Conflict Of Laws Rules Research Articles

Compagnie Européenne des Pétroles SA v. Sensor Nederland BV

98Jurisdiction — Extraterritorial — Legislation — Foreign companies owned or controlled by United States companies — Whether United States President has power to enforce export embargo against companies outside the United States — Exceptions under international law to prohibition on extraterritorial exercise of jurisdiction — Scope of exceptions — Nationality principle — Protective principle — National interest — Effects doctrine — Conflict of laws rules — Whether requiring application of United States law by municipal courts in forum StateEconomics, trade and finance — Export embargo — Whether enforceable against companies outside legislating State — The law of the Netherlands

Perspectives canadiennes de droit international public et privé relatives à la maîtrise du territoire

SummaryState sovereignty manifests itself through all the powers a state exercises over its territory: it is one of the basic components of sovereignty according to international law. Sovereign power involves controlling territory with a degree of efficiency sufficient to prove the existence of the state. But according to some, state sovereignty has now become less and less a matter of territorial control, and international law is now witnessing an erosion of the significance of territory. While the author admits the plausibility of this opinion when applied to states belonging to closely linked economic unions as the EEC, he challenges this statement when applied to Canada, even given the framework of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. In Part I, this article gives a full account of the Canadian positions dealing with legally valid acquisition of territories through effective control and other means. It points out how Canada has been coherently committed to protect its territorial sovereignty in all the border and territorial disputes in which it was and is still involved. It explores how this country deliberately also committed itself to effectively controlling its vast terrestrial, aerial, and maritime territories.From this perspective, the author exposes in Part II the rather protective Canadian legal attitude when dealing with private international interests in Canada: how foreign investors are selectively allowed to own, control, possess, or otherwise acquire an interest in any part of Canadian land or real property through specific substantial rules or conflict of law rules; how Canadian federal and provincial laws deal with expropriating foreign-owned property or with foreign judgments affecting the same. In the view of the author, all these territorialist features strongly convey the idea that Canada still attributes a prime role to securing close control over its territory within its global policy of sovereignty and independence.

The New Private International Law of Turkey

Turkish private international law is regulated by the Statute Regarding International Private Law and Procedure which was enacted on 20 May 1982 and became effective on 22 November 1982. This law repealed the former Temporary Law on Rights and Duties of Foreigners in Ottoman Lands of 23 February 1330 (1915) (hereinafter ''Temporary Law'), which, although intended as a temporary law when enacted during the Ottoman period, was effective until 1982.As the title indicates, the new statute regulates the substantive and procedural aspects of Turkish private international law. It has 48 Articles and is divided into two parts. Part 1, Section 1 of the Statute contains general provisions in Articles 1 to 7, and, in Section 2. Articles 8 to 26. conflict of law rules. Part 2, in Articles 27 to 45, is devoted to matters of international procedural law such as the jurisdiction of Turkish courts, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitration awards. Articles 46 to 48 deal with the repeal of the ''Temporary Law', as well as with the new Statute's effective date and enforcement.The Statute does not claim complete coverage of international private law matters. When compared to the previous ''Temporary Law' it is rather long and inclusive; but it is not as detailed as, for example, the new Swiss Statute on private international law and it does not cover all the main issues likely to arise, as under the 'Temporary Law' one must look to other provisions of Turkish law for rules relating to some problems. For example, the choice of law rules for negotiable instruments are found in the Commercial Code. Other problems are simply not regulated by the Statute and the Turkish Codes. Solutions to such matters will be developed by court decisions and doctrinal writings.The provisions of international agreements to which the Turkish Republic is a party are not affected by the new Statute. Turkey is a signatory to a considerable number of international agreements dealing with problems of private international law. Most of these international agreements are of European origin and are already in force in Turkey. Some provisions of these agreements are also applicable to nationals of non-signatory countries. As a result some provisions of the Statute are not applicable at all; others are in effect only against the nationals of those countries which are not signatories of international agreements.

De Boer v. Ducro et al.

46States as international persons — Recognition of acts of foreign States and Governments — Exchange control legislation — Articles of Agreement of International Monetary Fund (Article II) — Interpretation by Fund — Whether court may refuse recognition to foreign judicial decision as contrary to ordre public international or conflict of laws rules — Article VIII (2) — Whether sale in Netherlands of shares in French company for French currency is an “exchange contract” — The law of France.

Comecon and the Unification of International Trade Law

Comecon has achieved a goal long sought by the West: putting into effect a broad unification of international trade law. In 1958 each Comecon country adopted the Comecon General Conditions for the Delivery of Goods. Since then the General Conditions have regulated with the force of law every contract for the sale of goods between the Comecon countries. These General Conditions are a broad unification of both substantive law and conflict of laws rules.

The Qualitative Governmental Interest Analysis: New York's Conflict of Laws Rules in Transition: George v. Douglas Aircraft Co.

The Qualitative Governmental Interest Analysis: New York's Conflict of Laws Rules in Transition: George v. Douglas Aircraft Co.

Ecuador: New Conflict of Laws Rules in Divorce Cases

Ecuador: New Conflict of Laws Rules in Divorce Cases

Federal Courts: Conflict of Laws: Duty of Federal Court to Apply State Conflict of Laws Rules

Federal Courts: Conflict of Laws: Duty of Federal Court to Apply State Conflict of Laws Rules

Renvoi Does Not Involve a Logical Fallacy

Renvoil has been burned at the stake many times by the very ablest writers in the field of private international law. Yet, Phoenixlike it always arises from the ashes of its own holocaust. The continued existence of the doctrine should make one suspect that renvoi fills a vital practical need in the field of the conflict of laws.2 In fact it reconciles two contradictory principles of decision. The one is the conflict of laws rule which directs the court under certain genieral circumstances to apply foreign law. The other is the intuitive conviction of the judge that in the special circumstances of the renvoi case before him the ends of justice will be served just as well, if not better, by the application of the familiar law of the forum rather than the unfamiliar law of a foreign jurisdiction. Whether legitimate or not, renvoi is a device which permits both of these contradictory needs to be satisfied. Renvoi has in the past occasioned little concern to American writers. Although potentially applicable on a vast scale to problems of conflicts in the laws of the various states of the Union,3 renvoi in

Functional Application of Conflict of Laws Rules in Tort Cases

Functional Application of Conflict of Laws Rules in Tort Cases