When the Currie theorists redecided a series of famous cases in the symposium program, they reflected little of the confusion and tumult that grips conflicts scholarship. The participants appeared to have few doubts about the soundness of Brainerd Currie's governmental interest analysis. They tended merely to differ on whether particular case results are faithful to Currie's approach. Such concord was by happenstance rather than design. Lea Brilmayer (a foe of interest analysis) and Larry Kramer (an interest analysis revisionist) would have presented more contrasting views had they accepted invitations to appear. Currie's true believers on the panel were left to describe (with an understandable lack of conviction) the attacks of others on the great man's work.
Yet the fact that discussion was rather like-minded need not prevent us from enjoying the transcript. Nor should the fact that Brainerd Currie's choice-of-law package has never been adopted by an American court and probably never will be. Informed and thoughtful discussion among the program participants helps us to understand a little better what Currie was driving at. That matters because Currie's ideas are still important to conflicts thinking.
Shreve, Gene R.
"Notes From the Eye of the Storm,"
Mercer Law Review: Vol. 48:
2, Article 10.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol48/iss2/10