English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

A non-believer should perhaps not be honored with an invitation to a symposium on "New Trends in the Conflict of Laws," especially if he has a known interest in the history of that field of law. He may be tempted, as this one is, to spend his energy on testing the novelty of the new, parting from the foregone conclusion that everything worthy of trying has been tried before, under the same or other labels. Nor should the invitee accept the invitation easily if he knows that he never recovered from the shock of early discovery that, even for straight domestic law, taught method often leaves the judge at a loss; that, in reality, adjudication often requires the qualifications of a Chancellor from the times before equity was frozen. Thus he must count himself out as capable of unbiased view on methodological claims of the fail-safe type for a field where the facts to be evaluated are spread over two or more independent legal orders. But non-believing may qualify as a trend, though not a new one, and comments from such side may be admissible under the first amendment. After all, infallibility of espoused or promoted method has been disclaimed by such eminent doctrinists as Story1 and Savigny,2 both, incidentally, counted among the practitioners and judges in Frederic Harrison's quip that conflict of laws "has owed more to judges than to professors."'3 Besides, if not blinded by his prejudice, the non-believer must recognize the high level of recent doctrinal and methodological discussion in the United States. And, if the better view is, as it may, that search for the best approach to conflicts problems must go on, whatever the chances of success in the sense of production of fail-safe formulae, the new chapters in the history of conflicts theory will illustrate once again the unruly character of the problems in conflict of laws. In this country, new efforts in all directions were, of course, a necessity after the damage produced by the Vested Rights period and the over-simplifications of the first Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws and the confusion created by the Supreme Court's short-lived and rather dilettante attempts at settling interstate choice-

Marginal Remarks on the New Trends in American Conflicts Law