Conflict of laws is a term that sets out a long list of rules and regulations which are designed to resolve private disputes containing a foreign or an international element. 'Foreign' element actually indicates that there is some sort of a contact with some other law which is not exactly English law. A suitable example to explain the definition at ease can be that a tort was committed, but it was committed in a foreign country or, for instance, the parties who committed the tortious act are not English. An alternative term which is used for conflict of laws in Europe is “private international law.” Another example where the situation of conflict of laws may arise can be in a scenario where a contract has been signed in one state, and it has been to some other state. In such complicated scenarios, the court decides by the law of the territory having the closest connection with the entire transaction. This article focuses on what is exactly known as the conflict of laws and the history of it, showcasing some imperative cases like Robinson v Blant case where a significant doctrine has been introduced by the courts. The article discussed harmonisation and the type of it, and the different harmonising techniques that were used to bring harmonisation into effect. The article also displays fundamental information related to the nature of harmonisation, the advantages and the drawbacks of it, and also what are the two categories of conflict in harmonised areas. Finally, a neat conclusion has been drawn in this article that how the denationalisation of the uniform law along with the regulation of international business can effectively reduce the conflict of laws rules.
