Returning from Huangshan, I continue my reading. The focus is on summarizing viewpoints, supplementing understanding, and reflecting on experiences.Chapter One: The Origin of International Private LawSection Two: The Emergence and Dissemination of Doctrinal International Private LawContinuing from the previous text,the conflicts arising from the application of laws and Roman law, as well as conflicts among the laws of various city-states, were opposed by the Italian peninsula in the 13th century, leading to the emergence of the “Theory of Distinction of Laws,” which is regarded by most scholars as the initial form of international private law—doctrinal international private law. Quote: “The emergence of the ‘Theory of Distinction of Laws’ marks the entry of this new branch of law, international private law, into its initial stage… It was precisely during the promotion and updating process of the ‘Theory of Distinction of Laws’ that international private law gained its original ecology.1. The Emergence and Development of the Theory of Distinction of Laws in ItalyFirst, we analyze the background of the emergence of the Theory of Distinction of Laws in Italy, where geography, economy, politics, and law are interconnected.(1) The Apennine Peninsula has a unique geographical environment, making Italy a hub for trade between the East and West, thus creating conditions for the development of a capitalist economy.(2) Italy’s commerce and handicrafts were developed, and the coastal cities that gradually formed became centers of trade between the East and West, laying the economic foundation for the emergence of the doctrine.(3) The development of merchants and the citizen class within cities promoted urban growth and freed them from the constraints of feudal lords, ultimately evolving into independent city-states, establishing a political foundation for the emergence of the doctrine.(4) Each city-state, as an independent entity, possessed its own laws and dispute resolution measures, leading to legal practice opportunities for addressing the issues of legal choice when handling cases from different city-states.Next, we introduce the emergence of the Commentator School and how the later Commentator School guided the Theory of Distinction of Laws.(1) The Commentator School and its EmergenceAs mentioned earlier, in the various city-states of Italy at that time, two types of law were simultaneously effective: one was Roman law, which served as common law applicable to all city-states; the other was the laws enacted by each city-state, which were only effective within their respective territories. The resulting legal conflicts included conflicts between the laws and Roman law, as well as conflicts among the various laws, closely linking the emergence of the Commentator School to the latter. Since each city-state was unwilling to relinquish jurisdiction in the face of legal conflicts, legal scholars turned to Roman law, attempting to make it universally applicable as common law. However, Roman law was codified early and could not adapt to new developments and emerging legal issues, necessitating annotations and improvements, leading to the gradual emergence of the Commentator School. Quote: “In the early 12th century, in Bologna, Italy, the Commentator School gradually formed based on the study of the Digest of Roman Law.· Founder of the Commentator School: Irnerius(2) The Distinction between Early and Later Commentator SchoolsIrnerius and his students engaged in the annotation of Roman law, forming the early Commentator School. The early Commentator School contributed to the revival of Roman law, but since its starting point was to regulate and adjust social order through re-annotation of Roman law, it could not provide solutions that met objective needs for legal conflicts, and was soon replaced by the later Commentator School.The distinction between the early and later Commentator Schools mainly lies in Accursius’s “Standard Commentary.” Under its influence, Commentator scholars shifted from focusing on the literal interpretation of Roman law to addressing legal conflict issues arising in practice, using the basic principles of Roman law for interpretation. Representative figures include Guinus Pistoia and his students Bartolus and Baldo, who placed greater emphasis on practical issues in theoretical research and began exploring methods for applying foreign law, gradually forming some theories similar to later conflict principles.Finally, we introduce Bartolus’s Theory of Distinction of Laws.It is generally recognized in the field of international private law that Bartolus truly established the Theory of Distinction of Laws, mainly because he proposed new standards compared to his predecessors, focusing on bilateral discussions. Specifically, before Bartolus, legal scholars based the application of law on the division of legislative powers, believing that the application of special laws was always subject to personal and territorial limitations. Such discussions were unidirectional in nature, only addressing the application of local law in the court’s jurisdiction, limited by the “territory.” Could foreign special laws be applied in the court’s jurisdiction? Could the special laws of the court’s jurisdiction be applied in other countries? Such questions were not within the scope of previous discussions. Bartolus shifted the focus from distinguishing laws based on the limitations of special laws in the court’s jurisdiction to discussing whether foreign special laws, which inherently possess personal or territorial characteristics, could be applied in the court’s jurisdiction. This discussion involved the interrelation and universality of city-state laws.(1) Overview of the Doctrine: Bartolus, building on the research results of his predecessors, categorized laws into two major types: personal law and property law, and further distinguished “mixed law,” proposing many important conflict principles. For example:1. Regarding the capacity and ability of individuals, it is not necessary to apply the law of the place of action;· This can be seen as the initial idea of applying personal law to capacity issues.2. The principle of applying the law of the place of action for torts;3. The establishment of contracts should apply the law of the place of contract formation according to the principle of applying the law of the place of action; the validity of contracts should distinguish between the expected effects of the parties and the effects arising from the law, selecting the applicable law accordingly;4. The requirements for the validity of wills should apply the law of the place of making the will, while the capacity of the testator should apply their personal law;5. Real estate should apply the law of the location of the property;6. Procedural issues should apply the law of the court’s jurisdiction;7. Although personal law generally has extraterritorial applicability, the “odious laws” in personal law do not have such effect.· Odious laws (Statuta Odiosa) refer to laws that one city-state can refuse to recognize from another city-state. Teacher Li Shuangyuan believes this can be seen as the earliest form of the public order reservation concept; Teacher Huang Jin believes this provides a guiding principle for resolving legal conflicts, under which the application of general conflict principles must align with the purpose of justice. It is indeed easy to relate to public order reservations, but it can only be said to be a rudimentary concept, as the scope of what constitutes “odious” is difficult to define; however, public order is indeed a topic worth exploring.(2) Evaluation of the Doctrine: Bartolus’s doctrine is based on the dichotomy of laws into property law and personal law, further distinguishing them through the structural language of laws.1. Innovativeness(1) Discussing the territorial and extraterritorial effects of law is a fundamental point of legal conflict. Bartolus was the first to distinguish the issue of resolving legal conflicts into two interrelated main aspects: one is to explore whether the laws of city-states can apply to all individuals within their territory (including non-residents), and the other is to explore whether they can apply extraterritorially;(2) Breaking out of the framework of substantive law, proposing the concept of mixed law;· The Theory of Distinction of Laws initially distinguished between substantive law and procedural law, asserting that procedural issues should be determined by the law of the court’s jurisdiction, while substantive issues were closely related to the “principle of applying the law of the place of action”; on this basis, it advocated distinguishing substantive issues into property law and personal law, asserting that the application of property law should be subject to territorial limitations.(3) Effectively overcoming the obstacles posed by absolute territoriality in foreign civil and commercial relations, creating conflict rules that have a profound impact on international private law;(4) Breaking away from the thinking model based on special laws, addressing legal conflict issues from the perspective of the universality of city-state laws.2. Limitations: It overlooks the fact that in real life, there are no purely property or personal laws, and the standard for distinguishing property law and personal law based on the order of words in laws lacks objective basis. Example: The expression of the British “primogeniture of property.”His focus on distinguishing the nature of the court’s jurisdiction to resolve legal conflicts is a unilateral perspective, and when the principle of state sovereignty comes to the forefront, such defects will be magnified infinitely (related to the subsequent Dutch Theory of Distinction of Laws).3. Enlightenment: Opposing extreme territorialism in the application of law and proposing a new personalism route reflects the ongoing conflict between territorialism and personalism, promoting the formation and development of international private law. Quote: “The ‘Theory of Distinction of Laws’ established by Bartolus continued until the late 18th and early 19th centuries… It spread widely in Italy and Europe, particularly having a significant impact on the emergence of international private law in France and the Netherlands.2. The Evolution of the Theory of Distinction of Laws in FranceFirst, we analyze the historical background of the emergence of the Theory of Distinction of Laws in France, which can be traced along similar lines.It is worth noting that in France, not only codified law and customary law can conflict, but also general customs and local customs, as well as conflicts among local customs, making legal application extremely inconvenient.Next, we introduce the representatives and doctrines after the research center of international private law shifted to France.(1) Dumaine1. First advocated “freedom of will”: emphasizing that in contractual relationships, the customary law chosen by the parties should apply;2. Expanded “personal law” and narrowed “property law”: agreeing but believing that it is only necessary to classify customary law when it directly depends on the mandatory applicability of the law; acknowledging that property law comes from property and personal law comes from people;3. Basically follows Bartolus’s discussion model of “odious laws.”In summary: Dumaine’s main innovation lies in proposing the doctrine of freedom of will, representing the interests of the emerging merchant class, objectively facilitating trade development and the formation of a unified market, which also forms a personalism route. Quote: “He notably emphasizes the application of the parties’ national law, which can be applied not only to personal relationships but also to property rights, debt relations, etc.(2) D’Argentelle1. Clearly opposed “freedom of will,” strongly advocating for local autonomy with feudal fragmentation;2. The tripartite theory of laws, limiting “personal law” and expanding “property law”: personal law appears as an exception to property law; mixed law, while involving both personal and property, is closer to property law; when it is uncertain whether a custom belongs to property law or personal law, it should be regarded as property law;3. Inheritance viewpoint: applying the laws of the respective countries where the deceased left real estate.· The relative viewpoint under the Roman law system of “universal succession” is that inheritance is governed by one law, and the above three viewpoints. D’Argentelle’s viewpoint on inheritance is accepted by Anglo-American and civil law countries.In summary: D’Argentelle’s route is precisely the opposite of Dumaine’s, firmly adhering to the territorialism route, and failing to see that personal law and territorial law are not the only affiliations; however, he also advocates that “the judge’s duty is to apply his own law,” a viewpoint that some scholars regard as the beginning of the “court’s jurisdiction-centered theory.”Finally, we introduce the New French School’s inheritance of the Theory of Distinction of Laws.Primarily in the 17th and 18th centuries, the New French School, represented by Florent, Polino, and Poirier, examined the conflicts of customary law, attempting to clearly categorize laws through numerous cases and affiliations, which had an impact on the construction of future international private law recognition procedures.3. The Inheritance and Development of the Theory of Distinction of Laws in the NetherlandsFirst, we analyze the social and historical background of the emergence of the Theory of Distinction of Laws in the Netherlands. This has particularities compared to the previously mentioned origins: scholars of the Theory of Distinction of Laws in Italy and France held a universalist view based on international law; however, due to its different historical background and national conditions, the Netherlands required a Theory of Distinction of Laws different from the former to apply foreign law—as a bourgeois republic with a tendency towards territorialism (admiring D’Argentelle’s thoughts), it needed to maintain sovereignty to counter foreign nations while also restraining the powers of different provinces domestically; secondly, it aimed to develop overseas trade, advocating that according to the requirements of international commerce, the principle of international courtesy should allow its jurisdictional rights to be recognized under other jurisdictions. Meanwhile, the broader context was the continuous emergence of basic concepts in international public law, such as “state sovereignty” (Grotius, Law of War and Peace), which greatly influenced the Dutch Theory of Distinction of Laws. Quote: “They have recognized that the division of legislative powers between states does not impose an obligation on states to apply foreign law in specific cases; in international relations, the division of legislative powers does not necessarily lead to mutual application of each other’s laws.Next, we introduce the theory of international courtesy. Although Dutch scholars admired D’Argentelle’s thoughts, advocating that the principle of territoriality should primarily apply in resolving legal conflicts, they also believed that out of courtesy, foreign law’s extraterritorial effect could be recognized. Huber was the foundational figure of the theory of international courtesy, first proposing the three principles of international courtesy.(1) “Huber’s Three Principles”: First, the law of any sovereign must be exercised within its territory and bind its subjects; it is invalid outside its territory; second, all persons residing within its territory, including both permanent and temporary residents, are regarded as subjects of the sovereign; third, the laws of each country are implemented within its own territory, and based on courtesy, those exercising sovereign power should allow them to maintain their effect within their own territory, as long as doing so does not harm their own sovereign power and the interests of their subjects. The first two items serve to support the third principle, which actually belongs to the principles of international public law, based on the division of sovereign jurisdiction; the third item is the principle of international private law, specifically elaborating on the basis and conditions for applying foreign law.(2) Commentary: Huber’s three principles aim to reconcile the application of foreign law with state sovereignty, introducing the concept of state sovereignty into the realm of international private law, representing a completely new perspective; however, it also has issues such as unclear core concepts (like “courtesy”), logical inconsistencies, and structural defects.· From the three principles, it can be inferred that they indicate the domestic law nature of international private law, meaning that domestic law recognizes the effectiveness of foreign law out of courtesy and its own considerations, which clearly overturns the universalist viewpoint. But it makes me ponder whether this is a “regression” from internationalism to nationalism? However, again, the state remains an important subject of international law, and we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater.· Huber’s logical issue lies in: on the one hand, insisting that based on the principle of state sovereignty, courts do not apply foreign law; on the other hand, believing that courts should recognize rights established under foreign law. After all, essentially, recognizing rights established under foreign law means acknowledging the effectiveness of that foreign law.Overall, the Dutch Theory of Distinction of Laws views international private law as a matter within sovereign states, thus positively contributing to the development of the domestic law formalization of international private law; it emphasizes that when states formulate rules for legal conflicts, they are not bound by positive obligations towards other countries, which is a prominent feature constituting international private law.Remember to add a few references after finishing.