INTRODUCTION The materials announcing this conference struck fear in my heart, doing so by calling for the cooperative development of private international law and international private law. This sound innocuous enough, even desirable. And i know what they meant, I think. But all I could think of was a course that I took in law school entitled Comparative Conflict ofLaws. We spent literally the first six weeks of the thirteen-week course on the distinction between private international law and international private law, only to conclude that there was no difference Building on that solid intellectual foundation, I can report that the more common of the two terms--private international law-arose first in the United States"(although today it is little used here, having been driven back by the older term"conflict of laws). "Private international law emigrated to France within a decade, and then the term spread fast through the nineteenth-centur mindset. Today we understand that private international law is neither truly international nor exclusively private, but is instead a branch of domestic law treating legal situations with nondomestic elements that pose a conflict of sovereign authority. Its precise scope varies from country to country. In Germany, the subject tends to be narrow, focusing on choice of law. In the United States, it covers choice of law, but also reaches territorial authority to adjudicate and the treatment of foreign judgments. In France, private international law extends even further to matters of nationality and the legal status of foreigners. As I still have my old class notes, and as articles exist with titles like"What Is Private International Law?, I could rehearse the past battles of definition(or could argue the possible superiority of alternative terms). But ultimately: " It is a matter of convenience whether a broad or a narrow definition of private international law is adopted. 0 the ni.The course was taught in the fall of 1970 at Harvard Law School by Professor Rodolfo de Nova, vising from ty of Pavia JOSEPH STORY, COMM ENTARIES ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS$9(Boston, Hilliard, Gray Co. 1834) See CLAIRE M. GERMAIN, GERMAINS TRANSNA TIONAL LA W RESEARCH$ 1.01.2(1991) "FOELIX TRAITE DU DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE OU DU CONFLIT DES LOIS DE DIFFERENTES NATIONS EN MATIERE DE DROIT PRIVE (Paris, Joubert 1843). SSee Gerhard Kegel, Introduction: Private International Law, 3 INT'L ENCY. COMP. L. 1-1, 1-3(1986) at1-1 7See WIlliamm. richman w L. REY UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT OF LAWSS 1, at 1(3d ed 2002)("Conflicts, like Caesars Gaul, is generally said to be divided into three parts: jurisdiction, choice of law, and judgments. ) DAVID D. SIEGEL, CONFLICTS IN A NUTSHELL 3(2d ed 1994) See BERNARd AUDIT, DRoit INTERNATIONAL PRIVE 1-19(3d ed 2000) lim w.E. Beckett, What Is Private International Law?, 7 BRIT Y.B. INT'L L. 73, 94(1926)(arguing for strictly e subject to jurisdiction and choice of law) kEgel, supra note 5, at 1-2. But see Beckett, supra note 9, at 95(arguing that definition has consequences)2 1The course was taught in the fall of 1970 at Harvard Law School by Professor Rodolfo de Nova, vising from the University of Pavia. 2 JOSEPH STORY, COMM ENTARIES ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS § 9 (Boston, Hilliard, Gray & Co. 1834). 3 See CLAIRE M. GER MAIN , GER MAIN ’S TRANSNATION AL LAW RESEARCH § 1.01.2 (1991). 4 FOELIX, TRAITÉ DU DR OIT INTERN ATIONAL PRIVÉ, OU DU CONFLIT DES LOIS DE DIFFÉRENTES NATIONS EN MATIÈRE DE DROIT PRIVÉ (Paris, Joubert 1843). 5 See Gerhard Kegel, Introduction: Private International Law, 3 INT’L ENCY. COMP. L. 1-1, 1-3 (1986). 6 See id. at 1-1. 7 See WILLIAM M. RICHMAN & WILLIAM L. REYNOLDS, UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT OF LAWS § 1, at 1 (3d ed. 2002) (“Conflicts, like Caesar’s Gaul, is generally said to be divided into three parts: jurisdiction, choice of law, and judgments.”); DAVID D. SIEGEL, CONFLICTS IN A NUTSHELL § 3 (2d ed. 1994). 8 See BERNARD AUDIT, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVÉ 1-19 (3d ed. 2000). 9W.E. Beckett, What Is Private International Law?, 7 BRIT. Y.B. INT’L L. 73, 94 (1926) (arguing for strictly limiting the subject to jurisdiction and choice of law). 10Kegel, supra note 5, at 1-2. But see Beckett, supra note 9, at 95 (arguing that definition has consequences). INTRODUCTION The materials announcing this conference struck fear in my heart, doing so by calling for the “cooperative development of private international law and international private law.” This sounds innocuous enough, even desirable. And I know what they meant, I think. But all I could think of was a course that I took in law school entitled Comparative Conflict of Laws.1 We spent literally the first six weeks of the thirteen-week course on the distinction between private international law and international private law, only to conclude that there was no difference! Building on that solid intellectual foundation, I can report that the more common of the two terms—private international law—arose first in the United States2 (although today it is little used here, having been driven back by the older term “conflict of laws”3 ). “Private international law” emigrated to France within a decade,4 and then the term spread fast through the nineteenth-century mindset.5 Today we understand that private international law is neither truly international nor exclusively private, but is instead a branch of domestic law treating legal situations with nondomestic elements that pose a conflict of sovereign authority. Its precise scope varies from country to country. In Germany, the subject tends to be narrow, focusing on choice of law.6 In the United States, it covers choice of law, but also reaches territorial authority to adjudicate and the treatment of foreign judgments.7 In France, private international law extends even further to matters of nationality and the legal status of foreigners.8 As I still have my old class notes, and as articles exist with titles like “What Is Private International Law?,”9 I could rehearse the past battles of definition (or could argue the possible superiority of alternative terms). But ultimately: “It is a matter of convenience whether a broad or a narrow definition of private international law is adopted.”10