When we talk of private international law, it becomes essential that we talk of the Doctrine of Renvoi. However, we would start right from the basics of the private international law. When we talk of international law, it has been broadly categorized as Public International law and Private International law. When we talk of public international law, it is simply the laws and regulations related to the countries at the government level coupled with the conduct of nation-states and international organisations among themselves. On the other hand, when we talk about the private international law, it weighs more towards the laws and regulations about the conflict of two private individuals of different citizenship. Hence acquiring the name of “conflict of laws”.

Much of the sources of the private international laws are governed by the domestic laws of the nations involved in the dispute. It won’t be wrong to say that private international law projects itself in a dual fashion. On one hand it talks about building of an international framework and on the other hand takes its inspiration from the domestic laws of the countries involved in the dispute(s). Before moving head, it is also to be noted about the international organisations organizations which play a pivotal role in shaping the private international law. They are as follows:

1. Hague Conference on Private International Law: Considered as “the world organisation for cross-border co-operation and commercial matters”, this conference was convened by the Government of Netherlands in the year 1893. This particular organisation is responsible for the development of the conventions related to various sectors of private international law, which includes that of choice-of-law-rules and jurisdictional rules to resolve the issues and disputes of the ever changing world of both law and society. The main work of The Hague Conference on Private International Law includes that of:

1. Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legislation for Foreign Public Documents.
2. Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial matters.
3. Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.
4. Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
5. Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-country Adoption.

2. UNCITRAL: Acronym for the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law. It was established by the United Nations in the year 1966 with the help of Resolution 2205 (XXI) of December 17^th. As the name suggests, UNCITRAL is actively involved in the evolution of the Trade Laws in the chessboard of private international law. For an ease in working, UNICTRAL has been divided into six Working Groups. The three primary documents of UNCITRAL includes:

1. United Nations Convention n Contracts for the Sale of Goods.
2. Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods.
3. “New York” Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

3. UNIDROIT: Acronym for the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law. It has its origin right back to the period of The League of Nations, established in the year 1926 as an auxiliary organ. However, it was re-established as an independent intergovernmental organization with the help of the UNIDROIT Statute. This organisation works towards the objective of "modernising, harmonising and co-ordinating private and in particular commercial law as between states and groups of states and to formulate uniform law instruments, principles and rules to achieve those objectives."

Some important conventions of UNIDROIT includes:

1. Ottawa Convention on International Financial Leasing.
2. Ottawa Convention on International Factoring.
3. Rome UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects.
4. Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment.
5. Cape Town Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment.

4. European Union.

1. The Brussels Convention and the Lugano Convention.
2. Convention on the Law applicable to Contractual Obligations.
3. Study Group on European Civil Code.
4. Commission on European Contract Law: Principles of European Contract Law.

5. Organisation pour l’Harmonisation en Afrique du Droit des Affaires (OHADA).

6.Inter-American Specialized Conferences on Private International Law (CIDIPs). Includes CIDIP 1 to CIDIP 7.

Now shifting our focus back on the doctrine of Renvoi. The term ‘Renvoi’ has French roots. It has been taken as it is from French and translates into “send back” or “return unopened”. As mentioned above, the Doctrine of Renvoi forms an integral part of the private international law. This doctrine is employed when there arises (a) dispute(s) between two or more people with an uncommon citizenship, i.e., cases where the foreign element is present. However, the formal definition attached to the doctrine sees itself as a process by which the court adopts the rules of a foreign jurisdiction with respect to any conflict of laws that arises. This is usually applied to the issues of succession planning and administration of estates with the presence of foreign element. However, the main aim of the application of the Doctrine of Renvoi is to disable the usage of “forum shopping”. Forum shopping refers to a process where the litigant who is in dispute with the other person (who lives in another country) files the case in a country where the court of law would probably rule in his/her favour. Now let us understand the types of Renvoi available at the international level. Renvoi has been broadly categorized under three heads. They are as follows:

1. Single Renvoi: The Single Renvoi system is followed in countries like that of Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, etc. This is the system where the laws from both the jurisdictions (national and foreign) are taken into consideration, but not at the same time. If the matter arises in the domestic jurisdiction of the countries following the Single Renvoi system (A) then the country will apply their domestic laws (if applicable) or if the law of another jurisdiction (B) is applicable. If at all the laws of (B) returns to the laws of (A) then the verdict would be passed in accordance with the domestic laws of (A).

Illustration:  Mr. A is a French national, habitual resident of England and domiciled in Spain. Now, Mr. A dies intestate. Primarily, the domestic law of Spain, where the property is situated (law of the forum) applies the law of the deceased nationality, i.e., the French law. However the French law sends back it to the law of the habitual residence, i.e., England. But the English law sees the domicile of the deceased, i.e., Spain. When we look closely towards this case, here we see Single Renvoi system in operation, where the case was first transferred to France, then to England and then finally coming back to Spain. Therefore, at the end of the day, the Spanish laws would prevail in case of disputes with respect to the property of Mr. A.

Case laws: Some landmark judgements under the Single Renvoi system are as:

1. In re Ross: Here, the testator was a national of England but was domiciled in Italy. In her will, she had left the land in Italy and the movables both in Italy and England. The question arose about the jurisdiction or the extent of the application of the will in England and Italy as the will was valid according to the English laws but not according to the Italian laws. When it came in front of the court, the court applied the Italian laws as the land was situated in Italy and the testator held an Italian domicile. However, when it came to the movable property, then the English laws were applied as Italy did not accept the Renvoi.
2. Forgo case: This case revolved around the property (of the Bavarian national) after the death of a Bavarian national who had lived in France since the age of five. Now here, the Bavarian law says that after the death of the Bavarian individual, the property would go to his/her relatives. However the French law presented a different picture. According to the French laws, after the death of an individual, the property would automatically go to the state. At the end, it was held that the inquiry would proceed ahead according to the Bavarian law. However, the case was ruled in favour of the French state by taking the reference of the Bavarian laws.

Double Renvoi: The system of Double Renvoi is followed in countries like England and France. According to this system, the congruence of result is kept safe by the forum court. The forum court (or the domestic court) would resolve the dispute(s) with the foreign element attached to it in the same manner as the foreign court would do. Hence, this system is also known as the “foreign courts doctrine” or “multiple Renvoi”. 

Illustration: An Irish national, habitually resident in Spain but domiciled in Italy, dies leaving moveable property in France. France, being the law of the forum (where the assets are situate) will examine the law of the deceased's habitual residence in accordance with the Spanish law. Spanish law observes the law of the deceased's nationality which is Italy. Italy, as a jurisdiction that only operates a single Renvoi system, will not accept the Double Renvoi and it is likely that in this case France will apply Italian law.

Case law: The landmark case with respect to the system of Double Renvoi is:

Re Annesley: This case revolved around the death of a 58-year old English woman who was domiciled in France. Now two things came up. According to the English law, she was still a domicile of England while living in France. Secondly, the will she had made was valid according to the English law but was declared invalid according to the French law as the will didn’t give 2/3^rd of the property to her heir, which is mandatory according to the French law. At the very same time, the English court applied for an authority certificate as the women was holding the French domicile at the time of her death. Based on it, the matter was shifted to the French court. However, the French court shifted it back to England which was in turn again shifted back to the French court as the English laws consider the laws pertaining to the domicile of the deceased. At the end, France had to accept the remission and decided the matter as per the internal law.

No Renvoi:  As the name suggests, this particular system is followed by nations like Greece, USA, etc. where they don’t accept the entire system of Renvoi.

Conclusion:  Though the system of the Doctrine of Renvoi sounds complicated, in fact it follows an easier approach in practical life. However, there are certain loopholes in the Doctrine of Renvoi. This includes that of striking of balance between the system of Renvoi at the international level and the application of the domestic laws. Secondly, the judges in the court have to also think about the doctrine that would be delivered by the foreign courts which includes the examination of the views and perceptions prevailing in the foreign nation with respect to the system of single Renvoi. All these difficulties mentioned for the Doctrine of Total Renvoi are well-highlighted under the case of Re O’Keefe (1940).

To conclude with, it won’t be wrong to say that the entire Doctrine of Renvoi cannot be accepted as the one and only general principle for conflict Redressal system. However, at the same time one must also not forget the fact that the Doctrine of Renvoi has proved to be an essential instrument to bring nations with different rules in the conflict of laws which would in turn result in the framing of the international conventions. The loopholes continue to exist with respect to the uniformity for the laws of succession and transfer of property, etc.          

​References:

1. https://www.asil.org/sites/default/files/ERG_PRIVATE_INT.pdf
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-renvoi/
3. https://indianlawportal.co.in/doctrine-of-renvoi/
4. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2109-doctrine-of-renvoi.html
5. https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/double-renvoi/#:~:text=Double%20renvoi%20is%20a%20form,law%20rules%20might%20resolve%20it.&text=Double%20renvoi%20is%20known%20as,also%20known%20as%20multiple%20renvo