Editing Conflict of laws (section)

==Choice of law==
Courts faced with a choice of law issue have a two-stage process:

#the court will apply the law of the forum (''[[lex fori]]'') to all procedural matters (including the choice of law rules); 
#it counts the factors that connect or link the legal issues to the laws of potentially relevant states and applies the laws that have the greatest connection, e.g. the law of nationality (''[[lex patriae]]'') or the law of [[habitual residence]] (''[[lex domicilii]]''). (See also 'European Harmonization Provisions': "The concept of habitual residence is the civil law equivalent of the common law test of lex domicilii".) The court will determine the plaintiffs' legal [[status (law)|status]] and [[capacity (law)|capacity]]. The court will determine the law of the state in which land is situated (''[[lex situs]]'') that will be applied to determine all questions of [[title (property)|title]]. The law of the place where a transaction physically takes place or of the occurrence that gave rise to the litigation (''lex loci actus'') will often be the controlling law selected when the matter is substantive, but the [[proper law]] has become a more common choice.<ref>[http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/56.html?context=1;query=dow%20jones;mask_path=au/cases/cth/HCA# ''Dow Jones and Company Inc v Gutnick'' [2002] HCA 56; 210 CLR 575; 194 ALR 433; 77 ALJR 255 (10 December 2002).]</ref>

===Contracts===
Many [[contract (conflict)|contracts]] and other forms of legally binding agreement include a jurisdiction or [[arbitration]] clause specifying the parties' choice of venue for any litigation (called a [[forum selection clause]]). In the EU, this is governed by the [[Rome I Regulation]]. [[Choice of law clause]]s may specify which laws the court or tribunal should apply to each aspect of the dispute. This matches the substantive policy of [[freedom of contract]] and will be determined by the law of the state where the choice of law clause confers its competence. Oxford Professor Adrian Briggs suggests that this is doctrinally problematic as it is emblematic of 'pulling oneself up by the bootstraps'.<ref>Adrian Briggs, The Conflict of laws, Clarendon Law Series third edition 2013.</ref>

Judges have accepted that the principle of party autonomy allows the parties to select the law most appropriate to their transaction. This judicial acceptance of subjective intent excludes the traditional reliance on objective connecting factors;<ref>Rome I Regulation, Article 3(1). See also ''Macmillan v Bishopsgate Investment Trust plc'' [1996] 1 WLR 387 per Staughton LJ 391–392; ''Golden Ocean Group v Salgocar Mining Ltd'' [2012] EWCA Civ 542.</ref> it also harms consumers as vendors often impose one-sided contractual terms selecting a venue far from the buyer's home or workplace. Contractual clauses relating to consumers, employees, and insurance beneficiaries are regulated under additional terms set out in [[Rome I]], which may modify the contractual terms imposed by vendors.<ref>Rome I Regulation, Articles 5-8</ref>