1 Inter-American Juridical Committee, Keport on the Possibility of Revision of the Bustamante Code or the Code of Private International Law (CIJ-38) (Department of Legal Affairs, Pan American Union, Washington, D. C, December, 1958).

2 The International Conferences of American States 1889-1928 (Scott ed., 1931) 367; 4 Hudson, International Legislation 2279 (1931).

3 1950-1951 Inter-American Juridical Yearbook 289, 302 (emphasis supplied). Cf.1949 ibid.301, 305-307, 319 (F. A. Ursua, of Mexico, dissenting); A. V. Freeman, “The First Meeting of the Inter-American Council of Jurists , “ 44 A.J.I.L. 374, 377 (1950).

4 1950-1951 Inter-American Juridical Yearbook 360.

5 Kuhn, A. K., ‘’ Opinion of the Inter-American Juridical Committee on Revision of the Bustamante Code,” 46 A.J.I.L. 317 (1952).Google Scholar

6 We quote from the unpublished Memorandum of Feb. 13, 1952, obtained from the Secretariat of the Inter-American Council of Jurists.

7 1952-1954 Inter-American Juridical Yearbook 286.

8 See ibid,at 295-297, for reservations made by delegates of Argentina and Chile.

9 Ibid,at 297, 300 (George H. Owen). This is indeed contrary to modern trends. Inferences in Nadelmann, “Uniform Legislation vs. International Conventions,” in International Trade Arbitration 167, 175 (Domke ed., New York, 1958).

10 1952-1954 Inter-American Juridical Yearbook at 192, 208 (Resolution XII ) .

11 Inter-American Juridical Committee, Comparative Study of the Bustamante Code, the Montevideo Treaties, and the Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws (CIJ-21) (Department of International Law, Pan American Union, Washington, D. C , September, 1954, mimeo.). Not printed in the Yearbook. The author is Prof. Jose Joaquin Caicedo (astilla of Colombia.

12 The delegate of the United States (George H. Owen) made the following statement: “The Delegate of the U. 8. A. approves this Eesolution because he agrees that the study prepared by the delegate of Colombia amply serves the primary purpose of enabling the jurists of the hemisphere and the Governments to envisage the problems that have confronted those who have worked in this field. In the meantime, he reserves his opinion on various points with regard to the manner in which the task of preparing a comparative study in this field should be executed. He believes that after the observations of the jurists and the Governments are received, the Inter-American Juridical Committee should start the detailed examination and discussion of each article of the three texts under study.” Ibid,at 2.

13 “ [I]nasmuch as that country [the United States] has shown a persistent desire to continue to isolate itself with regard to juridical matters, this fact should be considered by the American governments so as to decide whether the study of the codification of Private International Law should be limited to the orbit of the Montevideo Treaties and the Bustamante Code. If this were done it would have the drawbacks that are evident from the above discussion, but it would offer the advantage of facilitating the desired harmonization by doing away with the obstacles that are the result of the differences in the Anglo-Saxon and Latin American juridical systems.” Ibid,at 11.

14 Raul Fernandes (Brazil), Luis D. Cruz Ocampo (Chile), Carlos Echecopar Herce (Peru), Jose Joaquin Caicedo Castilla (Colombia), Hugo J. Gobbi (Argentina), A. Gomez Robledo (Mexico), E. Schacht Aristeguieta (Venezuela), A. Alvarez Aybar (Dominican Republic), Benedict M. English (U. S. A.).

15 Sec. 13 of the Report cited in note 1 above.

16 Brazil, Cuba, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Dominican Republic, “Venezuela.

17 Bolivia, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador.

18 Mexico, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Colombia.

19 Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia.

20 Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay.

21 Bolivia, Peru.

22 See discussion in the Second Opinion, note 7 above, and the Comparative Study, note 11 above.

23 We quote from a copy procured from the Secretariat of the Inter-American Council of Jurists.

24 The International Conferences of American States 1889-1928 (Scott ed., 1931) 371; 4 Hudson, International Legislation 2347 (1931); Lorenzen, “The Pan-American Code of Private International Law,” 4 Tulane Law Rev. 499, 519 (1930).

25 Charter of Bogotá, Art. 67: “ The purpose of the Inter-American Council of Jurists is to serve as an advisory body on juridical matters; to promote the development and codification of public and private international law; and to study the possibility of attaining uniformity in the legislation of the various American countries, insofar as it may be desirable.” 1948 Inter-American Juridical Yearbook 296, 305.

26 Mario Matteucci, “Introduction à l'étude systematique du droit uniforme,” 91 Hague Academy Eecueil des Cours 383, 393 (1957).

27 See 1 Rabel, Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study x (William Draper Lewis), xvii (Hessel E. Yntema) (1945).

28 There is a dearth of materials in Spanish on American conflicts law. Existence of a Spanish edition of Story's Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws (Buenos Aires, 1891) seems to be ignored outside Argentina. Occasionally the French translation of the Restatement has been used to discuss “Vested Rights” on the basis of the introduction to the translation. References to American law are in Julian G. Verplaetse, Derecho Internacional Privado (Madrid, 1954), and these references have been used by some more recent textbooks. Holdings in American law books in faculty libraries in Latin America are deplorable, except for a very few places, like Mexico and Buenos Aires. This applies similarly to holdings in Latin American law other than the domestic law. There are, of course, some first-rate experts on American conflicts law in Latin America.

29 In “addition to the Rabel work, cited note 27 above, the “bilateral studies” produced by the Parker School of Comparative Law of Columbia University deserve special mention. They include: American-Colombian Law” (Phanor J. Eder), American- Brazilian Law (P. Griffith Garland) ; American-Argentine, American-Chilean, American- Mexican laws being in preparation. Likewise entitled to special credit are the Institutes giving instruction in American law to foreign graduate students.

30 See note 22 above.

31 See, on this point, Quintin Alfonsin, “Cooperación Judicial Internacional,” 9 Revista de la Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales 165, 167 (Uruguay, 1958).

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

33 See Nadelmann, “The United States at the Hague Conference on Private International Law,” 51 A.J.I.L. 618 (1957).

34 1955 United Nations Yearbook 245, 246; 1956 ibid.387, 388.

35 See Domke, “The United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration,” 53 A.J.I.L. 414, 419 (1959).

36 See Nadelmann and Reese, ‘’ The American Proposal at the Hague Conference to Use the Method of Uniform Laws,” 7 Am. J. Comp. Law 239 (1958).

37 At the 10th Conference of the Inter-American Bar Association, Buenos Aires, 1957, the following resolution was adopted: “The Conference, Considering the difficulties encountered in work on unification of rules of conflict of laws through adoption of multilateral conventions, Resolves to recommend the use of uniform or model legislation and/or multilateral conventions in work on unification of rules of conflict of laws, and Requests the secretary general of the Association to bring this Resolution to the attention of the Inter-American Council of Jurists and the Inter-American Juridical Committee.“

38 See Pinch, E. H., “International Rules of Judicial Procedure,” 53 A.J.I.L. 432 (1959).Google Scholar

39 1958 Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 77, 151. Cf.Nadelmann, “ Non-Recognition of American Judgments Abroad and What to Do About It , “ 42 Iowa Law Rev. 236, 257 (1957).

40 A special Committee of the American Bar Association is investigating what ought to be done from the U. S. side respecting international unification of private law. 1957 Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 152, 233; 82 A.B.A. Reports 176 (1957).

41 Cf . Nadelmann, “Legislación uniforme frente a las convenciones internacionales, como método para la unificación del Derecho Internacional Privado,” Cuadernos de los Institutos, Boletin III (1958), Instituto de Derecho Comparado “Prof. Dr. Enrique Martinez P a z , “ page 19 (Córdoba, Argentina); 47 Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 37 (1958); 54 Friedens-Warte 321 (1958); English text in International Trade Arbitration 167 (Domke ed., New York, 1958).

42 ‘’ When the Inter-American Juridical Committee considers it useful, it may request the Department of International Law of the Pan American Union, and also other organizations and experts in international law, to furnish background material or preliminary studies on any topic submitted to the Committee for study.” Art. 42, Statutes of the Inter-American Council of Jurists as amended. 1955-1957 Inter- American Juridical Yearbook 248, 251. For background see 1952-1954 ibid.75.