NOTES ON AN UNSTABLE COUPLE: PARTY AUTONOMY AND PUBLIC POLICY IN THE HAGUE PRINCIPLES ON CHOICE OF LAW IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS

Author(s):  
Pascal De Vareilles-Sommières
Author(s):  
Tsai Hua-Kai

This chapter highlights Taiwanese perspectives on the Hague Principles. The Act Governing the Choice of Law in Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements is the primary source of choice of law rules in Taiwan’s private international law (Taiwanese PIL Act). Party autonomy is set up as a prioritized connecting factor for the choice of law rules on contracts under the Taiwanese PIL Act. Due to the fact that Taiwan is not a Member State to most of the international organizations such as the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the source of Taiwan’s private international law is mainly domestic law. Being a non-binding instrument, the Hague Principles can be taken into consideration in Taiwan as an informal source of choice of law rules on contracts. However, the Hague Principles do not provide for rules determining the applicable law in the absence of the parties’ choice. Article 20 of the Taiwanese PIL Act is, in this respect, more comprehensive. Nonetheless, the Hague Principles may be used to interpret, supplement, and further develop rules only to Article 20(1) concerning party autonomy and the limitation on that autonomy such as public policy.


Author(s):  
Gebremeskel Fekadu Petros

This chapter reflects on Ethiopian perspectives on the Hague Principles. Ethiopia does not have a codified law regulating matters of private international law, nor is there detailed case law from which one could derive key principles of the subject. While the shortage of private international law in Ethiopia is evident, the problem is most severe in the area of applicable law. In relation to party autonomy in choice of law, the Federal Supreme Court’s Cassation Division has handed down some interesting decisions, and these indeed have the force of law in Ethiopia. Nevertheless, the approach of the Ethiopian courts in respect of party autonomy is not very developed and clear, including in the field of international commercial contracts. While it would be prudent for Ethiopian courts to refer to the Hague Principles as persuasive authority, this requires awareness of the existence of the Hague Principles. In the long term, the Hague Principles will surely find their way into Ethiopian law.


Author(s):  
Ribeiro-Bidaoui João

This chapter focuses on the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), a global intergovernmental organization which develops and services multilateral legal instruments, in response to global needs. The HCCH Principles affirm party autonomy as a basis for the choice of law in international contracts and strengthen legal certainty and predictability in cross-border commercial transactions. They are important to easing reform and harmonization initiatives concerning the rules applicable to international trade, and they operate as both a model choice of law regime and as a guide to ‘best practices’ in establishing and refining such a regime. The chapter considers the use of the HCCH Principles to date and foreshadows their potential uses in the future. It reviews the envisaged use of the Principles by legislators at national and international levels, international organizations, courts, arbitral tribunals, the commercial parties, and their legal counsel. The chapter then outlines the parties to whom the Principles may be promoted in a manner consistent with the Preamble and identifies specific means for promotion.


Author(s):  
Elbalti Béligh

This chapter focuses on Tunisian perspectives on the Hague Principles. The main source of private international law in Tunisia is the 1998 Code of private international law (CPIL). Tunisia has not signed any convention on choice of law in international contractual matters. However, it is worth mentioning that, in the field of international arbitration, some conventions to which Tunisia is party include an express reference to party autonomy. As a matter of principle, Tunisian courts are bound only by Tunisian law and other international instruments duly ratified by Tunisia. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon that Tunisian courts refer to foreign laws, international conventions not ratified by Tunisia, model laws, foreign case law, or even foreign legal literature when such reference is deemed persuasive. Therefore, it can be safely said that nothing prevents Tunisian courts from referring to the persuasive authority of the Hague Principles. This would be the case if the parties invoked the Principles in support of their arguments in the case where a clear solution is lacking under Tunisian law.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Saloni Khanderia

The Indian court’s rigid application of the last-shot rule to resolve the problem of the battle of forms among conflicting standard terms in domestic disputes has resulted in unreasonableness and has fostered the conclusion of contracts in bad faith. Likewise, although there is substantial evidence to prove the existence of party autonomy in the choice of law and jurisdiction under Indian private international law, its courts have failed to delineate a coherent solution for “battles” arising on these aspects. The paper thus examines the plausibility of employing the solutions prescribed by the unidroit’s Principles on International Commercial Contracts and the Hague Conference on Private International Law’s Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts on the subject, as gap-fillers to interpret, supplement or develop the Indian national and private international law.


Author(s):  
Symeonides Symeon C

This chapter discusses the principle of party autonomy. The term ‘party autonomy’ as used in this book is a shorthand expression for the notion that parties to a multistate contract should be allowed, within certain parameters and limitations, to agree in advance on which law will govern the contract. This notion is now considered a universal principle of private international law (PIL) or conflicts law. In 2015, the year in which the Hague Conference on Private International Law adopted the Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts, only eleven of the 161 countries surveyed did not adhere to this principle. It has been characterized as ‘perhaps the most widely accepted private international rule of our time’, a ‘fundamental right’, and an ‘irresistible’ principle that belongs to ‘the common core’ of nearly all legal systems. Naturally, there are significant variations from one legal system to the next about not only the exact scope, modalities, parameters, and limitations of this principle, but also about its theoretical source and justification. The chapter then traces the historical origins and subsequent evolution of the basic principle.


Author(s):  
Torremans Paul

This chapter examines the private international law rules governing trusts which are laid down in the Recognition of Trusts Act 1987 and its scheduled Convention. The Recognition of Trusts Act was passed in 1987 to enable the UK to give effect to the Convention, formally concluded in 1985 by the Hague Conference on Private International Law, on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition. The chapter begins with a discussion of some preliminary issues, such as the definition of a trust, types of trust that fall within the 1987 Act, validity of the instrument of creation of the trust, and transfer of trust assets. It then considers the specific rules governing choice of law and the recognition of trusts, along with mandatory rules and public policy. It also looks at the variation of trusts and marriage settlements, citing the relevant provisions of the Variation of Trusts Act 1958.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document