Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recognition—A Story of How Two Worlds Meet

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Blurry Boundaries of Public and Private International Law

  • 582 Accesses

Abstract

Recognition as a legal category has been a traditional instrument in both private and public international law. In the former, concerning judicial decisions and arbitral awards; in the latter, concerning the recognition of States and governments. However, the multiple new uses of this doctrine over the last few decades have shown that it has immense potential for framing and operationalising other public and private international law situations. Recognition of foreign decisions and acts and recognition of foreign legal situations have demonstrated the growing intersectionality between public international law and private international law. This combined with the fluidity of the boundaries between both disciplines, the rise of extraterritoriality and the demands of pluralism, raises recognition to the status of a proper transversal legal instrument.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Axel (2004), pp. 133–136.

  2. 2.

    Menzel (2011), pp. 810–811 and 827–829.

  3. 3.

    See Neumeyer (1911), p. 6.

  4. 4.

    Two simple examples: (i) international surrogacy is seen in some countries as an issue to be legislated against and even criminalised; in others, it is seen as a contractual issue; (ii) some professions are reserved in some countries to holders of a specific diploma; in others, they are only subject to the market.

  5. 5.

    Bureau and Watt (2017), p. 279.

  6. 6.

    As already highlighted by Frankenstein (1926), pp. 328 and 443.

  7. 7.

    Vicente (2009), p. 808.

  8. 8.

    On this particular discussion, see Burbaum (2003), p. 27, Wojtyczek (2009), p. 115 and Wenander (2011), p. 756.

  9. 9.

    Luzzatto (1972), p. 247.

  10. 10.

    Schmidt-Aßmann (2012), pp. 292–293.

  11. 11.

    Bermann (2008), pp. 23–30.

  12. 12.

    Delbrück et al. (2012), pp. 3–16.

  13. 13.

    Even in these cases, de iure mutual trust is not always followed by de facto mutual trust, in cases for instance of systemic breach of recognition requirements. See Cambien (2017), p. 101.

  14. 14.

    For a summing up, see Wiegant (2017), pp. 1488–1492.

  15. 15.

    Voet (1715), p. 140, Huberi (1976), p. 25, Story (1834), pp. 33–37. This ground has not been forgotten and is evidenced, among others, by Maier (1996), pp. 70–73, Paul (2008), pp. 21–37, Collins (2002), p. 109, Childress (2010), pp. 59–61 and Briggs (2012), pp. 88–91. The OECD has even adopted, within its competition commission, Reports on Positive Comity 1999, https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/prosecutionandlawenforcement/2752161.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2021.

  16. 16.

    Vareilles-Sommières (1900), pp. 16–28. A binary theory (Michaels (2004), pp. 67–70) and Roque (2014), p. 1202 emphasises that recognition may be based either on foreign interests or grounds inherent to the interests of the State of recognition.

  17. 17.

    This legal obligation theory is quite heterogeneous and can be seen both as an obligation to recognise founded on the idea of justice or humanity (for instance, Maridakis (1963), p. 475); or on the need to withdraw effects from obligations incurred abroad by the parties (for instance, Kessedjian (1987), p. 207). Schwarz (1935), pp. 49–58, however, believed that there is no international obligation to give effect to foreign acts, but only a natural obligation of a public-legal nature.

  18. 18.

    Although Morris (1971), p. 523 concluded that “the vested rights theory is dead”, it seems to be still alive and kicking as demonstrated, among others, by Correia (1982), pp. 59–104, Ramos (1974), p. 216; Vicente (2017), pp. 263–276, Jayme and Kohler (2004), p. 484, Pataut (2009), p. 78 and Michaels (2006), pp. 42–43.

  19. 19.

    Basedow (2017), p. 1818.

  20. 20.

    Lagarde (2014), pp. 26–30 and Möstl (2010), p. 410.

  21. 21.

    Guillaumé (2012–2013), pp. 522–523, 526–530, and Wallnöfer (2010), p. 691.

  22. 22.

    We refer only two of the most recent pronouncements of the ECHR: Advisory Opinion concerning the recognition in domestic law of a legal parent–child relationship between a child born through a gestational surrogacy arrangement abroad and the intended mother, 10 April 2019, request no. P16-2018–001; and Judgement Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v. Iceland, 18 May 2021, application no. 71552/17. The Hague Conference is also taking a closer look at surrogacy and attempting to reach a Protocol on legal parentage established as a result of international surrogacy arrangements (https://www.hcch.net/en/projects/legislative-projects/parentage-surrogacy).

  23. 23.

    ECHR decision, Pellegrini v. Italy, 20 July 2001, case 30,882/96.

  24. 24.

    Accentuating the relevance of the balancing of interests as the fundamental basis for recognition, see Weiler (2005), p. 47, Kinsch (2010), p. 269, Janssens (2013), p. 263, Pamboukis (2008), p. 530, and Basedow (1980), p. 204.

  25. 25.

    For instance in the public field, the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region 1997, Lisbon, 11 April 1997, https://www.coe.int/en/web/higher-education-and-research/lisbon-recognition-convention; the Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education 2019, Paris, 25 November 2019, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=49557&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html; and in the private field, the Hague Convention of 1 February 1971 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=78) and the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=137). Accessed 10 July 2021.

  26. 26.

    See Baumgartner (2008), pp. 181–183.

  27. 27.

    Baratta (1993), pp. 775–778. See also Niehof (1989), pp. 11–13 and Weatherhill (2017), p. 5.

  28. 28.

    Against, Hatzopoulos (2010), pp. 68–70.

  29. 29.

    CJEU decision, Rewe-Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, 20 February 1979, case 120/78.

  30. 30.

    Janssens (2013), p. 77.

  31. 31.

    Tichý (2011), p. 23. For other listings of relevant interests, see Mehren and Trautman (1968), pp. 1603–1604 and Casad (1984), p. 61.

  32. 32.

    Watt (2017), pp. 134–139.

  33. 33.

    Lopes (2018a), pp. 121–145.

  34. 34.

    Lopes (2018b), pp. 529–579.

  35. 35.

    See Bernel (1996), pp. 133–136.

  36. 36.

    These several forms of ascertaining equivalence show that there are different ways of coordinating plurality as discussed by Marty (2006), pp. 37–129.

  37. 37.

    See Biscottini (1961), pp. 658–670.

  38. 38.

    Berentelg (2010), pp. 265–273 includes in the public order notion the following dimensions: (i) fundamental rights; (ii) violation of international public law; (iii) the need for a connection with the recognising State; (iv) procedural public order and (v) and external policy interests.

  39. 39.

    Fallon (2004), pp. 73–76, Burbaum (2003), pp. 56–59.

  40. 40.

    Among others, see Mansel (2006), pp. 681–682 and p. 716, Coester-Waltjen (2006), p. 392, Kohler (2013–2014), p. 20 and Lehmann (2016), pp. 28–38.

  41. 41.

    Lagarde (2014), pp. 38–40, Mayer (2005), p. 563 and Fulchiron (2014), pp. 359–381.

  42. 42.

    For instance, in article 31(2) of the Portuguese Civil Code and in article 10(9) of the Netherlands Civil Code.

  43. 43.

    United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, 2019, available at: https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/singapore_convention_eng.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2021.

  44. 44.

    However, from a terminological point of view, other concepts have started to pave their way into law, such as “acceptance” of authentic instruments (article 59 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession) and “reliance” or granting “relied” under articles 4 and 5 of the Singapore Convention. In this latter case, Esplugues Mota (2020), p. 78, takes the view that it is incomprehensible and technically reprehensible that the Convention does not mention recognition instead.

  45. 45.

    Nicolaidis and Shaffer (2005), p. 267.

  46. 46.

    Armstrong (2002), p. 230, Pelkmans (2005), pp. 103–104.

  47. 47.

    Davies (2006), pp. 273–275.

  48. 48.

    Sinopoli (2010), pp. 369–379.

  49. 49.

    Röhl (2011), p. 214 and Götz (1998), p. 778.

  50. 50.

    Fedozzi (1929), p. 183 and Meng (1992), p. 51.

  51. 51.

    Schmidt-Aßman (2006), p. 260.

  52. 52.

    Giuseppe Biscottini (1964), pp. 118–120 and Vogel (1965), pp. 323–337.

  53. 53.

    Weiß (1932), p. 56.

  54. 54.

    Pamboukis (1993), p. 151 and Niboyet (1949), p. 671.

  55. 55.

    Mansel (2006), pp. 681–682.

  56. 56.

    Also, among others, Patrão (2017), pp. 433–449.

  57. 57.

    Neumeyer (1936), p. 319, Coester-Waltjen (2004), pp. 125–126 and Wenander (2011), p. 779.

  58. 58.

    Coester-Waltjen (2006), p. 392 and Lehmann (2016), pp. 18–19.

  59. 59.

    Kment (2010), pp. 463–465. Harder (2013), pp. 441–443 discusses a maximum-effect approach and a minimum-effect approach.

  60. 60.

    Lagarde (2004), p. 234.

  61. 61.

    Möstl (2010), p. 409.

  62. 62.

    This is, for instance, the case European Union Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals, and of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties.

  63. 63.

    Bureau and Watt (2017), p. 277.

  64. 64.

    Brownlie (1982), p. 197.

  65. 65.

    Mayer (2005), p. 549.

  66. 66.

    Avoiding, therefore, recognition being used as an argument to justify legal ruptures or conundrums, such as Brexit. On this, see Nicolaidis (2017), pp. 227–266.

References

  • Armstrong KA (2002) Mutual recognition. In: Barnard C, Scott J (eds) The law of the single european market—unpacking the premises. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 225–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Axel H (2004) La théorie de la reconnaissance: une esquisse. Revue Du MAUSS 23(1):133–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baratta R (1993) L’Equivalenza delle Normative Nazionali ai sensi dell’art. 100 B del Trattato CE. Rivista Di Diritto Europeo 33:727–736

    Google Scholar 

  • Basedow J (1980) Die Anerkennung von Auslandsscheidungen—Rechtsgeschichte—Rechtsvergleichung—Rechtspolitik. Alfred Metzner Verlag GmBH, Frankfurt Am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Basedow J (2017) Vested rights theory. In: Basedow J, Rühl G, Ferrari F, Asensio PADM (eds) Encyclopedia of private international law, vol 2. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 1813–1820

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner SP (2008) How well do U.S. judgments fare In Europe? Georg Wash Int Law Rev 40:173–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Berentelg M (2010) Die Act of State-Doktrin als Zukunftsmodell für Deutschland. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck

    Google Scholar 

  • Bermann GA (2008) La Concertation Réglementaire Transatlantique. In: Ancel J-P (ed) Vers de Nouveaux Équilibres entre Ordres Juridiques—Liber Amicorum Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon. Dalloz, Paris, pp 23–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernel A (1996) Le Principe d’Équivalence ou de “Reconnaissance Mutuelle” en Droit Communautaire. Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Biscottini G (1961) L'Efficacité des Actes Administratifs Étrangers. In: Recueil des Cours, vol 104(1961). Leiden, Sijthoff, pp 639–721

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs A (2012) The principle of comity in private international law. In: Recueil des Cours, vol 354(2011). Leiden/Boston, Martinus Nijhoff, pp 77–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (1982) Recognition in theory and practice. Br Yearb Int Law LIII:197–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Burbaum S (2003) Rechtsschutz gegen transnationales Verwaltungshandeln. Baden-Baden, Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau D, Watt HM (2017) Droit international Privé, 4th edn. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, Tome I - Partie Générale)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cambien N (2017) Mutual recognition and mutual trust in the internal market. Euro Pap 2(1):93–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Casad RC (1984) Issue preclusion and foreign country judgements: whose law? Iowa Law Rev 70(53):53–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Childress DE (2010) Comity as conflict: resituating international comity as conflict of laws. Univ Calif Davis Law Rev 44:11–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Coester-Waltjen D (2004) Das Anerkennungsprinzip im Dornröschenschlaf? In: Mansel H-P, Pfeiffer T, Kronke H, Kohler C, Hausmann R (eds) Festschrift für Erik Jayme, vol I. München, Sellier—European Law Publishers, pp 121–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Coester-Waltjen D (2006) Anerkennung im Internationalen Personen-, Familien- und Erbrecht und das Europäische Kollisionsrecht. IPRax – Praxis des Internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts 26(4):392–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins L (2002) Comity in modern private international law. In: Fawcett J (ed) Reform and development of private international law—essays in honour of Sir Peter North. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 89–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Correia AF (1982) La Doctrine des Droits Acquis dans un Système de Règles de Conflit Bilatérales. Estudos Vários de Direito. Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, pp 59–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies G (2006) Is mutual recognition an alternative to harmonization? Lessons on trade and tolerance of diversity from the EU. In: Bartels L, Ortino F (eds) Regional trade agreements and the WTO legal system. Oxford University Law, Oxford, pp 265–280

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Delbrück J (2012) The international obligation to cooperate—an empty shell or a hard law principle of international law?—a critical look at a much debated paradigm of modern international law. In: Hestermeyer HP et al (eds) Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity—Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum, vol I. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston, pp 3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Esplugues Mota C (2020) La Convención de Singapur de 2018 sobre mediación y la creación de un título deslocalizado dotado de fuerza ejecutiva: una apuesta novedosa, y un mal relato. Revista Española De Derecho Internacional 72(1):53–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallon M (2004) Libertés Communautaires et Règles de Conflit de Lois. In: Fuchs A, Watt HM, Pataut É (eds) Les Conflits de Lois et le Système Juridique Communautaire. Dalloz, Paris, pp 31–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Fedozzi P (1929) De l’efficacité extraterritoriale des lois et des actes de droit public. In: Recueil des Cours, vol 27–II. Paris, Librairie Hachette, pp 145–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankenstein E (1926) Internationales Privatrecht (Grenzrecht), vol I. Berlin, Rothschild

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulchiron H (2014) La Reconnaissance au Service de la Libre Circulation des Personnes et de Leur Statut Familial dans l'Espace Européen. In: Mélanges en l'Honneur du Professeur Bernard Audit. Les Relations Privées Internationales. Paris, L.G.D.J., pp 359–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuseppe Biscottini (1964) Diritto Amministrativo Internazionale—La Rilevanza degli Atti Amministrativi Stranieri, vol. I. Padova, CEDAM

    Google Scholar 

  • Götz V (1998) Der Grundsatz der gegenseitigen Anerkennung im europäischen Binnenmarkt. In: Götz V, Selmer P, Wolfrum R (eds) Liber Amicorum Günther Jaenicke—Zum 85. Geburtstag. Berlin, Springer, pp 763–791

    Google Scholar 

  • Guillaumé J (2012–2013) The weakening of the nation-state and private international law—the “Right to International Mobility”. Yearb PrivE Int Law XIV:519–538

    Google Scholar 

  • Harder S (2013) The effects of recognized foreign judgements in civil and commercial matters. Int Comp Law Q 62(2):441–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatzopoulos V (2010) Le Principe de Reconnaissance Mutuelle dans la Libre Prestation des Services. Cahiers De Droit Européen 46(1–2):47–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Huberi U (1976) Praelectionum Juris Civilis, Tomi III, Secundum Instituttiones et Digesta Justiniani: De conflictu legum, vol. III. Lovanii, Tyis Joannis Francisci Van Overbeke

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris JHC (1971) The conflict of laws. Stevens and Sons Ld, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssens C (2013) The principle of mutual recognition in EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jayme E, Kohler E (2004) Europäisches Kollisionsrecht 2004: Territoriale Erweiterung und methodische Rückgriffe. Iprax—Praxis Des Internationalen Privat- Und Verfahrensrechts 24(6):481–493

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessedjian C (1987) La Reconaissance et L'Exécution des Jugements en Droit International Privé aux États-Unis. Paris, Economica

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsch P (2010) Recognition in the forum of status acquired abroad—private international law rules and European human rights law, convergence and divergence in private international law. In: Boele-Woelki K, Einhorn T, Girsberger D, Symeonides S (eds) Liber Amicorum Kurt Siehr. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, pp 259–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Kment M (2010) Grenzüberschreitendes Verwaltungshandeln—Transnationale Elemente deutschen Verwaltungsrechts. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler C (2013–2014) Towards the recognition of civil status in the European union. Yearb PrivE Int Law XV:13–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagarde P (2004) Développements Futurs du Droit International Privé dans une Europe en voie d’Unification: Quelques Conjectures. Rabels Zeitschrift Für Ausländisches Und Internationales Privatrecht 68(2):225–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagarde P (2014) La Méthode de la Reconnaissance est-elle l'Avenir du Droit International Privé. In: Recueil des Cours, vol 371(2014). Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp 19–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann M (2016) Recognition as a substitute for conflict of laws? In: Leible S (ed) General principles of European private international law. Alphen aan den Rijn, Wolters Kluwer, pp 11–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes D (2018) Challenges and constraints to recognition in the field of freedom of circulation: the relevance of the fraus legis institute in European union law. Mark Compet Law Rev II 1:121–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes D (2018b) Eficácia, Reconhecimento e Execução de Actos Administrativos Estrangeiros. Coimbra, Almedina

    Google Scholar 

  • Luzzatto R (1972) Stati Stranieri e Giurisdizione Nazionale. Milano, Giuffrè Editore

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier HG (1996) Jurisdictional rules in customary international law. In: Meessen KM (ed) Extraterritorial jurisdiction in theory and in practice. Kluwer Law International, London, pp 64–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansel H-P (2006) Anerkennung als Grundprinzip des Europäishen Rechtsraums—Zur Herausbildung eines europäischen Anerkennungs-Kollisionsrechts: Anerkennung staat Verweisung als neue Strukturprinzip des Europäischen internationalen Privatrechts? Rabels Zeitschrift Für Ausländisches Und Internationales Privatrecht 70(4):654–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maridakis GS (1963) Introduction au Droit International Privé. In Recueil des Cours, vol 105–1962. Leiden, A.W. Sijthoff, pp 373–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Marty MD (2006) Le Pluralisme Ordonné—Les Forces Imaginaires du Droit (II). Éditions du Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer P (2005) Les Méthodes de la Reconnaissance en Droit International Privé. Le Droit International Privé: Esprit et Méthodes—Mélanges en l’Honneur de Paul Lagarde. Dalloz, Paris, pp 547–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehren AT, v. & Trautman, D. T. (1968) Recognition of foreign adjudications: a survey and a suggested approach. Harv Law Rev 81(8):1601–1696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng W (1992) Recognition of foreign legislative and administrative acts. In: Berhnardt R (ed) Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, vol IV. Elsevier, Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp 50–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzel J (2011) Internationales Öffentliches Recht. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels R (2006) EU law as private international law? Re-conceptualizing the country-of-origin principle as vested rights theory. Duke law school legal studies research paper series, Research Paper N.º 122, http://ssrn.com/abstract=927479. Acessed 18 July 2021

  • Michaels S (2004) Anerkennungspflichten im Wirtschaftsverwaltungsrecht der Europäischen Gemeinschaft und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland—Zwecke des Internationalen Verwaltungsrechts. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot

    Google Scholar 

  • Möstl M (2010) Preconditions and limits of mutual recognition. Common Mark Law Rev 47:405–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumeyer K (1911) Grundlinien des internationalen Verwaltungsrechts. Decker’s Verlag, Berlin, R. V

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumeyer K (1936) Internationales Verwaltungsrecht—Allgemeiner Teil, vol. IV. Zürich-Leipzig, Verlag für Recht und Gesellschaft AG

    Google Scholar 

  • Niboyet J-P (1949) Cours de Droit International Privé. Librairie du Recueil Sirey, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaidis K (2017) Mutual recognition: promise and denial, from Sapiens to Brexit. Curr Leg Probl 70(1):227–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaidis K, Shaffer G (2005) Transnational mutual recognition regimes: governance without global government. Law Contemp Probl 68:263–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Niehof R (1989) Der Grundsatz der Gegenseitigen Anerkennung im Gemeinschaftsrecht. Paderborn, Heiner Vahle Offsetdruck

    Google Scholar 

  • Pamboukis C (1993) L’Acte Public Étranger en Droit International Privé. Paris, L.G.D.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pamboukis C (2008) La renaissance-métamorphose de la métode de reconnaissance. Revue Critique De Droit International Privé 97(3):513–560

    Google Scholar 

  • Pataut ME (2009) Le Renoveau de la Theorie des Droits Acquis. Travaux du Comité Français de Droit International Privé - 2006–2008. Éditions A. Pedone, Paris, pp 71–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrão A (2017) Autonomia Conflitual na Hipoteca e Reforço da Cooperação Internacional: Removendo Obstáculos ao Mercado Europeu de Garantias Imobiliárias. Lisboa, Livros Horizonte

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul JR (2008) the transformation of international comity. Law Contemp Probl 71:19–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelkmans J (2005) Mutual recognition in goods and services: an economic perspective. In: Schioppa FKP (ed) The principle of mutual recognition in the European integration process. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 85–128

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos R, d. M. (1974) Dos direitos adquiridos em Direito Internacional Privado. Boletim Da Faculdade De Direito Da Universidade De Coimbra 50:175–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Röhl HC (2011) Conformity assessment in European product safety law. In: Jansen O, Schöndorf-Haubold B (eds) The European composite administration. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 201–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Roque MP (2014) A Dimensão Transnacional do Direito Administrativo—Uma visão cosmopolita das situações jurídico-administrativas. Lisboa, AAFDL

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Aßman E (2006) Internationalisation of administrative law: actors, fields and techniques of internationalisation—impact of international law on national administrative law. Revue Européenne De Droit Public 18(1):249–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Aßmann E (2012) Verfassungsprinzipien für den Europäischen Verwaltungsverbund. In: Hoffmann-Riem W, Schmidt-Assmann E, Vosskuhle A (eds) Grundlagen des Verwaltungsrechts, vol I, 2nd edn. C. H. Beck, München, pp 261–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz H (1935). Die Anerkennung ausländischer Staatsakte – Innerstaatliche und überstaatliche Grundsätze aus dem Gebiete des Internationalen Privatrechts. Berlin, Grunewald, Verlag für Staatswissenschaften und Geschichte G.m.b.H.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinopoli L (2010) Une épreuve pour les droits de l’Homme – de l’universel postulé à la mondialisation réalisée? Justices et Droit du Procès—Du Légalisme Procédural à L’Humanisme Processuel—Mélanges en L’Honneur de Serge Guinchard. Dalloz, Paris, pp 369–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Story J (1834) Commentaries on the conflict of laws, foreign and domestic. In Regard to contracts, rights, and remedies and especially to marriages, divorce, wills, successions and judgements. Boston, Hilliard, Gray and Company

    Google Scholar 

  • Tichý L (2011) Die Überwindung des Territorialitätsprinzip im EU-Kartellrecht. Bonn, Zentrum Für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vareilles-Sommières M, d. (1900) La Synthèse du Droit International Privé. Journal Du Droit International Privé Et De La Jurisprudence Comparée 27:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Vicente DM (2009) Liberdades Comunitárias e Direito Internacional Privado. Revista Da Ordem Dos Advogados 69:729–813

    Google Scholar 

  • Vicente DM (2017) La Reconnaissance au Portugal des Situations Juridiques Constituées à L’Étranger. Travaux Du Comité Français De Droit International Privé, 2014–2016. Pedone, Paris, pp 263–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Voet P (1715) De Statutis, Eorumque Concursu. Bruxellis, Ex Officina Simonis T'Serstevens

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel K (1965) Der räumliche Anwendungsbereich der Verwaltungsrechtsnorm—Eine Untersuchung über die Grundfragen des sog. internationalen Verwaltungs- und Steuerrechts. Frankfurt am Main, Alfred Metzner Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallnöfer K (2010) Is the non-recognition of private diplomas objectionable? Vienna Online J Int Const Law 4(682):694

    Google Scholar 

  • Watt HM (2017) Hospitality, tolerance, and exclusion in legal form: private international law and the politics of difference. Curr Leg Probl 70(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherhill S (2017) The principle of mutual recognition: it doesn't work because it doesn't exist. Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 43/2017, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2998943. Accessed 18 July 2021

  • Weiler JHH (2005) Mutual recognition, functional equivalence and harmonization in the evolution of the European common market and the WTO. In: Schioppa FKP (ed) The principle of mutual recognition in the European integration process. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, pp 25–84

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weiß K (1932) Die Anerkennung ausländischer Verwaltungsakte. Göttingen, Buchdruckerei W. Flentje

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenander H (2011) Recognition of foreign administrative decisions—balancing international cooperation, national self-determination, and individual rights. Zeitschrift Für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht Und Völkerrecht 71:755–785

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiegant D (2017) Recognition of administrative acts. In: Basedow J, Rühl G, Ferrari F, Asensio PADM (eds) Encyclopedia of private international law, vol 2. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 1486–1495

    Google Scholar 

  • Wojtyczek K (2009) L’Exemple des Instruments de L’Union Européenne en Matiére D’Immigration. Euro Rev Public Law 21(1):105–134

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Union Law, Private International Law, and Planning Law, Faculty of Law, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

    Dulce Lopes

Authors
  1. Dulce Lopes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Maritime Law, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS, Australia

    Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit

  2. Jindal Global Law School, O. P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India

    Dharmita Prasad

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lopes, D. (2022). Recognition—A Story of How Two Worlds Meet. In: Sooksripaisarnkit, P., Prasad, D. (eds) Blurry Boundaries of Public and Private International Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8480-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8480-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-8479-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-8480-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation