How ‘International’ Should a Third Conflicts Restatement Be in Tort and Contract
23 Pages Posted: 23 May 2017 Last revised: 24 May 2017
Date Written: May 20, 2017
Abstract
From an international standpoint, American conflicts law presents two principal difficulties. One is a chaotic and unpredictable body of law of personal (judicial) jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction in the U.S., as a result of the Supreme Court's continuing contraction of the "minimum contacts" test, also leaves plaintiffs injured in the U.S. by foreign defendants, taking advantage of the U.S. market, with no U.S. forum. The other problem is the unpredictability of U.S. choice of law. However, choice-of-law principles in the U.S. seem to be slowly coalescing into at least quasi-rules. This article argues that while the Third Restatement can do little about personal jurisdiction ― because the U.S. Supreme Court treats it as an issue of constitutional law ― it can give a significant boost to predictability in choice of law by restating the emerging quasi rules.
Keywords: Minimum Contacts, Choice of Law, Conflict of Laws, Private International Law, Restatement (Third) Conflict of Laws, Personal Jurisdiction, Judicial Jurisdiction
JEL Classification: K13, K20, K40, K41, K49
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation