No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
IInd Meeting of the Organizations Concerned with the Unification of Law: (Rome, October 11–15, 1959)1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
We consider it a privilege that our duties called us to attend this Meeting organized by—and held at the beautiful seat of—the International Institute for the Unification of Law.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1960
References
page 155 note 2. Represented by Mr. L. A. Nypels, Former Vice-President of the Netherlands Supreme Court, Vice-President of the Netherlands Standing Government Committee on Private International Law, who also represented the Hague Conference on Private International Law, together with the author of these lines.
page 155 note 3. Members: Mr. Joe Barrett, Past President, Mr. George Davis, and Mr. James Dezendorf, Immediate Past President.
page 156 note 1. Among which very complete reports by the Secretary General of the Rome Institute, Dr. Matteucci, and Professor Malintoppi and Dr. Sauveplanne, assistant Secretary General.
page 156 note 2. Notable was the report on behalf of the Nordic Council.
page 156 note 3. See for this important alternative to the classic expedient of the conclusion of interstate conventions: “Actes de la Huitième session de la Conférence de La Haye”, The Hague, 1957, pp. 266sqq.Google Scholar
page 156 note 4. Rapport sur les divergences d'interprétation du droit uniforme, Rome, Editions “Unidroit”, 1959, Part I on the measures tending to prevent differences in construction of uniform private law rules.
page 157 note 1. In this connection it is also interesting to recall that the bilateral Treaty on the reciprocal enforcement of judgements between Great-Britain and Belgium (1934) contained some discrepancies between the equally authentic texts in French and English; the Rapporteur in the Belgian Lower House stated that even in Belgium preference should be given to the English text; and in his report to the Senate the Belgian senator Mr. Rolin was happy to state that the Flemish translators of the text let themselves be guided by the English rather than by the French text. (See: Poullet, , Manuel de droit international privé belge, Brussels 1947, IIIrd edition, p. 582.)Google Scholar
page 157 note 2. Although on certain occasions certain typically continental terms were avoided for fear of rendering translation impossible.
page 158 note 1. Rapport sur les divergences d'interprétation du droit uniforme, Rome, Editions “Unidroit”, 1959.
page 158 note 2. The right to intervene—as conferred in interested States c.q. by article 63 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice—is no obligation.
page 159 note 1. The proposed treaty and an explanatory note were communicated to the Netherlands Parliament in Document 1957/1958 N° 5122. (The text of the draft is also to be found in Yearbook of the International Institute for the unification of Private Law, Fourth Volume (1953–1955), Rome, Editions “Unidroit”, 1956, p. 384.)Google Scholar Mr. Nypels also drew the attention of the Meeting to the fact that the interpretation and application of uniform law rules is not solely in the hands of the law courts: administrative authorities, “notaries”, and legal counsellors too play their part in the evolution of discrepancies or the maintaining of uniformity.
page 159 note 2. See also the interesting Volume II of the 1956 Yearbook of the Institute, Rome, Editions “Unidroit”, 1957Google Scholar, which relates the discussion at the First Meeting.