From the SelectedWorks of Abhishek Bharti

June 2008

The concept of Renvoi in the Conflict of Laws

Contact
Author

Start Your Own

SelectedWorks

Notify Me
of New Work

Available at: http://works.bepress.com/abhishek_bharti/1

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws:AnAnalysis
INTRODUCTION: ConflictoflawsorPrivateinternationallawconstitutesthelegal
principlesandrulesgoverninginternationalprivaterelations.Itthusgivesrisetothat
branch of law which deals with cases where some relevant fact has a geographic
connectioncreatingaforeignelement,andthatraisesaquestionregardingjurisdiction
andwhichlawappliesi.e.ariseswhenthereareoneormorelegallyrelevantforeign
elements,resultingintwoormoredifferentlawscompetingrelativetoaperson,actor
fact,ortoasinglethingandthereisdoubtaboutwhichlawshouldapply.
Beingoneofthemosttheoreticallychallengingconcepts inprivateinternationallaw,
generationsofconflictoflawsscholarshavedebatedthequestionandconceptofRenvoi.
Itistheinstanttopicunderstudyintheduecourseoftheresearchpaper.Renvoiisa
Frenchtermwhichliterallymeanssendingback.Inpreciseterms,whenthechoiceoflaw
processpointsaforumcourttoanotherjurisdiction'slaw,thequestionthatarisesis:how
muchofthatotherjurisdictionslawsshouldapply?Doesthereferencetotheotherlaw
includethatjurisdiction'schoiceoflawprinciples,or,alternatively,doesitincludeonly
thejurisdiction's"internallaw"principles?Ifthereferenceincludesbothinternallawand
conflictsprinciples,theforeignconflictsprinciplesmaypointtheinquiringcourtbackto
theforum'slawortoathirdjurisdiction'slaw.Thisquestionwhetheraforumshould
consultthechoiceoflawrulesofotherjurisdictionsiscalledrenvoi.
Authors and experts like P.R.H.Webb,.Brown, Morris and Dicey, however have
suggestedintheirworkthattheconceptofRenvoiisnotanimportantandsignificant
conceptasfarasitsquantityandqualitygoesandhaveelaborateditbysayingthatin
relationtoRenvoionlytwomattersarerequiredtobeconsiderednamelyitsmeaning

CONFLICTOFLAWS

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws
1

andtheextentofitsapplication. Togetadeeperunderstandingandacriticalanalysisof
theconceptofrenvoianditsplaceintheprivateinternationallaw,theresearcher
2

proposestolookintotheaspectslikeDoctrineandApproachesofrenvoi ,itsspecialized
formsofsingleandmultiplerenvoi,judicialresponsespertainingtotheconceptofrenvoi
fromthecourtsofUnitedKingdom,UnitedStatesofAmericaandFrance.thejudicial
responseshavespecialimportanceasthepositionbeforethecourtscanbelookedinto
throughthedecisionsonly.Theresearchpaperislimitedtotheextentoffocusingonthe
doctrineofrenvoionlyandnototherconceptsofchoiceoflawsinvolvedintheprivate
internationallaw.Thusacriticalanddescriptiveanalysisofthedoctrinewillbedonein
theduecourseoftheresearchpaper.

P.R.H.WebbandD.J.L.Brown,(London:ButterworthPublications,1960)P.60

Hereinafterreferredasdoctrine.

CONFLICTOFLAWS

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws

"Thepaperandinkdevotedtotherenvoiproblemhadalreadybeensogreatanumberof
yearsagothatoneauthorrecordedindespairthat'Juristicspeculationhasbeenalmost
infinite."DeanErwinGriswoldcommentedin1938.
DOCTRINEOFRENVOIANDDIFFERENTAPPROACHES.

Thetheoryoftherenvoiwasformulatedfiftyyearsagobycontinentalwritersandcourts,
andcausedaconsiderablediscussion.Whereverthestatutorytheoryisaccepted,andthe
lawsofthetwostatesconcerneddifferastowhetherthelawofthenationorthelawof
thedomicileeshallbeapplied,atroublesomedoubtappears.Wherethelawoftheforum
providesthatajuridicaleventshallbegovernedbyacertainforeignlaw,andthatforeign
lawinturnremitsittothelawoftheforumtodeterminebyitslaw,thesituationarises
whichhasbeentermedasrenvoi.Here,itcanbeseenthataprobabilityofasituationof
choiceoflawrulesappearit,atleastonoccasion,willdirecttheapplicationofsome
lawwhichmightbesomelawotherthanthelawoftheforum.That,afterall,isthepoint
ofchoiceoflaw.Whentheydo,theforumcourtmightintheprocessdecidewhatit
meanstoapplythelawofanotherstate.
Ashintedinthecourseoftheintroduction,generallyitistheCourtwhoisinchargeto
determinewhichofseveraldifferentjurisdictionslawsappliestothecasebeforeit.The
questionofwhatlawappliesisaquestionthecourtanswersbyconsultingthelawofits
ownstate;thatis,itisaquestionofforumchoiceoflawdoctrine.Iftheforumschoice
oflawrulesdirecttheapplicationofforumlaw,thecourtproceedstoapplytheforums
substantiveorinternallaw:thetort,contract,orotherlawthatdeterminestheparties
substantiverights.Theforumschoiceoflawrulesmightalsodirecttheapplicationof

CONFLICTOFLAWS

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws

anotherstateslaw.Andatthispointaquestionarises.Shouldthecourt,wheninstructed
byforumlawtoapplythelawofanotherstate,applythatstatesinternallaw,orshouldit
applythestatesentirelaw,includingitschoiceoflawrules?Thelattermightseemthe
obviouschoiceapplyingastateslaw,afterall,presumablymeansreachingthesame
resultsthatthecourtsofthatstatewouldreachbutitopensthedoortoanalarming
possibility.Now,theresearcheratthispointwantstosubmitthatthedoctrinethata
referencetothelawofanotherstateisareferencetotheentiretyofthatstateslawisthe
doctrine of renvoi, and the question of whether it should be followedwhether, in
choiceoflawterminology,therenvoishouldbeacceptedorrejectedstandsouteven
amongthegreatjuristsofconflictoflaws.

Inanillustrativeformifexplained,whatismeantbylawwhenareferenceismadeto
foreignlaw;forexample,doesareferencetoIndianlawmeanIndianinternallaw,or
the whole of Indian law, including its conflict of laws rules? The word law is
ambiguousandanumberofapproacheshavebeensuggestedinthisregard.Different
models of renvoi therefore have to be looked into to avoid further confusion and
ambiguityregardingtheconceptunderstudy.
The theory of the renvoi as stated by Professor Schreiber is as follows: When the
ConflictofLawsruleoftheforumrefersajuralmattertoaforeignlawfordecision,is
thereferencetothecorrespondingruleoftheConflictofLawsofthatforeignlaw,oris
thereferencetothepurelyinternalrulesoflawoftheforeignsystem;i.e.,tothetotality

JosephM.Cormack,Renvoi,Characterization,LocalizationandPreliminaryQuestionintheConflict
ofLaws,14S.CAL.L.REV.221,249(1941)

CONFLICTOFLAWS

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws
4

oftheforeignlawminusitsConflictofLawsrules? Inthecourseofitsdevelopment
and towards finding a solution the doctrine of renvoi has been off late understood
internationallyonthebasisoftwoapproachesnamely:TheTraditionalApproachand
TheModernPolicyOrientedapproach.
TheTraditionalApproach:Thetraditionaljuristsareoftheopinionthataxiomof
territoriality, the principle that the law of a state prevails throughout its
boundariesand,generallyspeaking,notoutsidethem.Theybelieveitimpossible,
infact,forthelawofonestatetooperateaslawwithinthebordersofanother
state.Fromthispremiseflowstheconclusionthatonlythelawofthestatewhere
aneventoccurredcanattachlegalconsequencestothatevent,andchoiceoflaw
becomes largely a matter of determining the place of occurrence. The
traditionalistsinthissensearethereforeconcernedwithestablishinglocalising
rulestodeterminewhere,forexample,tortsarecommittedorcontractsformed.
Thistheoryofterritoriality,aspropoundedbythetraditionalthinkers,mightseem
toofferaneasyanswertotherenvoiproblem.Ifforeignlawcanneverapply
withintheforumstate,thenobviouslytheforumcannotapplyforeignchoiceof
lawrules.Butthisanswer,asshouldbeimmediatelyapparent,hasbeencriticized
by many jurists related to different schools including the realist or modern
approach schoolas itcomes atthepriceofscuttling thewholechoiceoflaw
theory:iftheforumcanneverapplyforeignlaw,howisittoadjudicatecases
dealingwitheventsthatoccurredinotherstates?

ErnstOttoSchreiber,TheDoctrineoftheRenvoiinAngloAmericanLaw,31HarvardLawReviewp.
525(1917).

CONFLICTOFLAWS

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws

TheModernPolicyOrientedApproach:Thecontroversyconcerningtherenvoi
hasabatedinrecentpast,asscholarsseemtohaveworkinghardontheclaims
related to the doctrine of renvoi. In this regard, the Modern policy jurists or
realistsareoftheopinionthatinchoiceoflawforeignchoiceofrulescanbe
ignoredasthelegislativejurisdictionshouldbeallocatedbasedonthepolicies
whichmainlyunderliethesubstantivelawsatissue,andgeneralchoiceoflaw
ruleswerenotdevelopedwiththesepoliciesinmind.Regardingthisapproachthe
experts have said that the fundamental insight of modern theory is that the
applicabilityofalawisapurequestionofinterpretation.Asmostlegislationdoes
notspecifyitsterritorialscope,ithintsatfillingthegapsbyreferencetoalaw's
purpose.Butstatesarefreetoadoptanydifferentapproachtointerpretationif
5

theydeemitappropriateandintotalaccordance.

Heretheresearcherwantstopointoutthat,itcanbeclearlyseenthatthemodernor
realistapproachandthetraditionalapproach,arequitesimilar,eachreliesprimarilyon
rulesofscopeandhasatbestarudimentaryconflictsrule.Thesolutionsadvancedbythe
policyorientedapproachesareessentiallythesameasthoseofferedbythetraditionalists,
andtheysufferfromthesamedefectsandthusthedoctrinehasnotbeenabletogeta
conclusiveshapeandstructure.

LarryKramer,ReturnoftheRenvoi,66N.Y.U.Law.Review.979,980(1991).

CONFLICTOFLAWS

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws

AfterlookingintotwomainapproachesrelatedtotheDoctrineofrenvoi,theresearcher
inthispartoftheresearchpaperproposestoanalyzethemainformsofrenvoi,namely
singlerenvoianddoublerenvoiormultiplerenvoi.However,incertaincasesthereexists
asituationwhenthereisnorenvoialso.
Singlerenvoiiswhenthecourtoftheforumhasachoicetoapplytheforeignchoiceof
lawrules,accepttheremissiontoitslawbytheforeignlawandapplythelawwhichit
wouldhaveappliedhadthecasebeenentirelydomestictotheforum,orinthecaseof
transmission,thedomesticlawofthethirdcountry.Thisrequiresproofofthechoiceof
lawrulesoftheforeigncountrybutnotoftheforeignrulesaboutrenvoi.Thisiscalled
singlerenvoi.
DoubleorMultiplerenvoiiswhenthecourtoftheforummayresolvetheissueinthe
samemannerasacourtofthelegalsystemselectedbyitschoiceoflawrulesmight
resolveithadtheforeigncourtexercisedjurisdictioninthesamecaseonthesamefacts.

CONFLICTOFLAWS

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws

Thismethodrequiresproofnotonlyofthechoiceoflawrulesoftheforeigncountrybut
alsotheforeignrulesaboutrenvoi.Thisiscalleddoublerenvoi.
Therecanalsobeaformofrenvoiwhichisknownasnorenvoi.
Alltheseformsofrenvoicanbebestexplainedwiththehelpofillustrationsandbest
illustrationasgivenintheclassbyProfessor.JayagovindisofanEnglishCitizenwho
diesintestatedomicileedinItaly,leavingmovablesinEngland.TheEnglishconflictrule
referstothelawofthedomicilee(Italianlaw)buttheItalianconflictsrulereferstothe
nationallawwhichisEnglishlaw.Atlastitbecomesaconflictofconflictsrules.
(a)Courtmightapplythedomesticruleoftheforeigncountrythatisthelawofthe
foreigncountryapplicabletoapurelydomesticsituationarisingtherein.
TheEnglishCourtwouldtherebyapplyItalianlaw.Estatewouldgodownaccordingto
Italianlaw.Thismethodrequiresproofofthedomesticlawoftheforeigncountrybutnot
itsconflictrules.Thiswillbeknownasnorenvoi.
(b)Iftheconflictruleoftheforeigncountryrefersbacktothelawoftheforumor
ontothelawofathirdcountry,thecourtmightacceptthereferenceandapplythe
domesticlawoftheforumorthedomesticlawofthethirdcountry.
SoweneedtoknowItalianconflictsrules.
TheEnglishCourtwouldtherebyapplythedomesticruleofEnglishlaw,disregarding
thefactthattheintestate wasdomicileed inItaly.This methodrequiresproofofthe
foreignconflictsrulesrelatingtosuccessionbutdoesnotrequireproofoftheforeign
rulesaboutrenvoi.Thismethodwillbeknownasasinglerenvoi.
(c)Thecourtmightdecidethecaseexactlyasitwouldbedecidedbytheforeign
court.

CONFLICTOFLAWS

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws

IftheItalianCourtwouldrefertoEnglishlawandwouldinterpretthatreferencetomean
Englishdomesticlaw,theEnglishCourtwoulddecideusingEnglishdomesticlaw.
IftheItalianCourtwouldrefertoEnglishlawandlookatdomesticlawplustheconflict
oflawsrules,itwould"accepttherenvoi"fromEnglishlawandapplyItaliandomestic
law,thentheEnglishCourtwouldapplyItaliandomesticlaw.
ThismethodrequiresproofofItaliandomesticlaw,conflictsrulesfromthatcountry,and
renvoirules.Thisisknownastotalordoublerenvoiormultiplerenvoi.
Thus the researcher wants to submit that, the above situation represents the present
doctrine of the English courts and thus English Judicial response to the problem of
renvoi,atleastincertaincontexts.

CONFLICTOFLAWS

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws

INTERNATIONALJUDICIALRESPONSESANDTHEMAJORDILEMMAS
PERTAININGTOTHEDOCTRINE

In order to analyze the judicial and thus legal position of the doctrine of renvoi in
international context, it is important to first see the Application of the doctrine, the
doctrinehasbeenappliedto:
formalandintrinsicvalidityofwills
casesofintestatesuccession
legitimationbysubsequentmarriage.
However,thereareindicationsbythecourtsandthejuriststhatitmightapplyto:
formalvalidityofmarriage
6

Capacitytomarry.

TheMajorDilemmasandJudicialresponses:
Themaindifficulties intheapplicationofthedoctrineashighlighted bythejudicial
responsesandvariousconventionscurtailingitsscopeareasfollows:
TheConventiononthelawapplicabletocontractualobligationsinawayhascurtailed
thescopeofdoctrineofrenvoifortheEuropeancontinentatleastasthisconventionisan
EuropeanCommunityConvention.TheArticle15oftheconventionclearlyexcludesthe
operationoftherenvoibystatingthattheapplicationofthelawofanycountryspecified
bythisConventionmeanstheapplicationoftherulesoflawinforceinthatcountryother
thanitsrulesofprivateinternationallaw.
6

SupraNote1atpp.6465

CONFLICTOFLAWS

10

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws

ExpertslikeDiceyandMorrishavehighlightedamajordifficultyintheapplicationof
7

therenvoi ,accordingtothemthemajordifficultyistheunpredictabilityofoutcomeas
8

alsohighlightedinthecaseof ReDukeofWellington whereWynnParryJusticealso

commented thatthedoctrine makes everythingdependant onthe evidenceofforeign
experts.Itrequiresproofnotonlyofforeignchoiceoflawrules,butofforeignrules
about renvoi. Also, such unpredictability is due to the reason that in the continental
nations,thedecidedcasesofthecourtoffirstinstancearenotconsideredasauthorities

andarenotbindingasauthoritiestobefollowedandthedoctrinehasatendencyto

changeaccordingtotimes.

Also,theremaybeaninextricablecircle.Theeffectofapplyingthedoctrineofrenvoiis
tomakethedecisionturnonwhethertheforeigncourtrejects therenvoidoctrineor
adoptsatheoryofsingleorpartialrenvoi.Butiftheforeigncourtalsoadoptsthedoctrine
oftotalrenvoi,thenlogicallynosolutionispossibleunlesseither,inthecaseofEnglish
courtforinstance,theEnglishortheforeigncourtabandonsitstheory,forotherwisea
10

perpetual circulus inextricabilis is constituted. As Dicey and Morris remark , It is

hardlyanargumentforthedoctrineoftotalrenvoithatitisworkableonlyiftheother
countryrejectsitandalsohintedinthecaseofReAskew

11

DiceyandMorris,DiceyandMorrisonConflictofLaws(London:SweetandMaxwell
publications,2000)atpp.7677
8
[1947]Ch506,515.
9
DiceyandMorris,DiceyandMorrisonConflictofLaws(London:SweetandMaxwellpublications
,2000)atpp.7677
10
Ibidatp.78
11
[1930]2Ch259,276.

CONFLICTOFLAWS

11

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws
12

InthefamouscaseofCollierv.Rivaz ,OnepersonnamedRyan,aBritishsubject,died
domiciledinBelgium.Heleftcertaintestamentarypapersexecutedinaccordancewith
theformalitiesrequiredbyEnglishlaw,butnotinaccordancewiththoserequiredby
Belgianlocallaw.ItwasprovedbythenecessaryexpertevidencethattheBelgiancourts
ifcalledontodecidethequestionofvaliditywouldupholdthetestamentarydocuments,
onthegroundthattheywerevalidaccordingtothetestator'snationallaw.SirHerbert
Jennerinhisjudgmentobservedthatthewholebasisofdecisionisthatthecourtsitting
EnglandtodeterminethequestionmustconsideritselfsittinginBelgium,thatis,the
courtisonlyconcernedtoseewhatviewtheBelgiancourtwouldtakeoftheEnglishlaw,
anditwasneversuggestedthatitwasthedutyoftheEnglishcourttoconsiderwhatits
ownviewoftheEnglishlawoughttobe.

Heretheresearcherwantstosubmitthat,theresultin Collier v. Rivaz couldnothave

beenarrivedatiftheEnglishcourthadrefusedtotakeintoaccounttherulesofprivate
internationallawappliedbyandrecognisedintheBelgiancourts,andhadmerelyapplied
theordinarylocallawofBelgiumapplicabletoBelgiannationals.
13

ThiscasewashoweverdisapprovedinBremerv.Freeman ,where,aBritishsubjectdied
domicileeddefactoinFrance.ShehadmadeawillinFranceinEnglishform;thewill
dealtwithmovables,thebulkofwhichweresituateinEngland.Thetestatrixhadnot
obtainedfromtheFrenchgovernmentanauthorisationtoacquireaFrenchdomicile.Sir
JohnDodsonadmittedthewilltoprobateonthegroundthat,thoughthetestatrixhadher
domicile\defactoinFrance,yetthatitwasnecessaryinordertoestablishadomicilein
12

(1841) 2 Curt. 855

13

(1857) 10 Moo. P C. C. 306

CONFLICTOFLAWS

12

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws

Francesuchaswouldaffecthersuccessionandthemodeofmakingherwillthather
domicile should be by authorisation of the French government. The judge, Sir John
Dodson,expresslysaidhewasfollowingCollierv.Rivaz.Thedecisionwasreversedin
thePrivyCouncil.ThejudgmentwasdeliveredbyLordWensleydalewhereheobserved
thatOnthewhole,then,onareviewofallthisevidenceofthelawofFrance,their
Lordshipsareclearlyofopinion,thatitisnotestablished,thatforthepurposeofhavinga
domicilewhichwouldregulatethesuccession,anyauthorisation oftheEmperorwas
necessary; that a legal domicile for this purpose was clearly proved, and that
consequently,ifthetestatrixhadapowertomakeawillatall,thewillinthisformwas
invalid.ThereforeprivycouncilrefusedtoprobatethewillofBritishsubjectwhodied
domiciledinFranceinEnglishsenseandinEnglandintheFrenchsenseontheground
thatitwasmadeinEnglishbutnotinFrenchform.Thereasoningofcourtisthus
ambiguousasitpresentsacaseforandalsoatthesametimeagainstthedoctrine.

14

15

Nextinlineisthecaseof ReJohnson ,wherethedoctrinewasappliedinacaseof

partialintestacy,isthefirstcaseinwhichtheword"renvoi"appearstohavebeenused.
Thefactsareshortlyasfollows.In1894aBritishsubjectoneMaryElizabethJohnson
whosedomicileoforiginwasMaltese,diedintestateanddomiciledinBaden.Shewas
notnaturalisedthere,andtheevidenceinthecaseestablishedthatbythelawofBaden
the succession to her property was governed by the law of her nationality. She left
movablepropertyinEnglandandBaden.Farwell,J.,directedthemovablesinEnglandto
bedistributedaccordingtoMalteselaw.Thedecisionwasbasedontwoalternative

14

DiceyandMorris,DiceyandMorrisonConflictofLaws(London:SweetandMaxwellpublications
,2000)atp.68
15
[1903]1Ch.821

CONFLICTOFLAWS

13

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws

grounds:First,thatitisimpossibleaccordingtoEnglishlawforapersontoacquirea
domicileofchoiceinaforeigncountryunlessthatpersonhasalsoacquiredadomicile
thereaccordingtothelawoftheforeigncountry;therefore,intheparticularcase,asthe
lawofBadenrefusedtorecognisedomicileashavinganylegaleffectonthestatusof
MaryElizabethJohnson,thesuccessiontohermovablepropertymusthedetermined
accordingtothelawofherdomicileoforigin;thatis,Malteselaw.Thisviewofthe
Englishlawastodomicileisnotconsistentwithotherdecisions,Thesecondgroupofthe
decision is based on the assumption that Mary Elizabeth Johnson was at her death
domiciledinBaden,andthatthelawofBadengovernedthesuccessiontohermovable
property.Itwasfoundbythecertificatewhichwasbindingonthepartiesinthecasethat,
accordingtothelawofBaden,thelegalsuccessiontothatpartofherpropertywhichshe
hadnotdisposedofbyherwillwasgovernedbythelawofthecountryofwhichshewas
asubjectatthetimeofherdeath.Thus,thisdecisionwasconsideredtobeinconsistent
withthewellsettledruleunderEnglishlawwhichsaysthatforthepurposeofanEnglish
conflictruledomicilemeansdomicileintheEnglishsense.
16

Also,inthecaseofRe.Annesley Russel,J.introducedtheconceptofTotalorDouble
renvoiforfirsttimeandappliedtheFrenchdomesticlawasthelawofthedomicileon
thegroundthataFrenchcourtwouldhaveappliedthesamelogicbythewayofrenvoi
fromEnglishlaw.ThefactsofthecaseinbriefarethatoneMrs.SybilAnnesleylivedin
Francefor60years.Shedidn'ttreatherchildrenequallyinherwill,daughtersprobably
16

(1926)Ch.692

CONFLICTOFLAWS

14

TheconceptofRenvoiintheConflictofLaws

getting cut out. She made a couple of wills where she stated that her domicile was
England.ShehadvisitedEnglandin1892,1903,1907,1911,1913.TheImmoveables
wereinFranceonlyandthemovableswereinbothFranceandtheU.K,shemayhave
beentryingtoleavecorpusofestateinEnglandduetoheavyestatedutyinFrance.In
Nov.of1919shemadeholographFrenchwill,theninDecof1919shemadeanEnglish
formwill.TheissuethuswaswasherdomicileinEnglandorFrance?Thequestionwas
alsoaskedaboutthevalidityofEnglishwill?IfdomicilewasFrance,testatrixcouldonly
disposeof1/3ofpersonalpropertybecause2/3wouldgotodaughtersunderFrenchlaw,
duetoforcedsharetoissuelawofFrance.ItwasheldthattheDomicilewasFrench.

CONFLICTOFLAWS

15