Abstract:The law applicable to tortious liability involving a foreign element has become one of the most vexed questions in private international law. This can be attributed to technological advancements and the movement of people and goods across state lines. Accidents involving a foreign element are, therefore, reasonably foreseeable. Torts such as online defamation, accidents involving self-driving vehicles, and other technological acts involving a foreign element have heightened the possibility of cross-border torts. Considering the complexities associated with cross-border torts, the European Union (EU) has enacted the Rome II Regulation. The overarching objective of enacting the Rome II Regulation is to promote certainty and predictability when dealing with cross-border disputes, irrespective of the country of the court in which an action is brought in the EU. Conversely, Ghana relies on the broadly drafted section 54 of the Courts Act 459 of 1993 and common law principles of private international law to determine the aspects of choice of law. This has made the position in Ghana very uncertain and unpredictable due to the broad discretion given to courts under section 54 of the Courts Act, particularly in determining the law applicable to cross-border tort cases. Also, Ghanaian courts have applied the much-criticised double actionability rule to determine the rights and obligations of parties in cross-border tort cases. In light of the uncertain and unpredictable nature of Ghanaian law, some academics have suggested that Ghana adopt the traditional rule to determine the applicable law in torts. This article seeks to critically analyse the applicability of article 4 of the Rome II Regulation regarding non-contractual liabilities. The article compares how courts in EU member states have applied article 4 to determine the applicable law in torts, to how the Ghanaian courts use private international law rules to determine the applicable law in torts. The essence of the comparison is to ascertain whether Ghana can draw some legislative and judicial lessons from the position under article 4. In addition, the significance of the comparison is to determine whether the approach under the Rome II Regulation can serve as a basis for legal reforms in Ghana. Most importantly, the article explores the extent to which the legal approach under the EU law can bolster judicial certainty and predictability in Ghanaian law.

The Construction of the General Rule of Tort Conflicts:A Comparison of Rome Ⅱ and China's Tort Conflicts

Development Of Maritime Limitation Of Liability In China (1993-2011)

The Most Recent Developments in Private International Law of the European Community:Analysis of the Rome I Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations

A Comparative Research on the Object of Tort Law

Justice in Tort Law of Russia and China

Reflection on the Relations of Tort Law to Special Law and Judicial Interpretation in the Way of Legal Hermeneutics

Background and Key Contents of the New Chinese Tort Liability Law

A Chinese Copy of Rules on Deal of Interests Conflicts

The construction of laws and regulations on the competition between tort compensation and work-related injury insurance under the injury caused by a third party

Reconstruction of Constituent Elements Theory of Tort by Interpretation

The Law Applicable to Tortious Liability: a Comparative Analysis of Article 4 of The Rome II Regulation and Private International Law in Ghana

On the Civil Interests Protected by Tort Liability Law

Application Mode of Conflict Rule from the Perspective of Civil Procedure

An Analysis on the Disputed Issues of the Applicable Law for Foreign-Related Contracts

On Methods of Bearing Tort Liability

The Concurrence of Tort Damages and Social Insurance Payments:Dilemma and Solutions

Party Autonomy and Conflict of laws in Real Property

The Goal of Civil Litigation: Deviation and Unity among Theory Legislation and Practice

Analysis on Combination of Pure Economic Loss and Basic Rights under the Tort Law

An Argument over "Monistic Object" Doctrine of Relations Regulated by Civil Legislation: On China' s Appropriate Choice

Comments on Choice and Its Foundation of the Patterns of Remedy for Right in Rem