Abstract
Application of foreign law has been controversial in Argentina because of the existence of a rule in the Article 13 of the 1869 Civil Code that qualified foreign law as a fact. However, both scholars and courts used some theories to justify the ex officio application of foreign law. Such theories were useless when the conflict rule was contained in a treaty because in those cases the second paragraph of the same Article expressly provided for the ex officio application of foreign law, unless otherwise ordered by the treaty. Furthermore, essential treaties in force in Argentina have established the principle of the ex officio application of foreign law, either explicitly (1889 and 1940 Montevideo Treaties) or implicitly (1979 Inter-American Convention on General Rules of Private International Law, Article 2). In addition, the erga omnes character of the latter provoked the repeal of the Article 13 of the Code Civil. Ultimately, the 2014 Civil and Commercial Code seems to follow the same principle of the Montevideo Convention on the matter (Article 2595) although, in any event, the Inter-American Convention shall prevail, not only because of its character but also due to the constitutional principle of primacy of international law.
*The authors wish to thank Kendra Wergin (from the University of Virginia School of Law) for her help in preparing the English version of the original report, elaborated long time before the XIX Congress of the Academy held in Vienna in July 2014, and published in the volume of National Reports prepared by the Argentinian Association of Comparative Law. At the moment of editing this new version (May 2015) Argentina has enacted a Civil and Commercial Code, approved by Act N° 26994 of 1st October 2014, which contains the internal dimension of Argentinian Private International Law (hereinafter PIL). See D.P. Fernández Arroyo, “A New Autonomous Dimension for the Argentinian Private International Law”, YBPIL XVI (2014/2015) 217-231. According to Act N° 27077 of 16 December 2014, the Code entered into force on 1st August 2015. By consequence, this version of our contribution is necessarily different from the previous one because, although case law adopted in application of the old rules is essentially the same, the new internal dimension of Argentinian system of PIL has dramatically changed. Furthermore, due to editorial requirements, this version is shorter than the original one. In this contribution following abbreviations of Argentinian legal reviews are used: DeCITA (Derecho del comercio internacional – Temas y actualidades); ED (El Derecho); JA (Jurisprudencia Argentina); LL (La Ley); RDCO (Revista de derecho comercial y de las obligaciones).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
By “internal dimension” of Argentinian system of PIL, we mean the subsystem composed by the rules of PIL adopted by Argentinian legislator. “International dimension” of Argentinian system of PIL, refers to the rules of PIL contained in the international instruments in force in Argentina.
- 2.
This confusion is found, for example, in A. Boggiano, Derecho internacional privado, 6th ed. (Abeledo Perrot, 2011) 152.
- 3.
Indeed, until the adoption of the Civil and Commercial Code in 2014 (see supra note *) the acceptation of parties’ right to choice the law applicable to international contracts was based on courts’ reasoning. No rule established that right.
- 4.
LL, 1984-D-563, ED, 108-232.
- 5.
This happens particularly (but not exclusively) in labor cases. See infra paragraph 23.
- 6.
The 1889 version is in force in Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. In Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay the amended version of 1940 applies.
- 7.
See, for instance, Argentinian Supreme Court, 10 October 2000, “R. L., M. v. D. A.,” LL, 2001-C-697; see S.L. Feldstein de Cárdenas, “Jurisdicción internacional y aplicación del derecho en materia de nulidad del matrimonio celebrado en el extranjero: cuestiones ni teóricas ni sutiles,” in S.L. Feldstein de Cárdenas (ed.), Derecho internacional privado y de la integración - Colección de análisis jurisprudencial (La Ley, 2004) 79-85.
- 8.
N.P. Sagüés, “Los tratados internacionales en la reforma constitucional argentina de 1994,” LL, 1994-E-1036. Actually, the primacy of international treaties in Argentinian legal order had already been consacred by the Supreme Court, particularly in its decision of 7 July 1992 “Ekmekdjian c. Sofovich” (ED, 148-338).
- 9.
This is easy to realize by taking a look at the list of instruments collected in A. Dreyzin de Klor & D.P. Fernández Arroyo, Derecho internacional privado argentino – tratados en vigor y otros textos relevantes (Zavalía, 2009).
- 10.
For a clear expression of that, see National Civil Court of Appeal, Panel I, “S., B.I. c/ C., V. y otro,” 21 November 2002 (ED, 201-153).
- 11.
See “Estudio preliminar,” in the book mentioned in note 9.
- 12.
See T.B. de Maekelt, “General Rules of Private International Law in the Americas. New Approach,” Recueil des cours, 177 (1982) 193-279. This Convention was approved in Argentina by Act n° 22921.
- 13.
Although it is clearly unnecessary, the same principle is specifically reiterated when dealing with international jurisdiction (Article 2601), international cooperation in general (Articles 2611 and 2612), and international cooperation related to legal kidnapping (Articles 2614 and 2642). Such a reiteration reinforces the primordial significance of the hierarchy of international instruments.
- 14.
See W. Goldschmidt, “Un logro americano en el campo convencional del derecho internacional privado,” ED, 83–833; T.B. de Maekelt, Teoría general del derecho internacional privado (Academia de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, 2005) 270–271; R. Silva Alonso, Derecho internacional privado, 9th ed. (Intercontinental, 2009) 154–155; G. Parra-Aranguren, “La Convención interamericana sobre normas generales de derecho internacional privado. Montevideo, 1979,” Anuario Jurídico Interamericano (1979) 157–186; etc.
- 15.
R. Ruiz Díaz Labrano, Derecho internacional privado (La Ley, 2010) 289–290; E. Tellechea Bergmann, Derecho internacional privado (La Ley, 2010) 174–176; C. Fresnedo de Aguirre in D.P. Fernández Arroyo (ed.), Derecho internacional privado de los Estados del Mercosur (Zavalía, 2003) 316–318; etc.
- 16.
“Mexico interprets Article 2 to mean that it creates an obligation only when the existence of the foreign law has been proved before the judge or authority or its provisions are made known to them in some other way.”
- 17.
Quite surprisingly, Panel A of the National Commercial Court of Appeal, based on a inaccurate narrow interpretation of Article 2 of the Convention, has denied that this rule establishes ex officio application of foreign law. See, for example, its decisions in “BKS Developers SA le pide la quiebra BII Creditanstalt International Ltd.”, 28 October 2008, and “Scrugli, Carlos Antonio c. HSBC Bank Argentina S.A.”, 16 October 2013. This isolated interpretation has been coined by Judge Uzal.
- 18.
See R.A. Ramayo, “Aplicación del derecho extranjero en el ámbito de los Tratados de Montevideo de derecho privado,” ED, 167–152.
- 19.
LLBA, 2004-973.
- 20.
It is important to point out that Peru is party to the Montevideo Treaties of 1889, its Additional Protocol, and the Inter-American Convention on General Rules of 1979.
- 21.
ED, 182-753.
- 22.
Approved by Act n° 22.411.
- 23.
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Equator, Guatemala, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. Mexico, notwithstanding its reservation to Article 2 of the Convention (see supra note 16), has introduced the principle of ex officio application of the foreign law in the article 14(I) of the Federal Civil Code, which provides that foreign law “shall apply in the same way as it would be applied by the respective foreign judge; in doing so, the judge may get information about the text, the binding character, the meaning and the legal scope of such law.”
- 24.
Article 13 of 1869 Civil Code established: “The application of foreign laws, in the cases authorized by this Code, will never take place except at the soliciting of the interested party, who will have the burden of proving the existence of such laws. Foreign laws that become obligatory in the Republic by diplomatic conventions, or in virtue of special law, are exempted.”
- 25.
This does not detract from the efforts to “actualize” an evidently outdated rule. See, particularly, W. Goldschmidt, Derecho internacional privado, 2nd ed. (Depalma, 1974) 470. In the opinion of this author, “foreign law constitutes a ‘notorious fact’, which does not mean a fact that all the world is aware of but a fact about which all the world can learn in an authentic way. The judge can informally keep such a notorious fact in mind, notwithstanding that the parties plead it and bring all the evidence that they feel necessary.” See also A. Perugini, “Aplicación del derecho extranjero de oficio y calificaciones en el derecho internacional privado argentino. La apariencia de la cuestión previa”, LL, 1984-D-560; M. Feuillade, “Aplicación procesal del derecho extranjero, con especial referencia a las posturas jurisprudenciales actuales en el derecho argentino”, in Derecho procesal transnacional. Homenaje al Profesor Doctor Gualberto Lucas Sosa (Ábaco, 2013) 33.
- 26.
In this sense, W. Goldschmidt, “El derecho extranjero en el proceso. Los tres enfoques argentinos”, ED, 115–802; E.L. Fermé, “Convención Interamericana sobre Normas Generales,” in Enciclopedia Jurídica Omeba” (1987) 210–211.
- 27.
Given the fact that treaties on conflict of laws are made to unify the choice-of-law criteria, they normally contains mandatory conflict rules. The fact that some of them allow party autonomy does not change that mandatory character as we have already said (see supra paragraph 2).
- 28.
Modified by Act N° 22434 of 1981.
- 29.
Derecho del Trabajo XLVIII-B-1770 and http://fallos.diprargentina.com/2010/09/sarmiento-cesar-manuel-c-editorial.html
- 30.
DJ, 199-2-879.
- 31.
Judgment n° 41595.
- 32.
ED, 172–167.
- 33.
JA, 2001-IV-211.
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
http://fallos.diprargentina.com/2010/02/benitez-maria-del-carmen-c-editorial.html. See also the report made by C.D. Iud on http://asadip.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/informe-preliminar-sobre-la-aplicacion-de-las-convenciones-interamericanas-de-derecho-internacional-privado-por-los-tribunales-argen.pdf
- 38.
Lexis Nexis n° 7/2743.
- 39.
- 40.
Supra, note 17.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
ElDial.com (A-1273-4).
- 44.
“Either by a mandate to the parties or by the own judges’ effort, the research about the existence of foreign law must be done.”
- 45.
LL, 70-597 (application of Paraguayan law as a “notorious fact”).
- 46.
LL, 97-25 (application of French law, stating that when a foreign law is easily knowable its proof is unnecessary).
- 47.
LL, 99-70.
- 48.
- 49.
- 50.
ED, 76-455.
- 51.
ED, 95-441.
- 52.
- 53.
Supra, note 4.
- 54.
LL, 1989-B-18, DJ, 1989-1-792.
- 55.
ED, 132-115
- 56.
See M.B. Noodt Taquela, Derecho Internacional Privado - Libro de casos, 2nd ed. (La Ley, 2006) 344–348; http://fallos.diprargentina.com/2007/08/tavobe-c-cullen.html
- 57.
- 58.
- 59.
See M.B. Noodt Taquela (note 56) 90–98; http://fallos.diprargentina.com/2007/08/frederick-parker-limited-c-villa.html
- 60.
- 61.
- 62.
ED, 182-752.
- 63.
ED, 195-523.
- 64.
- 65.
El Dial, 22 May 2009.
- 66.
- 67.
- 68.
- 69.
- 70.
LLGranCuyo, 6/2005-495, comm. M.E. Uzal; LL, 2005-D-707, comm. G. Salort de Orchansky; JA 2005-IV-143; SJA 21 December 2005, comm. M. Barreiro & J. Boidman; ED, 214-373, comm. A.M. Soto,; RDCO, 2005-B-869, comm. C.E. Moro; comm. J.C. Córdoba, DeCITA 5/6 (2006) 453.
- 71.
Approved by Act n° 21447.
- 72.
Approved by Act n° 23506.
- 73.
Approved by Act n° 24578.
- 74.
Namely, Conventions with: Italy, approved by Act n° 23720, article 8; France, approved by Act n° 24107, article 9; Brazil, approved by Act n° 24108, articles 24–26.
- 75.
See “Scrugli, Carlos Antonio c. HSBC Bank Argentina S.A.”, supra, nota 17.
- 76.
See the list in M. Feuillade (supra, note 25) 331.
- 77.
JA, 1983-II-117.
- 78.
See, for example, “Frederick Parker Limited c. Villa, o Villa y Egea,” supra, note 59.
- 79.
W. Goldschmidt, a German scholar who had spent a long time in Spain, came to Argentina in the fifties and here remained until his death in 1987. An exceptionally gifted legal researcher as well as a pedagogic professor, he was the most influent author ever of Argentinian PIL and, without any doubt, one of the most outstanding scholars of Latin-American PIL. See M.J.A. Oyarzábal, “Das Internationale Privatrecht von Werner Goldschmidt. In Memoriam”, RabelsZ (2008) 601. In order to circumvallate the characterization of Article 13 of the repealed Civil Code (according to which foreign law is a fact), Goldschmidt treated foreign law as a fact but of a “notorious” character, that is to say, a fact about which everybody can get information in an authentic way. Supra, note 25.
- 80.
Supra, paragraphs 18–22.
- 81.
S.L Feldstein de Cárdenas, “El control de constitucionalidad del derecho extranjero”, in Homenaje al Profesor Doctor Gualberto Lucas Sosa (supra, nota 25) 315.
- 82.
Federal Supreme Court, 10 April 2007, “U., A. s/suc.,” DJ, 2007-II-247.
- 83.
LL, 17 June 2005, 7.
- 84.
LL, 2001-C-697. See comment of S.L. Feldstein de Cárdenas (supra, note 7) 79–85.
- 85.
See R.J. Saucedo, “Visión panorámica de los documentos notariales extranjeros desde la República Argentina, con especial referencia a su fuerza probatoria,”, in N.D. Lamber (ed.), Consejo Federal del Notariado Argentino- Ponencia y fundamentos presentados: Circulación e inscripción de documentos provenientes del extranjero, Jornada Notarial Iberoamericana (2006) 27–68.
- 86.
The 2014 Civil and Commercial Code includes a chapter on the so-called “arbitration contract” which intended to modernize Argentinian arbitral law. However, due to some last-minute changes in this chapter doubts about the success of the new rules have arisen. See D.P. Fernández Arroyo & E.H. Vetulli, “The New Argentinian Arbitration Law: A Train in an Unknown Direction?”, Arbitration International 32 (2016) 349–372.
- 87.
- 88.
See www.iberred.org
- 89.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fernández Arroyo, D.P., All, P.M. (2017). Argentina: The Changing Character of Foreign Law in Argentinian Legal System. In: Nishitani, Y. (eds) Treatment of Foreign Law - Dynamics towards Convergence?. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56574-3_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56574-3_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56572-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56574-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)