دور قواعد القانون الدولي الخاص في حماية المستهلك في العلاقات التعاقدية ذات العنصر الأجنبي

Abstract EN

This article analyses the extent to which the Bahraini private international law (PIL) provides a fair regime for consumers engaging in cross-border contracts in comparison with an EU PIL.

Indeed, the general rules relating to the jurisdiction of courts do not take into consideration the position of the consumer as the weaker party.

Because of the failure of the law to protect the interests of consumers, a real problem of unfairness arises.The analysis focuses on the unfair effects of jurisdiction and the choice-of-law clauses in business-to-consumer (B2C) contracts.

The article argues that these clauses can, inter alia, have the effect of undermining or defeating the right of access to justice of the weaker party (consumers).

It suggests, therefore, to create a fair regime for B2C contracts not only within the choice of law rules but also within the jurisdiction rules.

This article analyses the extent to which the Bahraini private international law (PIL) provides a fair regime for consumers engaging in cross-border contracts in comparison with an EU PIL.

Indeed, the general rules relating to the jurisdiction of courts do not take into consideration the position of the consumer as the weaker party.

Because of the failure of the law to protect the interests of consumers, a real problem of unfairness arises.The analysis focuses on the unfair effects of jurisdiction and the choice-of-law clauses in business-to-consumer (B2C) contracts.

The article argues that these clauses can, inter alia, have the effect of undermining or defeating the right of access to justice of the weaker party (consumers).

It suggests, therefore, to create a fair regime for B2C contracts not only within the choice of law rules but also within the jurisdiction rules.