XIII TRIMESTER

________________________________________________ _

CONFLICT

OF

LAWS

PROOF

OF

FOREIGN LAW
Submitted by:

SUHAS SAGAR
#1613 5 YEAR, B.A., LL.B. (HONS.)
TH

NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL

OF INDIA

UNIVERSITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................3 1. 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................4 2. THE MEANING OF FOREIGN LAW.........................................................................5 2.1 RENVOI...................................................................................................................5 3. PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW: VARYING APPROACHES.......................................7 3.1 COMMON LAW TRADITION..............................................................................7 3.2 CIVIL LAW TRADITION......................................................................................9 3.3 THE ROME REGULATION and PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW...........................9 3.4 THE POSITION IN INDIA...................................................................................10 4. TREATING FOREIGN LAW AS FACT: AN APPRAISAL....................................11 4.1 ADVANTAGES ....................................................................................................12 4.2 DISADVANTAGES .............................................................................................12 5. A PROPOSED MODEL FOR PROOF OF LAW IN INDIA....................................13 6. CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................14 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................15 7.1 PRIMARY SOURCES...........................................................................................16 7.1.1 Cases................................................................................................................16 7.1.2 Law Commission Reports...............................................................................16 7.1.3 Statutes............................................................................................................16 7.1.4 Conventions.....................................................................................................17 7.2 SECONDARY SOURCES...................................................................................17 7.2.1 Books...............................................................................................................17 7.2.2 Articles............................................................................................................17

1. 1. INTRODUCTION
Conflict of laws comprises the legal principles and rules governing international private relations. It thus engenders that branch of law which deals with cases where some relevant fact has a geographic connection creating a foreign element, and that raises a question regarding jurisdiction and the applicable substantive law. The many-sided phenomenon known as globalisation has enhanced the regularity with which courts are called upon to determine questions of foreign law. Now, while it is assumed that judges are well versed with the content of the domestic laws, it is highly impracticable to assume that judges would be conversant with foreign law. In most jurisdictions, knowledge of foreign law is not included in the official and mandatory science of the judges.1 Thus, in all cases with a foreign element and a probable application of foreign law, the question that arises is: How to determine the content of foreign law? The concern of this paper is to answer this broad question and study the various approaches that have been adopted across countries in order to deal with the issue of proof of foreign law. Whenever rules of private international law refer to foreign law in any given legal dispute certain questions arise that need to be answered in order to fruitfully proceed to the stage of resolving the dispute on merits. Does the judge have to apply foreign law even if the parties didnt invoke it, i.e., is he obligated to apply it ex officio? And what should the judge do in case there is doubt about the contents of the foreign law should he direct the party that invokes the foreign law to prove it? And, if the answer is yes, should this proof be produced in accordance with the way facts are to be proven? And finally, will there be an appeal to the highest court in case the foreign law has been violated or incorrectly applied? The proof and pleading of foreign law is one of the central questions occupying the sphere of Conflict of Laws and the manner in which it is handled determines the outcome of any case involving a foreign element. This paper will open with a discussion on the scope of the term foreign law leading to the attendant study of the doctrine of renvoi. The paper will then go on to analyse the national variations on the mode of proving foreign law and will conclude with the desirable systemic reform in the Indian rules in this regard with special reference to proving foreign law with reference to foreign courts.
1

Atul M. Setalvad, Conflict of Laws (Nagpur: Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 2007).

2. THE MEANING OF FOREIGN LAW

Before proceeding to deconstruct the issue of pleading and proof of foreign law, a preliminary question needs to be settled. What is foreign law? Whenever the applicable law is that of a foreign country, the difficulty is to determine what is meant by applicable law. In its narrower and most usual sense it denotes the domestic law of any country i.e. the law applied by the courts of that country in cases which contain no foreign element. In its wider sense, law means all the rules including the rules of the conflict of laws which the courts of that country apply.2 If the narrower sense is applied then there is no cause for confusion and the Courts can then move on to the proof of the applicable foreign law in the manner which will be analysed later in this paper. But if the term law is accorded the wider meaning then the doctrine of Renvoi is invoked in order to determine the applicable law.

2.1 RENVOI When the wider sense of law is applied then further difficulty is caused by the difference between the private international law rules of the forum and the foreign country. It might happen that when the conflict of law rules of the originating country direct the Court to the foreign system, the Conflict of Laws rules of the foreign country might redirect the Court to the original forum called remission or direct it to a 3 rd forum called transmission.3 In such a scenario, there are two possible solutions that the Court might employ and they represent the two strands of practice in the doctrine of renvoi.4 They are: (1) Decide the case on the application of the conflict of laws rule of the foreign country resulting in either remission or transmission under the doctrine of single renvoi5 which is practiced in certain jurisdictions but isnt there in England.6

2 3

Dicey and Morris, Conflict of Laws Vol - I 13th ed. (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2002) at p.65. Id. 4 E.N. Griswold, Renvoi Revisited, Harvard Law Review, 51 Harv LR 1165. 5 F. Fawcett and J. Carruther, Cheshire, North and Fawcett, Private International Law 14th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) at p. 59. 6 Id.

(2) Take foreign law to mean the law which the judge of the foreign court would administer if he came across the matter himself. This is the doctrine of double renvoi.7 The doctrine of double renvoi finds substantial affirmation in the judicial pronouncements of England, North America and Australia.8 There are various criticisms which are levelled against the doctrine of renvoi and there is considerable academic consensus in holding that law should refer only to the domestic/internal law of the country.9 The objections levelled are as follows: (a) the doctrine doesnt necessarily entail uniform decisions10; (b) the doctrine entails that the conflict of laws rules of the forum entertaining the matter are always subservient to those of the foreign country11 and other issues which shall not be gone into detail because they do not have a direct bearing on the substance of the paper. Suffice it to say that the doctrine of renvoi is a hotly debated issue and is a preliminary hurdle to the question of proof of law and authorities like Dicey propose that law should only mean the internal rules of a country.12 So, once after the application of the appropriate form of the renvoi doctrine is done, the applicable law is ascertained and if it turns out to be foreign law, then the question of its proof arises.

7 8

Supra note 2. Neilson v. Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd, (2005) 221 ALR 213 cf. Supra note 5. 9 E.G. Lorenzen, The Qualification, Classification or Characterization Problem in the Conflict of Laws, Yale Law Journal, 50 Yale LJ 743. 10 Supra note 5 at 62. 11 E.O. Schreiber, Doctrine of the Renvoi in Anglo-American Law, Harvard Law Review, 31 Harv LR 523. 12 Supra note 2.

3. PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW: VARYING APPROACHES

3.1 COMMON LAW TRADITION 3.1.1 England: The clear position of law here is that foreign law is a fact and as such has to be pled and proved by the party or parties.13 According to Dicey and Morris in Rule 18: (1) In any case to which foreign law applies, that law must be pleaded and proved as a fact to the satisfaction of the judge by expert evidence or sometimes by certain other means. (2) In the absence of satisfactory evidence of foreign law, the court will apply English law to such a case.14 The manner of proving the content of foreign law is mainly by the testimony of experts in that law. Foreign law cannot be proved merely by putting the text of a foreign enactment before the court, nor merely by citing foreign decisions or books of authority. Such materials can only be brought before the court as part of the evidence of an expert witness, since without his assistance the court cannot evaluate or interpret them.15 This overt reliance of the English Courts on expert testimony creates certain paradoxical situations and as such has been criticised.16 The rule of procedure in England governing expert testimony on foreign law17 results in some paradoxical situations wherein experts of dubious competence might be given precedence over text. However, questions of foreign law are questions of fact of a peculiar kind. 18 These peculiarities are as follows: a) Appellate review of findings of foreign law at first instance are not constrained as in respect of other findings of fact19

13 14

Supra note 5 at 111. Supra note 2 at 221. 15 Supra note 2 at 230. 16 Jacob Dolinger, Application, Proof, and Interpretation Of Foreign Law: A Comparative Study In Private International Law, Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, 12 AZJICL 225. 17 it is hereby declared that in civil proceedings a person who is suitably qualified to do so on account of his knowledge or experience is competent to give expert evidence as to [foreign law], irrespective of whether he has acted or is entitled to act as a legal practitioner [in the foreign country], S. 4(1), The Civil Evidence Act of 1972. 18 Parkasho v. Singh, [1968] P. 233 cf. P.L.G. Brereton, The Proof of Foreign Law-Problems and Initiatives, The Future of Private International Law in Australia accessed from http://sydney.edu.au/law/events/2011/May/Justice_Brereton.pdf 19 Id.

b) If a party fails sufficiently to prove the content of foreign law, the law of the forum will generally be applied by default20 c) Where expert evidence of foreign law is considered absolutely erroneous contradictory, the court may provide its own analysis of the content of foreign law21 d) While the content of foreign law is a question of fact, its application to the facts of a case is a question of law in respect of which evidence cannot usually be received.22 3.1.2 United States of America: Joseph Story, the seminal author on U.S. conflict of laws, advanced the same position as English law on the question of pleading and proof of foreign law in the various editions of his treatise.23 Thus, before 1966 in all Courts in US, whether federal or not, foreign law was a fact to be pled and proved by the parties and its determination by the court was subject to review under the clearly erroneous standard.24 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern how foreign law is determined in federal courts. Rule 44.1 which was added in the year 1966 states as follows: A party who intends to raise an issue concerning the law of a foreign country shall give notice by pleading or other reasonable written notice. The court, in determining foreign law, may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court's determination shall be treated as a ruling on a question of law.25 So, as of the present, even though the burden of pleading foreign law is on the parties but it is now a question of law and thus is subject to full de novo appellate review coupled with the fact that the onus of determination of the content of foreign law is now upon the Court with sources other than expert testimony at its disposal. The federal rule enforces a duty on the court ultimately to determine as a matter of law the content of the foreign law. Yet, in the absence of proof of the content of the foreign law, some choices of law theories default to forum law. 26 Thus, practice has not
20

Supra note 2. Supra note 18. 22 Supra note 18. 23 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws 398 (Boston: C.C. Little and J. Brown,1846). 24 Reissner v. Rogers, 276 F.2d 506 (D.C. Cir. 1960). 25 Arthur Miller, Federal Rule 44.1 and the Fact Approach to Determining Foreign Law: Death Knell for a Die-Hard Doctrine, 65 Mich. L. Rev. 613 (1967). 26 Eugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws 12.19 (3rd ed., St. Paul: Thomson West Publication Co., 2000).
21

followed precept very closely and there is abundant discussion in academia exhorting the Courts to be more proactive in determining the content of foreign law.

3.2 CIVIL LAW TRADITION It would be helpful to briefly summarise the position of law prevalent in the prominent civil law jurisdictions as the subject i.e. private international law consists of dealing with legal matters which have a foreign element. 3.2.1 France: The Cour de Cassation, here has followed a see-saw policy resulting in judgments that say proof of foreign law is a question of law has to be determined by the Court ex-officio and cases on the other hand deciding that proof of law is a question of fact to be pled and proved by the parties.27 The position which has emerged is that in cases related to status and capacity of parties the Court has to apply the foreign law ex officio while in dispositive cases like contractual relations it has to be pled and proved by parties.28 3.2.2 Germany: In German law it is quite settled by both, court decisions29 and legal doctrine30 that the rules of private international law have to be applied as part of the German legal system by the judge ex officio. If a German conflict rule refers to foreign law, such law must be applied, therefore, whether or not it is pleaded by the parties.

3.3 THE ROME REGULATION and PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW According to the Rome Regulation its rules shall apply to contractual obligations in any situation involving a choice of law between the laws of different countries and the Regulation goes on to provide, for example, in Article 3 that a contract be governed by the law chosen by the parties. So, it seems as if the Regulation makes it mandatory for the Courts of Contracting Parties to determine the applicable law regardless of whether the foreign party pleads it or not.
27

R. Hausmann, Pleading and Proof of Foreign Law a Comparative Analysis, The European Legal Forum, 1-2008, January, 2008. 28 Supra note 16. 29 T.C. Hartley, Pleading and Proof of Foreign Law: The Major European Systems Compared, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 271-292. 30 Supra note 29.

This dilemma needs to be resolved in the case of England because the approach there is of pleading of foreign law by parties and not by court ex officio. The response of the English doctrine is that according to its Article 1 (3) the Regulation does not apply to evidence and procedure. And since the rules on pleading and proof of foreign law are part of the law of evidence and procedure consequently they cant be affected by the Regulation. Therefore, the Rome Regulation would not impose any legal obligation on the Contracting States to alter their rules in this respect.31 Even if such an approach results in undermining the project of Rome Regulation which is to harmonise the interpretation of its rules, it must be kept in mind that the underlying theme of the Regulation is the freedom of choice of parties to choose applicable law. Also Article 3 (2) allows expressly for a subsequent alteration of the law applicable to the contract. An express or implied choice of the lex fori as governing law by the parties during the proceedings in accordance with Article 3 (2) of the Convention thus has the same effect as declining to plead foreign law. 32 Thus, it is not against the spirit of the Convention if the courts of a contracting state do not apply the foreign law ex officio.

3.4 THE POSITION IN INDIA India, even though having statutory provisions dealing with the proof of foreign law can be said to be cast in the English mould with question of foreign law being a question of fact to be pled and proved by parties in the manner provided for in the Indian Evidence Act.33 Thus, Section 45 of the Evidence Act provides that expert evidence can be led on what the foreign law in a given case is.34 Under this section, a person who is specially skilled can give expert evidence on a subject. The flexibility of the language gives considerable latitude to a Court to decide who can be regarded as an expert in foreign law. Now, this can be a cause for concern and will be dealt later with in the paper. Section 38 of the Act provides that any official publication of a foreign country

31

R. Fentiman, Foreign Law in English Courts, Law Quarterly Review, L.Q.R. 1992, 108(JAN), 142156. 32 Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June, 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I). 33 Supra note 1 at 95. 34 Section 45, The Indian Evidence Act.

containing its laws or law reports can be admitted in evidence.35 Under S. 78 public documents include the legislative acts of any country. The approach of the Indian Courts towards the mode of proving foreign law is not as reliant on production of expert evidence as it is in England. The decision in the case of Palaniappa Chetty v. Nagappa Chettiar36 held that there was no need to call expert evidence to appreciate the law of Ceylon as the Court itself apply and interpret the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as in force in Ceylon. But regardless of this flexible approach, the judicial opinion favours leading of expert evidence so as to determine the content of foreign law. This is evidenced by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Technip SA v. SMS Holding (Pvt) Ltd37, where on the arisal of a question of conflict of laws the Court required that expert evidence be led to determine the content of applicable French law. 3.4.1 Application of Foreign Law: Once the foreign law is duly proved, the Court is entitled to ascertain the proper meaning of the texts itself. This has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court by citing the case of De Beeche v. South American Stores Ltd and Chilean stores Ltd 38 in the Technip case.39

4. TREATING FOREIGN LAW AS FACT: AN APPRAISAL

35 36

Section 38, The Indian Evidence Act. AIR 1930 Mad 146. 37 (2005) 5 SCC 465. 38 [1935] AC 148, 149. 39 Therefore, ultimately it is for this Court to resolve the conflict by looking at the admitted text of the French law and the material on record to decide the proper application of the provisions. Supra note 37.

4.1 ADVANTAGES From the foregoing study it is apparent that India, in the tradition of other commonwealth countries like Australia follows the English approach towards the proof of foreign law i.e. it is a question of fact to be pled and proven by parties mainly through expert evidence. Now, this approach has certain justifications which are based mainly on the fact that it makes pleading of foreign law voluntary by the parties.40 The fact that parties can choose not to plead foreign law can be beneficial because in some cases a claimant might omit to plead foreign law because it would be pointless if the lex fori produces the same result. In other cases there might be some advantage in pleading foreign law but it might nonetheless appear to be neither cost-effective nor timeefficient either because of the cost of producing experts or because of the unpredictability introduced by ex officio determination of foreign law by the Court.41 So, the independence of the parties as to choice of law is preserved even if the parties forgo a choice of law or forum selection clause.

4.2 DISADVANTAGES The desirability of having foreign law determined by the court ex officio as a question of law has often been emphasised, particularly with reference to the cost of expert evidence and the increased possibility of inaccuracy coupled with the Universalist conception of all laws standing on an equal footing.42 4.2.1 Expert Evidence: Referring to the disadvantage of the proof of foreign law as a fact, the problems associated with expert evidence form the bulwark of the objections. Experts are expensive, can be difficult to procure, are of varying expertise and ability, and are frequently partisan, owing to the fact that they are bank-rolled by one of the parties in the adversarial system. Leading authorities have pointed out the flaws in the expert evidence system.43
40

Supra note 31. Supra note 16. 42 L.E. Teitz, From the Courthouse in Tobago to the Internet: The Increasing need to prove Foreign Law in US Courts, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 34 JMARLC 97. 43 Lawyers who testify to the meaning of foreign law, whether they are practitioners or professors, are paid for their testimony and selected on the basis of the convergence of their views with the litigating position of the client, or their willingness to fall in with the views urged upon them by the client. These are the banes of expert testimony. When the testimony concerns a scientific or other technical issue, it may be unreasonable to expect a judge to resolve the issue without the aid of such testimony. But judges are experts on law, and there is an abundance of published materials, in the form of treatises, law review articles, statutes, and cases, all in English (if English is the foreign country's official language), to provide neutral illumination of issues of foreign law. I cannot fathom why in dealing with the meaning of laws of English-speaking countries that share our legal origins judges should prefer paid affidavits and testimony to published materials. Judge Richard Posner, of the US Court of
41

4.2.2 Judicial Intervention: In systems like India and England, where foreign law is a question of fact, despite the fact that the judge is supposed to be ignorant of the foreign law and that the evidence is to be led by the parties there is still scope for judicial intervention resulting in unpredictability. The judge can choose a novel version of foreign law from the opposite expert testimonies, choose whether a particular expert is competent or not, and in the absence of proof of foreign rules of interpretation the Court can use its own method.44 Now, this problem also occurs in case the foreign law is determined by the Court ex officio as a matter of law and a solution is advanced later in the paper. 4.2.3 Universalist Objection: It is a conception of private international law which stresses the fact that applicable law is determined on the basis of the character of the legal relation and not territoriality and thus foreign law is on an equal footing with lex fori.45 For the universalist, a conflicts rule is a legal rule to be enforced just like any other legal disposition and thus the Court should determine and apply foreign law ex officio.46

5. A PROPOSED MODEL FOR PROOF OF LAW IN INDIA

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Bodum USA Inc v. La Cafetiere Inc, 621 F.3d 624 (2010) at 633. 44 Supra note 31. 45 Friedrich Carl von Savigny, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (2nd ed.,W.M. Guthrie trans., Edinburgh: T&T Clarke, 1880). 46 Supra note 16.

Given the fact that the approach of proving foreign law as a fact mainly on the basis of expert evidence is riddled with some problems and doesnt accord foreign law the status it deserves under the comity of nations, an alternative model is forwarded. Under this model, foreign law is a question of law to be determined by the Court on the basis of relevant material inclusive of expert testimony and the onus to produce such material is not squarely upon the parties but can be taken up by the Court also. In such a model, voluntarism is preserved as the party pleading foreign law has to give notice and the attendant costs of proving are taken away. This is based on the US rule and was advanced by the 69th Law Commission of India Report reaffirmed by the 185th Report.47 And furthermore, in order to take away the judicial unpredictability Indian Court should enter into MoUs with foreign courts to get authoritative interpretations on foreign law. This has been forwarded by the Australian Justice J.J. Spigelman48 and seems as a better alternative to Conventions or agreements between Nations along the lines of the Inter-American Convention and other such efforts.49

6. CONCLUSION

47

Proposed Section by the Law Commission was as follows. 45B. (1) A party to a suit or other civil proceeding who intends to raise an issue concerning the law of a foreign country shall give notice in his pleadings or other reasonable written notice. (2) The Court, in determining a question of foreign law, in any particular case may, after notifying the parties, consider any relevant material or source, including evidence, whether or not submitted by a party, and the decision of the Court shall be treated as a decision on a question of law. 48 J.J. Spigelman, Proof of Foreign Law by Reference to the Foreign Court, Law Quarterly Review, L.Q.R. 2011, 127(APR), 208-216. 49 Inter-American Convention on Proof of and Information on Foreign Law, accessed from http://www.unrol.org/files/volume-1439-I-24393-English.pdf .

The mode and procedure of proof of foreign law occupies a central position in the canon of Private International Law. Once the questions of characterization, jurisdiction and renvoi have been settled the question that comes up for consideration is the manner in which foreign laws pleading and content is to be determined. At this juncture practice branches out into two ways which have been determined by historical reasons and the sway of one of the two conceptions of private international law Unilateralist or Universalist. Thus, the common law tradition including India but with the exception of the US considers foreign law to be a fact to be proved by expert evidence on the onus of the parties while the civil law tradition considers the Court to be responsible to determine the content of foreign law ex officio as a matter of law and not fact. Both approaches come with their own attendant problems and at the end it becomes a question of value judgment in picking either one of them. But the US approach, which synthesizes the best practices of both the approaches, is a suitable model proposed for India by the researcher in this paper and is backed by considerable authority in the form of the Law Commission Reports. This system should further be buttressed by the innovation of MoUs between Courts of various fora agreeing to authoritatively interpret the respective foreign law. The researcher hopes that if such a system is put in place in India with the requisite legislative amendment, then the mode of proving foreign law in India will be able to square all considerations.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

7.1 PRIMARY SOURCES 7.1.1 Cases India:

Palaniappa Chetty v. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1930 Mad 146. Technip SA v. SMS Holding (Pvt) Ltd, (2005) 5 SCC 465. Parkasho v. Singh, [1968] P. 233. De Beeche v. South American Stores Ltd and Chilean stores Ltd, [1935] AC 148.

England:

Australia:

Neilson v. Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd, (2005) 221 ALR 213. Reissner v. Rogers, 276 F.2d 506 (D.C. Cir. 1960). Bodum USA Inc v. La Cafetiere Inc, 621 F.3d 624 (2010).

United States:

7.1.2 Law Commission Reports Law Commission of India, 185th Law Commission Report on Review of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, March, 2003.

Law Commission of India, 69th Law Commission Report on The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, accessed from http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/51100/Report69.pdf

7.1.3 Statutes England: The Civil Evidence Act of 1972. India: The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. United States: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 2010. European Union: REGULATION (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of June 17 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)

7.1.4 Conventions Inter-American Convention on Proof of and Information on Foreign Law, 1979.

7.2 SECONDARY SOURCES 7.2.1 Books Atul M. Setalvad, Conflict of Laws (Nagpur: Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 2007).

Dicey and Morris, Conflict of Laws Vol - I 13th ed. (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2002). Adrian Briggs, The Conflict of Laws 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). F. Fawcett and J. Carruther, Cheshire, North and Fawcett, Private International Law 14th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws (Boston: C.C. Little and J. Brown, 1846). Eugene F. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws (3rd ed., St. Paul: Thomson West Publication Co., 2000). Friedrich Carl von Savigny, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (2nd ed.,W.M. Guthrie trans., Edinburgh: T&T Clarke, 1880).

7.2.2 Articles E.N. Griswold, Renvoi Revisited, Harvard Law Review, 51 Harv LR 1165. E.G. Lorenzen, The Qualification, Classification or Characterization Problem in the Conflict of Laws, Yale Law Journal, 50 Yale LJ 743. E.O. Schreiber, Doctrine of the Renvoi in Anglo-American Law, Harvard Law Review, 31 Harv LR 523. Jacob Dolinger, Application, Proof, and Interpretation Of Foreign Law: A Comparative Study In Private International Law, Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, 12 AZJICL 225. P.L.G. Brereton, The Proof of Foreign Law-Problems and Initiatives, The Future of Private International Law in Australia accessed from http://sydney.edu.au/law/events/2011/May/Justice_Brereton.pdf

Arthur Miller, Federal Rule 44.1 and the Fact Approach to Determining Foreign Law: Death Knell for a Die-Hard Doctrine, 65 Mich. L. Rev. 613 (1967).

R. Hausmann, Pleading and Proof of Foreign Law a Comparative Analysis, The European Legal Forum, 1-2008, January, 2008. R. Fentiman, Foreign Law in English Courts, Law Quarterly Review, L.Q.R. 1992, 108(JAN), 142-156. L.E. Teitz, From the Courthouse in Tobago to the Internet: The Increasing need to prove Foreign Law in US Courts, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 34 JMARLC 97.

J.J. Spigelman, Proof of Foreign Law by Reference to the Foreign Court, Law Quarterly Review, L.Q.R. 2011, 127(APR), 208-216. J-G Castel, Proof of Foreign Law, The University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Winter, 1972), pp. 33-46. M.P. Furmston, Proof of Foreign Law, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 22, No. 3 (May, 1959), pp. 317-318. W.B. Stern, Foreign Law in the Courts: Judicial Notice and Proof, California Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Mar., 1957), pp. 23-48. Milton Pollack, Proof of Foreign Law, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Summer, 1978), pp. 470-475. T.C. Hartley, Pleading and Proof of Foreign Law: The Major European Systems Compared, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Apr., 1996), pp. 271-292.