DOCSLIB.ORG

The UNIDROIT Principles and CISG - Sources of Inspiration for English Courts?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The UNIDROIT Principles and CISG - Sources of Inspiration for English Courts? Pace International Law Review Volume 19 Issue 1 Spring 2007 Article 2 April 2007 The UNIDROIT Principles and CISG - Sources of Inspiration for English Courts? Michael Joachim Bonell Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr Recommended Citation Michael Joachim Bonell, The UNIDROIT Principles and CISG - Sources of Inspiration for English Courts?, 19 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 9 (2007) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol19/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace International Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AND CISG - SOURCES OF INSPIRATION FOR ENGLISH COURTS? Michael Joachim Bonell* I. Introduction ....................................... 9 II. ProForceRecruit Ltd. v. The Rugby Group Ltd.: Facts and Rulings ...................... .......... 11 III. Admissibility Of Extrinsic Evidence To Interpret A Written Agreement Under English Law ........... 15 IV. Admissibility Of Extrinsic Evidence To Interpret A Written Agreement According To The UNIDROIT Principles And CISG .............................. 19 V. Appendix: Admissibility Of Extrinsic Evidence In The Presence Of An "Entire Agreement Clause"... 25 V I. Conclusion ......................................... 26 I. INTRODUCTION Courts all over the world are notoriously rather reluctant to turn to foreign or international sources, whether statutes, court decisions, or writings, for inspiration when interpreting their domestic laws.1 In the rare cases where courts do so, they nor- mally refer only to legal systems linguistically and culturally close to their own.2 Even when applying international conven- * Professor of Law, University of Rome I "La Sapienza"; Chairman of the Working Group for the Preparation of Principles of International Commercial Contracts. 1 For a comprehensive overview, see Ulrich Drobnig, General Report: The Use of Comparative Law by Courts, in THE USE OF COMPARATIVE LAW BY COURTS: XIVTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF COMPARATIVE LAW 3-21 (Ulrich Drobnig & Sjef Van Erp eds., Kiuwer Law Int'l 1999). 2 This is particularly true of Anglo-American courts which traditionally refer mainly, if not exclusively, to decisions rendered in other common law jurisdictions 1 PACE INT'L L. REV. [Vol. 19:9 tions incorporated in their own legal systems, more often than not, they interpret and supplement them on the basis of princi- ples and rules of the law of the forum despite the indication con- tained in most of these conventions that "[i]n [their] interpretation of this Convention, regard is to be had to [their] international character and to the need to promote uniformity in [their] application" and that "[q]uestions concerning matters governed by [them] which are not expressly settled in [them] are to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which [they are] based."3 A significant exception to this general attitude is repre- sented by a recent decision of the English Court of Appeals. In ProForceRecruit Ltd. v. The Rugby Group Ltd.,4 Lady Justice Arden, in obiter dictum, criticized some of the traditional rules on contract interpretation in English law and suggested a possi- ble change in approach. In support of it, she made express ref- erence to the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts ("UNIDROIT Principles") 5 as well as to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the Interna- (English decisions). Thus, with respect, in particular to Australian courts, see for example, Jianfu Chen, The Use of Comparative Law by Courts: Australian Courts at the Crossroads, in THE USE OF COMPARATIVE LAW BY COURTS: XJVTH INTERNA- TIONAL CONGRESS OF COMPARATIVE LAW, supra note 1, at 25-57. With respect to Canadian courts, see for example, H. Patrick Glenn, The Use of ComparativeLaw by Common Law Courts in Canada, in THE USE OF COMPARATIVE LAW BY COURTS: XIVTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF COMPARATIVE LAW, supra note 1, at 59-78. In addition, civil law courts normally restrict their comparative references to coun- tries with a common linguistic and legal background. See, e.g., Marc Elvinger, The Use of Comparative Law by Common Law Courts in Canada, in THE USE OF COM- PARATIVE LAW BY COURTS: XIVTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF COMPARATIVE LAW, supra note 1, at 231-34 (highlighting the fact that the courts in Luxembourg regu- larly refer to French and Belgian decisions). 3 See, e.g., United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, art. 7, April 11, 1980, 1489 U.N.T.S. 3, 19 I.L.M. 671, available at http://www.cisg.law.pace.edulcisg/text/treaty.html [hereinafter CISGI. For a criti- cal analysis of the different approaches taken by domestic courts in interpreting and supplementing CISG, see F. Ferrari, Gap-filling and Interpretation of the CISG: Overview of InternationalCase Law, in REVUE DE DROIT DES AFFAIRES IN- TERNATIONALES 221-30 (2003). 4 ProForce Recruit Ltd. v. The Rugby Group Ltd., [2006] EWCA (Civ) 69 (ap- peal taken from Eng.). 5 See UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts with Official Commentary (1994), available at http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/unidroit. international.commercial.contracts.principles. 1994.commented/ [hereinafter UNIDROIT]. https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol19/iss1/2 2 20071 THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLESAND CISG tional Sale of Goods ("CISG"). 6 The case is all the more remark- able not only because English courts are known for being particularly parsimonious in using foreign sources other than those of other common law jurisdictions, 7 but also, and most im- portantly, because the dispute was a purely domestic one with no international connotations. The case referred to two interna- tional instruments, one of which - the UNIDROIT Principles - has no binding force at all, while the other - the CISG - is not in force in the United Kingdom. In this note - which I dedicate to the memory E. Allan Farnsworth, a highly esteemed scholar and personal friend who played a decisive role in the preparation of both the UNIDROIT Principles and CISG - I shall provide a summary of the ProForceRecruit Ltd. v. The Rugby Group Ltd. case (Section II) followed by a brief description of the relevant English rules on contract interpretation under consideration (Section III) as compared to those reflected in both the UNIDROIT Principles and CISG (Section IV). II. PROFORCE RECRUIT LTD. V. THE RUGBY GROUP LTD.: FACTS AND RULINGS ProForce Recruit Ltd. ("ProForce"), an employment and re- cruitment agency, entered into a contract with the Rugby Group Ltd. ("Rugby Cement"), a cement manufacturer, for the supply of labor, personnel, and cleaning equipment for a period of time of two years.8 The written contract provided that during this two year period ProForce would hold "preferred supplier status" and contained a clause stating "[t]his Agreement... constitutes the entire contract between the parties and supersedes all prior representations, agreements, negotiations or understandings 6 See CISG, supra note 3. 7 This is because - to quote a particularly eminent English judge - in the past, "it was an almost universal article of faith that English law and legal institu- tions were without peer in the world, with very little to be usefully learned from others." T. H. Bingham, "There is a World Elsewhere?". The Changing Perspectives of English Law, 41 INT'L & COMP. L.Q. 513, 514 (1992). On the recent increasing change in the attitude of English courts in this respect, see Esin Oricu, Compara- tive Law in British Courts, in THE USE OF COMPARATIVE LAW BY COURTS: X1VTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF CoMPARATIVE LAW, supra note 1, at 252-87. 8 ProForce, [2006] EWCA (Civ) 69, [6]-[11] (Eng.). 3 PACE INT'L L. REV. [Vol. 19:9 whether oral or in writing."9 A few months after the conclusion of the contract Rugby Cement began to use other employment agencies to satisfy requirements exceeding those provide for in its contract with ProForce. ProForce then accused Rugby Ce- ment of breach of contract and claimed that, under the terms of their agreement, Rugby Cement should have first asked ProForce to provide its additional personnel requirements before looking elsewhere. 10 Rugby Cement objected that the term "preferred supplier status" in its natural and ordinary meaning only conferred on ProForce the commercial advantage of being a supplier of labor approved by Rugby Cement and with whom Rugby Cement could choose to place business though without any obligation to do so." ProForce insisted that, ac- cording to the meaning ascribed to the term by the parties through the individuals who conducted the negotiations and/or the representation made as to its meaning by Rugby Cement, Rugby Cement was obliged to offer ProForce the opportunity to: 1) supply contract labor and hire equipment in preference to other suppliers and 2) not engage other suppliers of contract la- bor and hire equipment without first having offered ProForce a reasonable opportunity to satisfy Rugby Cement's requirements 2 in such respects.' A decision by the Senior Master to dismiss Rugby Cement's application to have the case determined summarily was over- 3 turned by the English High Court (Queen's Bench Division).' Justice Field, relying on a series of precedential cases, including Lord Wilberfors' Prenn v. Simmonds' 4 and Lord Hoffmann's In- vestors Compensation Scheme Ltd. v. West Bromwich Building Society,' 5 which excluded the admissibility of evidence of pre- contractual negotiations for the purpose of interpreting a writ- ten contract, held that ProForce was not entitled to adduce evi- dence of the negotiations between the parties and their subjective declarations of intent in support of the meaning it 9 Id. [11]. 10 Id. [14]. 11 Id. 12 Id. [19]. 13 Rugby Group Ltd. v. ProForce Ltd., [2005] EWHC 70 (Q.B.) (Eng.). 14 Prenn v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Perspectives in Practice of the UNIDROIT Principles 2016
    Perspectives in Practice of the UNIDROIT Principles 2016 Views of the IBA Working Group on the practice of the UNIDROIT Principles 2016 © International Bar Association 2019 Contents Acknowledgements 2 Foreword Willem Calkoen, Coordinator, IBA Working Group on the practice of the UNIDROIT Principles 2016 3 Members of the IBA Working Group on the practice of the UNIDROIT Principles 2016 6 Country perspectives 9 Compiled summaries of selected cases 141 Annex 1 UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2016 325 Annex 2 Model Clauses for Use of UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 373 Perspectives in Practice of the UNIDROIT Principles 2016 VIEWS OF THE IBA WORKING GROUP 1 Acknowledgements This book originated through a discussion between Chris Seppälä and the Executive Director of the International Bar Association (IBA), Mark Ellis. The discussion then expanded to include the Vice- President of the UNIDROIT Counsel, Don Wallace, who is also Chairman of the International Law Institute. Ellis and Wallace developed the idea that the IBA and UNIDROIT could work together on this project and have both given very valuable guidance all through our work. Ellis for the IBA and José Angelo Estrella Faria (then Secretary General at UNIDROIT) worked out a memorandum of understanding for this project. Peter Bartlett now Vice-Chair of the IBA Legal Practice Division and Seppälä have inspired this project by selecting our group and giving us guidance throughout. This book provides 28 country perspectives and over 250 summaries of cases on the applicability of the UNIDROIT Principles 2016. It is written and compiled by IBA members. They were carefully selected and are all top lawyers in international litigation and arbitration.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cape Town Convention's Improbable-But-Possible Progeny Part
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2014 The Cape Town Convention’s Improbable-but-Possible Progeny Part One: An International Secured Transactions Registry of General Application Charles W. Mooney Jr. University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Banking and Finance Law Commons, Commercial Law Commons, Finance and Financial Management Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, and the Secured Transactions Commons Repository Citation Mooney, Charles W. Jr., "The Cape Town Convention’s Improbable-but-Possible Progeny Part One: An International Secured Transactions Registry of General Application" (2014). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1394. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1394 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESSAY The Cape Town Convention’s Improbable-but-Possible Progeny Part One: An International Secured Transactions Registry of General Application CHARLES W. MOONEY, JR.* Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 I. Past is Prologue:
    [Show full text]
  • Unification of Private Law and Codification of International Law Sompong Sucharitkul Golden Gate University School of Law, [email protected]
    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons Publications Faculty Scholarship 1998 Unification of Private Law and Codification of International Law Sompong Sucharitkul Golden Gate University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/pubs Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation 3 Uniform Law Rev. 693 (1998) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Unification of Private Law and Codification of International Law Sompong Sucharitkul * I. – INTRODUCTION Unification of private law is principally a task undertaken by the Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), while the codification and progressive develop- ment of international law constitute the dual function of the International Law Commission (ILC). The purpose of this brief essay is to illustrate how in several areas and in more aspects than one, the activities of UNIDROIT and the achievements of the Commission can be found in the same or similar, if not indeed identical, overlapping areas of study. It is not intended to attempt a comprehensive survey of past performance and ex- perience of the two norm-formulating agencies. Both are inter-governmental in their constitution, while each working group and individual member acts in a personal, independent and expert capacity, not directly under the instruction or control of any Government, nor in any representative function.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Leasing Under the Unidroit Convention and the Uniform Commercial Code: a Comparative Analysis
    FINANCIAL LEASING UNDER THE UNIDROIT CONVENTION AND THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS David A. LeW I. INMRODUCTION International equipment leasing has emerged as an important means of economic development in the global marketplace,' particularly where capital intensive acquisitions such as aircraft, ships, or machinery are involved.2 Heretofore, financial developments have outpaced the evolution of sound legal theories3 which are adapted to the sui generis form of the financial lease.4 * David A. Levy is a graduate of the School of Law at Southern Methodist University and is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar. He is the editor of the GULF WAR CLAIMS REPORTER and has written on the subject of Bulgarian legal development. Mr. Levy is the Kronstein Visiting Research Fellow at the International Law Institute and has previously worked in the area of commercial and trade law harmonization with the Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, U.S. Department of State. Acknowledgements: The author wishes to express special thanks to Professor Charles W. Mooney, Jr., of the University of Pennsylvania Law.School, Professor Peter Winship of the Southern Methodist University School of Law, and Martin Stanford, Senior Research Adviser of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), without whose valuable assistance this paper would not have been possible. Any errors or omissions, however, are the sole responsibility of the author. I. Lawrence M. Taylor, Jr., InterationalLeasing,in 2 EQuiPMENT LEASiNG-LEVERAGED LEASING 1223, 1223 (Bruce E. Fritch et al. eds., 3d ad. 1988). See also Ian Shrank, Cross-Border Leasing, in HOT ISSUES IN EQUIPMENT LEASING I, 1 (A.B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Holy See, Social Justice, and International Trade Law: Assessing the Social Mission of the Catholic Church in the Gatt-Wto System
    THE HOLY SEE, SOCIAL JUSTICE, AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW: ASSESSING THE SOCIAL MISSION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE GATT-WTO SYSTEM By Copyright 2014 Fr. Alphonsus Ihuoma Submitted to the graduate degree program in Law and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D) ________________________________ Professor Raj Bhala (Chairperson) _______________________________ Professor Virginia Harper Ho (Member) ________________________________ Professor Uma Outka (Member) ________________________________ Richard Coll (Member) Date Defended: May 15, 2014 The Dissertation Committee for Fr. Alphonsus Ihuoma certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: THE HOLY SEE, SOCIAL JUSTICE, AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW: ASSESSING THE SOCIAL MISSION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE GATT- WTO SYSTEM by Fr. Alphonsus Ihuoma ________________________________ Professor Raj Bhala (Chairperson) Date approved: May 15, 2014 ii ABSTRACT Man, as a person, is superior to the state, and consequently the good of the person transcends the good of the state. The philosopher Jacques Maritain developed his political philosophy thoroughly informed by his deep Catholic faith. His philosophy places the human person at the center of every action. In developing his political thought, he enumerates two principal tasks of the state as (1) to establish and preserve order, and as such, guarantee justice, and (2) to promote the common good. The state has such duties to the people because it receives its authority from the people. The people possess natural, God-given right of self-government, the exercise of which they voluntarily invest in the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Alphabet Soup: How the Ucc, Cisg, Unidroit Principles, Incoterms, Ueta, E-Sign, and the U.N
    ALPHABET SOUP: HOW THE UCC, CISG, UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES, INCOTERMS, UETA, E-SIGN, AND THE U.N. ELECTRONIC COMMERCE CONVENTION INTERACT IN INTERNATIONAL SALES OF GOODS Presented by Keith A. Rowley Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas, and Charles E. Tweedy, Jr. Visiting Chairholder in Law, The University of Alabama School of Law Amelia H. Boss Professor of Law, James E. Beasley School of Law, Temple University Larry A. DiMatteo Huber Hurst Professor of Contract Law and Legal Studies, Warrington College of Business Administration, The University of Florida Henry D. Gabriel DeVan Daggett Professor of Law, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law ABA SECTION OF BUSINESS LAW August 12, 2007 San Francisco, CA THE LAW GOVERNING INTERNATIONAL SALES OF GOODS† Keith A. Rowley I. INTRODUCTION TO U.S. INTERNATIONAL SALES LAW A. The CISG’s Origin and Status The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), which the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) promulgated in 1980,1 took effect in the United States on January 1, 1988. As of July 1, 2007, the CISG was in effect in sixty-nine countries, including the U.S. and many of its largest trading partners.2 B. The CISG’s Effect As a treaty of the United States, the CISG is the law of every U.S. state and territory.3 The CISG preempts state law to the extent that non-CISG state law, including the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), conflicts with the CISG.4 † © Keith A.
    [Show full text]
  • Unidroit Principles As a Source for Global Sales Law
    Volume 58 Issue 4 Article 11 9-1-2013 Unidroit Principles as a Source for Global Sales Law Henry Deeb Gabriel Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Contracts Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Henry D. Gabriel, Unidroit Principles as a Source for Global Sales Law, 58 Vill. L. Rev. 661 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol58/iss4/11 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. \\jciprod01\productn\V\VLR\58-4\VLR411.txt unknown Seq: 1 11-JUL-13 8:39 Gabriel: Unidroit Principles as a Source for Global Sales Law 2013] UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A SOURCE FOR GLOBAL SALES LAW HENRY DEEB GABRIEL* HE germination period for the United Nations Convention on Con- Ttracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) was forty-five years, and once it was completed it was slow to be adopted. It is now showing its age, and the question has been posed as to whether it is time to revise or expand its scope. Given its history, though, whether a revision or expan- sion of the CISG is a viable project that justifies the resources is subject to serious question. Among the problems this project might encounter is a lack of re- sources, a clear articulation of the need for the project, the inability to define its scope, and the likelihood of widespread ratification within a rea- sonable time.
    [Show full text]
  • Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts: the Black Letter Text and a Review
    Fordham Law Review Volume 63 Issue 2 Article 1 1994 Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts: The Black Letter Text and a Review Joseph M. Perillo Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph M. Perillo, Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts: The Black Letter Text and a Review, 63 Fordham L. Rev. 281 (1994). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol63/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts: The Black Letter Text and a Review Cover Page Footnote Alpin J. Cameron Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law. I am indebted to Steve Thel and Joel Reidenberg for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this essay This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol63/iss2/1 ESSAY UNI]DROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS: THE BLACK LETTER TEXT AND A REVIEW JOSEPH M. PERILLO* INTRODUCTION Cross-border trading is as natural to humanity as eating, laughing and crying.' Patterns of trade and the laws regulating them have, as one would expect, significant similarities. However, when disputes arise, the conceptual framework and the rationales for the rules of decision have been far from uniform even where there is uniformity or similarity of result.
    [Show full text]
  • Italy Statement (Introduction of Drfat Resolution) -- Observer Status for the International Institute for the Unification Of
    ~ ITALY GENERAL ASSEMBLY 68th Session Sixth Committee 11 th meeting Agenda item n. 170 Observer Status for the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law in the General Assembly (UNIDROIT) STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR ANTONIO BERNARDINI DEPUTY PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE th (NEW YORK, OCTOBER 16 , 2013) Check against delivery Mr Chairman Since this is the first time the delegation of Italy takes the floor in this Committee at this session, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Ambassador Kohona and all the other members of the Bureau on the assumption of their functions. It gives me great pleasure to submit to you today draft resolution A/C.6/68/L.5 on observer status for the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law in the General Assembly, also and probably better known as UNIDROIT. I would like to announce that since the publication of the draft resolution as an L-document, Israel and Turkey have joined as sponsors of the draft resolution. I would like to draw the attention of delegations to the Explanatory Memorandum contained in Annex I to document A/68/141, which makes specific reference to the relevant constitutional document of the Organization and elaborates on the requisite criteria for granting the status of Observer in the General Assembly to UNIDROIT. Allow me, Mr Chairman, to briefly recall some main aspects. Firstly, UNIDROIT is an independent intergovernmental organization (with its seat in Rome); it was created on the basis a multilateral treaty, the UNIDROIT Statute, and comprises over sixty Member States. Membership in the Institute is restricted to States acceding to the Statute.
    [Show full text]
  • The UNIDROIT Convention: Attempting to Regulate the International Trade and Traffic of Cultural Property Monique Olivier
    Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 26 Article 6 Issue 3 Notes and Comments January 1996 The UNIDROIT Convention: Attempting to Regulate the International Trade and Traffic of Cultural Property Monique Olivier Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev Part of the International Law Commons, and the International Trade Law Commons Recommended Citation Monique Olivier, The UNIDROIT Convention: Attempting to Regulate the International Trade and Traffic ofu C ltural Property, 26 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. (1996). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol26/iss3/6 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Law Review by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Olivier: UNIDROIT Convention COMMENT THE UNIDROIT CONVENTION: ATTEMPTING TO REGULATE THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND TRAFFIC OF CULTURAL PROPERTY I. INTRODUCTION International art theft and illegal trafficking of cultural propertyl has reached epidemic proportions.2 In value trans­ ferred, the illicit art trade ranks second only to narcotics traf­ ficking.3 Art theft is rampant in many countries that are rich in art and archaeological resources, and stolen pieces are rarely recovered.4 Furthermore, current statistics do not re­ flect the countless archeological artifacts which are secretly 1. For the purposes of this article, "cultural property" refers to works of art that are considered an integral part of a country's cultural heritage, history or ethnicity. 2. Over $2 billion worth of art stolen each year.
    [Show full text]
  • The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and Their Applicability in the MERCOSUR Countries*
    The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and their Applicability in the MERCOSUR Countries* Lauro DA GAMA ESOUZA jr** Résumé Abstract Ce texte est consacré à deux su- This paper deals with two basic jets principaux. D’une part, l’auteur topics. On the one hand, the author fait un survol des systèmes de droit gives an overview of the intern a- i n t e rnational privé des pays mem- tional private law systems of those br es du MER C O S U R , et ce, plus spécifi- countries who are members of the quement en ce qui concerne le prin- MERCOSUR, and studies more specifi- cipe de l’autonomie de la volonté et cally the principle of the autonomy of les règles applicables aux contrats the will and the rules and re g u- in t e r nationaux. D’autre part, il abor- lations applicable to intern a t i o n a l de la question de l’application des contracts. On the other hand, he dis- Principes dans les pays du ME R C O- cusses four aspects of the applica- S U R sous quatre aspects : l’incorpo- bility of the Principles in the ration des Principes à titre de MERCOSUR countries: the inclusion of dispositions contractuelles; l’appli- the Principles as contract prov i s i o n s ; cation des Principes à titre de loi the application of the Principles as * This article is an academic version of the author’s lecture about the subject at the colloquium Les XIIe s J o u rnées Maximilien-Caron, of April 2001, sponsore d by the Université de Montréal (Canada) along with the UNI D R O I T , on Les Principes d ’UN I D R O I T et les contrats intern a t i o n a u x : aspects pratiques.
    [Show full text]
  • Secondment to the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT)
    Secondment to the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) In furtherance of the Department of Justice (DoJ)’s policy to nurture Hong Kong legal talents, a standing arrangement has been put in place with UNIDROIT pursuant to an agreement concluded between the Central People’s Government and UNIDROIT. The standing arrangement is for seconding Hong Kong legal professionals in both the public and private sectors to the Secretariat of UNIDROIT (Secretariat) at Rome, Italy. UNIDROIT 2. UNIDROIT is an independent intergovernmental organisation with its seat in Rome. Currently, UNIDROIT has 63 Member States from five continents and they represent a variety of different legal systems. The People’s Republic of China is one of the Member States. UNIDROIT’s purpose is to study the needs and methods for modernizing, harmonizing and coordinating private and in particular commercial law between States and groups of States and to formulate uniform law instruments, principles and rules to achieve these objectives. Aside from formulating uniform rules in the form of international conventions, UNIDROIT also develops alternative forms of instrument like model laws and legal guides in areas like security interests, capital markets, commercial contracts, international sales and civil procedure. 3. The Secretariat is the executive organ of UNIDROIT and is responsible for carrying out UNIDROIT’s Work Programme. The Secretariat is headed by a Secretary-General appointed by the Governing Council on nomination of the President of UNIDROIT. The Secretary-General is assisted by a team of international civil servants and supporting staff. Further details about the work of UNIDROIT are available at https://www.unidroit.org/.
    [Show full text]