 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 65 VIII. Rationale 3.39. Reasons for applying i-The question may be raised as to the rationale of the English and American practice. In the U.S.A., application of the lex fori seems to have been sought to be justified by the merely statutory nature of divorce.1 The argument is that the effect of statutes is necessarily territorial-a theory going clearly back to such fathers of territorialism as D'Argentre and Ultricue Huber. 1. Rabel Comparative Conflict of Laws, (1958), Vol. I, p. 154. 3.40. The view has also been 'advanced that divorce remedies are special or equitable, and therefore cannot be exercised except by the courts of the State establishing the remedy. Sometimes, there is invoked the general motivation for territorialism that, the "res" being located within the State, the State's interest prevails. However, most of these theories have had their critics. It is not necessary for our purposes to consider the merits and demerits of these various theories. If parties acquire domicile or nationality in any country, they join the stream of that country. Whatever the proper theoretical basis, there is immense practical convenience in applying the law of the forum; it eliminates the need for research into, and interpretation of, the substantive foreign law.1 1. As to England, see para. 3.23, supra.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back