caa a22 4500 388045744 CHVBK 20180307125037.0 cr unu---uuuuu 161130e199810 xx s 000 0 eng 10.1017/S0020589300062576 doi S0020589300062576 pii (NATIONALLICENCE)cambridge-10.1017/S0020589300062576 Briggs Adrian In Praise and Defence of Renvoi [Elektronische Daten] [Adrian Briggs] It is sometimes asked whether English private international law has a theory, or, if it has a theory, what this actually means. This may be a question for some, but it may have no answer. The purpose of this article is to take issue with the claim, sometimes made, that since Spiliada1 the subject has become less theoretical. To be sure, the deplorable quality of recent law reform lends powerful support to the proposition that concern for the theory of the subject (indeed, any form of reflective intelligence) has been notably lacking. But Spiliada may have been one of those defining moments in which the large theory of the English conflict of laws underwent a dramatic change and shone a light into areas of the subject which had been peacefully gathering dust. Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1998 International and Comparative Law Quarterly Cambridge University Press 47/4(1998-10), 877-884 0020-5893 47:4<877 1998 47 ILQ https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589300062576 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589300062576 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 100 1- Briggs Adrian NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- International and Comparative Law Quarterly Cambridge University Press 47/4(1998-10), 877-884 0020-5893 47:4<877 1998 47 ILQ CC0 http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0 nationallicence BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-cambridge