Material Justice and Conflicts Justice in Choice of Law

Abstract

Should conflicts of laws be resolved by applying to them the "roper law" regardless of outcome ("conflicts justice"), or rather by directly aiming for the proper substantive outcome regardless of law ("material justice")? This essay explores the history and current state of these two opposing views regarding the principal goal of conflicts law. It catalogues the recent gains made by the latter view (many more than commonly assumed) and takes the position that the above dilemma should not be resolved in an "either or" manner. It accepts the premise that material-justice considerations should be kept in mind as one of the factors that should guide the pursuit of conflicts justice and explores the question of when and how such considerations should be given preference.