In the field of the conflict of laws, slavery is often perceived as the most difficult question which the courts had to face. Indeed, it is hard to have an indifferent view on the issue, as it involves matters of philosophical, humanitarian, moral, political and economic considerations, which cannot be easily sidestepped, by either of the opposite sides. Slavery has been part of human societies for centuries, and not only has it been politically adopted, but it has also been legally condoned and enforced. The first example of legal slavery in a relatively sophisticated society that one may think of is surely the Ancient Greece system, imitated later by the Roman society. Later, and in spite of the opposition that it might have faced in the ideas of natural law, slavery remained an element of European economic organization, especially in the context of colonial expansion. Nevertheless, with the enlightenment and the diffusion of humanitarian ideologies, slavery was weakened in the Old Continent, until its abolition by the main European states, such as France in 1815 and England in 1833. In the United States, however, the issue of slavery was much more complicated as it was considered as a municipal competence since the independence, and therefore the country was divided between the Northern free states and the Southern slave states. As Abraham Lincoln stated that, 'the United States was at that moment half slave and half free', which obviously constituted an obstacle when it came to the development of trade and commerce. Indeed, the main justification for slavery in the South was in the beginning of the 19th century, the sustainability of an entire economic system based on the exploitation of human beings.
[...] As they refused, he claimed for their freedom on the basis of the domiciled consensus. This type of case had been solved numerous times in Missouri by deciding the emancipation of the slave. However, in Scott v. Emerson the Supreme State Court deciding that because of the shift in the political relations between free and slave states, the court had to assess their conflicting interests differently. After stating that “times are not now as they were when the former decisions on this subject were the Scott family was declared a slave family. [...]
[...] In an aggressive decision, the court affirmed Nancy Wells' slave status and accused Ohio of having violated the norms of comity by allowing the manumission to take place[20]. This case is representative of the change in the attitude of the courts towards the other section. In fact, court decisions on conflicts of laws became the stage of political and ideological statements. The Dred Scott case These tensions of the antebellum period culminated with the extremely politicized case of Scott v. Emerson of 1852. [...]
[...] An issue of moral, philosophical and economic interests The issue of slavery was always one of intellectual incoherence when enforced in contemporary democracies such as the United States. Indeed, it implied the coexistence of values such as freedom and equality with the assumption of the inferiority of a certain strand of its population. In the United States, the very existence of a slavery-based economy in the Southern states was a source of conflicting values[3]. Before the proclamation of the independence, slavery was mostly defended because of its economic value; however, after the Constitution was established and rights such as property sacred, what could have been considered as natural rights of the slaves were sidestepped. [...]
[...] Slavery, federalism, and comity, The lawbook exchange ltd., New Jersey Harold W. Horowitz, “Choice of law decisions involving slavery: “interest analysis” in the early nineteenth century”, U.C.L.A. Law Review p Notes, “American slavery and the conflict of Columbia Law Review 71, pp. 74-99 Jane E. Larson, House divided. Using Dred Scott to teach conflict of University of Toledo Law Review 27, 1995-1996, p Commonwealth v. Aves, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Jackson v. Bulloch, Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors Rankin v. [...]
[...] To conclude, we have seen that the slavery situation in the United States had an extremely important impact on the development of a conflict of laws practice at a time when American jurists were still exploring the existing theories. The division of the union and the necessary interaction between the pro-slavery section and the abolitionist section rendered the conflict of laws situations inevitable. Each court therefore faced four major solutions. First of all, it could decide to grant comity to every single visitor in order to reinforce the unity feeling and to create a sense of harmony. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
