This article shows that the transnational engagement of citizens between Australia and Slovenia, and other countries in not new. Slovenia and Australia have a long standing relationship that dates back to the late nineteenth century. This article compares the private international laws (PIL) of Australia and Slovenia, and the application of citizenship and residence. Transnational engagements in private activities such as marriage, founding a family and purchasing property in another country other than the citizen’s country of origin has been occurring for decades. Australia and Slovenia have taken a very different approach to the administration and regulation of private international law. The article attempts to address the differences taken by both states in developing their respective regulatory frameworks to regulate PIL matters. A key feature of Australia’s common law system is the responsibility of the judiciary to determine the choice of law. Australia, when compared to Slovenia has limited legislation specific to PIL. Slovenia has a single private international law act. Finally, this article will also highlight the difference between the common law and civil law principles of domicile and residence.

中文翻译：

---

澳大利亚和斯洛文尼亚国际私法及公民和居留权适用的比较研究

这篇文章表明，澳大利亚和斯洛文尼亚以及其他国家之间公民的跨国交往并不新鲜。斯洛文尼亚和澳大利亚的关系可以追溯到 19 世纪后期。本文比较了澳大利亚和斯洛文尼亚的国际私法（PIL），以及公民身份和居留权的适用。跨国参与私人活动，例如在公民原籍国以外的其他国家结婚、组建家庭和购买财产，已经发生了几十年。澳大利亚和斯洛文尼亚对国际私法的管理和监管采取了截然不同的方法。本文试图解决两国在制定各自的监管框架以监管 PIL 事务时所采取的差异。澳大利亚普通法体系的一个关键特征是司法机构有责任决定法律的选择。与斯洛文尼亚相比，澳大利亚针对 PIL 的立法有限。斯洛文尼亚有单一的国际私法法案。最后，本文还将突出普通法和大陆法系住所和居所原则的区别。