International and National in Contemporary Private Law

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article reviewed has a compelling abstract, but the text itself falls so far short of the objectives proposed. The first part on the concept and scope of PIL or IPL is mostly anchored on semantic analysis and not in a rich discussion of legal sources as, in our view, it should be. Also the definition that PIL situations "involve persons originated from different States" seems to fall short from the possible types of private international law situations. Furthermore, the article only substantially begins (according to the abstract) in p. 9 (Part II.1 does not seem to fit the rest in terms of content). Despite the fact that the Mutually opposing trends affecting the evolution of Private International Law  have some welcomed novelties entailed in terms of legal scholarship, they should have been better structured. So far it seems like a collection of disparate trends whose contribution to current PIL is difficult to grasp as a whole. In the current tendencies (Part II.3), it would be relevant to better characterize the role of arbitration and regionalization regarding PIL.

 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my manuscript.

1. “The first part on the concept and scope of PIL or IPL is mostly anchored on semantic analysis and not in a rich discussion of legal sources as, in our view, it should be”.

On the one hand, I added (to the mentioned in the first version of the article laws of Switzerland and China on private international law) some material on the Code on private international law of Belgium and on the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods as sources of private international law along with new references John Honnold’s and UNCITRAL Secretariat’s commentaries to this Convention as well as mentioning international organizations elaborating and adopting international conventions and soft law documents in the field of private international law. On the other hand, in the new part II of the article I explained the role of the legal-linguistic method (semantic exploration is a component of this method) in studying private international law.

2. “Also the definition that PIL situations "involve persons originated from different States" seems to fall short from the possible types of private international law situations”.

I changed the wording and now the respective sentence reads as following: “(…) national regulation of relationships within the private sphere complicated by foreign element, and international regulation of private law issues of a cross-border nature”.

3. “(Part II.1 does not seem to fit the rest in terms of content)”.

First, in the new part II (Methods of studying”) of the article I explained the role of the historic method in studying private international law; second, in the new version of the article this is a separate part IV now entitled “Historical Evolution as a Background for the Current Situation”, which, in my view, shows whether the current trends are continuing the general tendencies of the evolution of private law or they are something, not having anything in common with the previous development; third, in my opinion, it is impossible to indicate the starting point for the current trend in private international law without describing what path private international law has gone through before reaching the today’s situation.

4. “So far it seems like a collection of disparate trends whose contribution to current PIL is difficult to grasp as a whole”.

I added explanations and clarifications to the part “Mutually opposing trends affecting the evolution of Private International Law” and to the part “Conclusions”.

5. “In the current tendencies (Part II.3), it would be relevant to better characterize the role of arbitration and regionalization regarding PIL”.

I expanded “arbitration” and “regionalization” in the part “Current tendencies…” (now it is part VI) to the extent acceptable for the relatively short article.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to review this work. The manuscript addresses a topic debated over the years, that is, the development and understanding of private international law. To do this, the author carries out a historical analysis and a legal comparison at different levels.

However, there are some important aspects for improvement that need to be addressed, namely:

- First, the very organization of the manuscript, at certain times, is chaotic and complex for the reader to follow. The introduction should contain the following elements: introduce the topic, describe the background, state the author's research problem, specify the objective(s), and map out the paper. However, the author makes an excessively long introduction that does not make clear any of the previous elements. In the opinion of this reviewer, I consider that the author should rewrite the introduction taking into account the elements described above in a more concise and clear way. In addition, it would also be advisable to dedicate a section called "Methodology" in which the author explains in more detail (and with references) the methodology used for the paper.

- Secondly, the section "Historical evolution" should be section II and not II.1. It would be advisable to divide it into subsections to improve the reader's understanding of the evolutionary stages. On the other hand, "Mutually opposing trends..." should be section III. And in this section, again, I advise the reorganization and rewriting of it. It is clear that the author knows the subject, but he/she exposes too much information and sometimes he/she misses the main idea he/she wants to get to.

- Other minor suggestions. Review the format of the article since there are some citations that do not follow the format of the journal, as well as some epigraphs have very separate lines (some examples: 415, 275...).

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my manuscript.

1. “First, the very organization of the manuscript, at certain times, is chaotic and complex for the reader to follow. The introduction should contain the following elements: introduce the topic, describe the background, state the author's research problem, specify the objective(s), and map out the paper. However, the author makes an excessively long introduction that does not make clear any of the previous elements. In the opinion of this reviewer, I consider that the author should rewrite the introduction taking into account the elements described above in a more concise and clear way. In addition, it would also be advisable to dedicate a section called "Methodology" in which the author explains in more detail (and with references) the methodology used for the paper”.

I have prepared a new introduction, which is significantly shorter than the previous one and focuses on the issues suggested by the Peer.

I have introduced in the article a completely new part II entitled “Methods of studying”, which presents main methods of research, the results of which are set forth in the article.

2. “Secondly, the section "Historical evolution" should be section II and not II.1. It would be advisable to divide it into subsections to improve the reader's understanding of the evolutionary stages. On the other hand, "Mutually opposing trends..." should be section III. And in this section, again, I advise the reorganization and rewriting of it. It is clear that the author knows the subject, but he/she exposes too much information and sometimes he/she misses the main idea he/she wants to get to”.

Now section “Historical evolution…” is a separate and independent part of the article entitled “Historical Evolution as a Background for the Current Situation”, but it is part IV, because part II is “Methods of studying” written in accordance with an advise of the Peer. I have divided part “Historical Evolution as a Background for the Current Situation” into three subsections and I have made some additions, which, I hope, have improved the way of expression of my ideas.

I have added in the parts “Mutually opposing trends affecting the evolution of private international law” (part V) and “Current Tendencies in Private International Law Evolution” (part VI) certain clarifications and explanations, which are aimed at better expressing of the author’s ideas.

I have done some work on restructuring the article as a whole to get better results.

3. “Other minor suggestions. Review the format of the article since there are some citations that do not follow the format of the journal, as well as some epigraphs have very separate lines (some examples: 415, 275...)”.

Unfortunately, I do not catch a suggestion of the Peer. I have used the template, received from the “Laws” editing office, which describes with examples how citations should be formatted and footnotes be drawn up, but perhaps the Peer means something else. I rely upon the Editor’s requirements and I am ready the Editor’s rules of citations formatting.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

After the modifications made by the author, the paper is ready to be published.