Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Czechlist] Conflict of Laws Method

Expand Messages
  • Martin Janda
    Aha, pardon. Tak v tom pripade: metoda *reseni* konfliktu... M. ... From: Matej Klimes To: Sent: Tuesday,
    Message 1 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Aha, pardon. Tak v tom pripade: metoda *reseni* konfliktu...

      M.
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Matej Klimes" <mklimes@...>
      To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:36 PM
      Subject: Re: [Czechlist] Conflict of Laws Method


      > Ahoj Martine,
      >
      > I'm thinking slower than you're typing :)
      >
      > > guess there is in fact no other way of translating than what you suggest
      >
      > Co tim myslis??
      >
      > As for context, (for example):
      >
      > "Private international law has often demonstrated a setback of the
      conflict
      > of law method in favour of the adoption of material rules, which are
      > sometimes uncertain"
      >
      > BTW - this is a French to English original, so some of the sentence
      > structure is somewhat off - I'm not sure I understand the logic behind
      this
      > sentence (especially the "in favour part") even after reading it for 10
      > times. Argh, the joys of EU documents.... (I'm sure it was translated by a
      > native speaker, but that does not make it less awkward:)
      >
      >
      > There obviously is something called "conflict of laws method" - yes,
      > konflikt/kolize zakonu have plenty of hits, but metoda kolize zakolu etc.
      > has none, any ideas?
      >
      > Diky
      >
      > Matej
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Martin Janda" <mjanda@...>
      > To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:06 AM
      > Subject: Re: [Czechlist] Conflict of Laws Method
      >
      >
      > > Sorry, I am typing faster than thinking :-)
      > >
      > > I guess there is in fact no other way of translating than what you
      > suggest -
      > > I would try to avoid "metoda" and leave the rest - depends on context
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "Matej Klimes" <mklimes@...>
      > > To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:51 AM
      > > Subject: [Czechlist] Conflict of Laws Method
      > >
      > >
      > > > Hi list,
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > anyone has a suggestion for Czech translation of the above?
      > > >
      > > > metoda kolize/konfliktu zakonu
      > > > metoda stretu pravnich norem
      > > >
      > > > both don't work on Google, I am told that this is a set expression...
      > > >
      > > > Thanks
      > > >
      > > > Matej
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Czechlist archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
      > > >
      > > > Czechlist resources:
      > > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/Intro.html
      > > >
      > > > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > >
      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Czechlist archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
      > >
      > > Czechlist resources:
      > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/Intro.html
      > >
      > > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      >
      >
      > Czechlist archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
      >
      > Czechlist resources:
      > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/Intro.html
      >
      > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • Jirka Bolech
      Hi Matej, ... setback of the conflict ... which are ... As far as I can judge from what the Anglicko-cesky ekonomicky slovnik by Jiri Elman and Kamila
      Message 2 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Matej,

        > "Private international law has often demonstrated a
        setback of the conflict
        > of law method in favour of the adoption of material rules,
        which are
        > sometimes uncertain"

        As far as I can judge from what the "Anglicko-cesky
        ekonomicky slovnik" by Jiri Elman and Kamila Semberova
        shows, "private international law" and "conflict of Laws"
        are synonyms meaning "mezinarodni pravo soukrome"; I have
        found "kolize pravnich norem" for the latter in another
        source too. I am myself more puzzled by "material rules".
        Well, such legalese wasn't made to be understood by common
        folks.

        I don't think that the "method" is such a big deal to
        translate, but I doubt it's a fixed expression.

        > (especially the "in favour part") even after reading it
        for 10
        > times.

        Oh, this is the easy part I guess. "In favour of" is simply
        <"ve prospech" + genitive>.

        Jirka Bolech
      • Matej Klimes
        Thanks Martin and Jirka, Martin: Aha, pardon. Tak v tom pripade: metoda *reseni* konfliktu... Zajimavy napad, ale nemyslim, ze by se hodil na zbytek dokumentu,
        Message 3 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks Martin and Jirka,

          Martin:

          Aha, pardon. Tak v tom pripade: metoda *reseni* konfliktu...

          Zajimavy napad, ale nemyslim, ze by se hodil na zbytek dokumentu, to by snad
          rekli neco jako "method for solving conflict of law"?? No, jeste se pokusim
          neco vymyslet....


          Jirka:
          "private international law" and "conflict of Laws"
          > are synonyms meaning "mezinarodni pravo soukrome";

          hmm, that does not make sense to me at all - I'm not a legal expert by any
          means and yes, lawyers love to say theing we laymen won't understand, but
          they can't possibly go this far?


          I have
          > found "kolize pravnich norem" for the latter in another
          > source too.

          My problem was to decide between "metoda kolize pravnich norem" and another
          expression much to the same extent, I think it was "metoda konfliktu zakonu"
          and combination thereof, since the English three word term is used in the
          doc as naturally (and "we don't need to even hint at what this is") as one
          would use something like "big brown envelope", plus I was told it was a
          concrete method, I was trying to check which translation/Czech version might
          be applicable, but obviously didn't chance uppon the widely-used (if there
          is) one....


          > > (especially the "in favour part") even after reading it
          > for 10
          > > times.
          >
          > Oh, this is the easy part I guess. "In favour of" is simply
          > <"ve prospech" + genitive>.

          Well, I don't have the slightest problem with in favour, I can assure you of
          that, Jirka, I have a problem with fitting it into the (what I think is)
          logic behind this particular sentence...... does it fit for you?

          Thanks anyway

          Matej











          >
          > Jirka Bolech
          >
          >
          > Czechlist archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
          >
          > Czechlist resources:
          > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/Intro.html
          >
          > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
        • Michael Trittipo
          ... I don t envy you that one. Do you happen to have the French? I do French-to-English besides Cz|Sk Eng. Usually, a setback would mean a loss of ground;
          Message 4 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            >
            >
            >"Private international law has often demonstrated a setback of the conflict
            >of law method in favour of the adoption of material rules, which are
            >sometimes uncertain"
            >
            >BTW - this is a French to English original, so some of the sentence
            >structure is somewhat off - I'm not sure I understand the logic behind this
            >sentence (especially the "in favour part") . . ..
            >
            I don't envy you that one. Do you happen to have the French? I do
            French-to-English besides Cz|Sk>Eng.

            Usually, "a setback" would mean a loss of ground; that something which
            was winning has lost, but perhaps only for the time being, i.e., an
            eventual possible victory has only been delayed, not forever foreclosed.
            But you're right; the flavour here is off, especially with the "often"
            and "demonstrated" bits. (The "in favour of" doesn't bother me as much,
            though it is one of the reasons for considering a second possible
            meaning.) (The "material" here should clearly mean "substantive" -- v
            podstate, nikoliv jenom formalni, ani jenom procesualni. So that's an
            easy one.) So here's two possible versions of that sentence (anglicky):

            The first assumes that "setback" has been chosen as a not-terribly-good
            translation of something that ought to be more like "rejection" but as
            having the flavor of one thing losing ground (or "market share" if you
            will) in favour of another which is gaining ground (or becoming more
            popular):

            "Private international law has often seen rejection of the usual
            application of conflict-of-law principles, and adoption in their place
            of substantive rules, although* these latter are sometimes not [as]
            definite [as some might desire][OR - "are sometimes not susceptible to
            mechanical application]."

            (The use of "and . . . in their place" replaces the "in favour of" --
            "he rejected plan A in favour of plan B" means he rejected plan A and
            did so because he found plan B to be better.) (As for "seen" versus
            "demonstrated," that would be a relic of the original Fr>En process. It
            would be wonderful if you could get your hands on a French original.)

            The second assumes a different reason for wrongly using "setback" and it
            assumes that "in favour of the adoption" was meant to modify "method" as
            a prepositional phrase, NOT to be a coordinating clause:

            "Private international law has often shown a disadvantage in applying
            usual conflict-of-law principles that favour adoption of this or that
            substantive rule, because the substantive rules themselves are sometimes
            uncertain."

            Maybe, having entire paragraphs before and after this sentence, you can
            see which meaning fits logically with the overall flow of the author's
            reasoning or exposition. Boy, would it help to have the French. But
            without it, I can explain where each of the two possible meanings is
            coming from. (There may be other possible meanings, too -- these are
            the first two that come to mind as most likely, but I'm open to good
            suggestions.)

            The first meaning is based on the idea that the parties can decide in
            their own contracts what law will govern their dealings in what
            respects. The first meaning would then be commenting on a supposed
            trend by the parties (presumably, for this meaning, fairly large,
            sophisticated contracting entities) to NOT simply say "Angolan law" or
            "Fijian law", and to go beyond that to try, themselves, to write up the
            substantive rules that should be applied. Of course, doing that would
            be VERY difficult, probably even impossible to do completely -- and even
            the most sophisticated or capable parties and lawyers might not succeed
            in getting the rules expressed very clearly. Alternatively, the first
            meaning could be about courts and judges trying to reject being forced
            simply to choose between country A's law or country B's, and trying to
            start creating a kind of "common law of international dealings" without
            reference to EITHER country A or B. (It's the uncertainty between who's
            doing the rejecting or setting back, that led me to choose the passive
            voice.)

            The second meaning is based on an appreciation of the fact that the
            classic statements of conflict-of-laws (choice-of-laws, if you will)
            principles can lead to odd circles of reasoning or paradoxes, ESPECIALLY
            if jurisdictions A & B each make the choice of law depend on whether a
            given issue is substantive or procedural, BUT each of the jurisdictions
            has a DIFFERENT classification about whether THAT PARTICULAR issue is
            substantive or not, or procedural or not. With 50 independent countries
            federated into one in the United States, this kind of issue over
            conflict of laws (private inter-state law or private international law,
            if you will) has arisen thousands of times, so pretty much all possible
            approaches have been tried. You DON'T want a catalogue of them. <grin>
            But at least one approach is to try to set up a few substantive rules
            for recurring kinds of cases, somehow outside of any particular state's
            substantive rules.

            Don't know whether this helps. If you can find the French, that would
            be wonderful.
          • Matej Klimes
            Hi Michael, thanks for the time you took, Here s the French version not that far from English AFAICT: On constate souvent, en droit international prive, un
            Message 5 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Michael, thanks for the time you took,

              Here's the French version not that far from English AFAICT:

              On constate souvent, en droit international prive, un recul de la methode
              conflictualiste au profit de regles materielles dont le contenu parait
              pafois bien incertain.

              Sorry, no energy left to do the accents, but there's not many of them...

              Don't spend too much time on this, I'm mostly concerned about the method
              thing.

              Was it me who said that he would not touch EU stuff with a bargepole only a
              year ago??? Now I'm in the middle of correcting two completely f**ed-up
              translations [of un-english originals too].... ach jo.

              Thanks again,
              Matej


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Michael Trittipo" <tritt002@...>
              To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 3:43 PM
              Subject: Re: [Czechlist] Conflict of Laws Method


              > >
              > >
              > >"Private international law has often demonstrated a setback of the
              conflict
              > >of law method in favour of the adoption of material rules, which are
              > >sometimes uncertain"
              > >
              > >BTW - this is a French to English original, so some of the sentence
              > >structure is somewhat off - I'm not sure I understand the logic behind
              this
              > >sentence (especially the "in favour part") . . ..
              > >
              > I don't envy you that one. Do you happen to have the French? I do
              > French-to-English besides Cz|Sk>Eng.
              >
              > Usually, "a setback" would mean a loss of ground; that something which
              > was winning has lost, but perhaps only for the time being, i.e., an
              > eventual possible victory has only been delayed, not forever foreclosed.
              > But you're right; the flavour here is off, especially with the "often"
              > and "demonstrated" bits. (The "in favour of" doesn't bother me as much,
              > though it is one of the reasons for considering a second possible
              > meaning.) (The "material" here should clearly mean "substantive" -- v
              > podstate, nikoliv jenom formalni, ani jenom procesualni. So that's an
              > easy one.) So here's two possible versions of that sentence (anglicky):
              >
              > The first assumes that "setback" has been chosen as a not-terribly-good
              > translation of something that ought to be more like "rejection" but as
              > having the flavor of one thing losing ground (or "market share" if you
              > will) in favour of another which is gaining ground (or becoming more
              > popular):
              >
              > "Private international law has often seen rejection of the usual
              > application of conflict-of-law principles, and adoption in their place
              > of substantive rules, although* these latter are sometimes not [as]
              > definite [as some might desire][OR - "are sometimes not susceptible to
              > mechanical application]."
              >
              > (The use of "and . . . in their place" replaces the "in favour of" --
              > "he rejected plan A in favour of plan B" means he rejected plan A and
              > did so because he found plan B to be better.) (As for "seen" versus
              > "demonstrated," that would be a relic of the original Fr>En process. It
              > would be wonderful if you could get your hands on a French original.)
              >
              > The second assumes a different reason for wrongly using "setback" and it
              > assumes that "in favour of the adoption" was meant to modify "method" as
              > a prepositional phrase, NOT to be a coordinating clause:
              >
              > "Private international law has often shown a disadvantage in applying
              > usual conflict-of-law principles that favour adoption of this or that
              > substantive rule, because the substantive rules themselves are sometimes
              > uncertain."
              >
              > Maybe, having entire paragraphs before and after this sentence, you can
              > see which meaning fits logically with the overall flow of the author's
              > reasoning or exposition. Boy, would it help to have the French. But
              > without it, I can explain where each of the two possible meanings is
              > coming from. (There may be other possible meanings, too -- these are
              > the first two that come to mind as most likely, but I'm open to good
              > suggestions.)
              >
              > The first meaning is based on the idea that the parties can decide in
              > their own contracts what law will govern their dealings in what
              > respects. The first meaning would then be commenting on a supposed
              > trend by the parties (presumably, for this meaning, fairly large,
              > sophisticated contracting entities) to NOT simply say "Angolan law" or
              > "Fijian law", and to go beyond that to try, themselves, to write up the
              > substantive rules that should be applied. Of course, doing that would
              > be VERY difficult, probably even impossible to do completely -- and even
              > the most sophisticated or capable parties and lawyers might not succeed
              > in getting the rules expressed very clearly. Alternatively, the first
              > meaning could be about courts and judges trying to reject being forced
              > simply to choose between country A's law or country B's, and trying to
              > start creating a kind of "common law of international dealings" without
              > reference to EITHER country A or B. (It's the uncertainty between who's
              > doing the rejecting or setting back, that led me to choose the passive
              > voice.)
              >
              > The second meaning is based on an appreciation of the fact that the
              > classic statements of conflict-of-laws (choice-of-laws, if you will)
              > principles can lead to odd circles of reasoning or paradoxes, ESPECIALLY
              > if jurisdictions A & B each make the choice of law depend on whether a
              > given issue is substantive or procedural, BUT each of the jurisdictions
              > has a DIFFERENT classification about whether THAT PARTICULAR issue is
              > substantive or not, or procedural or not. With 50 independent countries
              > federated into one in the United States, this kind of issue over
              > conflict of laws (private inter-state law or private international law,
              > if you will) has arisen thousands of times, so pretty much all possible
              > approaches have been tried. You DON'T want a catalogue of them. <grin>
              > But at least one approach is to try to set up a few substantive rules
              > for recurring kinds of cases, somehow outside of any particular state's
              > substantive rules.
              >
              > Don't know whether this helps. If you can find the French, that would
              > be wonderful.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Czechlist archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
              >
              > Czechlist resources:
              > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/Intro.html
              >
              > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
            • Michael
              Message 6 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                << On constate souvent, en droit international prive, un recul de la
                methode conflictualiste au profit de regles materielles dont le
                contenu parait pafois bien incertain. >>

                Thanks! That helps. Instead of the version you had:

                "Private international law has often demonstrated a setback of the
                conflict of law method in favour of the adoption of material rules,
                which are sometimes uncertain"

                I might try something more like the following in English (patience --
                I'll do something stupid and try going into Czech instead of just out
                of it in a minute):

                "It is often noted in regard to private international law that the
                conflict-resolving method is becoming less used, its place being
                taken by substantive rules whose content seems sometimes quite
                uncertain."

                or even

                "It is often noted that the trend in private international law is
                away from mechanical choice-of-law rules and towards substantive
                rules whose content seems sometimes uncertain."

                The "méthode conflictualiste" is simply an approach or procedure (I
                wouldn't get hung up on the word "method") for choosing between two
                sets of substantive (i.e., non-choice-of-law) rules, if and when
                there is a conflict between two (or more) possibly applicable laws.

                So "kolizni metoda" should be OK; or "kolizni normy" or "zpusob
                urcovani rozhodneho prava"? Something built around "Urcovani
                rozhodneho prava pomoci koliznich norem ustupuje, zatimco pouziti
                [primych] hmotnepravnich pravidel vzrusta"?

                From that approach, it sounds more as though the kind of thing the
                author is talking about is, for example, the Vienna Convention, which
                starts creating some substantive rules of sales law directly, rather
                than just setting up rules for how to choose which country's sales
                law will apply. So you can ignore all my previous nonsense, guessing
                on the basis of bad English. My money now is on the author drawing a
                distinction here between the old ways premised on lex fori, lex loci
                delicti, lex contractus, atd., and new ways based on treaties that
                actually try to create substantive rules, not just rules for choosing
                between someone *else's* sets of substantive rules.
              • Michael
                ... Sorry, pouzivani, not pouziti. Also, I noticed the following discussion while rooting around -- note the last three lines ***: Otázka kolize pořadí je
                Message 7 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Czechlist@y..., "Michael" <tritt002@t...> wrote:
                  > << On constate . . . en droit international prive, un recul de la
                  > methode conflictualiste au profit de regles materielles dont le
                  > contenu parait pafois bien incertain. >>

                  > "It is often noted that the trend in private international law is
                  > away from mechanical choice-of-law rules and towards substantive
                  > rules whose content seems sometimes uncertain."
                  >
                  > . . . "Urcovani
                  > rozhodneho prava pomoci koliznich norem ustupuje, zatimco pouziti
                  > [primych] hmotnepravnich pravidel vzrusta"?

                  Sorry, pouzivani, not pouziti. Also, I noticed the following
                  discussion while rooting around -- note the last three lines ***:

                  "Otázka kolize poøadí je øešena v §2 ZMPS – ustanovení tohoto zákona
                  se použije jen pokud nestanoví nìco jiného mezinárodní smlouva,
                  kterou je ÈR vázána. Stejná ustanovení mají také ZRØ a obch. zák.
                  (§756)

                  Na základì §2 ZMPS se nepoužije ustanovení tohoto zákona nejen,
                  jestliže . . . mezinárodní smlouvou ***jsou pro úpravu dané otázky
                  stanoveny hmotnìprávní pøímé normy, tzn. v dùsledku pøímé úpravy
                  odpadá vùbec používání kolizních norem***"

                  That *** bit sounds as though it's talking about the same thing the
                  French is.
                • Michael
                  ... Prave v tom je smysl toho, co napsal puvodni autor, jestli se nemylim. Mezinarodni pravo soukrome je to mezinarodni pravo, co ne patri mezinarodnim pravu
                  Message 8 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > >"private international law" and "conflict of Laws"
                    > >are synonyms meaning "mezinarodni pravo soukrome";
                    >hmm, that does not make sense to me at all . . ..

                    Prave v tom je smysl toho, co napsal puvodni autor, jestli se
                    nemylim. Mezinarodni pravo soukrome je to mezinarodni pravo, co ne
                    patri mezinarodnim pravu verjenem. Az dosud, mezinarodni pravo
                    soukrome nebylo skoro nic jineho nez soubor koliznich norem: normy
                    cim se resila problematika volby rozhodneho prava. Ale -- podle
                    autora a musim priznat i v skutecosti -- uz nekolik desitky let se
                    objevuje novy system, tak ze mezinarodni pravo soukrome uz obsahuje
                    nejen kolizni normy, ale taky (ackoliv jenom dosud v nekolika
                    omezenych oblastech) prima hmotnepravna pravidla. Podle autora
                    puvodniho dokumentu, pouzivani primych hmotnepravnych pravidla bude
                    cim dal, tim vic nahradit soucasny system pouzivani koliznich norem.
                    Priklad je Videnska umluva o koupe zbozi. Tak ze ty dve vyrazy byly
                    synonymy, ale ted uz nejsou docela.

                    No, aspon takhle si to predstavim podle te jedne vety, co jsme
                    cetli. Ale errare humanum est. :-)
                  • jorix24
                    Zdravim, navstevuji ted doplnujici pravnicke studium pro prekladatele a tlumocniky pri prav. fakulte v Praze a tam nam dusledne tvrdi, ze Conflict of laws je
                    Message 9 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Zdravim,
                      navstevuji ted doplnujici pravnicke studium pro prekladatele a
                      tlumocniky pri prav. fakulte v Praze a tam nam dusledne tvrdi,
                      ze "Conflict of laws" je opravdu "mezinarodni pravo soukrome". Takze
                      bych se osobne priklanela k tomuto prekladu. Co se tyce tech methods,
                      tak asi "metody mezinarodniho prava soukromeho", pripadne ze
                      by "metodika"?
                      Jana Louvarova


                      --- In Czechlist@y..., "Matej Klimes" <mklimes@m...> wrote:
                      > Hi list,
                      >
                      >
                      > anyone has a suggestion for Czech translation of the above?
                      >
                      > metoda kolize/konfliktu zakonu
                      > metoda stretu pravnich norem
                      >
                      > both don't work on Google, I am told that this is a set
                      expression...
                      >
                      > Thanks
                      >
                      > Matej
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Matej Klimes
                      Michael, I think you d deserve the money I m supposed to pay the person who did the original (and very poor) translation..... I don t have enough legal
                      Message 10 of 16 , Dec 4, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Michael, I think you'd deserve the money I'm supposed to pay the person who
                        did the original (and very poor) translation.....

                        I don't have enough legal expertise to deal with this myself, but I fw'd it
                        to people who can.

                        Thanks

                        Matej


                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Michael" <tritt002@...>
                        To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 12:23 AM
                        Subject: [Czechlist] Re: Conflict of Laws Method


                        > > >"private international law" and "conflict of Laws"
                        > > >are synonyms meaning "mezinarodni pravo soukrome";
                        > >hmm, that does not make sense to me at all . . ..
                        >
                        > Prave v tom je smysl toho, co napsal puvodni autor, jestli se
                        > nemylim. Mezinarodni pravo soukrome je to mezinarodni pravo, co ne
                        > patri mezinarodnim pravu verjenem. Az dosud, mezinarodni pravo
                        > soukrome nebylo skoro nic jineho nez soubor koliznich norem: normy
                        > cim se resila problematika volby rozhodneho prava. Ale -- podle
                        > autora a musim priznat i v skutecosti -- uz nekolik desitky let se
                        > objevuje novy system, tak ze mezinarodni pravo soukrome uz obsahuje
                        > nejen kolizni normy, ale taky (ackoliv jenom dosud v nekolika
                        > omezenych oblastech) prima hmotnepravna pravidla. Podle autora
                        > puvodniho dokumentu, pouzivani primych hmotnepravnych pravidla bude
                        > cim dal, tim vic nahradit soucasny system pouzivani koliznich norem.
                        > Priklad je Videnska umluva o koupe zbozi. Tak ze ty dve vyrazy byly
                        > synonymy, ale ted uz nejsou docela.
                        >
                        > No, aspon takhle si to predstavim podle te jedne vety, co jsme
                        > cetli. Ale errare humanum est. :-)
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Czechlist archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
                        >
                        > Czechlist resources:
                        > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/Intro.html
                        >
                        > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                      • Michael Trittipo
                        ... S tim bych souhlasil, do té (velmi velké) míry, že zdaleka největší část mezinárodního práva soúkromého je totožné s tou oblástí, kterou
                        Message 11 of 16 , Dec 4, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          jorix24 wrote:

                          >navstevuji ted doplnujici pravnicke studium pro prekladatele a
                          >tlumocniky pri prav. fakulte v Praze a tam nam dusledne tvrdi,
                          >ze "Conflict of laws" je opravdu "mezinarodni pravo soukrome".
                          >
                          S tim bych souhlasil, do té (velmi velké) míry, že zdaleka největší část
                          mezinárodního práva soúkromého je totožné s tou oblástí, kterou v
                          angličtině má název conflict of laws. Jenomže vždycky jsou výjimky. (No,
                          *skoro* vždycky bývají <úsměv>)

                          Podle http://www.ekf.vsb.cz/KAT/K119/predmety/11907.doc, zdá se, že
                          teoretičtí práva začínají rozlišovat mezi obvyklým používáním kolizních
                          metod, i používáním přímého řešení několika otázek prostředníctvím úmluv
                          atd. V tom, co nasleduje, citují jenom nejvýznamnější věty; věta v ***
                          bych označil jako výjímkou oproti obvýklé kolizní metodě, pravě protože
                          tímto přímým řešením podle úmluvy se žadná kolize ani střet neobjevuje
                          mezi pouze státními normami:

                          "Osnova předmětu:
                          # Mezinárodní právo soukromé, kolizní normy, volba práva, principy
                          mezinárodního práva soukromého.
                          # Volba práva, kolizní problematika, určování rozhodného práva v
                          souvislosti s konkrétním smluvním vztahem.
                          *** # Přímé normy mezinárodního práva soukromého. ***
                          # Vídeňská úmluva OSN o smlouvách o mezinárodní koupi zboží, New Yorská
                          úmluva o promlčení v souvislosti s mezinárodní koupi zboží.
                          # Standardizovaná pravidla - standardizované smluvní podmínky (doložky
                          dodání INCOTERMS a d.)."

                          Viz taky http://www.law.muni.cz/katedry/22170.html
                          "Cílem kursu je seznámit studenty se základními koncepcemi práva
                          mezinárodního obchodu (tradiční koncepce, koncepce lex mercatoria)" ---
                          řekl bych, že lex mercatoria je právě to, co Vídeňská úmluva začíná
                          tvořit, bez používání tradiční kolizní metody nebo kolizních norem.
                          a taky, u stejné stránky:
                          " Cílem tohoto základního kursu je seznámit studenty s následující
                          problematikou . . ..V rámci předmětu jsou rozebrány následující otázky:
                          prameny mezinárodního práva soukromého (mezinárodní smlouvy, normy
                          vnitrostátní povahy), metody mezinárodního práva soukromého (zejména
                          kolizní ***a přímá***)"
                          --- kde zase v těch posledních třech slovech vidíme rozlišování mezi
                          kolizní metodou i přímou, nebo mezi používání kolizních norem i přímých.

                          Asi jsem se špatně vyjadřil a je více než zřejmé, proč překladám jenom
                          do angličtiny a nikdy v opačném směru. Ale mám dojem, že tento rozdíl je
                          tímhle, oč autor původního dokumentu se snažil mluvit.
                        • Michael Trittipo
                          Message 12 of 16 , Dec 4, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Michael Trittipo wrote:

                            >. . . největší část
                            >mezinárodního práva soúkromého je totožn<-é-><+á+> s tou oblástí, kter<-ou-><+á+> v
                            >angličtině má název . . ..
                            >
                            :-(
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.