references/external-sources.md

# Beyond the corpus — external sources for foreign and treaty law

When the referential lacks a text (or its currency must be verified),
these are the sources that hold up, with their limits. Checked
July 2026 — re-verify a domain before citing it, some die (below).

## The reflex chain (nationality / filiation / family file)

1. **Is there a France–[country] bilateral convention?** JaFBase
   first, then the MEAE treaty base; the opposable text is the décret
   de publication (Légifrance, and often this corpus under INTL).
2. **The foreign substantive law**: national official journal online,
   Droit-Afrique, Refworld, NATLEX — always pinning the version date.
3. **Lock the proof**: certificat de coutume if needed — knowing the
   judge must anyway seek the foreign law's content (see
   foreign-law.md).
4. **Civil-status acts**: article 47 réflexes + légalisation or
   apostille + underlying foreign judgment when the act executes one.

## Reference sources

- **JaFBase** — `http://www.jafbase.fr` (HTTP only, broken TLS) — the
  practitioners' base for family-law DIP before the French JAF, by a
  French magistrate: bilateral conventions France–country (claims
  exhaustiveness there) + foreign substantive family law. Its own
  caveat: foreign statutes not guaranteed still in force.
- **Traités et accords de la France (MEAE)** —
  `https://basedoc.diplomatie.gouv.fr/pages/traites/` — every treaty
  France concluded: signature, entry into force, JORF reference.
  Formerly « base Pacte » (name dead since 2018). For multilaterals
  where France is not depositary, indicative only — the depositary
  (UNTS) is authoritative.
- **Légifrance, droit international** — the décrets de publication:
  the text as opposable in France.
- **UNTS** — `https://treaties.un.org` — ratification status of
  multilaterals, kept current.
- **EUR-Lex / N-Lex** — `https://eur-lex.europa.eu` — EU law
  consolidated (indicative; the JO alone is authentic), gateway to
  member-state official bases.
- **Portail e-Justice** — `https://e-justice.europa.eu` — per-member-
  state family-law fact sheets in French, each dated.
- **HUDOC** — `https://hudoc.echr.coe.int` — ECHR case law, EN/FR.
- **Refworld (HCR)** — `https://www.refworld.org` — nationality,
  statelessness, asylum legislation worldwide. Rebuilt Feb 2024:
  pre-2024 links may be dead, and country-of-origin information in
  English moved to `https://www.ecoi.net`.
- **Droit-Afrique** — `https://www.droit-afrique.com` — 24
  francophone African countries, 3 000+ free texts, business/tax
  slant; check each PDF's consolidation date.
- **Juricaf** — `https://juricaf.org` — ~800 000 francophone
  decisions from 40 countries.
- **Gazettes.Africa** — official journals of ~24 African countries.
- **NATLEX (OIT)** / **WIPO Lex** — worldwide statute notices;
  often summaries or unofficial English translations, dead outbound
  links possible.

## Verified pitfalls

- **Dead or hijacked domains**: `juriafrique.com` now serves an
  Indonesian gambling site — never cite a remembered URL without
  checking what it serves today. Use `ohada.com` / `ohada.org` for
  OHADA law instead.
- **Official but stale**: `jo.gouv.sn` (Senegal's real JO online,
  texts since 2001) has search gaps; `dri.gouv.sn` is a government
  documentation site frozen since 2019 — authentic texts, no
  guarantee of currency. An online JO can lag the paper JO by years.
- **The cited code no longer exists**: the code de la nationalité
  française was repealed in 1993 (nationality law lives in the Code
  civil, art. 17 to 33-2) yet still governs declarations subscribed
  before 1993 — ratione temporis, the « dead » code is often the
  applicable one. Foreign family codes circulate in multiple PDF
  versions while reforms are pending (Moroccan Moudawana reform in
  parliament, 2026): say which version, from where, as of when.
- **Unofficial translations**: NATLEX, Refworld, WIPO Lex serve
  English translations; only the official-language JO text is
  authentic.
- **Enacted ≠ applied**: international bases record the text as
  notified; they see neither implicit repeals nor local
  constitutional case law nor administrative practice.