The European Forum on Private International Law (FEDIPr) is a permanent seminar whose purpose is the study of issues related to international private transactions through regular meetings for presentation and debate. Its mission is to contribute to the dissemination of legal culture and scientific progress through an eminently empirical, comparative, functional, and multidisciplinary methodology.
FEDIPr’s activity is inextricably linked to the evolution of political, social, and legal life in the contexts where cross-border private relations take place, both historically and in light of current events, and in connection with the global defense of human rights.
FEDIPr’s activities are structured around three thematic areas:
- Law of Persons and Families
- International Business Law
- International Cross-Border Litigation
Law of Persons and Families
This area seeks to foster scientific dialogue between civil society and European institutions on issues related to migration, asylum, and the integration of nationals from third countries.
The promotion and protection of human rights is one of the priorities of the international community, giving rise to what is known as international human rights law, grounded in the principles of solidarity and the protection of the fundamental interests of the international community as a whole. Today, human rights are the common ground to which all legal professionals and judges must refer when resolving the conflict between globalization and economic law.
Such promotion and protection carry a clear call to action in the struggle for progress in liberty and democracy worldwide. The objective is to bring together individual and collective efforts—both public and private—to expand political, economic, social, and cultural rights for all. The advancement of a globalized world is inseparable from the advancement of peace and democracy. For this reason, it is essential to oppose the ongoing violations of human rights, which affect—or may affect—everyone, through efforts aimed at researching and teaching the application of human rights norms in international disputes. In this context, judicial and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are essential to reach reparation agreements or to definitively settle disputes.
Globalization is not merely an economic phenomenon; it is also sociological and cultural, and these dimensions are closely interconnected. Although labor mobility and migration are not equally prioritized in globalization’s ideological agenda, we are witnessing, on one hand, an increasing internationalization of labor, and on the other, mass migratory movements resulting from economic and demographic imbalances across regions, often beyond the scope of immigration regulations. This reality leads to greater entanglement between private international law and immigration law—sometimes resulting in contamination (e.g., marriages of convenience)—and above all, accentuates the interracial and multicultural nature of society in host States.
Such multicultural societies often give rise to civilizational conflicts and complex legal issues, particularly in family law, requiring careful balancing of fundamental rights (gender equality, best interests of the child, freedom of religion, etc.).
The causes and consequences of international migration are of interest to anthropologists, demographers, economists, sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, labor and social policy experts, and social workers. Research and theoretical developments in this area tend to be dominated by anthropologists, political scientists, and sociologists, with limited involvement from economists—likely due to methodological divergences between economics and other social sciences. Notably absent are legal studies of migration from perspectives beyond regulatory exegesis. FEDIPr seeks to offer a comprehensive response by bringing together the various branches of law involved: international law, EU law, and especially administrative law, given the powers assigned to public authorities to ensure that foreigners fully exercise their rights and duties.
International Business Law
This area pays special attention to the economic and commercial dimensions of private international law, which are not only affected by market integration phenomena, but also by the broader reality of economic interdependence and globalization.
Over the past three decades, market internationalization has been accelerated by foreign investment, offshoring, and the growth of transnational corporations. The industrial revolution’s acceleration, the internet, and the internationalization of financing mechanisms have inevitably opened national economies. As a result, even the most powerful States must define their economic policies and objectives with the international dimension in mind.
Economic interdependence calls for international cooperation in developing regulatory mechanisms and ensuring global economic balance. The recent financial crises have highlighted both the international nature of today’s economy and the need for international dispute resolution mechanisms.
The impact of economic globalization extends beyond economic law and the institutional structure of global trade. It also affects private law, especially contract law and commercial transactions—areas of primary concern for FEDIPr. In economic law (free competition, market protection, exclusive rights, judicial protection), there is growing need for supranational regulation (hard law). Meanwhile, in private law (contracting), soft law approaches (e.g., UNIDROIT Principles) or simple competition among national legal systems prevail.
Globalization has led to the development of soft law and private dispute resolution mechanisms—mainly between businesses, but also between businesses and States in international economic contracts. The 1980 Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods, the cornerstone of this system, provides a subsidiary framework in a legal environment dominated by party autonomy. In this setting, international contracting parties often act as legislators within the limits of contractual relativity, and may also choose their own dispute resolver—typically an arbitrator—who can resolve the matter fairly, without necessarily resorting to a sovereign court empowered to issue enforceable judgments.
Today’s commercial practices favor privately developed legal instruments, often crafted by practitioners or scientific institutions, which go beyond sector-specific regulation. The International Chamber of Commerce’s work on sales contracts and documentary credits (Incoterms, Uniform Rules), and the UNIDROIT Principles are prime examples.
These uniform, non-State norms support the formation of a modern lex mercatoria, although their effectiveness depends on parties choosing to apply them through autonomy of will. Commercial practice today is marked by private self-regulation, institutional harmonization, and the interplay between both techniques. Even within contract law, self-regulation must be complemented by a common commercial framework establishing fundamental principles applicable to international trade—one that can only emerge from international cooperation among States. Internal codification efforts must evolve in parallel and in coordination with international harmonization.
International Cross-Border Litigation
While jurisdiction is a sovereign State function, and in principle is not affected by foreign elements in a dispute, FEDIPr recognizes that international jurisdiction rules define the specific cases that national courts may hear.
It is true that international jurisdiction rules have become less exorbitant over time. Today, many systems adopt concurrent jurisdiction models that better balance party interests and expand the procedural tools for addressing international objections to jurisdiction. For practical and effectiveness-related reasons—and out of respect for key legal principles—legal systems increasingly limit the scope of international cases subject to domestic jurisdiction or enter treaties establishing shared rules. Some of these rules may stem from institutional sources.
However, remnants of traditional jurisdictional imperialism persist. Foreign litigants may find it difficult to challenge the jurisdiction of third-State courts. National courts still tend to accept jurisdiction extensions even in unrelated cases and apply their own procedural rules to international disputes.
Jurisdiction is the sovereign power of the State, exclusively entrusted to independent judges and magistrates, and entails four essential powers:
a) Power of decision – to issue rulings and resolve disputes, primarily through binding judgments;
b) Power of coercion – to overcome obstacles to judicial authority, particularly in enforcing judgments;
c) Power of documentation – to gather, request, and evaluate evidence as needed to resolve cases;
d) Power of execution – to compel compliance with judicial mandates through enforceable measures.
These powers are more limited in arbitration, especially regarding enforcement, which requires significant support from judicial authorities.
In this context, commercial arbitration has progressively spread across cross-border private transactions. As such transactions grew, legal practitioners recognized arbitration as the most effective method of resolving disputes arising from the exchange of goods and services, without necessarily reducing profits.
The convergence and divergence between common law and civil law practitioners—especially regarding evidence (discovery, cross-examination)—has shaped a unique “arbitral culture” and ushered in a new era of arbitration. Institutions such as the ICC have led reforms across all types of international arbitration. Arbitral proceedings are generally governed by procedural rules that are quite consistent across major arbitration centers.
If arbitration cannot be separated from the role of legal counsel, international arbitration lawyers must not only adhere strictly to ethical rules but also possess specific skills: developing effective strategies, mastering the case, communicating effectively with clients and the tribunal, managing litigation-ready infrastructure, and coordinating procedural stages.