Since the general rule appears to be that for domestic investigations such information would be obtainable, we find it difficult to understand how the bank's customers' rights of privacy would be significantly infringed simply because the investigating body is a foreign tribunal.

We regret that our decision requires Mr. Field to violate the legal commands of the Cayman Islands, his country of residence. In a world where commercial transactions are international in scope, conflicts are inevitable. Courts and legislatures should take every reasonable precaution to avoid placing individuals in the situation Mr. Field finds himself. Yet, this court simply cannot acquiesce in the proposition that United States criminal investigations must be thwarted whenever there is conflict with the interest of other states.

Diamond Mining and Management, Inc. v. Globex Minerals, Inc., 421 F. Supp. 70 (1976) presented a question of the law to be applied in an action by one corporation to recover for breach of a joint venture agreement with another corporation, involving a mining concession in Liberia. The plaintiff corporation was incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Liberia and had its principal place of business in that republic. The defendant was a California corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, on September 27, 1976, held that in the absence of any showing as to substantive Liberian contract law or any suggestion of the interest of Liberia which might support the application of Liberian law to the controversy, it would apply California law to the joint venture agreement.

The joint venture agreement contained a provision that, in the event it was not confirmed by the Liberian Government, neither corporation would negotiate for any new or revised concession covering the concession area in question without the other's participation. The Court held that the clause was fatally uncertain and unenforceable since it did not define the term "participation" and was silent as to the nature and amount of responsibility or benefit which each party was to be guaranteed under the provision. Accordingly, the Court dismissed plaintiff's complaint.

Multilateral Conventions

Legalization for Foreign Documents

On July 19, 1976, the Convention Abolishing the Requirements of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents was transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. The convention had

been adopted by the Hague Conference on Private International Law on October 26, 1960, and by 1976 was in force for 20 countries.

The purpose of the convention is to abolish the requirement of diplomatic and consular legalization for foreign public documents, the last step in a process known as the chain-certificate method of document certification. Under this method a document to be used in a foreign legal proceeding requires a chain of certifications, beginning with the issuer and leading ultimately to a consul of the recipient country sitting in the country of origin. The first certification is of the authenticity of the signature or seal of the issuer and each certifier thereafter merely certifies the signature, seal, or stamp of the preceding certification.

The convention establishes a simplified system for attaining the same objective. The key elements are (a) substitution of a standard certificate bearing one signature and (b) abolition of diplomatic or consular authentication of that certificate. The streamlining is aimed at elimination or reduction of costs, delays, and administrative burden on judicial, diplomatic, and consular officers.

The Department of State report on the convention, dated April 8, 1976, states that if the convention is ratified for the United States, clerks of Federal District Courts will be authorized to issue the certificates established by the convention. It also recommends that at least one official in each of the States and in the Territories should be authorized to issue the certificate.

For the President's letter of transmittal to the Senate, the Dept. of State report on the convention, and the text of the convention, see S. Ex. L, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.

Validity of Marriages

A U.S. delegation headed by Ambassador Richard D. Kearney participated in the negotiation of a draft Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages at the Thirteenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, which convened at The Hague October 4 - 23, 1976. The Conference recommended that the convention be opened for signature October 1, 1977. In the United States the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Private International Law is undertaking consideration of the convention.

The text of the draft convention follows:

CONVENTION ON CELEBRATION AND RECOGNITION OF
THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGES

The States signatory to the present Convention,

Desiring to facilitate the celebration of marriages and the recognition of the validity of marriages,

Have resolved to conclude a Convention to this effect, and have agreed on the following provisions—

This Chapter shall apply to the requirements in a Contracting State for celebration of marriages.

Article 2

The formal requirements for marriages shall be governed by the law of the State of celebration.

A marriage shall be celebrated

Article 3

1 where the future spouses meet the substantive requirements of the internal law of the State of celebration and one of them has the nationality of that State or habitually resides there; or

2 where each of the future spouses meets the substantive requirements of the internal law designated by the choice of law rules of the State of celebration.

Article 4

The State of celebration may require the future spouses to furnish any necessary evidence as to the content of any foreign law which is applicable under the preceding Articles.

Article 5

The application of a foreign law declared applicable by this Chapter may be refused only if such application is manifestly incompatible with the public policy ('ordre public') of the State of celebration.

Article 6

A Contracting State may reserve the right, by way of derogation from Article 3, sub-paragraph 1, not to apply its internal law to the substantive requirements for marriage in respect of a future spouse who neither is a national of that State nor habitually resides there.

CHAPTER II

RECOGNITION OF THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGES
Article 7

This Chapter shall apply to the recognition in a Contracting State of the validity of marriages entered into in other States.

A marriage validly entered into under the law of the State of celebration or which subsequently becomes valid under that law shall be considered as such in all Contracting States, subject to the provisions of this Chapter.

A marriage celebrated by a diplomatic agent or consular official in accordance with his law shall similarly be considered valid in all Contracting States, provided that the celebration is not prohibited by the State of celebration.

Article 10

Where a marriage certificate has been issued by a competent authority, the marriage shall be presumed to be valid until the contrary is established.

Article 11

A Contracting State may refuse to recognize the validity of a marriage only where, at the time of the marriage, under the law of that State

1 one of the spouses was already married; or

2 the spouses were related to one another, by blood or by adoption, in the direct line or as brother and sister; or

3 one of the spouses had not attained the minimum age required for marriage, nor had obtained the necessary dispensation; or

4 one of the spouses did not have the mental capacity to consent; or

5 one of the spouses did not freely consent to the marriage.

However, recognition may not be refused where, in the case mentioned in subparagraph 1 of the preceding paragraph, the marriage has subsequently become valid by reason of the dissolution or annulment of the prior marriage.

Article 12

The rules of this Chapter shall apply even where the recognition of the validity of a marriage is to be dealt with as an incidental question in the context of another question.

However, these rules need not be applied where that other question, under the choice of law rules of the forum, is governed by the law of a non-Contracting State.

Article 13

This Convention shall not prevent the application in a Contracting State of rules of law more favourable to the recognition of foreign marriages.

Article 14

A Contracting State may refuse to recognize the validity of a marriage where such recognition is manifestly incompatible with its public policy ('ordre public').

Article 15

This Chapter shall apply regardless of the date on which the marriage was celebrated.

However, a Contracting State may reserve the right not to apply this Chapter to a marriage celebrated before the date on which, in relation to that State, the Convention enters into force.

Article 16

A Contracting State may reserve the right to exclude the application of Chapter I.

Article 17

Where a State has two or more territorial units in which different systems of law apply in relation to marriage, any reference to the law of the State of celebration shall be construed as referring to the law of the territorial unit in which the marriage is or was celebrated.

Article 18

Where a State has two or more territorial units in which different systems of law apply in relation to marriage, any reference to the law of that State in connection with the recognition of the validity of a marriage shall be construed as referring to the law of the territorial unit in which recognition is sought.

Article 19

Where a State has two or more territorial units in which different systems of law apply in relation to marriage, this Convention need not be applied to the recognition in one territorial unit of the validity of a marriage entered into in another territorial unit. Article 20

Where a State has, in relation to marriage, two or more systems of law applicable to different categories of persons, any reference to the law of that State shall be construed as referring to the system of law designated by the rules in force in that State.

Article 21

The Convention shall not affect the application of any convention containing provisions on the celebration or recognition of the validity of marriages to which a Contracting State is a Party at the time this Convention enters force for that State. This Convention shall not affect the right of a Contracting State to become a Party to a convention, based on special ties of a regional or other nature, containing provisions on the celebration or recognition of validity of marriages.

Article 22

This Convention shall replace, in the relations between the States who are Parties to it, the Convention Governing Conflicts of Laws Concerning Marriage, concluded at The Hague, the 12th of June 1902.

Article 23

Each Contracting State shall, at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands of the authorities which under its law are competent to issue a marriage certificate as mentioned in Article 10 and, subsequently, of any changes relating to such authorities.

The Convention shall be open for signature by the States which were Members of the Hague Conference on Private International Law at the time of its Thirteenth Session.

It shall be ratified, accepted or approved and the instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

Article 25

Any other State may accede to the Convention. The instrument of accession shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

Article 26

Any State may, at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, declare that the Convention shall extend to all the territories for the international relations of which it is responsible, or to one or more of them. Such a declaration shall take effect at the time the Convention enters into force for that State.

Such declaration, as well as any subsequent extension, shall be notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

Article 27

A Contracting State which has two or more territorial units in which different systems of law apply in relation to marriage may, at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, declare that the Convention shall apply to all its territorial units or only to one or more of them, and may extend its declaration at any time thereafter.

These declarations shall be notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, and shall state expressly the territorial unit to which the Convention applies.

Article 28

Any State may, not later than the time of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, make one or more of the reservations provided for in Articles 6, 15 and 16. No other reservation shall be permitted.

Any State may at any time withdraw a reservation it has made. The withdrawal shall be notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands. The reservation shall cease to have effect on the first day of the third calendar month after the notification referred to in the preceding paragraph.

Article 29

The Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the third calendar month after the deposit of the third instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession referred to in Articles 24 and 25.

Thereafter the Convention shall enter into force

1 for each State ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to it subsequently, on the first day of the third calendar month after the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession;

2 for a territory to which the Convention has been extended in conformity with Article 26, on the first day of the third calendar month after the notification referred to in that Article.