Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:46:50.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nationality in Private International Law – Recent Developments in Dutch Family Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Anton G.J.J. Haandrikman
Get access

Extract

In 1962 Professor De Winter posed the question whether the principle of nationality in private international law was fading away. In 1969 he answered essentially the same question in his lectures to the Hague Academy. This report is another attempt to answer the question, though it is limited to Dutch family law. To make the report more accessible for those members of the Association who specialize in public international law, the question is dealt with in broad lines, leaving the detailed discussion to a number of authors who have taken a retrospective look at the 1970's.

Type
Nationality in Public and Private International Law
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , May 1982 , pp. 108 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1982

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. NILR (1962) p. 514 (De Conflictu Legum).

2. 128 Recueil des Cours 1969, vol. III p. 347Google Scholar.

3. Jessuiun d'Oliveiia, HPS (1980) pp. 2–6, 18–23; Kotting, WPNR (1979) pp. 557, 571;De Boei, NJB (1980) p. 785; Franx, NJ (1977) 600 at p. 1898; Henriquez, Cohen, IPR Trends (1980)Google Scholar; Verheul, NILR (1980) p. 231; Wendels, Internationale echtscheidingen (1978); Voskuil, 43 RabelsZ. (1979) p. 346.

4. Trb. 1951, 125; Trb. 1969, 167. Efforts have been made to keep the text up to date with the legal developments. The Uniform Law did not survive these efforts in 1973. It never came into force, but was influential in codifying unwritten law, even though it was rather out of date. For a critical review, see Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht, nos. 63,64 (1971)Google Scholar.

5. HR 9 December 1965, NJ 1966, 378, note Hijmans van den Bergh; AA (1966) p. 211, note Van der Grinten; HPS (1966) p. 22, note Struycken.

6. This is short for divorce, dissolution of marriage after legal separation and legal separation.

7. Kotting, WPNR (1979) p. 559; Kokkini-Iatridou, RMTh (1979) p. 584.

8. W. 8636.

9. Handelingen Nederlandse Juristen Vereniging (1979) I, l, pp. 17–30 and 2, p. 63Google Scholar.

10. NJ 377.

11. NJ 1973,340.

12. NJ 366 note Hijmans van den Bergh.

13. NJ 1976, 239 note Schultsz.

14. NJ 600, note Schultsz; AA (1978) note Jessurun d'Oliveira; NILR (1980) 232, note Verheul.

15. NJ 546 and 547.

16. France has dropped the Rivière-system. Tweede Kamer, 1980–81, 16004 no. 9. Since the time of this writing bill 16004 became the Act of 25 March 1981 (Staatsblad 1981 No. 166) which came into force on 10 April 1981. The English translation of this Act is taken from an unofficial translation made by the T.M.C. Asser Institute for International Law, which appeared i n NILR 1981, issue 3 on pp. 390–391.

17. Verheul, , Handelingen Calvinistische Juristen Vereniging (1973) and NJB (1980) p. 572Google Scholar. d'Oliveira, Jessurun, in: Partij-invloed in het internationaal privaatrecht (1974) p. 5Google Scholar, Royal Commission on Private International Law, Tweede Kamer (1979–1980), 16004 no. 4 p. 29Google Scholar.

18. HR 13 May 1966, NJ 1967, 3.

19. HR 10 December 1976, NJ 1977, 275.

20. Verheul, , Erkenning en tenuitvoerlegging van vreemde vonnissen in vermogensrechtelijke zaken (1969)Google Scholar.

21. See n. 5.

22. NJ 1970, 195.

23. HR 24 May 1968, NJ 300.

24. See n. 15.

25. Bill 16004 is connected with parliamentary approval proceedings of this Convention and the Luxemburg Treaty on Recognition of Decisions on the Marriage Bond 1967.

26. NJ 1279. A global choice of law was prohibited in Art. 198 Civil Code.

27. Lubbers and Haandrikman, Personen- en Familierecht, (loose-leaf) titel 7 and 8, ipr; Joppe, WPNR (1980) p. 201, p. 223; Henriquez, NILR (1980) p. 224.

28. HR 10 December 1976, NJ 1977, 275.

29. Court of Appeal Amsterdam, 18 October 1972, NJ 1973, 340; Court of Appeal Leeuwarden, 28 June 1978, NJ 1980, 50.

30. Sluijk, Internationale voogdijvoorziening na echtscheiding (1976); Struycken, , in: Voskuil, & Verheul, , Rechtspraak internationaal privaatrecht (1976) p. 23Google Scholar; Kokkini-Iatridou, WPNR (1978) pp. 6, 24, 222, 236, WPNR (1979) pp. 650, 668; Verheul, NILR (1980) p. 239.

31. Trema “special 1979–1; Trema” 1979 p. 188.

32. Blink, Van den, Internationale aspecten van alimentatie na echtscheiding (1971)Google Scholar.

33. d'Oliveira, Jessurun, in: Voskuil, & Verheul, , Rechtspraak internationaal privaatrecht, p. 33Google Scholar. De Boer, NJB(1980)p. 791;HR 4 May 1979, NJ 547.

34. Struycken, WPNR (1978) p. 51, 70; (1980) pp. 818, 833;Struycken, HPS (1981) p. 2; Van Rijn van Alkemade, NJB (1977) p. 482.

35. Goudsmit, and Schultsz, , Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internatio-naal Recht no. 45 (1961)Google Scholar; Nota, Kinderen adopteren in Nederland (1979); Governmental note: Tweede Kamer (1979–80) 16194.