Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T11:01:00.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Internal Conflict of Laws in Yugoslavia – Some thoughts on a conflict system in statu nascendi –

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Tibor Varady
Get access

Extract

The 1971 Constitutional Amendments (Amendments XX-XLII) gave far-reaching legislative competence to the six republics and two autonomous provinces that form the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This line of development has been confirmed by the 1974 Federal Constitution and the Constitutions of the republics and of the autonomous provinces, enacted the same year. Article 281 of the new Federal Constitution enumerates the remaining federal legislative competence. In doing so, it reserves substantial powers in the area of contracts and property, but it leaves barely any room for federal intervention in the area of family law and succession. Outside the realm of legal relationships that are —in the event that they contain a foreign element— traditionally settled by the rules of Private International Law, under the new constitutions in Yugoslavia a diversity of legislations and accordingly conflicts of laws are possible in the area of taxation, social security, criminal law, some administrative matters such as identity cards, academic degrees, bar examinations, etc.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , August 1976 , pp. 137 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See the English translation of the Constitution, translated for the Secretariat of the Federal Assembly Information Service, published by Dopisna delavska univerza Ljubljana 1974.

2. The term “private law” as the opposite of “public law” has been criticized and abandoned in Yugoslav legal theory. It is still being used, however, as a “shorthand term” to denote contracts, torts, succession, commercial law and family law together.

3. See the Serbo-Croatian text of the Draft in the edition of the Belgrade Institute-for Comparative Law, Unutranje kolizione norme, Beograd 1975.

4. See the 1934 Uvodhi zakon za zakon o sudskom vanparninom postupku.

5. Barto, Potreba donoenja zakona o medjupokrajinskom sukobu zakona, Raspiave i lanci, Beograd 1931, 75; Barto, Medjupokrajinski sukob zakona o nasledju, Arhiv 1937, 62; Lapajne, Mednarodno in medpokrajinsko zasebno pravo, Ljubljana 1929; Eisner, Medjunarodno, medjupokrajinsko (interlokalno) i medjuvjersko brano pravo Kraljevine Jugoslavije, Zagreb 1935.

6. Official Gazette, 1946/86 (25 10 1946).Google Scholar

7. One has to remark that some modern theories require more than a scrutiny of territorial connections to justify choice of law decisions. The opponents of the “jurisdiction selecting” approach argue that various interests, and the content of the laws concerned, need also to be taken into consideration. Cavers, Currie, and their followers do not contest, however, the importance of foreign contacts as preconditions to the emergence of choice of law issues, and to the applicability of choice of law rules. Neither do they envisage conflict of laws as a simple technique of choosing the better rule, notwithstanding territorial contacts. See e.g. Cavers, The Choice of Law Process, Ann Arbor 1965, particularly at pp. 77–81; Hancock, Three Approaches to the Choice-of-Law Problem: The Classificatory, the functional, and the Result-Selective, in XXth Century Comparative and Conflicts Law, Leyden 1961, 365.

8. This circumstance gives rise (as we shall outline later) to specific problems and specific solutions with regard to some general conflict institutions, particularly with respect to characterisation, renvoi, fraus legis and public policy.

9. Prior to the enactment of the 1974 Constitutions, there had been much discussion whether the specific composite status of Serbia necessitates a proper set of conflict rules. The Federal Constitution —accepting the wording of the 1971 Amendments— has not given an unambiguous answer. The position taken by this author was that all internal conflicts should be solved by the same (federal) conflict rules. (See Varady, Odnos medjunarodnog i interlokalnog sukoba zakona i jurisdikcija, Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, 1973, 223). The Serbian Constitution adopted, however, a different stand in Art. 300, providing for particular Serbian conflict rules. This solution has been confirmed in Art. 294 of the Vojvodina Constitution, and Art. 284 of the Kosovo Constitution. It is now, therefore, beyond doubt that two separate internal choice of law systems have to be elaborated in Yugoslavia.

10. See particularly Ehrenzweig, Interstate and International Conflicts Law: A Plea for Segregation, Minn. LR, 1957, 717; A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, St. Paul, Minn. 1962, pp. 16-21–. But also Scoles, Interstate and International Distinctions in Conflict of Laws in the United States, Cal. LR, 1966, 599; Hay, International versus Interstate Conflicts Law in the United States, Rabels Zeitschrift, 1971, 429.

11. Bartin, , Principes de droit international privé, Paris 1930, par. 9, 12, 55.Google Scholar

12. This point had first been elaborated by Savigny, System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, 1849, Vol. VIII, pp. 23, 27–28.

13. Neuhaus emphasizes: “Aber wer im Kollisionsrecht vom Einzelfall (dem “Lebensverhältnis” oder der “Rechtsfrage”) ausgeht und für diesen Sachverhalt die anzuwendende Rechtsordnung sucht, hat gar keinen Anlass, von vornherein an kollidierende Rechtsordnungen zu denken und die Wahl der jeweiligen Anknüpfung davon abhängig machen, ob es sich um eine internationale oder eine interlokale “Kollision” handelt.” (Grundbegriffe des internationalen Privatrechts, Berlin-Tübingen, 1962, 211).

14. With the exception of a 1934 rule on succession (see note 4).

15. See Blagojević, Regulisanje sukoba republikih odnosno pokrajinskih zakona sa zakonima drugih republika odnosno pokrajina (kolizione norme), Pravni ivot, 1973 No. 1, 5; Blagojević —Puhan, Teze i obrazloenje na Nacit Zakona o sukobu zakona i sukobu nadlenosti u unutranjem pravu SFRJ, Nai zakonitost, 1974 No. 2, 223; Varady, op. cit. (see note 9).

16. See the Serbo-Croatian text of the Private International Law Draft, Prinosi No. 8, Institut za medjunarodno pravo i medjunarodne odnose, Zagreb 1974; the Serbo-Croatian text of the internal conflicts Draft in Unutranje kolizione norme, Institut za uporedno pravo, Beograd 1975.

17. The Draft Private International Law Code adopts lex nationalis as a connecting factor in most matters of personal status and succession. In the internal conflicts Draft, lex nationalis is in most instances replaced by lex domicilii. Different connecting factors have been proposed in the two drafts for contracts, property, and some other matters.

18. See infra, section 5.

19. Article 10 Private International Law Draft; Article 2 Draft on the internal conflicts.

20. Varady, Medjunarodne i unutranje kolizione norme, Beograd 1975, pp. 45–67; Kolizione norme pred nejedinstvenim pravnim poretkom, Jugoslovenska revija za medjunarodno pravo, No. 1–3/1974,108. An amendment to the existing drafts in this sense has also been proposed.

21. Batiffol-Lagarde, Droit international privé, I, Paris 1974, 334.

22. See in this sense, Niederer, Einführung in die allgemeinen Lehren des internationalen Privatrechts, Zürich 1956, 250. Lunc, L'objet et les principes fondamentaux du dioit international privé en URSS et dans les autres pays socialistes européens, Clunet, , 1973, 97, at p. 108.Google Scholar

23. Savigny, , op.cit. 38; Zitelmann, Internationales Privatrecht, Leipzig 1897, Vol. I, pp. 400–401; Klein, Studien zum Interlokalen Privatrecht, Osterreichisches Zentralblatt für die juristische Praxis, 1915, 18.Google Scholar

24. Niederer, , op.cit. 92Google Scholar; Raape, , Internationales Privatrecht, 1950, pp. 106–107Google Scholar; Szászy, , Jogszabályösszeüközések, Budapest 1973, pp. 369–377.Google Scholar

25. Eisner, Medjunarodno, medjupokrajinsko (interlokalno) i medjuvjersko brano pravo Kraljevine Jugoslavije, Zagreb 1935, 151; Barto, Potreba donoenja zakona o medjupokrajinskim sukobima zakona, Rasprave i lanci, Beograd 1931, 75, at p. 78.

26. Blagojević, op. cit. (see note 15).

27. See articles 209 and 375 Federal Constitution.