Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Codification and Flexibility in Private International Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
General Reports of the XVIIIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law/Rapports Généraux du XVIIIème Congrès de l’Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé

Abstract

The last fifty-year period has been one of the most productive in the history of private international law (PIL), having produced 61 PIL codifications and 101 international conventions and other similar instruments. This report examines the way in which these instruments address the constant tension between the need for certainty and predictability, on the one hand, and the need for flexible, equitable, and individualized solutions, on the other. The report documents the advances of the art of codification during this period, including the development of several new tools—such as soft connecting factors, escape clauses, or a combination of rules and residual approaches—which entrust judges with greater discretion than in the old codifications. These tools produce a new equilibrium between certainty and flexibility and suggest that codification need not be antithetical to flexibility.

Copyright reserved by Symeon C. Symeonides.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For the full version of these two chapters, as well as the remaining six chapters, see S. Symeonides, Recent Private International Law Codifications (Martinus Nijhoff, forthcoming 2012) [hereinafter referred to as S. Symeonides, Codifications).

  2. 2.

    These reports were submitted by the reporters listed below: Argentina (María Susana Najurieta & María Blanca Noodt Taquela, University of Buenos Aires); Australia (Alice De Jonge, Monash University); Austria (Christiane Wendehorst, University of Vienna); Belgium (Johan Erauw (Gent) & Marc Fallon (Louvain-la-Neuve)); China (Weizuo Chen, Tsinghua University School of Law, Beijing); Croatia (Davor Babić, University of Zagreb); Czech Republic (Monika Pauknerová, Charles University Prague); Denmark (Joseph Lookofsky, University of Copenhagen); England (Christa Roodt, University of Aberdeen); Finland (Ulla Liukkunen, University of Helsinki); France (Benjamin Remy, University of Poitiers); Germany (Peter Mankowski, University of Hamburg); Greece (Evangelos Vasilakakis, University of Thessaloniki); Hungary (Katalin Raffai & Sarolta Szabó, Pázmány Péter, Catholic University); Israel (Talia Einhorn, Ariel University); Japan (Tadashi Kanzaki, Gakushuin University); Macau (Guangjian Tu, University of Macau); Netherlands (Katharina Boele-Woelki & Dorothea Van Iterson, Utrecht University); New Zealand (Tony Angelo, Victoria University of Wellington); Norway (Giuditta Cordero Moss, University of Oslo); Poland (Maksymilian Pazdan, University of Śląski); Portugal (Luís De Lima Pinheiro, University of Lisbon); Quebec (Frédérique Sabourin, Quebec Department of Justice); Scotland (Janeen M. Carruthers & Elizabeth B. Crawford, University of Glasgow); South Korea (Kwang Hyun Suk, Seoul National University); Spain (Carlos Esplugues Mota & Carmen Azcárraga Monzonís, University of Valencia); Switzerland (Andrea Bonomi, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law); Taiwan (Rong-chwan Chen, National Taipei University); Turkey (Zeynep Derya Tarman, Koç University); UNCITRAL (Spiros Bazinas, Senior Legal Officer, UNCITRAL); Uruguay (Cecilia Fresnedo de Aguirre, Catholic University of Uruguay); and Venezuela (Eugenio Hernández-Bretón, Universidad Monteávila, Caracas).

    These reports are published in S. Symeonides, Codifications. They are referred to hereinafter by the author’s name, the ­country of origin, and the pertinent sections and subdivisions of each report.

  3. 3.

    See French Civil Code, Arts.3, 14–15, 309, 311.

  4. 4.

    See Austrian Civil Code, arts. 4, 33–38, 300.

  5. 5.

    Originally drafted by Pascuale Mancini, the PIL articles of the Italian Civil Code of 1865 were reproduced as Articles 17–31 of the Italian Civil Code of 1942. See also the Civil Code of the Canton of Zurich 1854/56 arts. 1–7.

  6. 6.

    See Spanish Civil Code, arts. 8–11.

  7. 7.

    See Introductory Law of the Civil Code of August 15, 1896 (EGBGB), arts. 3–38.

  8. 8.

    See, e.g., the Japanese Horei (Act No.10) of 1898, which was primarily based on the EGBGB.

  9. 9.

    See, e.g. the Italian Civil Code of 1942, arts. 17–31; Greek Civil Code of 1940 arts. 4–33.

  10. 10.

    For example, the Chinese Statute on the Application of Laws of 1918 was based on the Japanese Horei of 1898 and the EGBGB.

  11. 11.

    See A.S. de Bustamante y Sirvén, El código de derecho internacional privado y la sexta conferencia panamericana (Habana: Imprenta Aivisador comercial, 1929): 253. The Bustamante Code was adopted by over a dozen countries.

  12. 12.

    For the American attitude towards rules, see S. Symeonides, The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present, and Future (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006), 411–19, 426–35 (hereinafter S. Symeonides, Revolution).

  13. 13.

    See, e.g., Neuhaus H, “Empfiehlt sich eine Kodifizierung des internationalen Privatrechts?” RabelsZ 37 (1973): 453; O. Kahn–Freund, General Problems of Private International Law (Leyden: Sijthoff, 1976) 80–84; von Schwind F, “Problems of Codification of Private International Law,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 17 (1968): 428, 431.

  14. 14.

    North P, “Problems of Codification in a Common Law System,” RabelsZ 46 (1982): 490, at 500.

  15. 15.

    See infra note 53.

  16. 16.

    See infra 8.1.2.

  17. 17.

    North P, “Private International Law: Change or Decay?” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 50 (2001): 477, 496.

  18. 18.

    This list does not include the 14 EU regulations adopted in the last ten years. See infra 8.1.2.

  19. 19.

    The reason the two counts do not match is because the first count includes re-codifications and six partial codifications.

  20. 20.

    All of these codifications are referred to hereinafter with the country of origin and the abbreviation “codif.” regardless of (a) whether they form part of another code, such as a civil code, or (b) their formal designation, such as PIL Act, statute, etc. For full citations to statutory texts, translations, and commentaries on these codifications, the reader is kindly referred to the full version of this Report published in S. Symeonides, Codifications.

  21. 21.

    See Act 97 of 1963 (effective April 1964) on PIL and Procedure. This Act remains in force with minor amendments in the Czech Republic.

  22. 22.

    See Act of 12 Nov. 1965, effective 1 July 1966, on PIL.

  23. 23.

    See Portuguese Civil Code arts. 14–65 as revised in 1966.

  24. 24.

    See Law no. 496/77 (revising 1966 codification in line with Portugal’s new constitution).

  25. 25.

    See Ecuador Civil Code as amended on 29 Sept. 1970, arts. 13–17.

  26. 26.

    See Spanish Civil Code arts. 8–16 as revised in 1974.

  27. 27.

    See Act of 5 Dec. 1975, translated into English and discussed in Juenger F, “The Conflicts Statute of the German Democratic Republic: An Introduction and Translation,” American Journal of Comparative Law 25 (1977): 332.

  28. 28.

    See Ordinance No. 75-58 of 26 Sept. 1975, amending articles 9 through 24 of the Algerian Civil Code.

  29. 29.

    See arts. 1–3, 11–29 of Jordanian Civil Code of 1 Aug. 1976 (effective 1 Jan. 1977) J.O. no 2645 of 1 Aug. 1976, arts. 1–3, 11–29.

  30. 30.

    See Law No. 13 of 1979 on PIL.

  31. 31.

    See arts. 1–11, 20 23–35 of Civil Code of the Arab Republic of Yemen, promulgated by Law 10 of 21 April 1979 in J.O. of 30 April 1979, French translation with comments by S. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh in Rev. critique DIP 76 (1987): 650. See also id. at 654 for the codification in the then South Yemen (without any indication as to date of enactment).

  32. 32.

    The Yugoslav codification was enacted in three installments in 1978, 1979, and 1983. For discussion of the whole, see Sarcevic P, “The New Yugoslav Private International Law Act,” American Journal of Comparative Law 38 (1985): 283.

  33. 33.

    See Bundesgesetz vom 15. 6. 1978 über das internationale Privatrecht (IPR-Gesetz), BGBl I 1978/304. For subsequent amendments, see BGBl I No. 119/1998, I No. 18/1999, I No. 135/2000, I No. 117/2003, I No. 58/2004, I No. 109/2009, I No. 135/2009.

  34. 34.

    See Book X of the Peruvian Civil Code of 1984 (arts. 2046–2111), 129 Normas Legales, 128 (Oct. 1984).

  35. 35.

    See arts. 11–26 of the Civil Code of Paraguay as revised in 1985.

  36. 36.

    See arts. 1–3, 10–28 of Code of Civil Transactions of the United Arab Emirates (J.O. of UAE, no 185, Dec. 1985, p. 11–361).

  37. 37.

    See Law of the People’s Republic of China on Economic Contracts Involving Foreign Interest of March 21, 1985, and effective July 1, 1985.

  38. 38.

    See Chapter 8 of General Principles of the Civil Law, Order No. 37 of the President of the People’s Republic of China of 12 April 1986, effective 1 January 1987.

  39. 39.

    See Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China of March 15, 1999, effective October 1, 1999.

  40. 40.

    See Statute of Application of Law to Foreign Civil Relations, adopted at the 17th session of the Standing Committee of the 11th National People’s Congress on October 28, 2010, effective April 1, 2011.

  41. 41.

    See Gesetz zur Neuregelung des IPR vom 25.7.1986, Bundesgesetzblatt I/1986, 810.

  42. 42.

    See Gesetz zum IPR für außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse und das Sachenrecht vom 21.5.1999, Bundesgesetzblatt 1999, I, 1026.

  43. 43.

    Bundesgesetz über das Internationale Privatrecht (IPRG) vom 18. Dezember 1987–Loi féderale sur le droit international privé (LDIP) du 18 décembre 1987, 1988 BB I 5.

  44. 44.

    See arts. 12–15, 29–34, 2736–38 of Civil Code for the Federal District in Ordinary Matters and for the Entire Republic in Federal Matters, as amended by Decree of 11 Dec. 1987 (effective 8 Jan. 1988), Diario official, 7 Jan. 1988, p.2.

  45. 45.

    See Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle kansainvälisluonteisiin sopimuksiin sovellettavaa lakia koskevaksi lainsäädännöksi, HE 44/1987, p. 25. See also the 1964 Act on Law Applicable to Sale of Goods of International Character; Marriage Act (Act 234/1929, with amendments up to Act 1226/2001); and Code of Inheritance (Act 40/1965 with amendments up to Act 1228/2001).

  46. 46.

    See Book IV of the Louisiana Civil Code, enacted into law by La. Act No. 923 of 1991, effective January 1, 1992.

  47. 47.

    See L.Q. 1991, ch. 64 (adopted in 1991, effective 1994) and composing Book Ten of the Quebec Civil Code (arts. 3076–3168).

  48. 48.

    See arts. 988–1050 of Code of Persons and Family (Law VII 0013 of 19 Nov. 1989, effective 4 Aug. 1990).

  49. 49.

    See Law No. 105 of 22 Sept. 1992, effective 26 Oct. 1993, on the Settlement of PIL Relations, Official Gazette of Romania No. 245 of 1 Oct. 1992.

  50. 50.

    See Law of 29 March 1992 on PIL.

  51. 51.

    See Latvian Civil Code of 1993, arts. 8–25.

  52. 52.

    See PIL (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 8 Nov. 1995 (c 42) (codifying conflicts rules for torts).

  53. 53.

    See Act No. 218 of 31 May 1995 (Riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato).

  54. 54.

    See minju-juui innin konghwaguk tae’oe minsa kwan’gye bop (The Law of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on External Civil Relations) of Sept. 6, 1995.

  55. 55.

    See Civil Code of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam of 1995, arts. 826–838. For a subsequent revision, see Civil Code of Socialist Republic of Viet Nam (Law of June 14, 2005), arts. 758–777. For international jurisdiction and recognition of foreign judgments and arbitral awards, see Vietnamese Code of Civil Procedure (2004), arts. 405–418, 342–374.

  56. 56.

    See PIL Act of 1996 in Liechensteinisches Landesgesetzblatt 1996 No. 194.

  57. 57.

    See Division 12, arts. 1253–93 of the Civil Code of Armenia of 1998.

  58. 58.

    See arts. 1093 et seq. of Civil Code of Belarus (Law of 7 Dec. 1998), as amended on 20 June 2008.

  59. 59.

    See Code of PIL (Law No. 98-97 of 27 Nov. 1998), Official Journal of the Republic of Tunisia, 1 Dec. 1998 p. 2332.

  60. 60.

    See Act of 6 Aug. 1998 on PIL (Official Gazette No. 36.511) effective 6 Feb. 1999.

  61. 61.

    See Law of 5 Jan. 1998 revising Civil Code arts. 1167–1208.

  62. 62.

    See PIL and Procedure Act of 30 June 1999 (Zakon o mednarodnem zasebnem pravu in postopku - ZMSPP) Ur.l. RS, no. 56/1999) in Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia 1999/56.

  63. 63.

    See arts. 13 through 62 of the Civil Code of Macau, as amended in 1999.

  64. 64.

    See arts. 1.10 through 1.62 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania of 2000.

  65. 65.

    See Law of 6 June 2000 on PIL.

  66. 66.

    See Act of 11 April 2001 (effective 1 June 2001) Regarding Conflict of Laws on Torts, Staatsblad 2001, 190.

  67. 67.

    See Law 6465 of 7 April 2001, effective 1 July 2001, amending the Conflict of Laws Act of the Republic of Korea.

  68. 68.

    See Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 81.100–81.135 (2001) (codifying choice of law for contract conflicts).

  69. 69.

    See Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 31.850–31.890 (2009), effective 1 Jan. 2010 (codifying choice of law for tort conflicts).

  70. 70.

    See federal law no. 146 of 26 Nov. 2001, enacting Part III of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Rossyiskaya Gazeta, n. 49 item 4553, 28/11/2001. The PIL provisions comprise Title VI of Part III, arts. 1186–1224.

  71. 71.

    See PIL Act of 22 March 2002, effective 1 July 2002, The State Gazette, “Riigi Teataja” I 2002, 35, 217.

  72. 72.

    See Moldova Civil Code (Law 1107 of 6 June 2002), arts. 1578–1625.

  73. 73.

    See arts. 539–52 of Mongolian Civil Code, enacted 2 Jan. 2002, effective 1 Sept. 2002.

  74. 74.

    See Code de droit international privé (Loi du 16 juillet 2004, Moniteur Belge 27 Juillet 2004.

  75. 75.

    See arts. 10–38 of the Civil Code of Qatar, as amended by Law 22/2004 of 8 Aug. 2004.

  76. 76.

    See Bulgarian PIL Code (Law No. 42 of 2005 as amended by Law No. 59 of 2007).

  77. 77.

    See Law of PIL of 23 June 2005, effective 1 Sept. 2005.

  78. 78.

    See Law No. 10 of 1898 as Newly Titled and Amended on 21 June 2006, effective 1 Jan. 2007, on the General Rules of Application of Laws [Hô no tekiyô ni kan suru tsûsoku-hô].

  79. 79.

    See Law No. 5718 of 27 Nov. 2007 adopting the Turkish Code of PIL and International Civil Procedure.

  80. 80.

    See PIL Act of 4 July 2007, effective on 19 July 2008, of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

  81. 81.

    See Act Governing the Application of Laws in Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements, promulgated on May 26, 2010, effective on May 26, 2011.

  82. 82.

    See M.S. Najurieta & M.B. Noodt Taquela, Argentinean Report, at I.

  83. 83.

    For the text of a draft of a new PIL Act of 2009 and an Explanatory Report in Czech, see http://obcanskyzakonik.justice.cz/cz/uvodni-stranka.html.

  84. 84.

    See T. Einhorn, Israeli Report; T. Einhorn, Private International Law in Israel (2009).

  85. 85.

    See Fernández Arroyo D, “What’s New in Latin American Private International Law?” Year Book of Private International Law 7 (2005): 100–104. For existing and proposed codifications in Latin America in general, see D. Fernández Arroyo, La codificación del derecho internacional privado en América Latina (Madrid: Beramar, 1994).

  86. 86.

    See Pazdan, Polish Report, at I-II. The project was completed with the enactment of the PIL Act of 4 Feb. 2001, Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 2011 r. Prawo prywatne międzynarodowe, Dz U. z dnia 15 kwiethnia 2011 r. nr 80, poz. 432.

  87. 87.

    See Academia Puertorriqueña de Jurisprudencia y Legislacion, Proyecto para la Codificación del Derecho internacional privado de Puerto Rico (S. Symeonides and A. von Mehren, Rapporteurs, 1991). This is now pending before the Puerto Rico legislature as Book VII of the proposed new Puerto Rico Civil Code. The draft code is available at http://www.codigocivilpr.net/.

  88. 88.

    See Cecilia Fresnedo de Aguirre, Uruguayan Report, at I.

  89. 89.

    See Meeusen J, “Instrumentalisation of Private International Law in the European Union: Towards a European Conflicts Revolution?” European Journal of Migration and Law 9 (2007): 287; Muir-Watt H, “European Federalism and the ‘New Unilateralism,’” Tulane Law Review 82 (2008): 1983.

  90. 90.

    Michaels R, “The New European Choice-of-Law Revolution,” Tulane Law Review 82 (2008): 1607.

  91. 91.

    See Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (Brussels I)[1990] O.J. C 189.

  92. 92.

    See European Community Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, [2001] O. J. L.12/1, effective March 1, 2002.

  93. 93.

    See Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003, [2003] Official Journal L 338/1 (also known as “Brussels IIa” or “Brussels IIbis).

  94. 94.

    See Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions and Cooperation in Matters Relating to Maintenance Obligations L 7/1 [2009] O.J. 10.1.2009, effective in 2011.

  95. 95.

    Official Journal of the European Communities No. L 266/1 (1980).

  96. 96.

    See Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I), [2008] OJ L 177/6. Int’l L.245 (2008).

  97. 97.

    See Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the Law Applicable to non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II), [2007] OJ L 199/40.

  98. 98.

    See Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (OJ n. L 343, p. 10 ff.) (2010). The regulation goes into effect 21 June 21, 2012 in the 14 Member States that currently participate in the enhanced cooperation. In the interim years, other Regulations have been enacted on insolvency, taking of evidence, service of documents, small claims procedure, and enforcement of uncontested claims. Of the 14 Regulations bearing on PIL, this Report covers only the five Regulations that include choice-of-law provisions, namely, Rome I, II, and III, and the Regulations on Maintenance and Insolvency.

  99. 99.

    Included in this count are the EU regulations listed supra.

  100. 100.

    For the texts of these conventions and the list of party-States, see the official web site of the Hague Conference at http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.listing.

  101. 101.

    The full Spanish name is Conferencia Interamericana sobre Derecho Internacional Privado. The Conference is an arm of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.

  102. 102.

    For a list and the texts of these instruments, see the web site of the Organization of American States at http://www.oas.org/dil/CIDIPVI_home.htm and http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties year text.htm#1994.

  103. 103.

    For a list of and the text of these instruments, see Mercosur’s official web site at http://www.mre.gov.py/dependencias/tratados/mercosur/registro%20mercosur/mercosurprincipal.htm.

  104. 104.

    For a list and the text of UNCITRAL’s instruments on these and other topics, see http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts.html. For UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Secured Transactions, Supplement on Security Rights in Intellectual Property (2010), see S. Bazinas, UNCITRAL Report in Symeonides, Codifications.

  105. 105.

    For the mission and work of Unidroit, see its web site at http://www.unidroit.org/.

  106. 106.

    For the text of this convention, and a list of the countries that have ratified it, see http://www.unidroit.org/english/conventions/1995culturalproperty/main.htm.

  107. 107.

    For the text, see http://www.unidroit.org/english/principles/main.htm.

  108. 108.

    This number includes sub-national codifications, such as those of Quebec, Louisiana, and Oregon, as well as partial codifications or re-codifications.

  109. 109.

    See Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, V. x 4–7.

  110. 110.

    See, e.g., Currie B, “Comments on Babcock v. Jackson,” Columbia Law Review 63 (1963): 1233, at 1241 (“[N]ew efforts to find short cuts and syntheses should be sternly discouraged. We are beginning to recover from a long siege of intoxication resulting from overindulgence in generalities; for a while, at least, total abstinence should be enforced”).

  111. 111.

    See, e.g., Trautman D, “Reflections On Conflict-of-Laws Methodology,” Hastings Law Journal 32 (1981): 1612 at 1621 (“[L]egislative direction is inherently incapable of capturing the nuance and sophistication necessary for just and satisfactory choice-of-law solutions.”).

  112. 112.

    See, e.g., Reese W, “Statutes in Choice of Law,” American Journal of Comparative Law 35 (1987): 395 at 396 (“[n]o legislature, no matter how wise it may be, could envisage all of the almost endless possibilities.”).

  113. 113.

    For the United States in particular, these arguments are discussed in S. Symeonides, Revolution 411–19; Symeonides S, “A New Conflicts Restatement: Why Not?,” Journal of Private International Law 5 (2009): 383, 406–22.

  114. 114.

    Because these rules are primarily intended to accomplish a particular substantive result, they are discussed later in chapter 3 of this Report, which focuses on result-selectivism. See S. Symeonides, Codifications, ch. 3.

  115. 115.

    The comparative “closer” is used when the decision-maker is to compare with the connection of one other state, usually the connection with the state of the otherwise applicable law. The superlative is used when the decision-maker is to find the “closest” among several connections.

  116. 116.

    See Austrian codif. art. 1, discussed in Wenderhost, Austrian Report, at B.I; Bulgarian codif. art. 2; Burkina Faso codif. art. 1003; Chinese codif. art. 3, discussed in W. Chen, Chinese Report, at II.

  117. 117.

    See infra at 8.2.4.1.

  118. 118.

    See infra at 8.2.4.2.1.

  119. 119.

    Rome Convention art. 4(1).

  120. 120.

    Rome Convention art. 4(5). See also id. art. 6 with regard to employment contracts.

  121. 121.

    See Inter-American Convention on the Law Applicable to International Contracts of 1994, art. 9.

  122. 122.

    See Danish Law No. 88 of May 9, 1984, discussed in J. Lookofsky, Danish Report, at II.B.

  123. 123.

    See German codif. arts. 28–30. For a discussion of these articles and their continuing relevance, see P. Mankowski, German Report, at I-II, and XIII.

  124. 124.

    See Bulgarian codif. art. 94; Estonian codif. §§ 33, 35, 45; Hungarian codif. art. 29; Lithuanian codif. art. 1.37; Slovenian codif. art. 20. These provisions remain useful for contracts that fall outside the scope of Rome I.

  125. 125.

    See Argentinian Draft of 2003, art. 72, discussed in M.S. Najurieta & M.B. Noodt Taquela, Argentinean Report, at XIII.3.

  126. 126.

    See Armenian Civil Code art. 1285.

  127. 127.

    See Belarus codif. art. 1125(4).

  128. 128.

    The “closest connection” factor is used in Article 5 of the Foreign Economic Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China of 1985; Article 145 of the General Principles of Civil Law of 1986, as amended in 2009; Article 269 of the Maritime Code of 1992; Article 188 of the Law of Civil Aviation of 1995 as amended in 2009; Article 126 of the Contract Law of 1999; and Article 5 of the Rules of the Supreme People’s Court on Related Issues concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Foreign-Related Contractual Dispute Cases Related to Civil and Commercial Matters of 2007. For pertinent discussion, see W. Chen, Chinese Report, at XIII.C.

  129. 129.

    See FYROM codif. art. 22.

  130. 130.

    See Japanese codif. arts. 8, 12 (providing presumptive rules for contracts based on the characteristic performance and the assumed closest connection); T. Kanzaki, Japanese Report at II.2.

  131. 131.

    See South Korean codif. Art 26 (providing presumptive rules for contracts based on the characteristic performance and the assumed closest connection); K. Suk, South Korean Report, at II.2.

  132. 132.

    See Kyrgyzstan codif. art. 1199(3).

  133. 133.

    See Quebec codif.art. 3112–3113. See also id. art. 3107 (regarding trusts). For discussion of arts. 3112–3113 and cases applying them, see F. Sabourin, Quebec Report at II.b. and c.

  134. 134.

    See Russian codif. Art 1211. However, this article provides that its presumptions regarding the closest connection apply “unless it follows otherwise from statute, the terms or nature of the contract, or the totality of the circumstances of the case.”

  135. 135.

    See Swiss codif. arts. 117, 187.

  136. 136.

    See Taiwanese codif. art. 20. See also id. arts. 17–18 (agency), 43(1) (bills of lading), 44 (securities), 45 (marriage engagement). For discussion, See R. Chen, Taiwanese Report, at II, XIII(3).

  137. 137.

    See Turkish codif. art. 24(4). See also id. arts. 27 (employment contracts), 28(2) (intellectual property contracts), 29(3) (carriage contracts); Z. Tarman, Turkish Report, at II.

  138. 138.

    See Ukranian codif. arts. 44 et seq.

  139. 139.

    See Venezuelan codif. art. 30; E. Hernández-Bretón, Venezuelan Report at II, XIII.

  140. 140.

    Likewise, the Belgian codification has adopted the closest connection as the residual connecting factor for the interpretation or revocation of wills. See Belgian codif. art. 84; J. Erauw & M. Fallon, Belgian Report at II.2.b.

  141. 141.

    See Macau codif. art. 41, discussed in Tu Guangjian, Macau Report, at X. See also id. regarding maritime contracts.

  142. 142.

    Rome I, art. 4(4).

  143. 143.

    Rome I, Art 4(3). Similar exceptions are found in arts. 5(3) (contracts of carriage), 7(3) (insurance contracts), and 8(4) (individual employment contracts).

  144. 144.

    In contrast to the preliminary draft, which limited the scope of the escape to cases covered by the general rule, the final text repeats the escape in the articles dealing with products liability (art. 5), unfair competition cases in which the competition affects exclusively the interests of a specific competitor (art. 6(2)), unjust enrichment (art. 10), negotiorum gestio (art. 11), and culpa in contrahendo (art. 12).

  145. 145.

    Rome II, arts. 4(3), 5(2), 10(4), 11(4) and 12(2)(c). The first two of these provisions state that a “manifestly closer connection” with another country “might be based in particular on a pre-existing relationship between the parties, such as a contract, that is closely connected with the tort/delict in question.”

  146. 146.

    See, e.g., Austrian codif. art. 48(2); Belgian codif. art. 99; Bulgarian codif. art. 105; Estonian codif. art. 53; EGBGB art. 41; Lithuanian codif. art. 1.43; Slovenian codif. art. 30(2).

  147. 147.

    See Slovenian codif. art. 30(2) (manifestly closer connection exception to law of contact or injury).

  148. 148.

    See Japanese codif. arts. 20 and 15 (closer connection exception to the choice-of-law rules for torts, negotiorum gestio, and unjust enrichment); T. Kanzaki, Japanese Report, at II.

  149. 149.

    See Taiwanese codif. arts. 25, 28; R. Chen, Taiwanese Report at II.

  150. 150.

    See Turkish codif. art. 34(3) (law of state of closest connection displaces law of state of conduct or injury). For similar escapes on other subjects, see id. art. 24(4) (general contract clause), Art.27(3) (employment contracts), Art.28(2) (contracts on intellectual property rights), Art.29(3) (carriage contracts); Z. Tarman, Turkish Report, at II.

  151. 151.

    See FYROM codif. art. 33(2) (law of state of closest connection displaces law of state of conduct or injury).

  152. 152.

    See Belgian codif. arts. 93 and 87(2); J. Erauw & M. Fallon, Belgian Report at II.2.b.

  153. 153.

    See Taiwanese codif. arts. 17–19, 43, 44, R. Chen, Taiwanese Report at II.

  154. 154.

    See Burkina Faso codif. art. 1043.

  155. 155.

    See, e.g., Swiss codif. art. 19; Quebec codif. art. 3079; Belarus codif. art. 1100; Kyrgyzstan codif. art. 1174; Tunisian codif. art. 38; Lithuanian codif. art. 1.11; South Korean codif. art. 7; Russian codif. art. 1192; Argentinean Draft art. 15, Belgium codif. art. 20; Bulgarian codif. art. 46; Ukranian codif. art. 14; Turkish codif. arts. 6, 31; Polish codif. art. 8; Uruguayan Draft art. 6; Czech Draft arts. 25; Dutch codif. art. 7; Rome Convention, art. 7; Inter-American Contracts Convention, art. 11; and the following Hague Conventions on the Law Applicable to: Trusts and on their Recognition, art. 17; Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, art. 17; Succession to the Estates of Deceased Persons, art. 6; International Protection of Adults, art. 20; Certain Rights in Respect of Securities held with an Intermediary, art. 11.

  156. 156.

    See, e.g., Austrian codif. art. 9; Belarus codif. art. 1103; Belgian codif. art. 3(2); Chinese codif. art. 20; Estonian codif. § 11; EGBGB art. 5; Greek Civ. Code art. 31; Italian codif. art. 19(2); South Korean codif. art. 3(1); Kyrgyzstan codif. art. 1177; Liechtenstein codif. art. 10(1); Lithuanian codif. art. 1.11 (same rule for multiple or indeterminate domiciles); Moldova codif. art. 1589; Macau codif. art. 52; Slovenian codif. art. 10; Taiwanese codif. art. 2; Turkish codif. art. 4; Vietnamese codif. art. 760(3); FYROM codif. art. 11. Some of these codifications contain an exception providing that if one of the nationalities is that of the forum state, that nationality controls.

  157. 157.

    See Ukranian codif. art. 16.

  158. 158.

    See Bulgarian codif. Art 48, Croatian codif. Art 11; Japanese codif. art. 38(1); North Korean codif. Art 7; Vietnamese codif. art. 760(2), FYROM codif. Art 11(3).

  159. 159.

    See Dutch codif. §§ 11, 19.

  160. 160.

    North Korean codif. art. 37.

  161. 161.

    See Taiwanese codif. art. 45(2) (effect of engagement to marry), art. 47 (effects of marriage), art. 48(2) (matrimonial regime), art. 50 (divorce).

  162. 162.

    See Austrian codif. Art 18 (personal effects of marriage); Estonian codif. § 57 (legal consequences of marriage); Finish Marriage Act §§ 128(2), and 129(4) (personal legal effects of marriage and matrimonial regime); German codif. art. 14 (general effects of marriage); Japanese codif. art. 25 (effects of marriage); South Korean codif.. art. 37 (general effects of marriage); Dutch codif. § 36 (non-property effects); Portuguese codif. art. 52 (relations between spouses); Slovenian codif. art. 38(4) (personal and property effects); Swiss codif. art. 48 (effects of marriage). See also Macau codif. arts. 50 and 58. Some of these codifications use the connecting factor of domicile rather than nationality.

  163. 163.

    See Hague Convention of 1978 on the Law Applicable to Matrimonial Property Regimes, art. 4(3).

  164. 164.

    See Portuguese codif. art. 60(2); Belgian codif. art. 62(2).

  165. 165.

    Italian codif. art. 18.

  166. 166.

    See, e.g., the Hague Conventions on: Conflicts of Laws Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions, art. 1; Law Applicable to Succession to the Estates of Deceased Persons, arts. 19(3)(b), 20; Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility, arts. 47(4), 49(b); International Protection of Adults, arts. 45(d),(f), art. 47(b); Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, art. 16(d) and (e).

  167. 167.

    These countries are: Armenia (art. 1256), Austria (art. 5(3)), Belgium (art. 17), Bulgaria (art. 41(4)), Burkina Faso (art. 1007), China (art. 10), Croatia (art. 10), Estonia (§3), Germany (art. 4), Lithuania (Art.1.10(6), The Netherlands (art. 15(2)), Japan (art. 38(3)), South Korea (art. 3(3)), Macau (art. 19), Moldova (art. 1581), Quebec (art. 3077), Russia (art. 1188), Slovenia (art. 9), Taiwan (art. 5), Turkey (art. 2(5)), Ukraine (art. 9), Uruguay (Draft art. 2(2), and FYROM (art. 10).

  168. 168.

    See, e.g., Armenian codif. art. 1253(2); Austrian codif. art. 1(2); Belarus codif. art. 1093(3); Bulgarian codif. art. 2(2); Burkina Faso codif. art. 1003(3); Chinese codif. art. 3(2); Kyrgyzstan codif. art. 1167(3); Liechtenstein codif. art. 1(2); Moldova codif. art. 1578; Ukranian codif. art. 4(2), FYROM codif. art. 4.

    In a more specific context, the closest-connection factor serves as a residual gap-filler for contracts that do not contain an effective choice-of-law clause and in which the applicable law cannot be determined through other criteria, such as the “characteristic ­performance.” This was the case with the Rome Convention and remains so with Rome I and other codifications influenced by them, as noted earlier. See Rome Convention, art. 4(5); Rome I, art. 4(4).

  169. 169.

    Taiwanese codif. art. 1.

  170. 170.

    Jordanian codif. art. 25; Slovenian codif. Art 3; Qatar codif. art. 34; UAE codif. art. 23; Yemen codif. art. 34. See also Czech codif. § 10 (providing that, in the absence of an effective choice-of-law, contracts are governed by the law whose application is “in keeping with a reasonable settlement of the respective relationship”).

  171. 171.

    See FYROM codif. art. 4.

  172. 172.

    See Mongolian codif. art. 540.3.

  173. 173.

    See La. codif. arts. 3515, 3519, 3537, and 3542 (emphasis added).

  174. 174.

    Puerto Rico Draft Code, arts. 2, 8, 13, 21, 33, 36, and 45.

  175. 175.

    See, e.g., American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second, Conflict of Laws 2d, §§ 145, 188, 222, 283, 291, (1971).

  176. 176.

    Puerto Rico Draft Code art. 2.

  177. 177.

    Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.878 (for torts) (emphasis added); see aldo id. § 81.130(for contracts).

  178. 178.

    See supra notes 170–71 (Taiwan, Slovenia, Qatar, Taiwan, and Yemen).

  179. 179.

    Czech codif. § 10. For discussion, see M. Pauknerová, Czech Report at II.

  180. 180.

    Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, V.x 4–7.

  181. 181.

    Hay P, “Flexibility Versus Predictability and Uniformity in Choice of Law,” Recueil des cours 26 (1991-I): 281 at 291.

  182. 182.

    Escape clauses in PIL were the subject of the XIV International Congress of Comparative Law held in Athens in 1994. The general and national reports on this subject were published in D. Kokkini-Iatridou, Les Clauses d’Exception en matière de Conflits de Lois et de Conflits de Juridictions – ou le principe de proximité (1994).

  183. 183.

    Swiss codif. art. 15. For a discussion of this article and cases applying it, see Bonomi, Swiss Report, at II; von Overbeck A, “The Fate of Two Remarkable Provisions of the Swiss Statute on Private International Law,” Year Book of Private International Law 1 (1999): 119; Bucher A, “La clause d’exception dans le contexte de la partie générale de la LDIP,” in Vingt ans LDIP, ed. A. Bonomi & E. Cashin Ritaine, 59 (2009).

  184. 184.

    Article 19 of the Belgian codification provides that the law designated as applicable by the codification should not be applied if “it manifestly appears from the totality of the circumstances” that the matter has “only a very slight connection” with the state of the designated law but is “very closely connected” to another state. In such case, the law of the latter state governs. For discussion, see Erauw & Fallon, Belgian Report, II.2(d).

  185. 185.

    Belgian codif. art. 19(2). The article also provides that this escape does not apply in cases of a valid choice of law by the parties or when the codification’s designation of the applicable law is “based on its content.” Id. art. 19(3).

  186. 186.

    See South Korean codif. art. 8.1 (discussed in K. Suk, South Korean Report at II); Lithuanian codif. art. 1.11.(3); Quebec codif. art. 3082 (discussed in F. Sabourin, Quebec Report, at II(a); Slovenian codif. art. 2(1); FYROM codif. art. 3; Dutch codif. art. 8 (discussed in K. Boele-Woelki & D. van Iterson, Dutch Report, at 4.1.4).

  187. 187.

    For the view that the Swiss escape should be so limited, see A. Bucher, supra note 184, at 61–62. For a contrary opinion, see A. von Overbeck, supra note 184, at 130. See also K. Boele-Woelki & D. van Iterson, Dutch Report at 4.1.4 (stating that the Explanatory Report to the Dutch draft states that the escape cannot displace choice-of-law rules based on the “favour principle” or the “protection principle”).

  188. 188.

    Dutch Draft § 8 (emphasis added).

  189. 189.

    Belgian codif. art. 19(3).

  190. 190.

    For example, this is the prevailing view among Swiss scholars. See Bonomi, Swiss Report, at II.1

  191. 191.

    This seems to be the case in all three Swiss court decisions that have applied the Swiss escape thus far. For a discussion of these cases, see Bonomi Swiss Report, at II.1. See also J. Erauw & M. Fallon, Belgian Report, II.2(d).

  192. 192.

    K. Boele-Woelki & D. van Iterson, Dutch Report, IV.A.d.25.

  193. 193.

    Each of the escapes contains language to this effect.

  194. 194.

    The Tunisian codification contains a provision that can function in this fashion. Article 26 provides that, if the codification does not provide a rule for a particular situation, “il dégagera la loi applicable par une détermination objective de la catégorie juridique de rattachement.” See also art. 1253(2) of the Armenian codification (providing that if the code does not provide a choice-of-law rule for a particular subject, the court should apply “the law most closely connected” with that subject.).

  195. 195.

    For a discussion of these cases, see C. Wendehorst, Austrian Report, at B.I.

  196. 196.

    Bulgarian codif. art. 2.

  197. 197.

    The codifications of China and Burkina Faso also contain articles with a similar to function as general escapes. See Burkina Faso codif. art. 1003 (providing that multistate legal relationships are governed by the law that has the “strongest connection” and that the codification’s choice-of-law rules are “considered as the expression of [this] general principle.”); Chinese codif. art. 3 (providing the law governing a multistate civil relationship “shall have the closest connection” with such relationship, and that if the codification does not provide for a particular relationship, “the law of the country that has the closest connection with [that] relationship... shall be applied.”).

  198. 198.

    Rome I, art. 4(3). A similar escape is found in Articles 5(3) (contracts of carriage), 7(2) (insurance contracts), and 8(4) (individual employment contracts).

  199. 199.

    Rome II, arts. 4(3), 5(2), 10(4), 11(4) and 12(2)(c). The first two of these provisions state that a “manifestly closer connection” with another country “might be based in particular on a pre-existing relationship between the parties, such as a contract, that is closely connected with the tort/delict in question.”

  200. 200.

    See, e.g., Austrian codif. §§ 35(3) for contracts and 48(2) for torts; Bulgarian codif. arts. 94(8) for contracts and 105(3) for torts; Estonian codif. art. 34(6) for contracts, 36(3) for employment contracts, 53(1) for torts; German codif., arts. 28(5) for contracts, 30(2), last sentence, 41 for torts; Lithuania codif. art. 1.37(4) for contracts; Romania codif. art. 78(2) for contracts.

  201. 201.

    See art. 8(3) of the Hague Convention for the Law Applicable to the International Sales of Goods (providing that “where, in the light of the circumstances as a whole..., the contract is manifestly more closely connected with a law which is not the law which would otherwise be applicable to the contract..., the contract is governed by that other law.”)

  202. 202.

    See Taiwanese codif. art. 20; Turkish codif. art. 24(4) for contracts, art. 27(4) for employment contracts, and art. 28 for contracts relating to intellectual property.

  203. 203.

    See Japanese codif. art. 15 for negotiorum gestio and unjust enrichment and art. 20 for torts; T. Kanzaki, Japanese Report, at II.; Taiwan codif. arts. 25, 28; R. Chen, Taiwanese Report, at XII. Turkish codif. art. 34; Z. Tarman, Turkish Report, at II, XII.1; FYROM codif. art. 33(2).

  204. 204.

    See German codif. art. 46; Finnish Code Inheritance § 5(3); Burkina Faso codif. art. 1043; Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to the Estates of Deceased Persons, art. 3.

  205. 205.

    See Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, art. 5; Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, art. 5(2); Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults, art. 13(2).

  206. 206.

    Russian codif. art. 1211 (emphasis added). Articles 1203, 1213, 1217, and 1222 contain similar escapes for cases involving, respectively, certain foreign juridical persons, immovable property contracts, unilateral juridical acts, and unfair competition. The FYROM codification also employs a similar escape in Article 22(2).

  207. 207.

    Czech codif. § 10. For discussion, see M. Pauknerová, Czech Report at II.(1)–(2), XIII.

  208. 208.

    Article 20 introduces several rules designating the applicable law for various contracts with the phrase “if... special circumstances of the case do not refer to another law,” thus allowing courts to deviate from these rules if the circumstances of the case so warrant. For discussion, see D. Babić, Croatian Report, at XIII.2.

  209. 209.

    See Najurieta & Noodt Taquela, Argentinian Report at C.II.

  210. 210.

    Dutch codif. § 9, discussed in Boele-Woelki & Van Iterson, Dutch Report at IV.A.e.

  211. 211.

    U.K. codif.§ 12; C. Roodt, English Report, at B.I(b).

  212. 212.

    For the history, meaning, and subsequent application of this article, see Symeonides S. “Louisiana’s New Law of Choice of Law for Tort Conflicts: An Exegesis,” Tulane Law Review 66 (1992): 677, 763–66. The Puerto Rico draft code contains several escapes, including one for tort conflicts that is modelled after the Louisiana escape. See Puerto Rico Draft codif. arts. 11 (marriage), 20 (child custody), 24 (matrimonial regimes), 37 (contracts), 45 (torts). For discussion, see Symeonides S. “Codifying Choice of Law for Contracts: The Puerto Rico Projet,” in Law and Justice in a Multistate World: Essays in Honor of Arthur T. von Mehren, ed. J. Nafziger and S. Symeonides (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2002): 419; Symeonides S. “Revising Puerto Rico’s Conflicts Law: A Preview,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 28 (1990): 413.

  213. 213.

    Or. Rev. Stat. § 81.135. For discussion, see Symeonides S, “Oregon’s Choice-of-Law Codification for Contract Conflicts: An Exegesis,” Willamette Law Review 44 (2007): 205, 235–45.

  214. 214.

    Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 31.872(3) and 31.875(4). For discussion by the article’s drafter, see Symeonides S, “Oregon’s New Choice-of-Law Codification for Tort Conflicts: An Exegesis,” Oregon Law Review 88(2009): 963, 997–1044.

  215. 215.

    Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.875(3)(b).

  216. 216.

    Rome II, art. 4(3).

  217. 217.

    See supra note 212.

  218. 218.

    See, e.g., Restatement (Second) § 146, infra at text accompanying note 221.

  219. 219.

    See Symeonides S, “Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity,” American Journal of Comparative Law 56(2008): 173, 181–83.

  220. 220.

    American Law Institute, Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, § 146 (emphasis added).

  221. 221.

    La. codif. art. 3547 (emphasis added). For discussion by the article’s drafter, see Symeonides S. Louisiana’s New Law of Choice of Law for Tort Conflicts, supra note 213, at 763–66.

  222. 222.

    In contrast, the much briefer and simpler escape found in the unenacted Benelux law would have allowed a court to avoid the application of Kenya law by finding that, with regard to the issue of damages, “the consequences of a wrongful act belong to the legal sphere of a country other than [Kenya] where the act took place.” Traité Benelux portant loi uniforme relative au droit international privé, art. 14 (1969). (emphasis added). Likewise, under the escape of the English statute, a court would compare the “significance of the factors” connecting the case with the three countries and conclude that it would be “substantially more appropriate” to apply either French or Belgian law “for determining the issues arising in the case, or any of those issues”—here, the issue of damages. English codif. § 12 (emphasis added).

  223. 223.

    Rome II, art. 4(1) (emphasis added). This phrase could allow a separate evaluation of the potentially multiple obligations that may arise from the same facts, such as (but not only) when the case involves multiple tortfeasors or multiple victims.

  224. 224.

    See Symeonides S, “The American Revolution and the European Evolution in Choice of Law: Reciprocal Lessons,” Tulane Law Review 82(2008): 1741, 1773–82.

  225. 225.

    The reasons for the European Council’s and Commission’s political preference for certainty over flexibility are obvious. The primary motive behind the movement to draft Rome II, as well as the choice of the particular instrument for its implementation (a regulation as opposed to a directive) was the need to ensure uniformity of choice-of-law decisions within the European Union. See Rome II, recital (6). These two bodies must have concluded that uniformity would be in jeopardy if Rome II were to include too many flexible rules or escape clauses. Although this is plausible, it is not necessarily the best conclusion. The argument that a codification intended for application by the courts of different countries cannot afford to be flexible, is highly overrated. For example, whatever its other faults, the Rome Convention did not fail for being too flexible.

  226. 226.

    Cavers D, “Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws,” Yale Law Journal 44 (1935): 1478 at 1482.

  227. 227.

    In Professor Weintraub’s words, “[i]ronically Rome II is more likely to succeed in providing reasonable foreseeability if its rules provide sufficient flexibility.” Weintraub R, “Rome II and the Tension Between Predictability and Flexibility,” Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 19(2005): 561 at 561.

  228. 228.

    Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 6.

  229. 229.

    See, e.g., Restatement (Second) § 145, which provides that a tort issue is governed by the law of the state that, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties “under the principles stated in § 6.”

  230. 230.

    La. codif. art. 3515.

  231. 231.

    See La. codif. arts. 3519, 3537, and 3542, respectively.

  232. 232.

    For discussion of the approach of the Louisiana codification and the balance between certainty and flexibility, see Symeonides S, “The Conflicts Book of the Louisiana Civil Code: Civilian, American, or Original?” Tulane Law Review 83(2009): 1041, 1058–70.

  233. 233.

    Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.878. For discussion of this approach, see Symeonides S, “Oregon’s New Choice-of-Law Codification for Tort Conflicts: An Exegesis,” Oregon Law Review 88(2009): 963, 1032–38.

  234. 234.

    Also, as noted earlier, this section provides the anchor for the escapes contained in some of the specific rules.

  235. 235.

    For discussion, see Symeonides S, “Oregon’s Choice-of-Law Codification for Contract Conflicts: An Exegesis,” Willamette Law Review 44(2007): 205.

  236. 236.

    See Symeonides S, “Codifying Choice of Law for Contracts” supra note 213; Symeonides S, “Revising Puerto Rico’s Conflicts Law,” supra note 213.

  237. 237.

    PIL (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act § 11(c. 42) (1995).

  238. 238.

    The text of Section 12 is partly reproduced at text accompanying note 212, supra.

  239. 239.

    Hague Convention of 1 July 1985 on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition, art. 7.

  240. 240.

    Inter-American Contracts Convention, arts. 9 and 10.

  241. 241.

    Venezuelan codif. arts. 30 and 31; E. Hernández-Bretón, Venezuelan Report, at XIII. For partly similar provisions, see Uruguayan Draft arts. 51 and 13(3) (the latter regarding international trade law); C. Fresnedo de Aguirre, Uruguayan Report, at XI.3.

  242. 242.

    For a detailed discussion of this point, see Symeonides S, “The American Revolution and the European Evolution,” supra note 225 at 1773–82.

  243. 243.

    See S. Symeonides, W. Perdue & A. von Mehren, Conflict of Laws: American, Comparative, International, 2nd ed. (St. Paul: Thomson/West, 2003):41–103.

  244. 244.

    See S. Symeonides, Revolution 9–121.

  245. 245.

    See Symeonides S, “A New Conflicts Restatement,” supra note 114.

  246. 246.

    One could argue that the countries that did not have statutory rules at the beginning of this period but have acquired them in the meantime have moved from flexibility to certainty. However, as this chapter of the Report illustrates, the certainty to which they aspired and which they attained was much more pliable than the uncompromising certainty of the first Restatement.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Willamette University College of Law, Salem, OR, USA

    Symeon C. Symeonides

Authors
  1. Symeon C. Symeonides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Symeon C. Symeonides .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law School, George Washington University, H Street 2000, Washington, 20052, District of Columbia, USA

    Karen B. Brown

  2. Washington College of Law, American University, Massachusetts Ave. NW., 4801, Washington, 20016, District of Columbia, USA

    David V. Snyder

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Symeonides, S.C. (2012). Codification and Flexibility in Private International Law. In: Brown, K., Snyder, D. (eds) General Reports of the XVIIIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law/Rapports Généraux du XVIIIème Congrès de l’Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2354-2_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation