Preventing Conflicts in the Principle of Unity of Disputes in Private International Law: A Comparative Analytical Study in International Law's Lack of Regulation

Abstract

Abstract

This study examines the prevention of conflicting judgments in private international disputes as a central issue in international jurisdiction and procedural unity. The problem arises when the same dispute, or closely connected disputes, are brought before courts belonging to different legal systems, creating the risk of parallel proceedings, inconsistent judgments, and practical obstacles to recognition and enforcement. The Iraqi legal framework regulates related proceedings and duplication of actions within domestic jurisdiction, particularly through Articles 75 and 76 of the Iraqi Civil Procedure Law, but lacks a specific rule for international jurisdiction. The study adopts an analytical and comparative methodology. It analyses the Iraqi legal position and compares it with Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, which provides rules on lis pendens, related actions, and provisional measures. The study concludes that preventing conflicting judgments should be treated as a flexible procedural mechanism serving sound administration of justice, procedural economy, and protection of the right of access to court. It recommends explicit Iraqi legislative intervention to regulate international lis pendens, related actions, and provisional measures according to clear criteria that preserve due process, public policy, and the effectiveness of judgments.