Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T05:50:36.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction to Symposium on the Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws

Part of: Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Carlos M. Vázquez
Carlos M. Vázquez*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University Law Center
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The American Law Institute (ALI) has recently embarked on the project of elaborating a new Restatement of Conflict of Laws. Its first two Restatements on this subject have been enormously influential. The Ali began its work on the First Restatement in 1923, naming Joseph Beale of the Harvard Law School as its Reporter. Adopted in 1934, the First Restatement reflected the highly territorialist approach to the conflict of laws that had long prevailed in this country. Even before the First Restatement’s adoption, the First Restatement’s territorialist approach, and the “vested rights” theory on which it was based, was subjected to intense scholarly criticism. Nevertheless, the First Restatement’s approach continued to prevail in the United States until the New York Court of Appeals initiated a “choice-of-law revolution” in the early 1960’s with its decision in Babcock v. Jackson. Although most states have departed from the First Restatement’s approach, the First Restatement retains its adherents. Ten states continue to follow the First Restatement for tort cases and twelve states for contract cases.

Type
Symposium on the Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws
Information
AJIL Unbound , Volume 110 , 2016 , pp. 137 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

References

1 See, e.g., Cavers, David, A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem, 47 Harv. L. Rev. 173 (1933)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cook, Walter W., The Logical and Legal Bases of Conflict of Laws, 33 Yale L.J. 457 (1924)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lorenzen, Ernest G., Territoriality, Public Policy and the Conflict of Laws, 33 Yale L.J. 736 (1924)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Babcock v. Jackson, 191 N.E.2d 279, 286 (N.Y. 1963). See Korn, Harold, The Choice of Law Revolution: A Critique, 83 Colum. L. Rev. 772 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See Symeonides, Symeon C., Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2015: Twenty-Ninth Annual Survey, 63 Am. J. Comp. L. 221, 292 (2016)Google Scholar.

4 See Reese, Willis L.M., Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second, 28 L. & Contemp. Probs. 679, 680 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 See Symeonides, supra note 3, at 292.

6 Roosevelt, Kermit III & Jones, Bethan, What a Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws Can Do, 110 AJIL Unbound 139, 141 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Id. at 142.

8 Brilmayer, Lea, What I Like Most About the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts and Why It Should not be Thrown out with the Bathwater, 110 AJIL Unbound 144 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Id. at 145.

10 Whytock, Christopher A., Toward a New Dialogue Between Conflict of Laws and International Law, 110 AJIL Unbound 150 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Michaels, Ralf, The Conflicts Restatement and the World, 110 AJIL Unbound 155 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Id. at 158.

13 Brilmayer, supra note 8, at 144; Roosevelt & Jones, supra note 6, at 143, n. 19.