Codification of Private International Law in Mixed Jurisdictions (on the Puerto Rico Example)

The processes of codification of Private International Law in the last 30–35 years have been extremely active and global in nature, affecting both continental and common legal families. In view of the fundamentally different understanding of PIL in the two legal systems, the fate of its codification in the third legal system, the family of mixed law, arouses curiosity. Until recently, of all mixed jurisdictions, PIL was codified only in Louisiana, USA, and Quebec, Canada, but at the end of 2020, a third participant was added to this circle — Puerto Rico, where a new Civil Code came into force, the introductory title of which contains chapter VI “Conflict rules”. Puerto Rican PIL seems to be an interesting field for research, both because of the novelty of the adopted regulation, and in connection with the specific position of Puerto Rico: it is not a sovereign state, but not just a part of a federal state, it is a free unincorporated (associated) territory, special status of which confirms its independent membership in the institutions of inter-American regional integration. Using traditional legal methodology (comparative analysis, comparative law, historical and legal analysis, semantic and dogmatic interpretation of the law), the article analyzes: the specifics of Puerto Rico as a mixed jurisdiction; the formation of PIL of this country; development of the Project of its codification; regulation of issues of the General Part of PIL in the new Civil Code of 2020. The approach of the Puerto Rican legislator to the normative fixing of the institutions of the General Part of PIL is the focus of the study, since the elaboration of the fundamental principles of conflict of laws is the key to a correct and fair choice of applicable law. If the legislator establishes clear, understandable, demanded and predictable general principles, a “sane” road map, then judicial practice is quite capable of developing adequate specific conflict decisions. It is concluded that, unfortunately, it was the institutions of the General Part that the legislator of Puerto Rico “succeeded” to the least extent, and it is this part that demonstrates the greatest number of shortcomings.