^1. The other Conventions in force in Switzerland in July 1992 are the following:

(i) Convention du 15 juin 1955 sur la loi applicable aux ventes à caractère international d'objets mobiliers corporels.

(ii) Convention du 24 octobre 1956 sur la loi applicable aux obligations alimentaires envers les enfants.

(iii) Convention du 15 avril 1958 concernant la reconnaissance et l'exiéution des décisions en matiére d' obligations alimentaires envers les enfants.

(iv) Convention du 5 octobre 1961 concernant la compétence des autorités et la loi applicable en matière de protection des mineurs.

N.B.: There are no official English titles of these four Conventions. In most States, the Maintenance Conventions of 1956 and 1958 have been replaced by those of 1973.

(v) Convention of 5 October 1961 on the Conflicts of Laws Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions.

(vi) Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents.

(vii) Convention of 15 November 1965 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Recognition of Decrees Relating to Adoptions.

(viii) Convention of 1 June 1970 on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations.

(ix) Convention of 4 May 1971 on the Law Applicable to Traffic Accidents.

(x) Convention of 2 October 1973 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations.

(xi) Convention of 2 October 1973 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations.

(xii) Convention of 25 October 1980 on me Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

^2. On the First Hague Conferences and die three Family Law Conventions of 1902 see, especially from a Swiss point of view, Meili, F. and Mamelok, A., Das Internationale Privat-und Zivilprozessrecht auf Grund der Haager Konventionen (1911).Google Scholar

^3. Actes de la Troisiéme Conférence de La Haye pour le droit international privé (29 mai - 19 juin 1900), 1900, p. 107.Google Scholar

(Below, the Proceedings of the Hague Conference are cited as Actes or Documents or Actes et Documents followed by the year or the number of the Session).

^4. Actes 1893 1 p. 32Google Scholar, Actes 1894 p. 17.Google Scholar

^5. On the law of obligations, see Actes 1900 p. 61Google Scholar, on real rights, ibid., p. 67, on the effect of marriage on legitimacy, see Actes 1904 p. 189.Google Scholar

^6. Actes et Documents de la Seizdème Session (1988), tome I, Matirès diverses, p. 283.Google Scholar

^7. Gutzwiller, M., ‘Das Internationalprivatrecht der Haager Konferenzen: Vergangenheit und Zukunft’, II Annuaire Suisse (1945) p. 48.Google Scholar

^8. Gutzwiller, M. and Niederer, W., Beiträge zum Haager Internationalprivatrecht (1951), 7Arbeiten aus dem iuristischen Seminar der Universität Freiburg Schweiz.Google Scholar

^9. French and German texts, as modified in 1907,1972 and 1976, in Makarov, A.N., Quellen des Internationalen Privatrechts. Nationale Kodifikationen, 3rd edn. (1978) p. 219.Google Scholar

For the history of the Statute, see Vischer, F. and von Planta, A., Internationales Privatrecht, 2nd edn. (1982) p. 4.Google Scholar

^10. See Vischer, and von Planta, , op. cit. a 9, p. 7.Google Scholar

^11. On Swiss private international law relating to divorce and remarriage before the entry into force of the new Statute of 1987, see von Overbeck, A.E.Google Scholar, ‘Le divorce en droit international privé Suisse’, in Le divorce en droit international privé allemand.français et Suisse, Annales de la Faculté de droit et des sciences politiques et de l'lnstitut de recherches juridiques, politiques et sociales de Strasbourg, tome XXX (1980) p. 89Google Scholar; Dreyer, D., ‘Le Divorce en droit international privé Suisse’, 19 NILR (1972) p. 332.Google Scholar

^12. The Federal Court decided that, exactly as under Art. 2 of the Convention, the divorce had to be admissible in the particular case, by the national law as well as by the lex fori, but not necessarily on the same grounds, Arrêts du Tribunal fédéral Suisse (ATF) 38 H 48 (1912), 58 H 183 (1932).Google Scholar

^13. A proposal to amend the Convention made in 1928 specified that both national laws had to be satisfied (reproduced in Documents, Huitième Session (1956) p. 194).Google Scholar

^14. ATF 94 H 65 (1968).

^15. One may observe that in the same case, the husband could not have sued. This inequality between spouses was one of the major defects of the system of Art. 7g and 7h LRDC.

^16. In 1982, the Federal Court decided in a case involving Italians that it was not necessary to prove that the ground for divorce existed in the national law, if it was demonstrated that the judgment to be rendered would be recognized in the country of nationality (ATF 108II167,176).

^17. This is a specialiry of Swiss nationality law: every Swiss citizen is at the same time ‘originaire’ of one or several communes.

^18. ATF 91 n 321 (1965).

^19. The amendments and protocols proposed in 1928 (supra, n. 13) did not satisfactorily solve this problem. On the difficulties with the Divorce Convention, see also A.N. Makarov, ‘Haager Konventionen zum Internationalen Privatrecht’, in Strupp, K. and Schlochauer, H.L, Wörterbuch des Völkerrechts, vol. I (1960) p. 745, and especially p. 748.Google Scholar

^20. This Convention caused difficulties concerning political obstacles to marriages, such as the authorization to marry which military personnel had to obtain according to German law. See Makarov, , loc. cit. n 19, p. 747Google Scholar; Walker, G., Internationales Privatrecht, 5th edn. (1934) p. 592. This led to denunciation by France in 1913 and by Belgium in 1918.Google Scholar

^21. Actes 1893, 1, p. 46Google Scholar, Actes 1894, pp. 46, 47.Google Scholar

^22. Meili, and Mamelok, , op. cit. n. 2, p. 92, especially p. 96.Google Scholar

^23. This restricts considerably the constitutional principle. However, in Switzerland there is no remedy against a law violating the Constitution.

^24. Meili, and Mamelok, , op. cit. n. 2, p. 95Google Scholar; Stauffer, W., Das Internationale Privatrechi der Sckweiz auf Grund des BG betr. die zivilrechtlichen Verhältnisse der Niedergelassenen und Aufenthalter vom 25. Juni 1891110. Dezember 1907 (1925)Google Scholar No. 1 on Art 7c, No. 10 on Art 7f; Beck, E., Kommentar zum schweizerischen ZGB, Schlusstitel: Einführung und Uebergangsbestimmungen, II. Abschnitt (1932) Nos. 1 and 2 on Art. 7c.Google Scholar

^25. ATF 801427 (1954); XIII Suisse, Annuaire (1956) p. 237, note Lalive; Rev. crit (1957) p. 52, note Wengler. The Marriage Convention was not applicable, because the marriage had not been celebrated in a Contracting State.Google Scholar

^26. See von Overbeck, , loc. cit. n. 11, p. 108, fn. 74–76, and the judgment in the Dal Bosco case, infra, n. 28.Google Scholar

^27. Revue de I' état civil (1969) pp. 180Google Scholar and 181, the comment by P.M. Gutzwiller, ‘Grundsätzliche Ueberlegungen zur Wiederverheiratung des in der Schweiz geschiedenen Angehörigen eines Staates, der keine Ehescheidung kennt’. In the meantime, taking into account the Caliaro case, the English Registrars refused to celebrate marriages of divorced Italians: R. v. Brentwood Superintendant Registrar of Marriages [1968] 3Google Scholar All. E.R. 279,283, and the criticism by Chesterman, M.R. in 32 MLR (1969) p. 84.Google Scholar

^28. ATF 971389 (1971); XXVIII Annuaire Suisse (1972) p. 357; Clunet (1976) p. 439, comment Lalive, P.; RabelZ (1972) p. 338Google Scholar, note Neuhaus, P.H.. It is interesting to note that the German Constitutional Court decided just a month beforehand that it was against the Constitution to forbid the remarriage in Germany of a single Spaniard domiciled in Germany with a divorced protestant German wife (Bundesverfassungsgericht, 4 May 1971, RabelsZ (1972) p. 145).Google Scholar

^29. Paiano case, 5 February 1976Google Scholar, ATF 102 lb (1976) 1; XXXIII Annuaire Suisse (1977) p. 280, note Lalive, P.; Rev. crit. (1976) p. 519, note F. Knoepfler. From a theoretical point of view, it is interesting to note that in mis decision the Federal Court abandoned the German theory of the ‘Kollisionsrechtliche Relativität der Rechtskraft’, which it had accepted in the Dal Bosco case.Google Scholar

^30. Loi fédérale sur le droit international privé (LD1P), 18 December 1987Google Scholar (RS 291). For the numerous publications on the preparatory work and the Statute, see the Bibliography established by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law in IPRax, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (1988) p. 389Google Scholar; (1990) p. 270, to be continued. Text also in Bucher, A., ed, Droit international privé, Recueil de textes (1991)Google Scholar; Rev. crit (1988) p. 409 (French); Bucher, A., ed., Internationales Privatrecht, Textausgabe (1991)Google Scholar; IPRax (1988) p. 376 (German). For English translations, see Cornu, J.-CL, Hankins, S. and Symeonides, S., ‘Swiss Federal Statute on Private International Law of December 18th, 1987, an English Translation”, 37 AJCL (1989) p. 193Google Scholar; Karrer, P.A. and Arnold, K.W. (introduced, translated and annotated by), Switzerland's Private International Law of December 18, 1987Google Scholar, The Swiss Code on Conflict of Laws and Related Legislation (1989)Google Scholar; Thomann, H. et al. , Swiss Federal Act on International Private Law of December 18th, 1987Google Scholar, English Translation of Official Text (1989)Google Scholar; Umbricht, Badetscher & Jaag, Fullbright & Jaworski, eds., LDIP- Loi fédérale Suisse sur le droit international privé–CPIL – Switzerland's Federal Code on Private International Law (French, German, Italian and English) (1989). For an analysis in English see von Overbeck, A.E., ‘The New Swiss Codification of Private International Law’, 16 Forum Internationale (1991).Google Scholar

^31. Adés, ATF 91H 44 (1965); comment by Vischer, F. in XXII Annuaire Suisse (1965) p. 281.Google Scholar

^32. ‘Freiburger Kolloquium über den schweizerischen Entwurf zu einem Bundesgesetz über das Internationalen Privatrecht – Colloque de Fribourg relatif an Projet Suisse de loi féréale sur le droit international privé’, Schweizer Studien zum Internationalen Recht – Etudes suisses de droit international, vol. 14 (1979)Google Scholar; ’Lausanner Kolloquium über den deutschen und schweizerischen Gesetzentwurf zur Neuregelung des Internationalen Privatrechts’, Veröffentlichungen des Schweizeriscnen lnstituts für Rechtsvergleichung, vol. 1 (1984)Google Scholar; Beitröge zum neuen IPR des Sachen-, Schuld- und Gesellschaftsrechts, Festschrift für Prof. Rudolf Moser, Schweizer Studien zum Internationalen Recht, vol. 51 (1987).Google Scholar

^33. See the criticism in K. Siehr, ‘Multilaterale Staatsverträge erga omnes und deren Inkorporation in nationale IPR-Kodifikationen – Vor- und Nachteile einer solchen Rezeption’, 27 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht (1986) p. 45Google Scholar, discussion, p. 167. In favour of this system see J. Pirrung, ‘Laréforme du droit international privé en République fédérate d'Allemagne, spécialement dans le domaine des relations entre époux’, Droit international privé (1986/1987, 1987/88) p. 201Google Scholar, especially p. 207; Pirrung, J., ‘Die Einführung des EG-Schuldvertragsübereinkommens in die nationalen Rechte’, Europäisches Gemeinschqftsrecht und Internationales Privatrecht (1991) p. 21Google Scholar. See also Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, vol. 7, 2nd edn. (1990) p. 68Google Scholar, Einleitung No. 171, p. 1033, No. 1 ad Art. 18, p. 1454, No. 2 ad Art. 26. In general, see Vitta, E., ‘International Conventions and National Conflicts Systems’, 125 Hague Recueil (1969, 1) p. 113.Google Scholar

^34. Arts. 49 and 83 (Convention of 2 October 1973 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations); Art 85 (Convention of 5 October 1961 concerning Protection of Minors); Art. 93 (Convention of 5 October 1961 on die Conflicts of Laws Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions); Art. 118 (Convention of 15 June 1959 on International Sales of Movables); Art 134 (Convention of 4 May 1971 on the Law Applicable to Traffic Accidents).

^35. Actes 1900, p. 108Google Scholar; Actes 1904, pp. 12Google Scholar, 117. See also Merz, W., in Actes 1925, pp. 250, 256, 277.Google Scholar

^36. Actes 1900, pp. 108, 111.Google Scholar

^37. Actes 1900, pp. 113Google Scholar, 143. Similar proposals in 1904 did not meet with any more success, Documents 1904, p. 335Google Scholar, Actes 1904, p. 12.Google Scholar

^38. Les régimes matrimoniaux et les successions en droit international privé, VIIe Congrès de l' Union Internationale du Notariat latin (1963); see also von Overbeck, A.E., ‘La professio juris comme moyen de rapprocher les principes du domicile et de la nationalité en droit international privé, Liber Amicorum Baron Louis Fredericq (1965) p. 1085Google Scholar; 52(1) Annuaire de I'Institut de Droit international, Session de Nice (1967)Google Scholar, ‘La succession testamentaire en droit international privé’. Report by Monaco, R., and Preparatory Work, p. 528Google Scholar; ibid. vol. 52(11), discussion, p. 464, text of the Resolution adopted, p. 563.