Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:33:29.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflict of Laws and Private International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Magdalene Schoch
Magdalene Schoch*
Affiliation:
Harvard Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Third Session
Information
Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at its annual meeting (1921-1969) , Volume 33 , 1939 , pp. 81 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1939

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 For a discussion of the extent of this field, see Beckett, “What is Private International Law?” 7 British Year Book of International Law (1926), p. 73. For a survey of the various definitions, see Beale, 1 Conflict of Laws (1935), p. 2 et seq.

2 A. Mendelssohn Bartholdy, in his article on “Delimitation of right and remedy in the cases of conflict of laws,” 16 British Year Book of International Law (1935), p. 20, at p. 24, adheres to the term “conflict of laws,” adding that “private international law” would be a “welcome watchword with which to fight for international justice,” if we “might hope for a salutary influence of our legal terms on the minds of our legislators.”

3 Pillet, Traité pratique de droit international privé, Vol. 1 (1923), p. 20; Bartin, Principes de droit international privé (1930), Vol. I, p. 24; Anzilotti, II diritto internazionale nei giudizi interni (1905), p. 151 et seq.

4 Beale, op. cit., p. 274 et seq.

5 Cheshire, Private International Law (2d ed., 1938), pp. 6,7; cf. Gutzwiller, “Internationalprivatrecht,” in Das gesamte Deutsche Recht (Stammler ed., 1930), p. 1517, at p. 1535; Raape, Staudingers Kommentar, Vol. 9 (1931), calls private international law “a system of rules of rattachement” (ein System von Anknùpfungen).

6 Maury, “Régies générates des conflicts de his,” Recueil des Cows de l’Académie de Droit International, 1936, III, p. 327, at p. 376.

7 Cf. Beckett, loc. cit., p. 75 et seq.

8 4 Hudson, International Legislation (1931), No. 186 a.

9 Cheshire, op. cit., p. 22.

10 Lepaulle, “Nature et méthode du droit international privé,” Journal du droit international print, 1936, p. 284, at p. 289, speaks of the technique of law, which is exclusively national, as contrasted with the spirit of its application, which should be truly international.

11 A striking example is to be found in rules which make the recognition of a foreign judgment depend on whether the law which the foreign judge has applied was applicable according to the conflict rules of the country where the judgment is to be recognized. This has been established as a general rule by the French courts (see Pillet, Traits pratique, No. 707), and is laid down in Art. 328 of the German Code of Civil Procedure as a special rule with regard to judgments affecting status (the judgment is not recognized if the non-application of German conflict rules is “to the detriment of a German party”). Cf. Nussbaum, Deutsches Internationales Privatrecht (1932), p. 10.

12 Schoch, Klagbarkeit, Prozessanspruch und Beweis im Licht des Internationalen Rechts (1934), p. 20 et seq.

13 Beckett, “The question of qualification in private international law,” 15 British Year Book of International Law (1934), p. 46; Cook, "Substance and procedure in the conflict of laws,“ 42 Yale L. J., p. 333; McClintock, “Distinguishing substance and procedure in the conflict of laws,” 78 U. Pa. L. Rev., p. 933; Mendelssohn Bartholdy, he. eit.; Schoch, op. tit.

14 For a comparative study see Husserl, "Public policy and ordre public," 25 Virginia L. Rev., p. 37.

15 Cf. J. van Houtte, L’interpréation judiciaire des traités internationaux,” Mélanges Mahaim (1935), Vol. 2, p. 372 et seq.; Niboyet, “Le probléme des qualifications sur le terrain des traités diplomatiques,” 2 Revue critique de droit international (1935), p. 1.

16 See Niboyet, Manuel de droit international privé (2d ed. 1928), Nr. 754.

17 For a comparative analysis, cf. Neuner, Internationale Zuständigkeit. Beiträge zum Zivilprozess, 6 Heft, 1929.

18 For a list of these states, see Raape, he. cit., p. 395.

19 Art. 7.

20 Art. 323 declares that in personal actions the court of the place where the obligation is to be performed is competent, and in the absence thereof the one of the domicile or nationality of the defendant and subsidiarily that of residence.

21 Niboyet, he. tit., Nr. 778.

22 Ibid., Nr. 775 et seq.

23 For instance Italy (Art. 105, Nr. 3, Code of Civil Procedure); Austria (Art. 101, Jurisdiktionsnorm).

24 The Franco-Italian Treaty of 1930 provides that in disputes between French and Italian nationals, the courts of the domicile or, in the absence of a domicile, the residence of the defendant, are competent; in commercial matters, the forum loci contractus has facultative jurisdiction. La Pradelle-Niboyet, Répertoire de droit international (1934), Supplément, p. 179 et seq.

25 Simons, Récueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International, 1926, V, p. 479.

26 In the German meaning of permanent residence.

27 For decisions, see Stein-Jonas, Die Zivilprozessordnung (16th ed. 1938), Art. 23, II, 1.

28 April 7, 1902, 51 Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Zivilsachen, p. 163.

29 The possession of immovable property in Scotland, or of movable property which is arrested in the hands of a third party, is sufficient ground for jurisdiction in personal actions other than actions relating to status. Cheshire, op. (At., p. 107; Gibb, The International Law of Jurisdiction in England and Scotland (1926), p. 149 et seq.

30 Pennoyer v. Neff (1877), 95 U. S. 714, and other cases cited by Beale, op. tit., p. 330.

31 Schibsby v. Westenholz (1870), L. R. 6 Q. B. 155, 163; Emanuel v. Symon (1908), K. B. 302.

32 Rules of the Supreme Court, O. XI r. 1 e (III).

33 Cheshire, op. tit., p. 254 et seq.

34 Carrick v. Hancock (1895), 12 Times L. R. 59, 60; Mason v. Connors, 129 F. 831 (1904); Forbes v. Simmons 7 W. W. R. 97.

35 Cheshire, op. tit., p. 105; Foster, “Some defects in the English rules of conflict of laws,” 16 British Year Book of International Law (1935), p. 84 at pp. 96, 97; Dodd, “Juris diction in personal actions,” 23 111. L. Rev., p. 427 et seq.

36 Dodd, loc. cit., p. 437.

37 Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada, 1933, at p. 83.

38 For a comparative survey, see H. de Cock, “Effet et execution des jugements elrangers,” Recueil des Cows de l’Académie de Droit International, 1925, V. p. 435 et seq.

39 Cf. the title of Gibb, op. cit., note 29, supra.

40 This is the rule in the United States; cf. Beale, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 1369; Restatement, § 429, Comment on Clause (b).

41 For instance: German Supreme Court, Mar. 21, 1902, RGZ 51, 135; Jan. 19, 1911, RGZ 75, 148; May 15, 1891, J. W. 1891, 335; June 12, 1900, J. W. 1900, 590; July 25, 1908, Warn. 1908, 550.

42 Thus Nussbaum, op. cit., pp. 400, 434.

43 Sirdar Gurdyal Singh v. Faridkote (1894), A.C. 670, 684; Phillips v. Batho (1913), 3 K. B. 25, 30.

44 Foster, loc. cit, p. 96.

45 Schibsby v. Westenholz (1870), L. R. 6 Q. B. 155, 161; Rousillon v. Rousillon (1880), 14 Ch. D. 351, 371; Emanuel v. Symon (1908), 1 K. B. 302, 309; Harris v. Taylor (1915), 2 K. B. 580, 591; Gavin Gibson & Co. v. Gibson (1913), 3 K. B. 379, 388.

46 Foster, loc. cit., p. 96; see also Meredith, J., in Swaizie v. Swaizie (1899), 31 Ont. R., pp. 324, 330-331.

47 Cheshire, op. tit., p. 588 et seq.; Read, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Common Law Units of the British Commonwealth (1938), p. 299 et seq.; Yntema, “The Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Anglo-American Law,” 33 Mich. L. Rev., pp. 1129, 1159 et seq.

48 For text see Read, op. cit., p. 313.

49 Farnsworth, “What amounts to carrying on business by a foreign corporation,” 20 Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law (3d ser. 1938), p. 183, reviews the English cases at p. 190 et seq., and points out the “superabundant” wealth of case law in America, evidenced by the thirty pages which Beale devotes to an analysis of the cases. See also Isaacs, “An analysis of doing business,” 25 Columbia L. Rev. (1925), p. 1018; Schoch, “Englische Oerichtsbarkeit iiber auslandische Gesellschaften,” 20 Hanseatische Rechts- und Gerichtszeitschrift (1937), p. 155.