Editing Conflict of laws (section)

== History ==
Western legal systems first recognized a core underpinning of conflict of laws—namely, that "foreign law, in appropriate instances, should be applied to foreign cases"—in the twelfth century.<ref name="Yntema">{{cite web| url = https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5681&context=mlr| title = Hessel E. Yntema, ''The Comity Doctrine'', 65 Michigan Law Review 9 (1965)}}</ref>{{rp|9–10}} Prior to that, the prevailing system was that of ''personal law'', in which the laws applicable to each individual were dictated by the group to which he or she belonged.<ref name="Yntema"/>{{rp|9–10}} Initially, the mode of this body of law was simply to determine which jurisdiction's law would be most fair to apply; over time, however, the law came to favor more well-defined rules.<ref name="Yntema"/>{{rp|12–13}} These rules were systematically summarized by law professor [[Bartolus de Saxoferrato]] in the middle of the fourteenth century,<ref name="Yntema"/>{{rp|13}} a work that came to be cited repeatedly for the next several centuries.<ref>J.A. Clarence Smith, ''Bartolo on the Conflict of Laws'', 14 American Journal of Legal History 157, 157–60 (1970).</ref>

Later, in the seventeenth century, several Dutch legal scholars, including [[Christian Rodenburg]], [[Paulus Voet]], [[Johannes Voet]], and [[Ulrik Huber]], further expounded the jurisprudence of conflict of laws.<ref name ="Yntema"/>{{rp|20–28}} Their key conceptual contributions were twofold: First, nations are wholly sovereign within their borders and therefore cannot be compelled to enforce foreign law in their own courts.<ref name ="Yntema"/>{{rp|28}} Second, in order for international conflicts of law to work rationally, nations must exercise comity in enforcing others' laws, because it is in their mutual interest to do so.<ref name ="Yntema"/>{{rp|30}}Scholars began to consider ways to resolve the question of how and when formally equal sovereign States ought to recognize each other's authority.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Schultz |first=Thomas |date=2019 |title=The History of Comity |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3405341 |journal=Jus Gentium – Journal of International Legal History |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=35 |via=SSRN}}</ref> The doctrine of [[comity]] was introduced as one of the means to answer these questions.<ref name=":0" /> Comity has undergone various changes since its creation. However, it still refers to the idea that every State is sovereign; often, the most just exercise of one State's authority is by recognizing the authority of another through the recognition and enforcement of another state's laws and judgments.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Schultz |first=Thomas |date=2019 |title=The History of Comity |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3405341 |journal=Jus Gentium – Journal of International Legal History |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=36 |via=SSRN}}</ref> Many states continue to recognize the principle of comity as the underpinning of private international law such as in Canada.<ref>Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye, [1990] 3 SCR 1077.</ref> In some countries, such as the United States of America and Australia, the principle of comity is written into the State's constitution.<ref>William L. Reynolds & William M. Richman, ''The Full Faith and Credit Clause: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution'' ([[Praeger Publishing|Praeger]], 2005), p. xvii; Constitution of Australia, chapter 7, section 118.</ref>

In the United States, salient issues in the field of conflict of laws date back at least to the framing of the Constitution. There was concern, for example, about what body of law the newly created federal courts would apply when handling cases between parties from different states<ref name = "Nadelmann">Kurt H. Nadelmann, ''Joseph Story's Contribution to American Conflicts Law: A Comment'', 5 American Journal of Legal History 230, 235 (1961).</ref> (a type of case [[Diversity jurisdiction|specifically assigned to the federal courts]]<ref>[[Article Three of the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. Art. III, §2]].</ref>). Within the first two decades following ratification of the Constitution, over one hundred cases dealt with these issues, though the term ''conflict of laws'' was not yet used.<ref name = "Nadelmann"/>{{rp|235–36}} The Constitution created a "plurilegal federal union" in which conflicts are inherently abundant,<ref name="Symeonides">{{cite book |last1=Symeonides |first1=Symeon |authorlink1=Symeon C. Symeonides |title=Choice of Law |date=2016 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |isbn=9780190496722 |page= |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KNYdDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA6 |access-date=March 18, 2023}}</ref>{{rp|6}} and as a result, American judges encounter conflicts cases far more often—about 5,000 per year as of the mid-2010s—and have accumulated far more experience in resolving them than anywhere else in the world.<ref name="Symeonides"/>{{rp|10}} 

Alongside domestic developments relating to conflict of laws, the nineteenth century also saw the beginnings of substantial international collaboration in the field. The first international meeting on the topic took place in [[Lima]] in 1887 and 1888; delegates from five South American countries attended, but failed to produce an enforceable agreement.<ref name="Ana Delić">{{cite web| url = https://opil.ouplaw.com/page/Treaties-Montevideo/the-birth-of-modern-private-international-law-the-treaties-of-montevideo-1889-amended-1940| title = Ana Delić, ''The Birth of Modern Private International Law: The Treaties of Montevideo'', Oxford Public International Law}}</ref> The first major multilateral agreements on the topic of conflict of laws arose from the [[First South American Congress of Private International Law]], which was held in [[Montevideo]] from August 1888 to February 1889.<ref name="Ana Delić"/> The seven South American nations represented at the Montevideo conference agreed on eight treaties, which broadly adopted the ideas of [[Friedrich Carl von Savigny]], determining applicable law on the basis of four types of factual relations (domicile, location of object, location of transaction, location of court).<ref name="Ana Delić"/>

Soon after, European nations gathered for a conference in [[The Hague]] organized by [[Tobias Asser]] in 1893.<ref name="Hans van Loon 2007">{{cite web| url = https://www.elevenjournals.com/tijdschrift/hjj/2007/2/HJJ_187-4202_2007_002_002_002.pdf| title = Hans van Loon, ''The Hague Conference on Private International Law'', 2 Hague Justice Journal 75 (2007)}}</ref>{{rp|76}} This was followed by successive conferences in 1894, 1900, and 1904.<ref name="Hans van Loon 2007"/>{{rp|76}} Like their counterparts in Montevideo, these conferences produced several multilateral agreements on various topics within conflict of laws.<ref name= "Hans van Loon 2007"/>{{rp|76–77}} Thereafter, the pace of these meetings slowed, with the next conventions occurring in 1925 and 1928.<ref name="Hans van Loon 2007"/>{{rp|77}} The seventh meeting at The Hague occurred in 1951, at which point the sixteen involved states established a permanent institution for international collaboration on conflict-of-laws issues.<ref name="Hans van Loon 2007"/>{{rp|77}} The organization is known today as the [[Hague Conference on Private International Law]] (HCCH). {{as of|2020|12}}, HCCH includes eighty-six member states.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.hcch.net/en/about| title = HCCH, ''About HCCH''}}</ref>

As attention to the field became more widespread in the second half of the twentieth century, the [[European Union]] began to take action to harmonize conflict of laws jurisprudence across its member states. The first of these was the [[Brussels Convention]] agreed in 1968, which addressed questions of jurisdiction for cross-border cases.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A41968A0927%2801%29| title = 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters}}</ref> This was followed in 1980 by the [[Rome Convention (contract)|Rome Convention]], which addressed choice-of-law rules for contract disputes within EU member states.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:41998A0126(02):EN:NOT| title = 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations| date = August 13, 1998}}</ref> In 2009 and 2010, respectively, the EU enacted the [[Rome II Regulation]] to address choice-of-law in tort cases<ref name="EU_Reg864"/> and the [[Rome III Regulation]] to address choice-of-law in divorce matters.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:343:0010:0016:EN:PDF| title = COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1259/2010}}</ref>