1. Conférence de La Haye de Droit International Privé, Actes de la Huitième session (1956) 266–269, 273 (Memorandum )(1957). In English in Nadelmann and Reese, The American Proposal at the Hague Conference on Private International Law to Use the Method of Uniform Laws, 7 Am. J. Comp. L. 239, 240–244 (1958).Google Scholar

2. See, notably, Offerhaus, La Conférence de La Haye — Expériences et Prospectives (Berne address of April 30, 1960), in (1959) Schweizerisches Jahrbuch fur internationales Recht 27, 41 (1961)Google Scholar; Report of the American Bar Association Special Committee on International Unification of Private Law 6–11 (Am. Bar Foundation: Chicago, Ill., 1961)Google Scholar; Amram, Uniform Legislation as an Effective Alternative to the Treaty Technique, (1960) Proc. Am. Soc'y Int'l L. 62Google Scholar; Nadelmann, Méthodes d'unification du droit international privé, la législation uniforme et les conventions internationales, 47 Revue critique de droit international privé 37 (1958)Google Scholar (English original in: International Trade Arbitration 167 (Domke ed. 1958)Google Scholar; von Overbeck, La neuvième session de la Conférence de La Haye de droit international privé, 8 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Intemationaal Recht 31, 57 (1961).Google Scholar Most recently: Droz, La Conférence de La Haye de droit international privé et les méthodes d'unification du droit, 13 Revue internationale de droit comparé 507 (1961).Google Scholar

3. See Conférence de La Haye de Droit International Privé, Actes et Documents de la Neuvième session (1960), Vol. I, pp. 209 (Mémorandum), 219 (Observations of Governments), 231 (Committee Report), 225 and 243 (Discussion), 249 (Résolution) (1962). English text of Committee Report and Resolution in Nadelmann, The Hague Conference on Private International Law, Ninth Session, 9 Am. J. Comp. L. 583, 592 (1960).Google Scholar

4. The writer attended the session as a member of the United States Observer Delegation. The Observers, invited to take part in the discussion, did so but formally stated that, in their view, the question of method was one for the members of the Conference alone to decide. The views here expressed are those of the writer.

5. See text of Memorandum, loc. cit. supra note 1.

6. For the Uniform Commercial Code a permanent “watch-dog” committee has been created. See (1961) Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 168.

6a. U.S. Const, art. I, § 10 (3): “No state shall, without the consent of Congress, … enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power …”

7. The “Uniform Interpretation” clause in the Uniform Laws serves to secure uniform interpretation by the courts. See Nadelmann, Uniform Interpretation of “Uniform” Law, in International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, 1959Google ScholarTear-Book 383 (1960).Google Scholar

8. See Offerhaus, loc. cit. supra note 2, at 29, 30; 1 Rabel, , Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study 33 (2d ed. 1958).Google Scholar

9. Present status of ratifications: thirteen for the convention of 1951 on international civil procedure (renewals); four each for the two conventions of 1956 on obligations to support minor children. See 9 Nederlands Tydschrift vom Inter-nationaai Recht 74 (1962).Google Scholar

10. The language of art. 2 does not take into account the customary interpretation given arbitration clauses. Conférence de La Haye de Droit International Privé, Actes de la Huitième session (1956) 37–43.

11. U.S. Const, art. II, § 2.

12. U.S. Const, art. I, § 8.13. U.S. Const, amend. X.

14. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199 (U.S. 1796)Google Scholar; Geoffrey v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1889)Google Scholar; Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1919)Google Scholar; Asakura v. Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924)Google Scholar

15. Charles Evans Hughes, before he became Chief Justice, put it as follows in a discussion of the non-signing of the convention on the Bustamante Code: “In connection with that effort doubtless there were many matters considered which were not entirely of local concern, but here and there would be matters which were exclusively within the local jurisdictions, which had no international relations at all except in the desire to get rid of a conflict of doctrine or a conflict of laws and to establish a uniform law … From my point of view the nation has the power to make any agreement whatever in a constitutional manner that relates to the conduct of our international relations … But if we attempted to use the Treaty-Making power to deal with matters which did not pertain to our external relations but to control matters which normally and appropriately were within the local jurisdiction of the states, then I again say there might be ground for implying a limitation upon the Treaty-Making power.” (1929) Proc. Amer. Soc'y Int'l L. 195–96.Google Scholar

16. Example: treaties of 1934 with Belgium and France on Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. References in Nadelmann, The United States of America and Agreements on Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, 1 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Intemationaal Recht 156, 168 (1954).Google Scholar

17. Example: U.N. Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (art. XI), 330 U.N. Treaty Ser. 38 (1959), 53Google ScholarAm. J. Int.l L. 420, 423 (1959).Google Scholar

18. Compare Dezendorf, Ninth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 47 A.B.A. J. 909 (1961)Google Scholar, with Nadelmann, Participation in the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 48 Id. 11 (1962).

19. For “international judicial assistance” a Commission and Advisory Committee have been established by Act of Congress. See Jones, Commission on International Rules of Judicial Procedure, 8 Am. J. Comp. L. 341 (1959).Google Scholar The Report of the ABA Special Committee, supra note 2, at 42, suggests that the President of the United States appoint an Advisory Committee of outstanding lawyers to consult with him and with the Department of State on all formal unification activities.

20. Conférence de La Haye de Droit International Privé, Documents relatifs à la Cinquième session (1925) 11, 14, 17, 19 (1926).

21. Conférence de La Haye de Droit International Privé, Actes de la Cinquième session (1925) 25–27 (Bankruptcy), 98–99 (Judgments (1926).

22. Id. at 197, 198.

23. Conférence de La Haye de Droit International Privé, Actes de la Sixième session (1928) 389–90 (1928).

24. International Law Association, Report of the 48th Conference, New York, 1958. 103, 115 (1959).Google Scholar

25. Id., Report of-the 49th Conference, Hamburg, 1960, vi, 290–317 (1961). Text also in 9 Am. J. Comp. L. 518 (1960).Google Scholar

26. See Cheshire, , Private International Law 635 (6th ed. 1961)Google Scholar; Dicey, , Conflictt of Laws 989 (7th ed. 1958).Google Scholar

27. See 7 Halsbury's Laws of England 160, § 286 (3rd ed. 1954 and 1962 Supplement).Google Scholar

28. India, Pakistan, Australian Capital Territory.

29. France, Belgium, and 1961, West Germany.

30. See, e.g., the resolution adopted at the New York, 1958, Conference of the International Law Association, op. cit. supra note 24, at x, 103, 116.Google Scholar

31. See Cheshire, , op. cit. supra note 26, at 662Google Scholar; Dicey, , op. cit., supra note 2, at 992.Google Scholar

32. See Committee Report based on communications received from ProfParry, Clive, 9 Record of the Ass'n of the Bar of the City of New York 391 (1954).Google Scholar

33. Appeal Paris, Febr. 2, 1961, Lestrade de Kyvon v. Roussel, 50Google ScholarRevue critique de droit international privé 566 (1961)Google Scholar; Appeal Paris, Oct. 21, 1955, Charr v. Hasim Ulusahim, 44Google ScholarId. 769 (1956), (1956) Dalloz Jurisprudence 61. See Nadelmann, , Recognition of Foreign Money-Judgments in France, 5 Am. J. Comp. L. 248 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Batiffol, Comment, in 49 Revue critique de droit international privé 594, 595 (1960)Google Scholar (right to révision au fond removed in revised draft of a law on private international law prepared by the Commission for the Reform of the Civil Code).

35. See references in Billow, and Arnold, , Der internationale Rechtsverkehr in Zivilund Handelssachen, Part E, 933.40 (1960)Google Scholar; Stein, , Jonas, , and Schönke, , Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, § 328, Comment VIII E (18th ed. 1953).Google Scholar

36. Other countries which do not recognize foreign jugdments or make recognition difficult are listed in Nadelmann, , Non-Recognition of American Money Judgments Abroad and What to Do About It, 42 Iowa L. Rev. 236 (1957).Google Scholar

37. Treaty of March 25, 1957, art. 220. 51 Am. J. Int'l L. 865 (1957).Google Scholar

38. See Weser, , Bases of Judicial Jurisdiction in the Common Market Countries, 10 Am. J. Comp. L. 323 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. See Weser, , Les conflits de juridictions dans le cadre du Marché Commun, 49 Revue critique de droit international privé 538 (1960).Google Scholar

40. See (1958) Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 77, 151Google Scholar; (1962) Id.

41. See (1960) Proceedings of the Conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of Legislation in Canda 27, 91; (1961) Id.

42. See Offerhaus, , loc. cit. supra note 2, at 42.Google Scholar

43. See Pfenninger, , Zur Vereinheitlichung des Zivilprozessrechts in der Schweiz 57 Schweizerische Juristen-Zeitung 376 (1961).Google Scholar Reports Guldener, and Voyame, , 102Google ScholarZeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht II, 1, 67 (1961).Google Scholar

44. See Guldener, , Das Internationale und Interkantonale Zivilprozessrecht der Schweiz 94 (1951 and 1959 Supp. at 20).Google Scholar

45. Recent treaties: with Belgium, April 29, 1959, (1959) Bundesblatt II. 309, 323; with Austria, Dec. 16, 1960, (1961) Id. I. 1564, 1574. (in both treaties forum of motor car accident recognized).

46. Text in English in Report of the ABA Special Committee, supra note 2, at 81; 102 U. of. Pa. L. Rev. 363 (1954)Google Scholar; Cmd. 9582 (1955).

47. Conférence de La Haye de Droit International Privé, Documents de la Huitième session (1956) 228 (1957).Google Scholar

48. Resolution 678 (XXVI) of the Economie and Social Council of July 3, 1958. See Letter of the Secretary General, 1958/1959, Jaarboek van het Ministerie van buitenlandse zaken 146, 148, 240.Google Scholar

49. International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, 1956 Year-Book, Vol. II (Unidroit: Rome, 1957)Google Scholar; Id., 1959 Year-Book (1960). Cf. Matteucci, , L'évolution en matière d'unification du droit, (1961)Google ScholarRevue internationale de droit comparé 285, 290.Google Scholar

50. Brussels convention of 1924 for the unification of certain rules relating to bills of lading, 120 L.N. Treaty Ser, 157, 177 (1931/1932).Google Scholar

51. Text in 10 Am. J. Comp. L. 445, 450 (1961).Google Scholar

52. See Yiannopoulos, , Uniform Rules Governing Bilk of Lading: The Brussels Convention of 1924 in the Light of National Legislations 10 Am. J. Comp. L. 274 (1962).Google Scholar

53. See Pontoppidan, , 9 Am. J. Comp. L. 344 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the annual reports in the Year-Book of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law.

54. Asser, , De l'effet ou de l'exécution des jugements rendus à l'étranger, 1 Revue de droit international et de législation comparée 82, 83 (1869).Google Scholar

55. Text of Memorandum in (1874) U.S. Foreign Relations 789, 791, 793.Google Scholar Cf. 1 Journal du Droit International 159, 164 (1874).Google Scholar

56. Reese, , The Ninth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 55 Am. J. Int'l L. 447, 448 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56a. See Graveson, , The Comparative Evolution of Principles of the Conflict of Laws in England and the U.S.A, 99 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de La Haye 25, 41 (1960).Google Scholar

57. See Private International Law Committee, First Report, Cmd. 9068, 1954Google Scholar; Cheshire, , op. cit. supra note 26, at 189Google Scholar; Graveson, , Conflict of Lattis 76 (4th ed. 1960).Google Scholar

58. See Private International Law Committee, Fourth Report, Cmnd. 491, 1958Google Scholar; Graveson, , op. cit. supra note 57, at 318.Google Scholar

59. See Graveson, , The Ninth Hague Conference on Private International Law, 10 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 18, 21–25 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60. See Nadelmann, Jurisdictionally Improper Fora, in XXth Century Comparative and Conflicts Law — Legal Essays in Honor of Hessel E. Yntema 321 (Nadelmann, von Mehren, and Hazard, eds., 1961).Google Scholar

61. See Van Hecke, , La notion de discrimination, in: Les aspects juridiques du Marché Commun 127, 149 (Liège, 1958)Google Scholar; Weser, , op. cit. supra note 38, 48Google ScholarRevue critique de droit international privé 613, 633, 637 (1959)Google Scholar; Symposium, Les notions d'égalité et de discrimination en droit, Journées luxembourgeoises de l'Association Henri Capitani pour la Culture Juridique Française, Compte-rendu in (1961) Journal des Tribunaux 429, 430 (Belgium).Google Scholar

62. U.S. Const, art. IV, § 2. Illustration: Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239 (1898).Google Scholar

63. U.S. Const, amnd. V and amnd. XIV. Leading case: Home Insurance Co. v. Dick, 281 U.S. 397 (1930).Google Scholar See Leflar, , Conflict of Laws 8 (1959).Google Scholar

64. U.S. Const, art. IV, § 1. See Leflar, , op. cit. supra note 63, at 133Google Scholar; Johnson, and Reese, , The Scope of Full Faith and Credit to Judgments, 49 Colum. L. Rev. 153 (1949).Google Scholar

65. Note, for example, the recognition in the convention between West Germany and Belgium of June 30, 1958, (1959) Bundesgesetzblatt II, 765, (1960) Pasicrisie 1119, of in personam judgments granted against non-residents with assets in the country—a jurisdictional basis expressly excluded in the convention between West Germany and Austria of June 6, 1959, (1960) Bundesgesetzblatt II, 1246, (1960) Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Oesteneich, No. 3, 1637. See Nadelmann, loc. cit. supra note 60, at 332; Sedlacek, , Die Neuregelung der Zwangsvollstreckung zwischen der Republik Oesterreich und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1 Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung 58, 64 (1960).Google Scholar

66. Note, e.g., the appearance in the official journal of the Department of State of an article on the 1960 session of the Hague Conference. Maktos, , The Hague Conference on Private International Law, Ninth Session, 44 Dep 't State Bull. 948 (1961).Google Scholar

67. Barrett, , State of States in Taxing Multi-State Income, 48 A.B.A. J. 35, 37 (1962).Google Scholar

68. “Indeed the state of the states reminds me of Hambone. While meditating last week Hambone came up with this philosophical gem: ‘Everybody wants to go to Heaven, but there's so few of them working at it’.” Barrett, , loc., cit. supra note 67.Google Scholar

69. Story, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, Foreign and Domestic, § 645, p. 532 (1834).Google Scholar

70. On the true meaning of comity, see Kollewijn, , Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse wetenschap van het international privaatrecht tot 1880, 132Google Scholar; Kollewijn, , American-Dutch Private International Law 11, 12 (2d ed. 1961).Google Scholar

71. Huber, , Hedendaegse Rechtsgeleertheyt 1–3–55Google Scholar (in Gane transl, sub nom. The Jurisprudence of my Time, in vol. I, p. 17 (Durban, 1939)).Google Scholar