Talk:Choice of Law

Merger Proposal
Hello all. I have begun to attempt to implement the English IPL rules into several of the conflict of laws pages. Some, Characterisation one in particular, needs a lot of work. I wondered your thoughts on consolidating Characterisation with the conflicts choice of law article. Characterisation, at least in its English use, is a technique used to determine the application of choice of law rules. It is unclear whether it warrants a page entirely on its own seeing as how, English law uses it as a technique to 'characterise' causes of actions - and subsequently apply choice of law rules to those characterised actions. It was pioneered under MacMillan v Bishopsgate (No 3), which, to those unfamiliar, may warrant a read. I am of the opinion that it would be better to be under its own heading within choice of law, alongside a concerted effort to expand the Brussels and Rome Regulation exploration within this article (as it operates a crucial and primary tenant of EU Conflict of laws rules, especially relating to commercial and civil matters. Particularly the Rome Regulations, which are themselves mandatory rules which determine English (and EU more generally) rules of characterisation.

I'd be happy to hear other's thoughts on this matter and am willing to provide further reasoning for my proposal BNClawyer32 (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on the grounds that, at least as the Choice of law page describes it Characterisation is one of 4 stages in Choice of law. Given the length of the former page, it seems reasonable (WP:SUMMARY) to keep these as parent/child articles. Klbrain (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)