Comparative Approaches to Conflict of Laws: Indian, UK, EU and US Perspectives

The clash of law or (private international law) plays a significant role to resolve the conflicts, which cover cross-border issues, as it provides the jurisdiction, law to applied, and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The need to have the harmonious and efficient standards of conflict of laws has never been as relevant and important nowadays as the world is becoming more and more global in terms of trade, migration and online transactions. The paper will endeavor to make a comparison and contrast on how India, United Kingdom, the European Union, and the United States went about and resolved the conflict of laws issues. The analysis presupposes a comparative methodology to doctrines, i.e. it will examine both the statutory provision of the laws of both jurisdictions, and the judicial precedents and other legal principles established. The analysis describes what have been deemed to be significant differences in the nature of the legal system between the integrated, codified system of the European Union and the rule of thumb, flexibility of the rules by theory approach of the United States with the United Kingdom being a moderate variant and at India showing a still evolving system. It can be shown that the level of flexibility, predictability and recognition of party autonomy, and imposition of foreign judgments differ with results. The article contributes by highlighting the merits and demerits of each of these systems and proposing an alternative hybrid system which will fuse the components of clarity and flexibility and information on how each of their systems can be re-structured, particularly in developing jurisdictions like India.