1 Inter-American Juridical Committee, Opinion of the Inter-American Juridical Committee on the Revision of the Bustamante Code (CIJ-62) (Pan American Union, Washington, D. C, Dec, 1961, mimeo.). The Reporter was the Colombian member, Dr. José Maria Caicedo Castilla. Inter-American Juridical Committee, Report on the Work Accomplished at its 1961 Meeting, July 1 to Sept. 30 (CIJ-64) (Pan American Union, Washington, D. C, Feb., 1962, mimeo.).

2 Text in The International Conferences of American States 1889-1928 (Scott ed., 1931) 367; 4 Hudson, International Legislation 2279 (1931).

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

4 Nadelmann, ‘ ‘ A New Report of the Inter-American Juridical Committee on Revision of the Bustamante Code,” 53 A.J.I.L. 652 (1959).

5 37 A.J.I.L. Supp. 95 (1943). Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Peru have ratified the treaties of 1889. Colombia adhered to the treaties on civil and commercial law in 1933. Argentina and Uruguay have ratified the revised treaties of 1940

6 Mexico, the United States.

7 Res. VII, “Possibility of the Revision of the Bustamante Code,” Fourth Meeting of the Inter-American Couneil of Jurists, Santiago, Chile, 1959, Final Act 26 (Pan American Union, Washington, D. C, 1960, mimeo.). Cf. Nadelmann, “Inter-American Cooperation in the Field of Conflict of Laws,” 1 Inter-American Law Rev. 135, 140 (1959).

8 Currently the Committee is composed of jurists from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, and the United States. The member from the Dominican Republic was not present.

9 Messrs. Raúl Fernandes (Brazil), Luis D. Cruz Ocampo (Chile), José Joaquín Caicedo Castilla (Colombia), Hugo Gobbi (Argentina), E. Arroyo Lameda (Venezuela),C. Echecopar Herce (Peru), James Oliver Murdock (United States).

10 In practically similar ways, the reservations state that, in the case of a conflict between the national legislation and the Code, the Code shall not apply. Full text, e.g., in Bustamante y Sirvfa, C6digo de Derecho Internacional Privado (Cochabamba, 1944). For Chile see Alb6nico Valenzuela, Manual de Derecho Internacional Privado 120 (1950).

11 This has been the experience in Europe also. The Benelux Convention of 1951 on Uniform Rules of Private International Law, 1 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 426 (1951), still needs to be ratified by two of the three countries involved, Belgium and The Netherlands.

12 The Hague Convention of 1905 Regarding Civil Procedure was ratified by 20 nations, 1 Rabel, Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study 35 (2d ed., 1958). The new Hague Convention of 1951, 1 A. J. Comp. Law 282 (1952), has been ratified by Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.

13 On the creation, by Act of Congress in 1958, of the Commission on International Rules of Judicial Procedure, see Jones, ‘ ‘ Commission on International Rules of Judicial Procedure,” 8 A. J. Comp. Law 341 (1959).

14 See Bustamante, ‘ ‘ The American Systems on the Conflict of Laws and Their Reconciliation,” 5 Tulane Law Rev. 537, 563 (1931) ; Bustamante y Sirvfa, La Comisi6n de Jurisconsultos de Rio de Janeiro y el Derecho Internacional 93 (1927); Bustamante y Sirvfin, La Nacionalidad y el Domicilio. Estudio de Derecho Internacional Privado (1927).

15 In signing the Code convention, Argentina, Guatemala, and Paraguay, in reservations, expressed their preference for the law of the domicile, the Dominican Republic for the national law. Cf. Bustamante y Sirven, El Cfidigo de Derecho International Privado y la Sexta Conferencia Panamericana 54 (1929).

16 Introductory Law to the Civil Code, Art. 7 (1942). See Garland, American- Brazilian Private International Law 25 (1959). In Guatemala, a “domicile” state, the statutory basis now is: Constitutive Law on Judicial Power, Basic Principles, Art. XVII; Law on Foreigners, Arts. 17 and 18 (1936). See Matos, Curso de Derecho International Privado 274 (2d ed., 1941).

17 See Batiffol, “Une Evolution possible de la Conception du Statut personnel dans 1′Europe continentale,” XXth Century Comparative and Conflicts Law—Legal Essays in Honor of Hessel E. Yntema 295 (Nadelmann, von Mehren, and Hazard, eds., 1961); De Winter, “ L e Principe de la Nationalite s'effrite-t-il Peu a Peu ? “ De Conflictu Legum—Essays Presented to E. D. Kollewijn/J. Offerhaus 514 (Leiden, 1962); reprinted from Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Eecht, Vol. 9 (Special Issue, October, 1962).

18 See Lorenzen, “The Pan-American Code of Private International Law,” 4 Tulane Law Rev. 499, 522, note 134 (1930); 1 Eabel, op. cit. note 12 above, at 126; 2 (I) Alfonsin, Curso de Derecho International Privado 65 (Montevideo, 1961).

19 Civil Code, Arts. 14, 15 (1855). See 2 Alb6nieo Valenzuela, op. cit. note 10 above, at 15, 20.

20 Civil Code, Arts. 18, 19 (1886). See Eder, American-Colombian Private International Law 12, 41 (1956); Caicedo Castilla, Derecho International Privado 246 (5th ed., 1960).

21 Civil Code, Arts. 13, 14. See Salazar Flor, Derecho Civil International 391 (1955).

22 Civil Code, Art. 3 (1886). See Ortiz Martin, Curso de Derecho International Privado 282 (1947).

23 Civil Code, Arts. 14, 15, 16(3).

24 Civil Code, Prel. Tit., Art. V (1) (1936). See Alvarado, Apuntes de Derecho International 43 (1940).

25 Civil Code, Arts. 8, 9 (1942). See Febres Pobeda, Apuntes de Derecho International Privado 84 (1957).

26 Civil Code for the Federal District, Art. 12 (1932). See Arce, Derecho International Privado 167 (2d ed., 1955). But cf. Siqueiros, “ L e y aplicable al estado de los extranjeros en Mexico,” 15 Boletin del Instituto de Derecho Comparado de Mexico 345 (No. 44, 1962).

27 Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela.

28 See Inter-American Juridical Committee, Comparative Study of the Bustamante Code, the Montevideo Treaties, and the Eestatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws (Pan American Union, Washington, D. C, Sept., 1954, mimeo.); also in Documentos Oflciales, Vol. V, p. 110 (Rio de Janeiro, 1962). Other principal areas of disagreement between the Code and the Montevideo Treaties are the rules governing contracts and those governing succession. See statement of the Argentine member of the Committee in Second Opinion of the Inter-American Juridical Committee on the Possibility of Revision of the Bustamante Code (Pan American Union, Washington, D. C, March, 1953, mimeo.).

29 Inter-American Juridical Committee, Second Opinion, op. cit. note 28 above.

30 Ibid, at 28 (Mr. George H. Owen).

31 See Rabel, op. cit. note 12 above, at 194; Cheshire, Private International Law 230 (6th ed., 1961); Batiffol, Traitfi elementaire de Droit international prive” 470 (3rd ed., 1959); 2 (I) Alfonsin, op. cit. note 18 above, at 183; 2 Goldschmidt, Derecho International Privado 101 (2d ed., 1954); Valladao, Estudos de Direito Internacional Privado 187, 194 (1947); De Winter, loe. cit. note 17 above, at 521.

32 “The purpose of the Inter-American Council of Jurists is to serve as an advisory body on juridical matters; to promote the development and codification of public and private international law; and to study the possibility of attaining uniformity in the legislation of the various American countries, insofar as it may appear desirable.” Charter of the Organization, Art. 67.

33 In 1961 the Committee produced a report of 125 pages on the Principles of International Law that Govern the Eesponsibility of the State, a one-page resolution on Unification of the Law of International Sales, and the report on Revision of the Bustamante Code.

34 “The Juridical Committee shall be composed of jurists of the nine countries selected by the Inter-American Conference. The selection shall be made by the Inter- American Council of Jurists from a panel submitted by each country chosen by the Conference.” Charter of the Organization, Art. 69. Currently, of the nine members, five are ambassadors. Of course, an ambassador may be a specialist in private international law.

35 International Cooperation in Judicial Procedures—Background Material relating to the Laws, Doctrine and Jurisprudence of the American Republics (Pan American Union, Washington, D. C, July, 1962, mimeo.).

36 Proceedings in International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, Unification of Law Yearbooks for 1956 (Vol. I I ) and 1959 (Unidroit, Rome). Cf. Nadelmann, “Ways to Unify Conflicts Rules,” De Conflietu Legum, op. cit. note 17 above, at 349.

37 On i t s working method, see report in the 1959 Yearbook, op. cit. note 36 above, at 171, 182.

38 See resolution adopted at the 1962 annual meeting, 1962 Proceedings 74; 56 A.J.I.L. 779 (1962).

39 “The Members of the Juridical Committee represent all Member States of the Organization.” Charter, Art.

40 Art. 67, note 32 above.

41 This is being more and more recognized. For the interest taken by the American Bar in international unification of laws efforts, see the Report of the American Bar Association Special Committee on Unification of Private Law, 1961 A.B.A. Reports 219, separately published by the American Bar Foundation in 1961, reviewed by the present writer in 11 A. J. Comp. Law 112 (1962).

42 Resolution on Future Codification of International Law, Final Act, p. 176, reprinted in The International Conferences of American States 1889-1928, op. cit. note 2 above, at 439; 1931 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 184.

43 “The Inter-American Juridical Committee of Rio de Janeiro shall be the permanent committee of the Inter-American Council of Jurists.” Charter, Art. 68.