Besides displaying the relevant information on legal provisions and case law decisions, the main dataset on choice of law contains an analytical layer. The work is organized around a questionnaire designed to systematize standard answers about choice of law rules in various jurisdictions. It covers the following topics:

1. Codification of private international law: The first set of questions revolves around whether rules of private international law are codified and if there is any ongoing revision. Based on the response, further questions explore the role of HCCH Principles in this context.

2. Party autonomy: This section focuses on the acceptance and implementation of the principle of party autonomy in international commercial contracts. It includes questions about the ability of parties to choose rules of law to govern their contract and whether this can be done for specific parts of the contract.

3. Tacit choice: This part addresses whether a choice of law needs to be explicitly stated or if it can be made tacitly. Various scenarios are explored, such as the role of a choice of forum clause or an arbitration clause in indicating a tacit choice of law.

4. Mandatory rules and public policy: Questions in this section inquire about overriding mandatory provisions, their application, and the concept of public policy in commercial law.

5. Arbitration: This segment explores the authority of arbitral tribunals to apply the HCCH Principles and interpret mandatory provisions.

6. Absence of choice: Questions here deal with the legal framework (including the use of connecting factors by adjudicators) for situations where the parties have not chosen the applicable law to govern the contract.

7. Future guidance and revisions: The final part asks about the desirability of a future version of the HCCH Principles, the need for further guidance on topics surrounding applicable law in international contracts (e.g., in protecting weaker parties), and suggestions for other topics that might need revision or guidance.

Each section of the questionnaire is structured to branch out based on the responses to initial questions, leading to more specific follow-up questions. This structure aims to gather detailed and nuanced information about the choice of law in international contracts from different jurisdictions.

1 Is there a codification on choice of law or similar established rules?

1.1 Are these rules part of a private international law instrument?

1.2 Are these rules a consequence of a law reform?

1.2.1 If a codification of private international law exists, is any revision of these rules under discussion?

1.2.2 Could the HCCH Principles be expected to play a model role in this regard?

1.2.3 If an implementation is not under discussion, could the HCCH Principles be expected to play any role in interpreting rules of private international law?

1.2.3.1 If an implementation is not under discussion, could the HCCH Principles be expected to play any role in supplementing rules of private international law?

1.2.3.2 If an implementation is not under discussion, could the HCCH Principles be expected to play any role in developing rules of private international law?

2 Do the courts have the authority to refer to the HCCH Principles as persuasive authority?

3 Is the principle of party autonomy in respect of choice of law in international commercial contracts widely accepted in your jurisdiction?

4 Are the parties to an international commercial contract thus allowed to choose the law applicable to their contract?

5 Are the parties allowed to choose different laws for different parts or aspects of the contract?

5.1 Are the parties allowed to choose the applicable law with respect to only one part or aspect of their contract?

6 Are the parties allowed to make or modify the choice of law at any time?

6.1 May an internal modification of the agreement on the applicable law after the conclusion of the contract be valid even if a specific form is requested for the original choice?

6.2 May a choice of law or modification made after the conclusion of the contract have an impact on the rights of third parties?

7 Is a connection required between the chosen law and the parties or their transaction?

8 Are the parties prevented from choosing the law of a third country with which there is no connection (a “neutral law”)?

8.1 Are there any published cases in your jurisdiction in which an agreement by the parties on the applicable law was not respected for lack of such a connection?

9 Are the parties allowed to choose non-State law (“rules of law”) to govern their contract?

10 Are there any particular requirements or restrictions with regard to the eligible rules of law?

11 Are the parties allowed to incorporate rules of law into their contract by way of reference?

11.1 Are there any requirements for the effective incorporation of such rules?

12 Does your jurisdiction require a choice of law to be made expressly?

13 Can a choice of law be made tacitly?

14 Is tacit choice of law clearly distinguished from the position where there is no choice of law?

15 Are clear criteria employed to examine whether there is a tacit choice of law?

16 May a tacit choice of law be deduced from the provisions of the contract?

16.1 May a tacit choice of law be deduced from the reference to legal provisions?

16.2 May a tacit choice of law be deduced from the reference to institutions of a particular jurisdiction?

16.3 May a tacit choice of law be deduced from the circumstances?

16.4 May a tacit choice of law be deduced from other criteria?

17 Does a choice of court or arbitral tribunal automatically indicate a tacit choice of law?

17.1 May a choice of court or arbitral tribunal be taken into account as one of the relevant factors in this regard?

18 May the parties choose non-State law tacitly?

19 Do the courts in your jurisdiction readily admit the existence of a tacit choice of law?

19.1 Do legal authorities (doctrine) consider the existence of tacit agreements?

20 Is there a definition of “overriding mandatory provision” or a similar concept (for instance, a rule of direct or immediate application; an internationally mandatory rule) in your jurisdiction?

21 Do the courts in your jurisdiction apply overriding mandatory provisions of the law of the forum under certain circumstances?

21.1 If the courts in your jurisdiction apply overriding mandatory provisions of the law of the forum under certain circumstances, which?

22 Do the courts apply overriding mandatory provisions of other jurisdictions?

22.1 Do the courts take into account overriding mandatory provisions of other jurisdictions?

23 Is there a definition for “public policy”?

23.1 Is there a particular notion or understanding of public policy with regard to the field of commercial law?

24 Do the courts exclude the application of a provision of the law chosen by the parties if the result of such application would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the forum?

25 Do the courts apply or take into account the public policy of a State whose law would be applicable in the absence of a choice of law?

26 Do arbitral tribunals have the authority to apply the HCCH Principles?

27 Do arbitral tribunals apply or take into account overriding mandatory provisions or the public policy of a law other than the law chosen by the parties?

28 Does the codification on arbitration, if any, include conflict of laws rules?

28.1 Is any revision of the lex arbitri under discussion?

29 Is there a legal framework to tackle the issue of absence of choice?

30 Do clear connecting factors exist?

30.1 Which are the most common connecting factors?

30.2 Among these, what is the most frequent connecting factor?

31 Is this connection factor suitable to be considered a general default rule?

32 Are you aware of any recent arbitral award dealing with this issue?

33 Is a future version of the HCCH Principles covering the law applicable in the absence of a choice of law by the parties desirable?

34 Is further guidance on applicable law in international contracts providing protection to weaker parties necessary?

35 Are there other topics that should be considered for further guidance or revision of the HCCH principles?

36 Should the HCCH Principles be incorporated into a new HCCH instrument?