Willis L. M. Reese

Testimonial Privileges and Conflict of Laws

In many respects, testimonial privileges in conflict of laws provide an ideal topic for discussion. The major privileges are not great in number. The same can be said of the policies that are responsible for the acceptance or rejection of these privileges although the particular local rules relating to them differ quite widely in detail from state to state. Also, at least in the usual case, only a relatively few states will have an interest in the decision of an issue of privilege. In short, testimonial privileges come as close as may be possible to providing laboratory conditions for the construction of choice-of-law rules or a choice-of-law approach.1 To be sure, the relevant cases are relatively sparse and not particularly helpful in their reasoning. But this fact adds to the zest of the task and, quite possibly, to the feasibility of setting forth the directions in which it is believed the courts should go. We believe that our general approach has validity for the field of choice of law in general. We hope that our contribution will mark a step, albeit a small one, along the path that David Cavers has so brilliantly charted. The privileges with which we will deal are those concerned with confidential communications. Prominent among those excluded from our study is the privilege against self-incrimination, which is honored in all states and whose

The thirteenth session of the Hague Conference

The Thirteenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law met in the Hague during the period of October 4 October 23, 1976.1 Three principal subjects were on the agenda, viz. the law governing agency, matrimonial property and marriage. Time did not suffice for completing the work on agency, and a further meeting to prepare a convention on this subject will be held prior to July of next year. On the other hand, conventions were prepared on the law governing matrimonial property and marriage. These conventions are set forth below.