|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
private international law
But I think you are absolutely wrong. In private international law, domicile has nothing to do with where people live except as part of the test to determine whether a domicile of choice has arisen. I corrected the page. Please do not repeat the error unless you can prove me wrong by citing authoritative sources (I admit that I have not looked at PIL for about twenty years, but I don't believe it would have changed on this point). I would be interested to know what other effective systems could be developed to deal with this situation (always selecting the lex situs is totally arbitrary, etc), but I will allow your correction to stand on that point. -David91 16:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is a difference between domicile in PIL and state domicile in U.S. law. I rely on Lea Brilmayer and Jack L. Goldsmith, Conflicts of Laws: Cases and Materials, ISBN 073552419X, which was my casebook for the course I took on the subject. -- BD2412 talk 17:59, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the element on the municipal rules of the U.S. That solves the problem well. As you will probably know, there are two options to determine status and capcity for natural persons: lex domicilii or lex patriae (sometimes nationalis). Disputes about the advantages and disadvantages of these two theories have been raging for years. Lex domicilii works on the Anglo-American axis, in Switzerland and in some Scandinavian countries; lex patriae wins in the rest of Europe. One of the main advantages of the domicile is that it ties a person to a familiar legal system and avoids ambiguities in federal states or dual nationality cases. Hence, the concept of habitual domicile is widely used in the conventions established by the Hague Conference on Private International Law, e.g. the Hague Convention on the Form of Wills of 1961, the Convention on Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations of 1973, the Convention on the International Protection of Adults of 2000. In addition we've got the Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations of 1980 which has direct effect in the EU Member States. So domicile (habitual or otherwise) seems to be winning.
Thank you once again for your courtesy. -David91 18:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, thank you for correcting my U.S.-centrism. We studied U.S. domicile in my law class, and I incorrectly assumed the rest of the world did things the same way. -- BD2412 talk 19:29, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Hail, fellow workers of the fields. Do we want to keep this as a stub? I could write a long book chapter from memory — curious to observe how oddly memory seems to work as we get older since I find it hard to remember what I did last week — but it would get a bit technical and that might defeat the purpose of the 'pedia on a topic like this. Should we remove the stub request? -David91 1 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)
I realize the United States incorporate the word "State" in the name, indicating a sovereign unit. The federal structure you mentioned is how the United States was intended to be over 200 years ago (somewhat like the current European Union. However the simple fact remains that no matter how flexible one's definition of sovereignty is; individual states are by no means sovereign. Virtually all legal matters can be appealed to a higher federal court, they have no control over their own monetary policy, have no formal relationships with foreign states, and almost anything under their purview can be usurped by the federal government if it really wants to (under the Commerce clause, or whatever). In fact, they really should be called "provinces" rather than "states" and only continue to use the latter as convention. Accordingly, I respectfully submit that a word other that sovereign should be used. Martin-C 12:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC) under Latvian Civil Code you may have several domiciles at a time!!
Under Latvian Civil code a person may have several domiciles at a time!!
I removed that sentence since it is unreferenced, not explained and so does not really make sense in itself and, in the section it was in, was actually irrelevant. --Hydraton31 09:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
US military dependents?
I thought about adding a theoretical case of dual domicile, but I don't know if it would actually exist in practice. Here's the situation:
- Under US federal law, members of the armed services are not deemed to change their domicile solely because of a service assignment. If they wish, they can keep the domicile they had upon entry into the armed forces throughout their military careers.
- However, AFAIK, this law does not apply to their civilian spouses. They would lose their domicile once they went with their spouse to a new posting.
- Minor children have the domicile of their parents.
- Therefore, a minor child of such a marriage would have two legal domiciles if:
- One parent is a service member with a domicile in State A, but assigned to State B.
- The other parent (1) has domicile in State B (or possibly State C) because he or she followed the spouse to the new assignment, or (2) is a service member who has maintained domicile in a state other than State A.