The primary objection to the term "private international law" is that, while legal relationships governed are indeed “private” in nature, they are nevertheless not "international." An observation has been made that this subject is "international law" in nature because of the application of foreign laws but the following rebuttals are worth noting.

First, although private international law involves the application of foreign law, such application is not the general rule as foreign laws are yet to be pleaded and proved as a matter of fact before Philippine courts in order for them to be considered. Thus, the involvement of states in private international law is indirect, primarily through the judicial systems of the state in question.

Second, the term "international" creates confusion because of the existence of "public international law" as a separate field of law. Even public international law does not deal with the domestic laws of different states. Rather, it deals with treaties, conventions, obligations and rights maintained by states in the community of nations.

Third, the term "international" implies the involvement of states or state actors and their relationship or interaction in the community of nations while conflict of laws as a subject revolves around contracts, torts, corporations, property, and other dealings primarily between private persons.

At most, it can be conceded that this subject has an "international" element in that the cross-boundary recognition or enforcement of a judgment requires the consent of the state in which the same will be implemented. In the context of Philippine private international law, this conclusion is bolstered by the fact that a foreign judgment or a foreign law is required to be sufficiently pleaded and proved in Philippine courts. This is because the default position is the application of lex fori (the law of the forum), and foreign decrees and foreign laws are only considered when properly brought before the court as a factual matter. This definitely blurs the lines of what "international law" typically implies.

Thus, it is humbly submitted that both terms – "private international law" and "conflict of laws" – are not the best terms to be used in naming this field of law. As discussed in other parts of this humble work, the best nomenclature for this field of law is "choice of law." This term encapsulates the very essence or core function of private international law, i.e., the main activity involved in this subject is the determination of which law of what jurisdiction should govern a particular legal issue with foreign connections. However, the term "choice of law" admittedly has its own limitations.