Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T10:31:52.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teaching by historicising private international law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2022

Roxana Banu
Roxana Banu*
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Private International Law, Queen Mary University School of Law, UK
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: r.banu@qmul.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper proposes a historical contextual pedagogy for private international, which helps students reflect on the impact of the field's legal techniques in different historical contexts. To emphasise the richness of a historical lens, the paper reflects on the development and use of private international law tort rules in a colonial, intellectual and gender historical context. By taking Phillips v. Eyre as a reference, the goal is to illustrate how the canonical cases in private international law can serve as entry points towards a broader historical contextualisation of private international law, beyond the doctrine, though inspired by it.

Keywords

conflict of lawsprivate international lawcolonial historyhistorical pedagogy
Type
Special Issue Article
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 18 , Special Issue 4: Contextual Legal Pedagogy , December 2022 , pp. 383 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Banu, R (2013) Assuming regulatory authority for transnational torts: an interstate affair? A historical perspective on the Canadian Private International Law Tort Rules. 31 Windsor Yearbook on Access to Justice 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banu, R (2018) Nineteenth Century Perspectives on Private International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banu, R (forthcoming 2022 ) Forgotten female figures in private international law: the international social service. In Tallgren I (ed.), Portraits of ‘Women’ in International Law: Names and Forgotten Faces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Banu, R, Green, M and Michaels, R (forthcoming 2023) Philosophical Foundations of Private International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baty, T (1914) Polarized Law. London: Steven and Haynes.Google Scholar
Baxi, U (1986) Inconvenient Forum and Convenient Catastrophe: The Bhopal Case. New Delhi: Indian Law Institute.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R (1968) Comments on the unity of law doctrine (a response). In Kiefer, H and Munitz, M (eds), Ethics and Social Justice. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Feist, H (1938) The extraterritorial effect of some foreign marriage prohibitions. Transactions of the Grotius Society 24, 81–103.Google Scholar
Horowitz, H (1970) Choice-of-law decisions involving slavery: ‘interest analysis’ in the early nineteenth century. UCLA Law Review 17, 587.Google Scholar
Jitta, J (1890) La Methode du Droit International Prive. The Hague: Belifante.Google Scholar
Kang, YH and Kendall, S (2019) Legal materiality. In Stern, S, Del Mar, M and Meyer, B (eds), Oxford Handbook of Law and Humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kolsky, E (2010) Colonial Justice in British India: White Violence and the Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kostal, RW (2005) A Jurisprudence of Power: Victorian Empire and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knop, K, Michaels, R and Riles, R (2012) From multiculturalism to technique: feminism, culture, and the conflict of laws style. Stanford Law Review 64, 589–656.Google Scholar
Lambrechts, P (1895) Les bases philosophiques du Droit International Prive. Revue neo-scholastique 2, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepaulle, P (1939) Conflict of laws, sovereignty and international spirit. Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at its Annual Meeting 33, 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lino, D (2018) The rule of law and the rule of empire: A.V. Dicey in imperial context. The Modern Law Review 81, 739–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madden, F and Fieldhouse, D (1991) The Dependent Empire and Ireland, 1840–1900: Advance and Retreat in Representative Self-governance. Select Documents on the Constitutional History of the British Empire and Commonwealth, Vol. V. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Michaels, R (2019) Private international law as an ethic of responsivity. In Ruiz Abou-Nigm, V and Blanca Noodt Taquela, M (eds), Diversity and Integration in Private International Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Michaels, R and Riles, A (2021) Law as technique. In Foblets, M et al. (eds), Oxford Handbook of Law and Anthropology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Muir Watt, H (2011) Private international law beyond the schism. Transnational Legal Theory 2, 347.Google Scholar
Pall, Mall Gazette (1969) Phillips v. Eyre, 30 January.Google Scholar
Panel Discussion Between Roxana Banu, Michaels, Ralf and Van Loon, Hans (2022) in Duden, K (ed.), IPR fuer eine bessere Welt. Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Prosser, W (1953) Interstate publications. Michigan Law Review 51, 959–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, C (1936) Die nationalsozialistische Gesetzgebung und der Vorbehalt des ‘ordre public’ im internationalen Privatrecht. Zeitschrift der Akademie fuer Deutsches Recht 4, 204.Google Scholar
Spivak, G (1988) Can the subaltern speak? In Nelson, C and Grossberg, L (eds), Marxism and Interpretation of Culture. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Von Savigny, FC (1880) Private International Law and the Retrospective Operation of Statutes: A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws and the Limits of Their Operation in Respect to Place and Time. Translated with Notes by William Guthrie. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, Law Publishers.Google Scholar
Wainhouse, D (1935) Protecting the absent spouse in international divorce: the Detroit experiment. Law and Contemporary Problems 2, 360–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, G (1932) Reciprocal services between courts in different countries. The Yearbook of the National Probation Association, 74–85.Google Scholar
Weinberg, L (1997) Methodological interventions and the slavery cases; or night-thoughts of a legal realist. Maryland Law Review 56, 1316.Google Scholar
Weinberg, L (2005) Theory wars in the conflict of laws. Michigan Law Review 103, 1631–1670.Google Scholar
Wortley, BA (1947) The concept of man in English private international law. Transactions of the Grotius Society 33, 147–166.Google Scholar
Zunser, C (1932) Family desertion: some international aspects of the problem. Social Service Review 6, 235–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases

Athanasios Sophocleous & Ors v. Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office & Secretary of State for Defence (2018) EWHC 19 (Q.B.)Google Scholar
Athanasios Sophocleous & Ors v. Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office & Secretary of State for Defence (2018) EWCA Civ 2167Google Scholar
Babcock v. Jackson (1963) 12 N.Y.2d 473, 191 N.E.2d 279Google Scholar
Keyu and others v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and another [2015] UKSC 69Google Scholar
Machado v. Fontes (1897) 2 Q.B. 231 (C.A.)Google Scholar
Phillips v. Eyre (1869) L.R. 4, 225 (Q.B.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips v. Eyre (1870) L.R. 6, 1 (Q.B.) (Ex.Ch.)Google Scholar
Tolofson v. Jensen (1994) 3 S.C.R. 1022Google Scholar