| Project/Area Number |
22530044
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
International law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Hokkaido University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
SHIMA Takuya 北海道大学, 大学院・法学研究科, 教授 (80377613)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2010 – 2012
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2012)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,730,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,100,000、Indirect Cost: ¥630,000)
Fiscal Year 2012: ¥780,000 (Direct Cost: ¥600,000、Indirect Cost: ¥180,000)
Fiscal Year 2011: ¥780,000 (Direct Cost: ¥600,000、Indirect Cost: ¥180,000)
Fiscal Year 2010: ¥1,170,000 (Direct Cost: ¥900,000、Indirect Cost: ¥270,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | 国際私法 / 絶対的強行法規の理論 / 国際法学 / 抵触法 / 介入規範 / ローマ条約 / ローマI規則 / ローマII規則 / 絶対的強行法規 / 特別連結 / 通常連結 / 当事者自治原則 / 不正競争防止法 / 市場法 / 公序則 / 利息制限法 / 消費者契約・労働契約 |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
This research, mainly from a viewpoint of conflict of laws, focuses on the requirements for overriding mandatory rules and their application, the differences between overriding mandatory rules and the conflict of laws rules special for consumer contracts/labor contracts, the relationship between overriding mandatory rules and public order clauses. And then, it concludes that the application mechanism of overriding mandatory rules should be divided into the following two parts; the one is whether an alleged overriding mandatory rule requests to apply itself irrespective of an applicable law selected by normal choice of law rules; the other is to what geographic extent an overriding mandatory rule could be applied. The former one deals with the rule’s intent to apply itself to the relevant substantive legal issues, taking precedence over the applicable law. This part is categolised as a substantive laws matter, not as a conflict of laws one. On the other hand, the latter part is thought to be related to conflict of laws as well as substantive laws and therefore, it is important to discuss this part from a perspective of cooperation between substantive laws and conflict of laws.
|
