Document Type

Original Study


The study deals with the correlation between the judicial and legislative jurisdictions that are recognized in some private international law disputes. This requires considering the mechanism that competent court grants the scope to apply its original national law in a way that does not run counter to any foreign law. Through the survey of the national legislature's policy regarding the regulation of international private legal relations, it appears that the policy seeks to enhance the status of national law at the expense of foreign law, and this depends on the rule of conflict. The legislature's policy aims at replacing the rule of conflict with a specific mechanism aspired to unifying the legislative and judicial competencies. This mechanism is characterized as being biased, i.e, it is founded on the lack of parallelism between the interest of the foreign state and that of the national legislature. In this respect, the principle of independence methodology would be presented, which is deduced from the notion of trade-off among more than one law. In fact, this raises the problems of balancing between nationalism or privacy and internationalism or globalization.When examining such problems, several questions may arise: Does the systematic application of this mechanism mean stripping private international relations of the international status and giving them the national attribute to be regarded as any internal relation? Furthermore, is there in this application what achieves justice and respect for the rights of individuals and the realization of legal security? In conclusion, the study shows the importance of this correlation and its role in achieving a set of goals, such as the respect for sovereignty, public order, the pursuit of justice, and effectiveness in resolving conflicts, provided that it remains a mere exception that is subject to the achievement of these objectives, and that the prevailing principle is the independence of the two jurisdictions from each other.