1. INTRODUCTION

We live in an era of ever-increasing interconnected of people, places. Capital, goods and services. We are witnessing an increase and an intensification of political, economic and cultural interactions across territorial borders. As a result, all states and societies have become thereby entangled in a complex system of mutual dependencies and few inevitable conflicts because of their distinctive municipal laws.

This paper critically analyses the facets of globalization and the role of the private international law in establishing a global civil society along with an analogy taken from Roscoe Pound's sociological theory with special emphasis on his concept of ‘jural postulates'. The aim of the argument is to bring into limelight the urgent need to make a paradigm shift from global economic perspective to a global sociological perspective in solving issues (viz. conflict of laws) which result from the process of globalization.

2. GLOBALISATION - MEANING

Globalization is a multifaceted process that manifests itself in such forms as global tourism, mass migration and the global reach of nuclear, environmental and health risks. Reduction in travel costs and time, as well as safer travel to many part of the world, has opened up the globe for discovery by the relatively affluent traveler .

The important facets of globalization are:
• Interconnectedness of people, places, capital, goods and services.
• Intensification of political, economic and cultural interactions.
• Complex system of mutual dependencies.
• Formation of an integrated global economy.

While these developments are important aspects of globalization,, arguably it has been economic changes and technological innovations in transport and information system and their worldwide diffusion that have conjured up visions of a ‘global' world. For many observers of the contemporary world, globalization refers to the formation of an integrated world economy. The mergence of such a global economy was premised on the development of a technological infrastructure regarding transportation, and the generation and circulation of information.

3. GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY

It is now being argued that ‘non-governmental' actors are in the process of forming a ‘global' civil society. These actors and other factors together provide individuals with opportunities to associate with each other and to live lives of civil interdependence without total subjugation to an overpowering state.

In short the global civil society provides the arena for freedom and liberty. With this reasoning many observers do not only declare that a global civil society is emerging, but plead that such a civil society on a global level ought to be created .

The questions to be answered precisely are:

i. Even if a global civil society did form - be it around the non-profit making non-governmental or around the MNCs - would it be in a position to sideline the states as global actors?

ii. Who or what would impose some degree of order in a global world populated by a multiplicity of actors and confronted with existential global problems ranging from ecological disasters, mass immigration, cross-border insolvency of MNCs, e-commerce regulations, etc. ?

There is also a conceptualization of the distant possibility of having a ‘world state'. But given the fact of political factors like sovereignty, right of self-determination, etc the paradigm shift has been towards ‘global governance'. And this concept of global governance has in itself a focus on the fundamental functions of a world state viz. administration of justice and war(maintenance of peace) in a slightly modified fashion.

4. JUSTICE, GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AND PIL

The fact that there is no highly political authority at the global level and there is a disintegration of authority as a result of the increase in the number of global political actors does not mean that there are no effective political mechanisms by which orderly and reliable responses could be made to global issues . A ‘Commission on Global Gvernance', which was composed of a number of ‘eminent persons' - (former) politicians, economic leaders, academics - and which consulted individuals and representatives of governments, IGOs and NGOs, published a widely discussed report in 1995 under the title of Our Global Neighbourhood. In it they advanced the definition of ‘global governance':

"[Governance] is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuous process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be taken....At the global level, governance has been viewed primarily as intergovernmental relationships, but it must now be understood as also involving non-governmental organizations(NGOs), citizens' movements, multinational corporations, and the global mass media of dramatically enlarged influence."

Though global governance is not equal to global government it should be concentrating upon the fundamental functions of a state such as:
a) Administration of justice and
b) War (maintenance of peace).

Global governance further has two implications:
• It is not equal to global government.
• Rather it is a multiplicity of actors pursuing collaborative solutions to common problems in a spirit of collective responsibility.

5. PIL AND MULTIPLICITY OF ACTORS

Private international law partly is important in dealing with the accomplishment of one of the functions of the global civil society namely the administration of justice. Global governance implies a multiplicity of actors pursuing collaborative solutions to common problems in a spirit of collective responsibility.
Thus in the field of private international law there are several organizations which are involved in the international level. Few of them are:
• Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
• CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution
• ICC - International Court of Arbitration
• ICSID - International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes
• OTIF - Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail
• UNCITRAL - UN Commission for International Trade Law
• UNIDROIT - UN International Institute for the Unification of Private Law
• USITC - United States International Trade Commission
• WTO - World Trade Organisation Courts
The public-private gap has narrowed over time, particularly since the end of World War II. Today, much of Public International Law applies to individuals and corporations. And much of Private International Law applies to public entities such as State corporations engaged in international trade on International Economic Relations .
Hence the courts in the international level which deal with public international law are also dealing with private international law issues. They are:
• EFTA Court
• ICC International Court of Arbitration
• London Court of International Arbitration
• Permanent Court of Arbitration - the Hague
• United States Court of International Trade
There are also other international organizations which focus upon the unification of private international law such as the major intergovernmental organizations concerned with the unification and development of private international law:
1. the U.N. Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL),
2. the Hague Conference on Private International Law,
3. the International Institute for the Unification of Private International Law (UNIDROIT), and
4. the Organization of American States (OAS),

6. INTEREST ANALYSIS AND ‘JURAL POSTULATES'
As the centre of gravity is toward a global civil society borrowing the implications of the sociological jurists for resolving the issues arising therefrom would be very apt and advisable.
To resolve the conflict in private international law it would be appropriate to have recourse to the analysis of ‘jural postulates' propounded by Roscoe Pound (1870-1964). For Pound the task of lawyers and legislators is ‘social engineering'. By identifying and protecting certain ‘interest', the law ensures social cohesion. An ‘interest' is defined as a ‘demand or desire which human beings, either individually or through groups or associations or in relations, seek to satisfy'. It is legally protected by attributing to it the status of a legal right.
The purpose of social engineering is to construct as efficient a society as possible, one which ensures the satisfaction of the maximum of interests with minimal friction and waste of resources. Pound argues that when interests conflict; they may be ‘weighed' or ‘balanced' only against other interests ‘on the same plane'. He also presents a classification of the institutions of law: he distinguishes between: rules, principles, conceptions, doctrines and standards.
The business of the law, in Pound's view, therefore consists in satisfying as many interests as possible. Which exactly is the needed in private international law. In explaining the way to know whether new interest qualify for recognition, he suggested that they might be tested by reference to certain ‘jural postulates of civilisation'. These consist of those (changing) assumptions which exist in ‘civilised society':
• no intentional aggression;
• beneficial control over what people acquire under the existing social and economic order;
• good faith in dealings;
• due care not to injure;
• control over dangerous activities and so on.

Moreover Pound's ‘objective' classification of interests and accompanying jural postulates reads like a political manifesto in favour of a liberal and capitalist society as exactly as found in the global civil society. Further, it also rests on a consensus model of society in which there is a considerable degree of shared values. Which exactly would serve the frictionless solving of private international law issues . Many sociologists regard a conflict model as a more accurate description of reality: his model of competing interests ‘pressing for recognition and security' overlooks the extent to which the law recognizes vested rights .
Interestingly solutions for all types of conflicts found in private international law are solved in one way or the other do have a bit of Pound's theory, which not only suits a particular society but the global civil society, in the international level.

7. CONCLUSION
Most observers of global changes explain the process of globalization giving it a monographic picture more akin to the development of global economy alone. To resolve multifaceted global issues like e-commerce regulations, consumer rights under contracts, issues of pre-incorporation contracts and alternative dispute resolution (including online dispute resolution) the solution should not only be found on the basis of the expansion and surety of world wide trade but on sociological basis giving importance to all aspects of international relations to establish a more reliable set up of international legal solutions especially in the domain of private international law.

8. REFERENCE

i. Issues in International relations, edited by Trevor C. Salmon (2000, Routledge: New York).

ii. William P. Slomanson, Fundamental Perspectives on International Law (2000, Thompson Learning: Stamford, 3rd ed.).

iii. Robert Jackson, international Relations (2003, OUP: Oxford)

iv. Raymond Wacks, Jurisprudence (1995, Blackstone Press Limited: London, 4th ed.).

v. V.D.Mahajan, Jurisprudence & Legal Theory (1987, Eastern Book Company: Lucknow, 5th ed.).

vi. J.D.McClean, Morris: The Conflicts of Laws (193, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.: Delhi, 4th ed.).

vii. Cheshire & North, Private International Law (1999, Buttersworhts: New Delhi, 13th ed.).

viii. Private International Law http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3452.htm visited on 17/04/06