Encyclopedia of Private International Law
Show Less

Encyclopedia of Private International Law

Edited by Jürgen Basedow, Giesela Rühl, Franco Ferrari and Pedro de Miguel Asensio

The role and character of Private International Law has changed tremendously over the past decades. With the steady increase of global and regional inter-connectedness the practical significance of the discipline has grown. Equally, so has the number of legislative activities on the national, international and, most importantly, the European level. With a world-class editor team, 500 content items and authorship from almost 200 of the world’s foremost scholars, the Encyclopedia of Private International Law is the definitive reference work in the field. 57 different countries are represented by authors who shed light on the current state of Private International Law around the globe, providing unique insights into the discipline and how it is affected by globalization and increased regional integration. The Encyclopedia consists of three inter-linked pillars, enhanced by sophisticated search and cross-linking functionality. The first pillar consists of A-Z coverage of the scope and substance of Private International Law in the form of 247 entries. The second pillar comprises detailed overviews of the Private International Law regimes of 80 countries. The third pillar presents valuable, and often unique, English language translations of the national codifications and Private International Law provisions of those countries. This invaluable combination represents a powerful research tool and an indispensable reference resource.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
Limited access

Chapter B.1: Bartin, Étienne

Samuel Fulli-Lemaire

Étienne Bartin (1860–1948) was one of the leading members of the so-called particularist intellectual tradition of private international law, which regarded this discipline as part of the domestic law of each state. He was hugely influential in shaping views on how many of the central issues of the general theory of private international law are described and understood.

I. Life and work

Étienne Bartin was born on 2 October 1860, in the village of Chauriat in Auvergne, a place to which he would return throughout his life, notably spending virtually all his university vacations there. Auvergne itself would always stay close to his heart, to such an extent that at the age of 70 he dedicated in Latin the first volume of his Principes de Droit international privé to the region of his birth. At a time when an emperor ruled over France, Étienne Bartin grew up in a family of staunch radicals and supporters of a Republic. His father, a doctor by trade, p. 152had even cared for some of those who had been wounded fighting on the barricades that were raised in an ultimately futile attempt to oppose the soon-to-be Napoleon III’s coup d’état in December 1851. His grandfather, a lawyer who had become a prosecutor, chose to resign from his post at that time and became a judge. The legal profession boasted another representative in Étienne Bartin’s extended family, a cousin of his father, who for 30 years practised as a notary in a small town not far from Chauriat (Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘Éloge d’Étienne Bartin’ (1966) 3 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 189, 192–200).

Étienne Bartin studied law in Paris, and in 1885 defended two doctoral theses, the first in Roman law and the second in civil law (Étienne Bartin, Étude sur la règle: ‘Res inter alios acta aliis nec nocere nec prodesse potest’, en droit romain. Théorie des contre-lettres, en droit français (C Lebas 1885)). In 1887, he received a prize from the Paris law faculty for an essay dealing, inter alia, with various implications of an 1886 law secularizing French primary schools for the donations made with a view to funding religious schools before entry into force of the law (Étienne Bartin, Théorie des conditions impossibles, illicites, ou contraires aux mœurs, notamment dans ses rapports avec la loi du 30 octobre 1886 sur l’enseignement primaire (A Rousseau 1887)). In this work, Étienne Bartin espoused fiercely secular, left-wing views. The year 1887 also saw his success at the concours de l’Agrégation des facultés de droit, and his subsequent call to the Algiers law faculty. A study of the dotal regime, written during his time in Algeria, was published in 1892 (Étienne Bartin, Études sur le régime dotal (Aux Siège des Facultés 1892)). In 1889, he moved to the faculty of Lille, then in 1893 to Lyon, where he became a professor two years later. His Études de droit international privé, perhaps his most famous work, and actually a collection of three journal articles which appeared in 1897 and 1898, was published in 1899 (by A Chevalier-Marescq).

In 1901, Étienne Bartin was called to the Paris law faculty, where he would spend the rest of his career. He was appointed Adjunct Professor in 1903, the year he contributed to the founding of the Revue trimestrielle de droit civil, and was entrusted with courses on comparative law in 1904, then Roman law in 1905. The latter were so severely disrupted by students protesting at the difficulty of his exams that the classes had to be suspended in December 1905 and then again in November 1906. Étienne Bartin nonetheless became professor of civil law in 1907, and of private international law from 1927, upon the death of Antoine Pillet. From the time of his arrival in Paris until his death in 1948, his retirement in 1931 having made not the slightest difference in this respect, Étienne Bartin divided his time between civil law and private international law. In the field of civil law, his seminal contribution lies in his update of Charles Aubry and Charles-Frédéric Rau’s monumental treatise of French civil law, the Cours de droit civil français, the earlier editions of which had been adapted from the 5th edition of Zachariä’s Handbuch des französischen Civilrechts (1839). From 1913 to 1939, Étienne Bartin published new editions of 11 out of the 12 volumes of the treatise, the 5th edition of volumes 6 to 12 from 1913 to 1929, then the 6th edition of volumes 1 to 4 from 1935 to 1939. He was said to have embarked on this monumental task out of admiration for Charles Aubry and Charles-Frédéric Rau’s work, and as a way of acknowledging his debt to their doctrine (Maurice Picard, ‘Étienne Bartin’ (1949) 47 RTDCiv I, III). This deference also seems to explain why Étienne Bartin famously refrained from significantly amending the original text, preferring to add to it in square brackets and often only in the footnotes (Maurice Picard, ‘Étienne Bartin’ (1949) 47 RTDCiv I, III; Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘Éloge d’Étienne Bartin’ (1966) 3 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 189, 205). Étienne Bartin’s published works on private international law include a study of the effects of foreign judgments (Étienne Bartin, Études sur les effets internationaux des jugements (LGDJ 1907)), and two courses at the Hague Academy of International Law (Étienne Bartin, ‘La doctrine des qualifications et ses rapports avec le caractère national des conflits de lois’ (1930) 31 Rec. des Cours 561–622; and ‘Une conception nouvelle de l’empire de la loi locale par opposition à la loi personnelle et à la loi territoriale’ (1935) 52 Rec. des Cours 583–642). But the most famous of his later works are the three volumes of the Principes de Droit international privé selon la loi et la jurisprudence françaises, published in 1930, 1932 and 1935 (by Domat-Montchrestien). It is apparent from the foreword of the third volume that a fourth and final volume, which would have been devoted specifically to →party autonomy, was planned but never written.

p. 153If as a civil lawyer Étienne Bartin was above all a traditionalist, loyal to a fault to the guiding principles of the 1804 Code civil (Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘L’œuvre d’Étienne Bartin’ (1968) 5 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 7, 44–8), as a private international lawyer he was at once extremely innovative, both in his approach to technical issues and to theoretical discussions, as well as inspired by a nationalist ideology, albeit to a lesser extent than someone like Jean-Paulin Niboyet. This tension, it should be pointed out, was apparent not only in the legal arena, but also in politics, as Étienne Bartin over time abandoned his earlier left-wing sympathies. Unusually for a law professor of his time (Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘Éloge d’Étienne Bartin’ (1966) 3 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 189, 210), he became actively involved in politics, going as far as joining in 1925 the Action française, the far-right movement of Charles Maurras. This rather uncommon transformation appears too extreme to be fully explained by the rise in nationalistic feeling which all too frequently follows conflicts, as a brief historical survey of the French private international law doctrine makes clear (P Francescakis, ‘Perspectives du droit international privé français actuel – À propos de la deuxième edition du Traité de M. Henri Batiffol’ (1955) 7 R.I.D.C. 349, 349–53). Two additional factors, however, were suggested (Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘Éloge d’Étienne Bartin’ (1966) 3 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 189, 206–209). The first is the fallout of the egregious Dreyfus affair, named after a Jewish French army officer wrongly convicted of treason in 1894, and who was only exonerated in 1906 after a long public, political and journalistic campaign. L’affaire, as it was referred to, bitterly divided French society, pitting the republican, often anticlerical Dreyfusards against the pro-military, nationalist, and often anti-Semitic, anti-Dreyfusards. It appears that Étienne Bartin’s concern for social cohesion and respect for the established order, as well as for the judicial process, however flawed it could have been in a particular instance, led him to side with the anti-Dreyfusards. A second likely explanation for Étienne Bartin’s move to the right is the death of his only son, Jean-Henri Bartin, who was killed in action during the First World War. This tragic event seems to have hardened Étienne Bartin’s patriotism. Whatever its reasons, a change is clearly discernible in Étienne Bartin’s scholarship: whereas the Études de droit international privé of 1899 are full of references to foreign case-law, the Principes de droit international privé of 1930 seem guided by a rather more circumspect approach, the author even making the bold claim that he ‘systematically abstains from any observation and even any afterthought of comparative private international law’ (Étienne Bartin, Principes de Droit international privé selon la loi et la jurisprudence françaises, vol 1 (Domat-Montchrestien 1930) § 28, 53). However, this comment appears to be in part rhetorical, since it is immediately followed by a discussion of English case-law, admittedly for lack of relevant French decisions.

Étienne Bartin’s keen interest in case-law is actually another defining feature of his work, in both civil law and private international law. Naturally the necessity of studying court decisions had already been emphasized, notably by Marcel Planiol, but Étienne Bartin seemed to approach this task in a virtually empirical manner (Maurice Picard, ‘Étienne Bartin’ (1949) 47 RTDCiv I, II; Henri Batiffol, ‘Étienne Bartin (1860–1948)’ (1949) 38 Rev.crit.DIP 1, 2). In fact, over the course of his career he referred increasingly often to the writings of the positivist philosophers Hippolyte Taine and Claude Bernard, who shared a firmly grounded belief in the virtues of practical experimentation (Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘Éloge d’Étienne Bartin’ (1966) 3 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 189, 199–200). It will therefore come as no surprise that Étienne Bartin stated that case-law was a source of law (Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘L’œuvre d’Étienne Bartin’ (1968) 5 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 7, 26) as early as the late 19th century, before making this view explicit in the very title of the Principes de Droit international privé selon la loi et la jurisprudence françaises.

II. Bartin’s contribution to private international law

When Étienne Bartin’s interest in private international law first arose, sometime in the last decade of the 19th century, the state of the French legal doctrine could be characterized as a ‘virtually perfect vacuum’, in that the only significant work published in a not-too-remote past, p. 154Armand Lainé’s Introduction au droit international privé (Pichon 1888–92), was more inventory than treatise (Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘L’œuvre d’Étienne Bartin’ (1968) 5 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 7, 49–50). As Étienne Bartin put it himself at the outset of his first course at the Hague Academy, ‘when I started dealing with [private] international law, forty-odd years ago, I have to confess that, in order to teach it, I first needed to learn it’ (Étienne Bartin, ‘La doctrine des qualifications et ses rapports avec le caractère national des conflits de lois’ (1930) 31 Rec. des Cours 561, 569). He then went on to point out that the subject had not been taught at the Paris law faculty before 1882 (Étienne Bartin, ‘La doctrine des qualifications et ses rapports avec le caractère national des conflits de lois’ (1930) 31 Rec. des Cours 561, 569). Étienne Bartin was thus ‘a pioneer of the modern French private international law doctrine’ (Dominique Bureau and Horatia Muir Watt, Droit international privé, vol 1 (3rd edn, PUF 2014) 412), and this should be borne in mind for a fair assessment of his contribution to the field.

Unlike Antoine Pillet, who had dedicated the first part of his career to public international law (Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘L’œuvre d’Étienne Bartin’ (1968) 5 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 7, 50), Étienne Bartin came to private international law from civil law and stayed true to the civil law mindset. This he expressed in unforgettable terms in the very first paragraph of the foreword to the first volume of the Principes de Droit international privé: ‘I held from 1898 to 1926 a Chair of Civil Law . . . When I asked in 1926 to be appointed to the Chair of Private International Law of the Paris law faculty, I had, and I could not but have, the feeling that the subject I taught had not changed.’ This belief is key to understanding Étienne Bartin’s core assertion that private international law is an integral part of domestic law. To be more specific, it is the part of domestic law devoted to the private law relationships that have an international dimension. As a result, every state has its own system for resolving such conflicts of laws – its own private international law (see eg Étienne Bartin, Principes de Droit international privé selon la loi et la jurisprudence françaises, vol 1 (Domat-Montchrestien 1930) § 55, 112). Étienne Bartin thus ascribed to a particularist view of private international law, as opposed to the universalist conception represented by such figures as Pasquale Mancini in Italy (→Mancini, Pasquale Stanislao), Carl Ludwig von Bar in Germany, and André Weiss or Antoine Pillet in France, which dominated at the time. Étienne Bartin, together with Franz Kahn (→Kahn, Franz) are sometimes also described as the leading members of a positivist school of private international law, because of their analytical method which rests on the careful study of case-law (François Rigaux and Marc Fallon, Droit international privé (3rd edn, Larcier 2005) 55). Particularism and positivism can also be fused under the heading of state positivism, where this time Étienne Bartin is associated with Dionisio Anzilotti (Bernard Audit and Louis d’Avout, Droit international privé (7th edn, Economica 2013) 137). Finally, it should be pointed out that Étienne Bartin understood conflicts of laws as based on underlying conflicts of sovereignties – the foreword to the first volume of the Principes de Droit international privé (1930) ends with the words ‘I want to reassert that to my mind private international law is nothing other than the legal form of the idea of homeland in private law relationships.’

Étienne Bartin’s most significant contributions to private international law relate to the formalization of its general theory. He reasoned, as far as conflict of laws was concerned, on Friedrich Carl von Savigny’s (→Savigny, Friedrich Carl von) model of a bilateral choice-of-law rule elaborated in consideration of a particular legal relationship. But he departed from Friedrich Carl von Savigny’s doctrine in one crucial respect, because he remained unconvinced that there existed a Community of Nations which could create a legal community and thereby provide an underpinning for the entire construction. Instead, Étienne Bartin relied on what he perceived to be a fundamental connection between private international law and civil law: ‘every choice of law rule is, in a given country, France for instance, nothing else than the projection on the plane of conflict of laws of the domestic law institution which gives rise to the conflict’ (Étienne Bartin, Principes de Droit international privé selon la loi et la jurisprudence françaises, vol 3 (Domat-Montchrestien 1935) § 461, 384). In this way Étienne Bartin’s theory enabled each state to apply its choice-of-law rules irrespective of whether a legal community actually existed between the forum and the other involved states. Even though Étienne p. 155Bartin’s debt to Friedrich Carl von Savigny is evident, the differences are such that Paul Lerebours-Pigeonnière described Bartin as ‘a very independent disciple of Savigny’s school of thought’ (Paul Lerebours-Pigeonnière and Yvon Loussouarn, Droit international privé (9th edn, Dalloz 1970) 381). More recently, the classic bilateral →choice of law rule was described as ‘savignano-bartinienne’, rather than merely ‘savignienne’ (Bertrand Ancel, ‘Destinées de l’article 3 du Code civil’ in Marie-Noëlle Jobard-Bachellier and others (eds), Le droit international privé: esprit et méthodes – Mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Lagarde (Dalloz 2005) 1, 3).

Étienne Bartin’s insights were set out for the most part in his early publications, though naturally he subsequently expanded and at times amended his ideas, notably in the Principes de Droit international privé. Chief among these early works are the three studies brought together in the Études de droit international privé.

The first study (1–82), and the most famous in absolute terms, is devoted to conflicts of characterization. Characterization, or classification (→Classification (characterization)), refers in this context to the initial step in applying a choice-of-law rule, that is to say deciding to which category the legal issue raised by the factual situation of a case should be assigned. Étienne Bartin tweaked the facts of an actual case (Bertrand p. 156Ancel and Yves Lequette, Les grand arrêts de la jurisprudence française de droit international privé (5th edn, Dalloz 2006) no 9), and focused his reasoning on a Maltese institution which would become part of private international law folklore as ‘la quarte du conjoint pauvre’. What, he asked, if the →lex fori and the lex causae characterized this institution differently? As is well known, both Étienne Bartin and Franz Kahn (→Kahn, Franz), who had addressed the same issue a few years earlier, something which Étienne Bartin denied awareness of (Étienne Bartin, Études sur les effets internationaux des jugements (LGDJ 1907) 2), shared the belief that the characterization of the lex fori should prevail. Naturally this outcome appears perfectly logical if one remembers the importance of sovereignty considerations for Étienne Bartin. But the conclusion he draws is nonetheless extremely radical: the impossibility of ever unifying private international law rules when each state has to resort to its own characterizations (Étienne Bartin, Études sur les effets internationaux des jugements (LGDJ 1907) 2). On a more fundamental level, of course, it is the unbreakable connection between the content of the substantive domestic law and the corresponding private international law rule which, according to Étienne Bartin, meant that such unification efforts were doomed to failure (Henri Batiffol, ‘Étienne Bartin (1860–1948)’ (1949) 38 Rev.crit.DIP 1, 3).

The second study addresses the issue of →renvoi (83–187), a mechanism which aroused the hostility of Étienne Bartin because of his adherence to a sovereignty-dominated view of private international law. The work is thus less remarkable for the way the issue is outlined than for the kinship which Bartin identifies between renvoi and conflict of characterizations. Both are conflits de systèmes, conflicts between private international law systems, in the sense that they result from the differences that can exist between the private international law rules of the different states that are connected to the situation. Differences in →connecting factors can give rise to →renvoi, while differences in characterization can lead to conflicts of characterization (see eg Henri Batiffol and Paul Lagarde, Droit international privé, vol 1 (7th edn, LGDJ 1981) 287). The third study (189–284) deals with the →public policy exception. Étienne Bartin’s contribution to the clarification of its function and scope is perhaps incremental rather than paradigm shifting, particularly in that the exception and fraude à la loi are conflated (Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘L’œuvre d’Étienne Bartin’ (1968) 5 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 7, 57–61) (→Evasion of laws (fraus legis)). Still, Étienne Bartin produces a highly accessible summary of the issue, and clarifies several important points, most notably the distinction between the public policy exception and the lois de police, or internationally mandatory rules (Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘L’œuvre d’Étienne Bartin’ (1968) 5 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 7, 58) (→Overriding mandatory provisions). Another matter which greatly benefited from Étienne Bartin’s input is the conflit mobile, that is to say the situation where the content of the connecting factor is modified over time, for instance when a person changes their domicile or a movable property is carried across a border, resulting in the successive designation of two or more applicable laws. Apart from coining the terminology (Bertrand Ancel and Yves Lequette, Les grand arrêts de la jurisprudence française de droit international privé (5th edn, Dalloz 2006) no 48, § 9, who refer to Étienne Bartin, Principes de Droit international privé selon la loi et la jurisprudence françaises, vol 1 (Domat-Montchrestien 1930) §78, 193), Étienne Bartin was an early proponent of the approach of seeking a solution through an interpretation of the choice-of-law rule (Pierre Mayer and Vincent Heuzé, Droit international privé (11th edn, LGDJ 2014) 183).

Outside conflict of laws in the strictest sense, Étienne Bartin published significant work on international jurisdiction (Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘L’œuvre d’Étienne Bartin’ (1968) 5 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 7, 57) and on foreign judgments, especially in his 1907 monograph entitled Études sur les effets internationaux des jugements. Of particular relevance is his discussion of what he called the compétence internationale indirecte as a way to refer to the extent to which the forum’s courts, when asked to recognize or declare enforceable a foreign judgment, may consider the manner in which the foreign court has asserted jurisdiction. Étienne Bartin’s idea, expressing a sovereignty-based approach to private international law, was that a foreign judgment could not be recognized if in the reverse situation the local courts would not have been competent according to the forum’s own jurisdiction rules. While this notion has long been superseded, the phrase endures (Bertrand Ancel and Yves Lequette, Les grand arrêts de la jurisprudence française de droit international privé (5th edn, Dalloz 2006) no 41, § 6, and no 70, § 4). Étienne Bartin was also the first (Pierre Callé, L’acte public en droit international privé (Economica 2004) 231) to consider the factual effects that could be produced by a foreign judgment independently from its recognition or enforcement (Étienne Bartin, ‘Le jugement étranger considéré comme un fait’ (1924) 51 J.Dr.Int’l 857–76).

III. Bartin’s influence on private international law

At a first glance from today’s perspective, Étienne Bartin’s influence on private international law might seem limited to his having stumbled upon the issue of conflicts of characterization. Certainly this is the context in which his name, together with Franz Kahn’s, is most often mentioned. Regarding the remainder of his work, it might be tempting to dismiss him as merely the symbol of a bygone age of private international law, the figurehead of particularism, a singularly radical reaction to the dominant universalism of the day. It is unarguable that some of his stances sit uneasily with contemporary private international law, in particular those deriving from his understanding of the discipline as arbitrating between conflicting sovereignties. Today, the focus is increasingly on the private law relationships themselves, and this trend shows little sign of abating. Étienne Bartin’s professed disregard for comparative law, at least in his later work, and lack of interest for →party autonomy (Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘L’œuvre d’Étienne Bartin’ (1968) 5 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 7, 74), also run contrary to the current dominant views. Finally, the extraordinary rise of private international law rules of European origin has seemingly dealt a death blow to a nation-based particularism.

Yet such a stark assessment would be unfair, in that it dramatically undervalues the considerable influence Étienne Bartin exercised over later private international law scholars, as evidenced for instance by the innumerable times his work is cited in the collected courses of the Hague Academy, and not exclusively by French academics. Regardless of whether that debt is acknowledged, Étienne Bartin was hugely influential in shaping the way many of the great problems of the general theory of private international law are described and understood, even if the solutions he advocated have more often than not been abandoned or failed to take hold. One need only think of the conflits de systèmes and conflit mobile, or the distinction between internationally mandatory rules and the public policy exception, or of the compétence internationale indirecte. Furthermore, Étienne Bartin’s refusal to accept that private law should in some way be in thrall to public international law (Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘L’œuvre d’Étienne Bartin’ (1968) 5 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 7, 51), his keen interest in case-law, as well as his insistence that foreign law be treated as law rather than fact (Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘L’œuvre d’Étienne Bartin’ (1968) 5 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 7, 64–5), continue to resonate.

p. 157Even the particularist doctrine, though its tenets are by no stretch as foolproof as Étienne Bartin considered them (Henri Batiffol, ‘Étienne Bartin (1860–1948)’ (1949) 38 Rev.crit.DIP 1, 3), still holds lessons for the present, and particularly for those striving to further European unification of private international law. Étienne Bartin reminds us of the difficulties encountered by domestically trained lawyers in casting off their ethos, and how indispensable that considerable effort is if genuine unification is to be achieved. Remarkably, that was the conclusion of Étienne Bartin’s 1930 Hague Academy lecture (Étienne Bartin, ‘La doctrine des qualifications et ses rapports avec le caractère national des conflits de lois’ (1930) 31 Rec. des Cours 561, 619–20), pre-empting the accusation that his hostility to the international spirit in any guise was such that there was no place for it in his perception of private international law:

[c]‌ommon and identical rules of private international law for different states can only be achieved by concluding suitable international conventions; this is not impossible, provided one condition is met, a condition that, at the close of these classes, one can consider to be a sine qua non: that these conventions be meticulously drafted, with the help and the active collaboration of private law lawyers from all interested states, proficient in detecting beyond the superficial similarity of words the divergences in interpretation which ultimately will lead to the radical antagonism of two institutions, governed by two different laws, which at first glance may seem alike.

Literature

  • Bertrand Ancel, ‘Destinées de l’article 3 du Code civil’ in Marie-Noëlle Jobard-Bachellier and others (eds), Le droit international privé: esprit et méthodes – Mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Lagarde (Dalloz 2005) 1;

  • Bertrand Ancel and Yves Lequette, Les grand arrêts de la jurisprudence française de droit international privé (5th edn, Dalloz 2006);

  • Bernard Audit and Louis d’Avout, Droit international privé (7th edn, Economica 2013);

  • Henri Batiffol, ‘Étienne Bartin (1860–1948)’ (1949) 38 Rev.crit.DIP 1;

  • Henri Batiffol and Paul Lagarde, Droit international privé, vol 1 (7th edn, LGDJ 1981);

  • Dominique Bureau and Horatia Muir Watt, Droit international privé, vol 1 (3rd edn, PUF 2014);

  • Pierre Callé, L’acte public en droit international privé (Economica 2004);

  • Phocion Francescakis, ‘Perspectives du droit international privé français actuel – À propos de la deuxième edition du Traité de M. Henri Batiffol’ (1955) 7 R.I.D.C. 34960;

  • Armand Lainé, Introduction au droit international privé (Pichon 1888–92);

  • Paul Lerebours-Pigeonnière and Yvon Loussouarn, Droit international privé (9th edn, Dalloz 1970);

  • Pierre Mayer and Vincent Heuzé, Droit international privé (11th edn, LGDJ 2014);

  • Maurice Picard, ‘Étienne Bartin’ (1949) 47 RTDCiv I;

  • Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘Éloge d’Étienne Bartin’ (1966) 3 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 189;

  • Emmanuel du Pontavice, ‘L’œuvre d’Étienne Bartin’ (1968) 5 Annales de la faculté de droit et des sciences économiques de l’université de Clermont 7;

  • François Rigaux and Marc Fallon, Droit international privé (3rd edn, Larcier 2005);

  • Karl Salomo Zachariä von Lingenthal, Handbuch des französischen Civilrechts (5th edn, Mohr 1839).