Public and Private International Law: German views on Global Issues

Journal of Private International Law

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 121-138

  Michaels, Ralf ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929763366     PISSN: 17441048     EISSN: 17578418     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17536235.2008.11424336     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. S, Leible and M, Ruffert (eds), Völkerrecht und IPR (Jena, Jenaer Wissenschaftliche Verlags-gesellschaft, 2006)
2. Restatement of the Law (3d), The Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987), §§ 402–16. Mathias Reimann has asked that a potential new restatement of conflict of laws account for international choice of law: “A New Restatement for the International Age” (2000) 75 Indiana Law Journal 575. See also Academic Workshop: Should We Continue to Distinguish between Public and Private Law? (1985) 79 ASIL Proceedings 352
3. A Mills, “The Private History of International Law” (2006) 55 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1
4. A Nussbaum, “The Rise and Decline of the Law-of-Nations Doctrine in the Conflict of Laws” (1942) 52 Columbia Law Review 189
5. Eg R Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law (1854) 54; J Westlake, A Treatise on Private International Law of Conflict of Laws (1859) 18. More recently for strict distinction, see R, Jennings and A, Watts (eds), Oppenheim's International Law (London, Longman, 9th edn, 1996), 6–7; MN Shaw, International Law (Cambridge University Press, 5th edn, 2003)
6. PM Brown, “Private versus Public International Law” (1942) 36 American Journal of International Law 448; JR Stevenson, “The Relationship of Private International Law to Public International Law” (1952) 52 Columbia Law Review 561, 564; G Schwarzenberger, A Manual of International Law (London, Institute of World Affairs, 5th edn, 1967) 4; JR Paul, The Isolation of Private International Law (1989) 7 Wisconsin International Law Journal 149
7. Literature on this has no boundaries. See the references in R Michaels, “Welche Globalisierung für das Recht? Welches Recht für die Globalisierung?” (2005) 69 RabelsZ 525; R Michaels and N Jansen, “Private Law Beyond the State? Europeanization, Globalization, Privatization” (2006) 54 American Journal of Comparative Law 843; N Jansen and R Michaels, “Private Law and the State–Comparative Perceptions and Historical Dimensions” (2007) 71 RabelsZ 345, all with extensive further references. More recently, see E, Leibfried et al (eds), Transforming the Golden-Age Nation State (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008)
8. Eg PC Jessup, Transnational Law (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1956); Paul, supra n 6, 158–9; HH Koh, “Transnational Legal Process” (1996) 75 Nebraska Law Review 181; for a summary and evaluation of the debate, see P Zumbansen, “Transnational Law”, in J, Smits (ed), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2006), 738
9. H Muir Watt, “Droit public et droit privé dans les rapports internationaux (Vers la publicisation des conflits de lois?)” (1997) 41 Archives de philosophie du droit–le privé et le public 207; PS Berman, “From International Law to Law and Globalization” (2005) 43 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 485 518–23
10. Mills, supra n 3
11. Eg A Clapham, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (Oxford University Press, 2006); O Dörr, “Privatisierung' des Völkerrechts” (2005) 60 Juristenzeitung 905; T Meron, The Humanization of International Law (Leiden, Nijhoff, 2006)
12. A-M Slaughter and W Burke-White, “The Future of International Law is Domestic (or The European Way of Law)” (2006) 47 Harvard International Law Journal 327
13. Sanchez-Llamas v Oregon, 548 US 331 (US S Ct 2006); Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG–German Federal Constitutional Court), 19 Sep 2006, 2 BvR 2115/01, International Law in Domestic Courts (ILDC) 668 (DE 2006). For comparison, see J Gogolin, “Avena and Sanchez-Llamas Come to Germany–The German Constitutional Court Upholds Rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations” (2007) 8 German Law Journal 261, http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=805; KF Gräditz, “German Federal Constitutional Court: Decision on Failure to Provide Consular Notification” (2007) 101 American Journal of International Law 627; C Hoppe, “Implementation of LaGrand and Avena in Germany and the United States: Exploring a Transatlantic Divide in Search of a Uniform Interpretation of Consular Rights” (2007) 18 European Journal of International Law 317. The latest US Supreme Court decision on these questions is Medellín v Texas (25 Mar 2008), (2008) 76 United States Law Week 4143
14. RG Steinhardt, “The Privatization of Public Law” (1991) 25 George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics 523, 544. B Kingsbury, “The Problem of the Public in International Law” (NYU Law School, working paper, 2005)
15. K Schurig, “Völkerrecht und IPR: Methodische Verschleifung oder strukturierte Interaktion?”, in Leible and Ruffert, supra n 1, 55, 56–7
16. See Jansen and Michaels, supra n 7
17. 17 Burkhard Hess at Tübingen reportedly also holds a venia in public and private international law
18. On Wengler, see S Leible and M Ruffert, “Einführung”, in Leible and Ruffert, supra n 1, 17, 19–20 with further references in n 14; for a brief obituary, see also C Dominicé (Secretary General's report), (1996) 66 II Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International 52
19. 19 “Deutsche Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht“, not to be confused with the “Deutsche Vereinigung für Internationales Recht”, the German branch of the International Law Association (ILA).,
20. Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht; for a list, see http://www.dgvr.de/berichte.pdf.,
21. Similarly H-P Mansel, “Staatlichkeit des Internationalen Privatrechts und Völkerrecht”, in Leible and Ruffert, supra n 1, 89, 91
22. E Zitelmann, Internationales Privatrecht (3 vols, Munich, Duncker & Humblot, 1897–1912); E Frankenstein, Internationales Privatrecht (Grenzrecht) (4 vols, Berlin-Grunewald, Dr Walther Rothschild, 1926–35): A Bleckmann, Die völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen des internationalen Kollisionsrechts (Cologne, Heymanns, 1992). For a French reception, see P de Vareilles-Sommières, La Compétence de l'Etat en matière de droit privé (Paris, LGDJ, 1997)
23. Mansel, supra n 21, 89
24. Mansel, supra n 21, 111–14; Schurig, supra n 15, 60–1; similarly B Audit, Droit International Privé (Paris, Economica, 4th edn, 2006), 30–1; C von Bar and P Mankowski, Internationales Privatrecht, vol 1 (Munich, Beck, 2nd edn, 2003), § 3 nos 8–13
25. WE Beckett, “What Is Private International Law?” (1926) 7 British Yearbook of International Law 73
26. Mansel supra n 21, 97–103
27. See A Cassese, “Remarks on Scelle's Theory of ‘Role Splitting’ (dédoublement fonctionnel) in International Law” (1990) 1 European Journal of International Law 210
28. Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala), 1955 ICJ Rep 4; see already the case of the SS Lotus (France v Turkey), 1927 PCIJ (Ser A) No 10
29. W Wheeler Cook, The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Law (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1942), 71–8, discussing limited practical effect of the Lotus decision of the ICJ
30. A Makarov, “Völkerrecht und Internationales Privatrecht”, in Mélanges Streit, vol 1 (Athens 1939), 535, 548–9 and passim. Cf E Jayme, Internationales Privatrecht und Völkerrecht (Heidelberg, Müller, 2003), 18–19
31. Mansel, supra n 21, 117–28 cites to two decisions by the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), questioning the genuine link between a state and a corporation incorporated under that state's law. Denial of such a link could not be based on international law
32. Eg H Yntema, “The Comity Doctrine” (1966) 65 Michigan Law Review 9 with a historical “Foreword” by K Nadelmann, ibid 1; J Paul, “Comity in International Law” (1991) 32 Harvard International Law Journal 1; J Paul, “The Transformation of International Comity” (2008) 71/3 Law and Contemporary Problems (forthcoming)
33. AV Dicey, The Conflict of Laws (1st edn, 1896), 10, quoted with approval by HF Goodrich, Handbook of the Conflict of Laws (St Paul, MN, West Publishing, 3rd edn, 1949), 11–12
34. Hilton v Guyot, 159 US 113, 163–4 (US S Ct 1895)
35. See, most recently, L Collins, “The United States Supreme Court and the Principles of Comity: Evidence in Transnational Litigation” (2006) 8 Yearbook of Private International Law 53
36. Derby & Co Ltd v Weldon (Nos 3 and 4) [1990] Ch 65, 82 (CA); Crédit Suisse Fides Trust SA v Cuoghi [1998] QB 818, 827 (CA) per Millett LJ. See, more generally, L Collins, “Comity in Modern Private International Law”, in J, Fawcett (ed), Reform and Development of Private International Law: Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North (Oxford University Press, 2002), 89
37. See G Kegel and K Schurig, Internationales Privatrecht (Munich, Beck, 9th edn, 2004), 185; KH Ziegler, “Völkerrechtliche Verpflichtung zur Anwendung oder nur ‘freundliche Beachtung’ fremden Rechts? Die comitas-Lehre heute (Betrachtungen eines Rechtshistorikers)”, in Leible and Ruffert, supra n 1, 43, 54); Schurig, supra n 15, 60
38. Ziegler, ibid
39. Ziegler, ibid, 46–7 hints at a possible connection between Savigny's private international law and the public international law of his time. For reasons expressed in the text I would not expect this to be fruitful
40. See G Kegel, “Story and Savigny” (1989) 37 American Journal of Comparative Law 39
41. J Story, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws (3rd edn, 1846), 13
42. On the origins of this volume, see F Sturm, “Savigny und das internationale Privatrecht seiner Zeit” (1979) 8 Ius commune 92
43. F von Savigny, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, and the Limits of their Operation in Respect of Place and Time (W Guthrie trans, 1880), 45
44. Kegel, supra n 40, 59; see already M Gutzwiller, Der Einfluss Savignys auf die Entwicklung des Inter-nationalprivatrechts (Freiburg [Switzerland], Universitätsverlag Gschwend, Tschopp & Co, 1923), 43–4
45. Savigny, supra n 43, 70
46. Kegel, supra n 40, 58–9
47. For limits to Savigny as a model for globalised conflict of laws, see R Michaels, “Globalising Savigny? The State in Savigny's Private International Law and the Challenge from European-ization and Globalization”, in M, Stolleis and W, Streeck (eds), Dezentralisierung. Aktuelle Fragen politischer und rechtlicher Steuerung im Kontext der Globalisierung (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007), 119
48. Mansel, supra n 21, 103–11
49. J Basedow, “Das Konventionsprivatrecht und das Völkerrecht der Staatsverträge”, ibid, 153
50. See E Jayme, “Völkerrecht und Internationales Privatrecht–Eine entwicklungsgeschichtliche Betrachtung”, in Leible and Ruffert, supra n 1, 23, 24–6; the resolution of the Institute is ibid, 39–40; see also, briefly, Basedow, supra n 49, 156–7
51. See KH Nadelmann, “Multilateral Conventions in the Conflicts Field: An Historical Sketch” (1972) 19 Netherlands International Law Review 107
52. PS Mancini, “De l'utilité de rendre obligatoires pour tous les Etats, sous la forme de plusieurs traités internationaux, un certain nombre de règles générales du Droit international prié pour assurer la decision uniforme des conflits entre les différentes égislations civiles et criminelles” Clunet 1 (1874), 221–39, 285–304
53. Supra n 49
54. K Nadelmann, “Uniform Legislation versus International Conventions as a Method of Unification of Private International Law”, in K Nadelmann, Conflict of Laws: International and Interstate: Selected Essays (The Hague, Nijhoff 1972), 87
55. See K Nadelmann, “Mancini's Nationality Rule and Non-Unified Legal Systems” (1969) 17 American Journal of Comparative Law 418, 422–3. A prominent proponent of codification was none other than David Dudley Field, famous for his promotion of codification of domestic law in New York
56. See R Michaels, “The European Choice-of-Law Revolution” 82 Tulane Law Review II.A (forthcoming)
57. J Basedow, “Was wird aus der Haager Konferenz für Internationales Privtrecht?” in T, Rauscher and H-P, Mansel (eds), Festschrift für Werner Lorenz zum 80. Geburtstag (München, Sellier, 2001), 463; M Traest, “Development of a European Private International Law and the Hague Conference” (2003) 5 Yearbook of Private International Law 223
58. H Kronke, “Most Significant Relationship, Governmental Interests, Cultural Identity, Integration: ‘Rules’ at Will and the Case for Principles of Conflict of Laws” (2004) 9 Uniform Law Review 467
59. P Mankowski, “Völkerrechtliche Meistbegünstigung und europäisches IPR/IZVR” in Leible and Ruffert, supra n 1, 235
60. Bundesgerichtshof, 29 Jan 2003 VIII ZR 155/02, [2003] Neue Juristiche Wochenschrift 1607; JC Dammann, “Amerikanische Gesellschaften mit Sitz in Deutschland. Zugleich eine Anmerkung zu BGH 29.1.2003–VIII ZR 155/02” (2004) 65 RabelsZ 1. Mankowski, supra n 59, 262 argues that the result followed already from a choice of law rule in the US–German Treaty
61. See J Meeusen, “Instrumentalisation of Private International Law in the European Union: Towards a European Conflicts Revolution?” (2007) 9 European Journal of Migration and Law 287, 291ss; Michaels, supra n 56, II.3.b
62. J Goldsmith and AO Sykes, “Lex Loci Delictus and Global Economic Welfare: Spinozzi v ITT Sheraton Corp” (2007) 120 Harvard Law Review 1137, 1144–5. More generally on the potential impact of WTO law on private international law, see W-H Roth, “Welthandelsordnung und IPR” (2003) 40 Berichte der deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht 331. For a conceptualisation of the WTO as a conflict-of-laws system, see C Joerge, “Constitutionalism in Postnational Constellations: Contrasting Social Regulation in the EU and in the WTO”, in C, Joerges and E-U, Petersmann (eds), Constitutionalism, Multilevel Trade Governance and Social Regulation (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2006), 491
63. For the market as relevant connecting factor, see D Martiny, “Die Anknüpfung an den Markt”, in Festschrift für Ulrich Drobnig zum siebzigsten. Geburtstag (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 389
64. N de Belleville Katzenbach, “Conflicts on an Unruly Horse: Reciprocal Claims and Tolerances in Interstate and International Law” (1956) 65 Yale Law Journal 1087, 1087
65. See JC, Morris (gen ed), Dicey's Conflict of Laws (London, Stevens & Sons and Sweet & Maxwell, 6th edn, 1949) LXV; JC Morris (gen ed), Dicey's Conflict of Laws (London, Stevens & Sons, 7th edn, 1958), 9
66. See R Michaels, “EU Law as Private International Law? Reconceptualizing the Country-of-Origin Principle as Wested-rights Theory (2006) 2 Journal of Private International Law 195, 226–7
67. Mansel, supra n 21, 114, against W Wengler, Internationales Privatrecht, vol 1 (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1983), 23–4
68. Michaels, supra n 61; similarly Mansel, supra n 21, 114
69. Mankowski, supra n 59, 258–60
70. On Kant's importance for private international law, see also K Siehr, “Kant and Private International Law” (2001) 2 European Business Organization Law Review 767. A Kantian reconceptualization of private international law is the theme of F Rödl, “Weltbürgerliches Kollisionsrecht. Über die Form des Kollisionsrechts und ihre Einlösung im Recht der Europäischen Union” (PhD Thesis EUI Florence, 2008)
71. Jayme, supra n 50, 23. More extensively, E Jayme, Menschenrechte und Theorie des Internationalen Privatrechts, in E Jayme, Internationale Privatrecht und Völkerrecht (Heidelberg: CF Müller, 2003), 95. Another brief discussion in this volume is that by Mansel, supra n 21, 128–9
72. C van Bar, “Menschenrechte im Kollisionsrecht” (1994) 33 Berichte der deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht 191
73. A Spickhoff, “Der völkerrechtsbezogene ordre public”, in Leible and Ruffert, supra n 1, 275
74. Ibid, 277–81, against G Jaenicke, “Zur Frage des internationalen ordre public” (1967) 7 Berichte der deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht 77
75. J Basedow, “Die Verselbständigung des europäischen ordre publique”, in M, Coester, D, Martiny and KA Prinz, von Sachsen Gessaphe (eds), Privatrecht in Europa–Vielfalt, Kollision, Kooperation; Festschrift für Hans Jürgen Sonnenberger zum 70. Geburtstag (München, Beck, 2004), 291; for a more critical view, see I Thoma, “Die Europäisierung und die Vergemeinschaftung des nationalen ordre public” (Tübingen, Mohr 2007); see also Spickhoff, supra n 73, 285–6
76. The latter is true only when one views public policy as an exception. Spickhoff, following Klaus Schurig, establishes public policy as a specific choice-of-law rule. See A Spickhoff, Der ordre public im internationalen Privatrecht, Entwicklung, Struktur, Konkretisierung (Neuwied, Metzner, 1989)
77. Jayme, supra n 50, 25–6, discussing ECJ, 2 Oct 2003, case C–148/02, Garcia Avello [2003] ECR I–11613; see also ECJ, 27 Apr 2006, Case C–96/04, Standesamt Stadt Niebüll (“Grunkin-Paul”), [2006] ECR I–3561; for discussion, Meeusen, supra n 61, 292ss
78. Jayme, supra n 50, 37–8; see already E Jayme, “L'autonomie de la volonté des parties dans les contrats internationaux entre personnes privées” (1991) 64-I Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International 14, 63ss; S Leible, “Parteiautonomie im IPR–Allgemeines Anknüpfungsprinzip oder Verlegenheitslösung?”, in HP, Mansel et al (eds), Festschrift für Jayme (München, Sellier 2004), 485
79. See now V van den Eckhout, “Promoting Human Rights within the Union: The Role of European Private International Law” (2008) 14 European Law Journal 105
80. Karen Knop, “Public/Private Citizenship” (2008) 71 Law and Contemporary Problems (forthcoming)
81. Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 (6 May 2004); G Phillipson, “Clarity Postponed? Horizontal Effect after Campbell”, in H, Fenwick, G, Phillipson and R, Masterman (eds), Judicial Reasoning under the UK Human Rights Act (Cambridge University Press, 2007), 143. See more generally, JH Knox, “Horizontal Human Rights Law” (2008) 102 American Journal of International Law 1
82. AF Lowenfeld, International Economic Law (Oxford University Press, 2002)
83. Schurig, supra n 15
84. See, eg, JP Trachtman, “The International Economic Law Revolution” (1996) 17 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 33, 40 (“The Disappearance of Private International Law”)
85. A Weber, “Marktfreiheit oder kooperative Gemeinwohlverwirklichung im internationalen Wirt-schaftsrecht?”, in Leible and Ruffert, supra n 1, 71, 72–3
86. F Kübler, “Wirtschaftsrecht in der Bundesrepublik. Versuch einer wissenschaftlichen Bestandsauf-nahme”, in D, Simon (ed), Rechtswissenschaft in der Bonner Republik (Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1994), 364
87. See Jansen and Michaels, supra n 7, 352–3
88. Schurig, supra n 15, 56–7
89. E Eichenhofer, “Sicherung völkerrechtlich konsentierter sozialer Mindeststandards durch Kollisions-oder Einheitsrecht?”, in Leible and Ruffert, supra n 1, 215
90. Ibid at 224; in more detail, see E Eichenhofer, Internationales Sozialrecht und Internationales Privatrecht (Munich, Beck, 1987)
91. C Ohler, “Internationales Verwaltungsrecht–ein Kollisionsrecht eigener Art?”, in Leible and Ruffert, supra n 1, 131; see also C Ohler, Die Kollisionsordnung des Allgemeinen Verwaltungsrechts (Tübingen, Mohr/Siebeck 2005). The classic German study is K Neumeyer, Internationales Verwaltungsrecht, 4 vols (Munich & Berlin, J Schweitzer, 1910–36)
92. PJ McConnaughy, “Reviving the ‘Public Law Taboo’ in International Conflict of Laws” (1999) 35 Stanford Journal of International Law 255; WS Dodge, “Breaking the Public Law Taboo” (2002) 43 Harvard International Law Journal 161
93. O Dörr, “Staatenimmunität als Anerkennungs-und Vollstreckungshindernis”, in Leible and Ruffert, supra n 1, 175
94. See eg Kuwaiti Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Co., [1995] 1 WLR 1147
95. See only Jones v Saudi Arabia, [2006] UKHL 26. The relationship between sovereign immunity and the duty to provide redress for victims of torture is currently the subject of hot debate. See only, most recently, “Symposium: State Immunity in Civil Proceedings for Serious Violations of Human Rights” (2007) 18 European Journal of International Law 903–70; E Bates, “State Immunity for Torture” (2007) 7 Human Rights Law Review 651
96. Altmann v Republic of Austria, 541 US 677 (US S Ct 2004)
97. The case was decided by arbitration, and the parties agreed that Austrian law should govern. The arbitral award that ensued is available at http://www.adele.at/Schiedsspruch/schiedsspruch.html.,
98. C Tietje, “Staateninsolvenz und Kapitalaufnahme auf internationalen Anleihemärkten”, in Leible and Ruffert, supra n 1, 193. Much has been written on these issues. For a perspective from a German private international law scholar, see T Pfeiffer, “Zahlungskrisen ausländischer Staaten im deutschen und internationalen Rechtsverkehr” (2003) 102 Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechts-wissenschaft 141
99. Ibid, 204–8. For a recent critique of arbitration in the area of sovereign bonds, see M Waibel, “Opening Pandora's Box: Sovereign Bonds in International Arbitration” (2007) 101 American Journal of International Law 711. For the usefulness of conflict-of-laws analysis, see AJ Borklund, “Private Rights and Public International Law: Why Competition among International Economic Law Tribunals is not Working” (2007) 59 Hastings Law Journal 241