• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site
Menu

Article

Эволюция коллизионного регулирования деликтных обязательств в международном частном праве Израиля

The research is devoted to the analysis of the evolution of conflict of laws regulation of tort obligations in Private International Law of Israel. When writing the article, we used the traditional methodology for comparative studies – methods of comparative analysis, comparative-legal, formal-logical, historical-legal and dogmatic. Conflict of laws issues of cross-border tort relations are not regulated at the legislative level in Israel. Conflict of laws rules of tort law are developed exclusively by judicial practice. For several decades, Israeli jurisprudence has tried to develop some general principles for determining the appropriate rules of choice of law in cross-border torts. For more than 30 years, the English common law approach has prevailed in Israel when dealing with conflict of law issues of tort obligations. However, in the 1980s, the Supreme Court of Israel expressed the official legal position that the Israeli court should have the right to independently establish conflict-of-laws regulations that differ from the rules of English common law. The English approach was replaced by the American flexible conflict methodology-the theory of “the most significant contacts”, “the state interest”, “the best law”, “the closest connection”. American conflict-of-law approaches have dominated Israeli courts for more than 20 years, but in the early 2000s, the prevailing view was that tougher and more stable rules were needed to ensure uniformity and predictability in the choice of law in torts. In the Israeli doctrine, the view is expressed that all modern rules for choosing the law applicable to torts can be found in the texts of religious Jewish law. Since the beginning of the 2000s, the European experience of regulation has been widely accepted in the judicial practice of Israel, mainly the approaches of the Rome II Regulation. Based on European models, case law has now developed a number of principles that can be invoked in Israeli courts as rules for determining the law applicable to torts. However, judicial practice continues to show instability and volatility. The article concludes that such problems could have been avoided if there was a codified legislation of the rules of choice of applicable law in Israel. The existence of an act of codification of the private international law containing clear instructions from the legislator is highly capable of ensuring the certainty and predictability of judicial decisions, their uniformity and international harmony.