Keywords
shartnomaviy munosabatlardan kelib chiqadigan nizolar
individual taraflar, ommaviy manfaat
xususiy manfaat, hududiy bog’liqlik,
taraflar tanlovi, sud vakolati.
How to Cite
Abstract
Ushbu maqolada erk muxtoriyati prinsipining tarixan va nazariy rivojlanishi bosqichlari muhokama qilinadi. Erk muxtoriyati prinsipining vujudga kelishi va rivojlanishi uzoq vaqt davomida amalga oshgan. Turli davrda turlicha evrilishlarga uchragan. Ushbu prinsipning rivojlanishi dastlabki bosqichlari xalqaro munosabatlarda ommaviy manfaatlarning ustunligi bilan xarakterlansa, keyinchalik ushbu evrilishlar ommaviy manfaatlardan xususiy manfaatlar tomon ko’chib borgan.
Taraflar faqatgina mamlakat qonunchiligi tomonidan qat’iy belgilangan tamoyillar va qoidalar asosida munosabatga kirishganlar. Individual taraflarning tashabbuskorligi rag’batlantirilmagan. Individual taraflar shartnomalar orqali mamlakat qonunchiligi tomonidan o’rnatilgan qoidalardan chetga chiqish imkoniyatlari mavjud bo’lmagan. Taraflarning shartnomalari qonunchilikni chetlab o’tish uchun asos bo’la olmaydi deb hisoblangan. Taraflar yurisdiksiyani tanlashari mumkinligi haqidagi tushunchalar faqatgina taraflarning bilvosita harakatlari asosida bo’lgan. Bunday tanlovlarni ochiq tarzda ifodalash qonuniy deb hisoblanmagan va hech qanday huquqiy oqibat tug’dirmagan.
XIX asr ohirlari va XX asr boshlarida xalqaro munosabatlarda individual shaxslarning manfaatlariga xizmat qiluvchi g’oyalar va tamoyillar rivojlana boshlagan. Aynan shu g’oya va tamoyillar erk muxtoriyati prinsipning rivojlanishi yo’nalishini boshlab bergan.
References
Mills A. Party Autonomy in Private International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp.580.
G. Koziol, H. Koziol Austrian Private Law, Wien, 2017.
The Conventicle Act of Parliament to prevent and suppresse seditious Conventicles, 1664.
Johns F. Performing Party Autonomy, American Journal of Comparative Law, 2012. No.71, pp. 78-80.
Scott v Avery case 1856, available at https://danil-hristich.com/en/scott-v-avery-clause/#:~:text=In%20Scott%20v%20Avery%20%5B1856,for%20a%20claim%20in%20court.
A. Orford Jurisdiction Without Territory: From the Holy Roman Empire to the Responsibility to Protect Responsibility to Protection, Michigan Law University, 2009.
D. Liakopoulos Jurisdiction agreements and comparative interpretations between England and US courts. the role of private international law of European union, https://repositorio.ufc.br/bitstream/riufc/70971/1/2022_art_dliakopoulos.pdf
Reese Willis L. M. Power of parties to choose law governing their contract, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting (1921-1969) © 1960 Cambridge University Press.
A. Mills, Conceptualizing Party Autonomy in Private International Law, available at https://www.cairn.info/revue-critique-de-droit-international-prive-2019-2-page-417.htm
Keyes M. and Marshall B. Jurisdictional agreements: Exclusive, optional and asymmetrical, 11 Journal of Private International Law, 2017.
Fentiman R. Unilateral Jurisdiction Agreeents in Europe, Cambridge Law Journal, 2013, no 24, pp.72 -75.
Basedow J. The Hague Principles on Choice of Law: their addressees and impact, Uniform Law Review, 2017, pp.304.
Hess v Pawloski 1927, available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/352
C. Pejovic Civil Law and Common Law: Two Different Paths Leading to the Same Goal, Poredbeno pomorsko pravo 40(155), 2001.
Mills A. The privatization of private law (and) International Law, 2023 Current Legal Problems, https://doi.org/10.1093/clp%2Fcuad003
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.