¹ In countries of Anglo-Saxon origin, the expression “ public order” is not so familiar as the term “ public policy.” J. H. Beale in his “ Treatise on the Conflict of Laws,” p. 77, chooses also the expression “ public order ” in describing the exception, which is preferable in view of the fact that German writers likewise have adopted the expression “ ordre public,” a term created and generally used in the French, Italian and Spanish literature

² See, infra, IV, p. 243.

³ A. S. de Bustamante, El orden publico, Estudio de derecho international privado, Havana, 1893

⁴ Pasquale Fiore, Sulla limitazione dell'autoritd delle leggi straniere, Napoli, 1907; “ De 'ordre public en droit international privé Instit. dr. int., Paris, 1910, being a report read before the Institut de Droit International.

⁵ Kahn, Franz, Abhandlungen aus dem intemationalen Privatrecht,I. Die Lehre vom ordre public 39 Jhering's Jahrbiicher, 155,1 and Jena,(1898.)Google Scholar

⁶ Klein, P., Abhandlungen aus dem intemationalen Privatrecht III. Die Lehre vomordre public Archifiir bilrgl.29 155,311.(1906)Google Scholar

⁷ Pillet, A.,De Vordre public en droit international privi, (1890.)Google Scholar

⁸ P. 305.

⁹ See, infra, V, p. 249.

¹⁰ “ It appears a serious breach of international comity if a state is recognized as a sovereign independent state to postulate that its legislation is contrary to the essential principles of justice and morality,” says Scrutton, L. J., in Luther v. Sagor (1921), 3 K. B. 532

¹¹ See, infra, IV, p. 243.

¹² It was believed that it was possible to divide all laws into two classes: (a) laws of public order, (b) laws which did not appertain to the public order. It was then stated that the second category may yield to foreign laws.

¹³ See Actas y Tratados del cdebrados por el Congresso International Sud-Americo de Montevideo. Anexo a la Memoria del Ministerio (IBS®), p. 992. Cf. Article 54 of the decisions of Lima.

¹⁴ See also translation of Chung Hui Wang, German Civil Code, London, 1907.

¹⁵ 13 Mass. (1816) 20 et seq.

¹⁶ 10 Blatchford' Circuit Court Reports (1873) 436 et seq.

¹⁷ D. M. and P. 743.

¹⁸ Besides the mentioned examples, compare also the formulations in: Acts of the Second Hague Conference for the Unification of Private International Law (Article 11); Spanish Code of 1888, Article 11; Congo Free State, Civil Law of the 20th of February, 1891, Article 9; Report by Messrs. Manini and Asser before the Institut de Droit International, Session at Geneva, 1874, in Revue de Droit International, 1874, p. 583; Resolutions of the Institut de Droit International, Session at Oxford, 1880 (in Tableau General de I'Institut de Droit International, 1873-1898, pp. 34r-35). Cf., also, Annuaire, 1925, p. 140; Japan, Law concerning the application of laws in general (Horei) of June 21,1898, Article 30 (see J. E. de Becker, Civil Code of Japan, Vol. II, p. 7); China, Statute of the 5th of August, 1918, on the application of foreign laws, Article 1 (see E. Padoux, La Lois Chinoise du 5 Aotit, 1918, Pekin, 1922); Belgium, Civil Code, Article 3; Bolivia, Civil Code, Article 4; Guatemala, Civil Code, Article 4; Holland, Civil Code, Article 8; Monaco, Civil Code, Article 3; Peru, Civil Code, Article 4; Germany, Interpretation of the exception by the German Reichsgericht, Entscheidungen in Civilsachen, Vol. 60, pp. 299-300; Antonio Sanchez de Bustamante y Sirven, Proyecto de Cddigo de Derecho International Privado, Habana, 1925, Article 8.

¹⁹ Cf. A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, 1916, pp. 77-78.

²⁰ Weiss, A., Weiss, Manud de droit international privé8th ed.Paris 375 6(1920)6, cites as examples the laws regulating the acquisition of majority. The rule, contained in the French Civil Code, Art. 488, declaring major persons of twenty-one years, is compulsory only as far as French citizens are concerned. In spite of being a rule of the public order of France, it will not apply to foreignersGoogle Scholar

²¹ Brocher, Ch., Nouveau traits de droit international pr Paris 353 4 Revue de droit international, 342(, 1876,)Google Scholar

²² Weber, Cf. Heinz, Die Lehre vorn ordre public international Die Lehre vorn ordre public international Thesis, Ziirich, 1922, who gives a list and the citation of those writers on page 34, note 61.He cites among others: Weiss, Despagnet, Bustamante, Durand, Laghi, Fiore, Pillet, Rolin, BoissarieGoogle Scholar

²³ Despagnet, Fr., De Vordre pvblic international, Clunet, 1885, pp. 5 and 217 jf.; Precis, pp. 218, 481.

²⁴ Valery, J., Manud de droit international prive, 574 Google Scholar

²⁵ Fusinato, Guido, Questioni di diritto intemazionale privado, pp. 36,51.

²⁶ Contuzzi, Lo codificazione del diritto intemazionale privado, p. 58.

²⁷ G. C. Buzzati, VAutoritil della legge straniere, p. 111.

²⁸ Fr. Laurent, Droit civil international, IV, p. 538.

²⁹ Cf. also the definitions of public ordre by Fedozzi, Qudques considerations sur idSe ordre pvblic, Clunet, 1897, XXIV, pp. 69, 495; Pasquale Fiore, Diritto intemazionale privato, p. 27; De ordre public en droit international priv6," Institut de Droit International, 1910, p. 30; Report of Illrd Commission of the Hague Conference, 1894, Acts, p. 52; Lain6, Introduction au droit international privi, II, pp. 195, 280; Boissarie, Ren6, De la notion de ordre public en droit international privi, Paris, 1888, p. 165.

³⁰ Laghi, II diritto intemazionale privato nei sum rapporti colie leggi territoriali, Bologna, 1888, p. 185.

³¹ See Sulla limitazione dell’ autorita, etc., pp. 24-26.

³² Pillet, A., Droit international privé I 116 7(1923)Google Scholar

³³ Cf. also the five classes of laws of the international public orderin Bustamante earlier publication, El orden publico, Habana, 1893, pp. 82-89, 207, 235; see also J. Matos, Derecho intemacioncd privado, Guatemala, 1922, pp. 129-137.

³⁴ Weiss, A.,Manud de droit international privé 376 8 Google Scholar

³⁵ Savigny, System des heutigen romischen Rechtes, 1849, Vol. VIII, pp. 33, 160 el seq.

³⁶ See Jhering's Jahrbvcher, Vol. 39, pp. 1-113.

³⁷ Cf. also the criticism of the doctrine of public order by Beale, J. H.,Conflict of Laws Agreement on what laws are of public order is very difficult to attain, and the principleis therefore vague and ambiguous. Like all the theories of the statutists, it bears the marks of having been worked out in the closet instead of in the courts. This difficult and uncertainty of application seems to be sufficient argument against the adoption of this theory 78 Google Scholar

³⁸ Klein, Cf., “Die Lehre vom ordre public,” 29 Arcki fur burgerliches Rechi 311 and especially 326 Google Scholar

³⁹ Cf. Klein, ibid.

⁴⁰ See, for examples, infra, p. 247.

⁴¹ Bar, Internationales Privat-Jund Strafrecht, 1882, pp. 108 et seq. Theorie and Praxis des Intemationalen Privatrechtes, 1889, Vol. I, pp. 92 and 127.

⁴² Theodor Niemeyer, Das Internationale Privatrecht, 1896.

⁴³ Cf. also Ernst Zitelmann, Internationales Privatrecht, 1897, Vol. I, pp. 317-392. He states also the new point that the exception of public order, or the “ Vorbehattsklausel, ” as he calls it, may be applied if the foreign law is in opposition with international law. This proposition supported by Meili and Mamelok (Internationales Privat'und Zivil prozessrecht, 1911, pp. 15 et seq.) is refused by modem writers as Weber, p. 101 (see infra, p. 247) and Walker, p. 27

⁴⁴ Klein, Peter, Die Lehre vom ordre public 29 in Archivfur biirgerliches Recht 311 Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid., pp. 327.

⁴⁶ Equally this son will be recognized as legitimate in all questions of inheritance

⁴⁷ See, e.g., P. Fiore and Weiss cited above

⁴⁸ Die Lehre vom ordre public international, Zurich, 1922, pp. 72 and 76. Compare also P. Mutzner in Gmtir's Kommentar zum schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch, Schlusstitel, Art. 2

⁴⁹ Cf. especially Walker, G., IntemaMonales Privatrecht3. Auflage, Wien241(1924)Google Scholarand H. Habicht, Internationales Privatrecht nach dem Einfuhrungsgesetz zum B. G. B., Berlin, 1907.

⁵⁰ Cf. also Poullet, P., Manuel de droit international privi beige 371 380.(1925,)Google Scholar

⁵¹ At p. 180.

⁵² Ibid., p. 159.

⁵³ A. V. Dicey and A. B. Keith, Conflict of Laws, 3d ed., 1922, pp. 593-4.

⁵⁴ Raleigh C. Minor, Conflict of Laws, Boston, 1901, pp. 9 et seq.

⁵⁵ Kahn, supra, p. 108.

⁵⁶ See Pfaff und v. Schey, “ Sammlung von zivilrechtlichen Entscheidungen,” etc., Neue Folge, No. 3334 (Feb. 21, 1906), No. 2394 (July 1, 1903), No. 2817 (November 3, 1904), and Code, 64 and 111

⁵⁷ Ibid., Neue Folge, No. 3811 (June 18, 1907).

⁵⁸ List of English cases in Westlake (Bentwich), Private InternationalLaw, 7th ed., 1925, p. 69. See also J. A. Foote, Private International Jurisprudence, 4th ed., 1914, p. 98, Commonwealth v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458 (1873). Exception denied in Sadie Kapigian v. Krikor der Minassian, 212 Mass. 412 (1912).

⁵⁹ Foote, supra, p. 99

⁶⁰ See, for American cases: E. G. Lorenzen, Cases on the Conflict of Law, 1924, p. 1090, under non-recognition and non-enforcement; American and English cases: Hugh H. L. Bellot, Analysis of Foote Private International Law with cases; J. Westlake (Bentwich), Private International Law, 1925, p. 308; Swiss cases: H. Weber, supra, p. 109; German cases: Soergels Rechtsprechung, Notes to Art. 30 of the Introductory Act to the Civil Code; Ent-8ckeid. des Reichsgerichts, Vol. 93, p. 183

⁶¹ 81 For a French translation of this decree see Baoul Labry, Une legislation communiste, 1920, pp. 45-47.

⁶² Art. 416-418.

⁶³ Labry, supra, p. 294

⁶⁴ For nationalization decrees see Labry, liste, p. 587

⁶⁵ For the practice of American courts in Russian cases see O. K. Fraenkel, A Digest of Cases on International Law Relating to Recognition of Governments, 1925; 35 Yale Law Journal, p. 98; 25 Columbia Law Review, p. 544; 22 Michigan Law Review, p. 118; 38 Harvard Law Review, p. 819

⁶⁶ 239 New York, 164

⁶⁷ In Sokoloff v. National City Bank, the exception of public order was not applied, however.The question was as to the liability of an American bank for an account opened for the plaintiff in its Russian branch which was later nationalized. It was held that the enforcement of the liability was not such an injustice or so contrary to public policy as to necessitate the application of the exception. But (c/. also the Harvard Law Review, April, 1925) the theory developed in this case will probably be of great practical consequence in the future.

⁶⁸ See also James and Co. v. Second Russian Insurance Co., 239 N. Y. 248 (1925).

⁶⁹ Concerning the recognition of the Soviet regime, the Department of State at Washington gave, in November, 1925, the following information: Full recognition has been accorded to the Soviet Government by Germany, Esthonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Persia, Afghanistan, Turkey, Poland, Great Britain, Italy, Norway, Austria, Greece, Sweden, China, Denmark, Mexico, France and Japan. Czechoslovakia has concluded a trade agreement with the Soviet regime.

⁷⁰ Arrets du Tribunal FM6ral Suisse, Vol. 50, II, 507 (512), (Dec. 10, 1924).

⁷¹ Ibid., Vol. 39, II, pp. 640 et seq. Ibid., Vol. 32, I, pp. 157 et seq.

⁷² Ibid., Vol. 39, II, p. 652.

⁷³ Clunet, 1924, pp. 391 et seq

⁷⁴ Clunet, 1924, Vol. 51, p. 257; Giurisprudenza Italiana, 1923, Vol. 75, pp. 131 et seq

⁷⁵ The same position was taken by the Tribunal Civil de la Seine in reBounatian v. SociUi Optorg, December 12, 1923. Clunet, 1924, p. 258

⁷⁶ Tribunal of Athens, January, 1924, No. 5641Themis, tome XXXV, p. 603. Clunet, 1925, p. 1143

⁷⁷ Tribunal of Athens, January, 1924, No. 5641—Themis, tome XXXV, p. 603. Clunet, 1925, p. 1143.

⁷⁸ Cf. decision of the Tribunal sommaire d'Alexandrie, January 24,1925, which also did not enforce the Soviet law of succession, but held that the old Russian law applied to succession of Russian citizens. Clunet, 1925, p. 476. Cf. also a decision of the Civil Court of the Canton, Berne, Switzerland, of July 21, 1924 where the Soviet law of succession was not enforced, not on the ground of the exception of public order, but because the Soviet regime was. not recognized in Switzerland.

⁷⁹ 1910, A. C. 262.

⁸⁰ 1921, 3 K. B. 532.

⁸¹ Such a decision is also in harmony with American law (Terrazos v. Holmes, 225 S. W.848) and the latest development in the doctrine of the exception of public order.

⁸² 1 H. and M. 195, 247

⁸³ 1904, 1 K. B. 591.

⁸⁴ Cf. the Rapello Treaty (April 16, 1922), Moscow Treaty (Oct. 12, 1925), Berlin Treaty, (April 24, 1926); see also a decision of the Landesgericht of Hamburg, June 13, 1924, Hans- R. F. 1924, 749.

⁸⁵ Freund, Dr. H., Les rapports des traiUs nmo-aUemands, etc.,Clunet 33(1925)Google ScholarDas neue sowjetrussische ErbrechtJurist. Wochenschrift 1924, p. 634. Id., 1922, p. 1117. The same vi is taken by C. B. for Greece in Clunet, 1925, p. 1143, where he attacks the decision of the Court of Athens mentioned above

⁸⁶ The same view is taken by C. B. for Greece in Clunet, 1925, p. 1143, where he attacks the decision of the Court of Athens mentioned above

⁸⁷ Rabinowitsch, J. N., Das neue sovjet-russische ErbrechtJurist. Wochenschrift633 6(1924)Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Cf. also V. Makaroff, International Private Law of Soviet Russia, Moscow, 1924

⁸⁹ Clunet, 1925, p. 339.