1. 8 Savigny, F.C., System des heutigen römischen Rechts § 348, note k (1849)Google Scholar, at page 72 of Savigny, , Conflict of Laws (W. Guthrie transl. 2d ed. 1880).Google Scholar

2. An agreement of 1534 is noted in van Zurck, Eduard, Codex Batavus voce Sententien, § 25 (Delft 1727).Google Scholar Cf. Viëtor, J. Freseman, De kracht van buitenlandsche vonnissen 156 (Groningen 1865).Google Scholar

3. In the section on “comity”, Book I, Title 4, Appendix: De statutis, § 17, of Johannes Voët, Commentarius ad Pandectas (first published in 1698). See 1 The Selective Voët 115 (Gane, P. transl. Durban 1955).Google Scholar On the famous Appendix see Yntema, , the Comity Doctrine, 65 Mich. L. Rev. 9, 23–24 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Ordinance of April 1, 1590, § 27, 2 Groot Placaetbook 701 (1664). Noted in Voët, supra note 3, Book 42, Title 1: Res judicata, § 41. See 6 The Selective Voët, supra, at 340.Google Scholar Cf. Schuermans, , Attachment and Garnishment as Basis for Adjudicatory Jurisdiction over Foreigners: A Comparative Study, 13Google Scholar Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht 243, 256, n. 83; Nadelmann, , Full Faith and Credit to Judgments and Public Acts, 56 Mich. L. Rev. 33, 64, n. 146 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, republished in Nadelmann, K. H., Conflict of Laws: International and Interstate 171, 198, n. 146 (1972).Google Scholar

5. References in Nadelmann, , supra note 4, at 38–39Google Scholar, Nadelmann, K. H. at 174.Google Scholar

6. id. at 53 et seq.; Nadelmann, K. H. at 170.Google Scholar

7. U.S. Const., Art. IV, § 1.

8. 3 Story, J., Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §§ 1287–1307 (1833).Google Scholar

9. Story, J., Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws, Foreign and Domestic § 609 (2d ed. 1841).Google Scholar

10. See references in Nadelmann, , Joseph Story's Sketch of American Law, 3 Am. J. Comp, L. 3 (1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Foelix, J.-J. G., Traité de Droit International Privé §§ 371–376 (2d ed. 1847).Google Scholar See also Foelix, , De l'exécution des jugements étrangers en Europe, in vols. 9 and 10 of Foelix's Revue Etrangère (1842 and 1843).Google Scholar

12. See Savigny, , supra note 1, § 348.Google Scholar The treaties appeared in G. F. de Martens, Nouveau Recueil des Traités, and are collected in A. O. Krug, Das Internationalrecht der Deutschen (1851).

13. See Savigny, , supra note I, § 374 E, n. 99.Google Scholar

14. § 348, last part.

15. See introductories to 1857 (Birmingham) Transactions of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science.

16. See Introduction by Hastings, 1861Google Scholar (Dublin) Transactions xxi.

17. Mentioned in Introduction at xviii.

18. The history is given in Jitta, D. Josephus, La Méthode du Droit International Privé 388 et seq. (1890).Google Scholar And see opening speeches in Annales de l'Association Internationale pour le Progrès des Sciences Sociales, Première Session. Congrès de Bruxelles [1862] 27–37 (1863).

19. See Jitta, , supra note 18Google Scholar; Asser, , Droit international privé et droit uniforme, 12 Revue de droit international et de législation comparée (hereafter: Revue) 1, 2 (1880).Google Scholar

20. See Annales, , supra note 18, Première Session, Congrès de Bruxelles [1862] 226–28.Google Scholar

21. At 228.

22. Annales, Deuxième Session, Congrès de Gand [1863] 152–81.Google Scholar

23. Annales, Troisième Session, Congrès d'Amsterdam [1864] 198–221 (draft at 201, 206).Google Scholar

23a. Viëtor, Fresemann, supraGoogle Scholar note 2, in particular, which was awarded a prize by the University of Amsterdam. Cf. Asser, , De l'effet ou de l'exécution des jugements rendus à l'étranger en matière civile et commerciale, 1 Revue 82, 86 (1869).Google Scholar

24. On Gustave Rolin-Jaequemyns (1835–1902) see Asser necrology, 34 Revue 109 (1902)Google Scholar, 19 Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International (hereafter: Annuaire, ) 401 (1902).Google Scholar

25. On Asser, T. M. C. (1838–1913)Google Scholar see Offerhaus, l'Université d'Amsterdam et le droit international privé, in IUS ET LEX—Festschrift Max Gutzwiller 283, 284 (Basel 1959).Google Scholar

26. On Westlake, John (1828–1913)Google Scholar see Memories of Westlake, John (1914).Google Scholar

27. The history of the creation of the Revue is given by Asser in his Rolin-Jaequemyns necrology, supra note 24.

28. Excellent were the Kritische Zeitschrift für die Rechtswissenschaft und Gesetzgebung des Auslandes, edited by Mittermaier and Zachariae, and Foelix's Revue Etrangère, modeled after the Zeitschrift. See Hug, , The History of Comparative Law, 45 Harv. L. Rev. 1027, 1057–62 (1932).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. Rolin-Jaequemyns, , De l'étude de la législation comparée et du droit international, 1 Revue 1 et seq., 225 et seq. (1869).Google Scholar

30. Asser, , supra note 23a, 82 et seq., 408Google Scholar et seq., 473 et seq. (1869).

31. At 492–93.

32. Treaty of June 15, 1869. Text in Journal du Droit International Privé, 2 Tables Générales 1874–1904, at 388 (1905).Google Scholar The event induced the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs to suggest to France the call of a diplomatic conference on codification of private international law. The proposal was turned down. See 1(1) Navarro, M. Aguilar, Derecho Internacional Privado 516 (3rd ed. 1970).Google Scholar Text of proposal in Madrid University, Catedra de Derecho Internacional Privado, 1 Textos y Materiales de Derecho Internacional Privado 231 (1970).Google Scholar

33. Amended slightly in 1935, the Treaty is still in force. See Flatlet, , Un traité centenaire: la Convention franco-suisse du 15 juin 1869 sur la compétence judiciaire et l'exécution des jugements, 58 Revue critique de droit international privé 577, 578 et seq. (1969).Google Scholar

34. On Lieber, Francis (1800–1872)Google Scholar, draftsman of the “Instructions for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field” (General Orders No. 100 of 1863) see Freidel, F., Francis Lieber (1947).Google Scholar

35. Text of letter in Rolin-Jaequemyns, , De la nécessité d'organiser une institution scientifique permanente pour favoriser l'étude et le progrès du droit international, 5 Revue 463, 480 (1873).Google Scholar

36. At 481.

37. For all this see Rolin-Jaequemyns, supra note 35; his confidential Memorandum, sent to a small group of people, is referred to at 463 n. 1.

38. Field, David Dudley (1805–1894) is best known in the United States for his efforts to codify the domestic law. Cf. notice in 14 [1895–96] Annuaire 311.Google Scholar

39. Elected foreign correspondent by the Association, Field had taken advantage of its Manchester 1866 Conference to present his thoughts on “A Project for an international Code”. See [1866] Transactions of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science 42 (1867). An international committee was supposed to draft the Code but because of difficulties in arranging meetings, Field decided to do it alone (with assistance from some New York lawyers). See Preface to the draft Code.

40. A second edition, with appendices, appeared in New York in 1876 under the title, “Outline of a Code of International Law”. An Italian version of the draft Code of 1872, by A. Pierantoni, appeared in Naples in 1874; a French version, by Rolin, Albéric, in Paris in 1881.Google Scholar

41. Before returning, Dr. Miles had reported on his mission to the Paris Société des Amis de la Paix. See the March-April Bulletin of the Société (2d ser., No. 2).

42. On Mancini, (1817–1888)Google Scholar see Necrology in 13 Annuaire [for 1894–95] 406 (by Fusinato and Lehr, with assistance from Pierantoni).

43. See Sereni, A. P., The Italian Conception of International Law 157, 162 (1943).Google Scholar

44. On all this see Communications relatives à la fondation de l'Institut de Droit International, 5 Revue 667 et seq. (1873).

45. The History is given in the series “Reports” covering the today biannual Conferences of the Association. Cf. unsigned article, The Proposed Codification and Reform of the International Law, 9 Am. L. Rev. 181 (1875).Google Scholar

46. The change was made after Field's death at the Brussels 1895 Conference. Field had opposed the change. See International Law Association, Report of the 17th Conference Brussels 1895, 282–85 (1896).Google Scholar

47. See Communications, supra note 44, at 694.

48. See Contuzzi, F., II Codice Civile nei Rapporti del Diritto Internazionale Privato 6 (1902).Google Scholar

49. See De Nova, , Historical and Comparative Introduction to Conflict of Laws, 118Google Scholar Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International (hereafter: Recueil des Cours) 435, 467 (1966); Nadelmann, , Mancini's Nationality Rule and Non-Unified Legal Systems, 17 Am. J. Comp. L. 418, 421 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, republished in K. H. Nadelmann, supra note 4, at 49, 51. The nationality rule even invaded contracts in the form of a rebuttable presumption. Civil Code, Preliminary Provisions, art. 9(2). Cf. Cavers, , Legislative Choice of Law: Some European Examples, 44 So. Cal. L. Rev. 340, 342 (1971).Google Scholar The conflicts provisions may be found in the Mancini Report for the Geneva 1974 session of the Institute. Mancini, De l'utilité de rendre obligatoire pour tous les Etats, sous la forme d'un ou de plusieurs traités internationaux, un certain nombre de règles générales du droit international privé pour assurer la décision uniforme des conflits entre les différentes législations civiles et commerciales, 1 Journal du droit international privé (hereafter: Journal) 220, 285 at 299 (1874).Google Scholar

50. On this episode see 3 Catellani, E., II Diritto Internazionale Privato e i Suoi Recenti Progressi 966 (1888).Google Scholar

51. La Vita de' Popoli nell' Umanità-Prelezioni al Corso di Diritto Internazionale Pubblico, Privato e Maritimo, in Mancini, P. S., Diritto Internazionale 163, 211 (Pierantoni, ed. Naples 1873).Google Scholar

52. See 3 Catellani, supra note 50, at 967; 2 Contuzzi, supra note 48, at 8. According to Catellani, David Dudley Field was a guest in the gallery. Mancini's sonin-law, Augusto Pierantoni, was to translate Field's Code. See David Dudley Field, Prime Linee di un Codice Internazionale, with an introduction by Pierantoni, , La riforma del diritto delle genti e l'Istituto di Diritto Internazionale di Gand (Pierantoni, transl. Naples 1874)Google Scholar; cf. Pierantoni, A., Storia del Diritto Internazionale nel Secolo XIX 485 (1876).Google Scholar

53. See Netherlands, Bijlagen van de Handelingen der Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal 1873–1874, No. 117, at 31; id. No. 113, A, at 10.

54. Foreign Relations of the U.S.: 1874, at 789, 791 (Memo), 794 (answer).Google Scholar

55. See Handelingen, , supra note 53, for 1874–1875, 309, 310, 315, 316.Google Scholar Cf. debate of Dec. 5, 1878 in the Second Chamber, noted in 6 Journal 369, 392 (1879).

56. Part of reply quoted in Renault, , Le droit international privé et la Conférence de La Haye, 9 Annales de l'Ecole Libre des Sciences Politiques 310, 319–320 (1894)Google Scholar; also in Renault, L., Les Conventions de La Haye (1896 et 1902)Google Scholar sur le droit international privé, Mémoire lu à l'Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques 16 (1903).Google Scholar

57. Cf. Asser, , supra note 19, at 15.Google Scholar

58. 1 Journal 159–164 (1874).

59. See Avant-Propos, , dated Paris, 03 6, 1874Google Scholar, in Fiore, P., Droit International Privé xxvii–xxxvii (2d ed., Pradier-Fodéré transi. 1875).Google Scholar

60. See Reports reproduced in 7 Revue 329 at 342 (Mancini), 364 at 391 (Asser) (1875).

61. “The Institute recognizes the obvious usefulness and, for certain matters, even necessity of treaties by which the civilized States adopt by common agreement binding uniform rules of private international law according to which the public authorities and, especially, the courts of contracting States shall decide questions concerning persons, property, acts, succession, procedure, and foreign judgments”. 6 Revue 582 (proposal), 610 (approval) (1874).

61a. Proposal as adopted: “It would be useful to establish by international treaties uniform rules concerning

(1) the basis and the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts,

(2) the form of procedure in order (a) to decide which law shall govern these forms in dubious cases, (b) to clarify the principles of international law with regards to means of proof, (c) to regulate the form of complaints and other writs to be served upon persons domiciled or residing abroad,

(3) the execution of foreign judgments on the basis of treaties in which guarantees and conditions would be stipulated for the grant of pareatis.” 6 Revue 584 (proposal), 610–611 (as adopted) (1874).

62. Text also in Annuaire, 123–124 (1877)Google Scholar; 1 Annuaire 51, 53 (édition nouvelle abrégée 1928); Institut de Droit International, Tableau Général des Résolutions 267, 362Google Scholar (Wehberg, ed. 1957).Google Scholar

63. “The Institute is of opinion that the best means of attaining this end is for the Institue itself to prepare drafts of such treaties, be they general or concern special matters and, in particular, conflicts involving marriage and succession, as well as enforcement of foreign judgments. These drafts of treaties could serve as basis for official negotiations and the final drafting which would be entrusted to a conference of jurisconsults and specialists delegated by the different States or at least some of them, with the grant in the latter case to the other States for matters with respect to which this system can without inconvenience be adopted of the possibility of acceding to the treaties thereafter.

These treaties should not impose upon the contracting States complete uniformity of their codes or statutes, with they could not even do without creating an obstacle to the progress of civilization. But, without touching upon legislative independence, these treaties could determine in advance which among the legislations that might be in conflict should apply to the legal relations concerned. This determination thus would be withdrawn from the sometimes irreconcilable legislations of the various peoples, the dangerous influence of the national interests and prejudices, and the uncertainties of the decisional law and legal science itself.” 6 Revue 607–608, and references in note 62, supra.

64. See Record in 6 Revue 585 at 607 (1874).

65. At 610.

66. For the celebration of the centenary of the Société see 21 Revue internationale de droit comparé 305 et seq. (1969).

67. Memorandum reproduced in 2 Congresos Americanos de Lima 107 (Ulloa, ed. Lima 1938).Google Scholar

67a. Mancini, , supra note 49, 1 Journal 220–239, 285–304 (1874).Google Scholar

67b. Pradier-Fodéré, Paul Louis Ernest (1827–1904).Google Scholar Notice in 20 [1904] Annuaire 254 (Fauchille).

68. See Castonnet-Desfosses, Book Review (Pradier-Fodéré's Report Lima 1874) [1875] Bull. Société de Législation Comparée 229.

69. For information on the Ecole Libre see Pradier-Fodéré, Avant-Propos, supra note 59, at XLI.

70. Fiore's treatise had appeared in 1869 and was republished by Fiore with a supplement in 1874. For Pradier-Fodéré's translation of 1875 see note 59 supra.

71. Pradier-Fodéré, P., Curso de Derecho Internacional Privado (Fuentes, M. A. transl., Lima 1877).Google Scholar

72. Report of Nov. 19, 1875, 2 Congresos, supra note 67, at 109–110.

73. Id. at 111.

74. At 119.

75. At 134 (translation). The original text is given in Nadelmann, , Ignored State Interests: The Federal Government and International Efforts to Unify Rules of Private Law, 102 U. Pa. L. Rev. 323, 325–26 (1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76. Field, David Dudley, Outlines of an International Code, Preface to the Second Edition (dated New York07 1876) last sentence.Google Scholar

77. At 761 (in translation).

78. See 4 Cong. Rec. 1968 (1876). Cf. 13 Albany L. J. 239 (1876).Google Scholar

79. The proceedings are reproduced in 2 Congresos, supra note 67, at 156 et seq.Google Scholar

80. Text at 343; also in Documenti diplomatici, infra note 102.

81. An analysis is in Valladāo, , Le droit international privé des Etats Américains, 81 Recueil des Cours 1, 93–98 (1952).Google Scholar

82. In a note sent to Pradier-Fodéré during the Conference, Arenas had expressed uneasiness about extension to succession. See Pradier-Fodéré. Notice sur les premières conférences du Congrès des juristes, tenu à Lima, [1878] Bull. Sté de Législation Comparée 524, 531.

83. Text of Nov. 12, 1878 Report in 2 Congresos, supra note 67, at 308; also in Documenti diplomatici, infra note 102.

84. However, as pointed out in Valladão, H., Direito Internacional Privado 194 (2e ed. 1970)Google Scholar, the Lima Convention furnished the model for the Treaty of Quito of June 18, 1903 on Private International Law between Colombia and Ecuador, reproduced in Castilla, J. J. Caicedo, Derecho Internacional Privado 10, 529 (Bogota, 5th ed. 1960).Google Scholar On the difficulties created by this treaty see Holguin, J. I. Larrea, Manual de Derecho Internacional Privado Ecuadoriano 27 (Quito 1962).Google Scholar

85. Daireaux, Etude sur le Congrès des juristes américains, tenu à Lima en 1878, [1879] Bull. Sté de Législation Comparée 425–434.

86. Statement in Second Chamber, Nov. 27, 1874. See 6 Journal 369, n. 1 (1879).

87. Text with Guidelines: 1 Journal 220–239, 285–304 (1874), 7 Revue 329–361 (1875).

88. Text in 7 Revue 364–416 (1875).

89. Text in 1 Annuaire 125 (1877); also in Tableau Général, supra note 62, at 365 (No. 132).

90. Text in 3–4 Annuaire, , Vol. I, 88 (1879–1880)Google Scholar; also in Tableau Général, supra note 62, at 368 (No. 134).

91. See 6 Journal 369 (1879).

92. At 382.

93. Asser, supra note 19, at 15.

94. Cf. Paris 1878 Resolution, art. 6, supra note 90.

95. See Esperson, P., II Secondo Congresso Giuridico Italiano e il Diritto Privato Internazionale (1880).Google Scholar A resolution was introduced but not acted upon urging the Italian government to resume the efforts for treaties on private international law. Esperson at 9. Among the foreigners present was Asser.

96. For these Guidelines see Nadelmann, , supra note 49, at 424Google Scholar; Nadelmann, , supra note 4, at 49, 56.Google Scholar

97. Mancini's draft had provided that, subsidiarily, the law of the domicile shall apply when different civil legislations co-exist in one state (federal systems). Pierantoni had it changed to say that, in such a case, status and capacity shall be decided according to the internal law of the state to which the foreigner belongs [which law may have no rule]. See Nadelmann, , supra note 49, at 431Google Scholar; Nadelmann, K. H., supra note 4, at 62.Google Scholar

98. Parts VI to VIII of the “General Principles in the Matter of Nationality, Capacity, Succession and ordre public”, Institut de Droit International, supra note 62, at 39; 5 Annuaire [for 1880] 56–57 (1882).

99. English and Scottish members voted against application to succession. See 5 Annuaire at 58.

100. Instructions with Memorandum in Italy, Ministero degli Affari Esteri, Documenti diplomatici presentati alla Camera dal Ministro degli Affari Esteri (Mancini) con lettera in data 28 guigno 1885, (hereafter: Documenti diplomatici) No. 1 (Rome 1885), (reprinted in 16 G. Fr. de Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général des Traités (2d ed. 89 (1891); also in 13 Journal 35, 36–40 (1886).

101. (101) Documenti diplomatici, No. 23; cf. No. 37 (Mancini's reply).

102. Id., No. 54, and Appendix D (page 197).

103. See 6 Annuaire 75 (1883).

104. Documenti diplomatici, No. 34, and Appendix A (page 167); also in 13 Journal 40–52 (1886).

105. See the Association's Report of the 11th, Milan 1883, Conference 188, 193 (1884).

105a. See remark in Instructions of June 28, 1885, Documenti diplomatici, No. 167; also in 13 Journal 53–56 (1886).

106. Documenti diplomatici, No. 74; cf. No. 73 (Turin Resolution).

107. Germany had enacted the reciprocity requirement (absent in the early drafts). See Bar, L. v., Theory and Practice of Private International Law § 456, at 977Google Scholar, n. 107 (Gillespie transl. 1892). Cf. 2 C. Hahn, , Materialien zur deutschen ZPO 887–90 (1880) (June 8, 1875 Committee meeting).Google Scholar

108. See Documenti diplomatici, No. 157–162.

109. Id., No. 163.

109a. See Documenti diplomatici, Nos. 164, 165, cf. Nadelmann, , supra note 75, at 328.Google Scholar

110. Documenti diplomatici, No. 167; also in 13 Journal 53–56 (1886). The Hamburg 1884 Conference of the Ass'n for the Progress of the Law of Nations had to be postponed to 1885 for the same reason. See Report of the 12th Conference 49.

111. Documenti diplomatici, supra note 100. Cf. Coutuzzi, 10 Filangieri I, 681, 765, 775–780 (1885).Google Scholar

112. 13 Journal 35 et seq. (1886). Engl. transl. of short part in Levi, L., International Law 260 (London 1887).Google Scholar

113. Ramirez, Gonzalo (1846–1911).Google Scholar

113a. Cf. Alcorta, Almancio, I Curso de Derecho Internacional Privado 203–213 (B.A. 1887).Google Scholar

114. See Ramirez, G., Proyecto de Código de Derecho Internacional Privado y su Comentario 3–9 (Buenos Aires 1888).Google Scholar

115. Id. at 23–336.

116. Protocol of Feb. 20, 1888; see id. at 1–19.

117. Id. at 19–22.

118. Actas y Tratados delebrados por el Congreso Internacional Sud-Americano de Montevideo (Montevideo ed. 1911). Cf. Segovia, L., El Derecho Internacional Privado y el Congreso Sud-Americano de Montevideo (Buenos Aires 1889)Google Scholar (text at 191 et seq.); Alfonsín, Quintin, Curso de Derecho Privado Internacional 278–281 (1955).Google Scholar

119. See Pan American Union, Dept. of Legal Affairs. Status of Inter-American Treaties and Conventions (Revised to Sept. 1, 1969 (1969) F–1 to F–3 (Treaty Series No. 5,1969).

120. See Castilla, Caicedo, supra note 84, at 24.Google Scholar

121. See Eder, Ph., American-Colombian Private International Law 15 (1956).Google Scholar

122. For discussions in English of the Treaties see Bewes, , The Treaties of Montevideo, 6 Grotius Society Transactions 59 (1921)Google Scholar; Baldwin, , The Comparative Results in the Advancement of Private International Law, of the Montevideo Congress of 1888–1889Google Scholar and the Hague Conferences of 1893, 1894, 1900, and 1903 [1904], 2 Am. Pol. Sci. Ass'n, 1905 Proceedings 73 (1906).

123. See Valladão, , The Influence of Joseph Story on Latin American Rules of Conflict of Laws, 3 Am. J. Comp. L. 27, 40 (1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

124. See Nadelmann, , Bankruptcy Treaties 93 U. Pa. L. Rev. 58, 69–70 (1944)Google Scholar; Nadelmann, K. H., supra note 4, at 299, 310–311.Google Scholar

125. See 1 International American Conference, Reports of Committees and Discussions Thereon 2 id. at 876.

126. 2 id. at 907–28; also in Prince, A., Le Congrès des Trois Amériques 1889–1890 685, 697–721 (Paris 1891).Google Scholar Parts are reproduced in Nadelmann, supra note 75, at 330–31.

127. 2 id. at 876–906.

128. Pradier-Fodéré, , Le Congrès de droit international sud-américain et les Traités de Montevideo, 21 Revue 217–37; 561–77 (1889).Google Scholar Text of Treaties also in 23 Journal 440 (1896), 24 id. 895 (1897). Cf. 6 Calvo, Carlos, Droit International 93–95 (5th ed. 1896).Google Scholar

129. See e.g., Contuzzi, F. P., Diritto Internazionale Privato 324–85 (1890)Google Scholar; Contuzzi, , Trattati di Montevideo del 1889, 15Google Scholar Il Filangieri I 521–68 (1890). Cf. Gemma, S., Propedeutica al Diritto Internazionale Privato 786 (1899).Google Scholar

130. See Llanas, M. Lasala, Sistema español de derecho civil internacional e interregional 42 (1933).Google Scholar

131. (1850–1918). See 1 (1) Aguilar, M. Navarro, Derecho Internacional Privado 331 (3rd ed. 1970).Google Scholar Necrology, 132 Rev. gen. de ligèslación 256 (1918).Google Scholar

132. Campos, M. Torres, Elementos de Derecho Internacional Privado 86 (2d ed. 1893)Google Scholar; cf. Campos, Torres, Le Congrès Juridique de Lisbonne, 21 Revue 238, 245 (1889).Google Scholar

132a. See Campos, M. Torres, Bases de una Legislación sobre Extraterritorialidad 338–44 (1896)Google Scholar; Campos, Torres, España y los Tratados de Montevideo, 2 Revista del Foro 413, 433 (Havana 1895).Google Scholar

133. On Jitta, D. Josephus (1854–1925)Google Scholar see Offerhaus, , supra note 25, at 289.Google Scholar

133a. The work was translated into Spanish. Jitta, J., Método de Derecho Internacional Privado (Prida, Fernandez transl. Madrid 1915).Google Scholar

134. Jitta, D. J., La Méthode du Droit International Privé 453 (1890).Google Scholar

135. Art. 412.

136. See Offerbaus, , supra note 25, at 289Google Scholar; de Winter, Les 75 ans d'expérience de la Commission d'Etat néerlandaise pour le droit international privé, 18 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht 261, 262 (1971).

137. See Asser, , La codification du droit international privé, 25 Revue 521, 527 (1893)Google Scholar; Renault, Le droit international privé et la Conférence de La Haye, supra note 56, at 320–21Google Scholar; cf. Lainé, , La Conférence de La Haye relative au droit international privé, 21 Journal 5, 6 (1894).Google Scholar

138. Pressure for the conference in Italy was maintained from Italian side in the Association for the Progress of the Law of Nations. See Report of the 15th Congress, Genoa, Oct. 1892, 52, 169 (Gabba, De Rossi).

139. See Asser, , supra note 137, at 528.Google Scholar Cf. van Hoogstraten, , The United Kingdom Joins an Uncommon Market: The Hague Conference on Private International Law, 12 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 148, 150 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

140. Actes de la Conférence chargée de réglementer diverses matières de droit international privé 5 (1893).Google Scholar

141. Belgian draft with comments in 18 Revue 442–501 (1886).

142. See Actes, supra note 140, at 19.

143. At 27, 29–30.

144. At 31. Cf. Offerhaus, , La Conférence de La Haye de Droit International Privé, in 16 [1959] Annuaire Suisse de Droit International 27, 29 (1960).Google Scholar

145. At 32–33.

146. See Actes de la deuxième Conférence de dr. int. pr. 5 (1894).Google Scholar

147. See Actes de la troisième Conférence de dr. int. pr. 71 (1900).Google Scholar

148. See Actes de la quatrième Conférence de dr. int. pr. xiii (1904).Google Scholar

149. Date of signing, preparation at the 1904 session. Text in Official Report of the Universal Congress of Lawyers and Jurists, St. Louis, Mo., 1904, 332, 365. Translation in Baty, T., Polarized Law 193 (1914).Google Scholar

149a. The Convention of Nov. 14, 1896 had received a number of signatures. English transl. of 1894 draft in Asser, C. D., The Convention of The Hague of 14th 11 1896Google Scholar, in International Law Association, Report of the 20th—Glasgow 1901—Conference 299, 305–309 (1901).Google Scholar

150. See 1 Rabel, E., Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study 35 (2e ed. 1958).Google Scholar

151. Date of signing. Text in Official Report, supra note 149, 338, 342, 345. Transl. in Baty, , supra note 149, at 177, 181, 186Google Scholar; Meili, F., International Civil and Commercial Law 527 (Kuhn transl. 1905)Google Scholar; Lorenzen, E., Cases on Conflict of Laws 757–760 (1909).Google Scholar

152. Date of signing, Text in Official Report, supra note 149, 354, 358; transl. in Baty, , supra note 149, at 184, 188Google Scholar; Lorenzen, , supra note 151, at 762–764.Google Scholar

153. See Rabel, supra note 150.

154. Convention on Marriage, supra note 151, art. 1. See Asser, , Quelques observations concernant le système du renvoi, in Conférence de La Haye de Droit international privé, Documents relatifs à la troisième session 182, 183.Google Scholar

155. Text in Official Report, supra note 149 at 349; transl. in Lorenzen, , supra note 151, at. 760.Google Scholar

156. At 363 and 765, respectively.

156a. SirPhillimore, Walter G. F., Baron (1845–1929).Google Scholar At the Glasgow 1901 Conference of the International Law Association he had spoken favorably of use of nationality as personal law. Phillimore, International Law of Marriage, Report of the 20th Conference 228, 230 (1901). Sir Walter was the son of SirPhillimore, Robert (1810–1885)Google Scholar, Admiralty Judge and Dean of Arches, author of Commentaries upon International Law: in four volumes (IV: Private International Law or Comity (1861)). See 16 Holdsworth, W. S., History of English Law 146 (7th Goodhart & Hanbury ed. 1966).Google Scholar

157. See Phillimore, Desirability of the British Government Taking Part in the Conference at The Hague on Private International Law, and in a Conference for Securing Unity of Maritime Law, in International Law Association, Report of the 21st—Antwerp 1903—Conference 80 (1904); see also Phillimore, , The Attitude of the British Government towards Legal Conferences, 29 Law Mag. & Rev. 1 (1903).Google Scholar

157a. International Law Association, Report of the 21st—Antwerp 1903—Conference 85, 93.

158. Baldwin, Simeon E. (1840–1927).Google Scholar Notice, 36 Yale L. J. 680 (1927); cf. Note, 28 Annuaire [for 1921] 260. Generally, Jackson, F., Simeon Even Baldwin (1955).Google Scholar

159. See Presidential Address, International Law Association, Report of the 19th—Rouen 1900—Conference 35 (1901).

160. The Beginnings of an Official European Code of Private International Law, 12 Yale Rev. 10 (1903)Google Scholar; The new Code of International Family Law, 12 Yale L. J. 487 (1903)Google Scholar; Recent Progress Towards Agreement on Rules to Prevent a Conflict of Laws, 17 Harv. L. Rev. 400 (1904)Google Scholar; The Hague Conference of 1904 for the Advancement of Private International Law, 14 Yale L. J. 1 (1904).Google Scholar

161. See Jitta, , A Review of the Four Hague Conferences on Private International Law, in Official Report, supra note 149, at 117–134.Google Scholar

162. Meili, , A Review of the Four Conferences on Private International LawGoogle Scholar, in Official Report, supra note 149, at 135–171. German version 1905 (Springer: Berlin).

162a. References are given at 162. See also Meili, , supra note 151, § 45, p. 128.Google Scholar

163. See Meili, supra note 151. Reviewed by Baldwin, in 15 Yale L. J. 151 (1906).Google Scholar Cf. Baldwin, 's Review, 4 Colum. L. Rev. (1904).Google Scholar

164. Baldwin, , in Official Report, supra note 149, at 172, 173, 175.Google Scholar

165. Baldwin, , supra note 122, 2 Am. Pol. Sci. Ass'n, 1905 Proceedings 73.Google Scholar

166. At 87, 88.

167. (1842–1902). See Necrology 19 [1902] Annuaire 431. Cf. supra note 114.

168. Zeballos, Estanislao E. (1854–1923).Google Scholar See in memoriam in International Law Association, Report of the 42nd—London 1923—Conference ix–xvi (1924).

169. Zeballos, , L'enseignement du droit international privé en Europe et en Amérique, 1 Bull, argentin de droit international 225–268, 289–310. 410–445, 552–559 (1903–1905)Google Scholar, 2 id. 61–71, 215–218, 236–267 (1906–1907).

170. Zeballos, , La codification du droit international privé aux Conférences de La Haye, 1 Bull. 377–392, 473–525 (1904–1905)Google Scholar, 2 id. 1–18, 121–173.

171. See Torres Campos, supra note 131.

172. See Notice in 2 Bull, argentin de droit international 248 (1907).

173. “You may inform the Argentine Government that at the present time the inclinations of this Government are sympathetic”. Instructions to the U.S. Minister in Buenos Aires, 10 4, 1907Google Scholar, executed Nov. 15, 1907. Numerical File, 1906–1910, Records of the Dept. of State (Record Group 59), National Archives and Record Service.

174. 2 Bull, at 281.

175. At 283–292. The materials are reprinted in 3 Calandrelli, A., Cuestiones de Derecho Internacional Privado 11 (Buenos Aires 1915).Google Scholar

176. 2 Bull. 16, 17 (1906).

177. See International Law Association, Report of the 31st—Buenos Aires 1922—Conference I 405, 413–414 (1923).Google ScholarBoletín, de la International Law Association, Vol. I, No. VII, 31aGoogle ScholarConferencia celebrada en Buenos Aires, 271–273 (1922).Google Scholar

178. Asser, , La codification du droit international privé, 21 Annuaire [for 1906] 443, 453–59Google Scholar (reference to Zeballos and Bulletin at 455).

178a. See 5 Annuaire at 45, 46.

179. See Baldwin, , Inaugural Address, Report of the 24th—Portland, Me. 1907—Conference 4, 7–9 (1908).Google Scholar A contribution of his, “The Tendency to Push the lex fori beyond its True Limits”, is in 1 Blätter für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 91–98 (1905).

180. The planned fifth (1907) Conference was not called. See Asser, supra note 178, at 447; de Winter, supra note 136 at 265.

178b. See Lowndes, R., The Law of General Average (English and Foreign) iv, 456–467 (3rd ed. 1878)Google Scholar; Wendt, E., Papers on Maritime Legislation 1 (3rd ed. 1888).Google Scholar Cf. Felde, , General Average and the York-Antwerp Rules, 27 Tulane L. Rev. 406, 427 (1953).Google Scholar

178c. See Bisschop, , History of the Maritime Law Committee, Lloyd's List and Shipping Gazette, 04 1921Google Scholar, reprinted in International Law Association, Report of the 30th—The Hague 1921—Conference, Vol. II: Proceedings of the Maritime Committee vii, viii (1922).

178d. See Felde, , supra note 178b, at 428.Google Scholar

178e. See Bisschop, , supra note 178c, at xiGoogle Scholar; Dor, S., Bill of Lading Clauses and the Brussels International Convention of 1924 (Hague Rules) 18–22 (1956)Google Scholar; Yiannopoulos, Negligence Clauses in Ocean Bills of Lading 5–6 (1962).

178f. See Sohr, F., Le Droit Maritime et son Unification Internationale 41 (1914).Google Scholar

178g. See Actes du Congrès International de Droit Commercial d'Anvers (1885) 11 (1886); Lyon-Caen, , Le Congrès International de droit commercial d'Anvers, 12 Journal 593, 597 (Collisions), 626 (Bills of Exchange (1885).Google Scholar

178h. See Actes du Congrès International de Droit Commercial de Bruxelles (1888) 406, 549Google Scholar (1889); Report, 15 Journal 886, 887, 897 (1888).

178i. See 1 Smeesters, C. & Winkelmolen, G., Droit Maritime et Droit Fluvial xxvii (2d ed. 1929).Google Scholar

178J. Franck, , Les conflits de lois en matière d'abordage, in International Law Ass'n, Report of the 17th—Brussels 1895—Conference 165 (1896).Google Scholar

178k. At 193, 220, See also the Gray Hill resolution at 220.

178l. Franck, , Collisions at Sea where both Ships are in Fault, 12 L.Q. Rev. 260 (1896).Google Scholar

178m. Cf. Scott, , Collisions at Sea where both Ships are in Fault, 13 L.Q. Rev. 17, 241 (1897).Google Scholar

178n. Franck, , supra note 1781, at 272.Google Scholar

178o. See Sohr, , supra note 178f, at 47–52Google Scholar; Franck, , A New Law of the Seas, 42 L.Q. Rev. 25, 26 (1926).Google Scholar

178p. See SirScott, Leslie & Miller, Cyril, Unification of Maritime and Commercial Law Through the Comité Maritime International, 1 Int'l L.Q. 482, 484–485 (1947).Google Scholar

178q. Franck, Louis (1868–1937).Google Scholar See Kauch, P., Franck, Louis, in 33Google Scholar Biographie Nationale de Belgique, 5th Supp. 335 (1966). Cf. Lilar, , Presidential Address, in International Maritime Committee, Antwerp Conference 1947, Bull. No. 103, 105–109.Google Scholar

178r. See Scott, & Miller, , supra note 178p, at 484Google Scholar; Nielson, , The Lack of Uniformity in the Law and Procedure of States with regard to Merchant Vessels, 13 Am. J. Int'l L. 1, 2–3 (1919).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Text in Singh, Nagendra, International Conventions of Merchant Shipping 1047 (1963)Google Scholar; 6 & 6A Benedict, E. C., The Law of American Admiralty (7th ed. by A. Knauth, 1958, with 1967 Supp.).Google Scholar

178s. See Yiannopoulos, , The Unification of Maritime Law by International Conventions, 30 Law & Contemp. Problem 370 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reiff, H., The United States and the Treaty Law of the Sea 132–133 (1959).Google Scholar

178t. List of Ratifications in Singh, supra note 178r, at 1050.Google Scholar

178u. On the American Law see Gilmore, G. & Ch. Black, , Admiralty 438 (1957)Google Scholar; Griffin, J. W., The American Law of Collisions 509 (1949).Google Scholar Cf. Comment, The Difficult Quest for a Uniform Maritime Law: Failure of the Brussels Conventions to Achieve International Agreement on Collision Liability, Liens and Mortgages, 64 Yale L. J. 878, 879–893 (1955)Google Scholar; Staring, Contribution and Division of Damages in Admiralty and Maritime Cases, 45 Calif. L. Rev. 304, 340 (1957)Google Scholar; Allbritton, Division of Damages in Admiralty—A Rising Tide of Confusion, 2 J. Mar. L. & Comm. 323, 328 (1971).Google Scholar

178v. See, e.g., Lilar, & van den Bosch, , The International Brussels Conventions of 05 10, 1952Google Scholar for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Penal and Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision and Arrest of Vessels, 3 [1947–52] Unification of Law Year-Book 341 (1954).Google Scholar

181. See references in Hudson, M. & Feller, , The International Unification of Laws concerning Bills of Exchange, 44 Harv. L. Rev. 333, 335 (1931).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

182. See Annales de l'Association Internationale pour le Progrès des Sciences Sociales (2me session) 203–209 (1863).Google Scholar

182a. See Reports of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Conference.

183. See Ekeberg, Burger, The Scandinavian Cooperation in the Field of Legislation, in International Institute for the Unification of Law, Unification of Law 321, 329 (1948).Google Scholar

184. 8 Annuaire [1885–1886] 97Google Scholar; Institut de Droit International, Tableau Général des Résolutions 1873–1956 at 315 (1957).Google Scholar

185. 8 Annuaire, 121–123Google Scholar; Tableau Général at 338.Google Scholar

186. See Yntema, , Unification of Law in the United States, in Unification of Law, supra note 183, at 301, 309–311.Google Scholar

187. On the history see Asser, , L'unification du droit relatif à la lettre de change, [1913]Google ScholarGrotius International Year Book 99 (1913)Google Scholar, and references in Hudson, & Feller, , supra note 181, at 334–338.Google Scholar

188. On the 1910 Conference see Chalmers, , The Hague Conference on Bills of Exchange, 11 J. Soc. Comp. Legislation 278 (1910).Google Scholar

189. Articles 74–76. See Lorenzen, E., The Conflict of Laws Relating to Bills and Notes 251, 264 (1919).Google Scholar

190. Art. 74. Difficulties over this provision developed when use of the Uniform Law was considered at the Buenos Aires 1916 session of the International (Inter-American) High Commission on Uniform Legislation. See April 12, 1916 meeting, Alta Comisión Internacional de Legislación Uniforme, Buenos Aires 1916Google Scholar, Actas, Informes, Resoluciones y Documentación general 274, 290 (Buenos Aires 1916) English: Sen. Doc. No. 739, H.R. 1788, 64th Cong., 2d Sess. 101–113 (1916).

191. See Lorenzen, , supra note 189, at 17Google Scholar; Burdick, , International Bills of Exchange, 6 111. L. Rev. 421, 424–425 (1912).Google Scholar

191a. Internationale Vereinigung für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, Erste Hauptversammlung, Heidelberg, 09 3–9, 1911Google Scholar, Verhandlungen 271 (1912). 191b. At 282–283.

191c. At 283. Simons, maintained the position in his Hague Lectures of 1926Google Scholar: Simons, , La conception du droit international privé d'après la doctrine et la pratique en Allemagne, 16 Recueil des Cours 437, 480–83, 524–525 (1926).Google Scholar

191d. Baty at 270. Cf. Asser, supra note 178.

191e. Verhandlungen, supra note 191a, at 6, 14, 256.

192. Asser, who in 1911Google Scholar received the Nobel Peace Prize died in 1913. See Offerhaus, supra note 26.

193. International Law Association, Report of the 27th—Paris 1912—Conference 322 (1912).Google Scholar

194. See Asser, , Opening Address, Actes de la Conférence, supra note 140, at 26–27.Google Scholar

194a. Supra note 154.

194b. 5 Annuaire 46; opposed by Dicey, ibid.

195. International Law Association, Report of the 28th—Madrid 1913—Conference 548–554.Google Scholar And see id., Reports of the Executive Council for 1913–1914 and 1914–1915, embodying the Papers for the [cancelled] Hague 1914 Conference, 4–8 (1915).

196. International Law Association, Report of the 28th Conference 556–561.Google Scholar

196a. See Conférence parlementaire internationale du Commerce, Bruxelles (06) 1914Google Scholar, Compte Rendu des Séances (Brussels, 1914).

196b. At 29; Franck Report in appendix at 81.

196c. At 25, 26.

196d. At 31.

197. On the Bureau see Lobingier, , 58 A.B.A. Rep. 79 (1933).Google Scholar

198. See Nadelmann, , The Pennsylvania Bar and the Revival of Interest in Comparative Law, 50 Dickinson L. Rev. 352, 353–54 (1955).Google Scholar

199. At the 1907 Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association, held in Portland, Me., Lord Bryce made a report on the British Society of Comparative Legislation formed in 1894.Google Scholar 30 A.B.A. Rep. 1028 (1907). See Brown, , A Century of Comparative Law in England: 1869–1969, 19 Am. J. Comp. L. 232, 234 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

199a. Lorenzen, , supra note 151. See Book Review, 22 Harv. L. Rev. 621 (1909).Google Scholar

200. See Moore, J. B., The Pan American Financial Conference and the Inter-American High Commission, 14 Am. J. Int'l L. 343 (1920).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

201. See Alta Comisión, supra note 190.

202. Section VI on “International Law, Public Law and Jurisprudence”, Vol. 7 of the Proceedings of the Second Pan American Scientific Congress (1917).Google Scholar

203. Octavio, Rodrigo (1866–1944).Google Scholar See Necrology in 44 II Annuaire 565 (Valladão). Octavio had in 1910 published A Codificacão do Direito Internacional Privado (Rio de Janeiro).

204. Octavio, La Méthode pour la Codification du Droit International Privé, in 7 Proceedings, supra note 202, at 34, 39.

205. Id. at 604, also in 10 III. L. Rev. 385 (1916).

206. 4 Va. L. Rev. 423 (1917)Google Scholar, also in Wigmore, J. H., Problems of Law 105 (1920).Google Scholar

207. Report on “Unification of Law and American Participation” of the Committee on Inter-State Compacts, 1921 Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 299.

208. “If a world-conference has adopted a uniform code with American ideas left out, the legislatures of America will be obliged either to adopt it in its foreign shape moulded by the bargains of foreign powers among themselves, or to reject it and thus remain behind in the highroad of international unity, suffering all the disadvantages of diversity and conflict of laws”. Report, § 13(d), id. at 327, 328.

209. 29 Yale L. J. 497 (1920).

210. At 505.

211. International Law Association, Report of the 30th—The Hague 1921—Conference 16, 20 (1922).Google Scholar

211a. At 406.

212. See Anonymous (Jordan), La dénonciation des Conventions de La Haye du 12 juin 1902, 10 Revue de droit international privé 364 (1914)Google Scholar; Niboyet, Trois Jurisconsultes: Antoine Pillet + 1926, André Weiss + 1928, Camille Jordan + 1929, 24 id. 577, 579—80 (1929); Cassin, , La nouvelle conception du domicile dans le règlement des conflits de lois, 34 Recueil des Cours 659, 729 (1930)Google Scholar; cf. Gros. Entre deux Conférences sur le droit de la mer, in Hommage d'une génération de Juristes au Président Basdevant 237, 238 (1960)Google Scholar (Renault letter). Cf. de Winter, , Nationality or Domicile?, 128 Recueil des Cours 357, 378 (1969).Google Scholar

213. The documents are in Kosters, J. & Bellemans, F., Les Conventions de La Haye pour la codification du droit international privé 322–41 (1921).Google Scholar Cf. also Wolff, M., Private International Law 175 (2d ed. 1950)Google Scholar; von Overbeck, , L'application par le juge interne des conventions de droit international privé, 132 Recueil des Cours 1, 73 (1971).Google Scholar

213a. See Offerhaus, supra note 144, at 30.

214. Cassin, supra note 212.

215. Jitta, , La consolidation et l'extension de l'oeuvre des Conférences de La Haye pour la codification du droit international privé, 50 Revue 1 (1923).Google Scholar

215a. On Jitta's doctrinal views see Lorenzen, Book Review (Jitta, , The Renovation of International Law (1919), 29 Yale L. J. 700 (1920).Google Scholar Cf. Valladão, , Private International Law, Uniform LawGoogle Scholar, and Comparative Law, in XXth Century Comparative and Conflicts Law—Legal Essays in Honor of Hessel E. Yntema 98, 101 (Nadelmann, von Mehren, and Hazard, eds. 1961).

215b. International Law Association, Report of the 30th—The Hague 1921—Conference, Vol. I 354Google Scholar (judgments: Kosters & Suyling), 394 (bankruptcy: W. Valentine Ball).

215c. Id., Report of the 33rd—Stockholm 1924–Conference 458Google Scholar (E. Leslie Bur-gin), 467 (draft).

215d. Conférence Parlementaire Internationale du Commerce, Huitième Assemblée Plénière, Paris 1922, Compte Rendu des Séances 96, text of resolution at 113 (work on international convention, with bilateral conventions to be concluded in the meantime).

215e. See Avant-Projet de Convention sur la Faillite, [1923] II Revue Economique Internationale 561, 566–568.

215f. See Conférence Parlementaire Internationale du Commerce, Neuvième Assemblée Plénière, Prague 1923Google Scholar, Compte Rendu des Séances 29, 99–104Google Scholar (discussion).

215g. At 28. For the action of the Belgian Government see Note [1923] IV Revue Economique Internationale 393.

216. See Loder, , La cinquième Conférence de Droit International Privé, [1927]Google Scholar Grotius Annuaire International 1, 5.

217. Memorandum of Conversation between Undersecretary of State Joseph C. Grew and the Minister of the Netherlands on Oct. 6, 1925, National Archives, State Dept. Record Group 59, File 504.4 HI/8. Quoted in Nadelmann, , The United States Joins the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 30 Law & Contemp. Probl. 291, 294, n. 24 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reproduced in Nadelmann, , supra note 4, at. 99, 103, n. 24.Google Scholar

218. They were said to have been turned over to the Amer. Bar Association. No reference has been found in the ABA Reports.

219. Minor amendments had been proposed, none involving the subject of the extraterritorial effect of American or foreign bankruptcies. On the 1926 amendments to the Bankruptcy Act see McLaughlin, , Amendment of the Bankruptcy Act, 40 Harv. L. Rev. 341 et seq., 583 et seq. (1927).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

220. See Loder, Judge, supra note 216, at 5–6.Google Scholar

221. Actes de la cinquième Conférence de La Haye de Droit international privé 341; transl, in Nadelmann, supra note 124, at 94, Nadelmann, K. H. at 336.Google Scholar

222. Statement in Actes at 46; transl, in Nadelmann, at 328Google Scholar, Nadelmann, K. H. at 328.Google Scholar The same issue is likely to arise between the United Kingdom and the Common Market.

223. See Nadelmann, Ways to Unify Conflicts Rules, in de conflictu legum—Essays Presented to Kollewijn, R. D. and Offerhaus, J.349, 353 (1962).Google Scholar The same issue arose when the subject was once more taken up by the Hague Conference at the Tenth, 1964, session.

224. See International Law Association, Report of the 34th—Vienna 1926—Conference 482 (Bagge Committee Report), 509 (text of draft Convention); Conférence de La Haye de Droit international privé, Documents relatifs à la sixième (1928) session 469–472 (1929). Cf. Bagge, , Les conflits de lois en matière de vente de biens meubles corporels, 25 Recueil des Cours 127, 225 (1928).Google Scholar

225. “In view of the nonchalant attitude of 1925”. Loder, La sixième Conférence de Droit International Privé [1929] Grotius Annuaire International 7.

226. See Conférence de La Haye de droit international privé, Actes de la sixième (1928) session 416–20 (1928). See also Conférence de La Haye, , Documents relatifs à la huitième (1956)Google Scholar session at 187–203 (1957).

227. See Protocols I–II to Divorce Convention, id.

228. See de Winter, , supra note 212, at 379–80Google Scholar. And see von Overbeck, , Divers aspects de l'unification du droit international privé, spécialement en matière de succession, 104 Recueil des Cours 529, 561, 572, 580, 625 (text of 1925/1928 draft) (1961).Google Scholar

229. See Report Julliot de La Morandière, Actes de la sixième (1928) session 364–385; cf. de La Morandière, , La sixième Conférence de La Haye de Droit international privé, 55 Journal 281, 290–93 (1928)Google Scholar. And see Offerhaus, , supra note 144, at 44.Google Scholar

230. Draft and Report in Conférence de La Haye de Droit international privé, Documents relatifs à la septième (1951) session 4–29 (1952).

231. Text in French (without Report) in 7 Rabeis Zeitschrift 957 (1933). See also Gutzwiller, M. & Niederer, W., Beiträge zum Haager Internationalprivatrecht 11, 86 (1951).Google Scholar

232. The text appeared in appendix to Rabel, , International Sales Laws in Summer Institute on International and Comparative Law, University of Michigan Law School 1949, Lectures on the Conflict of Laws and International Contracts 34, 45–47 (1951).Google Scholar

232a. 27 Stat. 445 (1893), 46 U.S.C. § 190–195 (1958). See Knauth, A., The American Law of Ocean Bills of Lading 121 (4th ed. 1953)Google Scholar; Wheeler, , The Harter Act: Recent Legislation in the United States Respecting Bills of Lading, 33 Am. L. Rev. 801 (1899)Google Scholar. Cf. Gilmore, & Black, , supra note 178u, at 125.Google Scholar

232b. See, e.g., Comparative law study by Dor, ., supra note 178c, at 13.Google Scholar

232c. Text in International Law Association, Report of the 30th—The Hague 1921—Conference, Vol. II, at. 253.

232d. See Franck, , supra note 1780, at 30Google Scholar: Dor, , supra note 178c, at 20–22.Google Scholar

232e. See Yiannopoulos, A. N., Negligence Clauses in Ocean Bills of Lading 8, 28 et seq. (1926)Google Scholar. For the Protocol with amendments produced at the Diplomatic Conference held in Brussels in 1968 see Legendre, , La Conférence diplomatique de Bruxelles de 1968 (12e session—2e phase), 20 Droit Maritime Français 387 (1968) (text at 396)Google Scholar; Simon, & Hennebicq, , La modification de la Convention du 25 Aôt 1924 en matière de connaissement, 46 Revue de droit international et de droit comparé 10, 19 (Belgium 1969).Google Scholar

232f. 51 Stat. 233; T.S. No. 931, 2 Ch. Bevans, T. (ed.), U.S. Treaties and Other International Agreements 1776–1949 430 (1969).Google Scholar

232g. Table of Ratifications in Singh, supra note 178r, at 1086. Cf. Yiannopoulos, , supra note 178s, at 387.Google Scholar

232h. See Wilberforce, , The International Technical Committee of Experts on Air Law, 1 Int'l L.Q 498, 499 (1947)Google Scholar; Ide, , The History and Accomplishments of the International Technical Committee of Aerial Legal Experts (C.I.T.E.J.A.), 3 J. Air L. 27 (1932).Google Scholar

232i. See Drion, H., The Limitation of Liabilities in International Air Law (1954).Google Scholar

232j. See Sand, , The International Unification of Air Law, 30 Law & Contemp. Probl. 400, 405 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the revision of the Warsaw Convention by the Hague Protocol of 1955 see Calkins, , Hiking the Limits of Liability at The Hague, [1962] Proc. Am. Soc'y Int'l L. 120Google Scholar. On the steps taken thereafter by the United States see Lowenfeld, & Mendelsohn, , The United States and the Warsaw Convention, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 497, 509, 586, 596 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Cabranes, , Limitations of Liability in International Air Law: The Warsaw and Rome Conventions Revisited, 15 Int'l & Comp.; L.Q. 660 (1966).Google Scholar

232k. 49 Stat. 3000, T.S. No. 876, 2 Bevans, , supra note 232f, at 983.Google Scholar

233. Text in The International Conferences of American States 1889–1928 245 (J. B. Scott ed. 1931).Google Scholar

234. The Brazilian government submitted a draft prepared by Lafayette Pereira based on nationality. See Octavio, , L'Amérique et la codification du droit international privé, 25 Revue de droit international privé 633, 643 (1930).Google Scholar

235. See id. at. 643. On the compromise proposal by José Pedro Varela of Uruguay (domicile plus renvoi) see 2 (1) Alfonsín, Quintin, Sistema de Derecho Civil Internacional 59–61 (Montevideo 1961)Google Scholar. Cf. Bustamante y Sirven, La Nacionalidad y el domicilio, [1927] Revista de Derecho Internacional 32 (Cuba), French version in 22 Revue de droit international privé 375 (1927); Philonenko, , La théorie du renvoi quant à la loi applicable à la capacité des personnes dans le projet de Code de Droit International de l'Amérique Latine, 55 Journal 315 (1928).Google Scholar

236. See The International Conférences, supra note 233, at 245–247.

237. See Scott, , The Gradual and Progressive Codification of International Law, 21 Am. J. Int'l L. 417 et seq. (1927).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

238. See Bustamante, , The Progress of Codification under the Auspices of the Pan American Union, 20 Proceedings Am. Soc'y Int'l L. 108, 117–120 (1926).Google Scholar

239. See Bustamante y Sirven, La nationalité et le domicile, 22 Revue de droit international privé 375, 381 (1927).

239a. Cf. Bustamante, , The American Systems on the Conflict of Laws and their Reconciliation, 5 Tulane L. Rev. 537 (1931).Google Scholar

240. See Scott, , supra note 237, at 448–449Google Scholar; 1 International Commission of American Jurists, 1927 Meeting 183 (Rio de Janeiro 1928) (Jesse S. Reeves).

241. Text in The International Conferences, supra note 367, at 367; 4 M.O. Hudson, , International Legislation 2279 (1931)Google Scholar; 86 L.N.T.S. 111.

241a. Antonio Sanchez de Bustamante y Sirvén (1865–1951). See Schoenrich, , Dr. Antonio Sanchez de Bustamante, 45 Am. J. Int'l L. 746 (1951)Google Scholar; Necrology, , 44Google Scholar (2) Annuaire 539 (José Matos). Early writings are: Público, El Orden (1893)Google Scholar; Tratado de Derecho Internacional Privado (1896); La Autarquia Personal (1914).

242. See Diario de Sesiones de la VI Conferencia Internacional Americana 155 (first sess., Jan. 19, 1928), 183, 202, 203 (third, Jan. 25). See A.S. de Bustamante y Sirvén, El Código de Derecho Internacional Privado y la Sexta Conferencia Panamericana 72, 83 (1929).

243. See The International Conferences, supra note 233, 325 at 371; cf. Lorenzen, , The Pan American Code of Private International Law, 4 Tulane L. Rev. 499, 519–20 (1930)Google Scholar. But see Kuhn, A., Comparative Commentaries on Private International Law 62 (1937).Google Scholar

244. 23 Proceedings, Am. Soc'y Int'l L. 25, 33–36 (1929).

245. Id. at 39, 40.

246. Id. at 194, 195–96. Cf. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920)Google Scholar. See generally Henkin, , The Treaty and the Law Makers: The Law of the Land and Foreign Relations, 107 U. Pa. L. Rev. 903 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

247. Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Dominican Republic, Venezuela.

248. For a listing of all reservations see Comité Jurídico Interamericano, Documentación sobre la revisión del Código Bustamante 433, 465–71 (Pan Amer. Union, C.I.J. 190, 1967)Google Scholar; Abraham, J. Muci, Código de Derecho Internacional Privado (Codigo Bustamante) 37 (Caracas 1955).Google Scholar

249. See Comité Juridico Interamericano, supra note 248, at 470. Cf. Garcia, M., Calderon, K., Derecho Internacional Privado 25–26 (Lima 1969).Google Scholar

250. Cf. de Mattos, Belfort, L'expérience du Code Bustamante et des Traités de Montevideo en Amérique Latine, [1947–1948] Bull. Sté de Législation Comparée 681, 687, 693Google Scholar; Couture & Alfonsin, L'expérience des Traités de Montevideo, id. at 695; discussion (Batiffol) at 853, 854.

251. Segundo Congreso Sudamericano de Derecho Internacional Privado, Acta Final (2d ed. Montevideo 1940)Google Scholar; transl. 37 Am. J. Int'l L. Supp. 109–151 (1943).

252. See Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Derecho, Instituto Argentino de Derecho Internacional, ed., Segundo Congreso Sudamericano de Derecho Internacional Privado de Montevideo 290 (1940).

253. See Pan American Union, supra note 119Google Scholar, F-13 to F18.

254. See Bustamante, José L.i Rivero, El Tratado de Derecho Civil Internacional de 1940, 21–24, 154 (Montevideo 1942).Google Scholar

255. Text of Resolution, The International Conferences of American States, First Supplement 1933–1940, 74 (1940).

256. Text in 161 U.N.T.S. 229, 8 Hudson, , supra note 241, 449 (1949).Google Scholar

257. See Pan American Union, supra note 119Google Scholar, C-6.

258. T.S. No. 982, 56 Stat. 1377 (1942). See Eder, , Powers of Attorney in International Practice, 98 U. Pa. L. Rev. 840, 862 (1950).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

259. Text in 161 U.N.T.S. 217, 7 Hudson, , supra note 241, at 355 (1941).Google Scholar

260. See Pan American Union, supra note 199 C–5.Google Scholar

261. See Lombard, R., American-Venezuelan Private International Law 72 (1965).Google Scholar

262. T.S. No. 973, 55 Stat. 1201 (1941).

263. See Hellner, , Unification of Law in Scandinavia, 16 Am. J. Comp. L. 88 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; von Eyben, , Inter-Nordic Legislative Cooperation, in 6 Scandinavian Studies in Law 63 (1962).Google Scholar

264. See 1 Rabel, , supra note 150, at 34–35Google Scholar; Eek, H., The Swedish Conflict of Laws 20–21 (1965)Google Scholar. The Conventions have since been denounced by Sweden.

265. See Philip, A., American-Danish Private International Law 18 (1957)Google Scholar; Philip, A., Dansk international privat-og procesret 132 (1971).Google Scholar

266. See Nial, H., American-Swedish Private International Law 20–21 (1965)Google Scholar; Schmidt, Polke, Nationality and Domicile in Sweden, 4 Int'l L.Q. 39, 43 (1951).Google Scholar

267. See Schmidt, Folke at 39.Google Scholar

268. See Philip, , The Scandinavian Conventions on Private International Law, 96 Recueil des Cours 245, 252 (1959).Google Scholar

268a. See Check-List of Treaties 3: Nordic Countries, 21 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 385, 386 (1972).

269. 126 L.N.T.S. 141; 5 Hudson, , supra note 241, at 877 (1936).Google Scholar

270. 202 L.N.T.S. 241.

271. 126 L.N.T.S. 51; 5 Hudson, , supra note 241, at 885 (1936).Google Scholar

272. 470 U.N.T.S. 44; 3 Treaties of Norway (1956–1967), No. 853 (1968).Google Scholar

273. 139 L.N.T.S. 181; 6 Hudson, , supra note 241, at 6 (1937).Google Scholar

274. 155 L.N.T.S. 133; 6 Hudson at 496.

275. 164 L.N.T.S. 279, 6 Hudson at 947.

275a. 324 U.N.T.S. 104.

276. See Philip, , supra note 268, at 272–4, 279Google Scholar (Marriage Convention: 2 years), 307–308 (Succession: 5 years); Schmidt, Polke, supra note 266, at 44–45.Google Scholar

277. See Schmidt, Folke, supra note 266, at 47Google Scholar; Eek, , Conflict of Laws in Swedish Courts, 20 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 605, 618 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

278. 27 L.N.T.S. 157; 2 Hudson, , supra note 241, at 1062 (1931).Google Scholar

279. See Lorenzen, , Commercial Arbitration—International and Interstate Aspects, 43 Yale L.J. 716, 750–751 (1934).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

280. See United Nations, Multilateral Treaties, List of Signatures, Ratifications, Accessions, etc. as at 31 Dec. 1970, 400.

281. 92 L.N.T.S. 301; 3 Hudson, , supra note 241, at 2153 (1931)Google Scholar. See Nussbaum, , Treaties on Commercial Arbitration—A Test of International Private-Law Legislation, 56 Harv. L. Rev. 219, 221–22 (1942).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

282. See United Nations, supra note 280, at 403.Google Scholar

283. See Draft of Protocol on Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, With Report (L.N. Publications II: Econ. and Financial No. 44 (1927) (B. H. Conner).

284. See Hudson, & Feller, , supra note 181, at 343.Google Scholar

285. See Geneva Committee Report in I. Percerou & Bouteron, J., La nouvelle législation française et internationale de la lettre de change, du billet à ordre et du chèque 325, 326, 328 (1937)Google Scholar. Cf. Nadelmann, , Uniform Legislation versus International Conventions Revisited, 16 Am. J. Comp. L. 28, 43, n. 104 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reproduced in Nadelmann, K. H., supra note 4, at 141, 157, n. 104.Google Scholar

286. International Conference for the Unification of the Law of Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes and Cheques, Preparatory Documents (L.N. Publications II: Econ. & Financial No. 28, 100 (1929). Full text in Nadelmann, , Ignored State Interests: The Federal Government and International Efforts to Unify Rules of Private Law, 102 U. Pa. L. Rev. 323, 343 (1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

287. 143 L.N.T.S. 257, 5 Hudson, , supra note 241 at 516 (1936).Google Scholar

288. See Hudson, & Feller, , supra note 181Google Scholar; Gutteridge, , The Unification of the Law of Bills of Exchange, 12 [1931] Br. Ybk Int'l L. 13 (1931)Google Scholar; Hamel, , The Geneva Conventions on Negotiable Instruments, in International Institute, supra note 318, at 271.Google Scholar

289. 143 L.N.T.S. 317, 5 Hudson, , supra note 241, at 550 (1936).Google Scholar

290. See Hudson, & Feller, , supra note 181, at 370Google Scholar; Gutteridge, , The Unification of the Rules of Conflict relating to Negotiable Instruments, 16 J. Comp. Leg. & Int'l L. (3rd Ser.) 53 (1934)Google Scholar; cf. 4 Rabel, , supra note 150, at 130, 174, 224 (1958).Google Scholar

291. Convention on the Stamp Laws in Connection with Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, 143 L.N.T.S. 337; 5 Hudson, , supra note 241, at 560.Google Scholar

292. 143 L.N.T.S. 355; 5 Hudson, , supra note 241, at 889Google Scholar. See Feller, , The International Unification of the Law of Checks, 45 Harv. L. Rev. 668 (1932).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

293. 143 L.N.T.S. 407; 5 Hudson, , supra note 241, at 915Google Scholar, See Feller, , supra note 292, at 692.Google Scholar

294. 143 L.N.T.S. 7; 5 Hudson at 925.

294a. For Latin America see Study “Draft Convention on Bills of Exchange and Checks of International Circulation, in Work Accomplished by the Inter-American Juridical Committee during its regular Meeting held March/April 1971 62, 72 (Pan American Union 1971, CJI-4).

295. See United Nations, supra note 280, at 405, 407, 413.Google Scholar

296. At 406, 410, 415.

297. See von Caemmerer, , The Problem of the Unification of Private Law in Europe, 36 U. Colo. L. Rev. 307, 309–14 (1964)Google Scholar. Cf. Lagarde, , Les interprétations divergentes d'une loi uniforme donnent-elles lieu à un conflit de lois, 53 Revue critique de droit international privé 235 (1964).Google Scholar

298. See British Treaty Series, No. 14 (1934), Cmd. 4594; No. 26 (1933), Cmd. 4443.

299. See, generally, Hudson, , The First Conference for the Codification of International Law, 24 Am. J. Int'l L. 447 (1930).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

300. 178 L.N.T.S. 89; 5 Hudson, , supra note 241, at 359 (1936)Google Scholar; 23 Am. J. Int'l L. Supp. 192 (1930). See Flournoy, , Nationality Convention, Protocols and Recommendations Adopted by the First Conference on the Codification of International Law, 24 Am. J. Int'l L. 467 (1930)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Millar, , The Hague Codification Conference, 24Google Scholarid. at 674, 678–86.

301. See 8 Whiteman, M., Digest of International Law 81 (1967)Google Scholar. United Nations, supra note 280, at 397.Google Scholar

302. T.S. No. 913, 50 Stat. 1317 (1937); 178 L.N.T.S. 277, 5 Hudson, , supra note 241, at 374Google Scholar, 24 An. I. Int'l L. Supp. 201 (1930). See 8 Whiteman, , supra note 301, at 561Google Scholar. United Nations, supra note 280, at 399.Google Scholar

303. Protocol relating to a Certain Case of Statelessness, 179 L.N.T.S. 115, 5 Hudson, , supra note 241, at 381Google Scholar, 24 Am. J. Intl L. Supp. 206 (1930). Special Protocol concerning Statelessness, 5 Hudson, at 387, 24 Am. J. Int'l L. Supp. 211 (1930).Google Scholar

304. The Protocol. See United Nations, supra note 280, at 396.Google Scholar

305. See 24 Société d'Etudes Législatives, Bull. 319 (Report), 339 (Draft), 344 (discussion) (1928).

306. Niboyet, , Les modifications à apporter au statut des Français en pays étranger et des étrangers en France, 24 Revue de droit international privé 193 (1929)Google Scholar. Discussed in 26 Société d'Etudes Législatives, Bull. 76–95, 161–170, 175–77 (final draft) (1930). Cf. Niboyet, , La codification du droit international, 60 Bull. Sté. de Lég. Comp. 331, 343, 489, 490–91 (1931).Google Scholar

307. See Comité Français de Droit International Privé, Travaux 21–66 (1934).

308. Text reproduced in 6 [1938–39] Travaux du Comité Français de Droit International Privé 67, 69 (1946); cf. Note, 36 Revue critique de droit international privé 345–46 (1946). See also 3 Niboyet, J. P., Traité de Droit International Privé Français 212 (1944).Google Scholar

308a. The issue arose acutely when, after the war, it was decided to revise the Civil Code and codification of the rules of private international law was attempted, Niboyet becoming draftsman for the part on private international law. The draft law of 1949/1960 had an article 27: “Status and capacity of persons are governed by their national law. However, status and capacity of foreign nationals who have had their domicile in France for more than five years are governed by French law”. See Nadelmann, & von Mehren, , Codification of French Conflicts Law—Draft Law on Private International Law, 1 Am. J. Comp. L, 404, 416 at 427 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the discussion in Committee of the respective merits of nationality and domicile see [1949–1950] Travaux de la Commission de Réforme du Code Civil 562–65 (1950).

During the same period the problem was broached also in the Institut when, at the Bath 1950 and Sienna 1952 sessions, it considered possible influences of demographic conditions on conflict of laws. Niboyet took part in the discussion at Bath. See 43 I Annuaire [1950] 523, 532–34. He died early in 1952. Necrologies of Niboyet (1886–1952): 44 II Annuaire 555 (Batiffol), 1 Am. J. Comp. L. 197 (1952) (Delaume).

The “five year rule” exception of the “Niboyet” draft does not reappear in the “third” French draft of a Law on Private International Law produced by a new committee with Professor Batiffol as principal draftsman. Text in Nadelmann, & von Mehren, , A French Draft of a Law on Private International Law, 18 Am. J. Comp. L. 614 (1970) (art. 2290)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. 2 Batiffol, H., Droit International Privé 5–10 (5th ed. with P. Lagarde).Google Scholar

308b. 6 Travaux, , supra note 308, at 72.Google Scholar

309. Kollewijn, , Ontaarding van bet nationaliteitsbeginsel in het moderne internationaal privaatrecht (Batavia 1929). De Nova transl, in 13 Diritto Internazionale I 508 (1959).Google Scholar

310. Discussed in de Winter, , Nationality or Domicile?, 128 Recueil des Cours 347, 380 (1969) (other references at 406–07).Google Scholar

311. Cassin, , Une nouvelle conception du domicile dans le règlement des conflits de lois, 34 Recueil des Courts 657, 737–72 (1930)Google Scholar; cf. Barbosa de Magalhães, La doctrine du domicile en droit international privé, 23 id. 5 (1928).

312. See 10 [1888–89] Annuaire 103–04; Institut de Droit International, supra note 184, at 281.Google Scholar

313. See 35 II [1929] Annuaire 354.

314. See 36 II Annuaire 354.

315. Resolution at 237; Institut de Droit International, supra note 184, at 279–80.Google Scholar

316. See 37 Annuaire 425–478; Reports at 186–234.

317. 37 Annuaire at 566; Institut de Droit International, supra note 184, at 280–81 (Resolution, art. 1).Google Scholar

318. Meijers, , Het vraagstuk der herverwijzing, Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notaris-ambt en Registratie, Nos. 3555–58, 02 12, 19, 25, March 5, 1938Google Scholar, reprinted in 2 E. M. Meijers, Verzamelde Privaatrechtelijke Opstellen 366, 396 (1955). French version, “La question du renvoi”, in 38 Bulletin de l'Institut Juridique International 191, 223–24 (1938).Google Scholar

318a. See Offerhaus, , The Seventh Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 79 Journal 1071, 1125 (1952).Google Scholar

319. See Offerhaus, , Eduard Maurits Meijers (1880–1954), 3 Am. J. Comp. L. 625 (1954).Google Scholar

320. See drafts of a Convention on Renvoi, Conférence de La Haye de D.I.P., Actes de la septième (1951) session 210, Documents at 44.

321. For the history see International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, Unification of Law 15 (1948); cf. Wigmore, , The Movement for International Assimilation of Private Law: Recent Phases, 20 Ill. L. Rev. 42, 48, 56 (1925).Google Scholar

322. See Gutteridge, , An International Code of the Law of Sales, 14 [1933] Br. Ybk Int'l L. 75 (1933).Google Scholar

323. Id. at 82.

324. See Note, International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, 17 [1936] Br. Ybk Int'l L. 190, 191.

325. Text in International Institute, supra note 318, at 103. See Rabel, A Draft of a Uniform Law concerning International Sales of Goods, id. at 57.

326. Rabel, , A Draft of an International Law of Sales, 5 U. Chi. L. Rev. 543 (1938)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in 3 Rabel, E., Gesammelte Aufsätze 613 (Leser ed. 1967)Google Scholar. Cf. Rabel, , The Sales Law in the Proposed Commercial Code, 17 U. Chi. L. Rev. 427 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in 3 Rabel at 702; Rabel, , International Sales Law, in Summer Institute, supra note 232, at 34, 38–44Google Scholar, reprinted in 3 Rabel at 719, 724–29.

327. Text in International Institute, supra note 318, at 103.Google Scholar

328. Id. at 213.

329. See Yntema, , The American Journal of Comparative Law, 1 Am. J. Comp. L. 11, 16–17 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bolgar, , The American Journal of Comparative Law 1952–1966, 15Google Scholarid. 21 (1967).

329a. Yntema, Hessel E. (1891–1966), Memorial Resolution by the Law School Faculty, 64 Mich. L. Rev. 977 (1966).Google Scholar

330. See Report of the Inter-American Juridical Committee, in 1949 Inter-American Juridical Yearbook 320, 324 (1950).Google Scholar

331. See Garland, P., American-Brazilian Private International Law 25 (1959)Google Scholar; Valladão, H., Direito Internacional Privado 187 (3rd ed. 1971)Google Scholar. Cf. Gallardo, , The Law of Domicile—A Remarkable Connecting Link in Latin-American Conflict of Laws, 2 Inter-American L. Rev. 64 (1960).Google Scholar

332. Some of the difficulties which arose were discussed in Nadelmann, , A New Report of the Inter-American Juridical Committee on Revision of the Bustamante Code, 53 Am. J. Int'l L. 652 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nadelmann, , The Question of Revision of the Bustamante Code, 57Google Scholarid. 384 (1963).

333. The most recent stages are covered in Nadelmann, , The Need for Revision of the Bustamante Code on Private International Law, 65 Am. J. Int'l L. 782, 792 (1971).Google Scholar

334. See Zanotti, , Regional and International Activities, 3 Lawyer of the Americas 563, 569–70 (1971).Google Scholar

335. In 1968, the Inter-American Juridical Committee produced a draft of a Convention on the Mutual Recognition of Corporations. See Nadelmann, supra note 333, at 785.

335a. In particular, the law of international commercial arbitration. The draft of a Uniform Law on International Commercial Arbitration was approved at the Third Meeting, Mexico City, 1956, of the Inter-American Council of Jurists. See Castilla, J. J. Caicedo, The Work of the Inter-American Juridical Committee 88 (Pan American Union 1964)Google Scholar. In 1967, the Inter-American Juridical Committee produced a draft of an Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration. See Work Accomplished by the Inter-American Juridical Committee during its 1967 Regular Meeting 51 (Pan American Union, 1967, CIJ–91).

336. The Memorandum is in Conférence de La Haye de Droit international privé. Documents relatifs à la septième session 1–3 (1952).

337. Permanency had been recommended by Asser as early as 1902 in a report to the Institut de Droit International. See 19 Annuaire 338, 345 (1902).

338. 220 U.N.T.S. 121; T.I.A.S. No. 5710 (1964); 60 Am. J. Int'l L. 461 (1966).

338a. Text in 1 Am. J. Comp. L. 275 (1952)Google Scholar. See Offerhaus, , The Seventh Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 70 Journal 1107 (1952)Google Scholar; Cheshire, and Wortley, , The 1951 Hague Conference on Private International Law, 38 Grotius Soc'y Transactions [for 1952] 25 (1953)Google Scholar. For writings in other languages see Bibliography in Conférence de la Haye de Droit international privé, Actes et Documents de la onzième session, vol. I: Matières diverses 123–44 (1971).

339. Offerhaus, Johannes (1892–1966), Notice in 15 Am. J. Comp. L. 415 (1967) (Nadelmann).Google Scholar

340. See Nadelmann, , supra note 217, at 297, 304Google Scholar; Nadelmann, K. H., supra note 4, at 105, 114.Google Scholar

340a. See 19 Am. J. Comp. L. 587 (1971) (today incomplete).

341. Texts in 5 Am. J. Comp. L. 650 (1956)Google Scholar. See Amram, , A Unique Organization: The Conference on Private International Law, 43 A.B.A.J. 809 (1957)Google Scholar; Barrett, , Report, in National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1957 Handbook 299, 303 (1958)Google Scholar; Nadelmann, , The United States at the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 51 Am. J. Int'l L. 618 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reese, , Some Observations on the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 5 Am. J. Comp. L. 611 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. And see Bibliography, supra note 338a.

341a. Texts in 9 Am. J. Comp. L. 701 (1960)Google Scholar. See Graveson, , The Ninth Conference of Private International Law, 10 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 18 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dezendorf, , The Ninth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 47 A.B.A.J. 909 (1961)Google Scholar; Nadelmann, , The Hague Conference on Private International Law: Ninth Session, 9 Am. J. Comp. L. 583 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reese, , The Ninth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 55 Am. J. Int'l L. 447 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barrett, & Dezendorf, , Report on Ninth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 1961 Handbook of the Commissioners 71 (1962). And see Bibliography, supra note 338a.Google Scholar

341b. Case concerning the Application of the Convention of 1902 governing the Guardianship of Infants (Netherlands v. Sweden), I.C.J. Reports, 1958, 55, 53 Am. J. Int'l L. 436 (1959), 87 Journal 209 (1960). See de Winter, , supra note 310, at 414Google Scholar; von Overbeck, supra note 213, at 56.Google Scholar

341c. Texts in 13 Am. J. Comp. L. 615 (1964)Google Scholar. See Report of the U.S. Delegation to the 10th Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 52 Dep't State Bull. 265 (1965)Google Scholar: Amram, , Report on the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 59 Am. J. Int'l L. 205 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Nadelmann, & Reese, , The Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 13 Am. J. Comp. L. 612 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Graveson, , The Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 14 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 528 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. And see Bibliography, supra note 338a.

341d. T.I.A.S. No. 6638.

341e. Text in 15 Am. J. Comp. L. 362 (1967)Google Scholar. See Nadelmann, & von Mehren, , The Extraordinary Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 60 Am. J. Int'l L. 803 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

341f. Text in 15 Am. J. Comp. L. 369 (1966)Google Scholar. See de Winter, , Excessive Jurisdiction in Private International Law, 17 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 706 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

341g. See Resolution, 16 Am. J. Comp. L. 602 (1968)Google Scholar. Newman, , The Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, 18 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 652–53 (1969)Google Scholar. Bibliography, supra note 338a. Cf. Nadelmann, , The Common Market Judgments Convention and a Hague Conference Recommendation: What Steps Next?, 82 Harv. L. Rev. 1282 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

341h. Text in 16 Am. J. Comp. L. 582 (1968). See Graveson, , Newman, , Anton, & Edwards, , The Eleventh Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 18 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 618 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Report of the U.S. Delegation to the Eleventh Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 8 Int'l Legal Materials 785 (1969); Amram, , Report on the Eleventh Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 65 Am. J. Int'l L. 215 (1969)Google Scholar; von Mehren, , Reese, & Nadelmann, , The Eleventh Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 16 Am. J. Comp. L. 580 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Nadelmann, , Book Review, 66 Am. J. Int'l L. 219 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. And see Bibliography, supra note 338a.

341i. See Vitta, , International Conventions and National Conflicts Systems, 126 Recueil des Cours 113, 169, 176–177 (1969).Google Scholar

342. See Rabel, , The Hague Conference on Unification of Sales Law, 1 Am. J. Comp. L. 58 (1952).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

343. Ernst Rabel (1874–1955) was the Rome Institute's representative on the Committee. On Rabel see Rheinstein, , In memory of Ernst Rabel, 5 Am. J. Comp. L. 185 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

344. Cf. Kearney, , Progress Report—International Unification on Private Law, 23 The Record Ass'n Bar City N.Y. 220, 224–25 (1968).Google Scholar

345. Text of both Conventions in 13 Am. J. Comp. L. 453, 472 (1964); 30 Law & Contemp. Probl. 425, 451 (1965). See Honnold, , The Uniform Law for the International Sale of Goods, The Hague Convention of 1964, 30 Law & Contemp. Probl. 327 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

346. Involved is art. 2 of the Uniform Law of the principal Convention. The literature on art. 2 is collected in Nadelmann, , Uniform Legislation Versus International Conventions Revisited, 16 Am. J. Comp. L. 28, 37, n. 60 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reproduced in Nadelmann, K. H., supra note 4, at 141, 151, n. 60Google Scholar. Also in 1967–1968 Year-Book “Unification of Law”, Vol. II, 173, 182, n. 60.Google Scholar

347. Involved are the reservations allowed by Article III, IV, and V of the principal Convention, supra note 345. The nations which have ratified the Hague Conference Convention of June 15, 1955 on the Law Governing International Sales of Goods are Belgium, France, and Italy, and Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

348. See Graveson, R. H., Cohn, E. J., and Graveson, Diana, The Uniform Laws on International Sales Act 1967, Preface v (1968).Google Scholar

349. See Carey, , Uncitral: Its Origins and Prospects, 15 Am. J. Comp. L. 626 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

350. See Contini, , The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (Uncitral), 16 Am. J. Comp. L. 666, 672 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

351. See UNCITRAL 1 Yearbook 1968–70 176 (1971).

352. Id. at 239–258. See Farnsworth, , UNCITRAL—Why? What? How? Where?, 20 Am. J. Comp. L. 314, 316 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

353. See Contini, , The United Nations Draft Convention on Maintenance Claims, 3 Am. J. Comp. L. 543, 546–50 (1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

354. 9c Uniform Laws Ann. 38:1957 Pocket Part) (Act of 1952 as amended in 1958). See Brockelbank, W. J., Interstate Enforcement of Family Support (1960).Google Scholar

355. 286 U.N.T.S. 32, [1956] 1 Unification of Law Year-Book 255. See Contini, , United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance, 31 St. John's L. Rev. 1 (1956) (Convention text at 40).Google Scholar

356. See statement of U.S. representative, Econ. & Social Council, 19th sess., 849th meeting, May 17, 1955, 73, 75.

357. United Nations, supra note 280, at 359Google Scholar (among them all Scandinavia, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Yugoslavia).

357a. Art. 11, to be read with art. 18. See Contini, supra note 355, at 35.

357b. 1968 Act, § 2(m). [1968] Handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 112, 223, 225 (text). See Brockelbank, , supra note 354. 91–92, 139Google Scholar (2d ed. by F. Infausto 1971).

358. 119 U.N.T.S. 99. Protocol of Jan. 16, 1957 extending validity, 225 U.N.T.S. 392. Ratifications, United Nations, supra note 280, at 315–18.Google Scholar

359. 189 U.N.T.S. 137. See 8 Whiteman, , supra note 301, at 695Google Scholar. United Nations, supra note 280, at 89.Google Scholar

360. 606 U.N.T.S. 258, 63 Am. J. Int'l L. 385 (1969). United Nations, supra note 280, at 109.Google Scholar

361. T.I.A.S. No. 6577 (1969).

362. 360 U.N.T.S. 117. See United Nations, supra note 280, at 100.Google Scholar

363. 193 U.N.T.S. 135.

364. 309 U.N.T.S. 65.

365. 521 U.N.T.S. 231, [1962] Unification of Law Year-Book 297.

366. United Nations, supra note 280, at 328Google Scholar (signed by U.S. with “understanding that legislation in force in the states in conform with the Convention”).

367. 330 U.N.T.S. 3, 53 Am. J. Int'l L. 420 (1959). See Domke, , The United Nations Conference on International Commercial Arbitration, 53Google Scholarid. at 414.

368. See ABA Section of Int'l & Comp. L. [1960] Proceedings 194, 253 (App. G). Cf. Quigly, , Accession by the United States to the U.N. Convention of the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, 70 Yale L.J. 1049 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

369. See analysis in Contini, , U.N. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 8 Am. J. Comp. L. 283 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

370. See United Nations, supra note 280, at 381.Google Scholar

371. See Springer, , The U.N. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, 3 International Lawyer 320, 321, 327 (1969).Google Scholar

372. 85 Stat. 692, 9 U.S.C., § 201 (1970), 19 Am. J. Comp. L. 584 (1971). See Domke, , The United States Implementation of the United Nations Arbitral Convention, 19Google Scholarid. at 574.

373. T.I.A.S. No. 6997. See Aksen, , American Arbitration Accession Arrives in the Age of Aquarius: United States Implements U.N. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, in New Strategies for Peaceful Resolution of International Business Disputes 37Google Scholar (Am. Arb. Ass'n ed. 1971).

374. Cf. Domke, , supra note 372, at 579.Google Scholar

375. 484 U.N.T.S. 349, [1961] Unification of Law Year-Book 409. See Benjamin, , The European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, 37 Br. Ybk Int'l L. 478 (1961).Google Scholar

376. See United Nations, supra note 280, at 385.Google Scholar

377. 575 U.N.T.S. 159, 60 Am. J. Int'l L. 892 (1966). See Szasz, , Arbitration under the Auspices of the World Bank, 3 Int'l Lawyer 312 (1969)Google Scholar; Broches, , The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States: Applicable Law and Default Procedure, in International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum for Martin Domke 12 (1967).Google Scholar

378. T.I.A.S., No. 6090.

379. See Hay, , Preface to The International Unification of Law—Symposium, 16 Am. J. Comp. L. 1–3 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

380. See Council of Europe, Secretariat, Manual of the Council of Europe 243 (1970). Cf. Baade, , The Council of Europe: Its Activities Relating to Law, 15 Am. J. Comp. L. 639, (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krüger, , The Council of Europe and Unification of Private Law, 16Google Scholarid. 127 (1968).

381. Agreement of December 13, 1955, Conférence de la Haye de Droit International Privé, Documents relatifs à la huitième [1956] session 228.

382. See annual reports in the Rome Institute Unification of Law Year-Book.

383. See references supra note 380. For ratifications see Council of Europe, Directorate of Legal Affairs, Status of Signatures and Ratifications of Convention (1971); Check-List of Treaty Series—1: Council of Europe, 20 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 775 (1971).

384. See Nadelmann, , Introducing the Forum on “The United States and International Unification of Law”, 15 Am. J. Comp. L. 622, 626 (1967).Google Scholar

384a. See Manual, supra note 380, at 243–45.

385. Convention of Nov. 4, 1960, 213 U.N.T.S. 222; 1 Council of Europe, European Conventions and Agreements 1949–1961 f. 21 (1971). See Manual of the Council, supra note 380, at 261; Buergenthal, , Human Rights: The European Convention and its National Application—Some Introductory Observations, 18 Am. J. Comp. L. 233 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

386. Convention, art. 6(1). See Fawcett, J., The Application of the European Convention on Human Rights 121, 137, 155 (1969)Google Scholar. Cf. Nadelmann, , Due Process of Law Before the European Court of Human Rights: The Secret Deliberation, 66 Am. J. Int'l L. 509 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

387. Started by a Protocol of Sept. 25, 1950. The current members are Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Turkey. Agreement with Council of Europe of Oct. 28, 1955.

388. Text in French in [1967–68] Unification of Law Year-Book, Vol. I, 310; Conférence de La Haye de Droit International Privé, Actes et Documents de la onzième—1968—session, Vol. II: Divorce 86 (1970).

389. See van Damme, Benelux and its Relationship with EEC, in Legal Problems of an Enlarged European Community 182 (1972).

389a. See Limpens, J. & Limpens, A., Problèmes actuels du rapprochement régional des droit nationaux: Expérience Benelux et considérations générales, 46 Revue de droit international et de droit comparé 217 (Belgium 1969)Google Scholar. Benelux Checklist of Treaty Series, 21 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 189 (1972).

390. Text in 3 Unification of Law Year-Book 690 (1954); Kollewijn, R. D., American-Dutch Private International Law 99 (2d ed. 1961)Google Scholar. See Meijers, , The Benelux Convention on Private International Law, 2 Am. J. Comp. L. 1 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, also in 2 Meijers, E. M., Verzamelde Privaatrechtelijke Opstellen 400 (1955).Google Scholar

391. Transl, in 18 Am. J. Comp. L. 420 (1970). See Nadelmann, , The Benelux Convention on Private International Law, 18Google Scholarid. at 406 (1970).

392. Nadelmann at 414.

393. [1961] Tractatenblad No. 163 (Netherlands); Moniteur Belge, Nov. 28, 1963.

394. Treaty of Rome, March 25, 1957, art. 220, 298 U.N.T.S. 87, 51 Am. J. Int'l L. 930 (1957).

395. Text in [1969] Unification of Law Year-Book 210. See Goldman, , The Convention on the Mutual Recognition of Companies and Legal Persons, 6 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 104 (1968).Google Scholar

396. French text in 7 Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 215 (1951). Transl, in 2 CCH Common Mkt. Rep. § 6003 (1968). See Hay, , The Common Market Preliminary Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments, 16 Am. J. Comp. L. 149 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Newman, Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments in the European Economic Community, in Legal Problems, supra note 389, at 58.

396a. Protocols signed in Luxemburg, June 3, 1971, 98 Journal 803 (1971) (Judgments), 7 Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 862 (Corporations), 865 (Judgments) (1971). See Communautés Européennes, Cinquième Rapport Général sur l'activité des Communautés 1971 473 (1972).

397. French text in Les Problèmes internationaux de la faillite et le Marché Commun 263 (Padova 1971). Discussed in Nadelmann, The Common Market Bankruptcy Convention Draft: Foreign Assets and Related Problems, in Nadelmann, K. H., supra note 4, at 340Google Scholar. And see Ganshof, , L'élaboration d'un droit européen de la faillite dans le cadre de la C.E.E., 7 Cahiers de droit européen 145 (1971).Google Scholar

398. See Nadelmann, , Jurisdictionally Improper Fora in Treaties on Recognition of Judgments: The Common Market Draft, 67 Colum. L. Rev. 995, 1000 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reproduced in Nadelmann, , supra note 4, at 238, 243, 268Google Scholar. Cf. de Winter, , Excessive Jurisdiction in Private International Law, 17 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 706, 714 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kearney, , supra note 344, at 230Google Scholar. And see Nadelmann, , The Common Market Judgments Convention and A Hague Conference Recommendation: What Steps Next? 82 Harv. L. Rev. 1282 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in 116 Cong. Rec. E 1334 (Feb. 25,1970).

399. See H.R. 16175, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970); transl, in 6 Cahiers de droit européen 353 (1970). Cf. Homburger, , Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments—An Addendum, 18 Am. J. Comp. L. 840 (1970).Google Scholar

400. Treaty of Sept. 27, 1968, supra note 396, art. 59. See G. Droz. Compétence judiciaire et effets des jugements dans le Marché Commun 433 (1972).

401. Treaty, art. 63. See Nadelmann, , Book Review (Droz), 66 Am. J. Int'l L. 887, 890 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

402. See European Communities, Commission, Fourth General Report on the Activities of the Communities 61 (§ 71) (1970).

402a. Statement reproduced in 21 Am. J. Comp. L. 136, 138, note (1973).

403. See Final Act, C: Decisions, 1 (d), 21 Am. J. Comp. L. 136, 163 (1973).

404. C: Decisions, 1 (e), id.

405. See, notably, 1972 draft Convention on the International Administration of Estates of Deceased Persons, art. 3 (five years habitual residence), art. 4 (professio juris), 3 Final Act, A I, 21 Am. J. Comp. L. 139, 141 (1973).