Анали Правног факултета у Београду
80
АНАЛИ ПРАВНОГ ФАКУЛТЕТА
от идеалистического направления, что формально является невозможным пока существуют суверенные государства. В заключение статьи дается обитая оценка значения реалистических подходов и взглядов профессора Бартоша для развития нашего международонго частного права: его реализм не означает национальную замкнутость или гипертрофию национального начала. Наоборот, он излагает и доказывает точку зрения, добивающуюся как можно полнее помочь развитию международных отношений и улучшить положение человека в этих отношениях, но которая всегда стремится и к осознанию реальности жизни и международного содружества и каждого отдельного государства.
SUMMARY Professor M. Bartoš’s Territorialistic Concept in the International Private Law Territorialistic concept, as a reflection of the news situation in international relationships, of the conflict of law has its patisans in Yugoslavia too. Its protagonist in the Yugoslav theory of international private law was Professor Bartoš. His efforts to explain and elaborate this concept in our country is of outstanding importance both for the theory and practice. Having full understanding for the efforts to unify the rules of international private law, Profesor Bartoš viewed this matter realistically: he felt that today in fact an toher idea was omnipotent in this discipline the idea of territoriality under whach each state determines how international private law is going to be applied within its territory. Professor Bartoš, however, has confidence in future development of osciety. He points out determination of each legislator, when régula ing the matter of its international private law, to rely on the tendency of a uniform international private law. Expounding his theory; Professor Bartoš thinks that territorialistic concept only serves as a correction of the idealistic one in the international private law which still is an ideal only, unlikely to be soon reached by modern humanity. Professor Bartoš makes many conclusions departing from such principled views of the nature of international private law, viz.: (1) territorialistic concept is solely authoritative for application of international private law; uniformist tendency is only a guide; (2) territorialistic formation of international private law as a branch of la\v is not a negation of the ideal of its unity but taking over of the role intended for the international community; (3) territorialistic concept clearly determines the legal character of the provisions of foreign legislations which ought to be applied in the frame of norms of international private law; (4) a forcing law' if applied as an expression of the will of local sovereignty; (5) international private law determines the law under which a right is acquired, but the momeut a right is acquired on the ground of a law, then in future it is exclusivel regulated by this law; (6) there is not crisis in the international private law, but a disregard of the rules of international private law. Thence the need for the international private law to be reconciled with reality. But, on the other hand, there is a crisis of method, and in Profesor Bartoš’ opinion the only issue is to give up the idealistic direction, w'hat is formally impossible as long as theire are national sovereignties. The paper is winding up with a general appraisal of the importance of Professor Bartoš, realistic approaches and concept for the development of our internal private law: his realism does not me an national introversion or hyperthropy of the national. On the contrary, he indicates and proves the concept aspiring to contribute considerably to the development of international relations and to the improvement of man in these relationships, but always tending to comprehend relaity of life, and international community, and of each state.