Usually, the criteria used for the identification of domicile are differentiated in countries around the world – in most cases the system of law adopted by a specific country is used to decide on the characteristics of domicile in the above country. It should be noted that misunderstanding is often caused because of the co-existence of other terms, like residence, that also refer to the relation of a person to a specific geographical place. Because of the value of domicile in determining the rights and the obligations of people in different social and political activities, a series of rules has been introduced describing the criteria under which a person’s domicile is identified; however, the effectiveness of these rules has been strongly criticized. The specific problem – the level of accuracy and effectiveness of the rules used for identifying a person’s domicile – is examined in this paper; it has been proved that the rules adopted for the identification of domicile had to be analytical and detailed – in order to respond to the needs of all related human activities but also to ensure the protection of social and political rights; however, in the long term the above characteristic of these rules had become a major disadvantage leading to the decrease of their effectiveness. At a next level, the limitation of the effectiveness of rules of domicile has been a phenomenon irrelevant with the characteristics of the system of law developed in a particular country; however, current paper refers especially to the rules of domicile developed in the English law emphasizing on the lack of effectiveness of these rules as a result of the use of complex and technical terms – used primarily for ensuring the adaptability of these rules to current social conditions, a target that was never achieved as explained below.
In English law,