Encyclopedia of Private International Law
Show Less

Encyclopedia of Private International Law

Edited by Jürgen Basedow, Giesela Rühl, Franco Ferrari and Pedro de Miguel Asensio

The role and character of Private International Law has changed tremendously over the past decades. With the steady increase of global and regional inter-connectedness the practical significance of the discipline has grown. Equally, so has the number of legislative activities on the national, international and, most importantly, the European level. With a world-class editor team, 500 content items and authorship from almost 200 of the world’s foremost scholars, the Encyclopedia of Private International Law is the definitive reference work in the field. 57 different countries are represented by authors who shed light on the current state of Private International Law around the globe, providing unique insights into the discipline and how it is affected by globalization and increased regional integration. The Encyclopedia consists of three inter-linked pillars, enhanced by sophisticated search and cross-linking functionality. The first pillar consists of A-Z coverage of the scope and substance of Private International Law in the form of 247 entries. The second pillar comprises detailed overviews of the Private International Law regimes of 80 countries. The third pillar presents valuable, and often unique, English language translations of the national codifications and Private International Law provisions of those countries. This invaluable combination represents a powerful research tool and an indispensable reference resource.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
Limited access

Dominican Republic

José Carlos Fernández Rozas

I. From an incomplete system to a modern codified private international law

The Private International Law Act of the Dominican Republic (Ley No 544-14 sobre Derecho internacional privado de la República Dominicana/Private International Law Act of the Dominican Republic, henceforth PILA) was published in the Official Gazette of the Dominican Republic on 18 December 2014 (pp 20–44). Before that date the Dominican Republic did not have a special law or code regulating the vast majority of private international law matters. In general, the different areas of private international law were insufficiently regulated and the relevant provisions were found in the Civil Code (Código civil de la República Dominicana, arreglado por la Comisión nombrada por el Poder Ejecutivo, y conforme al Decreto del Consejo Nacional de fecha 4 de julio de 1882, conservando el orden de los artículos del texto francés vigentes en la República desde el año 1845) and spread across several various legal instruments, such as Law No 136-03 that established the Code for the Protection p. 1of Children and Adolescents and their Fundamental Rights (Código para el Sistema de Protección y los Derechos Fundamentales de Niños, Niñas y Adolescentes, 7 August 2003). This applied to the provisions covering the determination of the jurisdiction of Dominican courts, the designation of the law applicable to cases with foreign elements, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The few and scattered provisions contained in the Civil Code and several special laws have been entirely substituted by the new PILA that provides a comprehensive code covering international jurisdiction, →choice of law and recognition and enforcement of judgments.

Regulation of matters of international jurisdiction in the Dominican Republic was to be found only in the provisions established in arts 14 and 15 of the Civil Code (Código civil). These rules were basically literal translations of their counterparts in the 1804 French Civil Code (Code Civil of 21 March 1804) and they raised similar concerns as to their potential significance as the source of exorbitant and excessive jurisdiction. Pursuant to the text of art 14 Civil Code, an alien, even if not residing in the Republic, might be cited before Dominican courts for the performance of obligations contracted by him in the Republic with a Dominican person; he might be called before the courts for obligations contracted by him in a foreign country towards Dominican persons. Moreover, art 15 stated that Dominican persons might be called before a court of the Republic for obligations contracted by them in a foreign country, even with an alien.

In the absence of explicit rules in the civil procedure legislation, case-law played a significant role in the interpretation and application of the system, but in practice significant uncertainties remained in this field.

The regulation of issues of applicable law was clearly outdated since it was based on the contents of art 3 of the Napoleonic Code 1804 as established in art 3 of the Civil Code of the Dominican Republic modelled on the statute theory. In accordance with these provisions:

  • Statutes relating to public policy and safety are binding to all those living in the territory.

  • Immovable property is governed by Dominican law even when it is owned by foreigners.

  • Statutes relating to the status and capacity of persons govern all Dominicans even if they reside in a foreign country.

Prior to the adoption of the PILA, the system of applicable law had three basic characteristics. First, there were obvious and unacceptable lacunae as it made no mention of the regulation of movable property (→Property and proprietary rights), form of acts, contracts and matters of →succession. Second, its basic regulatory technique was markedly unilateral and based on the determination of the spatial scope of application of the law of the forum. Finally, the aforementioned art 3 was characterized by the use of the person’s →nationality to determine the law applicable to so-called ‘personal status matters’, substituting the rule that had previously dominated this area, which was determination of applicable law based on domicile. In its application by Dominican courts, the bilateralization of the unilateral rules established in art 3 of the Civil Code was admitted for obvious reasons of →reciprocity. This approach made possible the application of foreign laws (→Foreign law, application and ascertainment), concerning claims from non-nationals. (On the possibility for the Dominican courts of applying foreign law on the basis of art 3 of the Civil Code, see the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice (Suprema Corte de Justicia (SJC)) No 72, 13 January 2006, No 115, 9 June 2010 and No 128, 15 September 2010.) Notwithstanding this, the fact that art 3 of the Civil Code was in force for more than 150 years gives an idea of the shortcomings of the Dominican system of private international law as regards the determination of applicable laws until the enactment of the PILA.

In the field of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments there was also great uncertainty. Traditionally, the courts had applied the rules concerning exequatur contained in the old Civil Procedure Code of 1882 (Código de Procedimiento Civil de la Republica Dominicana: arreglado por la comisión nombrada por el poder ejecutivo, y conforme al decreto del Congreso nacional de fecha 4 de julio de 1882, conservando el orden de los artículos del texto francés vijente en la República desde el año de 1845). This was the situation until the modification made by art 122 of Law No 834/1978, which stated that judgments rendered by foreign courts and acts by foreign officials shall be enforceable in the Republic, in the manner and cases envisaged by the law. The subsistence of the previous law was questionable since the 1978 Act did not include express derogations. Additionally, respect was due to the relevant provisions of the Bustamante p. 1Code (arts 423 et seq) or the Convention on Private International Law (Bustamante Code), adopted at Havana on 20 February 1928 at the Sixth International Conference of American States (OAS, Law And Treaty Series, No 34 (approved by resolution No 1055, 20 November 1928 in the National Congress of the Dominican Republic)). It is noteworthy that the Bustamante Code has a very limited territorial application, since it only applies among the participating states (see art 2 of the Bustamante Code). Only a few Latin American States have given full acceptance (→Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and →Peru), while others have made significant reservations (→Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and →Venezuela) or have subjected it to internal legislation (Bolivia, →Chile, → Costa Rica, →Ecuador and El Salvador). Article 423 of the Bustamante Code as to the checks for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments specifically refers to the verification of the jurisdiction of the rendering court, control of the circumstances under which the defendant was served with the document which instituted the proceedings, →public policy (ordre public), enforceability in the rendering country, and translation and authenticity of the public document.

Awareness expanded in recent years about the need to establish a new set of legal responses to the specific problems of private international relations. This was achieved in December 2014 by the adoption of the PILA, which provides a modern and comprehensive regulation in all areas of private international law.

II. The inadequate and obsolete nature of the Bustamante Code

The true significance of the Bustamante Code – adopted by the Dominican Republic in 1928 (approved by Resolution No 1055, 20 November 1928 in the National Congress) – in the Dominican system of private international law should be subjected to critical assessment. While its influence was evident in the 1943 Draft Proposal of the Civil Code, this never came into effect, and even Law No 142 on divorce (Law 1303-bis on Divorce (Ley de divorcio), 21 May 1937 (modified by Law 142, 4 June 1971)) was developed in total contradiction with the provisions found in arts 52 et seq of the Bustamante Code. Moreover, the Code allowed significant flexibility in its implementation by contracting states and accepted in many areas that national legislation can deviate from the solutions established in the Code.

The Dominican Republic, true to its French legal tradition, reinforced the principle of nationality at the time of adhering to the Code. It made a reservation stating its desire to maintain the application of its national laws in matters concerning the civil status and capacity of Dominicans regardless of their residence. This was consistent with the provision in art 3(3) of the Dominican Civil Code. In accordance with this approach, not only matters of civil status and capacity but also family relations and succession would be governed by national laws. Thus, a wide extraterritoriality of Dominican laws was assumed, making them applicable to all Dominican nationals regardless of their present location. As an overall assessment, it may be established that the Bustamante Code has had very little practical relevance in the Dominican Republic.

The case-law of the Dominican courts demonstrates how the Bustamante Code has not had significant practical application and has been limited to occasional use as a reference tool by parties to justify a claim legally alongside constitutional requirements or provisions of international human rights laws. In particular, the limited territorial scope of application resulting from the number of states participating in the Bustamente Code has been a key factor to exclude its application in situations connected with third countries, such as the US (see the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice (Suprema Corte de Justicia) SCJ No 128, 15 September 2010). Other than this, given its broad scope of application, the Bustamante Code has also been applied in some situations to matters outside of the traditional conception of private international law such as extradition.

III. Overview of the international sources

Unlike other countries within the same region, the participation of the Dominican Republic in international fora for the codification of private international law has been modest to date. The Dominican Republic has not become a member of the →Hague Conference on Private International Law. Notwithstanding this, in recent years it has participated in some sessions at the Hague Conference concerning the protection of minors. In fact, the Dominican Republic has become a contracting party to p. 1three Conventions adopted by the Hague Conference. However, an overall assessment of the participation of the Dominican Republic in international conventions in the field of private international law shows very limited results.

Bilateral agreements have only been concluded in the field of judicial cooperation, such as the Convention between the Dominican Republic and Spain Regarding Legal Aid in Civil and Commercial Matters, signed at Madrid on 15 September 2003 (BOE No 254 of 23 October 2003).

Concerning multilateral agreements, a new trend may be found in recent times showing participation in some of the main international instruments, although the results remain insufficient. In the field of international commercial law, reference should be made to the adoption in 2002 of the New York Convention (New York Convention of 10 June 1958 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, 330 UNTS 3) and the ratification in 2011 of CISG (United Nations Convention of 11 April 1980 on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1489 UNTS 3). Additionally, reference has to be made to the participation of the Dominican Republic in the Hamburg Rules (United Nations Convention of 31 March 1978 on the carriage of goods by sea, 1695 UNTS 3).

The level of participation of the Dominican Republic is very limited with respect to the international conventions drafted by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. As far as civil procedure conventions are concerned, the Dominican Republic has only been a party since 2008 to the Hague Legalization Convention (Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 abolishing the requirement of legalization for foreign public documents, 527 UNTS 189). The Dominican Republic has been more active in joining the convention establishing mechanisms of cooperation of authorities concerning minors. In this area, the Dominican Republic is a party since 2004 to the Hague Child Abduction Convention (Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction, 1343 UNTS 89). It also became a contracting party in 2007 to the Hague Adoption Convention (Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on protection of children and cooperation in respect of inter-country adoption, 1870 UNTS 167; 32 ILM 1134). Furthermore, in 2010 the Dominican Republic adhered to the Hague Child Protection Convention (Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and cooperation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children, 35 ILM 1391).

The participation of the Dominican Republic in the framework of international judicial cooperation in civil matters developed within the Organization of American States by the Inter-American Specialized Conferences on Private International Law (Conferencia Especializada Interamericana sobre Derecho Internacional Privado or →CIDIP) is also very limited. The Dominican Republic is a party to the Inter-American Taking of Evidence Abroad Convention (Inter-American Convention of 30 January 1975 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad, 1438 UNTS 385, OAS, Treaty Series, No 44) and the Inter-American Powers of Attorney Convention (Inter-American Convention of 30 January 1975 on the Legal Regime of Powers of Attorney to Be Used Abroad, 1438 UNTS 263, OAS, Treaty Series, No 45). In fact, it is mainly a contracting party to conventions of limited significance, such as the Inter-American Bills of Exchange Convention (Inter-American Convention of 30 January 1975 on Conflict of Laws Concerning Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes and Invoices, OAS, Treaty Series, No 40; 1438 UNTS 211) the Inter-American Arbitration Convention (Inter-American Convention of 30 January 1975 on International Commercial Arbitration, 1438 UNTS 249, OAS, Treaty Series, No 42) and the Inter-American Traffic in Minors Convention (Inter-American Convention of 17 March 1994 on International Traffic in Minors, OAS, Treaty Series, No 79). Other more significant instruments with a higher potential to modernize the private international law system, such as the Inter-American Contracts Convention (Inter-American Convention of 17 March 1994 on the Law Applicable to International Contracts, 33 ILM 732, also known as Mexico Convention), have not been ratified by the Dominican Republic.

IV. The new Private International Law Act

1. Background

In recent years the Dominican Republic has witnessed an unprecedented increase in the number of private international law problems that require special legislative attention. This increase is due to certain social, economic and legal factors. Among the factors influencing these new developments, some are of particular significance, such as the need to provide a p. 1legal response to the presence of the hundreds of thousands of foreigners within its territory, the majority of whom are from Haiti. Although the attention had focused on the constitutional debate regarding access to →nationality (see in particular the Judgment of the Constitutional Court 163/13 of 23 September 2013) and some public law aspects of immigration policy, the need to establish a new framework to address the legal issues raised by cross-border private relationships had become more obvious.

Furthermore, the Dominican Republic, thanks to its location, is particularly attractive to the tourism industry. The growth of this sector in the Republic now means that, without doubt, it is the country’s principal economic industry. This has seen economic growth in the Dominican Republic increase in addition to a rise in levels of international economic integration. The latter is such that, in the last decade, the country has concluded very important free trade agreements with the EU, US and various Central American countries. In particular, the DR-CAFTA (Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement ((2004) 43 ILM 514)) has been a key factor in the reform process of Dominican legislation on international trade and foreign investment. The opening of international trade and the policy of attracting foreign capital practised by the Dominican Republic has not only led to significant modifications to the legal system and administrative deregulation in relation to public law, but also the adaptation of the regulation of private transactions.

From a few years ago, the Dominican legislature has decisively dealt with this significant task, and many examples can be found, particularly in the evolution of legislation on foreign investment and commercial arbitration. However, the core provisions of private international law remained untouched and they were clearly not sufficient to provide legal certainty concerning international jurisdiction, applicable law or recognition and enforcement of judgments.

In this context a Preliminary Draft of a Private International Law Act was presented to the Dominican legislative body in 2013. During the legislative process, the Draft was subject to certain changes until it was finally adopted as Law 544/14 (PILA) (Gaceta Oficial, 18 December 2014, p 20). This new legislative instrument is aimed at four basic goals. First, to resolve the problems posed by the previous private international law system, characterized by the contradictions between arts 3 and 15 of the Civil Code and other provisions scattered across various instruments. Second, to adjust private international law legislation to accord with the current social background of the Dominican Republic. Third, to balance internal solutions with the results achieved in international codification, on the basis of the insight gained from the Hague Conference for private international law on a global scale, and those from the Inter-American Specialized Conferences on Private International Law (CIDIP) on a Latin American scale. This is done without losing sight of the solutions reached by the unification of EU private international law in coherence with the European origins of the Dominican system. Fourth, to adapt Dominican solutions to the universal development of the matter and to most recent codifications in this field.

2. Structure and common provisions

The PILA is organized into five titles: ‘Initial provisions’; ‘On the extent and limits of the Dominican jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters’; ‘On the determination of the applicable law’; ‘On the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and decisions’; and ‘Final provisions’.

Title I begins by laying down the scope of the Act. It covers the extent and limits of Dominican jurisdiction (→Jurisdiction, limits under international law), the determination of the applicable law and the conditions for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Three subject matters are exempted and hence not covered by the Act (art 2). These three areas are: administrative matters, commercial arbitration, and insolvency and related proceedings. Moreover, two general reservations are set to the application of the law in arts 3 and 4: first, that international treaties binding on the Dominican Republic prevail and, second, that the special national legal provisions regulating private international relations prevail over the general Act. Part I includes a section dedicated to the definitions of the domicile and habitual residence (→Domicile, habitual residence and establishment), both for natural and legal persons.

Title V contains no final provisions. Concerning its temporal scope of application, the PILA applies to all the proceedings initiated after the date of its entry into force, without prejudice to acquired rights. No special regime p. 1is established regarding its entry into force. The PILA entered into force since its enactment and publication and once elapsed the terms laid down in the Civil Code.

3. Jurisdiction

Title II regulates the scope of the jurisdiction of the Dominican courts and its limits.

First, it contemplates matters where the Dominican courts have exclusive and non-declinable jurisdiction. Granting exclusive jurisdiction to Dominican courts is envisaged in cases involving: →immovable property situated in the Dominican Republic; the nullity or the dissolution of →companies or legal persons having their domicile in Dominican territory, as well as with respect to validity of decisions of their organs; in matters of validity or invalidity of entries in Dominican registers; in matters of registrations or validity of patents and other rights required to be deposited or registered; in matters of the recognition and enforcement in the Dominican Republic of judgments and arbitration decisions rendered abroad; conservatory measures which are enforceable in the Dominican Republic; and proceedings regarding the determination of the Dominican nationality (art 11).

Second, Title II outlines two situations where the Dominican courts will have general jurisdiction regardless of the kind of dispute: (i) where there is a prorogation of jurisdiction in favour of the Dominican courts or (ii) where the defendant has his habitual residence in the Dominican Republic. Concerning prorogation of jurisdiction, pursuant to arts 12 and 18, the Dominican courts will have jurisdiction, on a general basis, when the parties have expressly or tacitly selected them, unless it affects the matters envisaged in arts 11 (exclusive jurisdiction) and 15 (person and family matters). Regarding the general forum of the defendant’s domicile, under art 19, in matters different from those envisaged in art 11 and absent a valid forum selection in favour of the Dominican courts, the Dominican courts will have jurisdiction when the defendant has his domicile in the Dominican Republic.

Third, Title II establishes the special jurisdiction rules relating to individual matters, institutions or specific legal relations. Article 15 provides special rules on: absence and presumption of death (→Absence (disappearance, presumed death)); incapacitation and protection of minors and adults; personal and property relations between spouses, nullity of →marriage, separation and divorce (→Divorce and personal separation); parent–child relationships; →adoption; and maintenance (→Maintenance obligations). Article 16 covers patrimonial law matters and includes special provisions on: contracts with specific rules for consumers (→Consumer contracts), insurance (→Insurance contracts) and employment contracts (→Employment contracts, applicable law; →Employment contracts, jurisdiction); non-contractual obligations; disputes regarding the exploitation of a branch, agency (→Agency and authority of agents) or commercial establishment; actions concerning movable assets; and inheritance.

Additional provisions envisage jurisdiction in multiple defendants cases (art 20; →Multiple defendants and joint liability) and so-called ‘forum necessitatis’. Article 21 enables the Dominican courts to exercise jurisdiction if no other forum guaranteeing the right to a fair trial is available and the dispute has a sufficient connection with the Dominican Republic.

Finally, it should be noted that art 23 PILA allows the possibility that Dominican courts decline their jurisdiction if requested by one of the parties to do so if they consider that a court of another state, with which the dispute has a particular connection, would be better placed to hear the case, in line with the →forum non conveniens doctrine of common-law countries.

4. Applicable law

Title III of the Act is dedicated to determining applicable law and is organized into two chapters. The first heading includes the so-called ‘regulatory standards’ or norms regulating the determination of the applicable law, whose function is to give a specific response to the issues raised by private international relations in the several areas of private law. The regulatory model is based on the adoption of multilateral conflict rules aimed at overcoming the previous unilateralist approach designed two centuries ago. In general terms, this model is characterized by a certain materialization and flexibility, with the establishment of successive or alternative connection points, and through the search for a more just solution. It reflects the current trends in international conventions, mainly of those adopted at the Hague Conference and the CIDIP, and it is also significantly influenced p. 1by the private international law instruments adopted by the EU.

This first chapter is organized into seven sections. The first section, ‘On the person and his rights’, includes provisions on: the law applicable to legal personality; the exercise of civil rights; capacity and civil statutes; rights relating to personality; the name and surname of a person; and absence and presumption of death (→Absence (disappearance, presumed death)). The main →connecting factor is the person’s domicile (→Domicile, habitual residence and establishment). It also contains provisions on the law applicable to commercial companies. The second section is devoted to family relations. Articles 40 to 48 establish the →choice of law rules on matrimonial matters and non-matrimonial unions. Articles 49 and 50 cover the determination of a parent–child relationship and →adoption. Section III deals with the protection of incapacitated persons and maintenance obligations. Section IV covers inheritance and →donation. The basic provision pursuant to art 54 is that inheritance is governed by the law of the domicile of the deceased person at the moment of his decease. Section V on →contractual obligations is heavily influenced by the Inter-American Contracts Convention/Mexico Convention and the Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), [2008] OJ L 177/6; →Rome Convention and Rome I Regulation (contractual obligations)). It also includes specific provisions on the applicable law to consumer contracts, →insurance contracts and individual employment contracts, as categories of contracts in which particular choice-of-law rules are justified to provide proper protection to a weaker party. Section VI on non-contractual obligations is significantly influenced by the →Rome II Regulation (non-contractual obligations) (Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), [2007] OJ L 199/40), including the acceptance of →party autonomy. Section VII focuses on the law applicable to rights in rem.

The second chapter of Title III comprises a set of implementing provisions under the heading of ‘On the rules of application’. This chapter provides answers to the so-called general problems of the application of conflict rules. This part is drafted in very brief terms with a simplifying object, as is apparent, for example, with the exclusion of →renvoi. It gives attention to determination regimes and the interpretation of foreign laws, including →public policy (ordre public) as a control mechanism to be applied only in exceptional situations. The chapter contemplates other institutions that still play an important role now, such as adaptation and situations where the law of states with more than one legal system has to be applied. Regarding the application of foreign law (→Foreign law, application and ascertainment), art 82 merely states that: ‘The Dominican judges and authorities are obliged to apply foreign law as the judges of the state whose law is applicable would do, without prejudice to the fact that the parties can allege and prove the existence and content of the invoked foreign law.’

5. Recognition and enforcement of judgments

The third section of private international law, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and Acts, is the object of Title IV PILA. It places a special focus on non-contentious jurisdiction and especially sensitive matters to Dominican society such as →adoption and decisions on parent–child relationship taken abroad.

The general grounds for non-recognition of foreign judgments are laid down in art 90 PILA. Recognition is to be denied in the following situations: if recognition were manifestly contrary to public policy; when default of appearance by the defendant is declared without sufficient evidence that he was summoned in person or in his domicile; if the decision was irreconcilable with a decision previously issued in another state between the same parties, in a case with the same object and the same cause, when such decision complies with the necessary requirements for its recognition in the Dominican Republic; if the provisions on exclusive jurisdiction have been ignored; if the decision does not meet the requisites required in the country in which it was issued in order to be deemed authentic and those which the Dominican law requires for its validity.

Articles 92 and 93 contain special provisions for the recognition of foreign decisions related to capacity, family relations and rights relating to personality (art 92) and non-contentious jurisdiction (art 93). Foreign decisions related to the persons’ capacity, as well as to the existence of family relations or of rights relating p. 1to personality, have effect in the Dominican Republic when they have been issued by the authority of a state whose law is designated by the provisions of the PILA or when they produce effects in that state’s legal system, even if they are issued by the authorities of a third state. The only checks for recognition are that judgments are not contrary to public policy and that the rights of defence have been respected (art 92). Concerning the recognition of foreign decisions resulting from non-contentious proceedings, pursuant to art 93, they are recognized without having to resort to any proceedings, as long as the conditions laid down in art 92 are met and applicable.

V. Conclusion

Private international law in the Dominican Republic has been profoundly transformed as a consequence of the adoption of the PILA in 2014. The new comprehensive regulation greatly increases legal certainty and predictability in this field, particularly when compared to the obsolete and incomplete previous system. Notwithstanding this, the correct application of the new Act may raise new challenges to judges and legal practitioners since this extraordinary transformation has taken place in a very brief period of time. Additionally, the innovative nature of the PILA may influence its role as a blueprint for other legislators in the region.


  • Edynson Alarcón, Comentarios a la Ley de arbitraje comercial de la República Dominicana (Librería Jurídica Internacional 2012);

  • Juan M Castillo Roldán, ‘Competencia judicial internacional en la República Dominicana’, available at , last accessed on 13 June 2014;

  • José Carlos Fernández Rozas, ‘Le nouveau droit international privé de la République dominicaine’ (2015) 2 Rev.crit.DIP 303;

  • José Carlos Fernández Rozas and Nathanael Concepción, Sistema de arbitraje comercial en la República Dominicana (Funglode 2013);

  • José Carlos, Fernández Rozas and others (eds), Armonización del Derecho internacional privado en el Caribe, L’harmonisation du Droit International Privé dans le Caraïbe, Harmonization of Private International Law in the Caribbean (Iprolex 2015);

  • Jesús de Galíndez, Principales conflictos de leyes en la América actual (Elhuyard 1945);

  • Juan Manuel Rosario, Tratado de Derecho Internacional Privado (Trajano Potentin 2005);

  • Jürgen Samtleben, Derecho internacional privado en América latina: teoría y práctica del Código Bustamante (Depalma 1983).

The author would like to express his gratitude to magistrate Edynson Alarcón for comments on a previous draft of this contribution.