Advertisement

Party Autonomy

  • Christoph Schmon
Chapter
  • 18 Downloads
Part of the Short Studies in Private International Law book series (SSIL)

Abstract

Party autonomy rallies almost unquestioned support in international contract law. However, it is controversial to define the borders and parameters of party autonomy. Lawmakers have regulated party autonomy in international transactions by setting out conditions under which parties may choose the law which governs their contractual relationship or define a forum before which a claim should be brought. The same holds true for the Brussels I Recast and the Rome I Regulations, both of which respect the declared intention of the parties and implement restrictions that limit the choice of forum and law generally or for certain contracts. On a more granular level, the relevant rules pay tribute to the fundamental and distinctive characteristics of rules on jurisdiction and conflict of laws, respectively. The Rome I Regulation pays respect to all circumstances of a case and tends to review the result of a choice considering public policy. The Brussels I Regulation follows a procedural rationale when it provides a variety of options for forum agreements. If choices are made in contradiction with overriding principles, it invalidates the choices altogether.

Keywords

Party Autonomy Contractual Freedom Choice of Law Choice of Forum Commercial Arbitration Limits of Party Autonomy Validity Universality Internationality 

References

  1. Basedow J (2001) Theorie der Rechtswahl als Grundlage des Internationalen Privatrechts. RabelsZ 75:32–59Google Scholar
  2. Basedow J (2015) The Law of Open Societies – Private Ordering and Public Regulation in the Conflict of Laws. Brill Nijhoff, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  3. Briggs A (2008) Agreements on jurisdiction and choice of law. Oxford Private International Law Series, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Carl I (2007) Einstweiliger Rechtsschutz bei Torpedoklagen. Internationalrechtliche Studien, Vol 50. Verlag Peter Lang, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  5. Frauenberger-Pfeiler U (2005) Der “reine Binnensachverhalt”, Art 23 EuGVVO und der öOGH. In: Bittner L and others (eds) Festschrift für Walter H. Rechberger zum 60. Geburtstag. Springer, Vienna, pp 125–138Google Scholar
  6. Garcimartín F (2008) The Rome I-Regulation: Much ado about nothing? EuLF 2:61–79Google Scholar
  7. Garcimartín F (2015) Prorogation of Jurisdiction. In: Dickinson A, Lein E (eds) The Brussels I Regulation Recast. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 277–311Google Scholar
  8. Hartley TC (2013) Choice-of-Court Agreements under the European and International Instruments. Oxford Private International Law Series, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Haudek W (1931) Die Bedeutung des Parteiwillens im Internationalen Privatrecht. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Kegel G (1971) Internationales Privatrecht, 3rd edn. Beck, MunichGoogle Scholar
  11. Kegel G, Schurig K (2004) Internationales Privatrecht, 9th edn. Beck, MunichGoogle Scholar
  12. Kronman AT (1980) Contract Law and Distributive Justice. Yale L. J. 89:472–511Google Scholar
  13. Kuipers JJ (2009) Party Autonomy in the Brussels I Regulation and Rome I Regulation and the European Court of Justice. 10 German Law Journal, 11:1501–1525Google Scholar
  14. Lehmann M (2008) Liberating the Individual from Battles between States: Justifying Party Autonomy in Conflict of Laws. Vanderbilt J. Trans. L. 381–434Google Scholar
  15. Leible S (2004) Parteiautonomie im IPR, Allgemeines Anknüpfungsprinzip oder Verlegenheitslösung? In: Mansel HP and others (eds) Festschrift für Erik Jayme. Sellier, European Law Publishers, Munich, pp 485–503Google Scholar
  16. Leible S (2007) Rechtswahl. In: Ferrari and Leible (eds) Ein neues Internationales Vertragsrecht für Europa. JWV, Jena, pp 41–55Google Scholar
  17. Mankowski P (2005) Internationale Zuständigkeit und anwendbares Recht, Parallelen und Divergenzen. In: Lorenz S and others (eds) Festschrift für Andreas Heldrich zum 70. Geburtstag. Beck, Munich, pp 867–898Google Scholar
  18. Mankowski P (2011) Brüssel I-VO. In: Rauscher T (ed) Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht. Sellier European Law Publishers, Munich, Art 23Google Scholar
  19. Martiny D (2006) Internationales Privatrecht, Art 3 Rom I. In: Sonnenberger HJ (ed) Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, 4th ed., 10 Internationales Privatrecht. C.H. Beck, Munich, pp 206–254Google Scholar
  20. Maultzsch F (2011) Rechtswahl und ius cogens im Internationalen Schuldvertragsrecht. RabelsZ 75:60–101Google Scholar
  21. McClean D, Beevers K (2009) The Conflict of Laws, 7th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Mills A (2019) Party Autonomy in Private International Law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Nishitani Y (2000) Mancini und die Parteiautonomie im Internationalen Privatrecht. Winter Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  24. Nishitani Y (2016) Party Autonomy in Contemporary Private International Law - The Hague Principles on Choice of Law and East Asia Nishitani. Japanese Yearbook of International Law, 59:300–344Google Scholar
  25. Plender R, Wilderspin M (2009) The European Private International Law of Obligations, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Rühl G (2019) Choice of Law and Choice of Forum in the European Union: Recent Developments. 1 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1604615. Accessed May 2019.
  27. Smith A (1776) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book 1. Chapter 2 Of the Principle which gives occasion to the Division of Labour. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Stone P (2010) EU Private International Law, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  29. Symeonides SC (2010) Party Autonomy in Rome I and II from a Comparative Perspective. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1697372. Accessed May 2019
  30. Von Savigny FC (1849) VIII System des heutigen Römischen Rechts. Veit, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  31. Watt HM (2010) Party Autonomy in international contracts: from the makings of a myth to the requirements of global governance. ERCL 3:250–283Google Scholar
  32. Wicki AA (1965) Zur Dogmengeschichte der Parteiautonomie im Internationalen Privatrecht. Keller, WinterthurGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the author  2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Schmon
    • 1
  1. 1.NottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations