Skip to main content

Transformations: An Introduction to this Volume and Reflections on Uniform Law Conventions as Public and Private Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Transformation of Private Law – Principles of Contract and Tort as European and International Law

Part of the book series: LCF Studies in Commercial and Financial Law ((LCFSCFL,volume 2))

  • 206 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter introduces this Liber Amicorum for Professor Mads Andenas KC. The author and editor of this volume puts the choice of this book’s subject in context with the academic work of the honorand and with her own research interest. This interest is in the connection and interaction between public (international) and private law concepts and practice. Uniform law conventions, especially contract law conventions, are a prime example to illustrate the challenges arising from this dual nature as public international and substantive private law. At the same time, this example shows the potential impact of the research presented in this volume which covers a broad range of issues in public international and private law highlighting transformations through responding to technological innovation and reflection on traditional concepts.

Maren Heidemann is a founding director of the London Centre for Commercial and Financial Law and guest lecturer at the Centre for Commercial Law Studies (CCLS), Queen Mary, University of London, United Kingdom

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    If there is anything that can be called a legal argument in that process which the present author perceived as consisting of mere propaganda as it unfolded; see Forrester in this volume.

  2. 2.

    See for instance Cherednychenko in this volume.

  3. 3.

    Specifically, the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), but also the World Trade Organization (WTO).

  4. 4.

    See Yusuf; Halperin in this volume.

  5. 5.

    See Heidemann (2018a).

  6. 6.

    Klabbers (2013).

  7. 7.

    See further Heidemann (2009).

  8. 8.

    1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, OJ C 27, 26.01.1998, pp. 34–46 (Rome Convention).

  9. 9.

    1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 299, 31.12.1972, pp. 32–42.

  10. 10.

    2007 Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 339, 21.12.2007, pp. 3–41.

  11. 11.

    This term denotes the ensuing EU regulations named after the initial conventions in the area of judicial co-operation and overriding the same.

  12. 12.

    The Hague-Visby Rules—The Hague Rules as Amended by the Brussels Protocol 1968.

  13. 13.

    ELI/UNIDROIT Model European Rules of Civil Procedure, available at https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/200925-eli-unidroit-rules-e.pdf (accessed 23 Feb 2022).

  14. 14.

    See Consolo and Stella in this volume.

  15. 15.

    Heidemann (2019), pp. 5–24.

  16. 16.

    See Sect. 4.2 below.

  17. 17.

    See Sect. 4.5 below.

  18. 18.

    See Sect. 4.3. below.

  19. 19.

    Art. 3 (2) of the Introductory Act to the Civil Code (Einfuehrungsgesetz zum Buergerlichen Gesetzbuch, EGBGB), which contains the German private international law, states that: “[u]nless rules in international conventions, insofar as they have become directly applicable in national law are relevant, the applicable law is to be determined, where the facts of a case have a connection with a foreign State, by the provisions of this chapter (private international law)”.

  20. 20.

    Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).

  21. 21.

    Traditional ‘pre-Rome’ English PIL allowed the choice of a ‘system of law’ which might have allowed the choice of transnational commercial law in certain circumstances, see Collier (1987).

  22. 22.

    See Heidemann (2019), p. 127.

  23. 23.

    This means they should be at the top of the hierarchy of norms, see Heidemann (2019), pp. 26–47.

  24. 24.

    Articles 1–3 of the Law on CISG and the CMR of 5 July 1989, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGB)l II 1989, p. 588, accessible at http://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl&jumpTo=bgbl289s0586.pdf (accessed 8 Mar 2022).

  25. 25.

    Sections 433–700 of the German Civil Code.

  26. 26.

    Alle aufgeführten Verträge hat die Bundesrepublik ratifiziert. Durch die Veröffentlichung im Bundesgesetzblatt ist ihr Inhalt für die Unternehmen zugänglich und kann als Ausgangspunkt für das Risikomanagement verwendet werden.” (The Federal Republic has ratified all of the listed treaties. Through publication in the Federal Law Gazette, their content is accessible to companies and can be used as a starting point for risk management.), BT-Drucksache 19/28649. p. 34.

  27. 27.

    Ibid, p. 35.

  28. 28.

    See in particular Dalhuisen (2012).

  29. 29.

    Heidemann (2019), pp. 89, 110–111.

  30. 30.

    Heidemann (2018a); Heidemann (2015); Heidemann (2018b).

  31. 31.

    See Sect. 4.4 below.

  32. 32.

    Both agreements involve the operation of a dispute settlement body who effectively has the power to decide on the commitment of public funds as damages or penalties. A recent example is the settlement between Vattenfall AB and others v. Federal Republic of Germany (II) (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12). The government eventually accepted to pay EUR 1425 million in March 2021 to compensate the Swedish owners (Vattenfall) of the German nuclear plants for the phaseout decided by the German government in 2011. Street protests against state action and intergovernmental lawmaking at G7, G8 and G20 summits and against the (planned) trade agreements between the EU and the US (the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP) and the EU and Canada (the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA) were expressions of frustration by citizens who felt ignored and disempowered, lacking any substantive control over lawmaking at the supranational level. This excludes of course those protesters who were merely looking for trouble. See also recently Kim and Winnington-Ingram (2021).

  33. 33.

    Heidemann (2018a).

  34. 34.

    The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2021).

  35. 35.

    Essentialia negotii—Identity of the parties, description of the object (e.g. the goods) and the price.

  36. 36.

    The withdrawal was effected by Presidential decree on 20 March 2021, see UN Human Rights Committee (2021).

  37. 37.

    Advocates for Justice and Human Rights (2021).

  38. 38.

    The opinion of the present author on this matter may not need further explanation. It is obvious that the same thought process applies to ‘Brexit’, i.e. the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU in 2018–20. What is the object of the Treaty on European Union? What was the original motivation of the UK government to join? What did they not agree with, i.e. what was their relationship with the object either ex ante or ex post?

  39. 39.

    See Case Concerning Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea—Bissau v. Senegal), ICJ Reports 1991; see also Heidemann (2018a), p. 914.

  40. 40.

    Buffard and Zemanek (1998), p. 315.

  41. 41.

    Minority Schools in Albania, PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 64 (1935), 15.

  42. 42.

    Buffard and Zemanek (1998), p. 316.

  43. 43.

    This doctrine was developed in the context of the standard for the exercise of administrative discretion and is attributed to Bonnard (1923); see Buffard and Zemanek (1998), p. 325.

  44. 44.

    Buffard and Zemanek (1998), p. 318.

  45. 45.

    Even though the German author Ress, for instance, used the expression Gegenstand, subject matter, in the context of subsequent practice, which is a fitting synonym for the word object, but was used to refer to both object and purpose, again as a standard expression, see Ress (1987), as Buffard and Zemanek (1998) explain.

  46. 46.

    Buffard and Zemanek (1998), p. 343.

  47. 47.

    See in detail Heidemann (2015).

  48. 48.

    Doc. 3201 (S-VI). Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, available at http://www.un-documents.net/s6r3201.htm.

  49. 49.

    See Heidemann (2017).

  50. 50.

    The EU is my view not remotely reaching its potential regarding the use of service portals.

  51. 51.

    See D. Corapi in this volume.

  52. 52.

    See S. Ando and Somma in this volume.

  53. 53.

    Teubner (2002).

  54. 54.

    See Dalhuisen in this volume.

  55. 55.

    See Alpa in this volume.

  56. 56.

    Long may it last in view of events at the time of writing.

References

  • Bonnard R (1923) Le pouvoir discrétionnaire et le recours pour excès de pouvoir. RDP, pp 367–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Buffard I, Zemanek K (1998) Object and purpose of a treaty: an enigma. Aust Rev Int Eur Law 1998(3):323 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier JG (1987) The conflict of laws. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalhuisen JH (2012) The operation of the modern lex mercatoria: the hierarchy of norms. Opinio Iuris. http://opiniojuris.org/2012/04/03/the-operation-of-the-modern-lex-mercatoria-the-hierarchy-of-norms/

  • Heidemann M (2009) Private law in Europe – the public/private dichotomy revisited. Eur Bus Law Rev 20(1):119–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidemann M (2015) Comparative interpretation standards in uniform international law. In: Popov N, Wiseman AW (eds) Comparative sciences: interdisciplinary approaches. Emerald Group Publishing, pp 99–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidemann M (2017) Is internationalisation going too far? – Constitutional challenges of international data exchange programmes. EBLR 28(5):847–878

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidemann M (2018a) Object and purpose in international uniform law conventions. Eur Bus Law Rev 29(6):907–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidemann M (2018b) Object and purpose as interpretation tool in International Commercial Law Conventions – how to make the ‘top down approach’ work. In: Heidemann M, Lee J (eds) The future of the commercial contract in scholarship and law reform – European and comparative perspectives. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidemann M (2019) Transnational commercial law. Macmillan International Higher Education, Red Globe Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • International Commission of Jurists. Advocates for Justice and Human Rights (2021) Turkey’s withdrawal from Istanbul Convention a setback for women and girls’ human rights. https://www.icj.org/turkeys-withdrawal-from-istanbul-convention-a-setback-for-women-and-girls-human-rights/. Accessed 30 Jan 2022

  • Kim JW, Winnington-Ingram LM (2021) Investment Court System under EU Trade and Investment Agreements: addressing criticisms of ISDS and creating new challenges. Glob Trade Cust J 16(5):181–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2013) International law. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ress G (1987) Die Bedeutung der nachfolgenden Praxis fuer die Vertragsinterpretation nach der Wiener Vertragsrechtskonvention. In: Bieber R, Ress G (eds) Die Dynamik des EuropaischenGemeinschaftsrechts. DieAuslegung desEuropaeischen Gemeinschaftsrechts im Lichte nachfolgender Praxis der Mitgliedstaaten und der EG-Organe. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 49–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner G (2002) Breaking frames: economic globalisation and the emergence of the lex mercatoria. Eur J Soc Theory 5(2):199–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2021) UN women’s rights committee urges Turkey to reconsider withdrawal from Istanbul Convention as decision takes effect. News and Events. https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=27242&LangID=E. Accessed 30 Jan 2022

  • UN Human Rights Committee (2021) Turkey: withdrawal from Istanbul Convention is a pushback against women’s rights, say human rights experts. Press Release. 23 March 2021 https://www.ohchr.org/FR/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=26936&LangID=F. Accessed 30 Jan 2022

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maren Heidemann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Heidemann, M. (2024). Transformations: An Introduction to this Volume and Reflections on Uniform Law Conventions as Public and Private Law. In: Heidemann, M. (eds) The Transformation of Private Law – Principles of Contract and Tort as European and International Law. LCF Studies in Commercial and Financial Law, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28497-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28497-7_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-28496-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-28497-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics