1 Earlier stages were covered in Nadelmann, “A New Report of the Inter-American Juridical Committee on Revision of the Bustamante Code,” 53 A.J.I.L. 652 (1959); idem, “The Question of Revision of the Bustamante Code,” 57 ibid.384 (1963).

2 Text in 86 L.N.T.S. I l l ; The International Conferences of American States 1889- 1928, p. 367 (J. B. Scott, ed., 1931); 4 Hudson, International Legislation 2279 (1931). See Lorenzen, “The Pan American Code of Private International Law,” 4 Tulane Law Rev. 499 (1930).

3 Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Venezuela.

4 Bolivia, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, and Venezuela. Venezuela's reservations are discussed in J. Muci Abraham, C6digo de Derecho Intenacional Privado (C6digo Bustamante) 37 (Caracas, 1955).

5 Text of reservations collected in Comité Juridico Interamericano, Textos de los Documentos de la Organización de los Estados Americanos sobre la Posibilidad de Revisién del Cédigo de Derecho Internacional Privado o Código Bustamante 541-547 (Organization of American States, Washington, D. C, June, 1970, mimeo.) (CIJ-90, Rev., Spanish only). The reservations are discussed in a document, “Possibility of Revision of the Code of Private International Law (Bustamante Code),” prepared in 1961 by the Department of Legal Affairs of the Pan American Union, reproduced ibid,at 299, 312-334. For an analysis of the general reservation made by Chile, see A. Etcheberry Orthusteguy, American-Chilean Private International Law 12 (1960).

6 On die treaties see 1 Ernst Rabel, Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study 32 (2d ed., 1958); Bewes, “The Treaties of Montevideo,” 6 Grotius Society Transactions 59 (1921). English translation of treaties in 2 International American Congress, Reports of Committees and Discussions 876 (1890).

7 Because of the general reservation made by Bolivia, note 4 above, in the relations between the two states the Montevideo Treaties apply. See M. Garcia Calderon K., Derecho Internacional Privado 25-26 (Lima, 1969).

8 Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica.

9 Res. II, “Possibility of Revision of the Bustamante Code,” in Final Act of the Fifth Meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists, San Salvador, El Salvador, p. 12 (Pan American Union, March, 1965, mimeo.) (CIJ-77).

10 See Opinion of the Inter-American Juridical Committee on Revision of the Bustamante Code (Pan American Union, Nov. 1961, mimeo.) (CIJ-62). Cf.Working Paper on Revision of the Bustamante Code (Pan American Union, Oct. 1964, mimeo.) (CIJ-73).

11 See Bustamante, “The American Systems on the Conflict of Laws and Their Reconciliation,“ 5 Tulane Law Rev. 537, 565-569 (1931).

12 Most importantly, in 1942 Brazil changed from nationality to domicile on the occasion of a major Code reform. See P. G. Garland, American-Brazilian Private International Law 25 (1959); H. Valladăo, Direito Internacional Privado 187 (1968); 2 Amilcar de Castro, Direito Internacional Privado 68 (2d ed., 1968). Cf.Gallardo, “The Law of Domicile—A Remarkable Connecting Link in Latin-American Conflict of Laws,” 2 Inter-American Law Rev. 64 (1960). On the development in Europe, see references in Nadelmann, “Mancini's Nationality Rule and Non-Unified Legal Systems,” 17 A. J. Comp. Law 418, 448-449 (1969), reproduced in K. H. Nadelmann, Conflict of Laws: International and Interstate 49, 81-82 (1971).

13 Document cited note 5 above; original version produced in 1967.

14 At page 391 of the revised version of 1970. Also in Work Accomplished by the Inter-American Juridical Committee during its 1966 Regular Meeting (Pan American Union, 1966, mimeo.) (CIJ-86).

15 See “Postscript” in Inter-American Institute of International Legal Studies, The Inter-American System 296 et seq.(1966).

16 Seven governments replied: Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Guatemala, and Costa Rica, all favorably. The replies are in the document cited in note 5 above.

17 See Robertson, “Revision of the Organization of American States,” 17 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 346, 359 (1968). Text of “Protocol of Buenos Aires” of Feb. 27, 1967, in T.I.A.S., No. 6847, 64 A.J.I.L. 966 (1970). Cf.Zanotti, “Regional and International Activities,” 2 Lawyer of the Americas 229 (1970).

18 New Art. 105 reads: “The purpose of the Inter-American Juridical Committee is to serve the Organization as an advisory body on juridical matters; to promote the progressive development and the codification of international law; and to study juridical problems related to the integration of the developing countries of the Hemisphere and, insofar as may appear desirable, the possibility of attaining uniformity in their legislation.“ In old Art. 67, the second heading read: “to promote the development and codification of public and private international law.” No substantive change seems to have been intended.

19 New Art. 107. See Zanotti, note 17 above, at 435.

20 Discussed in Stein, “Conflict-of-Laws Rules by Treaty: Recognition of Companies in a Regional Market,” 68 Mich. Law Rev. 1327, 1337 (1970). And see Goldman, “The Convention between the Members of the European Economic Community on the Mutual Recognition of Companies and Legal Persons,” 6 Common Market Law Rev. 104 (1968). Translation of the Convention of Feb. 29, 1968, 1969 Unification of Law year Book 210 (Unidroit, 1970). Cf.Vieira, “Le droit international privé dans le développement de I'intégration latino-américaine,” 130 Hague Academy, Recueil des Cours 351, 395-418 (1970).

21 See Work Accomplished by the Inter-American Juridical Committee During its 1966 Regular Meeting (Pan American Union, 1967, mimeo.) (CIJ-86).

22 See Work Accomplished by the Inter-American Juridical Committee During its 1968 Regular Meeting (Pan American Union, Feb., 1969, mimeo.) (CIJ-96).

23 Ibid.

24 The Report, dated May 2, 1969, is in Doc. C-i-882, Rev. 2, of May 7, 1969, reproduced in Comité Juridico Interamericano, Textos, etc., note 5 above, at 485.

25 Decision of May 7, 1969, reproduced ibid,at 493.

26 See survey in Nadelmann, “The United States Joins the Hague Conference on Private International Law,” 30 Law and Contemporary Problems 291, 297 (1965), reprinted in Nadelmann, note 12 above, at 99, 105.

27 See Nadelmann, “The Benelux Uniform Law on Private International Law,” 18 A. J. Comp. Law 406 (1970).

28 Primarily, Art. 220 of the Treaty of Rome of March 25, 1957, 298 U.N.T.S. 3; 51 A.J.I.L. 930 (1957).

29 See European Communities, Fourth General Report on the Activities of the Communities 61 (1970). For work on unification of private international law undertaken by the Instituto Hispano-Luso-Americano de Derecho Internacional, see Comment, “El VII Congreso del Institute Hispano-Luso-Americano de Derecho Intemacional en Buenos Aires 1969,” 22 Revista Espaňola de Derecho Intemacional 599, 614 (1969).

30 The answers are collected in Comité Juridico Interamericano, Textos, etc., note 5 above, at 496 et seq.(from CP/Doc. 17/70).

31 At 499. For an Ecuadorian view on the revision, see Valencia Rodriguez, “La revisión del C6digo de Bustamante,” Revista de Derecho, No. 5, p. 29 (Quito, 1965).

32 On differing views in Mexico, see Siqueiros, “Private International Law and the United” States: A Brief Comparative Study,” 6 Calif. Western Law Rev. 257, 265 (1970) (from his contribution in: Colégio de Abogados de Mexico, El Pensamiento Juridico de Mexico en el Derecho Intemacional 209, 225 (Mexico, 1960); Helguera, “El Derecho International Privado y el C6digo Bustamante,” in Comunicaciones Mexicanas al VI Congreso International de Derecho Comparado 29 (1962). Cf. Ritch, “Codification of Private International Law of the American Countries,” 7 Inter- American Law Rev. 395, 409 (1965) (from a Mexico Lie. Thesis, 1964).

33 Ibid,at 502.

34 Ibid,at 506.

35 Ibid,at 508.

36 Ibid,at 508 a.

37 Note of Sept. 4, 1970 (CP/Doc.15/70 Add.2).

38 Council Series Doc. C-d-1358 Add.7, Sept. 24, 1969. Translation in Comite Juridico Interamericano, Textos, etc., note 5 above, at 507.

39 Compare U.S. Memorandum of March 7, 1955, on the question of adherence to the Bustamante Code, filed as a Comment on the Committee's Comparative Study of the Bustamante Code, the Montevideo Treaties, and the Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws (CIJ-21, note 58 below), reproduced in Comit6 Juridico Interamericano, Textos, etc., note 5 above, at 278; also in 53 A.J.I.L. 655 (1959).

40 See Nadelmann, “Ignored State Interests: The Federal Government and International Efforts to Unify Rules of Private Law,” 102 U. Pa. Law Rev. 323 (1954).

41 References in Nadelmann, note 40 above, at 339 et seq.

42 The data are collected in Nadelmann, note 26 above, at 304 and 114 respectively.

43 See Amram, “United States Ratification of the Hague Convention on Service of Documents Abroad,” 61 A.J.I.L. 1019 (1967).

44 Public Law 91-368, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), 85 Stat. 692, T.I.A.S., No. 6997; Domke, “The United States Implementation of the United Nations Arbitral Convention,“ 19 AJ. Comp. Law 574 (1971).

45 See Stein, note 20 above.

46 T.S. No. 973, 55 Stat. 1201 (1940), 161 U.N.T.S. 217. Text also in 7 Hudson, International Legislation 355 (1941). Cf.2 Rabel, Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study 146-147 (2d ed., 1960). The protocol was signed by Chile, Ecuador, EI Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Peru, the United States, and Venezuela. The last two countries ratified the protocol, the United States reserving the right to terminate the obligations arising under the Declaration at any time after twelve months' notice given in advance.

47 See Walker, “Provisions on Companies in U.S. Commercial Treaties,” 50 A.J.I.L. 373 (1956) (Federal problem discussed at 390).

48 See text to note 24 above.

49 Urgency is a matter of degree. Looking at the European precedent, proof of urgency may be difficult. See writers cited note 20 above. As for the Hague Convention of june 1, 1956, concerning Recognition of the Legal Personality of Foreign Corporations (1 A.J. Comp. Law 277 (1952)), it received only three ratifications, not enough to put it into effect. The need for the convention has been questioned. Its contents are discussed in Offerhaus, “The Seventh Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law,” 79 Journal du Droit International 1071, 1091-1113 (1952).

50 The subject was given special attention by the United States member, George H. Owen, in his separate vote at the 1952 Meeting. See Second Opinion of the Inter American Juridical Committee on the Possibility of Revising the Bustamante Code (Pan American Union, 1953, mimeo.) (CIJ-13A), reproduced in Commitee Juridico Interamericano, Textos, etc., note 5 above, at 52, 68-72. And see Valladăo, note 12 above, at 201. Cf.Barnes, “Revision of the Bustamante Code,” 6 Academia Interamericana de Derecho Comparado e Internacional, Cursos Monograficos 393, 412 (1957). For an up-to-date statement of the American law, see Restatement, Second, Conflict of Laws, §198 (1971).

51 Bustamante Code Convention, note 2 above, Art. 2.

52 See, e.g.,Garland, note 12 above, at 18; R. S. Lombard, American-Venezuelan Private International Law 26 (1965). The same seems to be true with respect to the Montevideo Treaties in the treaty states. See Ph. Eder, American-Colombian Private International Law 16 (1956).

53 Peru tried, but it did not succeed in obtaining changes. See J. L. Bustamante i Rivero, El Tratado de Derecho Civil Internacional de 1940 (1942). For a translation of the new treaties see 37 A.J.I.L. Supp. 109 (1943).

54 Notably, the writings of the Brazilian jurist, Haroldo Valladăo, collected in H. Valladăo, Estudos de Direito Internacional Privado (1947).

54 Notably, the writings of the Brazilian jurist, Haroldo Valladăo, collected in H. Valladăo, Estudos de Direito Internacional Privado (1947).

55 The change seems to have begun with the treatise of 1955 by the late Uruguayan jurist, Quintin Alfonsin, in which a work published in 1954 in Spain by the Belgian lawyer, Julian Verplaetse, was used. The recent Spanish literature is much up to date. See, e.g.,M. Aguilar Navarro, Derecho Internacional Privado (3rd ed., 1970). One of the difficulties has been the absence of Latin American states from the Hague Conference on Private International Law, identified originally with the nationality law principle, and quite correctly. But things have changed. See Nadelmann, “HabitualResidence and Nationality as Tests at The Hague: The 1968 Convention on Recognition of Divorces,” 47 Texas Law Rev. 766 (1969).

56 Members are elected from panels of three candidates presented by Member States. Art. 107 of the Charter as revised in 1967.

57 Professor JoséJoaquin Caicedo Castilla of Colombia, whose treatise covers the Montevideo Treaties as well as the Bustamante Code. J. J. Caicedo Castilla, Derecho Internacional Privado (6th ed., 1967) (account of the revision project at 44-52). For a critical analysis of some parts, see Nadelmann, “Literature in Latin America on the Law of Conflict of Laws in the United States,” 4 Inter-American Law Rev. 103 (1962). In the Montevideo Treaty states all major works have comparative references to the rules of the Bustamante Code; in the Bustamante Code states, references to the Montevideo Treaties are less frequent.

58 In particular, the Comparative Study of the Bustamante Code, the Treaties of Montevideo, and the Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws, prepared by the Colombian member of the Inter-American Juridical Committee (Pan American Union, March, 1954, mimeo.) (CIJ-21), reproduced in Comité Juridico Interamericano, Textos, etc., note 5 above, at 73.

59 But see, e.g.,Colombo, “La proyectada reforma del Código Bustamante,” 72 Revista Jurfdica Argentina La Ley 905 (1953); Valencia Rodriguez, note 31 above. The volume with the documentation, note 5 above, lacks a bibliography of writings on the Code revision, an omission which should be corrected.

60 Publication ceased in 1957.

61 Survey-like notes by the chief of the Codification Division of the Department of Legal Affairs of the Organization of American States have begun to appear in “Lawyer of the Americas,” a U. of Miami periodical started in 1969; see note on this periodical in 63 AJ.I.L. 797 (1969).

62 See Bustamante, “The Progress of Codification under the Auspices of the Pan American Union,” 1926 Proceedings, American Society of Int. Law 108.

63 See note in 58 AJ.I.L. 122 (1964).

64 By-laws, Art. 3A, in Pamphlet, Inter-American Institute of International Legal Studies, Report of the General Secretariat 26 (1964).

65 It is the volume with the documents on Code revision. Whatever the organizaional defects in the operation of the Inter-American Juridical Committee, the volume is living proof of the valuable effort made over the years by Professor Caicedo and other members of the Committee, as well as the Pan American Union, toward achievement of greater uniformity in the rules of conflicts in the Hemisphere.

66 O.A.S. General Assembly meeting in Costa Rica, April, 1971, Res. AG/Res. 48. On specialized conferences see Arts. 128 and 129 of the O.A.S. Charter, note 17 above.

67 For an illustration of the working method of the Hague Conference (drafting committees meeting in advance of the session), see Nadelmann, note 55 above, at 768-771.