It is also possible that the anchoring of the principle of "center of gravity" as the rule of proper priority in questions of choice of applicability will also be found, by virtue of analogy, in section 403 of the American Restatement (Restatement 3d, Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1986) [152]). This section, which relates to both civil and criminal matters, speaks of a choice of applicability rule where two states consider it reasonable to apply their laws to the same act, but the laws contradict each other. The basis of this rule is the need to avoid a situation in which a person is subject to two opposing provisions of the law that cannot be reconciled. At that time, it was determined in the Restatement that each of the competing countries must examine, on the basis of the weighting of all the relevant variables, which of them has a clearly superior interest ("clearly greater"). A state that finds that its friend has an interest in it is clearly preferable should waive the application of its laws. It seems to me that such a rule can be adopted even where there is no contradiction between the provisions of the law, but rather on the question of which of the States will apply its laws similar to those of the other to the case at hand where the two cannot do so together.
Finally, it is possible to draw conclusions from a similar situation of competition, which arises when two countries simultaneously request the extradition of a person from a third country. The decision on the matter is often regulated by a specific provision in the extradition convention. Article 17 of the European Convention on Extradition (Paris, December 13, 1957),[153], for example, entitled "Conflict request", states:
“If extradition is requested concurrently by more than one State, either for the same offence or for different offences, the requested Party shall make its decision having regard to all the circumstances and especially the relative seriousness and place of commission of the offences, the respective dates of the requests, the nationality of the person claimed and the possibility of subsequent extradition to another State” (Emphasis added - E.E.L.).