From Territoriality to Virtuality: Rethinking the Philosophy of Conflict-of-Laws Rules

Private international law is witnessing a profound transformation in its philosophy and normative framework, resulting from the shift of conflict-of-laws rules from a world governed by territoriality to a digital sphere in which the physical borders of states are fading. Traditionally, conflict-of-laws rules were founded on the principle of territoriality, which assumes that legal relationships with a foreign element can be connected to a specific territory through established connecting factors. However, this conception has become incapable of accommodating the nature of virtual transactions occurring in a digital environment that neither recognizes location nor is subject to specific territorial sovereignty. In light of this transformation, there emerges a trend towards a modern philosophy of conflict-of-laws rules that redefines legal connections from a functional and digital perspective rather than a spatial one. The new conflict-of-laws rules arise from the logic of virtual impact and connection rather than the logic of territory and its boundaries. This necessitates the development of a hybrid system of conflict-of-laws rules that combines digital flexibility with guarantees of legal justice, ensuring a balance between state sovereignty and the protection of parties in cyberspace. It also requires the reformulation of concepts such as jurisdiction, the applicable law, and the recognition of foreign judgments in light of the growing virtual reality. Accordingly, the future of private international law is heading toward a dual philosophical transformation—from territory to space, and from place to function—reconstructing conflict-of-laws rules as a rational tool to regulate legal plurality in a world