Talk:Characterisation (law)

Is the "characterisation" covered in this article sufficiently different from characterisation used in constitutional law? I'm thinking of the view of Roberts J in United States v Butler - the judiciary interprets the constitution to define the limits of the subject-matter area, and then determines whether the challenged law lies within those limits. Do we need another article characterisation (constitutional law)? --Yu Ninjie 07:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional law?

Thank you for your question. You seem to misjudge the subject matter of this page. This is step two in the standard PIL/Conflict process applied in every municipal law system around the world. It is entirely possible that there are constitutional issues in Australia about Conflict generally, but such public issues are almost completely irrelevant to this page except and in so far as public policy may be an issue for the forum courts. If you have particular concerns from an Australian Constitutional Law POV, I suggest that you introduce relevant material on the Private International Law page where the general relationship between Conflict and sovereignty is addressed under the headings "Status of foreign law" and "Harminisation". -David91 16:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to answer my question. Good job on all the work you've been doing on this page, by the way. --Yu Ninjie 11:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

added template "confusing"

I added the template "confusing" because the article never actually defines "characterisation". It says lots of things like that it's an important step of a process and what problems it may face, but not what it actually is. Joriki (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Contract (conflict) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 20:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]