Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:05:27.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acta Et Agenda*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

K. Lipstein
Get access

Extract

When I was first called upon to lecture during the darkest days of the war in 1941, because Hersch Lauterpacht was on some mission, I was still surrounded by my own teachers—Buckland, Duff, Gutteridge and McNair (Hazeltine had left). Of these Gutteridge and McNair influenced me most—the former by convincing me that foreign law was well worth studying, if not for its own sake, then in order to test the validity of one's own cherished notions and established techniques and to acquire the inspiration for new solutions, but not in order to discover an all pervading droit commun legislatif. McNair impressed upon me the reality of the rules of international law in the practice of states and in the administration of law by domestic courts. Not monism of a doctrinaire kind, but the age old tradition of the common lawyer to interpret English law so as not to conflict with international law was his inspiration, which has guided me ever since. I must not omit two other formative influences from times long passed. My teachers in Berlin included the last “Pandectist” (Th. Kipp), the broadly based Romanist, Greek scholar and modern comparatist as well as innovator of private international law (Rabel), and the superb exponent of private and private international law (M. Wolff) whose nephew, I am happy to think, will continue the propagation of the work which has been carried out in Cambridge since 1930 by Gutteridge, Hamson and myself. Gutteridge, Rabel and Wolff, whose works in the English language have enriched the fund of the common law, probably gave me the foundations on which most of my own work is based.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , April 1977 , pp. 47 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1977

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 “Unjustified Enrichment in the Conflict of Laws” (1939)Google Scholar 7 Cambridge LawJournal 80–93

2 pp. 754–757, r. 167.

3 pp. 924–929, r. 176.

4 Preliminary Draft Convention, Doc. XIV/398/72, Rev. E; F; (1973) 21 Am.J. Comp.L. 587 (text with introduction by Nadelmann); 1973 Rev.crit.dr.i.p. 209 (text), 369 (analysis by Lagarde); (1973) 9 Revisla di diritto privato e processuale (text and Report Giuliano); Siehr (1973) 19 Aussenwirtschaftsdienst des Betriebsberaters 569; Lando (1974) 38Google ScholarRabels Z. 6 (contractual and quasi-contractual aspects); von Overbeck and Volken, Ibid., 56 (torts); Cavers (1975) 48 So.Calif. L.R. 603; Nadelmann (1976) 24 Am.J.Comp.L. 1; Collins (1976) 25 I.C.L.Q. 35; Lando, von Hoffmann, Siehr, (eds.), European Private International Law of Obligations (1975)Google Scholar; A. Philip (1972) 42 Nordisk Tidskrift for International Ret 177, 220.

5 (1973) 3 International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law, Chap. 30.

6 “The Proper Law of the Contract” (with Brunschwig, J., Jerie, J. and Rodman, K. M. (1938) 12 St. John's Law Rev. 242–264.Google Scholar

7 [1939] A.C. 277.

8 (1932, II) 40 Hague Recueil 157–231; (1929) 1 Melanges Pillet 153–177; (1929) 24 Rev.d.i.p. 478–489.

9 (1931) 3 Jahrbuch fur Schiedsgerkhtswesen 123–152.

10 “Conflict of Laws before International Tribunals I, II” (1942) 27Google ScholarTransactions of the Grotius Society 142–175; (1944) 29, Ibid. 51–83. See how (1972, I) 135 Hague Recueil 99, at pp. 167–194.

11 Netherlands v. Sweden [1958] I.C.J. Reports 55, at pp. 79–101Google Scholar, esp. 92–100.

12 “The Hague Conventions on Private International Law, Public Law and Public Policy” (1959) 8 I.C.L.Q. 508–522Google Scholar; but see Kahn-Freund (1974, III) 143 Hague Recueil 141 at 173, 195.

13 [1921] 3 K.B. 532.

14 “Recognition of Governments and the Application of Foreign Law” (1950) 35 Transactions of the Grolius Society 157–188.Google Scholar

15 See Bernstein v. L.V. Nederlandsche Amerikaansche etc. 210 F. 2d 375 (2 Cir. 1954)Google Scholar approved by the United States Supreme Court in First National City Bank v. Banco National de Cuba 406 U.S. 759, 32 L.Ed. 2d 466, 92 S.Ct. 1808 (1972), rehearing denied 409 U.S. 897, 34 L.Ed. 2d 155, 93 S.Ct. 92 (1972).

16 [1967] 1 A.C. 583 at pp. 906, 953.

17 “Proof of Foreign Law, Scrutiny of Constitutionality and Validity” (1967) 42 B.Y.I.L. 265–270.Google Scholar

18 “Esame degli atti legislativi, esecutivi e guidiziari di una Potenza Occupante” (1952) 4 Communication e Studi 115–141.Google Scholar

19 “The General Principles of Private International Law” (1972, I) 135 Hague Recueil 99–229.Google Scholar

20 “Conflict of Laws 1921–1971, The Way Ahead” [1972B] 31 C.L.J. 67–120, at pp. 67–71.Google Scholar

21 (1891) 7 L.Q.R. 113, at p. 118; Conflict of Laws (3rd ed., 1922), p. 33.Google Scholar

22 “A Draft Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Claims for Maintenance” (1954) 3 I.C.L.Q. 125–134Google Scholar; Doc. E/A.C. 39/1 of 18 September 1952.

23 268 U.N.T.S. 3; U.K.T.S. 85,1975: Cmnd. 6084.

24 “Des Haager Abkommen iiber die internationale Abwicklung von Nachlassen” (1975) 39 Rabels Z. 29–55.Google Scholar

25 “The Calvo Clause” (1945) 22 B.Y.I.L. 130–145.Google Scholar

26 Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, The Nottebohm Case (2nd Phase) [1955] I.C.J. Reports 1Google Scholar; Gedachtnisschrift fur Ludwig Marxer (Zurich, Schulthess & Co.. 1963), pp. 275–325Google Scholar (with E. Loewenfeld).

27 Chamant v. Etat Allemand (1922) 1Google ScholarDecisions des Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes 361; Heim v. Etat Allemand, ibid. 381; see Triepel, Virtuelle Slaatsangehorigkeit (1921), esp. pp. 17, 59.

28 (1909) 5 Rev. de droit international prive 41, esp. p. 60.

29 “Das Eherecht Englands, in Leske-Loewenfeld” (1965) Das Eherecht der europäischen Staaten 379–462.

30 Research in Family Law (1969) 9 J.S.P.T.L. 217–225.

31 Wachtel v. Wachtel [1973] Fam. 72.Google Scholar

32 See my Law of the European Economic Community (1974)Google Scholar, passim.

33 “The Reception of Western Law in Countries with a different social and economic background: Turkey I, II,” Annales de I'Institut de Droit de I'Universiti d'Islanbul, t. 5, no. 6 (1956), pp. 11–27Google Scholar, 225–238; (1957) 9 Social Science Bulletin 70–95; t. 11, nos. 16–17 (1961), pp. 3–13.Google Scholar

34 “The Reception of Western Law in Countries with a different social and economic background: India,” Revista del Instituto de derecho comparado, Barcelona, t. 8–9 (1957), pp. 69–81Google Scholar, 213–225; (1957) 6 Indian Yearbook of International Law 277–293.

35 [1976] Q.B. 801 (C.A.).

36 See Kessler (1964) 77 Harvard L.R. 401; Nirk (1953) 18 Rabels Z. 310.

37 [1976] 1 W.L.R. 810 (C.A.). See also Turner v. Arding & Hobbs Ltd, [1949] 2 All E.R. 911Google Scholar, 912.

38 But see Etso Petroleum Ltd. v. Mardon [1976]Google Scholar Q.B. 801, 820 (C.A.).

39 [1969] 2 A.C. 147.

40 [1968] A.C. 997.

41 But see the more optimistic attitude of Devlin, Lord, Samples of Law Making (1962), pp. 25, 26.Google Scholar