[4] On 14 February 1888 the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, Norberto Quirno Costa, and the Minister Plenipotentiary of Uruguay to Argentina, Gonzalo Ramírez, met in Buenos Aires in order to convene a congress of South American countries with the purpose of standardizing and unifying through a treaty the subjects related to private international law.
[1][2] On 10 March 1888, Quirno Costa sent separated but simultaneous invitations to the governments of Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela.
Venezuelan government declined the invitation because "the narrow time" since they received it to the date of beginning of the Congress, and due to the distance their plenipotentiary would have to travel would make it impossible to attend.
The appointed Minister Plenipotentiary Domingos de Andrade Figueira joined in the 15th session of 10 December due to the successive extensions of the works of the Brazilian parliament.
Ildefonso García Lagos said in his opening speech that with the advance of the legal sciences it is already possible to create fixed rules that are able to resolve the conflicts caused by the application of its laws when dealing with private relations, without detriment to the sovereignty of nations.
[6] Meanwhile, Norberto Quirno Costa mentioned that nationals and foreigners who join the country should not feel stranger to the system neither being harmed by the conflicts of laws in regard to their person, acts or properties, thus making civil relations easier.
Also as the South American countries progress and their international relations increase, the links between people are narrower and the existence of common rules is more necessary.
Estudiamos, Señores, una ciencia de relacion, que nace precisamente de esa diversidad de las legislaciones, á diferencia del derecho interno, que tiene una vida incondicional, que tiene una existencia propia que vive en todos los casos y contra todas las hipótesis; si suprimimos, entre tanto, como lo quiere Bluntschli, las fronteras que separan á los pueblos, si los confundimos por un momento en una sola nacionalidad, el Derecho Internacional Privado, habría desaparecido con la última soberanía local, con la última ley territorial... Gentlemen, we study a science of relation, that is born precisely from that diversity of legislations, unlike the domestic law, that has an unconditional life, has its own existence that lives in all cases and against all the hypotheses; meanwhile, if we suppress, as Bluntschli wants, the borders that separate the peoples, if we merge them for a moment in a single nationality, the Private International Law would have disappeared with the last local sovereignty, with the last domestic law...
This treaty deals with various subjects: capacity of physical and juridical persons, domicile, absence, marriage, parental authority, filiation, guardianship, property, legal acts, inheritance, prescription and jurisdiction.
[9] According to Boggiano, when the insurance company is the plaintiff, it could alternatively sue before the judge of the domicile of the defendant following article 56 of the Treaty on International Civil Law.
Among its provisions, its first article establishes that the procedure and its incidents are governed by the law of the State where they are promoted (the principle lex fori regit processum).
[14] In matters of penal jurisdiction, it provides that the crimes are judged by the courts of the State where they are committed, in accordance with their laws, regardless of the nationality of the alleged perpetrator, victim or affected.
[2] In the case of crimes committed in high seas or international waters, they are judged and indicted according to the law of the State of the flag of the vessel.
[2][15] This provision foresaw the principle that developed later, that the grant of asylum is a humanitarian, peaceful and non-political act, that should not be taken as unfriendly towards the country of origin.
[18] Article 4 establishes international jurisdiction and the choice of law to start a lawsuit —civil and criminal— to prosecute counterfeiting or trademark adulteration: these will be judge before the courts of the State where the fraud was committed, according to its lex fori.
[19] Conflicts arising from priority of invention shall be resolved taking into account the dates of request of the patents in question in each of the related countries, in accordance with the substantive rule of article 3.