Skip to main content

Methods of integration in the general conflict of laws

  • Chapter
Methodology of Uniform Contract Law
  • 1140 Accesses

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. See M J Bonell, ‘General Report’, 1–17, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  2. K Boele-Woelki, ‘Principles and Private International Law’ Uniform Law Review 4 (1996) 652–678.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Decision of 26 May 1989, published in NJ 1990, 105. The Netherlands have been a party to this Convention since 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boele-Woelki, op cit (n 2), 665.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ibid, 666.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ibid, 666, quoting L Strikwerda in ‘Kroniek van het internationaal privaatrecht’ NJ 1996, 411–412

    Google Scholar 

  8. R Goode, ‘Usage and its Reception in Transnational Commercial Law’ International and Comparative Law Quarterly 46 (1997) 1–36, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  9. ICC case No 5713, partly reported in (1990) XX ICC A Y B 70, in Jarvin et al, ‘Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards’, Vol II, 223.

    Google Scholar 

  10. U Drobnig, ‘The UNIDROIT Principles in the Conflict of Laws’ Uniform Law Review 2/3 (1998) 385–295, 391; Boele-Woelki, op cit (n 2) 664; M J Bonell, ‘The UNIDROIT Principles of International Contracts and CISG — Alternatives or Complementary Instruments?’ Uniform Law Review 1 (1996) 26–39, 38; M J Bonell, ‘The UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts: Why? What? How?’ Tulane Law Review 69.5 (1995) 1121–1147, 1144; F Ferrari: ‘Defining the sphere of application of the 1994 “UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts”’ Tulane Law Rev 69 (1995) 1225–1237, 1231, 1232; Goode, op cit (n 8), 28.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J C Wichard, ‘Die Anwendung der UNIDROIT-Prinzipien für internationale Handelsverträge durch Schiedsgerichte und nationale Gerichte’ Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 60 (1996) 269–301.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wichard, op cit (n 11), 283.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Compare the discussion referred to above at 1.2.1.2 and note the similarity of this opinion to the one expressed by Collier in J G Collier, Conflict of laws (2001) 385.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Filip de Ly, ‘Dutch National Report on the UPICC’, published in M J Bonell (ed), A New Approach to International Commercial Contracts (1999) 203–235.

    Google Scholar 

  15. de Ly, op cit (n 16), 217.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ibid, 219.

    Google Scholar 

  17. de Ly, op cit (n 16), 225. Compare also 8.2.3.8, below.

    Google Scholar 

  18. de Ly, op cit (n 16), 219.

    Google Scholar 

  19. de Ly, op cit (n 16), 224.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ibid, 225.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See C-W Canaris, ‘Die Stellung der ‘UNIDROIT Principles’ und ‘Principles of European Contract Law’ im System der Rechtsquellen’, 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid, 26. Canaris’ concern is, of course, related to the case that the UPICC could be incorporated into the contract by only one party. This is quite unlikely within the present context, and certainly following the construction method used by the Arbitral Tribunal in ICC case No 7110. See also below.

    Google Scholar 

  23. de Ly, op cit (n 16), 225.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ibid, 223.

    Google Scholar 

  25. As reported in the formulation of Professor de Ly, op cit (n 16), 229.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Compare de Ly, op cit (n 16), 229.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ibid, 230, n 67.

    Google Scholar 

  28. de Ly, op cit (n 16), 234.

    Google Scholar 

  29. ‘This approach has been adopted in case law’ (R Goode, ‘Usage and its Reception in Transnational Commercial Law’ International and Comparative Law Quarterly 46 (1997) 1–36, 29); compare Deutsche Schachtbau-und Tiefbohrgesellschaft mbH V R as al-Khaimah National Oil Co [1987] 3 WLR 1023. ‘The courts increasingly accept arbitral awards as sources of law and the arbitral process and independent of the courts.’ (S Shackleton, ‘Challenging Arbitration Awards — Part III: Appeals on Questions of Law’ New Law Journal 6 December 2002, 1834–1835; see also J C Wichard, ‘Die Anwendung der UNIDROIT — Prinzipien für internationale Handelsverträge durch Schiedsgerichte und nationale Gerichte’ Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 60 (1996) 269–301, 283, who believes that the UPICC become positive law rules by choice of law and subsequent enforcement under national law, they receive’ state blessings through enforcement’ (’Staatliche Weihe... im Wege der Vollstreckung...’ Compare Chapter 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. de Ly, op cit (n 16), 231.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ibid, 231.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ibid, 232.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Compare K P Berger, The Creeping Codification of the Lex Mercatoria (1999) at 81 and n 333 quoting a number of relevant awards.

    Google Scholar 

  36. de Ly, op cit (n 16), 232.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Compare Berger, op cit (n 51), 86: ‘...a decision based on the lex mercatoria may not be equated with a decision based on equity’; see also 85. Under the present English conflict of laws and arbitration law, this question does not even arise since there is no distinction made between these two notions, see, eg, Arbitration Act 1996 s 46(1)(b) and see below for further discussion.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Drobnig, op cit (n 10), 395.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Spellenberg in Münchener Kommentar, No 24 preceding (vor) §11 EGBGB.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Drobnig, op cit (n 10), 392.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Schiedsverfahren der “Hamburger Freundschaftliche Arbitrage” — anwendbares Recht: Schiedsspruch vom 29.12. 1998’ RIW 5 (1998) 394–396

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ibid, 395 (IV 3).

    Google Scholar 

  43. See below; compare Mankowski, ‘Rechtswahl für Verträge des internationalen Wirtschaftsverkehrs’ RIW 1 (2003) 10, col 2.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Compare de Ly, op cit (n 16), 229 and 230.

    Google Scholar 

  45. See F Ferrari, ‘Das Verhältnis zwischen den Unidroit-Grundsätzen und den allgemeinen Grundsätzen internationaler EinheitsprivatrechtskonventionenJuristenzeitung 1 (1998) 9–17, 10 and 11.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ferrari, Das Verhältnis zwischen den Unidroit-Grundsätzen und den allgemeinen Grundsätzen internationaler EinheitsprivatrechtskonventionenJuristenzeitung 1 (1998) 9–17 op cit, 11; K Larenz, Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft (1991) 381 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Compare Larenz, Das Verhältnis zwischen den Unidroit-Grundsätzen und den allgemeinen Grundsätzen internationaler EinheitsprivatrechtskonventionenJuristenzeitung 1 (1998) op cit (n 64), 371.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Compare Münchener Kommentar, Einleitung, No 64 quoting Heck, Gesetzesauslegung und Interessenjurisprudenz (1914): ‘dass ein sehr großer Teil, vielleicht weitaus der größte Teil der zweifelhaften Rechtsfragen, auf dem Vorhandensein von Gesetzeslücken beruht’ (’the biggest part of doubtful legal questions of law arises from the presence of gaps in the law’). See also S Shackleton, ‘The Applicable Law in International Arbitration Under the New English Arbitration Act 1996’ Arbitration International 13.4 (1997): 375–389, 387: ‘In reality, however, all legal systems are incomplete...’.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Contrary to the view taken by Mankowski, ‘Rechtswahl für Verträge des internationalen Wirtschaftsverkehrs’ RIW 1 (2003) 2–15, 13, col 1, there is no general disadvantage within the transnational commercial law sphere for smaller enterprises. Taking part in cross-border trade and commerce is by no means an exclusive experience of ‘global players’, ‘repeat players’ or otherwise giant businesses. The UPICC provide progress especially in the area where no trade associations and branch specific agencies operate, thereby counteracting any potential discrimination arising from the dominating position of these bodies.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2007). Methods of integration in the general conflict of laws. In: Methodology of Uniform Contract Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-44462-6_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics