to the establishment of the closest relationship to determining the law. And in the recent regulations, both within the European ::::::union:::::: and in the US legal system, it is well-documented. The theory has grown to such an extent that it is sometimes regarded as exceptional to the principle of sovereignty of will. It is inevitable to set precise criteria for the abovementioned criteria, in particular in relation to the contractual certainty, which are discussed in the forthcoming article in the context of specific regulations in the field of bail-out transactions.
Keywords
secured right"
"Closest Connection"
"conflict of law"
" Regulation Rome 1 "
"most significant relationship"

Subjects


12-2. انگلیسی

Clive M. schmitthoff . The English Conflict of Laws- Stevens, Edition 3 , 1954.
F.J. Alferez, The Rome I Regulation: Much Ado About Nothing2 European Legal Forum , 2008.
Grant Gilmore, The Secured Transactions Article of the Commercial Code, 16 Law and Contemporary Problems 27-48, Winter 1951.
Gungor, The Principle of Proximity in Contractual Obligations: The New Turkish Law on Private Inter-national Law and International Civil Procedure, 2008.
J. Hill, the Law Relating to International Commercial Disputes, 2nd edition, Lloyds of London Press, London, 1998.
Jan Hendrik, Daihuisen on International Commercial. Financial and Trade Law, Oxford, Portland/Oregon 2000.
James J. White, “Choice - of - Law in Secured Transactions”, Avalable at:http://web4.uwindsor.ca/units/law/CARC/main.nsf/0/e096c2495caf982b852570fb00737f6a/$FILE/White.pdf
Lindberg. A., Jurisdiction on the Internet—The European Perspective: An Analysis of Conventions, Statutes and Case Law, American Bar Association, 20 July 1997, .
M. Bogdan, Contracts in Cyberspace and the Regulation ‘Rome I’, 2009.
Mario Giuliano and Paul Lagarde , Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, [1980] OJ C282/1 (the Giuliano and Lagarde Report).
Marshall, Brooke Adele, «Reconsidering The Proper Law of The Contract», Melbourne Journal of International Law, 2012.
P. Mankowski, The Principle of Charac-teristic Performance Revisited Yet Again in Convergence and Divergence in Private International Law, Liber Amicorum Kurt Siehr, Schultess and Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, 2010.
P.R. Williams, The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, 1986.
Ralf Michaels, Post-Critical Private International Law: From Politics to Technique, Horatia Muir Watt & Diego P. Fernández Arroyo eds., 2014.
24. Shuhong, Y.; Yongping, X.; Baoshi, W, The closest connection doctrine in the conflict of laws in china,Chinese journal of international law, 8, 2, 2009.
25. Tang, Zheng, “Law Applicable in the Absence of Choice - The New Article 4 of the Rome I Regulation, Legislation and Reports”, The Author, Journal compilation, The Modern Law Review Limited , 2008.
26. Case C-381/98, Ingmar GB Ltd. v. Eaton Leonard Techs. Inc., 2000 E.C.R. I-9325