The valid choice of a (foreign) governing law in commercial contracts presupposes, pursuant to EU private international law, a genuine international element to the transaction in question. Given that the underlying rationale of this requirement stipulated in Article 3(3) of the Rome I Regulation has yet to be fully explored, the normative foundations as to the properties that a genuine international element must possess remain unsettled. The particularly low threshold applied by more recent English case law in favour of almost unfettered party autonomy in choice of law at first glance avoids legal uncertainty. However, such a liberal interpretation not only robs Article 3(3) Rome I Regulation almost entirely of its meaning but also appears to be rooted in a basic misunderstanding of both the function and rationale of Article 3(3) Rome I Regulation in the overall system of EU private international law. Consequently, legal tensions with courts based in EU member states maintaining a more restrictive approach may become inevitable in the future due to Brexit.

根据欧盟国际私法，商业合同中（外国）管辖法律的有效选择以有关交易的真正国际要素为前提。鉴于《罗马一条例》第 3 条第 3 款规定的这一要求的基本原理尚未得到充分探讨，关于真正国际要素必须具备的属性的规范基础仍未确定。乍一看，较新的英国判例法适用的特别低的门槛有利于在法律选择方面几乎不受约束的当事人意思自治，避免了法律的不确定性。然而，这种自由主义的解释不仅几乎完全剥夺了第 3 条第 3 款罗马 I 条例的含义，而且似乎植根于对第 3 条第 3 款罗马 I 条例的功能和基本原理的基本误解。欧盟国际私法。因此，由于英国退欧，未来与欧盟成员国法院保持更严格的做法的法律紧张局势可能变得不可避免。