School in, and was warned by my host to expect an antagonistic reaction. He was accurate in his prediction. But the nature of the disagreement is instructive. I claimed that, following England that followed Scotland, the Frisian Ulrich Huber was accepted in the U.S.A. as the basis of theory of conflict of law. The audience accepted this. It also accepted (I think) my understanding of Huber. It also accepted my claim that Joseph Story misstated Huber, and that Story’s version became doctrine in the U.S. The disagreement was over my claim that Story’s misstatement of Huber was the result of a simple misunderstanding. The argument put to me was that Story’s version must have been based on political motivation. For this I still find no basis. For me, much of legal development is mysterious. For many others, a logical, political, economic solution can and must be found for the relationship between law and society. The final lecture is general though set in the context of a new law for the European Union. It deals with the importance of comparative legal history for understanding the growth of law.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=