1. See the list of conventions published by the Hague Conference. An aimualstatus report on signatures, ratifications and enforcements is published every year, in the first issue of Revue critique de Droit International privé. France has ratified the following conventions:

— 1 March 1954 (Civil Procedure)

— 15 June 1955 (Sale of Goods)

— 1 June 1956 (Recognition of Companies)

— 24 October 1956 (Maintenance Children – Applicable Law)

— 15 April 1958 (Maintenance Children – Enforcement)

— 5 October 1961 (Protection of Minors)

— 5 October 1961 (Form of Wills)

— 5 October 1961 (Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents)

— 15 November 1965 (Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters)

— 18 March 1970 (Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial matters)

— 14 May 1971 (Traffic Accidents)

— 2 October 1973 (Products Liability)

— 2 October 1973 (Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions relating to Maintenance Obligations)

— 2 October 1973 (Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations)

— 14 March 1978 (Law Applicable to Matrimonial Property Regimes)

— 14 March 1978 (Law Applicable to Agency)

— 25 October 1980 (Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction)

— 25 October 1980 (International Access to Justice)

2. The following convention:

— 1 June 1956 (Recognition of Companies).

3. The following conventions:

— 15 November 1965 (Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Recognition of Decrees Relating to Adoptions)

— 1 June 1970 (Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations)

— 1 February 1971 (Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters)

— 14 March 1978 (Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages).

4. ocuments of the First Hague Conference, 1893, Part One, p. 26.

5. See also Art. 4 of the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

6. J.H.A. Van Loon, ‘Quelques réflexions sur l'unification Progressive du droit international Privé dans le cadre de la Conférence de la Haye (‘Various reflections on the progressive unification of Conference, private international law in the framework of the Hague Conference’), Liber Memorialis Fr. Laurent (1989) p. 1133 et seq, in particular p. 1149.Google Scholar

7. See E. Von Overbeck, ‘L’application par le juge interne des conventions de droit international privé’ (‘Application by the internal judge of private international law conventions’)132RCADI(1971) p. 1 et seq, in particular p. 14: ‘The judge's first step should be to determine if a convention exists applicable to the case to be judged’.

8. See particularly, B. Dutoit and F. Majoros, ‘Le lacis des conventions en droit privé et leurs solutions possibles (‘The maze of private law conventions and their possible solutions’), Rev.crit.dr.internat.pr. (1984), p. 565; F. Majoros, Les conventions Internationales en matière de droit prive, tome II, ‘Le droit des conflits de conventions’ (International Conventions in private law, vol IL ‘The Law of Conflicts of Conventions’) (1980).

9. In the same way if private international law in France relating to conflicts of nationality changes, it is under the influence of conventional contractual law in general and not of the Hague Conventions in particular. On this point see, P. Lagarde, ‘Vers une approche fonctionnelle du conflit positif de nationalitiés (à civile de la Cour de cassation du 22 juillet 1987)’ (‘Towards a functional approach to the positive conflict of nationality (notably on the Dujaque judgment of the Premièere chambre civile of the Court of Cassation, 22 July 1987’), Rev. crit. dr. internat. (1988) p. 29.

10. See, for example, award No. 6281 given by the Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (1989), Clunet (1991) p. 1054, note D. Hascher.Google Scholar

11. For a recent example see, Cass.Civ.lère, 4 April 1991, Clunet 1991,981, note G. Légier; The Court judged, within the framework of the 1971 Hague Convention on Traffic Accidents, that the Yugoslavian law, based on the concept of fault liability, is not contrary to French international public policy.

12. Cass. Civ. lère 3 November 1983, Rohbi, , J.C.P. 1984.II. 20131, note Gulphe; Rev. crit. dr. internal, pr. 1984, 325, First case, note I. Fadlallah; Clunet 1984, note Ph. Kahn.Google Scholar

13. Civ. lère, 3 November 1988, Rev. crit. dr. internat. pr. 1989,495, note J. Foyer.

14. Trib. de grande instance de Paris, 19 September 1991, D. 1992,43, note C. Jairosson.

15. See Audit, B., Droit International privé (1991) p. 716 and references.Google Scholar

16. Cass. Civ. lére 11 October 1988, Rebouh, and 18 October 1988, Schule, Rev. crit. dr. internat. pr 1989, 368 and article by Y. Lequette p. 227; Clunet 1989, 349, note Alexandre, D.; J.C.P. 1989 II 21237Google Scholar, note P. Courbe. See also the article by D. Bureau, ‘L'application d'office de la loi étrangère, Essai de synthèse’ (‘The automatic application of foreign law, Essay in Synthesis’), Clunet (1990) p. 317. But seemingly going back on this: Civ. lère 6 December 1990, Rev. crit. dr. internal, pr 1991,558, note M.L. Niboyet-Hoegy, Clunet 1991,371, note D. Bureau.Google Scholar

17. D. 1960,610, note Ph. Maulaurie; Rev. crit. dr. internat. pr 1960,62, note H. Battifol; Clunet 1960, note J.B. Sialelli; J.C.P. 1960 II 11733Google Scholar, note H. Motulsky; B. Ancel and Y. Lequette, Grands arrêts de la jurisprudence francaise, de droit international privé, 2nd edn. (1992) no. 33.

18. See in particular Crim. 18 February 1971, Rev. crit. dr. internat. pr. 1973,671, note P. Gothot and D. Holleaux; Civ. lére 9 March 1983, J.C.P. 1984 II 20925, note P. Courbe; Civ. lére 6 December 1990 supra n. 16.Google Scholar

19. For a powerful synthesis of the opposition between methods see Audit, op. cit n. 15, p. 98 et seq.

20. Court of Appeal (Supreme Court) of the State of New York, Rev. crit. dr. internat. pr. 1964, 284, note J.C. Castel.

21. See Audit, op. cit. n. 15, p. 105, note 1.

22. Ibid. no. 784; see also B. Audit, ‘Flux et reflux de la crise des conflits de lois’ (‘Ebb and Flow in the crisis of conflicts of laws’), in Travaux du Com. fr. de dr. internat. pr., fiftieth anniversary, ed. CNRS (1988) p. 59 et seq. in particular p.61.

23. See Audit, op. cit. n. 22.

24. Although today in France the opinion is split between those for and against renvoi, the Court of Cassation decided in favour of die acceptance of the principle of renvoi with various exceptions. See Deruppé and Agostini, Jcl. dr. internal, fasc. 532-B; see also, Y. Loussouam, ‘L’ évolution de la régie de conflit de lois’ (‘The development of the rule of conflict of laws’), in Travaux du Com. fr. de dr. internat. pr., fiftieth anniversary edn., (1988) p. 79 et seq., especially pp. 94–95.

25. Rev. crit. dr. internat pr. 1985,527, note H. Synvet; Clunet 1986,156, note B. Goldman.

26. See particularly Civ. 6 July 1959, Fourrures Renel, Rev. crit. dr. internat. pr. 1959,708, note H. Batiffol; Grands arrêts No. 36; Civ. lére 25 May 1980, Mercator Press; Rev. crit. dr. internat pr. 1980,576, note H. Bartifol.

27. See Mayer, P., Droit international privé, 4th edn. 1991, Nos. 245–247; the author judges that the first approach is only helpful for inter-regional conflicts, that is to say in reality for false conflicts, since there is no plurality of legislators (for example, the specific law applicable in France in the departments of Alsace-Lorraine).Google Scholar

28. On this point see in particular: H. Muir-Watt Bowel, Lafonction de la régle de conflit de lois (“The function of the rule of the conflic of laws’), doctoral thesis, Paris II (1985); B. Audit, ‘Le caractere fonctionnel de la régie de conflit’ (‘The functional character of the rule of conflict’), 186 Hague Recueil (1984) p. 229 et seq.; Y. Loussouam, ‘La régie de conflit est-elle une régie neutre?’ (‘Is the rule of conflict a neutral rule?’), Travaux com. fr. dr. internat. pr. (1980–81) L 2, p. 47 and by the same author, loc. cit. n. 24.

29. A similar solution can be found in the EEC Brussels Convention of 29 February 1968 (Art. 1), also not yet in force.

30. See, for example, regarding the right to open proceedings in France, Cass. Com. 5 December 1989, Crim. 12 November 1990, Civ. lére. 26 May 1991, Rev. crit dr. internat, pr. 1991,667, note B. Khairallah.

31. Civ. lère 19 April 1988, D. 1988 som. com. 345, note B. Audit; Rev. crit dr. internal, pr. 1989, 68, note H. Battifol.

32. See in particular C. Labrusse, ‘La compètence et l'application des lois nationales face au prénomène de l'immigration érangère’ (‘The jurisdiction and the application of national laws in the face of the phenomenon of foreign immigration’), Trav. com. fr. dr. internat, pr. (1975–77) p. 111; see also P. Lagarde, ‘Le principe de proximité dans le droit international privé contemporain’ (‘The principle of proximity in contemporary private international law’), 196 Hague Recueil (19861) p. 13 et seq., particularly p. 93 et seq.

33. Audit, op. cit. n. 15, p. 870.

34. See Civ. lère 20 May 1981, Bull. civ. 1 no. 176; Civ. lère, 31 May 1988, D. 1988 Inf. rap. 174: these judgments affirm that the contribution to matrimonial expenses is different in cause and subject-matter from maintenance obligation.

35. Civ. lère 6 November 1990, Rev. crit. dr. internat pr. 1991,348, note M. Simon- Depitre.

36. D. 1985,551, noteJ.P.Rémery. SeealsoP.CourbeunderDouai 10July 1981, Journaldudroit int. 1984, 320.

37. Mayer, P., op.cit.n.27, p.616Google Scholar;see also Légier, G, in Clunet(1986)pp. 1024–1026, note under Tribunal de grande instance of Grenoble 18 March 1985.Google Scholar

38. See Audit, op. cit n. 15, no. 607.

39. Rev. crit. dr. internat. pr. 1982,684, note H. Batiffol.

40. 1954 Convention on Civil Procedure; 1961 Convention on Legalisation; 1965 Convention on Servie Abroad; 1970 Convention on Taking of Evidence; 1980 Convention on Access to Justice.

41. See, for example, Cass. Civ. lère 25 June 1991, D.1992,51 note J. Massip; Journal du droit int. 1991, 975 and note. See also G. Droz, ‘Evolution du rôle des autorités adtninistratives dans les conventions de droit international privé au cours du premier siècle de la conférence de La Haye’ (‘Development of the role of the administrative authorities in private international law conventions during the first century of the Hague Conference’), Etudes offertes à Pierre Belief (1991) p. 129.

42. See the 1958 Convention on the Choice of Court in International Sales, and the 1965 Convention on the Choice of Court.

43. See, in particular, the 1961 Convention on the Protection of Minors and the 1965 Convention on Adoption.

44. Civ. lère 19 November 1985, Cognacs and Brandies from France, Rev. crit. dr. internat. pr. 1986,712, note Y. Lequette; Journal du droit int. 1986,719, note A. Huet, D. 1986, 362, J. Prévault and Inf. rap. 268, note B. Audit; Grands arrêts no. 67.

45. Seeinparticular, P.Lagarde, inRev.crit.dr.internat.pr.(1987)p.411 and Y. Lequette, in Rev. crit. dr. internat. pr. (1988) p. 342.

46. See.in particular, the 1958 Convention on the Recongnition and Enforcement of Decrees relating to the Maintenance Obligations towards children; the 1965 Convention on Adoption; the 1970 Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations; the 1971 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters; the 1973 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decrees relating to Maintenance Obligations.

47. See, for example, P. Mayer, op. cit. n. 27, p. 392; Audit, op. cit. n. 15, no. 473: ‘Conventional law already goes in this direction. General law seems to be coming into line’.

48. See Art. 68 of the 1970 Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations; Art. 7 of the 1971 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement ofForeign Judgments; and Art. 2 of the 1958 Convention and Arts. 4 and 5 of the 1973 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions relating to Maintenance Obligations.

49. See, however, B. Ancel, ‘Loi appliquée et effets en France des décisions étrangerès’ (‘Applied Law and effects of foreign judgments in France’), Trav. Com. fr. de dr. internat. pr. (1986–1988) p. 25.

50. Cass. civ. lère 6 February 1985, Rev. crit dr. internat pr. 1985, 369 and chroa PR. Francescakis, p. 243; Journal du droit int. 1985,460, note A. Huet; D. 1985,469, J. Massip, inf. rap. 497, note B. Audit; Grands arrets no. 66.

51. See Arts. 4 and 10 of the 1971 Convention on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments; Art. 2 of the 1970 Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations; Arts. 4, 7 and 8 of the 1973 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions relating to Maintenance Obligations.

52. For the first solution see A. Huet, ‘Le sort en France des conventions internationales relatives à la compétence des tribunaux étrangers (et notamment de la convention franco-polonaise du S avril 1967), après l'arrêt de la Cour de Cassation du 6 février 1985’ (‘The Fate in France of International Conventions relating to the jurisdiction of foreign Courts (notably the Franco– Polish Convention of 5 April 1967), following the judgment of the Court of Cassation of 6 February 1985’), in Procès et Droit. Etudes juridiques, Mélanges Jodlowski (1989) p. 111; and also from the same author, ‘Les procédures de reconnaissance et d'exécution des jugements Strangers et des sentences arbitrates en droit international privé franços’ (‘Procedures for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral rulings in French private international law’), Clunet (1988) p. 5, especially p. 31 et seq.; for the second solution see Ph. Francescakis, ‘Le contrôle de la compétence du juge étranger après l'arrêt Simitch’ (‘The Control of Jurisdiction of the foreign judge after the Simitch judgment’), Rev. crit.xs dr. internat. pr. (1985) p. 243.Google Scholar

53. David, R., Le droit du commerce international. Réflexions d'un comparatiste sur le droit international privé (International Commercial Law. Reflections of a comparative specialist on private international law) (1987) in particular pp. 3 and 59.Google Scholar