Abstract
Historically, Uruguay has demonstrated a committed attitude towards investors, making the respect for the “rule of law” a golden rule. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, in 2011 Uruguay ranked 17 among the 25 countries considered to be Full Democracies in the world, being the first of only two Latin American countries in such list (Costa Rica is ranked in the 20th place). Uruguay is also noted for its low levels of corruption, ranked by Transparency International as the second least corrupt country in Latin America (in joint with Chile on 20th place of the 174 countries’ index rank).
Prof. Gonzalo A. Lorenzo Idiarte and Prof. María Laura Capalbo Alzogaray are collaborators. This chapter has also benefited from the general support and supervision by Prof. Didier Opertti Badán.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Economist Intelligence Unit; Democracy Index 2011 (table 2).
- 2.
Transparency International; Corruption Perceptions Index 2012.
- 3.
Preamble and Article 2 of the Agreement.
- 4.
- 5.
COMAP stands for the Application Commission that analyzes the investment projects.
- 6.
PIL stands for private international law.
- 7.
A General Act on Private International Law and an Act on Arbitration have been filed to Parliament and are under its consideration by the time this article is written.
- 8.
- 9.
SPC stands for Supreme People’s Court of China.
- 10.
Manjiao (2010–1), pp. 5–36, p. 11, fn. 29.
- 11.
http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/b-45.html, and Article 525.3 of the GPC has a similar drafting.
- 12.
“Foreign laws applicable to foreign-related civil relations shall be ascertained by the people’s court, arbitral authority or administrative organ.”
- 13.
As amended by Act N° 16.603 of October 19, 1994, following the rule in Article 525.5 of the GCP and the 1979 Uruguayan Declaration.
- 14.
Article 9: “Foreign laws applicable to foreign-related civil relations do not include the Law of the Application of the Law of this foreign country.”
- 15.
For example, Arts. 3 and 4 of the Mercosur Protocol on civil liability arising out of road accidents (San Luis, CMC/Dec. N° 1/96). However, renvoi is expressly accepted in other conventional rules, like Art. 6.3 of the 1956 New York Convention on the recovery of alimony abroad.
- 16.
- 17.
Véscovi (2000), pp. 73–75.
- 18.
Fernández Pereiro (2007), pp. 77–78.
- 19.
Article 198 provides that companies incorporated abroad that intend to either establish their main offices or perform their main business in Uruguay will be required to fulfill all the requirements of Uruguayan law, including those related to the validity of the social contract.
- 20.
See CCL (China Contract Law) in http://www.novexcn.com/contract_law_99.html. Manjiao (2010–1), explains in p. 11 that ‘Chinese contract law’ has two meanings: in the narrow sense, it refers to the CCL, adopted by the top legislature of China, the National People’s Congress (NPC), while in the broad sense, it refers to the whole body of contract laws in China, including but not limited to (1) relevant international conventions to which China is a Party (1980 Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods—CISG); (2) national legislation adopted by the NPC and its Standing Committee, as well as regulations issued by the State Council of China; (3) judicial interpretations issued by the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC); and (4) local regulations adopted by local NPCs and their Standing Committees, particularly those at the provincial level. He adds that the CCL is the first and sole uniform contract law of China to date and has played an important role in China’s economic development and that it explicitly recognizes the basic principles of modern contract law, such as the principles of contractual freedom and good faith (Arts. 3, 4, and 6) and that contracts are agreements between parties on equal footing (Arts. 2 and 3) (p. 12).
- 21.
“Article 126 Choice of Law in Foreign-related Contracts; Contracts Subject to Mandatory: Parties to foreign-related contracts may choose the governing law to settle disputes arising out of their contract, except where the law provides otherwise. Where parties to the foreign-related contract failed to select the applicable law, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country with the closest connection thereto. For a Sino-foreign Equity Joint Venture Enterprise Contract, Sino-foreign Cooperative Joint Venture Contract, or a Contract for Sino-foreign Joint Exploration and Development of Natural Resources which is performed within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, the law of the People’s Republic of China applies.”
- 22.
- 23.
See, for example, Art. 46 Act N° 16.749, May 30, 1996, and amendments.
- 24.
Manjiao (2010–1), p. 19. The author adds that in China there are various types of products that come under direct State management and the State may, if necessary, order the relevant enterprises to conclude contracts to satisfy the needs of the State; in those cases, these enterprises may not invoke ‘freedom of contract’ but are obliged to conclude agreements to carry out such orders (Art. 38 CCL). However, such contracts have already lost significance in practice (p. 15).
- 25.
Opertti Badán and Fresnedo de Aguirre (2009), pp. 305–337.
- 26.
Manjiao (2010–1), p. 14.
- 27.
Notice that this special provision shall prevail over those in the 2010 Chinese PIL (Art. 2 of the latter). Notwithstanding, the former is harmonic with the general provision in Art. 41 of the 2010 Chinese PIL, which states: “The parties concerned may choose the laws applicable to contracts by agreement. If the parties do not choose, the laws at the habitual residence of the party whose fulfillment of obligations can best reflect the characteristics of this contract or other laws which have the closest relation with this contract shall apply.”
- 28.
Notice that legal rules of interpretation of the connecting factor “place of performance” of Art. 2399, contained mainly in Art. 34 of the 1889 Montevideo Treaty on International Civil Law, are similar to the connecting point in Art. 41 of the 2010 Chinese PIL: “habitual residence of the party whose fulfillment of obligations can best reflect the characteristics of this contract.”
- 29.
Manjiao (2010–1), p. 19.
- 30.
- 31.
“It shall be understood that a contract is international if the parties thereto have their habitual residence or establishments in different States Parties or if the contract has objective ties with more than one State Party.” http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/b-56.html.
- 32.
“Article 1
(1) This Convention applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States:
(a) when the States are Contracting States; or
(b) when the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State. 2 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods
(2) The fact that the parties have their places of business in different States is to be disregarded whenever this fact does not appear either from the contract or from any dealings between, or from information disclosed by, the parties at any time before or at the conclusion of the contract.
(3) Neither the nationality of the parties nor the civil or commercial character of the parties or of the contract is to be taken into consideration in determining the application of this Convention.” http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/sales/cisg/V1056997-CISG-e-book.pdf.
- 33.
Manjiao, op.cit., p. 15.
- 34.
- 35.
In this sense, Uruguay made a Declaration at the time of signature of the Inter-American Convention on General Rules of Private International Law (CIDIP-II, Montevideo, 1979), which states: “The scope of public order: Uruguay wishes to state that it expressly ratifies the line of thought enunciated in Panama at CIDIP-I, reaffirming its genuine Pan American spirit and its clear and positive decision to contribute with its ideas and endorsement to the successful development of the legal community. This line of thinking and conduct has been evidenced in undoubtable form by the unreserved ratification by Uruguay of all the Conventions of Panama, approved by law number 14.534 in 1976. In line with the foregoing, Uruguay gives its affirmative vote to the formula regarding public order. Nevertheless, Uruguay wishes to state expressly and clearly that, in accordance with the position it maintained in Panama, its interpretation of the aforementioned exception refers to international public order as an individual juridical institution, not necessarily identifiable with the internal public order of each state. Therefore, in the opinion of Uruguay, the approved formula conveys an exceptional authorization to the various States Parties to declare in a nondiscretionary and well-founded manner that the precepts of foreign law are inapplicable whenever these concretely and in a serious and open manner offend the standards and principles essential to the international public order on which each individual state bases its legal individuality.” See in http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/b-45.html.
- 36.
See commentary to this provision above in this paper.
- 37.
Huber (2008), p. 939.
- 38.
Cf. Zhao and Xiao (2010), p. 302.
- 39.
Zhao and Xiao (2010), pp. 302–303.
- 40.
Arrighi (2010), pp. 241 et seq.
- 41.
Fresnedo de Aguirre (2010), pp. 129 and 135.
- 42.
Noodt Taquela (2003), p. 1019.
- 43.
González Lapeyre, p. 12.
- 44.
González Lapeyre, pp. 51–52.
- 45.
Cf. Noodt Taquela (2003), p. 993.
- 46.
In force since January 1, 1987.
- 47.
Yuquing and Danhan (2000–3), p. 439.
- 48.
Art. 4 of paragraph 4 of the REGULATION (EC) No 593/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 June 2008. See: http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/b-56.html.
- 49.
Ferrari (2010), p. 129.
- 50.
Ferrari (2010), pp. 156–157.
- 51.
In this sense, see Pace Law School Database, which includes both judicial as well as arbitral decisions, in http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/casecit.htm. This Database shows that while, for instance, Germany has 493 cases and United States has 159, China has about 432. It is not a reduced figure.
- 52.
See UNCITRAL (2012), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/clout/CISG-digest-2012-e.pdf.
- 53.
Ferrari (2010), pp. 176–177.
- 54.
See Status of ratifications to Maritime Conventions in http://www.comitemaritime.org/Uploads/pdf/CMI-SRMC.pdf, pp. 441 et seq.
- 55.
In this sense, see Kuan Tai.
- 56.
RTSS 10, c. 186, 99–115 = LJU, c. 13062.
- 57.
RTSS 11, c. 191, 46–50.
- 58.
LJU 121, c. 13928 = RTSS 13, c. 241.
- 59.
Li (2003), p. 953.
- 60.
In this sense, see information in: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/profile.jsp?code=CN.
- 61.
During the last years, China became one of the greatest borrowers of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; cf. Balderrama and Martinez (2010), p. 122.
- 62.
Li (2003), pp. 953–954.
- 63.
For instance, jurisprudence cited in http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/profile.jsp?code=CN.
- 64.
Fernández Arroyo (2003), p. 934.
- 65.
In addition, Uruguayan Law 16580 of 21 September 1994 adhered to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, subscribed in Paris on 2 December 1961 and amended by supplementary agreements signed in Geneva on 10 November 1972 and 23 October 1978. This Convention is applicable to all the species or botanical genus (Article 4). Under national legislation, Law 16811 of 21 February 1997 established the protection of names related to botanical varieties recorded in the Registry of Cultivar Property, and such names were expressly excluded from the Marks Protection Law No. 17011 since they were under special protection.
- 66.
See an interesting comparison between China system and European system of protection in http://www.china-iprhelpdesk.eu/docs/publications/Intellectual_Property_Systems_China_Europe_Comparison.pdf.
- 67.
“In addition to the provisions in the foregoing articles, the guidelines, customs, and principles of international commercial law as well as commercial usage and practices generally accepted shall apply in order to discharge the requirements of justice and equity in the particular case.”
- 68.
Approved in CIDIP-V, held in Mexico in 1994, signed by Uruguay in such opportunity but still not incorporated to the Uruguayan legal system.
- 69.
Ratified by Law N° 16.879 de 21/10/97, ratificada el 25/1/99.
- 70.
- 71.
- 72.
- 73.
- 74.
Manjiao (2010–1), pp. 19–20.
- 75.
We are not using here the expression “material autonomy” in the wide sense. Boggiano does (“La solución de controversias: los Principios de Unidroit como normativa aplicable a los contratos comerciales internacionales por los jueces nacionales y por los árbitros”, Los Principios de Unidroit: ¿Un Derecho Común a los Contratos para las Américas?, Actas del Congreso Interamericano celebrado en Valencia, Venezuela, November 1996, pp. 167–174).
- 76.
Castellanos Ruiz (1998), pp. 110–111, states that “el origen de la juridicidad de estos usos y prácticas mercantiles” “sólo puede ser la autonomía de la voluntad de las partes, pero en su vertiente material,” and quotes arbitral CCI case law in that sense.
- 77.
- 78.
- 79.
- 80.
Bonell (2004), p. 31.
- 81.
- 82.
Art. 2403 del Código Civil and Art. 5 of the Additional Protocol to the 1940 Montevideo Treaties.
- 83.
Fresnedo de Aguirre, Curso…, T. I, op.cit., pp. 268–282.
- 84.
Manjiao, op.cit., pp. 19–20.
- 85.
Manjiao (2010–1), p. 19.
- 86.
As it is defined by the own WTO “The Appellate Body was established in 1995 under Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU). It is a standing body of seven persons who hears appeals from reports issued by panels in disputes brought by WTO Members. The Appellate Body can uphold, modify, or reverse the legal findings and conclusions of a panel, and Appellate Body Reports, once adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), must be accepted by the parties to the dispute. The Appellate Body has its seat in Geneva, Switzerland.” See http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/appellate_body_e.htm.
- 87.
See Annex VI of the Annual Report 2012 in http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/ab_annual_report11_e.pdf.
- 88.
Approved by China’s Popular National Assembly on April 8, 1991.
- 89.
Hui (2008), pp. 355–377.
- 90.
Hui (2008), p. 375.
- 91.
Hui (2008), p. 375.
- 92.
- 93.
Manjiao (2010–1), p. 26. The author points out that several cases have been reported by UNILEX in which the UNIDROIT Principles on International Commercial Contracts were applied or considered by the tribunals under the auspices of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). However, he thinks that it would be premature to regard them as heralds of successful application of the Principles in Chinese arbitration.
- 94.
Manjiao (2010–1), p. 29.
- 95.
Art. 7, Arbitration Law of the PRC of 1994, Manjiao (2010–1), p. 30.
- 96.
China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission.
- 97.
Manjiao (2010–1), p. 32.
- 98.
The author refers to the UNIDROIT Principles on International Commercial Contracts.
- 99.
Manjiao (2010–1), p. 33.
- 100.
- 101.
- 102.
RTYS N° 10, c. 186, pp. 99–115; LJU, c. 13062. See commentaries on the case: Opertti Badán, Didier, “Ley aplicable y pautas para la aplicación de un derecho extranjero”, RTYS N° 10, pp. 100–110; Lorenzo Idiarte (2002).
- 103.
Art. 2401, 2nd paragraph, Appendix of the Civil Code.
- 104.
Art. 2399 Appendix of the Civil Code.
- 105.
At the moment, the 1982 Economic Contracts Law.
- 106.
- 107.
RTYS N° 13, c. 257; See commentaries on the case: Lorenzo Idiarte (2002).
- 108.
Art. 2401, 2nd paragraph, Appendix of the Civil Code.
- 109.
Art. 2399 Appendix of the Civil Code (law of the place of performance).
- 110.
Hui (2008), pp. 355–377.
- 111.
Hui (2008), p. 377.
- 112.
Hui (2008), p. 377.
- 113.
- 114.
- 115.
Article 538 GCP.
- 116.
Defined in Art. 538.3 GCP as “the act or sequence of procedural acts to be complied with for the simple purpose of establishing if the foreign judgment contains the indispensable requirements as per the terms of the present chapter.”
- 117.
Defined in Art. 538.4 GCP as “the act or sequence of procedural acts directed to obtain compliance with the foreign judgment containing a monetary award.”
- 118.
Articles 540 and 541 GCP.
- 119.
Article 540 GCP and Decree 454/1996.
- 120.
Article 540 GCP.
- 121.
Decree 454/1996.
- 122.
Article 541 GCP.
References
Agurre Ramirez F, Fresnedo C (2001) Curso de Derecho del Transporte- Transporte Marítimo, Volumen II, Montevideo, FCU
Araujo N (2006) “A Cláusula de Hardship nos Contratos Internacionais e a sua Regulamentação nos Princípios para os Contratos Comerciais Internacionais do Unidroit”, Contratos Internacionais. Tendências e perspectivas, Naiara Posenato (Organizadora), Brasil, Ed. Unijuí
Arrighi PF (2010) El Arbitraje Comercial Internacional en el Derecho Uruguayo. In: Sánchez Córdero J (ed) The impact of uniform law on national law. Limits and possibilities. Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, México
Balderrama R, Martinez S (2010) China, América Latina y el Caribe: el doble filo de una relación positiva, UNISCI Discussion Papers, N° 24 (October/Octubre 2010), UNISCI
Bonell MJ (2004) UNIDROIT Principles 2004 – The New Edition of the Principles of International Commercial Contracts adopted by the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, Unif. L. Rev./Rev. dr. unif. 2004-1
Castellanos Ruiz E (1998) Autonomía de la voluntad y derecho uniforme en la compraventa internacional. Ed. Comares, Granada
Fernández Arroyo DP (Coord.) (2003) Derecho Internacional Privado de loe Estados del Mercosur. Zavalía, Buenos Aires
Fernández Pereiro A (2007) Private international law, Uruguay, Suppl. 14. Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands
Ferrari F (2010) The CISG and its impact on national contract law – general report. In: Sánchez Córdero J (ed) The impact of uniform law on national law. Limits and possibilities. Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, México
Fresnedo de Aguirre C (1991) La Autonomía de la Voluntad en la Contratación Internacional. FCU, Montevideo
Fresnedo de Aguirre C (2004a) La autonomía de la voluntad en la contratación internacional, en Curso de Derecho Internacional, XXXI, 2004, Comité Jurídico Interamericano, Secretaría General, OEA
Fresnedo de Aguirre C (2004b) Curso de Derecho Internacional Privado, T. I, Parte General, 2ª ed. FCU, Montevideo
Fresnedo de Aguirre C (2009) Curso de Derecho Internacional Privado, T. II, vol 2, Parte Especial. FCU, Montevideo
Fresnedo de Aguirre C (2010) Uruguay. In: Ferrari F (ed) The CISG and its impact on national legal systems. Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, México, pp 333–334
Glenn HP (2001) An international private law of contracts. In: Borchers PJ, Zekoll J (eds) International conflict of laws for the third millennium. Essays in Honor of Friedrich K. Juenger. Transnational Publishers, Inc., USA
González Lapeyre E. Los contratos accesorios en el derecho privado internacional. In: Contratos y obligaciones en el D.I.P., Cuadernos de Derecho Internacional Privado 3, Fundación de Cultura Universitaria, without date
Herbert R (1990) Sobre objeto y método del Derecho Internacional Privado, en Objeto u Método en el Derecho Internacional Privado. FCU, Montevideo, 2ª ed., pp 93–118
Huber P (2008) Comparative sales law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) Comparative law. Oxford University Press, New York
Hui X (2008) “El Derecho Procesal Civil en China”, México-China. Culturas y Sistemas Jurídicos Comparados, Oropeza García, Arturo (coordinador), Coyoacán, México DF, UNAM y otros
Kuan Tai S (2011) The applicable law in a multimodal transport contract in China, in http://www.seatransport.org/seaview_doc/SV_96/TheApplicableLawinaMultimodalTransportContractinChina.pdf
Li L (2003) The sky is high and the Emperor is far way: the enforcement of Intellectual Property Law in China. Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado, Nueva Serie, año XXXVI, No. 108
Lorenzo Idiarte GA (2002) ¿Cuándo un contrato es internacional? Análisis desde una perspectiva regional, en Avances del Derecho Internacional Privado en América Latina. Liber Amicorum Jürgen Samtlebem, Jan Kleinheisterkamp y Gonzalo A. Lorenzo Idiarte (coordinadores), FCU, Montevideo
Lorenzo Idiarte G (2005) Derecho Aplicable al Transporte Multimodal entre Uruguay y los demás Países Integrantes del Mercosur, UM, Montevideo
Manjiao C (2010–1) Application of the UNIDROIT principles in China: successes, shortcomings and implications. Rev. dr. unif., pp 5–36
Noodt Taquela MB (2003) Reglamentación general de los contratos internacionales en los Estados Mercosureños. In: Fernández Arroyo DP (Coord.) Derecho Internacional Privado de loe Estados del Mercosur, Zavalía, Buenos Aires
Opertti Badán D, Fresnedo de Aguirre C (1997) Contratos Comerciales Internacionales. Últimos desarrollos teórico-positivos en el ámbito internacional. FCU, Montevideo
Opertti Badán D, Fresnedo de Aguirre C (2009) The latest trends in Latin American Law: The Uruguayan 2009 General Law on Private International Law. Yearbook of Private International Law, vol 11, © sellier, European Law Publishers & The Swiss Institute of Comparative Law Yearbook of Private International Law, Printed in Germany
Revista Uruguaya de Derecho International (RUDI) N° 4, 1975–1976
Samtleben J (2006) (quoted by Posenato, Naiara, “O princípio da Autonomía da Vontade na Convenção do México de 1994”), Contratos Internacionais. Tendências e perspectivas, Naiara Posenato (Organizadora), Ed. Unijuí, Brasil
Ernest Robert Lindley & Sons (1988) General average and The York-Antwerp Rules, Lloyd’s Nautical Year Book 1988. Lloyd’s of London Press, Londres
Tellechea E (1998) Libro II, Capítulo X del Código General del Proceso. Normas Procesales Internacionales. Una nueva regulación de los procedimientos en el Derecho Internacional Privado Uruguayo. Revista Uruguaya de Derecho Procesal, N° 4, FCU
Tellechea Bergman E (1984) La Autonomía de la Voluntad en la Contratación Jusprivatista Internacional Contemporánea. Revista de D. Comercial y de la Empresa, En-Jun./84, No. 29-30
UNCITRAL (2012) Digest of Case Law on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods—2012, Annex II, UNITED NATIONS 2012 Edition
Actas del Congreso Interamericano celebrado en Valencia, Venezuela, November 1996
Vargas Gómez-Urrutia M (2000) Contratación internacional en el sistema interamericano. Oxford University Press, México
Véscovi E (2000) Derecho Procesal Civil Internacional. Ed. Idea, Uruguay, MERCOSUR y América, Montevideo
Weintraub RJ (2001) Lex Mercatoria and the Unidroit Principles of Internacional Comercial Contracts. International Conflict of Laws for the Third Millennium. Essays in Honor of Friedrich K. Juenger
Yuquing Z, Danhan H (2000–3) The New Contract Law in the People’s Republic of China and the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts: A Brief Comparison, Rev. dr. unif. 2000-3
Zhao J, Xiao F (2010) The Impact of Uniform Law on National Law: Limits and Possibilities Commercial Arbitration: National Report of China. In: Sánchez Córdero J (ed) The impact of uniform law on national law. Limits and possibilities. Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, México, 2010mérica, Montevideo, Ed. Idea, 2000
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Aguirre, C.F. (2015). Settlement of Trade Disputes Between China and Latin America: A Uruguayan Perspective. In: Wei, D. (eds) Settlements of Trade Disputes between China and Latin American Countries. Laws in Emerging Economies, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46425-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46425-0_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-46424-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-46425-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)