This chapter explains and maps the WA’s and the Protocol’s perhaps surprising silence on private international law, or the conflict of laws: the rules that govern international private law litigation. There is an explanation for the failure to provide for any matters in respect of choice of law: the UK can, and has been able to, adopt a quick fix in domestic law, with no need for EU involvement or reciprocity, that maintains the status quo ante. Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments, however, do not admit of any easy or comprehensive answers. It appears that the UK’s best chance of minimizing disruption in this area has now been taken off the table by the EU, leaving uncertainty about the future.

Climate law has often been framed as a component of environmental law. Under this conception, environmental law and climate law are mutually supportive endeavours towards sustainable development. Yet, in a growing number of instances, climate action has been shown to undermine the protection of other environmental values, or even the enjoyment of human rights. For instance, hydroelectricity, often embraced as pro-climate, has been promoted as a source of (relatively) clean energy, but hydroelectric dams often have a significant negative impact on human settlements and river ecosystems. In other cases, the UNFCCC regime may be read as ‘giving up’ on some impacts of climate change, possibly in contradiction to certain states obligations on environmental protection. The author asks whether climate law is inevitably on a collision course with environmental law, or whether there exist credible ways to reconcile the objectives and operation of these two regimes.

Financial markets litigants may, for different reasons, seek to bypass the legal landscape discussed thus far. Where parties have agreed to contracts expressly selecting English law and, in some version of a jurisdiction clause, the English courts, this may give rise to a preliminary dispute about the effects of the parties’ contractual choices. If so, the result is a classic example of what Robert Wai refers to as ‘“touchdown” points’ between a private regime and state law. The concern of the current and the following chapter is how the English courts navigate challenges to the choice of jurisdiction and governing law provided for in derivatives contracts, and the related legal issues that arise as a result of the global reach of the modern OTC markets. The principal focus here is claims arising out of or connected to the parties’ contract; where allegations relate to a broader, fraudulent scheme, the tort of conspiracy or deceit different principles will apply to determine governing law and jurisdiction.

Philip Jessup correctly observed sixty years ago that multinational corporate activity created new challenges for nation-states and their territorially based rules for jurisdiction, choice of law, and judgment recognitions. Those challenges are exponentially more difficult in the 21st century because electronic data—everything from e-mails and text messages to Facebook and Instagram posts to Twitter pronouncements to drone warfare data to search algorithms to financial transactions to cloud data storage—travel around the globe with little relationship to physical territory. In addition, all of this data is often in the custody and control of data intermediaries. Three important consequences flow from this ubiquitous technology-enabled, data-driven global societal activity. First, the territorial location of data becomes increasingly arbitrary and substantively unimportant. Second, territorially based courts (or law enforcement authorities generally) will often be unable to easily enforce their decisions because those decisions require cooperation from relevant actors in far-flung communities. Third, governmental and judicial authorities are increasingly turning to multinational corporate data intermediaries to carry out and enforce their orders because only those companies have sufficient global reach to make legal rulings effective.