Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:33:36.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Principle of Reciprocity in the Law of International Civil Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Stephen Szászy
Stephen Szászy
Affiliation:
Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Former Judge of the Mixed Courts of Egypt and Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague Associé of the Institut de droit international
Get access

Extract

I. Reciprocity (réciprocité, Gegenseitigkeit, in Russian: vzaimnost) is important in the field of private international law and international civil procedure in the following connections: 1. when the law to be applied is decided, 2. when legal protection is to be secured to aliens, 3. when the recognition of the legal effects of foreign procedure, especially the recognition and execution of foreign judicial decisions is under discussion, 4. when the application of certain directly regulating rules of procedure [exemption from security in connection with the costs of procedure, freedom of expenses, regulation of judicial assistance] is the question at issue.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1966 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1966

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. Literature: Lunz, L. A., Private International Law, 2nd ed., vol. I, 1959, pp. 259 ff.Google Scholar (in Russian); Réczei, L., Private international Law, 2nd ed., 1959, pp. 76 ff.Google Scholar (in Hungarian); Bystrický, , The Bases of Private International Law, 1958, pp. 119 ff.Google Scholar (in Czech); Pereterski, and Krylov, , Private International Law, 2nd ed., 1959, p. 63 (in Russian)Google Scholar; Altinoff, , The System of Private International Law of the Bulgarian People's Republic, 1955, pp. 95, 182, 235Google Scholar (in Bulgarian); Riezler, , Internationales Zivilprozessrecht und prozessuales Fremdenrecht, 1949, pp. 552 ff.Google Scholar; Morelli, , Diritto processuale civile intemazionale, 2nd ed. 1959, pp. 322 ff.Google Scholar and Studi di diritto internazionale 1961, pp. 24, 107, 112, 115–117, 159–160, 183, 344, 349–350, 356–359 (in Italian)Google Scholar; Ehrenzweig, A. A., A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, 1962, pp. 27, 57, 139, 161, 165 f. 668 f.Google Scholar and Conflicts in a Nutshell, 1965, pp. 78 f.Google Scholar; Francke, : Zeitschrift für den Zivilprozess, vol. VIII, pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar; Karl Satter, ibidem, vol. LV (1930), pp. 459 ff.; Klein, , Zeitschrift für internationales Privatrecht und Strafrecht, vol. IX (1899), pp. 206 ff.Google Scholar; von Bar, , Theorie und Praxis des internationalen Privatrechts, 2nd ed. 1899, pp. 507 ff.Google Scholar; Wittmaack, , in the Zeitschrift of Niemeyer, XXII (1912) pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar; Kleinfeller, , Gegenseitigkeit, Juristische Wochenschrift, 1924, pp. 1326 ff.Google Scholar; Niboyet, , La notion de réciprocité dans les traités diplomatiques de droit privé, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de droit international de la Haye, 1935, II, (LII), pp. 259 ff.Google Scholar

2. So Riezler, , op. cit., p. 553Google Scholar; Ernst, , “Gegenrecht und Vergeltung”, Zürich. Diss., 1950, p. 194Google Scholar (gives expression to this difference in a very characteristic way: “Gegenseitigkeit = Retorsion als Dauerzustand; Retorsionsklausel = Retorsion als Ausnahme.”)

2a. In the opposite sense Niederer, Einführung in die Allgemeine Lehren des internationalen Privatrechts, 2nd ed. 1956. p. 339Google Scholar; in his opinion in the law of conflicts substantive reciprocity is the rule.

3. Niboyet, , Traité de droit international privé, Vol III (1944), pp. 233 ff., especially p. 236.Google Scholar

4. Arminjon, , Précis de droit international privé, vol. I, 3rd ed., 1947, p. 217Google Scholar, Cf. Mencer, G., Mirové souziti a mezinandni pravo (Mezinarodni politika 1960, No. 3)Google Scholar; this work explains the connection between peaceful co-existence and international law.

5. Guldener, So, Das internationale und interkontinentale Zivilprozessrecht der Schweiz, 1951, p. 105.Google Scholar

6. Lunz, , op. cit., 2nd ed. vol. I, 1959, pp. 259 ffGoogle Scholar; Réczei, , op. cit., pp. 76 ffGoogle Scholar; Altinoff, ; op. cit., pp. 95, 182, 235Google Scholar; Bystricky, ; op. cit., pp. 119 ffGoogle Scholar; Pereterski-Krylov, , op. cit., p. 63.Google Scholar The problem of reciprocity from the point of view of Soviet law is treated in an interesting manner by M. M. Boguslavski and A. A. Rubanov, The position of Foreigners in the Soviet Union, 1959, p. 7 (in Russian).

7. Réczei, , op. cit., p. 78.Google Scholar

8. In respect of reciprocity, besides the Statutes quoted, dispositions are to be found in the following: old Civil Code of Montenegro of 1883 (Section 9), German Code of Civil Procedure (Para 1 of Section 328), Austrian Exekutionsordnung (Section 79), Japanese Code of Civil Procedure (Section 515), Spainsh Code of Civil Procedure (Section 953), Chilean Code of Civil Procedure (Section 240), Peruvian Code of Civil Procedure (Section 1156), Columbian Code of Civil Procedure (Section 876), Liechtenstein, Act of personal and society law (Para (3) of Section 9; Para (3) of Section 14; Para (1) of Section 42) and Act of December 4th, 1911 (Para (2) of Section 2); Austrian Draft of Private International Law (Section 56); Hungarian Act IV of 1952 (family law), (Section 5,); Hungarian Draft of Private International Law (Sections 18, 19, 78); Soviet Code of Family Law (text of April 2nd 1947, Section 136) (conclusion of marriage before foreign diplomatic organs). Dispositions concerning retaliation are to be found in the German Introductory Act of the Civil Code (Section 31), in the Liechtenstein personal and society law (Para (3) of Section 8, Para (2) of Section 49), in the Polish Act of 1926 on Private International Law (Section 40) as well as in the Czechoslovak Act on Private International Law of 1963 (Para (2) of Section 32).