Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T18:15:41.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Internationales Privatrecht. By L. A. Lunz. Vol. 1: General Part. Translated by Horst Wiemann. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Zentralverlag, 1961. pp. xi, 280. - Lehrbuch des Internationalen Privatrechts. By I. S. Pereterski and S. B. Krylov. From the 2nd ed. revised by Krylov and Wilkow. Translated by Horst Wiemann et al. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Zentralverlag, 1962. pp. x, 244.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Albert A. Ehrenzweig
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
Book Reviews and Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , July 1963 , pp. 685 - 689
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1963

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 See review in 55 A.J.I.L. 1034 (1961).

2 Fragen des Internationalen Privatrechts (Wiemann ed., 1958). See De Nova, book review, 13 Diritto Intemazionale 214 (1959).

3 See, e.g., Drucker, “Soviet Views of Private International Law,” 4 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 384 (1955); Kiralfy, “ A Soviet Approach to Private International Law,” 4 Int. Law Q. 120 (1951); Pisar, “Soviet Conflict of Laws in International Commercial Transactions,” 70 Harvard Law Eev. 593 (1957). See also Verplaetse, “Colpo d'occhio sul diritto intemazionale privato russo,” 16 Diritto Intemazionale 157 (1962); Lasok, “Polish Private International Law,” in Grzybowski, Helczyunski, Nagorski and Lasok, Studies in Polish Law (1962); and generally Grzybowski, “Reform of Civil Law in Hungary, Poland, and the Soviet Union,” 10 A. J. Comp. Law 253 (1961).

4 See, e.g., regarding the relation between public international law and conflicts law, Lunz 4-6, 23, 24, note 29, as against Krylov in Pereterski and Krylov 3 ff. See also Baade, book review, 11 A. J. Comp. Law 468, note 9 (1962), concerning a similar controversy between Wiemann and Keczei.

5 See the regretful statement to this effect in Pereterski and Krylov x.

6 Lunz ix, 1, 27, et passim; Pereterski and Krylov 9, 96. For an excellent ideological analysis, see Baade, book review, 11 A. J. Comp. Law 464 (1962). But cf. Mann, book review, 11 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 305 (1962).

7 Ehrenzweig, Treatise on the Conflict of Laws 486, 503 (1962), hereinafter cited as Ehrenzweig.

8 Lunz 193 f., 204 ff., 208, 211 ff.; Pereterski and Krylov 55 ff., 105 ff., 199 ff. See also Schutte, [1960] Jahrbuch fur Ostrecht 111.

9 Pereterski and Krylov 196-233. See also the literature cited in Ehrenzweig, op. cit. 539, note 26.

10 Some of these are said to be improperly applied to non-signatories. Lunz 41. See also ibid. 78, Pereterski and Krylov 33, as to the non-recognition of international customs.

11 General Principles of Civil Law, adopted by the Supreme Soviet on Dec. 8, 1961 (effective May 1, 1962), accessible in a German translation in [1962] Staat und Reeht 357 ff., 528 ff. It is unfortunate that these Principles could not be included in the books under review. This reviewer is the more indebted to Professor Wiemann (Berlin) for having permitted him to examine a German translation, prepared for intramural purposes, of an article by Professor Lunz that deals with the impact of the Principles on his teaching.

12 See Berman, “Soviet Heirs in American Courts,” 62 Columbia Law Rev. 257 (1962).

13 See Ehrenzweig 26, note 33, 668, note 39. See the persuasive dissent of Justices Douglas and Black in Ioannou v. New York, 371 U. S. 30 (1962), digested in 57 A.J.I.L. 438 (1963).

14 Lunz 31 ff., 101 ff., 256-272; Pereterski and Krylov 24-26. See also Verplaetse, cited note 3 above, at 171-175.

15 Lunz 225-240. This discussion is marred only by the unsupported suggestion that this highly controversial doctrine (Ehrenzweig § 116) has been used by Western courts to defeat applications of Soviet law. Lunz 231. See also Pereterski and Krylov 47 ff.

16 Lunz 1, 3, 29, 45 f., 54 f., 70-77, 102; Pereterski and Krylov 21. See, generally, Ehrenzweig § 6. Regarding the law of sales where reference to the law of the seller has replaced the chaos still prevailing elsewhere, see Lunz 73; Pereterski and Krylov 139 ff. See, generally, Boguslavski, “Conflict of Laws in Relations between Socialist Countries,” 7 Rev. of Contemp. Law 260 (1960); Wiemann, “Caratteristiche sui Rapporti di Diritto Internazionale Privato fra gli Stati Socialisti,” 16 Diritto Internazionale 274 (1962). The interstate law of the Soviet Union is governed by a series of abstract rulings of the Soviet Supreme Court of Feb. 10, 1931. Lunz 45 f. See Verplaetse, note 3 above, at 158

17 See, e.g., Battifol, “Les rigles de conflits de lois dans les traitfis conclus entre l'U.R.S.S. et les democraties populaires,” 49 Rev. Crit. de Droit Int. Prive 287 (1960); Drobnig, “Conflict of Laws in Recent East-European Treaties,” 5 A. J. Comp. Law 487 (1956); idem, “Die Kollisionsnormen” etc., 6 Osteuropa-Recht 154 (1960).

18 Pereterski and Krylov 190-192. Characterization in general is persuasively analyzed as the result of mere interpretation of the domestic norm. Lunz 181 ff. See also Ehrenzweig § 110.

19 See, e.g., Lunz 43, 46, 96; Verplaetse, note 3 above, at 170.

20 Kalven, book review, 61 Michigan Law Rev. 414, 415 (1962).