Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation pp 43–69Cite as

Non-State Law in the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 3))

Abstract

Article 3 of the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts is the first quasi-legislative text to allow explicitly for the choice of non-state law also before state courts. This article puts the provision into a broader context, discusses their drafting history and particular issues involved in their interpretation. It also provides a critical evaluation. Article 3 does not respond to an existing need, and its formulation, the fruit of a compromise between supporters and opponents of choosing non-state law, makes the provision unsuccessful for state courts and arbitrators alike.

Arthur Larson Professor of Law, Duke University. Thanks for invaluable advice to Mary Keyes, Yuko Nishitani, Geneviève Saumier and Matthias Scherer. Views and errors are mine.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For the text, preparatory materials, and a bibliography, see http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=text.display&tid=49.

  2. 2.

    For this formulation, see Draft Commentary on the Draft Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts (March 2014) 13, available at www.hcch.net/upload/wop/gap2014pd06_en.pdf. The text, together with the Draft Commentary, will be proposed to the Council on General Affairs and Policy in April 2014. The previous version of Article 3 had a slightly different wording: ‘In these Principles, a reference to law includes rules of law that are generally accepted on an international, supranational or regional level as a neutral and balanced set of rules, unless the law of the forum provides otherwise.’

  3. 3.

    G Saumier and L Gama Jr, ‘Non-State Law in the (Proposed) Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts’ in DP Fernández Arroyo and JJ Obando Peralta (eds), El derecho internacional privado en los procesos de integración regional (San José, Editorial Juridica Continental, 2011) 41, 44; JL Neels and EA Fredericks, ‘Tacit Choice of Law in the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts’ (2011) 44 De Jure 101, 109.

  4. 4.

    In practice, even if parties choose a law, the law that would have applied without the choice still plays an important role. See R Michaels, ‘Die Struktur der kollisionsrechtlichen Durchsetzung einfach zwingender Normen’ in R Michaels and D Solomon (eds), Liber Amicorum Klaus Schurig (Munich, Sellier, 2012) 191.

  5. 5.

    See F Dasser, ‘Mouse or Monster? Some Facts and Figures on the lex mercatoria’ in R Zimmermann (ed), Globalisierung und Entstaatlichung des Rechts (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 129.

  6. 6.

    R Michaels, ‘Preamble I’ in S Vogenauer and J Kleinheisterkamp (eds), Commentary on the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009) 21, nos 49–63. The only state that allows for the choice of non-state law that I am aware of is Oregon; see ibid at no 58. On the Inter-American Convention, see infra section  3.2.3.

  7. 7.

    Swiss Federal Court, DFT 20/12/2005, 132/2005 III 285, (2006) Archiv für Juristische Praxis 615.

  8. 8.

    Tribunale di Padova, Sezione di Este 11/1/2005, available at for discussion, see M Luby and S Poillot-Peruzzetto, ‘Chronique: Droit international et européen’ (2006) Jurisclasseur Périodique (La semaine juridique) 157.

  9. 9.

    Tribunale di Padova, ibid. On the Unidroit Principles, see infra section  3.2.2.

  10. 10.

    See the extensive analysis in Y Nishitani, Mancini und die Parteiautonomie im internationalen Privatrecht (Heidelberg, Winter, 2000).

  11. 11.

    See MM Albornoz, ‘Choice of Law in International Contracts in Latin American Legal Systems’ (2010) 6 Journal of Private International Law 23; MS Rodríguez, ‘El principio de la autonomía de la voluntad y el Derecho Internacional Privado: asimetrías en su reconocimiento y necesidad de armonización legislativa en el Mercosur’ (2011) 15 Revista Cientifica de UCES 112.

  12. 12.

    L Gannagé, ‘Le contrat sans loi en droit international privé’ (2007) 11.3 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, www.ejcl.org/113/article113-10.pdf.

  13. 13.

    See N Jansen and R Michaels, ‘Private Law and the State. Comparative Perceptions, Historical Observations, and Basic Problems’ in N Jansen and R Michaels (eds), Beyond the State? Rethinking Private Law (Tübingen, Mohr, 2009) 15; also in (2007) 71 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 345.

  14. 14.

    UNCITRAL 2012 Digest of Case Law on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (2012) 121; for discussion, see Saumier and Gama, ‘Non-State Law in the (Proposed) Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts’, 46 ff.

  15. 15.

    Saumier and Gama, ibid.

  16. 16.

    See G Saumier, ‘Designating the UNIDROIT Principles in International Dispute Resolution’ (2012) 17 Uniform Law Review 533, 539.

  17. 17.

    It is sometimes claimed that state courts recognize lex mercatoria when they enforce arbitral awards that have been rendered on the basis of lex mercatoria. But this proves little, given that arbitral awards are regularly enforced without revision of the applicable law.

  18. 18.

    See R Michaels, ‘The Re-State-Ment of Non-State Law: The State, Choice of Law, and the Challenge from Global Legal Pluralism’ (2005) 51 Wayne Law Review 1209, 1244 ff.

  19. 19.

    For a similar argument as regards religious law, see Shamil Bank of Bahrain EC v Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd and others [2004] EWCA Civ 19, nos 51–52; see A Briggs, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008) 386, 387 f.

  20. 20.

    MJ Bonell, An International Restatement of Contract Law: The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, 3rd ed (Ardsley, Transnational Publishers, 2005), esp. 9 ff.

  21. 21.

    Article 1:101—Application of the Principles

    ‘(2) These Principles will apply when the parties have agreed to incorporate them into their contract or that their contract is to be governed by them.’

  22. 22.

    A comprehensive bibliography would be impossible. For a great number of publications, see the bibliography for the Preamble of the UPICC at and the bibliography in Vogenauer and Kleinheisterkamp (eds), Commentary on the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, 1201, 2nd ed forthcoming.

  23. 23.

    See E Clive,’The Lasting Influence of the Lando Principles’ in MJ Bonell et al (eds), Liber Amicorum Ole Lando (Copenhagen, DJØF, 2012) 69, 71. For a (critical) perspective on the trajectory from PECL to European Sales Law, see H Eidenmüller et al. ‘The Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law: Deficits of the Most Recent Textual Layer of European Contract Law’ (2012) 16 Edinburgh Law Review 301.

  24. 24.

    See R Michaels, ‘Privatautonomie und Privatkodifikation – Zu Anwendbarkeit und Geltung allgemeiner Vertragsrechtsprinzipien’ (1998) 62 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 580, 613.

  25. 25.

    See Michaels, ‘Preamble I’, nos 88-117.

  26. 26.

    Similarly now Articles 13(4) and 51 of the new Uruguayan Code for Private International Law. See D Opertti Badán and C Fresnedo de Aguirre, ‘The Latest Trends in Latin American Private International Law: The Uruguayan 2009 General Law on Private International Law’ (2009) 11 Yearbook of Private International Law 305; eid, ‘El derecho internacional en el Proyecto de Ley general de derecho internacional privado del Uruguay—Una prima aproximación’ in J Basedow, DP Fernández Arroyo and JA Moreno Rodríguez (eds), Cómo se codifica hoy el derecho comercial internacional? (Asunción, CEDEP, 2010) 385, 390 f, 410 et passim. According to C Fresnedo de Aguirre, ‘Party Autonomy—A Blanc Cheque?’ (2012) Uniform Law Review 655, 665, Article 13(4) reaches ‘the same conclusion’ as Article 3 of the Hague Principles, which seems far-fetched, given that Article 13(4) does not deal with party choice.

  27. 27.

    Supra n 11.

  28. 28.

    FK Juenger, ‘The Inter-American Convention on the Law Applicable to International Contracts; Some Highlights and Comparisons’ (1994) 42 American Journal of Comparative Law 381, 392; id, ‘Contract Choice of Law in the Americas’ (1997) 45 American Journal of Comparative Law 195, 204; G Parra-Aranguren, ‘The Fifth Inter-American Specialized Conference on Private International Law, Mexico City, 14–18 March, 1994’ in A Borrás et al (eds), E Pluribus Unum: Liber Amicorum Georges AL Droz (The Hague et al. Kluwer Law International, 1996) 299, 308; JL Siqueiros, ‘Los Principios de UNIDROIT y la Convención Interamericana sobre el derecho aplicable a los contratos internacionales’ in Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas (ed), Contratación internacional: Comentarios a Los Principios sobre los Contratos Comerciales Internacionales del UNIDROIT (Mexico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1998) 217, 227; for a constitutional argument, see L Gama, Contratos Internacionais à luz dos Princìpios do UNIDROIT 2004: Soft Law, Arbitragem e Jurisdicao (Rio de Janeiro, Renovar, 2006) 434-8; for extensive discussion, see S Schilf, Allgemeine Vertragsgrundregeln als Vertragsstatut (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2005) 347–359; JA Moreno Rodriguez and MM Albornoz, ‘Reflections on the Mexico Convention in the Context of the Preparation of the Future Hague Instrument on International Contracts’ (2011) Journal of Private International Law 491, 502–7.

  29. 29.

    www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/b-56.html.

  30. 30.

    COM(2002) 654 final, 23–24.

  31. 31.

    All reactions are available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/rome_i/news_ summary_rome1_en.htm.

  32. 32.

    Proposal for a Regulation on the Law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), COM (2005) 650 final (15 December 2005) 5. See ZS Tang, ‘Non-state law in party autonomy—a European perspective’ (2012) 5 International Journal of Private Law 22, 26.

  33. 33.

    See Rome I Regulation, Art 3(1) and recital 13; Tang, ‘Non-state law in party autonomy’, 27.

  34. 34.

    See now SA Sánchez-Loreno, ‘Common European Sales Law and Private International Law: Some Critical Remarks’ (2013) 9 Journal of Private International Law 191; G Dannemann, ‘Choice of CESL and Conflict of Laws’ in G Dannemann and S Vogenauer (eds), The Common European Sales Law in Context—Interactions with English and German Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2013) 21.

  35. 35.

    See J Basedow, ‘Was wird aus der Haager Konferenz für Internationales Privatrecht?’ in T Rauscher and H-P Mansel (eds), Festschrift für Werner Lorenz zum 80. Geburtstag (Munich, Sellier, 2001) 463; M Traest, ‘Development of a European Private International Law and the Hague Conference’ (2003) 5 Yearbook of Private International Law 223.

  36. 36.

    See O Lando, ‘The 1955 and 1985 Hague Conventions on the Law Applicable to the International Sale of Goods’ (1993) 57 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 155.

  37. 37.

    H van Loon, ‘Feasibility study on the law applicable to contractual obligations, Preliminary Document E of December 1983’ in Hague Conference of Private International Law: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Session, vol I (1983) 98.

  38. 38.

    See M Pertegás and LE Teitz, ‘Prospects for the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements’ in Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (ed), A Commitment to Private International Law—Essays in Honour of Hans van Loon (Cambridge et al. Intersentia, 2013) 465.

  39. 39.

    Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference, Consolidated Version of Preparatory Work Leading to the Draft Hague Principles on the Choice of Law in International Contracts (Prel Doc No 1, Oct 2012) no 7; Neels and Fredericks, ‘Tacit Choice of Law’, 102.

  40. 40.

    H Kronke, ‘Most Significant Relationship, Governmental Interests, Cultural Identity, Integration: “Rules” at Will and the Case for Principles of Conflict of Laws’ (2004) 9 Uniform Law Review 467.

  41. 41.

    They are not the only such project. For another project, see SV Bazinas, ‘Towards Global Harmonization of Conflict-of-Laws Rules in the Area of Secured Financing: The Conflict-of-Laws Recommendations of the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Secured Transactions’ in Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (ed), Essays in Honour of Hans van Loon, 1.

  42. 42.

    Conclusions and Recommendations adopted by the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference (31 March—2 April 2009), and in particular ‘Choice of law in international contracts’, 1.

  43. 43.

    For this function of the UPICC (and its limitations), see Michaels, ‘Preamble I’, nos 3–4.

  44. 44.

    Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference, Consolidated Version, no 8.

  45. 45.

    Cf Saumier and Gama, ‘Non-State Law in the (Proposed) Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts’, 53 f.

  46. 46.

    Feasibility Study on the Choice of Law in International Contracts—Report on Work Carried out and Conclusions (Follow-Up Note) (Prel Doc No 5, Feb 2008), www.hcch.net/upload/wop/genaff_pd05e2008.pdf.

  47. 47.

    Ibid no 28: ‘The instrument might also need to clarify whether it is permissible for parties to choose not only national laws but also transnational or a-national rules or principles to govern the dispute. This has for long played an important role in arbitration but is also of growing importance in court proceedings.’ See also no 31 (applicability of a-national law in the absence of party choice in arbitration).

  48. 48.

    Questionnaire Addressed to Member States to Examine the Practical Need for the Development of an Instrument Concerning Choice of Law in International Contracts, http://www.hcch.net/upload/quest_jan2007members.pdf; Questionnaire Addressed to Stakeholders in the Field of International Commercial Arbitration to Examine the Practical Need for the Development of an Instrument Concerning Choice of Law in International Contracts, www.hcch.net/upload/quest_jan2007stake.pdf.

  49. 49.

    Feasibility Study on the Choice of Law in International Contracts. Report on Work Carried Out and Suggested Work Programme for the Development of a Future Instrument, Prel Doc No 7 (March 2009), www.hcch.net/upload/wop/genaff2009pd07e.pdf no 41.

  50. 50.

    Cf. Saumier and Gama, ‘Non-State Law in the (Proposed) Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts’, 49.

  51. 51.

    Gama, Contratos Internacionais.

  52. 52.

    Saumier and Gama, ‘Non-State Law in the (Proposed) Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts’, 44 fn 6.

  53. 53.

    Saumier and Gama, ‘Non-State Law in the (Proposed) Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts’, especially 44; Saumier, ‘Designating the UNIDROIT Principles in International Dispute Resolution’, 540 ff (especially 541 note 32).

  54. 54.

    Saumier and Gama, ‘Non-State Law in the (Proposed) Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts’, 45.

  55. 55.

    Ibid, 50.

  56. 56.

    Ibid, 50–52. I discuss these arguments in section  3.5.2.

  57. 57.

    Ibid, 64 f.

  58. 58.

    http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/contracts_rpt_nov2010e.pdf, 1 (Preamble), 2 (Formulation of the Principle of Party Autonomy in General).

  59. 59.

    Ibid.

  60. 60.

    http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/contracts_rpt_june2011e.pdf, 3.

  61. 61.

    SC Symeonides, ‘The Hague Principles on Choice of Law for International Contracts: Some Preliminary Comments’ (2013) 61 American Journal of Comparative Law 873, 892.

  62. 62.

    Ibid, 893.

  63. 63.

    Symeonides, ibid, 894 finds the caveat useful in that it signals to courts that nothing changes even if their states acquiesce to the compromise. This seems a rather theoretical risk.

  64. 64.

    http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/princ_com.pdf.

  65. 65.

    Symeonides, ‘The Hague Principles on Choice of Law’, 892 suggests that real rules of law must be state law. Debates on legal pluralism suggest that such a state-based concept of law is not necessary. See R Michaels, ‘Was ist Recht jenseits des Staates? Eine Einführung’ in G-P Calliess (ed), Transnationales Recht—Stand und Perspektiven (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2014).

  66. 66.

    On the idea of formulating agencies, see KP Berger, The Creeping Codification of the New Lex Mercatoria (The Hague et al. Kluwer Law International, 2010) 88; see also R Michaels, ‘Rollen und Rollenverständnis im transnationalen Privatrecht’ in B Fassbender et al., Paradigmen im internationalen Recht—Implikationen der Weltfinanzkrise für das internationale Recht (Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht 45) 175, 208–10.

  67. 67.

    Michaels, ‘Preamble I’, no 67.

  68. 68.

    For inclusion of such rules under Article 3, see Neels and Fredericks, ‘Tacit Choice of Law’, 109 note 51.

  69. 69.

    See references in n 19.

  70. 70.

    See eg Soleimany v Soleimany [1998] EWCA Civ 285; Halpern v Halpern [2007] EWCA Civ 291; Musawi v RE International (UK) Ltd [2007] EWHC 2981 (Ch).

  71. 71.

    Symeonides, ‘The Hague Principles on Choice of Law’, 894.

  72. 72.

    Saumier, ‘Designating the UNIDROIT Principles in International Dispute Resolution’, 545 f.

  73. 73.

    Draft Commentary, no. 3.10.

  74. 74.

    Art 2(2) reads: ‘The parties may choose (i) the law applicable to the whole contract or to only part of it and (ii) different laws for different parts of the contract.’

  75. 75.

    Draft Commentary 3.12 in its newest version no longer contains this quote.

  76. 76.

    See the brief discussion in I Schwenzer and P Hachem, ‘The CISG—Successes and Pitfalls (2009) 57 American Journal of Comparative Law 457, 474 f. Their conclusion that both arguments neutralize each other appears to be wishful thinking.

  77. 77.

    See Draft Commentary, no. 3.11, 3.12.

  78. 78.

    Draft Commentary, no. 3.11.

  79. 79.

    Choice of Law in International Contracts: Draft Hague Principles and Future Planning (Prel Doc No 6, February 2013), Annex I (p iv). See also Draft Commentary 3.12: ‘The assumption underlying party autonomy in commercial contracts according to which parties have relatively equal bargaining power’.

  80. 80.

    A separate question is whether Islamic law itself discriminates between men and women.

  81. 81.

    Draft Commentary, no. 3.5.

  82. 82.

    Draft Commentary, no. 3.6.

  83. 83.

    Académie des Privatistes Européens, Code européen des contrats, Avant-projet, Coordinateur Giuseppe Gandolfi, Livre premier, Edition de poche revue et corrigée par Lucilla Gatt, Professeur à l’Université de Naples 2 (Milan, Giuffré, 2004).

  84. 84.

    Published long after its first promulgation as H McGregor, A Contract Code: Drawn up on Behalf of the English Law Commission (Milan, Giuffré, 1993).

  85. 85.

    Draft Commentary, no. 3.15.

  86. 86.

    See R Michaels, ‘Umdenken für die UNIDROIT-Prinzipien: Vom Rechtswahlstatut zum Allgemeinen Teil des transnationalen Vertragsrechts’ (2009) 73 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 866.

  87. 87.

    A Dickinson, ‘A principled approach to choice of law in contract?’ (2013) 18 Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law 151, 152.

  88. 88.

    See Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, ‘Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts: Hague Principles?’ (2010) 15 Uniform Law Review 883, 885.

  89. 89.

    See also Symeonides, ‘The Hague Principles on Choice of Law’, 878 f.

  90. 90.

    R Wai, ‘Transnational Liftoff and Juridical Touchdown: The Regulatory Function of Private International Law in an Era of Globalization’ (2002) 40 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 209. The Hague Principles do lay down such limits in their provision on mandatory rules and public policy, Article 11. Cf Saumier, ‘Designating the UNIDROIT Principles in International Dispute Resolution’, 543.

  91. 91.

    See, eg, M Lehmann, ‘Liberating the Individual from Battles between States: Justifying Party Autonomy in Conflict of Laws’ 41 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 381, 426 (‘there is simply no reason why one should allow the parties to use the contract rules of Burma and not the rules of a business organization like the International Chamber of Commerce.’).

  92. 92.

    Eg L Gama jr, ‘Prospects for the UNIDROIT Principles in Brazil’ (2011) 16 Uniform Law Review 613, 638.

  93. 93.

    Saumier and Gama, ‘Non-State Law in the (Proposed) Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts’, 51.

  94. 94.

    Saumier, ‘Designating the UNIDROIT Principles in International Dispute Resolution’, 542; but see Symeonides, ‘The Hague Principles on Choice of Law’, 894.

  95. 95.

    See now the contributions in W Mattli and T Dietz (eds), International Arbitration and Global Governance: Contending Theories and Evidence (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014).

  96. 96.

    What follows is a quote from an email by Matthias Scherer; I am much obliged for his expert advice. See also G Kaufmann-Kohler,‘The transnationalization of national contract law by the international Arbitrator’ in Mēlanges en l’honneur du Professeur Jean-Michel Jacquet (2013) 107.

  97. 97.

    Saumier and Gama, ‘Non-State Law in the (Proposed) Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts’, 52 f.

  98. 98.

    See R Michaels, ‘Roles and Role Perceptions of International Arbitrators’ in Mattli and Dietz (eds), International Arbitration and Global Governance, sub 2)c).

  99. 99.

    JA Moreno Rodríguez, ‘Contracts and Non-State Law in Latin America’ (2011) 16 Uniform Law Review 877, 881 f, 888.

  100. 100.

    José Antonio Moreno Rodriguez, the Paraguayan member of the Working Group and sometime member of the subgroup dealing with Article 3, has drafted a legislative proposal for choice of law legislation in Paraguay that has been put forward, in May 2013, by a senator; see the document available at www.hcch.net/upload/wop/contracts_legisl_py.pdf. Its Art 5 is modeled after Art 3 of the Hague Principles.

  101. 101.

    Saumier, ‘Designating the UNIDROIT Principles in International Dispute Resolution’, 535.

  102. 102.

    Saumier and Gama, ‘Non-State Law in the (Proposed) Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts’, 64 f.

  103. 103.

    See also O Lando, ‘The Draft Hague Principles of the Choice of Law in international contracts and Rome I’ in Permanent Bureau of Hague Conference on Private International Law (ed), A Commitment to Private International Law—Essay in Honour of Hans Van Loon (2013) 299.

  104. 104.

    On the Paraguayan legislative initiative, see n 99. See also, more generally, JA Moreno ­Rodríguez, ‘Los contratos y La Haya: ¿Ancla al pasado o puente al futuro? (2010) 15 Revista Brasileira de Direito Constitucional 125.

  105. 105.

    For a more positive assessment from an outside observer, see L Radicati di Brozolo, ‘Non-national rules and conflicts of laws: Reflections in light of the UNIDROIT and Hague Principles’ (2012) 48 Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 841. See als B Fauvarque-Cosson and P Deumier, ‘Un nouvel instrument du droit souple international: Le “projet de Principes de la Haye sur le choix de la loi applicable en matière de contrats internationaux”’ (2013) 189 Recueil Dalloz Sirey 2185.

References

  • Académie des Privatistes Européens, Code européen des contrats, Avant-projet, Coordinateur Giuseppe Gandolfi, Livre premier, Edition de poche revue et corrigée par Lucilla Gatt, Professeur à l’Université de Naples 2 (Milan, Giuffré, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Albornoz, MM, ‘Choice of Law in International Contracts in Latin American Legal Systems’ (2010) 6 Journal of Private International Law 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basedow, J, ‘Was wird aus der Haager Konferenz für Internationales Privatrecht?’ in T Rauscher and H-P Mansel (eds), Festschrift für Werner Lorenz zum 80. Geburtstag (Munich, Sellier, 2001) 463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazinas, SV, ‘Towards Global Harmonization of Conflict-of-Laws Rules in the Area of Secured Financing: The Conflict-of-Laws Recommendations of the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Secured Transactions’ in Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (ed), A Commitment to Private International Law—Essays in Honour of Hans van Loon (Cambridge et al. Intersentia, 2013) 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, KP, The Creeping Codification of the New Lex Mercatoria (The Hague et al. Kluwer Law International, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonell, MJ, An International Restatement of Contract Law: The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (3rd ed, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, A, Agreements on Jurisdiction and Choice of Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clive, E, ‘The Lasting Influence of the Lando Principles’ in MJ Bonell et al (eds), Liber Amicorum Ole Lando (Copenhagen, DJØF, 2012) 69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dannemann, G, ‘Choice of CESL and Conflict of Laws’ in G Dannemann and S Vogenauer (eds), The Common European Sales Law in Context—Interactions with English and German Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2013) 21.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dasser, F, ‘Mouse or Monster? Some Facts and Figures on the lex mercatoria’, in R Zimmermann (ed), Globalisierung und Entstaatlichung des Rechts (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, A, ‘A principled approach to choice of law in contract?’ (2013) 18 Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law 151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eidenmüller, H et al. ‘The Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law: Deficits of the Most Recent Textual Layer of European Contract Law’ (2012) 16 Edinburgh Law Review 301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fauvarque-Cosson, B and Deumier, P, ‘Un nouvel instrument du droit souple international: Le “projet de Principes de la Haye sur le choix de la loi applicable en matière de contrats internationaux”’ (2013) 189 Recueil Dalloz Sirey 2185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fresnedo de Aguirre, C, ‘Party Autonomy—A Blanc Cheque?’ (2012) Uniform Law Review 655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gama, L, ‘Prospects for the UNIDROIT Principles in Brazil’ (2011) 16 Uniform Law Review 613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gama, L, Contratos Internacionais à luz dos Principios do UNIDROIT 2004: Soft Law, Arbitragem e Jurisdicao (Rio de Janeiro, Renovar, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gannagé, L, ‘Le contrat sans loi en droit international privé’ (2007) 11.3 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, www.ejcl.org/113/article113-10.pdf.

  • Jansen, N and Michaels, R, ‘Private Law and the State. Comparative Perceptions, Historical Observations, and Basic Problems’ (2007) 71 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, N and Michaels, R, ‘Private Law and the State. Comparative Perceptions, Historical Observations, and Basic Problems’ in N Jansen and R Michaels (eds), Beyond the State? Rethinking Private Law (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juenger, FK, ‘The Inter-American Convention on the Law Applicable to International Contracts; Some Highlights and Comparisons’ (1994) 42 American Journal of Comparative Law 381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juenger, FK, ‘Contract Choice of Law in the Americas’ (1997) 45 American Journal of Comparative Law 195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kronke, H, ‘Most Significant Relationship, Governmental Interests, Cultural Identity, Integration: “Rules” at Will and the Case for Principles of Conflict of Laws’ (2004) 9 Uniform Law Review 467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lando, O, ‘The 1955 and 1985 Hague Conventions on the Law Applicable to the International Sale of Goods’ (1993) 57 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lando, O, ‘The Draft Hague Principles of the Choice of Law in international contracts and Rome I’ in Permanent Bureau of Hague Conference on Private International Law (ed), A Commitment to Private International Law—Essay in Honour of Hans Van Loon (2013) 299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, M, ‘Liberating the Individual from Battles between States: Justifying Party Autonomy in Conflict of Laws’ 41 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattli, W and Dietz, T (eds), International Arbitration and Global Governance: Contending Theories and Evidence (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, H, A Contract Code: Drawn up on Behalf of the English Law Commission (Milan, Giuffré, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, R, ‘Die Struktur der kollisionsrechtlichen Durchsetzung einfach zwingender Normen’ in R Michaels and D Solomon (eds), Liber Amicorum Klaus Schurig (Munich, Sellier 2012) 191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, R, ‘Preamble I’ in S Vogenauer and J Kleinheisterkamp (eds), Commentary on the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (Oxford, Oxford University Press) 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, R, ‘Privatautonomie und Privatkodifikation—Zu Anwendbarkeit und Geltung allgemeiner Vertragsrechtsprinzipien’ (1998) 62 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, R, ‘The Re-State-Ment of Non-State Law: The State, Choice of Law, and the Challenge from Global Legal Pluralism’ (2005) 51 Wayne Law Review 1209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, R, ‘Roles and Role Perceptions of International Arbitrators’ in W Mattli and T Dietz (eds), International Arbitration and Global Governance: Contending Theories and Evidence (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, R, ‘Rollen und Rollenverständnis im transnationalen Privatrecht’ in B Fassbender et al (eds), Paradigmen im internationalen Recht—Implikationen der Weltfinanzkrise für das internationale Recht (Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht 45) 175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, R, ‘Umdenken für die UNIDROIT-Prinzipien: Vom Rechtswahlstatut zum Allgemeinen Teil des transnationalen Vertragsrechts’ (2009) 73 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, R, ‘Was ist Recht jenseits des Staates? Eine Einführung’ in G-P Calliess (ed), Transnationales Recht—Stand und Perspektiven (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno Rodríguez, JA, ‘Los contratos y La Haya: ¿Ancla al pasado o puente al futuro?’ (2010) 15 Revista Brasileira de Direito Constitucional 125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno Rodríguez, JA, ‘Contracts and Non-State Law in Latin America’ (2011) 16 Uniform Law Review 877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno Rodríguez, JA and Albornoz, MM, ‘Reflections on the Mexico Convention in the Context of the Preparation of the Future Hague Instrument on International Contracts’ (2011) Journal of Private International Law 491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neels, JL and Fredericks, EA, ‘Tacit Choice of Law in the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts’ (2011) 44 De Jure 101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishitani, Y, Mancini und die Parteiautonomie im internationalen Privatrecht (Heidelberg, Winter, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Opertti Badán, D and Fresnedo de Aguirre, C, ‘The Latest Trends in Latin American Private International Law: The Uruguayan 2009 General Law on Private International Law’, (2009) 11 Yearbook of Private International Law 305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opertti Badán, D and Fresnedo de Aguirre, C, ‘El derecho internacional en el Proyecto de Ley general de derecho internacional privado del Uruguay—Una prima aproximación’ in J Basedow, DP Fernández Arroyo, JA Moreno Rodríguez (eds), Cómo se codifica hoy el derecho comercial internacional? (Asunción, CEDEP, 2010) 385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parra-Aranguren, G, ‘The Fifth Inter-American Specialized Conference on Private International Law, Mexico City, 14–18 March, 1994’ in A Borrás et al (eds), E Pluribus Unum: Liber Amicorum Georges AL Droz (The Hague et al. Kluwer Law International, 1996) 299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, ‘Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts: Hague Principles?’ (2010) 15 Uniform Law Review 883.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pertegás, M and Teitz, LE, ‘Prospects for the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements’ in Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (ed), A Commitment to Private International Law—Essays in Honour of Hans van Loon (Cambridge et al. Intersentia, 2013) 465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radicati di Brozolo, L, ‘Non-national rules and conflicts of laws: Reflections in light of the UNIDROIT and Hague Principles’ (2012) 48 Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 841.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez, MS, ‘El principio de la autonomía de la voluntad y el Derecho Internacional Privado: asimetrías en su reconocimiento y necesidad de armonización legislativa en el Mercosur’ (2011) 15 Revista Cientifica de UCES 112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Loreno, SA, ‘Common European Sales Law and Private International Law: Some Critical Remarks’ (2013) 9 Journal of Private International Law 191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saumier, G and Gama Jr, L, ‘Non-State Law in the (Proposed) Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Contracts’ in DP Fernández Arroyo and JJ Obando Peralta (eds), El derecho internacional privado en los procesos de integración regional (San José, Editorial Juridica Continental, 2011) 41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilf, S, Allgemeine Vertragsgrundregeln als Vertragsstatut (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Saumier, G, ‘Designating the UNIDROIT Principles in International Dispute Resolution’ (2012) 17 Uniform Law Review 533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwenzer, I and Hachem, P, ‘The CISG—Successes and Pitfalls’ (2009) 57 American Journal of Comparative Law 457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siqueiros, JL, ‘Los Principios de UNIDROIT y la Convención Interamericana sobre el derecho aplicable a los contratos internacionales’ in Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas (ed), Contratación internacional: Comentarios a Los Principios sobre los Contratos Comerciales Internacionales del UNIDROIT (Mexico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1998) 217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Symeonides, SC, ‘The Hague Principles on Choice of Law for International Contracts: Some Preliminary Comments’ (2013) 61 American Journal of Comparative Law 873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, ZS ‘Non-state law in party autonomy—a European perspective’ (2012) 5 International Journal of Private Law 22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traest, M, ‘Development of a European Private International Law and the Hague Conference’ (2003) 5 Yearbook of Private International Law 223.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Loon, H, ‘Feasibility study on the law applicable to contractual obligations, Preliminary Document E of December 1983’ in Hague Conference of Private International Law: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Session, vol I (1983) 98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogenauer, S and Kleinheisterkamp, J, Commentary on the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wai, R, ‘Transnational Liftoff and Juridical Touchdown: The Regulatory Function of Private International Law in an Era of Globalization’ (2002) 40 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 209.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Duke University, 210 Science Drive, P. O. Box 90362, 27708-0362, Durham, NC, USA

    Ralf Michaels

Authors
  1. Ralf Michaels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralf Michaels .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law and Governance Group, Faculty of Law, Wageningen University, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Kai Purnhagen

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Peter Rott

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Michaels, R. (2014). Non-State Law in the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts. In: Purnhagen, K., Rott, P. (eds) Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04903-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation