The 2024 Private International Law Session at The Hague Academy of International Law: Metamorphoses and Re-Naturalization in a Globalized Landscape

Introduction: Melancholy and Momentum

At times, when completing a program of significant impact on our lives and traveling through the sessions with extraordinary colleagues and new friends, we experience a sense of loss, perhaps an emptiness, where the dynamic environment of association and learning come together. To remedy the creation of that space, make sense of my experience, and digest it thoroughly both in the sense of absorption and concision, I undertake here to detail and briefly analyze the lessons and themes with which I depart. But before embarking on this essay, let me reiterate that it was an honor to complete the 2024 Private International Law session of the Hague Academy of International Law, held from July 29 to August 16, and to be admitted to the Directed Studies program.

And so, with our formalities and goals on the table, we may begin. Let us turn first to the foundation and then build the edifice presented to us by an outstanding faculty.

Our foundational narrative begins with Private International Law (PIL) occupying a unique and crucial position in the global legal landscape. Often referred to as "conflict of laws," PIL deals with cases where the legal systems of different countries intersect. It governs the rules and principles determining which jurisdiction’s laws apply in cross-border disputes, how foreign judgments are recognized and enforced, and how international legal cooperation is facilitated. In an increasingly globalized world, where individuals and businesses operate across borders with unprecedented ease, PIL ensures that these interactions are regulated fairly and consistently, balancing the sovereignty of states with the needs of a connected global community.

The 2024 Private International Law session profoundly explored these subtleties in an era when traditional legal frameworks are being tested by new realities. Under the leadership of Secretary-General Jean-Marc Thouvenin, this session brought together leading scholars and practitioners to discuss the evolving nature of PIL. The intellectual environment was rigorous and expansive, offering insights that will undoubtedly influence the future of international legal practice.

At the heart of this session was the general course delivered by Haris Pamboukis, whose exploration of the metamorphoses of Private International Law framed the entire three weeks. Pamboukis argued that the traditional PIL legal frameworks, rooted in distinctions about which we should always be suspicious, are increasingly inadequate in addressing the challenges posed by globalization and technological advancement. His course set the stage for the following specialized discussions, each exploring different facets of this ongoing transformation. My understanding of the process of metamorphosis was also profoundly impacted by the philosophical underpinning provided by Andrew Dickinson in his special course in which he called for the re-naturalization of private international law and offered a compelling argument for reintegrating ethical principles into contemporary PIL legal practice.

Together, Pamboukis’ and Dickinson’s theories provide a robust framework for understanding the evolution of Private International Law. This area of law must be responsive to the demands of a globalized world and grounded in the enduring values of justice, fairness, and human dignity.

I have presented essays in the last two weeks on Professor Pamboukis's general course and Professor Dickinson's special course, but I would like to revisit both themes at the risk of repetition and perhaps, if I may be forgiven, some generalization and synthesis.

Metamorphosis and Re-Naturalization: A Converging Vision

Haris Pamboukis’s concept of metamorphosis captures the dynamic processes reshaping Private International Law. He emphasized that the field is undergoing significant changes as it adapts to the realities of a world where legal relationships increasingly cross borders and involve a multitude of actors beyond the state. Unlike traditional approaches that sought harmonization—where laws and practices are made uniform—Pamboukis advocates for coordination within a pluralistic framework. He suggests that instead of forcing different legal systems to conform to a single standard, PIL should embrace the diversity inherent in these systems and find ways to coordinate them effectively. This coordination respects the autonomy and particularities of different legal systems while ensuring they can interact productively at a global level.

Pamboukis’s vision of a pluralistic PIL recognizes that in an interconnected world, imposing a single, universal legal order is neither practical nor desirable. Instead, he proposes a metamorphosis where PIL evolves into a flexible and adaptable system capable of accommodating the variety of legal traditions, practices, and values that exist globally. This approach shifts the focus from harmonization, which seeks uniformity, to coordination, which aims to manage diversity to foster cooperation and mutual respect among different legal systems.

Complementing Pamboukis’s structural and doctrinal approach, Andrew Dickinson’s concept of re-naturalization addresses the philosophical and ethical dimensions of a desired future for PIL. Dickinson critiques the dominance of legal positivism—a focus on the technical application of laws without regard to their ethical foundations—and calls for a return to the core values that should guide legal practice: justice, fairness, and human dignity. For Dickinson, the recognition of foreign judgments—a fundamental aspect of PIL—should not be merely a procedural matter but one that is deeply rooted in these ethical considerations. He argues that recognition should be elevated as perhaps the most critical function of PIL, a mechanism through which diverse legal systems acknowledge and respect each other’s decisions, guided not by rigid legal formalism but by a commitment to shared values.

The interplay between these two perspectives—Pamboukis’s coordination of pluralism and Dickinson’s re-naturalization of values—offers a comprehensive vision for the future of Private International Law. Together, they suggest that PIL must not only manage the diversity of legal systems through coordination but also ensure that ethical principles guide this coordination. This dual approach seeks to create a legal order that is both flexible and principled, capable of adapting to new challenges while remaining true to the fundamental ideals that underpin the rule of law.

Exploring Key Themes Through Special Courses

A series of special courses enriched the intellectual journey during the 2024 session, each offering a unique perspective on how Private International Law must evolve or experience a “metamorphosis” in response to global challenges. These courses, taught by distinguished scholars and practitioners, not only expanded on the themes introduced by Pamboukis but also illustrated, at least as I consider the sessions with the advantage of hindsight, how Dickinson’s re-naturalization could be applied in practice.

Jack J. Coe Jr. guided participants through the complexities of domestic courts’ interactions with non-ICSID investor-state arbitration awards. Coe’s analysis underscored the tension between national sovereignty and the demands of a cohesive global legal order—a tension central to Private International Law. This mirrors the broader challenges highlighted by Pamboukis, particularly the need to coordinate diverse legal systems without forcing them into a uniform mold. Dickinson’s critique of legal positivism provided an essential counterpoint here, suggesting that without a grounding in ethical principles, the enforcement or annulment of arbitration awards could lead to outcomes that, while legally sound, might fall short of delivering fair results.

Carlos Esplugues Mota’s exploration of the application of foreign law in international disputes brought another dimension to the discussion. Esplugues emphasized the need for innovative approaches to manage the diversity of legal norms across different jurisdictions, an increasingly complex challenge in a globalized world. His course directly engaged the need for a more integrated and holistic approach to PIL—one that acknowledges the interconnected nature of legal systems today. I believe that the re-naturalization thesis also offers a valuable philosophical lens, advocating for a balance between procedural correctness and substantive justice. This balance is crucial when courts and legal practitioners navigate the often turbulent waters of cross-border legal conflicts, where strict adherence to formalism could undermine the deeper values that PIL seeks to protect.

Eva Lein addressed the "breathing space" concept in international commercial litigation, particularly during global crises. She introduced the idea that legal frameworks must allow for a degree of flexibility to accommodate the unexpected, such as the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. I see her call for the institutionalization of crisis preparedness measures in PIL as part of the evolution of PIL, not just through doctrinal shifts but through its capacity to respond to human needs in times of crisis. Again, though, we must ask, on what basis should such emergency provisions be designed? What values might infuse “breathing space?” Dickinson’s emphasis on moral reasoning reinforced Lein’s argument, suggesting that such flexibility is not merely a practical necessity but an ethical imperative. In crises, the law must balance the strictures of legal doctrine with the demands of justice and humanity, ensuring that the legal system remains a force for good even in the most challenging circumstances.

Natalie Y. Morris-Sharma’s focus on the Singapore Convention on Mediation brought to light the increasing significance of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms in international law. Her discussion of mediation reflected a broader shift in legal practice. As more flexible and context-sensitive approaches increasingly supplement traditional legal processes, mediation stands out as a tool that embodies the principles of fairness and mutual respect. We may conclude that mediation, emphasizing ethical resolution and human dignity, represents the humane and justice-oriented approach that should guide the evolution of international legal norms. This approach coordinates diverse legal systems and ensures that such coordination is infused with the values necessary to achieve just and equitable outcomes.

Alessandra Zanobetti’s examination of sanctions and counter-measures in international law offered a nuanced exploration of the balance between state power and global justice. Zanobetti’s course delved into the legal and ethical complexities surrounding the use of sanctions, emphasizing that these powerful legal tools must be applied with a clear understanding of their broader implications. Her insights echoed Pamboukis’s discussion of the metamorphosis of legal norms, particularly in the context of how international law must evolve to address new forms of statecraft and global governance. Dickinson’s re-naturalization thesis provides a critical ethical framework for this discussion, advocating for a legal approach that prioritizes justice and human dignity over the mere assertion of legal or political power. Together, these perspectives highlighted the importance of coordinating diverse legal systems in a way that respects their autonomy while ensuring that shared ethical principles guide their interactions.

Concluding Reflections: Toward a Just and Dynamic Legal Order

The 2024 session at The Hague Academy of International Law offered participants a rare opportunity to engage deeply with the transformative processes reshaping Private International Law. Haris Pamboukis’s concept of metamorphosis provided the structural and doctrinal framework for understanding these changes. At the same time, Andrew Dickinson’s call for re-naturalization offered the philosophical grounding necessary to ensure that these transformations remain true to the core values of justice, fairness, and human dignity.

As Private International Law continues to evolve, it is clear that both metamorphosis and re-naturalization will play crucial roles in shaping its future. Pamboukis’s vision of coordinating plural legal systems, rather than forcing them into a single mold, offers a path forward that respects the diversity inherent in our global legal landscape. Dickinson’s insistence on infusing this coordination with ethical principles ensures that the interactions between these systems are guided by justice, fairness, and respect for human dignity. Together, they provide a roadmap for a future where Private International Law is a tool for managing legal conflicts and promoting global justice and cooperation.

I ask for grace from the readers of this summary article and from the instructors in accepting this attempt to synthesize and apply the lessons from the courses in an effort to bring closure to this outstanding experience. There is always a danger in such a short piece of oversimplification. Therefore, I encourage you to obtain the courses when they are published and to engage with them more profoundly. I believe that the insights gained from this session will likely influence not only academic discourse but also the practical application of law in a globalized world. By embracing the principles of ethical reasoning and adaptability, both essential in my prior academic research in theology, law, history, and human rights, the field of Private International Law can continue to serve as an essential tool for navigating the complexities of our interconnected world, ensuring that it remains a force for justice and human dignity in the years to come.