This article describes transnational private law as a decentralized and intermediate form of transnational governance that recognizes and manages the multiplicity of norms generated by plural normative systems in our contemporary world society.
With a focus on the plural normative orders of international business transactions, the article discusses how transnational private law (4) addresses the limits of theoretical understandings of global business norms informed by global legal pluralism.
Transnational private law is used as a frame to consider private international law together with private law.
Viewing transnational private law in this way, the connection among private law, global legal pluralism, and transnational governance of business relations is made clearer.
We argue that the conception of private law as government regulation in Snyder arises from a combination of (1) the doctrinal tools that judges use in First Amendment cases, (2) the unitary nature of the state-action doctrine, and (3) the influence of instrumentalism, specifically in obscuring the plaintiffs agency and the state interest in redress, and in privileging a particular view of compensation.
In this Article, we approach the tension in Snyder between private law and the First Amendment through the lens of private law as individual justice.
We argue that the Supreme Court's theory of private law--one that follows the dominant view of private law as a species of government regulation--has distorted its decisions in several areas, including the First Amendment-tort clash in Snyder.
From the inception of the tort-versus-First Amendment doctrine, therefore, the Court treated private law as a tool used by government to suppress and punish speech.
area of private law and makes contracts with private individuals and
which "both the principles of private law and the norms of public
infiltrated private law, initially in private law relationships between
private law, (11) and from private law to public law.