Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T00:34:26.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Survey of Dutch Scholarly Practice concerning Private International Law from 1938 till the Present

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Get access

Extract

In 1938 the International Law Association held its 40th congress in Amsterdam. This year, 1970, the organization will again meet in the Netherlands, this time in the Hague. In this review we shall summarize the most important developments in Dutch scholarly practice regarding private international law during the intervening period.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1970

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 A treatise on p.i.1. by S. Van Brakel, which was published in 1946 was indeed written during the war. It was used as an introduction to p.i.1. in Dutch universities for many years.

2 Jitta, D. Josephus, Internationaal Privaatrecht, Haarlem 1916Google Scholar; Kosters, J., Het internationaal burgerlijk recht in Nederland, Haarlem 1917Google Scholar, partly revised by C. W. Dubbink, Algemeeen deel van het Nederlandse internationaal privaatrecht, Haarlem 1962—usually referred to as Kosters/Dubbink.

3 The Hague (Paris-Brussels-London) 1890.

4 The Hague 1919.

5 Comp. Offerhaus, J., l'Université d'Amsterdam et le Droit international privé, Ius et Lex—Festgabe für Max Gutzwiller, Basel 1959, pp. 283302.Google Scholar

6 See supra, note (2).

7 Kosters, J., O.C. p. 16.Google Scholar

8 The relevant statutory provision is art. 6 of the General Provisions Act (Wet Algemene Bepalingen), which will be discussed below, sub V.

9 Comp. Telders, B. M., De Joodse geest en het Recht, Verzamelde Geschriften V, p. 315Google Scholar and Offerhaus' comment in his contribution to the Festgabe für Max Gutzwiller, o.c. note (5), p. 296.Google Scholar

10 This trend was not confined to p.i.1., but concerned legal practice in the entire field of private law. On the other hand there was a strong movement for the revision of the civil code, led by the distinguished scholar E. M. Meijers. After the second world war Meijers was charged by the government with the drafting of a revised Civil Code—a work which after his death in 1954 was continued by others. Meijers also prepared the first draft for a uniform Benelux law on p.i.1. (Eenvormige wet). This uniform law has not yet been introduced in the Netherlands. The original draft has been revised frequently and drastically. For the latest text, both in Dutch and in French, see the publication of the Sécretariat général de I'union économique Benelux, in Brussels: Traité Benelux portant loi uniforme relative au droit international privé, signé à Bruxelles, le 3 juillet 1969.

11 See in particular his Algemeen Deel (General part of the Treatise on Dutch private law, by Asser, C. c.o., first ed., Amsterdam 1931.Google Scholar

12 Hijmans, I. Henri, Algemeene Problemen van Internationaal Privaatrecht, Zwolle 1936.Google Scholar

13 See his lecture Het Recht der werkelijkheid (Law of reality), Haarlem 1910Google Scholar, and his contribution to Gedenkboek B.W. 1838–1938”, pp. 169/196.Google Scholar

14 See Offerhaus, , o.c. (note 5) pp. 294/295Google Scholar and R. de Nova as referred to by Offerhaus (p. 294).

15 Leiden 1968.

16 3rd ed. edited by Kisch, I., Zwolle 1953Google Scholar.

17 Deventer 1965.

18 2nd ed. Arnhem 1947.

19 See, however, the monographs referred to below (III) and furthermore Van Praag, L., Juridiction et Droit international public, The Hague 1915Google Scholar.

20 As to studies concerning nationality, reference might be made to Mannoury, J., Het Nederlandse nationaliteitsrecht, Alphen a/d Rijn 1947, 2nd ed. 1954Google Scholar; Sik, Ko Swan, De meervoudige nationaliteit, Leiden 1957Google Scholar; Practicus—Nationaliteitsrecht (loose-leaf volume); Van Panhuys, H. F., The role of nationality in international law, Leiden 1959.Google Scholar

21 Bijdrage tot internationale regeling der rechtsmacht in burgerlijke en handelszaken, Haarlem 1914.

22 Leiden 1966.

23 The reviews of Dutch court practice concerning Dutch private international law, published in Clunet, cover a period from 1925 (Clunet, 1927, pp. 768/772Google Scholar) onward. A selection of Kollewijn's W.P.N.R. reviews is published in Clunet, 1957 (pp. 442/481Google Scholar), 1959 (pp. 472/511), 1961 (pp. 868/910), 1964 (597/645), 1969 (pp. 953—).

24 De Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht, founded 1910; Secretariat: Volkenrechtelijk Instituut, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht.

25 De Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking, founded 1968; Secretariat: Centrum voor Buitenlands Recht en Internationaal Privaatrecht, Universiteit van Amsterdam.

26 See Voskuil, , T. M. C. Asser Instituut—introduction, Amsterdam 1967Google Scholar; idem, l'Esprit d'Internationalité, La Haye, 1968.

27 Supra, under II.

28 Convention on the law applicable to obligations to support minor children, signed October 24th, 1956. For the text of the Convention see Recueil des Conventions de La Haye (ed. by Bureau Permanent de la Conférence de La Haye), The Hague 1966Google Scholar; for application of this and other Hague Conventions by the national courts, see Les nouvelles conventions de la Haye; leur application par les juges nationaux (avec bibliographic), The Hague 1970.

29 Rechtbank (District Court) Amsterdam 28-10-1969 (Documentation Asser Instituut, Asser 5446).

Rechtbank Almelo 24-4-1969 (Asser 5039).

Rechtbank Haarlem 7-1-1969 (Asser 4502).

Rechtbank Amsterdam 12-12-1968 (Asser 4777).

Rechtbank Rotterdam 14-10-1968 NJ 1969, 363 (Asser 4429).

Rechtbank Maastricht 5-9-1968 NJ 1969, 233 (Asser 4484).

Hof (Court of Appeal) Arnhem 23-4-1968 NJ 1969, 173 (Asser 4015).

Rechtbank Amsterdam 7-12-1967 NJ 1968, 169 (Asser 4177).

Rechtbank Den Haag 13-11-1967 (Asser 4965).

Hof Arnhem 31-1-1967 NJ 1967, 447 (Asser 3605).

Rechtbank Haarlem 7-12-1965 NJ 1966, 312; Clunet 1969, p. 967 (Asser 2440).

Hof Den Bosch 10-12-1964 NJ 1965, 410 (Asser 1817).

Hof Amsterdam 9-6-1964 NJ 1966, 68; NTIR 1964, p. 310 (English).

Rechtbank Leeuwarden 5-5-1966 NJ 1967, 136 (Asser 2917).

30 Rechtbank Den Haag 30-9-1969 NJ 1970, 74 (Asser 5441).

Rechtbank Amsterdam 12-3-1969 NJ 1969, 453 (Asser 5641).

Rechtbank Leeuwarden 14-6-1968 (Asser 4239).

Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) 24-5-1968 NJ 1968, 300 (Asser 4219).

Hoge Raad 9-12-1965 NJ 1966, 378; NTIR 1967, p. 294; Revue Critique 1966, p. 297 (Asser 2000).

31 Hoge Raad 9-12-1965 (see preceding note).

Hof Den Bosch 6-1-1970 (Asser 5527).

Hof Amsterdam 27-6-1969 NJ 1970, 130 (Asser 5375).

Hof Arnhem 20-12-1966 NJ 1967, 425 (Asser 2717).

32 Rechtbank Amsterdam 29-1-1970 NJ 1970, 188 (Asser 5532).

Rechtbank Amsterdam 29-1-1970 NJ 1970, 187 (Asser 5531).

33 Voskuil, C. C. A., De internationale bevoegdheid van de Nederlandse rechter, Amsterdam 1962Google Scholar. Statutory law concerning judicial competency in divorce matters has recently been changed a new provision—art. 814 Code of Civil procedure was introduced (January 1st, 1970).

34 Code of Civil Procedure, articles:

429c (custody and other “ex parte” suits),—but some connection with Dutch legal sphere is expressly required.

814 (divorce and judicial separation), here applies nationality restriction; only Dutch nationals will always have a divorce forum in the Netherlands.

798 and 804 (other suits between spouses),

882 (custody of adults),

957 (custody orders by Kantonrechter—Magistrates),

970 (adoption).

35 For surveys of Dutch scholarly practice, see also: Kollewijn, R. D., Geschiedenis der Nederlandse rechtswetenschap—Internationaal Privaatrecht, Amsterdam 1937Google Scholar (ed. by Royal Academy of Sciences); J. Offerhaus, o.c. supra, note 5.