Party Autonomy in The Regulation of Transfer of Title: Comparative Analysis

The absence of a unified material legal regulation of the transfer of property rights is determined by the presence of fundamental contradictions in the approaches of various legal systems to this issue. The lex rei sitae connecting factor is not the optimal way to regulate the transfer of ownership of movable property in cross-border transactions. Conflict mobile is one of the cases, when determining the statute of a movable property by the law of its location is difficult and leads to an unfair result. The right of the parties to a contract in cross-border relations to freely choose the legal order regulating transfer of ownership is one of the ways to overcome the disadvantages of conflict-of-laws regulation of the transfer of ownership. However, such a manifestation of the party autonomy is not allowed in all legal systems and is not a generally accepted approach. The purpose of the study is to reveal the difficulties of the legal order in case of implementation of the party autonomy in the sphere of transfer of property rights, as well as to identify ways to overcome them. The party autonomy is practically analyzed on the example of the legal systems of Russia and CIS, Switzerland, the Netherlands, China. The choice of the legal order applicable to the transfer of ownership is not an extension of the scope of the contract statute, but represents party autonomy in relation to the real statute. Consequently, party autonomy interferes with the specific issues of property law. The analysis shows us that the party autonomy with certain restrictions is permissible for regulating transfer of ownership and serves an instrument for overcoming difficulties caused by the use of lex rei sitae connecting factor in a number of cases. However, allowing parties to an international transaction to choose the legal order applicable to the transfer of ownership raises the question of the effect of the choice against third parties. The article outlines ways to solve this problem.

1. Asoskov, A. V. (2017) Conflict regulation of contractual obligations. M-Logos. 640 p. (In Russ.)

2. Bazedow, J. (2022) Party autonomy in the regulation of international relations. Norma. 136 p. (In Russ.)

3. Bazedow, J. (2022) The law of open societies — private and state regulation of international relations: a general course of private international law. Norma. 384 p. (In Russ.)

4. Godunov, V. N., Meshchanova, M. V. (2022) Private law of the Republic of Belarus: the history of formation, development and prospects for improvement. Statute. Pp. 152–190. (In Russ.)

5. Lyubarskaya, T. S. (2020) Autonomy of the will in determining the statute of real property in private international law. Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov. 214 p. (In Russ.)

6. Plekhanov, V. V. (2021) Private international law. Collection of national codifications. 1112 p. (In Russ.)

7. Plekhanov, V. V. (2008) Transfer of ownership under the contract of international sale of goods: dissertation of PhD in law. Moscow State Law Academy. 185 p. (In Russ.)

8. Flessner, A. (2011) Choice of Law in International Property Law — New Encouragement from Europe. European law publishers GmbH. Pp. 1–40.

9. Guangjian, T. (2016) Private International Law in China. Springer Singapore. 192 p.

10. Huo, Z. (2011) Highlights of China’s New Private International Law Act: From the Perspective of Comparative Law. RJT ns. Vol. 45. Pp. 641–684.

11. Huo, Z. (2016) The Statutory Reform of Chinese Private International Law in Property Rights: A Silent Revolution. The Chinese Journal of Global Governance. Vol. 1. No. 2. Pp. 174–191. DOI: 10.1163/23525207-1234001012340010

12. Qingkun, X. (2017) The Codification of Conflicts Law in China: A Long Way to Go. Am. J. Comp. L. No. 65. Pp. 919–961. DOI: 10.1093/ajcl/avx044

13. Van der Weide, J. (2011) Party Autonomy in Dutch International Property Law. European law publishers GmbH. Pp. 41–58.