【作者简介】
* Richard Frimong Oppong, 兰卡斯特大学法学院讲师（英国）、法学士（加纳）、法学硕士（剑桥大学法学院）、法学硕士（哈佛大学法学院）、博士生（加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚大学）。
** 朱伟东，法学博士、湘潭大学法学院副教授、湘潭大学非洲法律与社会研究中心副主任、2008年6月至2009年6月受国家留学基金委资助在剑桥大学法学院从事博士后研究。感谢作者允许我将这篇论文译成中文。在剑桥期间，作者与译者就文章的翻译进行了探讨。本文原文发表在《美国比较法杂志》2007年第55卷秋季号（Richard Frimong Oppong，Private International Law in Africa: The Past, Present and Future, 55 Am. J. Comp. L. 677, Fall, 2007），译文最初发表在《民商法论丛》第43卷。
【注释】1 Int’l L. Q. 14 (1947).
65 S. Afr. L. J. 213 (1948).
Christopher Forsyth, Private International Law: The Modern Roman-Dutch Law including the Jurisdiction of the High Court, 43 (2003).
P. S. G. Leon, Roma non locuta est : The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in South Africa, 16 Comp. & Int’l L. J. Southern Afr. 325 (1983).
为数不多的有关国际私法的教材包括：Forsyth，op. cit.,; Christian Schulze, On Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments (2005); John Kiggundu, Private International Law in Botswana, Cases and Materials (2002); John Ademola Yakubu, Harmonization of Laws in Africa (1999); Oluwole Agbede, Themes on Conflict of Laws (1989).
Pavel Kalensky, Trends of Private International Law 23 (1971).
See, e.g., Qingjiang Kong & Hu Minfei, The Chinese Practice of Private International Law, 3, Melbourne J. Int’l L. 414 (2002) (指出中国国际私法发展如此之快，学者要不遗余力才能掌握其变化)；Mo Zhang, Choice of Law in Contracts: A Chinese Approach, 26, Nw. J. Int’l L. & Bus. 289 (2006); Huang Jin & Du H. Fang, Chinese Judicial Practice in Private International Law 2002, 4 Chinese J. Int’l L. 647 (2005); Yongping Xiao & Zhengxin Huo, Ordre Public in China’s Private International Law, 53 Am. J. Comp. L. 653 (2005).
这可以视为国际公法和国际私法日益互动的部分证明。See generally Lucy Reed, Mixed Private and Public International Law Solutions to International Crisis, 306 Recueil de Cours 177 (2003).
例如，参见《非洲商法统一条约》第25条；《东非共同体条约》第44条；《南部非洲发展共同体法院及程序规则协定》第32条（1）、（2）、（3）款；《东南非共同市场条约》第40条。这与传统的国际公法中执行国际法院判决的机制诸如依赖国际非司法机构、外交、自助和谈判等有所背离。这种判决执行方式对于在国际性法院直接提起诉讼的个人而言非常重要，但此种方式在传统的以实力为中心的国际法执行机制中处于不利地位。
在许多案件中，非洲法院不得不设法解决有关文书域外送达以及国外证件及文书的是否可以接受的问题。例如，参见Fonville v. Kelly III, 1 E.A. 71; Willow Investment v. Mbomba Ntumba, T. L. R. 470; Pastificio Lucio Garofalo SPA v. Security & Fire Equipment Co., K. L. R. 483; Mashchinen Frommer GmbH v. Trisave Engineering & Machinary Supplies (Pty) Ltd., 2003 (6) SA 69; Banlanced, Kransner & French v. Evans, 2004 (4) SA 427.
Ch. 8: 02. 在该法中，国际性法院是指：“为实施任何国际协议或联合国大会任何决议而（a）行使任何管辖权或履行任何司法功能或通过仲裁、调解或调查履行司法功能的任何法院或法庭；或（b）为行使任何管辖权或履行任何此类功能而临时或永久设立的任何法院或法庭。”
该规定似有移植之嫌。例如，参见英国1975年《证据（其他法域内的程序）法》第6条第1款，该款规定允许女王根据枢密院的命令将该法的实施扩展至国际性法院，包括根据国际协议或联合国大会决议任命的仲裁庭；以及《美国法典》第1782条（a）第28节，该节规定适用于“国际性法院”。
例如，参见《非洲联盟法院协定》第25条，reprinted in 13 Afr. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 115 (2005), 要依靠相关国家的政府来送达文书和提供证据。在没有明确立法时，如津巴布韦那样，政府是否还会或如何这么做还令人怀疑。比较《加勒比法院协议》第xxvi （a）的规定，该规定要求国内政府制定立法以确保所有国内机构“为协助该法院而行事”，http:// www. Caricomlaw.org/docs/agreement/ccj.pdf (last visited Feb. 16, 2007).
赞比亚在2004年被吸纳入该会议，可它至今尚未接受该会议的宪章，在此之前它只能作为观察员参加该会议的一些程序。我在其他文章中详细论述过海牙国际私法会议的工作同非洲的关系，see Richard F. Oppong, The Hague Conference and the Development of Private International Law in Africa: A Plea for Cooperation, 8 Ybk, Priv. Int’l L. 189 (2006).
http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral texts/arbitration/NYConvention status.html (last visited Feb. 16, 2007). 对于还不是该公约成员的普通法国家，仍可根据普通法或一些互惠立法执行外国仲裁裁决。
See, e.g., McCabe v. McCabe, 1 F. L. R. 410 (涉及一个加纳妇女和阿坎习惯法婚姻); Re Bethell, Bethel v. Hildyard, (1998) 38 Ch. 220 (案件事实源于博茨瓦纳)；Bambgbose v. Daniel, A.C. 107 (案件事实源于尼日利亚)；Coleman v. Shang, A. C. 481 (案件事实来自加纳)；Connelly v. RTZ Corp. Plc, A.C. 854 (案件事实来自纳米比亚)；Lubbe v. Cape plc, 4 All E. R. 268 (案件事实来自南非)；British South Africa Co. v. Companhia de Mocambique, A.C. 602 (案件事实来自南非)；Mark v. Mark, UKHL 42 (涉及尼日利亚国民)；Owusu v. Jackson, 2 W. L. R 942, 从该案上诉人的名字，我猜想他可能来自加纳。
Forsyth, op.cit., at 298.
See, e.g., Friendship Container Manufacturer Ltd. v. Mitchell Cotts (K) Ltd., 2 E. A. 338 (Kenya); C.I.L.E.V. v. Chiavelli, G. L. R. 651 aff’d in G. L. R. 160 (Ghana); Commet Shipping Agencies (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Panlpina World Transport (Nigeria) Ltd., L. R. C.(Comm.) 206 (Nigerial).
Supra note 10.
Id. At 80. see also Sonnar (Nigeria) Ltd v. Partenreedri M S Nordwind, L. R. C (Comm.). 191, 211 (Nigeria). 在该案中，最高法院OPuta法官认为此类调控试图“剥夺”以正当合法地授予给我们法院的管辖权，或“劫掠”法院的管辖权。
Sonnar id.
Id. At 210, 他将此称为一个“至关重要的根本问题”。
Id. At 210.
African Continental Bank Ltd. v. Swissair Air Transport Company Ltd, 1 A. L.R (Comm.) 202, 205-06 (Nigeria).
Karachi Gas Ltd. v. Issaq, A. L. R. (comm.)35, 47-48 (Kenya).
Adan Deria Gedi. V. Sheik Salim El Amoudi, 1 A. L.R. (Comm.) 385, 390-91 (Somalia).
Western Credit (Africa) (Proprietary) Ltd v. Mapetla, A.L.R. (Comm.) 361, 365 (Basutoland, now Lesotho); Akerman v. Societe Generale de Compensation, 3 A.L.R.(Comm.) 329 (Ghana).
eKLR.
See generally Reid Mortensen, Homing Devices in Choice of Tort Law: Australia, British, and Canadian Approach, 55 I. C. L. Q. 839 (2006).
Regie National des Usines Renault SA v. Zhang, (2002) 210 C.L.R. 491.
Tolofson v. Jensen, 3 S. C. R. 1022, 120D. L. R. (4th) 289.
Private International Law (Miscellanneous Provisions) Act 1995.
Agbede, op.cit., at 159-79.
Signal Oil & Gas Company v. Bristow Helicopters Ltd, 1 G. L. R. 371, 379 (Ghana).
Forsyth, op.cit., at 326-27 and the writers cited therein.
这不是只有非洲存在的问题，see e.g., Pim Haak, Domestic Conflict of Laws: A Negligible Area in Conflict of Laws? A Dutch Opinion, in International Conflict of Laws for the Third Millennium, Essays in Honour of Friedrich K. Juenger 215 (Patrick J. Borchers & Joachim Zekoll eds., 2000).
该领域研究使用的术语还有区际法、非国际冲突法、内部国际私法、准国际私法、省际法和域际法。
See, e.g., Kwamena Bensi-Enchill, Choice of Law in Ghana since 1960, 8 (2) Uni. Ghana L. J. 59 (1971); Antony Allot, New Essays in African Law 107-44 (1970); E. G. Unsworth, The Conflict of Laws in Africa, 2 Rhodes-Livingstone J. 49 (1944); J. N. Matson, Internal Conflict of Laws in the Gold Coast, 16 M. L. R. 469 (1953); J. N. D. Anderson, The Conflict of Laws in Northern Nigeria, 1 J. Afri. L. 87 (1957); Akilagpa Sawyerr, Internal Conflict of Laws in East Africa, in East African Law and Social Change 110 (Akilagpa Sawyerr ed., 1967).
Allot, op. cit., at 116. 他在此处指出：“……法院在使用国际私法及其解决方法时，务必小心谨慎。无需置喙，国际私法和内部冲突法的基础完全不同。”
See e.g., Rene David, A Civil Code for Ethiopia: Considerations on the Codification of the Civil Law in African Countries, 37 Tul. L. Rev. 187 (1962-1963).
Alain A. Levasseur, The Civil Code of Ivory Coast 21 (1976).
See Filip Reyntjens, The Development of the Dual Legal System in Former Belgian Central Africa (Zaire-Rwanda-Burundi), in European Expansion and Law, The Encounter of European and Indigenous Law in the 19th and 20th Century Africa and Asia  111 (W.J. Mommsen & J.A. De Moor eds., 1992).
See, e.g., Ghana: Courts Act 1993 Act 459, § 54.
See, e.g., Kenya: Judicature Act Ch. 8, § 3, 该节规定:“. . . 在民事案件中，如当事一方或多方受非洲习惯法调整或受其影响，法院就应遵循习惯法，只要习惯法应予适用，且不与公正或道义相抵触，或与成文法相冲突，法院应遵守程序规则，根据实体公正及时审理此类案件。”及Zimbabwe: Customary Law and Local Courts Act Ch. 7: 05, § 8.
See, e.g., Akolda M. Tier, Conflict of Laws and Legal Pluralism in the Sudan, 39 I.C.L.Q. 611 (1990); T.W. Bennett, Conflict of Laws-The Application of Customary Law and the Common Law in Zimbabwe, 30 I.C.L.Q. 59 (1981); The Internal conflict of Laws in South Africa (A.J.G.M. Sanders ed., 1990).
近来，这种冲突主要是以习惯法和有关人权标准的立法之间的冲突的形式出现：See, e.g., Ephrahim v. Pastory and Kaizilege, (1992) 87 I.L.R. 106 (涉及人权法和禁止妇女出售土地的习惯法之间的冲突); Amaning alias Angu v. Angu II, 1 G.L.R. 309, 324，在该案中，法院认为，如习惯法与衡平法相冲突，后者优先；Otieno v. Ougo (No 4), K.L.R. 407 (涉及肯尼亚罗部族人安葬所适用的法律).
内部法律冲突并不局限于这些领域。See, e.g., Shaheen v. Duralia, (1920-36) A.L.R. (Sierra Leone) 3, 该案涉及塞拉利昂土著人和叙利亚人之间的合同，前者试图援引当地习惯法规则。
非洲不同部分在不同时间受到殖民统治。在本文中，“前殖民时代”是指1900年以前的时代；“殖民时代”指1900年以后的时间。
See Jay Gordon, African Law and the Historian, 8 J. Afr. History 335 (1967).
E.Kofi Tetteh, Law Reporting in Anglophone Africa, 20 I.C.L.Q. 87 (1971).
Ronald Graveson, The Origins of the Conflict of Laws, in Festchrift Fur Konrad Zwiegert 93, 99 (Herbert Bernstein et. al. eds., 1981).
Rodolfo de Nova, Historical and Comparative Introduction to the Conflict of Laws, 118 Recueil des Cours 441-77 (1966). For an account of earlier conflict of laws situation in Europe see generally Simeon L. Guterman, The First Age of European Law: The Origin and Character of the Conflict of Laws in the Early Middle Ages, 7 New York Law Forum 131 (1961).
最近，一些成文法立法为继承规定了统一的制度，已消除了此类问题。See e.g., Intestate Succession Law 1981 PNDC Law 111 of Ghana.
See generally F.J. Nothling, Pre-Colonial Africa: Her Civilisations and Foreign Contacts (1989).
Walter Rodney, A History of the Upper Guinea Coast, 1545-1800 19-20 (1970); Pre-Colonial Africa Trade, Essays on Trade in Central and Eastern Africa before 1900 (Richard Gray & David Birmingham eds., 1970).
Kalensky, op. cit., at 46, n.1, 47 n.4.
Ed Metzler, Conflict of Laws in the Israelite Dynasty of Egypt (1991).
Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, Special Edition 7-8 (2005).
Robert Smith, Peace and Palaver: International Relations in Pre-Colonial West Africa, 14 J. Afr. History 599 (1973).
Bennett, op.cit., at 65 (他注意到只有少数非洲法院发展出来的调整不同习惯法之间冲突的法律选择规范的纪录)。除文献乏善可陈外，土著司法的一个特征是，它仅关注达成一个衡平的解决办法，而不关注提供并实施清晰的立法建议。
Juenger, op.cit., at 10.
Peter M. North & J. J. Fawcett, Cheshire and North’s Private International Law 533-34 (1999).
See Yash P. Ghai, Customary Contracts and Transaction in Kenya, in Ideas and Procedures in African Customary Law 333, 344 (Max Gluckman ed., 1969), 在该文中他否认在肯尼亚部族社会中存在有可执行合同这一抽象化概念。
Rodney, op.cit., at 35.
See, e.g., Amodu Tijani v. Secretary, Southern Nigeria, 2 A.C. 399, 404, 在该案中枢密院认为“个人所有权概念在习惯法中是不存在的。土地属于村社或家庭这样的团体所有，从不属于个人”。
Omane v. Poku, 1 G.L.R. 295.
Andrew Chukwuemerie, The Internationalisation of African Customary Arbitration, 14 Afr. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 143, 150-51 (2006).
对于现在的国际私法学者而言，此类技巧预示了现今以当事人意思自治、标准格式合同、诉诸仲裁和实体法的国际通用化为基础的冲突避免手段。See generally Clive M. Schmitthoff, Conflict Avoidance in Practice and Theory, 21 Law & Contemp. Probs. 429 (1956).
See, e.g., William Burge, Commentaries on Colonial and Foreign Laws: Generally, and in their Conflict with each other, and with the Law of England Vol. 1, 3 (1838), 他认为远古时代的国家不会适用其它地方的法律，只会适用“权利得以裁判的所在国家”的法律。
Remigius N. Nwabueze, Historical and Comparative Contexts for the Evolution of Conflict of Laws in Nigeria, 8 Ilsa J. Int’l. & Comp. L. 31 (2001).
Bennett, op.cit., at 65.
Law in Colonial Africa 9-11 (Kristin Mann & Richard Roberts eds., 1991).
Rodney, op.cit., at 86-88.
Id., 83-84. “兰卡多斯”(lancados)一词被用于指称早期的欧洲商人。后来的一些判例法也一致确认可将习惯法适用于诸如涉及与非洲人有同居关系的欧洲人的扶养和未成年人监护等问题。See Duncan v. Robertson, (1891) Sarbah Fanti Customary Law Report 134; Adjei and Dua v. Ripley, W.A.L.R. 62.
See Bond of 1844, reprinted in John M. Sarbah, Fanti Customary Law 281-82 (3d ed., 1968).
Treaty of Friendship and Protection, reprinted in J.M. Sarbah, Fanti Customary LAW 306-10 (3d ed., 1968).
Reprinted in John Westlake, Chapters on the Principles of International Law 153 (1894).
But see Nwabueze, op.cit., at 31-60.
U.U. Uche, Conflicts of Laws in a Multi-Ethnic Setting: Lessons from Anglophone Africa, 228 Recueil des Cours 273 (1991).
See generally Alexander N. Sack, Conflict of Laws in the History of English Law, in Law: A Century of Progress Vol. 3, 342 (A. Reppy ed., 1937).
See, e.g., William Burge, Commentaries on Colonial and Foreign Laws: Generally, and in their Conflict with each other, and with the Law of England Vol 1, 2, 3, 4 (1838); John Westlake, A Treatise on Private International Law, or, the Conflict of Laws: With Principal Reference to its Practice in the English and other Cognate Systems of Jurisprudence (1858).
See Sack, op. cit.,.
Hughes v. Davis, (1909) Renner Reports 550, 551; Angu v. Atta, (1916) Gold Coast Privy Council Judgments (1874-1928) 43, 44. 许多学者认为，造成这种结果的原因是因为人们缺乏习惯法的知识。不过，这忽略了英国法律历史中对外国法采取的同样对待这一潜在的影响。即使今天，在英国法院中，外国法的查明仍是一个事实问题。
例如，直到最高法院根据1873年《司法法》将法律和衡平的实施予以合并，之前，不同的法院分别实施法律和衡平，它们是不同体系的法律。
Matson, op.cit., at 471.
See, e.g., Matson, supra note 38; J.N.D. Anderson, Conflict of Laws in Northern Nigeria: A New Start, 8 I.C.L.Q. 442 (1959); A. Arthur Schiller, Conflict of Laws in East Africa, 9 Netherlands Int’l L. Rev. 430 (1962).
See, e.g., G.C. Frames, Domicile, 1 Cape L.J. 253 (1884); G.C. Frames, Domicile, 1 Cape L.J. 301 (1887). 这是非洲学者对国际私法学科的发展施加影响的预备阶段，此后，毫无奇怪，有关该学科的一些非洲权威教材都是由南非学者写就。
Heinaman v. Jenkins-Re “Peytona,” (1853-56) II Searles’ Reports 10 (在该案中，法院对一项在纽约缔结、将在墨尔本履行、而当事人的住所都没有在殖民地的合同没有管辖权).
Dunell and Stanbridge v. Van der Plank in Re Schooner “Louisa,” (1828-49) III Menzies’ Reports 112 (在该案中，法院应英国债权人就一项英国合同提出的请求，扣押了位于桌湾港的船舶，以确立管辖权).
Norden v. Solomon, (1828-49) II Menzies’ Reports 375 (虽然是一起英国破产案件，在对破产人位于法院管辖权范围内的财产进行破产清算前，法院有权审理债权人所声称的担保权是否已经获得).
Wallace v. Hill, (1828-49) I Menzies’ Reports 347 (这一案件的当事人都是外国人，原告通过请求法院拘押被告提起诉讼，被告没有对法院的管辖权提出异议，并且法院适用了殖民地法律). See also Hornblow v. Fotheringham, (1828-49) I Menzies’ Reports 352 (在该案中，法院认为，对于源于一项在英国缔结并由英国法调整的合同的诉因，英国原告能否拘押英国被告以确立法院的管辖权，这一问题还存在“很大疑问”).
McDonald v. McDonald, (1861-63) IV Searles’ Reports 121.
Reeves v. Reeves, (1828-49) I Menzies’ Reports 244 (法院有权解除一项在爱尔兰缔结的婚姻，丈夫婚后在殖民地获得住所，而妻子从未居住在该地).
Executors of Muter v. Jones, (1857-60) III Searles’ Reports 356 (该案涉及对一批从伦敦运到开普敦的货物的损害赔偿责任，根据提单，在伦敦予以支付的运费必须根据英国法确定). See also Greef v. Verreaux, (1828-49) I Menzies’ Reports 151 (在该案中，法国被告向殖民地居民作出的结婚的承诺由作为合同缔结地法的殖民地法律调整).
Pappe v. Home, Edgar & Co. and Bam’s Executors, (1828-49) I Menzies’ Reports 212 (位于英国的动产信托财产中的利益必须由受益人的住所地法支配，英国法调整位于英国的不动产).
In Re Zeederberg, (1864-67) V Searles’ Reports 307.
De Costa v. Le Sueur, Civil Commissioner, (1828-49) III Menzies’ Reports 545 (一个只是为短期居留在殖民地而没有居住意图的葡萄牙国民没有在殖民地获得住所). See also Bestandig v. Bestandig, (1828-49) I Menzies’ Reports 280 (妻子的住所与丈夫的住所相同).
In re West (deceased), (1861-67) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cape) 370.
For a comparable deployment of public international law, see D. C. J. Dakas, The Role of International Law in the Colonisation of Africa: A Review in the Light of Recent Calls for Re-Colonisation, 7 Afr. Ybk Int’l L. 85 (1999).
法国、比利时和葡萄牙的殖民者采用了相似的避免法律冲突的手段，他们制定立法，根据当事人预先确定的身份选择所适用的法律。在这些殖民地内，土著人可以通过归化改变自己的身份，从而完全受殖民者的法律调整。在英国治理下的殖民地内，土著人没有此种选择。See A. Robert, A Compreh, ensive Study of Legislation and Customary Law Courts in the French, Belgian and Portuguese Territories in Africa, 11 J. Afr. Administration 124 (1959).
Allott, op.cit., at 122.
Schiller, op.cit., at 442 where he suggests these problems were relatively few. Francis A.R. Bennion, The Constitutional Law of Ghana 446-48 (1962). But see Julius Lewin, The Conflict of Tribal Laws, 61 South Afr. L.J. 269 (1944).
See, e.g., Ghamson v. Wobill, (1947) 12 W.A.C.A. 181, 在该案中，法院推翻了下级法院的判决，指出适用不动产权利由物之所在地法支配的国际私法规范会剥夺许多土著人根据其有关继承的习惯法所应得的利益。
Customary Law and Local Courts Act Ch. 7:05. See also Ghana: Courts Act 1993 Act 459 § 54 rule 5，该条规定是这样的：如两个或更多当事人受同一属人法调整，则他们之间产生的任何问题应适用该属人法；如他们受不同属人法调整，法院就应适用其各自属人法中相关规范，以获得一个符合自然公正、衡平和良知的结果。
See, e.g., Ghana: Intestate Succession Law 1981 (PNDC Law 111), 该法废除了有关无遗嘱继承的习惯法规范，并为此规定了统一的法律制度。不过，此类遗产中的一小部分仍根据死者的习惯法分配。
Keith W. Patchett, Recognition of Commercial Judgments and Awards in the Commonwealth 20 (1984).
See, e.g., Gambia: Foreign Judgment Extension Ordinance 1908, No 5, Northern Nigeria: Foreign Judgment Extension Ordinance 1908, No 21, Southern Nigeria: Foreign Judgment Extension Ordinance 1908, No VI. Sierra Leone: Foreign Judgment Extension Ordinance 1908, No 4.
But see William L. Twining, The Place of Customary Law in National Legal Systems in East Africa 55 （1963年4月-5月在芝加哥大学法学院所作讲座) J.P.W.B. McAuslan在写给报告者的一张便条中指出，尽管东非的律师和法官并非总是意识到他们在处理法律冲突问题，但他对165个案件进行了分析，这些案件“我认为提出了某种形式的或其它的法律冲突问题。其中有90个案件提出了国际或国家间的法律冲突问题，75个案件提出了人际或内部法律冲突问题”。不过，McAuslan的主张并没有得到我所查证的法律报告的支持，至少就东非以外的国家而言。
Official Administrator v. Anba Bola Convent, (1900-31) 1 S.L.R. 521, 529-30.
See, e.g., Dewhurst v. Wilson, (1954) 27 K.L.R. 41 (来自坦噶尼喀（现在的坦桑尼亚）的货币判决) ); In re Roderick Fountaine Antrobus Johnston, (1954) 27 K.L.R. 94 (来自南罗得西亚（现在的津巴布韦）的扶养令); Khoury v. Khoury, (1957) 3 W.A.L.R. 52 (在加纳对黎巴嫩离婚判决的承认。该案件是在加纳独立后但尚未取得共和国地位时处理的)；Hanna Ibrahim v. Tawfik Ibrahim Mikael, S.L.R. 98 (来自埃及的货币判决).
Fuhrmeister and Company v. Abdel Ghani Ali Mousa and Sons, S.L.J.R. 38.
Mohammed Ahmed Radwan v. Pearson & Son Ltd., (1900-31) 1 S.L.R. 218.
Tawfik Abdel Sayed v. Ahmed Hashim Baghdadi, (1900-31) 1 S.L.R. 227; Antonious Saad v. Aziz Kfouri, (1900-31) 1 S.L.R. 114; Misr Printing Press v. Kamil Mohamed Kamil, S.L.J.R. 3.
John Grisby v. Jubwe, (1952-55) 14 W.A.C.A. 637; Elias J. Moubarak v. Holland West Afrika Lijn, (1952-55) 14 W.A.C.A. 262.
Yanni Krithary v. Mariam Bint Dasta, (1900-31) 1 S.L.R. 91 (maintenance); Adjei and Dua v. Ripley W.A.L.R. 62 (maintenance); Madame Olympia v. William Bey Zalzal, (1900-31) 1 S.L.R. 28 (marriage).
George Michailides v. Nerves Yacoub, (1900-31) 1 S.L.R. 190.
Estate of Jacques Maqridis, (1932-40) 2 S.L.R. 1; Official Administrator v. Anba Bola Convent, (1900-31) 1 S.L.R. 521; Hanna Kattan v. John Kattan, S.L.J.R. 35; Mary Ekem v. Ekua Nerba, (1946-49) 12 W.A.C.A. 258.
Mohammed Wahib Huzaifeh v. Hussein Saba, (1939) 5 W.A.C.A. 181; Said Ajami v. The Comptroller of Custom, (1952-55) 14 W.A.C.A. 34 aff’d (1952-55) 14 W.A.C.A. 37.
Schulze, op.cit.,; Forsyth, op.cit.,; Kiggundu, op.cit.,.
18 S. Afr. Mercantile L.J. (2006).
Christian Schulze, Electronic Commerce and Civil Jurisdiction, with Special Reference to Consumer Contracts, 18 S. Afr. Mercantile L.J. 31 (2006).
Christa Roodt, The Law Applicable to Certain Rights in Respect of Securities held with an Intermediary: The Hague Securities Convention, 18 S. Afr. Mercantile L.J. 83 (2006).
John Kiggundu, Choice of Law in Delict: The Rise and Rise of the Lex Loci Delicti Commissi, 18 S. Afr. Mercantile L.J. 97 (2006).
See, e.g., Christopher Forsyth, “Mind the Gap”: A Practical Example of the Characterisation of Prescription/Limitation Rules, 2 J. Priv. Int’l L. 109 (2006); Christopher Forsyth, “Mind the Gap II”: The South African Supreme Court of Appeal and Characterisation, 2 J. Priv. Int’l L. 425 (2006); Jan L. Neels, Private International Law of Succession in South Africa, 7 Yearbook of Private International Law 183 (2005); Richard F. Oppong, Private International Law and the African Economic Community: A Plea for Greater Attention, 55 I.C.L.Q. 911 (2006); Oppong, The Hague Conference and the Development of Private International Law in Africa: A Plea for Cooperation, 8 Ybk, Priv. Int’l L. 189 (2006).
Http://general.rau.ac.za/law/English/ipr/ipr.htm (last visited Feb. 16, 2007).
Http://www.unisa.ac.za/Default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=675 (last visited Feb. 16, 2007).
Http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=events.details&year=2006&varevent=119 (last visited Feb. 16, 2007).
Uche, op.cit., at 273.
See, e.g., Turner v. Grovit, 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 169; Owusu v. Jackson, 2 W.L.R. 942; Trevor C. Hartley, The European Union and the Systematic Dismantling of the Common Law of Conflict of Laws, 54 I.C.L.Q. 813 (2005).
See, e.g., Morgaurd Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, 3 S.C.R. 1077, 76 D.L.R. (4th) 256; Hunt v. T & N plc, 4 S.C.R. 289, 109 D.L.R. (4th) 16; Tolofson, op.cit.,.
Diego P. Fernandez Arroyo & Jan Kleinheisterkamp, The VIth Inter-American Specialized Conference on Private International Law (CIDIP VI): A New Step Towards Inter-American Legal Integration, 4 Ybk Priv. Int’l L. 237, 254 (2002).
In Valentine Investment Company (msa) Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Germany eKLR, 在该案中，法院非常关注如何向国际交易中的非洲人提供保护的问题。该案涉及一个要求中止肯尼亚法院程序的申请，理由是，当事人已约定由德国波恩法院进行管辖并适用德国法。该案的标的是一项提供机动车及司机的合同。当事人缔结的前两个合同都含有选择肯尼亚法院的条款。法院在驳回当事人的申请的理由是，当事人的谈判地位不平等；相关证据都在肯尼亚，在肯尼亚进行诉讼会非常方便，而且花费更低；肯尼亚是普通法国家，如到德国进行诉讼，原告会处于十分不利的地位；德国被告在肯尼亚营业，并和肯尼亚商人缔结了合同。
See, e.g., William L. Prosser, Interstate Publication, 51 Mich. L.Rev. 959, 971 (1952-53): “冲突法领域是一片阴森的沼泽地，遍布颤动的泥潭，知识高深但举止诡异的教授们居于此处，他们用晦涩难懂的行话构建神秘事物的理论。一般的法官或法律人，倘置身其中，就会茫然不知所措。“
Reprinted in (1991) 3 Afr. J. Int’l. & Comp. L. 792-839 (1991), 30 I.L.M. 1241 (1991).
我认为这些问题包括一体化对国家主权的影响、国际义务的国内实施、争端解决机制等。
《东非共同体条约》第126条要求成员国“推动共同体内法院判决的标准化”，并“对涉及共同体的国内法律进行统一化”；《西非国家经济共同体条约》第57条第1款规定：“成员国应在司法和立法事项方面开展合作，以对司法和立法体制进行协调”，这一规定从广义上来看，可以说包括了国际私法问题。不过，我却没有看到根据这些规定所采取的对国际私法具有意义的行动。
See generally Diego P. Fernandez Arroyo, What is New in Latin American Private International Law, 7 Ybk. Priv. Int’l L. 86 (2005); Marie-Odile Baur, Projects of the European Community in the Field of Private International Law, 5 Ybk. Priv. Int’l L. 177 (2003).
我对这些问题作过详尽论述：Oppong, Private International Law and the African Economic Community: A Plea for Greater Attention, 55 I.C.L.Q. 911 (2006).
Robert C. Casad, Civil Judgment Recognition and the Integration of Multi-state Associations: A Comparative Study, 4 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 1 (1980-81).
For example, South Africa’s regime designates only Namibia; Namibia’s regime designates only South Africa; Swaziland’s regime has been extended to Lesotho, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Zanzibar, Malawi, Kenya, and Tanzania. For Ghana’s regime, Senegal is the only African country designated; see First Schedule of Foreign Judgments and Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Instrument, 1993 (LI 1575); Tanzania’s Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Order (GN No 8 & 9 of 1936) names in its schedule Lesotho, Botswana, Mauritius, Zambia, Seychelles, Somalia, Zimbabwe, and the Kingdom of Swaziland.
Compare art. 220 of the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community (1957).
Art. 126 of the Treaty of the East African Community and art. 57(1) of the Treaty of the Economic Community of West African States.
See Kiggundu, op.cit.,; Forsyth, op.cit., at 326-27.
Muna Ndulo, The Promotion of Intra-African Trade and the Harmonisation of Laws in the African Economic Community: Prospects and Problems, in African Economic Community Treaty, Issues Problems and Prospects 107, 111-12 (M.A. Ajomo & Omobolaji Adewale eds., 1993).
《非洲经济共同体条约》规定在34年内分6个阶段逐步建立共同体。最后一个阶段涉及巩固非洲共同市场；实现人员、货物、资本和服务的自由流通；社会、经济、政治和文化部门的一体化；以及建立单一内部市场。
AEC Treaty, supra note 134, art. 6(2)(f)(ii).
See Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of Nov. 23, 2003, Concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and the Matters of Parental Responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) 1347/2000.
Green Paper on Wills and Succession. COM (2005) 65 Final. The European Parliament accepted this Paper in Nov. 2006, and a legislative proposal is due from the Commission to the Parliament in 2007.
See generally Maurice Oduor, Resolving Trade Disputes in Africa: Choosing between Multilateralism and Regionalism: The Case of COMESA and the WTO, 13 Tulane J. Int’l & Comp. L. 177 (2005); Joost Pauwelyn, Going Global, Regional, or Both - Dispute Settlement in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and Overlaps with the WTO and Other Jurisdiction, 13 Minn. J. Global Trade 231 (2004); Kenneth P. Kiplagat, Jurisdictional Uncertainties and Integration Processes in Africa: The Need for Harmony, 4 Tulane J. Int’l & Comp. L. 43 (1995-96).<, o:p>
See, e.g., art. 292 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, art. 42(1) of the Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Andean Community, and art. 2005 of North American Free Trade Agreement.
虽然《南部非洲发展共同体法庭协定》第17、18和19条授予该法庭“对国家和共同体之间、自然人或法人和共同体之间、共同体和共同体人员之间的所有争端具有专属管辖权”，但这还不够，因为看来它仍不能阻止当事人在其它地方提起诉讼，即使该地的法院随后拒绝行使管辖。
Reprinted in 10 Afr. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 157 (1998).
See generally Jenny S. Martinez, Towards an International Judicial System, 56 Stanford L. Rev. 429 (2003-04).
1 E.A. 294. Compare Healthwise Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Ltd., L.L.R. 1279, where a similar argument was unsuccessful.
See generally Paolo Mengozzi, Private International Law and the WTO Law, 292 Recueil des Cours 249 (2001).
Morgaurd, op.cit., at 1096.
See, e.g., Ronald A. Brand, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments as a Trade Law Issue: The Economics of Private International Law, in Economic Dimensions of International Law: Comparative and Empirical Perspectives 592 (Jagdeep Bhandari & Alan O. Sykes eds., 1997); Alan O. Sykes, Transnational Tort Litigation as a Trade and Investment Issue, (Stan. L. & Econ. Olin, Working Paper No. 331, Jan. 2007), http://ssrn.com/abstract=956668 (last visited Feb. 16, 2007); Joseph J. Derby, The Conflict of Laws and International Trade, 4 San Diego L.Rev. 45 (1967).
See, e.g., American Flag plc v. Great African T-shirt Corp., 2000 (1) S.A. 356, 375; Hay Management Consultants (Pty) Ltd. v. P3 Management Consultants (Pty) Ltd., 2005 (2) S.A. 522.
Argos Fishing Co. Ltd. v.Friopesca SA, 1991 (3) SA 255.
有关外国判决在南非的执行, see Forsyth, op.cit., 387-445; Schulze, op.cit., at 16-32.
See, e.g., UK: Protection of Trading Interest Act of 1980; Australia: Foreign Anti Trust Judgments (Restrictions on Enforcement Act 1979 (Cth); Canada: Foreign Extra-Territorial Measures Act 1984 § 8 & 9.
Forsyth, op.cit., at 435.
Schulze, op.cit., at 32.
Id. at 31.
See Miliangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd., A.C. 443; Barclays Bank of Swaziland Ltd. v. Mnyeketi, 1992 (2) S.A. 425; Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) v. Farmex Ltd., 1 G.L.R. 46; R.E. Bannermah, Award of Damages in Foreign Currency: A Critical Look at the Judgments, 19 Rev. Ghana L. 231 ; Lisa Niewoudt, The Power of the South African Court to Give Judgment in Foreign Currency, 18 South Afr. Ybk. Int’l L. 147 (1992-93).
Echodelta Ltd. v. Kerr and Downey Safaris, 2004 (1) S.A. 509 (外国原告最后获得一个相当于18，000美元的以津巴布韦元表示的判决，以支付其90，385.60美元的债务). Compare Chiraga v. Msimuko, 2004 (1) S.A. 98 (外国被告成功说服法院没有将以南非兰特（货币单位）表示的债务转换为津巴布韦元). Eden v. Piennaar, 2001 (1) S.A. 158 (法院认为执行一项以美元表示的以色列判决并不违反南非的公共政策，这项判决中有一个关联规定，以确保以色列货币的贬值不会给判决债务人带来任何利益). Charles Thys v. Herman Steyn, eKLR (法院认为如果利用司法程序以获取因肯尼亚先令（货币单位）在国际货币市场上的快速波动而带来的高于正常的利益，就会违反公共政策).
Botswana: Judgments (International Enforcement) Act 1981 Ch. 11:04 § 5(5); Namibia: Enforcement of Foreign Civil Judgments Act 1994 Act 28 of 1994 § 3(4); Tanzania, Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement Ordinance 1935 § 4(3); Ghana: Courts Act 1996 Act 459 § 82(7); Zambia: Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act Ch. 76 § 4(3); Uganda: Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act Ch. 9 § 3(3); Nigeria: Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act Ch. 152 LFN 1990 § 4(3). But see Kenya: Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act § 7(1) which uses the discretionary language “may be registered.”
Ghana: Courts Act 1996 Act 459 § 82(7).
Ssebaggala & Sons Electric Centre Ltd. v. Kenya National Shipping Line Ltd., L.L.R. 931.
Australia: Foreign Judgment Act 1991 § 6(11)(a); New Zealand: Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgment Act, 1934 § 4(3).
Kenya: Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act § 7(1).
The Atlantic Star Q.B. 364, 382.
《欧共体条约》第65条明确承认这一点，根据该条规定，国际私法问题对于“内部市场的正常运作”是必需的。
Christopher Forsyth, The Impact of the Domestic on the International: Some Crucial Deficiencies in the South African Law of Jurisdiction with their Regional and International Consequences, 18 South Afr. Mercantile L.J. 1 (2006). For judicial support for this position, see Chong Sun Wood Products Pte Ltd. v. K & T Trading Ltd., 2001 (2) S.A. 651; Hulse-Reutter v. Godde 2001 (4) S.A. 1336.
2005年《法院选择协议海牙公约》将管辖权协议的重要性作了进一步推动。该公约尚未生效，目前还没有非洲国家加入该公约。
Forsyth, Private International Law: The Modern Roman-Dutch Law including the Jurisdiction of the High Court 43 (2003), at 216, 他在此处提倡南非法院应当为南部非洲和中部非洲发挥像伦敦商事法院那样的国际作用。
See art. 32 of the Treaty Establishing the East African Community and art. 28 of the Treaty Establishing the Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa. 《西非国家经济共同体条约》第16条也规定设立一个共同体仲裁庭。仲裁庭的地位、组成、权力、程序和其它问题由条约协定予以确定。在此之前，《西非国家经济共同体法院协定》第9条第5款规定，西非国家经济共同体法院行使仲裁庭功能。
A. N. Allott, Towards the Unification of Laws in Africa, 14 I.C.L.Q. 366, 374 (1965).
See, e.g., Yakubu, supra note 5; Muna Nudlo, Harmonisation of Trade Laws in the African Economic Community, 42 I.C.L.Q. 101 (1993); O. Anukpe Ovrawah, Harmonisation of Laws within the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), 6 Afr. J. Int’l & Comp.L. 76 (1994).
它们是贝宁、布基纳法索、喀麦隆、中非共和国、科摩罗、刚果（布）、科特迪瓦、加蓬、几内亚、几内亚比绍、赤道几内亚、马里、尼日尔、塞纳加尔、乍得、和多哥。利比里亚、安哥拉和刚果民主共和国都表示了加入该组织的兴趣。See Sebastien Thouvenot, News on the Development of the Organisation for the Harmonisation of Business Law in Africa (OHBLA), 5 Int’l Bus. L.J. 704 (2006).
* 关于该组织及该组织法律制度的介绍，参见Boris Martor等著、朱伟东译：《非洲商法：OHADA与统一化进程》，英国GMB出版公司（GMB Publishing Ltd）2008年版。
Treaty establishing the Organisation for the Harmonization of Business Laws in Africa http://www.ohada.com/traite.php (last visited Feb. 16, 2007). There is a dearth of English writings on this organization. See generally Boris Martor et. al., Business Law in Africa, OHADA and the Harmonisation Process (2002); Claire M. Dickerson, Harmonising Business Laws in Africa: OHADA Case Calls the Tune, 44 Colum. J. Transnt’l. L. 17 (2005); Nelson Enonchong, Harmonization of Business Law in Africa: Is article 42 of the OHADA Treaty and Problem? 51 J. AFR. L. 95 (2007).
OHADA Treaty, supra note 181, art. 1.
Thouvenot, op.cit.,.
See, e.g., Joost Blom, Reform of Private International Law by Judges: Canada as a Case Study, in Reform and Development of Private International Law: Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North 31 (James Fawcett ed., 2002).
See generally Christopher Forsyth, The Value of Comparative Ethos to the Judicial Process in the Conflict of Laws, in Essays in Honour of Ellison Kahn 151-72 (Coenraad Visser ed., 1989), especially at 171 ,他注意到：“……许多冲突法课程缺乏历史和重要理论方面的讲述，更不用说进行比较介绍了！”
See Chang W. Cheong, The Law in Singapore on Child Abduction, Singapore J.Legal Stud. 444, 458-61, 作者在该文中探讨了一个新加坡案件。在该案中，法官认为虽然新加坡尚未加入《国际儿童诱拐民事事项方面的海牙公约》，但公约的原则，即儿童监护问题应由惯常居所地法院决定符合儿童的最大利益，除非有例外情况，应予遵循。
See Christophe Bernasconi, Rules of Interpretation Applicable to Private International Law Treaties: An Overview, in International Law and The Hague’s 750th Anniversary 139 (Wybo P. Heere ed., 1999).
See generally Hartley, op.cit.,.
1 E.A. 294. Compare Healthwise Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Ltd., L.L.R. 1279.
See generally Elizabeth Edinger, The Constitutionalization of the Conflict of Laws, 25 Can. Bus. L.J. 38 (1995). James Stellios, Choice of Law and the Australian Constitution: Locating the Debate, 33 Federal L. Rev. 7 (2005).
See, e.g., Namibia: Enforcement of Foreign Civil Judgments Act 28 of 1994, Foreign Courts Evidence Act 2 of 1995, Reciprocal Service of Process Act 27 of 1994; Zimbabwe: Civil Matters (Mutual Assistance) Act 14 of 1995, Child Abduction Act 12 of 1995 (implementing the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980)); Ghana: Courts Act 1993 Act 459 § 81-99 (on the enforcement of foreign judgments); Nigeria: Admiralty Jurisdiction Decree No 59 of 1991; South Africa, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Act No. 72 of 1996; Domicile Act No. 3 of 1992.
South African Law Reform Commission, Consolidated Legislation Pertaining to International Co-operation in Civil Matters (Project 121, Discussion Paper 106), 57-59, http://www.doj.gov.za/salrc/dpapers/dp106_prj121/dp106_prj121_b.pdf (last visited Feb. 16, 2007).
Forsyth, Private International Law: The Modern Roman-Dutch Law including the Jurisdiction of the High Court 43 (2003), at 17-19.
See e.g., Edinger, op.cit.,; Stellios, op.cit,; Trevor C.W. Farrow, Globalization, International Human Rights, and Civil Procedure, 41 Alberta L. Rev. 671 (2003); Patrick Kinsch, The Impact of Human Rights on the Application of Foreign Law and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments-A Survey of the Decided cases by the European Human Rights Institutions, in Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law Essays In Memory Of Peter Nygh 197 (Talia Einhorn & Kurt Siehr eds., 2004); James J. Fawcett, The Impact of Article 6(1) of the ECHR on Private I, nternational Law, 56 I.C.L.Q. 1 (2007).
Proposed New Constitution of Kenya, Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 63, available at http://confinder.richmond.edu/admin/docs/KenyaProposed220805.pdf (last visited June 06, 2007).
eKLR.
Himelsein v. Super Rich, 1998 (1) S.A. 929, 936. See also Naylor v. Taylor, 2006 (3) S.A. 546, 557; Tsung v. Industrial Development Corp. of SA Ltd., 2006 (4) S.A. 177, 181.
2001 (1) S.A. 1171.
这种挑战是，该法要求法院以不符合宪法第28条第2款规定的方式行事，该款规定要求，在涉及儿童每个案件中，儿童的最大利益是首要考虑。
Richard F. Oppong, The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Ghana: A Second Look at a Colonial Inheritance, 31 Commonwealth L. Bull. 19, 31 (2005).
In Nku v. Nku, B.L.R. 187, 博茨瓦纳高等法院拒绝以歧视妇女为由对这条普通法规范进行改革，即已婚妇女结婚时获得丈夫的住所。
人权法的影响也可能在内部法律冲突领域凸现，因为部族团体会以文化权利为由保护习惯法，而个人会以人权为由拒绝适用习惯法。
该法第1条将民事伴侣界定为“两个同性成年人的自愿结合，并根据本法规定的程序举行仪式和登记，在其存续期间，以排除任何其他人”。

第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 页 共[7]页