So far, the current study has frequently reflected on the practical benefits of looking at the underlying principles of rules on cross-border insolvencies. One main way of applying a principle-based approach is exploiting principles when courts (or other authorities or practitioners involved in cross-border insolvency issues) are interpreting and applying the law. This does not portray a dazzling level of insight, as it is part of the conventional methodological set of tools used when construing and applying norms, to look at their underlying principles. This approach, which is very well known in other fields of law, can help to find a legal solution in concrete cases where the content of the relevant provisions is either unclear, too broad or there are no available norms at all. Where various solutions are possible, a principle-based approach supports those which best enforce the principle. It can help to weigh and balance the interests involved and to treat comparable cases comparably, thus bolstering the general legal principle of equality. It also supports the rule that norms which contain exceptions or limitations to principles must be interpreted narrowly and applied restrictively.

Another main way of applying a principle-based approach is through exploiting principles when making the law. Thus, the perspective changes from the viewpoint of those who make use of the law (courts, authorities and practitioners of all kinds) to that of the legislator. Laws should be shaped consistently and coherently. They should have some sort of internal system which is underpinned by underlying principles, and they should disclose as well as consequently enforce the basic standards they wish to protect. In the context of cross-border insolvency law, we have already encountered many norms which follow this trend. However, we have also seen that many norms present legal solutions which involve multiple and often conflicting principles. This holds true, for example, for the clashing of the principle of efficiency with the principle of transparency, or the collision of the principle of equal treatment of creditors with the principle of protection of trust. In this chapter, we shall take a closer look at norms which try to balance conflicting principles against one another. We shall elaborate on the underlying principles involved and assess the solutions identified by the legislator.