Theories of Private International Law

Private International Law

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It gives me incredible pleasure to present my project of Private International Law on Theories

of International Law.

I would like to enlighten my readers regarding this topic and I hope I have tried my best to pave the
way for bringing more luminosity to this topic.

I am grateful to my Private International Law Faculty who has given me the idea and
encouraged me to venture this project. I would like to thank librarian for his interest in
providing me a study materials.

And finally I would like to thank my parents for the financial support.

2
 CONTENT

Topic Page No

Objectives 3

Significance & Benefit of the Study 3

Scope of the Study 3

Literature Review 3-4

Research Methodology 4

Hypothesis 4

Chapter I: Introduction 5-7

Chapter II: Statute Theory 7-8

Chapter III: International Theory 9-10
Chapter IV: The Theory of Acquired Rights 11-12
Chapter V: The Local Law Theory 13-14
Chapter VI: Theory of Justice 15-16
Chapter VII: Conclusion 17-18
Chapter VIII: Suggestions 19

Bibliography 20

3
Objectives

This project discusses the usefulness of all the theories discussed, and why none of
them can be done away with for any reason. It tells us that those theories are still applicable
and very workable in the Courts of Law, as they each have one, two or more key features that
prove their relevance in Law and in Fact till date.
Significance & Benefit of the Study
Nationalism holds that states should set private international law to best attain the
ends justifying their law as a whole. The project sets the stage for further elaboration of
nationalist theory, and for exploration of nationalism in, and nationalist reforms of, the
practice of private international law.
Scope of the Study

In this research paper each theories has been criticised by different authors. The
research is limited to the development which takes place later. Different version and
Protagonists of each theory has been discussed.

Literature Review

 Sack1 in article “Conflict of Laws in the history of English Law: A century of

progress” focuses on how Naturalist theories hold that states should set private
international law so that their claims to regulatory authority do not exceed bounds
specified by a normative source other than the state itself. This higher normative
source defines sovereignty legitimate claims to regulatory authority are those
consistent with its edicts.
 Chigozie Nwagbara2 (2014) in the paper “Re - Examining the Theory of Savigny, the
Theory of Acquired Rights and the Local Law Theory under Private International
Law” examines the theories of Savigny, The Acquired Rights Theory and the Local
Law Theory. Most of the theories discussed here emphasize territoriality as a key
factor on which most Judges should base their decisions on any Matter or Cause
brought before them. This paper discussed Von Savigny’s theory in full details, and
makes us to know that Savigny’s theory is still practicable, workable, and cannot be
done away with.

1
Sack (1835-1935); “Conflict of Laws in the history of English Law: A century of progress”; Volume III p.353-
355
2
Chigozie Nwagbara (2014); “Re - Examining the Theory of Savigny, the Theory of Acquired Rights and the
Local Law Theory under Private International Law”; Available at www.iiste.org

4
  K.A.D Camara3 in the paper “Costs of Sovereignty” stated that Private international
law limits the application of a state’s domestic law in the face of this Fact of Overlap.
Traditionally, private international law includes jurisdiction, choice of law and the
enforcement of judgments. Jurisdiction determines what disputes a state will purport
to resolve; choice of law, what rules it will apply in doing the resolving.

Research Methodology
The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily
analytical and the researcher has, for her convenience divided the write up into various parts.
The researcher has used doctrinaire method for her research work. The researcher has
followed an Indian Law Institute mode of citation throughout the course of this research
paper.
Hypothesis

The existence of private international law has been justified on several doctrinal
grounds. Thus several theories have come into existence. The hypothesis of the research is:
 The laws of each state have force within the limits of that government, but bind all
subject to it, but not beyond.
 All persons within the limits of a government, whether they live there
permanently or temporarily, are deemed to be subjects thereof.
 Sovereigns will so act by way of comity that rights acquired within the limits of a
government retain their force everywhere so far as they do not cause prejudice to
the power, or rights of such government or its subjects.

3
K.A.D Camara; “Costs of Sovereignty”; Available at: www.law.harvard.edu

5
Chapter I: Introduction

Private International Law as found in England is a substantive part of English law, and was
until the last two to three decades almost entirely the result of judicial decisions; though it is
now the case that a considerable part of this field of law has been embodied in legislation. Its
growth has also been influenced to a reasonable extent by the writings of Jurists in other
countries, and mostly by doctrines that have found acceptance globally.4

Historically, when English traders began to extend their commercial activities beyond
the seas, it was inevitable that they will suffer occasionally from the inability to obtain
redress in respect of transactions effected abroad. A remedy ultimately became available to
them in the Court of Admiralty, which extended its jurisdiction to foreign Causes as early as
the middle of the fourteenth century. By the middle of the sixteenth century, it was competent
to try disputes arising out of mercantile dealings abroad. Then, there was no question of
choice of law, for the court dispensed the general law maritime or, in cases of purely
commercial matters, the general law merchant.5
By the end of the 16th century, the Common Law had begun to compete for this
jurisdiction. The technical difficulty that formerly stood their way had disappeared, for the
Jury relied no longer on its knowledge, but on the testimony of witnesses. Trying cases
connected solely with a foreign country was facilitated by the new division of actions into
local and transitory. In transitory actions, i.e. where the Cause of action might have arisen
anywhere, there was no necessity to summon the jury from one particular neighbourhood.
The plaintiff could sue the defendant where he was to be found, and could lay the venue (i.e.,
the place from which the jury was summoned) where he liked. In England, the growth of the
British Empire inevitably led to increased links between British subjects owing obedience to
a variety of laws, and consequently to an increase in the number of disputes that required (if
justice were to be done) a reference to something more than the Common Law of England.6
The first step was taken in the case of Robinson v. Bland7 in 1760 where the plaintiff
had lent 300 pounds to X in Paris, which X immediately lost to the plaintiff by gaming,
together with an additional 372 pounds. X gave the plaintiff a Bill of Exchange payable in
England for the whole amount. It was found that in France, money lost at play between
gentlemen may be recovered as a debt of honour before the Marshals of France who can
4
“Choice of Laws”; Available at: www.hartjournals.co
5
Supra Note 4
6
Supra Note 4
7
(1760) 1 Wm Bl 234; 2 Burr 1077

6
enforce obedience to their sentences by imprisonment. After the death of X, the plaintiff
brought assumpsit against his Administrator on three counts: on the bill of exchange, for
money lent and for money had and received. It was held that the bill of exchange was void,
and that no action lay for the recovery of the money won at play. The plaintiff however, was
held entitled to recover on the loan. According to Lord Mansfield in this case, the general rule
established ex comitate et jure gentium, is that the place where the contract is made, and not
where the action is brought is to be considered in expounding and enforcing the contract. But
this rule admits of an exception when the parties at the time of making the contract had a
view to a different kingdom. Other principles suggested or established in the eighteenth
century were that the law of the place of celebration governs the formal validity of marriage,
that movables are subject to the law of the domicile of the owner for the purpose of
succession and bankruptcy distribution, and that actions relating to foreign immovables are
not sustainable in England.8
It was not until nearly the close of the century that a clear acknowledgment was made
of the duty of English Courts to give effect to foreign Laws. Lord Mansfield once again said
every action here must be tried by the law of England, but the Law of England says that in a
variety of circumstances, with regard to contracts legally made abroad, the laws of the
country where the cause of action arose shall govern.9
According to Cheshire, North Fawcett Private International Law, the 18th century
which extended to the middle of the 19th century represents the embryonic period of Private
International Law. Thus, although Rules to govern contracts, torts and legitimating were laid
down in 1865, 1869 and 1881 respectively, such matters as capacity to marry, choice of law
in nullity and legitimacy are still unsettled. The formative period is not yet at an end.10

8
“Conflicts of Laws”; Available at: www.nyu.edu
9
Ibid
10
Ibid

7
Chapter II: Statute Theory
Just immediately before the theory of Savigny existed the Statute Theory by Ulric Huber who
laid down the following three maxims, from which he considered a sufficiently
comprehensive system for the reconciliation of conflicting laws could be evolved. These are:
a) The laws of a State have absolute force within, but only within the territorial limits of
its sovereignty;11
b) All persons who, whether permanently or temporarily are found within the territory of
a Sovereign are deemed to be his subjects, and as such are bound by his laws.
c) By reason of Comity, however, every Sovereign admits that a law which has already
operated in the country of its origin shall retain its force everywhere, provided that
this will not prejudice the subjects of the Sovereign by whom its recognition is
sought.
Huber’s second maxim which says that all persons who whether permanently or
temporarily are found within the territory of a Sovereign are deemed to be his subjects, and as
such are bound by his laws is equally correct because before any person or citizen of a
country enters into another country for temporary reasons (e.g. to work with a work permit)
or permanently (for a change of nationality to the country entered), he should be cognisant of
the laws of that country (e.g. the Constitution) and know whether he may fit in, and adapt
properly to the customs and laws of that country without having any problems. Where a
person is in a country temporarily, the person should ensure that the law that accords him his
rights at his workplace will not in any way conflict with the law of the country where he is
sent to work temporarily. If any such conflict should arise, the law of the country where he is
temporarily transferred or posted to work supersedes that of his workplace or Head Office.
With respect to the third theory, the researcher disagrees with the Clause or Proviso which
says “Provided that this will not prejudice the subjects of the sovereign by whom its
recognition is sought”. The reason is not far - fetched, and as mentioned earlier, we cannot
give any condition to another country we enter into, by asking them to make their laws to suit
us, if ordinarily it will not make us comfortable. Any person that seeks the recognition of a
foreign law should expect a positive or negative outcome. For example, a law that perfectly
suits Y in his own country may make him uncomfortable if Y seeks to apply and enforce it
in another country. Therefore, it is best to get adapted to the laws of any country a person
seeks to enter (whether temporarily or permanently).12

11
Available at: www.manupatra.com
12
Cheshire, North & Fawcett; Private International Law (14th ed, 2008) p. 27

8
Criticism
Apparently the theory appears to be very simple. But in its practical application it
presents great difficulties. The greatest difficulty lies in the determination as to which statute
is personal, real or mixed. According to Cheshire & North’s Private International Law, the
Statute Theory lacks a scientific basis, and affords no solid ground upon which a sound and
logical system can be erected. Whatever be the case, The researcher agree with the first
maxim that says that the laws of a State have absolute force within, but only within the
territorial limits of its Sovereignty. For example we cannot go to State A or country A and
apply the Law of State B or country B there. That can only be possible if the laws tally on
the same subject. Where the law of State B differs from that of State A or country A, we
must confine ourselves to the law of country A, or we go back to country B.
No person should use his own laws to govern other persons in their own territories
because such cannot be acceptable. But then, whenever people come into a country, it is very
correct to say that the laws of that State shall have absolute force within its territorial limits.
For if it has no force within its boundaries, where else shall it have any force.13

Chapter III: International Theory

The great German Jurist, Savigny, made a decisive break with all former approaches to the
subject in his book on Conflict of Laws published in 1849, in which he maintained that it was
possible to construct a system of Private International Law common to all civilized nations, a
13
“Legal Theory of Private International Law”; Available at: www.iilj.org/research/document

9
theory that has been revived in more recent years by an eminent American Jurist. He
dismissed the Statute Theory as being both incomplete and ambiguous, even though the
researcher disagree with him for reasons I have given earlier on my acceptance of the first
two maxims of the Statute Theory.14
Savigny advocated a more scientific method by saying that the problem is not to
classify laws according to their object, but to discover for every legal relation that local law
to which in its proper nature it belongs. Each legal relation has its natural seat in a particular
local law, and it is that law which must be applied when it differs from the law of the Forum.
According to him, the principal determinants of this natural seat are:
1. The domicile of a person affected by the legal relation
2. The place where a thing, which is the object of a legal relation is situated
3. The place where a juridical act is done
4. The place where a Tribunal sits.15
For every legal relation, there must be a contract between at least two parties, the
two parties may agree to a law that will govern their contractual relationship. But where
that law will do injustice to the main party that ought be benefit more from the contract,
recourse must be had to what is just and proper in the eyes of the law. Looking at
Savigny’s principal determinants, all the factors given by Savigny are relevant factors that
should govern any legal relation.16
In the case of the domicile of a person affected by the legal relation, we should rather
insist on the domicile of the parties to the contract, where the contract took place, where the
breach was committed and where the court (for settlement of the dispute) sits. If the subject
of the dispute is a land, the lex situs governs the contract (even if it differs from the domicile
of either party or both parties). The Law Court entertaining the Matter should equally be
within the lex situs (location of land or property). However, the domicile of the party or
parties may not really be of any importance if it differs from the place where the contract was
entered into or even where the subject of the contract is located.17
The only exception to the domicile not being useful is where the law of the domicile
or nationality of the parties or that of the most interested party does not allow him to purchase
any property in a particular location. Then, if the particular party enters into any

14
Supra Note 10
15
Re - Examining the Theory of Savigny, the Theory of Acquired Rights and the Local Law Theory under
Private International Law, Journal of Law, Policy and Globalisation, Vol. 27, 2014
16
Paras Diwan, Private International Law (4th ed, 1998) p. 56
17
Paras Diwa, Private International Law (4th ed, 1998) p. 56

10
transaction in the forbidden location, the law of the domicile of the affected party nullifies
the transaction, and no recourse will be had to the lex situs. Therefore, of all Savigny’s
determinants, the most important factors are the second to four determinants. Generally, his
theory attempts to decide each case according to the legal system to which it seems most
naturally to belong. Hence, we cannot do away with Savigny’s Theory.18
Criticism
The most damaging criticism of this theory is that it starts on the assumption that
there is uniformity in the laws of the countries on characterization of legal relations, while in
fact it is not so. For instance, breach of marriage promise is regarded as breach of contract
in some countries, while in some it is regarded as a tort. In such a situation it may be
difficult to find out the natural seat of the legal relationship.

Chapter IV: The Theory of Acquired Rights

The theory of Vested or Acquired Rights originated with the Dutch Jurist, Huber, because it
is based on the principle of territoriality. But it has been elaborated earlier this century by
Common Lawyers like Dicey in England and Beale in the USA. It says that a Judge cannot
18
Supra Note 10

11
directly recognize or sanction foreign laws nor can he directly enforce foreign judgments, for
it is his own territorial law which must exclusively govern all cases that require his decision.19
According to Cheshire, North & Fawcett, the administration of Private International
Law, however, raises no exception to the principle of territoriality, for what the Judge does is
to protect rights that have already been acquired by a claimant under a foreign law or a
foreign judgment. Extra- territorial effect is thus given, not to the foreign law itself, but
merely to the rights that it has created.20
This theory has been supported by the judgment of Sir William Scott in Dalrymple v.
Dalrymple21 where the issue arose as to whether Miss Gordon was the wife of Mr.
Dalrymple. Sir William Scott said the Cause being entertained in an English Court, it must be
adjudicated according to the principles of English Law applicable to such a case. But the only
principle applicable to such a case by the law of England is that the validity of Miss Gordon’s
Marriage Rights must be tried by reference to the law of the country where if they exist at all,
they had their origin.22
This particular theory of territoriality seems like that which does not support the
existence of Private International Law. Yet, that is not true because many countries have
diverse laws governing various Issues, but still, so many laws on the same subject tally with
those of England. For example, we must realize that Great Britain colonized many
countries of the world in the past, and those former British colonies still have many laws
imported from England which they apply in their country. An example of such countries is
Nigeria where we still practise the English law which is one of the major sources of
Nigerian Laws.23
While defining Private International Law, Private International Law should be defined
to include recognition of laws on subject matters that are the same with those of England and
the countries where the laws bringing about the existence of rights being sought to be
enforced in England emanated from. If we interpret Private International Law to mean the
recognition of foreign judgments, it will be ambiguous, without us indicating whether such
foreign laws, rights judgments being sought to be enforced tally with the laws of the country
where they are being sought to be enforced on the same subject and issue.24

19
Supra Note 17
20
Supra Note 17
21
(1811) 2 Hag Con 54
22
David Mcclean & Kisch Beevers; The Conflict of Laws (7th ed, 2010) p. 21
23
Myres MC Dougal; “Theories of International Law”; Available at: www.princeton.edu
24
Available at: www.westlaw.com

12
 No country should force another to make its laws more inferior especially in the case
of a foreign country coming to bend the rules and laws already existing in the country where
it is seeking to have its own laws recognized. It is tantamount to a Guest coming into your
home to dictate to you, in order to get things done to suit him, even if doing those things for
him will discomfort you in your own house. If we view the theory of territoriality from this
angle, we will get to appreciate its value more. It gives respect to countries where laws are
being sought to be enforced, and it is indeed right for any Judge in such a country to
exercise that right- it is a right, not a privilege, because it is the Judge’s own country. No
stranger should dictate to any owner of a place.
Criticism
This theory of Acquired Rights receives insignificant support at the present day, and it
has been seriously criticized. As stated earlier that this theory based upon the principle of
territoriality is correct because we cannot respect rights acquired by any person under a
foreign law and enforce same rights in another territory without those rights being enforced
tallying with the laws of the territory where they are being sought to be enforced. Therefore,
if we go by Sir William Scott’s judgment in Dalrymple v. Dalrymple that “the only principle
applicable to such a case by the law of England is that the validity of Miss Gordon’s Rights
must be tried by reference to the law of the country where if they exist at all, they had their
origin, I will say that it is contrary to what the theory of Acquired Rights says.25
The theory does not give room for us to try any case by reference to the law of the
country where the rights existed or originated. The theory strictly says that a judge cannot
directly recognize or sanction foreign laws, nor can he directly enforce foreign judgments, for
it is his own territorial law which must exclusively govern all cases that require his decision.
So why should he in this case have to refer to the law of the country where the rights
existed?26

Chapter V: The Local Law Theory

The Local Law Theory was expounded by Walter Wheeler Cook whose method was to derive
the governing rules, not from the logical reasoning of Philosophers and Jurists, but by
observing what the courts have actually done in dealing with cases involving Private

Supra Note 23
25

26
Prof. Giovanni Distefano; “Theories on Territorial Sovereignty: A Reappraisal” Available at:
www.lindquist.com/files/publication

13
International Law Issues. He stressed that what Lawyers investigate in practice is how Judges
have acted in the past, in order that it may be prophesied how they will probably act in future.
To him, a statement of law is true, not because it conforms to an alleged inherent principle,
but because it represents the past, and therefore the probable future judicial attitude.
Here, the Court of the Forum recognizes and enforces a local right, i.e. one created by its
own law. This court applies its own rules to the total exclusion of all foreign rules. But
since it is confronted with a foreign - element case, it does not necessarily apply the rule of
the Forum that would govern an analogous case purely domestic in character. For reasons
of social expediency and practical convenience, it takes into account the laws of the foreign
country in question. It creates its own local right, but fashions it as nearly as possible on the
law of the country in which the decisive facts have occurred. To say that it affords no basis
for the systematic development of International Law is not true because there is no country
that operates all its laws to the extent that not even some of those laws are in tandem with
some laws of other countries.27
The existence of Private International Law extends to the fact that countries of the
world certainly have existing laws that are basically the same with those of other countries on
many subject Matters. For example It is enough to state that Private International Law
exists if a Nigerian married under English law in Nigeria goes to England to live, and his
marriage gets recognized there because both countries are using the Marriage Act (with
most at least, if not all Sections) of it being the same. The main objection to the Local Law
Theory is that judicial precedence should be considered if it does not lead to miscarriage of
justice once the facts of any case are brought before any Court of Law. Or else, it is right to
judge a case based purely on the uncontroverted facts brought before the court.28
The court in this case should pass any Ruling based on merits of the facts, and ensure
that substantial justice is achieved. A court should also be ready to set aside a Precedent if it
discovers in future that the precedent has led to miscarriage of justice. Such decision can be
overruled. Even the Highest Court in any country should be able to overrule itself on any
Matter it has erroneously decided in the past. There is no wisdom in any Court of Law
ignoring its own law while faced with a foreign case with a foreign element, except of course,
there is a lacuna in its own law on the same subject. In that case, it may decide to pass its
judgement based on the foreign law being pleaded before it.29
27
Supra Note 26
28
Supra Note 26
29
Geoffrey G Chevalier; “Theories and Principls of Private International Law”; Available at :
www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov

14
Criticism
According to Cheshire, North & Fawcett Private International Law, this local law
theory affords no basis for the system of Private International Law. For to remind an English
Judge about to try a case containing a foreign element, that whatever decision he gives, he
must enforce only the law of the Forum is a technical quibble that explains nothing and
solves nothing. It provides no guidance whatever as to the limits within which he must have
regard to the foreign law. The local law theory is based more on judicial precedence in
determining the outcome of a case, and even though the court applies its own rules to the total
exclusion of all foreign rules, it is not bad altogether . In my own view, this foreign law
should equally be tested in the country of the Forum and be seen to suit the citizens of the
forum if they end up having to resolve a similar case with similar facts in their own Courts.

Chapter VI: Theory of Justice

In the words of Graveson, this theory is “one of English legislative and judicial justice, based
on a consideration of what English statutes say and what English judges do in cases to which
the conflict of laws applies. It is thus both pragmatic and ethical. According to him its
premises are threefold: sociological, ethical and legal. Sociologically it rests on the

15
international need for fair treatment in the private transactions of individuals. Ethically it
reflects the traditions and training of English lawyers, judges and legislators as expounders of
the justice of their day and age.30
Legally it rests on the terms of the judges oath. Then it seems that no one theory can
possibly answer adequately the question as to what are the theoretical bases of private
international law. In the twelfth century the principle of territoriality of laws came into
existence and in the entire Italy the doctrine of territoriality had its sway. In the twentieth
century the same theory was propounded in different garbs. Then should it be accepted that
the basis of private international law is the doctrine of territoriality. Cook maintains that
courts do not apply any other law but their own. The theory of acquired rights or vested rights
puts the same thin in a different form. The fact of the matter is that in private international
law cases the courts of forum have to apply foreign law. But no one is willing to concede
that it is so, as direct admission of this would mean that one sovereign subordinates his
sovereignty to the other.31
Criticism
Graveson admits that this theory is not a perfectly valid theory in every case, for one
cannot explain in terms of absolutes an empirically developed system like our own. The
application of generally sound principles in this, as in other branches of law, may lead at
times to hard individual cases.32

Chapter VII: Conclusion

In conclusion, the Local Law Theory is interesting and should not be done away with. Being
a theory that bases its judgments on its own Rules to the exclusion of other countries Laws
shows it recognizes the fact that no country should dictate for another country in terms of
laws to be applied within its territories. However, it is stated in Cheshire, North & Fawcett

30
Supra Note 29
31
David Mcclean & Kisch Beevers; The Conflict of Laws (7th ed, 2010)
32
Ibid

16
that if it is confronted with a foreign element case, it does not necessarily apply the Rule of
the forum, for reasons of social expediency, and practical convenience, it takes into account
the laws of the foreign country in question. That is good, provided the laws of the foreign
country being considered do not negatively affect the rights of the citizens of the Forum when
applied to them in the forum, should they be faced with the same Facts.
Judicial precedent is a good development in law especially for the fact that it helps us
to predict the outcome of a case, but it cannot be followed at all times, for socio - economic,
political, IT Development and other factors can make a judgment out dated and archaic, in
which case, a court has to rule according to the changes that have evolved over the years. So,
a court in following judicial precedents must be current enough and go through the merits of
the facts of each case and know when to overrule itself or a lower court.
The Local Law Theory is very much similar to the theory of Acquired Rights and the
Statute Theory which are both based on territoriality. The only difference is that the Local
Law theory emphasizes judicial precedents with cases involving Private International Law.
The theory of Savigny is equally still very relevant because whether we accept that fact or
not, cases of Private International Law border mainly on jurisdiction, and we must therefore
accept at least three of his Factors which are as follows:
(a) the place where a thing is situated (if is a property- and a lot of private international
law cases involve property, whether personal or family/marital property) ;
(b) the place where a juridical act is done (this factor is very necessary for establishing
evidence by the party seeking Relief from the court);
(c) the place where a Tribunal or Court sits (is also a critical factor because it could be
sitting in a place that lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit).
So, how do we do away with Von Savigny’s Theory which is still very relevant in the
modern day when Issues are brought for determination before the Courts. In every aspect of
law, Savigny’s Theory is relevant. We need it in the Law of Evidence, Contract, Torts,
Family Law, Law of Property, Succession, Private International Law, Human Rights and
every aspect of Law we can think of.
For one thing the age of absolute sovereignty has been buried in the pages of history.
Secondly, today nations of the world in the interest of mutual intercourse, trade and
commerce are not in a position to assert their individual sovereignty. Nations in our
contemporary world are so much inter-dependent that they have got to co-operate mutually.
Then, it need not be said that the contact of peoples of the world with each at
international level has grown so much that the wheel of clock cannot be put back. In short, it

17
is the international social need which has given birth to private international law and so long
as this need exists the private international law will stay whatever exercises may be made to
find out its theoretical base.

Chapter VIII: Suggestions

Every theory has proved to be relevant, even though each has its merits and demerits; for
there is no perfect theory yet formulated in Private International Law. We can only be
evolving and developing theories as years go by, but it is definitely not yet possible to get that
single theory that will solve all problems involving Private International Law. Countries only
develop over the years and with socio-economic, political changes and the introduction of
improved modern technology, some laws or theories may be losing their validity and be of

18
less significance in practice and in theory. Yet, none can be entirely useless. There must still
be at least, a feature of every theory that makes it remain relevant in modern day.
The researcher humbly recommends a combination of aspects of each of the theories
discussed when we are dealing with issues of Private International Law. Lastly, if the Local
Law Theory affords no basis for the systematic development of Private International Law,
just because it applies its own rules to the exclusion of all foreign Rules, then, we may as well
do away with Private International Law and focus on Public International Law and
Jurisprudence including other areas of Law because no Court sitting in its own country
should for any reason adopt and apply the laws of another country if it is not going to do
justice to its own citizens, or if it differs from its own Laws on the same subject as that will
mean the Court does not respect the rights of the citizens of its country and the Independent
nature of its country.
The Statute Theory and Acquired Rights Theory equally emphasize territorial laws.
Do we throw away all these theories? Private International Law Cases are private in nature,
and so the litigants on such areas of law are very few in number compared to the entire
populace of a city or any country. So, do we inconvenience majority of the citizens just to
enforce the rights of a few Foreigners.

Bibliography
Internet
 www.indialawjournal.com
 www.iiste.org
 www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov
 www.princeton.edu
 www.lindquist.com/files/publication
 www.iilj.org/research/document

19
  www.hartjournals.co
 www.nyu.edu
 www.westlaw.com
 www.manupatra.com

Books

 Cheshire, North & Fawcett, Private International Law, 14th ed, Oxford University
Press, 2008
 Paras Diwan; Private International Law, 4th ed, Deep & Deep Publications, Delhi,
1998
 David Mcclean & Kisch Beevers, 7th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, South Asian Edition,
2010

20