Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T10:42:31.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Something Funny Happened to Foreign Law on Its Way to the Forum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

J. Erauw
J. Erauw
Affiliation:
Professor of Law, University of Ghent; Corporate Legal Counsel.
Get access

Extract

Bert Voskuil was a member of the jury for my doctoral dissertation. Together with my degree he gave me a second present: a Book on Books. It was written by a friend of his (John Landwehr), and described many aspects of Dutch life, at home and abroad, through stories, excerpts and illustrations taken from seventeenth-century books in the author's collection.

That most delightful book contains a find for private international law —which can be mentioned on this occasion. A 1692 book on captain Cornells Tromp gives the terms under which the beleaguered ‘city’ of Nieuw Amsterdam on Manhattan island surrendered to the belligerent English. The terms were agreed in 1664 (6 September), when Pieter Stuyvesant was Governor, and contained the promise to have the colony transferred to the English Crown as soon as further conditions were agreed — the latter transaction was formalised in 1667.

Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 39 , Special Issue S1: Law and Reality , October 1992 , pp. 63 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1991

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. Landwehr, J., De Nederlander uit en thuis, Spiegel van het dagelijks leven uit bijzondere zeventiende-eeuwse boeken [The Dutchman abroad and at home, reflections on daily life taken from particular seventeenth-century books] (1981) p. 120.Google Scholar

2. My translation.

3. Foelix, J. J., Traité du droit international privé ou conflit de his des diff´rentes nations en matière de droit privi (1843) pp. 2 and 11Google Scholar; Laurent, F., Le droit civil international, voL I (1881) p. 54Google Scholar; van Hecke, G., ‘Heeft er internationaal privaatrecht bestaan vóór de statutisten?’ [Did private international law exist before the statutists?], 1 Academia Analecta, Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Akademie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Letteren [Academia Analecta, Reports of the Royal Academy for Science, Humanities and Fine Arts of Belgium, Fine Arts Section] (1981) p. 21Google Scholar — true private international law is recognised by the application of foreign law in the forum.

4. See Kegel, G., Internationales Privatrecht, 4th edn. (1977) p. 74Google Scholar: ‘fremdes Recht, wenn nicht angewandt so doch geachtet’. Neumeyer, K., Die gemeinrechtliche Entwicklung des internationalen Privat- und Strafrechts bis Bartolus, vol. II (1902–1910) p. 147Google Scholar; and Gutzwiller, M., Geschichte des international privatrechts von den Anfängen bis zu den grossen Privatrechtskodifikationen (1977) p. 21Google Scholar, both saw departures from the lex fori — with more daring among the canonists.

5. See Smith, J.A.C., ‘Bartolo on the conflict of laws’, American Journal of Legal History (1970) p. 157, especially pp. 205–255.Google Scholar

6. There was outspoken concern to adhere to the ‘right’ court, which would apply its law — see Erauw, J., De onrechtmatige daad in het internationaal privaatrecht [Torts in the conflict of laws] (1982) pp. 35, 38.Google Scholar

7. But Lorenz, E., Zur Struktur des internationalen Privatrechts. Ein Beitrag zur Reformdiskussion (1977) pp. 26–40Google Scholar, finds multilateral rules being used in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Laurent, , op. cit. n. 3, p. 542Google Scholar, found disagreement among statutists.

8. Grawert, R., Stoat und Staatsangeh¨rigkeit. Verfdssungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Staatsangehörigkeit (1973) pp. 26–30, 32–33, 80–83, 85–86 and 219.Google Scholar

9. Erauw, , op. cit. n. 6, p. 60 et seq.Google Scholar

10. Laurent, , op. cit n. 3, pp. 52, 62–64, 267 et seq., 521 and 596Google Scholar, illustrates this more particularly with historical arguments. Rigaux, F., ‘Cent cinquante ans de droit international privé beige’, in F. Rigaux and G. Zorbas, eds., Les grands arrêts de la jurisprudence beige — Droit international priv´ (1981) p. 23Google Scholar, explains the ‘double territoriality’.

11. Foelix, , op. cit. a 3, p. 44Google Scholar, but he thought of a ‘statut personel’ under the law of the domicile.

12. For a clear description of the poor position of foreign law in France, see Zajtay, I., Contribution à l'étude de la condition de la loi étrangère en droit international privé français (1958) p. 60 et seqGoogle Scholar. and p. 118 et seq., for court decisions and generally pp. 58 et seq. and p. 123 et seq. Laurent, , op. cit n. 3, pp. 77 and 82Google Scholar, regretted the denial of analoguous interpretation of Art 3(3) CC and about die lack of openness of the French.

13. Cour de cassation 8 02 1849Google Scholar, I Pasicrisie belge (1849) p. 221.Google Scholar

14. Ymbert, L., Essais critiques stir le code Napoléon, I—Le portique du code (1862) p. 168Google Scholar. Niboyet, P., Trait´ du droit international privé français, vol. IV (1947) p. 750Google Scholar, cites De Vareilles- Sommières standing strong in a July 1902 edition of Revue de Lille.

15. See Demolombe, C., Cours de Code Napoléon, vol. 1 (1867) pp. 111–113.Google Scholar

16. See Grawert, , op. cit. n. 8Google Scholar; and similarly Hecker, H., Staatsangehörigkeit im Code Napol´on als europ¨isches Recht (1980)Google Scholar and Koririsch, F., ‘Der Staatsangehörigkeitsgrundsatz im Kollisionsrecht’, in Festschrift für H. Dölle — Vom deutschen zum europäischen Recht (1963) pp. 87–104.Google Scholar

17. Grawert, , op. cit. n. 8, pp. 77, 82–83, 156 and 161.Google Scholar

18. Hecker, op.citn. 16, p. 128Google Scholar; and see De Winter, L.I., ‘Nationality or domicile? The present state of affairs’, 128 Hague Recuedl (1969–1910) p. 369 et seq.Google Scholar

19. See Haus, E., Du droit privé qui régit les ´trangers en Belgique ou du droit des gens privé (1874) pp. 25, 110 et seq., 72 and 413.Google Scholar

20. Conversely the analoguous application to ‘foreigners’ in the forum could not have meant much.

21. Foelix, , op. cit. n. 3, p. 44Google Scholar; Von Savigny is the classic example (see Grawert, , op. cit. n. 8, p. 154)Google Scholar; and see Haus, , op. cit. n. 19, loc. cit. and p. 66Google Scholar where be says Laurent was making a grave error with his lex patriae.

22. See Kodrisch, F., ‘Rechtsnatur und Funktion des internationalen Privatrechts in den Gesetzen des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts’, in Die geheimen Materialen zur Kodifikation des deutschen internationalen Privatrechts 1881–1891 (1973) pp. 7–10Google Scholar; and see Jayme, E., ‘Potere politico ecodificatione dell diritto internazionale privato da Mancini a Bismarck’, in Diritto e potere nello storia Europea (1982) p. 1172.Google Scholar

23. Demolombe, , op. cit n. 15, p. 103Google Scholar was quite clear.

24. For the droit d'aubaine and succession rights: see Laurent, , op. cit. n. 3, p. 262Google Scholar and Erauw, J., ‘Het nieuwe recht van voorafheming in de internationale erfenissen (art 912 B.W.)’ [The new right of retortion in international inheritances], in Exequatur van vriendschap. Liber amicorum Egied Spanoghe [Exequatur of friendship…] (1981) p. 115 et seq.Google Scholar, concerning exclusive lex fori application.

For the wife's mortgage on the husband's property: see Batiffol, H.. ‘l'Hypothèque de la femme mari´e en France et le droit international privé’, II Festschrift E. Rabel (1954) p. 591Google Scholar; and Carmet, O.Etude critique de la distinction entre la condition des étrangers et les conflits de lois (1977) pp. 249–266.Google Scholar

25. The dissertation by Carmet, , op. cit a 24, p. 233Google Scholar, referring to the Wigny, Belgian (1934)Google Scholar. But see also: De Vareilles-Sommières, , La synthèse du droit international privé (1897) p. XXLGoogle Scholar

26. See Maury, J., ‘Règles g`nèrales des conflits de lois’, 57 Hague Recueil (1936–III) p. 344 et seq.Google Scholar; Foelix, J.J., op. cit n. 3, p. VIGoogle Scholar (‘Pr´face’) borrowed from J. Story. Concerning S. Mancini, see Jayme, E., Pasquale Stanislao Mancini. Internationales Privatrecht zwischen Risorgimento und praktischer Jurisprudenz (1980) pp. 5, 6, 38 and 42Google Scholar. Jayme locates the departure from the ‘fremdenrechtlichen Ansatz’ (the approach from the foreigner's equal capacity before the law) and the first formulation of ‘an abstract lex patriae-rule’ with Mancini. See also Kegel, G., Book review of the above, in RabelsZ (1982) p. 466.Google Scholar

27. On comitas see: Irmer, H.B.G., ‘Comity’.Nederlandse invloed op hetrecht der Verenigde Staten [‘Comity’, Dutch influence on United States law] (1948)Google Scholar; Scholten, J.M.B., Het begrip Comitas in het internationaal privaatrecht van de Hollandse juristenschool der zeventiende eeuw [The notion Comitas in private international law in Dutch seventeenth-century legal theory] (1949)Google Scholar; de Azevedo, P. Faraco, Recherches sur la justification de l'application du droit étranger chez les Anglo-Américains et leur antécédents Hollandais (1971)Google Scholar; and Paul, J.R., ‘Comity in international law’, 32 Harv. Int'l L J. (1991) p. 1 et seq. and p. 19Google Scholar, regarding Justice Story.

28. See Inner, , op. cit. n. 27, pp. 67 and 81Google Scholar. See also Graveson, R.H., ‘Philosophical aspects of the English Conflict of laws’, LQR (1962) p. 337 et seq.Google Scholar; and in Comparative Conflict of Laws, vol. I (1977) p. 14 et seq.Google Scholar

Paul, , op. cit. n. 27, pp. 8–11 and 24 et seq.Google Scholar, explains how ‘comity’ had shifted from the idea of courtesy to a rule of imperfect obligation, notably by the time it found its paradigmatic formulation in a Supreme Court opinion in Hilton, v. Guyot, , 159 U.S. 113 (1895).Google Scholar

29. Dicey, A.V., Digest of the law of England with reference to the conflict of laws (1896) p. 24Google Scholar; Graveson, , op. cit. n. 28, pp. 21 and 22Google Scholar, where he calls the theory ‘a source of refreshment'; and says that although criticized and old-fashioned’ the reason behind it has been retained.

The German Lorenz, op. cit. n. 7, pp. 60 and 63 et seq.Google Scholar, now undertook to construct a new basis for private international law on the principle of equality and makes references to the English theoretical writings.

30. von Savigny, F.C., System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, vol. VIII (1849) p. 25Google Scholar; and see Sturm, F., ‘Savigny und das internationale Privatrecht seiner Zeit’, in Ius Commune VIII. Vorträge zum 200. Geburtstag von F.C. von Savigny (1979) pp. 106 and 108.Google Scholar

31. Laurent, , op. cit. n. 3, pp. 54, 625 et seq.Google Scholar

32. See the work of K. Vogel, J.E.J. Th. Deelen, C. Joerges, A. Bucher, H.U. Jessurun d'Oliveira, L. Strikwerda, F. Sturm, P.H. Neuhaus and especially Schurig, K., Kollisionsnorm und Sachenrecht. Zu Struktur, Standort und Methode des internationalen Privatrectos (1982) pp. 16, 115 and 270 et seq.Google Scholar

33. G. Kegel, Book-review of Jayme, E., RabelsZ (1982) p. 466Google Scholar says our private international law is not a Savigny-private international law— ‘weder mit dem Rechtsverhältnis noch mit dem “Sitz” liess sich viel Anfangen, und auch der Wohnsitz als Anknüpfung hielt nicht mehr lange. Aber die Allseitigkeit der Kollisionsnormen … hatte auch Savigny … Savigny und Mancini sind zwei Tragpfeiler des modernen internationalen Privatrechts.’

34. See Gothot, P., ‘Le renouveau de la tendance unilat´raliste en droit international privé’, Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. (1971) pp. 435–436Google Scholar who refers to the writings of Gabba and Neumann.

35. Von Savigny, , op. tit n. 30, pp. 32–35 and 111.Google Scholar

36. The discussion begins with Kegel, G., ‘The crisis of conflict of laws’, in Hague Recueil (1964–II) p. 1 et seq.Google Scholar

37. See the important work by Schurig, , op. cit n. 32Google Scholar; and see for a most commendable analysis of American theories, Scoles, E.F. and Hay, P., Conflict of Laws (1982) p. 12 et seq.Google Scholar

38. See Boele-Woelki, K., Die Effektivitätsprüfung der Staatsangehörigkeit im niederl¨ndischen internationalen Familienrechtf (1983) notably p. 90Google Scholar regarding the law of 10 April 1981 on international divorce.

39. Cour de cassation 12 12 1985Google Scholar, Rechtskundig Weekblad (1986–1987) p. 99Google Scholar, with comment by J. Erauw.

40. See for a description of the bag of tricks: Juenger, F.K., Zum Wandel des internationalen Privatrechts (1975) p. 10 et seqGoogle Scholar. The pleasures for lawyers are mentioned by Loewenfeld, A., ‘Renvoi among law professors: An American's view of the European view of American conflict of laws’, Am. J.Comp.L.(1982)p. 115.Google Scholar

41. Lorenz, , op. cit. n. 7, p. 47.Google Scholar

42. Lorenzen, E.G., ‘Territoriality, public policy and the conflict of laws’, in Selected articles on the conflict of laws (1947) pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

43. Kahn, F., ‘Die Lehre vom ordre public(Prohibitivgesetze)’, Jherings Jahrbücher (1898) p. 162Google Scholar, spate of the ‘unfinished part’ of private international law; Zweigert, K., Book-review of K. Vogel in RabelsZ (1967) p. 368Google Scholar; Habscheid, WJ., ‘Territoriale Grenzen der Staatlichen Rechtssetzung’. in 11 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft f¨r Völkerrecht (1973) p. 49 et seq.Google Scholar; Schurig, K., op. cit a 32, pp. 248Google Scholar et seq. and 286; see also E. Cohen Henriquez, Book-review of H.U. Jessurun d'Oliveira WPNR 1980 no. 5533, p. 679.

44. See Schurig, , op. cit a 32, p. 356Google Scholar; and Wiethölter, R., ‘Begriffs- oder Interessenjurisprudenz–falsche Fronten im IPR und Wirtschaftsverfassungsrecht’, in Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung im Ausgang des 20. Jahrhunderts — Bewahrung oder Wende? Festschrift f¨r Gerhard Kegel (1977) p. 245Google Scholar — ‘Reform nicht Revolution’.

45. Schurig, , op. cit. n. 32, p. 350.Google Scholar

46. Batiffol, H. and Lagarde, P., Droit international privé, 7th edn., vol. I (1983) p. 6Google Scholar; Labrusse, C., ‘La compétence et l'application des lois nationales face au phénomène de l'immigration étangère’, Trav. comité fr. di.p. (1975–1977) p. 111 et seq.Google Scholar

47. Proposal introduced by senator Lallemand, R. et al. , Parliamentary Documents (Senate) (Extr. Session 1991–1992) 119–1.Google Scholar

48. Leaving decisions on conflicts in part to those concerned is a plausible way of settling matters in areas like divorce, adoption (if all parties agree) and succession. Another not unrelated way of reducing foreign law is by leaving the parties more choice whether to call on the conflicts rule and in effect to be allowed a tacit choice for the lex fori: Flessener, A., ‘Fakultatives Kollisionsrecht’, RabelsZ (1970) p. 547Google Scholar; Lorenz, , op. cit n. 7, pp. 103, 106.Google Scholar

Labrusse, , op. cit. a 46, pp. 131 and 135 et seqGoogle Scholar. thinks that if ex officio application of foreign law were to hit France, retreat to lex domicilii and the increase of party autonomy would be advisable.

49. The present author has published most of the above research and similar opinions in a comparably developed booklet, in Dutch: De bron van het vreemde recht vloeit overvloedig [The wellspring of foreign laws flows freely] (1984) 36 p.Google Scholar