Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T18:57:14.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Aspects Concerning the Movement for Development of Private International Law in the Americas Through Multilateral Conventions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Leonel Pereznieto Castro
Get access

Extract

The movement for development of private international law in the Americas through multilateral conventions (which is referred to below as the Inter-American Conventional Movement) began in 1878; and the great influence which the European school of legal thought has exerted on it can be perceived throughout its history. It was in the Americas that one of the decisive steps in the world-wide trend towards the development of private international law through conventions took place, and it is there that the considerable influence of the Hague Conference on this subject can be traced to its origin. Legal thought on a global scale is becoming universal and thus the ideas of the Dutch scholar Jitta, expressed at the end of the last century, that the State must respect the individuals forming part of a universal society and that to achieve this end, the State itself must find homogeneous solutions through treaties, are now a reality. In order to try to give an overall view of this movement in private international law in the Americas, section 2 will deal briefly with the development of the three historical stages, which, in my opinion, are the most significant, after which section 3 will deal with the fourth or current stage, following which section 4 will end with some brief concluding remarks.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , August 1992 , pp. 243 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1992

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. During the years in which he lived in England he was influenced by the territorialist school of thought prevailing there at the time. Samtleben, J., ‘Der Territorialitatsgrundsatz im Internationalen Privatrecht Lateinamerikas’, 35 RabelsZ (1971) no. 1.Google Scholar

2. In this sense, cf., Valladao, H., Direito International Privado, 4th edn. (1974) p. 173 et seq.Google Scholar

3. Cosío, J.P., Derecho International Privado (1971) p. 49.Google Scholar

4. Valladao, , op. cit. n. 2, p. 186.Google Scholar

5. Pereznieto, L.C., ‘La tradition tenitorialiste en Droit International Privé dans les pays d'; Amerique Latine’, 190 Hague Recueil (1985-I) p. 273 et seq.Google Scholar

6. The application of the principle of domicile in these cases is directly based on the ideas of Dumolin and not on those of Savigny as might mistakenly have been thought when considering whether Savigny's ideas influenced South American Codes; regarding Dumolin's thoughts, cf.,Laine, A., Introduction du droit international privé, contenant une etude historique et critique de la theorie des status et des rapports de cette theorie avec le Code Civil (1888–1892) pp. 225–226;Google ScholarCatellani, E., Il diritto intenazionales privati e suoi recenti progressi, 2nd edn. (1985) p. 346 et seq.;Google ScholarGurzwiller, M., ‘Le Development historique du droit international privé‘, 4 Hague Recueil (1929) p. 291 et seq.Google Scholar

7. The whole text of these treaties as well as of the Treaty of Lima can be found in the documents annexed thereto.

8. del Prado, V.N. Romero, Derecho Internacional Privado, vol. I (1961) T. I, pp. 553–554.Google Scholar

9. Ibid. pp. 553–554.

10. Ibid. p. 557.

11. Ibid. p. 558.

12. Idem.

13. Derecho Internacional Privado (1977) p. 29.

14. Cosío, , op. cit. n. 3, p. 39.Google Scholar

15. Valladao, , op. cit. n. 2, p. 190.Google Scholar

16. Cosío, , op. cit. n. 3, p. 39.Google Scholar

17. Valladao, , op. cit. n. 2, p. 190.Google Scholar

18. Ibid. pp. 190–191.

19. Quoted by Boimemaison, W.J.L., Temas de Derecho Internacional Privado (1976) p. 95.Google Scholar

20. Valladao, , op. cit. n. 2, pp. 192–193.Google Scholar

21. Conferencia Especializada de Derecho International Privado (CIDIP-I) (1979) p. 20.Google Scholar

22. Cosío, , op. cit. n. 3, p. 41.Google Scholar

23. Valladao, , op. cit. n. 2, p. 193.Google Scholar

24. Maekelt, T.B. de in Conferencia Especializada, op. cit. n. 21, p. 29.Google Scholar

25. Actas y Documentos de la Conferencia Especializada Interamericana sobre Derecho Internacional Privado, Vol. I, O.E.A./Ser. K/XXLI, CIDIP/64, Washington, p. 3.Google Scholar

26. Idem.

27. Ibid. pp. 3–4.

28. Ibid. p. 4.

29. Finally, eleven points were included in die proposal, of which five were accepted.

30. With respect to die annotated draft of the agenda, cf., Adas y Documentos, CIDIP-I, Vol. I, op. cit. n. 25, p. 45 et seq.

31. By a note dated December 18, 1973.

32. Actas y Documentos de la Conferencia Especializada Interamericana sobre Derecho International Privado, Vol. I, O.E.A./Sr. K/XXI 1, CIDIP/64, 05 22, 1975, p. 47.Google Scholar

33. Ibid. p. 52.

34. Cf., supra a. 30.Google Scholar

35. Actas y Documentos, Cuarta Conferencia Especializada Interamericana sobre Derecho Internacional Privado, Vol. I, O.E.A. Ser. K/XXI. 4, CIDIP-IV/103, 02 28,1991, p. 360.Google Scholar

36. As regards the debate on the modification to die agenda, cf., ibid. pp. 88–89.

37. Actas y Documentos de la Conferencia Especializada Interamericana sobre Derecho Internacional Privado, Vol. I, O.E.A./Ser. K/XXL 1, CIDIP/64, May 22,1975, p. 358.Google Scholar

38. Actas y Documentos de la Segunda Conferencia Especializada lnteramericana sobre Derecho Internacional Privado, Vol. I, O.E.A./Ser. K/XXI 2, CIDIP-II/103, 01 22,1980, p. 13.Google Scholar

39. Protocol on Rogatory Letters and Additional Protocol on the Taking of Evidence Abroad (these topics were suggested by the United States of America and are considered in addition to the extensions on topics approved at CIDIP-I).

40. As pointed out in the annotated draft of the agenda.

41. In this sense, cf., the rapporteur's report, ibid. p. 299.

42. De Maekelt, in Conferencia Especializada, op. cit. n. 21, p. 84.Google Scholar

43. Actas y Documentos, CIDIP-II, Vol. I, op. cit. n 38, p. 250.Google Scholar

44. Cf., infra section 3.1.3.

45. Actas y Documentos, CIDIP-II, Vol. I, op. cit n. 38, p. 260.Google Scholar

46. See, as regards this matter, Aranguren, G. Patra, ‘La Tercera Conferencia Interamericana sobre Derecho International Privado’, Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Catolica Andres Bello (1984–1985) nos. 33 and 34, pp. 98–99.Google Scholar

47. Ibid. pp. 112–115.

48. Ibid. pp. 68–69.

49. ODIP-IV/Doc. 4/88 add 1.

50. CTDIP-IV/Doc. 4/88.

51. ODIP-IV/Doc. 17/89.

52. Art. 3 of the later-American Convention and Art. 5 of me Hague Convention. In this sense, see Actas y Documentos, CIDIP-IV, op. cit. a 35, p. 424 et seq.Google Scholar

53. Ibid. p. 431.

54. Prof. Jorge Pablo Bendoniv and Marcelo Solan. CIDIP-IV/Doc. 10/89.

55. (Jun/dt 262/Rev. 2) of May 16, 1989.

56. Actas y Documentos, CIDIP-IV, op. cit n. 35, p. 442.Google Scholar

57. Actas y Documentos, (3DIP-I, vol. I), op. cit n. 38, pp. 263–264 and 267.Google Scholar

58. De Maekelt, in Conferencia Especializada, op. cit n. 21, p. 54.Google Scholar

59. Ibid. p. 58.

60. Adas y Documentos, CIDIP-I, Vol. I, op. cit. a 25, p. 183.Google Scholar

61. Ibid. p. 185.

62. Ibid. p. 142 et seq.

63. Idem.

64. CIDIP-III/12.

65. COM-I/3.

66. Parra, Aranguren, loc. cit. n. 46, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar

67. CIDIP-IV/Doc. 7/88.

68. CIDIP/Doc. 18/89.

69. CIDIP/IV/Doc. 7/88.