Why are statutes of limitations treated as procedural in some legal systems and substantive in others?

In the field of conflict of laws, the classification of statutes of limitations as either procedural or substantive remains a point of significant legal divergence, as there is no universal agreement on the matter.1

Courts generally apply the law of the forum to issues deemed procedural, while substantive issues are governed by the law applicable to the merits of the case. The characterization of time limitations depends on the underlying legal philosophy of the jurisdiction:1

• Substantive: In many civil-law countries, statutes of limitations are viewed as substantive because they are seen as affecting the underlying right itself. By extinguishing the right after a certain period, the law effectively dictates the lifespan of the legal claim.21
• Procedural: In many states of the United States and certain other jurisdictions, these statutes are treated as procedural. This perspective views the limitation as a rule governing the court's own administration—essentially a "housekeeping" rule that restricts the time available to bring a claim without necessarily destroying the right itself.21

This distinction is critical because it determines whether a court will apply its own local time limits or those of a foreign jurisdiction when a case involves multiple legal systems.1