czech (& central european) yearbook of arbitration

7/24/2019 Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration

1/31

Czech (& Central European)

Yearbook of Arbitration


2/31


3/31

Czech (& Central European)

Yearbook of Arbitration

Volume III

2013

Borders of Procedural and Substantive Law

in Arbitral Proceedings

(Civil versus Common Law Perspectives)

Editors

Alexander J. Blohlvek Filip ern Nadda Rozehnalov

Professor Dr. Iur. Professor

at the VB TU Charles University at the Masaryk University

in Ostrava in Prague in Brno

Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic

JURIS


4/31

Questions About This Publication

For assistance with shipments, billing or other customer service matters,

please call our Customer Services Department at:1-631-350-2100

To obtain a copy of this book, call our Sales Department:1-631-351-5430

Fax: 1-631-351-5712

Toll Free Order Line:1-800-887-4064 (United States & Canada)

See our web page about this book:www.arbitrationlaw.com

COPYRIGHT 2013By JurisNet, LLC

__________________

All rights reserved. No part of this publicationmay be reproduced in any form or by any electronicor mechanical means including information storage

and retrieval systems without permissionin writing from the publisher.

__________________

Printed in the United States of America.ISBN 978-1-937518-21-9

ISSN 2157-9490

JurisNet, LLC71 New Street

Huntington, New York 11743 U.S.A.www.arbitrationlaw.com

__________________

The title Czech (&Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration as well as thelogo appearing on the cover are protected by EU trademark law.

Typeset in the U.S.A. by Juris Publishing, Inc.


5/31

|v

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

Advisory Board

Anton BaierVienna, Austria

Bohuslav KleinPrague, Czech Republic

Stanislaw SoltysiskiWarsaw, Poland

Silvy ChernevSofia, Bulgaria

Pierre LaliveGeneva, Switzerland

Jozef SuchoaKoice, Slovak Republic

Sir Anthony ColmanLondon, UK

Nikolay NatovSofia, Bulgaria

Piotr NowaczykWarsaw, Poland

Vladimr TBrno, Czech Republic

Editorial Board

Alena BnyaivovPrague, Czech Republic

Matthias SchererGeneva, Switzerland

Marcin CzepelakKrakow, Poland

Filip ernPrague, Czech Republic

Viorel Mihai CiobanuBukurest, Romania

Wolfgang HahnkamperVienna, Austria

Vt HorekPrague, Czech Republic

Marek FurtekWarsaw, Poland

Vladimir KhvaleiMoscow, Russia

Milue HrnikovOlomouc, Czech

Republic

Lszlo KecskesBudapest, Hungary

Tom eznekPrague, Czech Republic

Asko PohlaTalinn, Estonia

Kvtoslav RikaPilsen/Prague, Czech Republic

Ji ValdhansBrno, Czech Republic

Ian I. FunkMinsk, Belarus

Thomas SchultzGeneva, Switzerland

Address for correspondence & manuscriptsCzech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration

Jana Zajce 32, Praha 7, 170 00, Czech Republic

www.czechyearbook.org


6/31


7/31

|vii

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

Impressum

Institutions Participating in the CYArb Project

Academic Institutions

University of West Bohemia in Pilsen, Czech RepublicFaculty of Law, Department of International Law &Department of Constitutional Law[Zpadoesk univerzita v Plzni, Prvnick fakulta.Katedra mezinrodnho prva & Katedra stavnho prva]

Masaryk University (Brno, Czech Republic),Faculty of Law, Department of International and European Law[Masarykova univerzita v Brn, Prvnick fakulta,Katedra mezinrodnho a evropskho prva]

Pavol Jozef afrik University in Koice, Slovak RepublicFaculty of Law, Department of Commercial Law and Business Law[Prvnick fakulta UPJ, Koice, Slovensko. Katedra obchodnho ahospodrskeho prva]

VB TU Ostrava, Czech RepublicFaculty of Economics, Department of Law[VB TU Ostrava, Ekonomick fakulta, Katedra prva]

Institute of State and Law of the Academy of Sciences of the CzechRepublic, v.v.i.

[stav sttu a prva Akademie vd R, v.v.i.]


8/31

Impressum

viii|

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

Non-academic Institutions Participating in the CYArbProject

International Arbitral Centreof the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber

[Wiener Internationaler Schiedsgericht (VIAC), Vienna]

Court of International Commercial Arbitration Attachedto the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania

[Curtea de Arbitraj Comercial Internaional de pe lng Camerade Comer i Industrie a Romniei, Bucharest]

Arbitration Court Attached to the Hungarian Chamberof Commerce and Industry

[A Magyar Kereskedelmi s Iparkamara mellett szervezettVlasztottbrsg, Budapest]

Arbitration Court Attached to the Economic Chamberof the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic

[Rozhod soud pi Hospodsk komoe esk republikya Agrrn komoe esk republiky, Prague]

Arbitration Court Attached to the Czech-Moravian CommodityExchange Kladno

[Rozhod soud pi eskomoravsk komoditn burze Kladno(Czech Republic)]

ICC National Committee Czech Republic[ICC Nrodn vbor esk republika]

The Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce in Warsaw[Sd Arbitraowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej w Warszawie]

Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of State and Law, Slovak Republic[Slovensk akadmia vied, stav ttu a prva. Bratislava, Slovensko]

| | |

Proofreading and translation support provided by: Agentura SPA, s. r. o., Prague,Czech Republic, and Pamela Lewis, USA.


9/31

|ix

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

Contents

List of Abbreviations............................................................................................ xiii

ARTICLES

Andrzej Kubas Kamil ZawickiThe Scope of Mandatory Provisions of Procedural andSubstantive Law Binding upon a Court of Arbitration.............................. 3

Alexander J. BlohlvekApplication of Law in Arbitration, Ex Aequo et Bono

andAmiable Compositeur.................................................................................. 25

Vit MakariusThe Nature of the Burden and Standard of Proofin International Commercial Arbitration...................................................... 53

Klra DrlikovThe Law Applicable to Arbitration Agreements Lex Arbitri or Lex Causae of the Principal Contract?........................ 71

Leonid ShmatenkoIsLex MercatoriaJeopardizing the Application ofSubstantive Law?................................................................................................... 89

Vasily N. AnurovCause of Action in Investment Arbitration................................................... 109


10/31

Contents

x|

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

Marina P. BardinaDetermination of Substantive Law by InternationalCommercial Arbitration in Russian Law, ICAC Rulesand Arbitration Practice..................................................................................... 123

CASE LAW

Section AI. Current Case Law of the Constitutional Courts and General

Courts on Arbitration.................................................................................... 147

1. Czech RepublicAlexander J. Blohlvek.................................................................................... 147

2. HungaryAlexander J. Blohlvek.................................................................................... 201

3. PolandAndrzej Kubas |Kamil Zawicki |Magdalena Selwa................................. 211

4. Slovak RepublicAlexander J. Blohlvek.................................................................................... 239

II. Court Rulingson the Application of Law in Arbitration

Czech RepublicAlexander J. Blohlvek.................................................................................... 243

Section BCase Law of the Arbitral Tribunals: Decisions of ArbitralTribunals within the Jurisdiction of the Arbitration CourtAttached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republicand Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic...................................... 255

1. Current Case Law on ArbitrationAlexander J. Blohlvek.................................................................................... 255

2. Application of Law in Arbitration

Alexander J. Blohlvek.................................................................................... 283

3. Borders of Procedural and Substantive Law in ArbitrationAlexander J. Blohlvek.................................................................................... 308


11/31

Contents

|xi

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitration

BOOK REVIEWS

Alexander J. BlohlvekAct on Arbitration Proceedings and Enforcement ofArbitration Awards, A Commentary............................................................... 319

NEWS & REPORTS

Rajko Knez Marko Djinovi | Nejc LahneArbitration in Slovenia A New Perspective.............................................. 323

Alexander J. BlohlvekNew Rules of the Arbitration Court Attached to theEconomic Chamber of the Czech Republic andAgricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic............................................... 333

Bohumil PolekArbitration Expert Witnesses............................................................................ 353

Milue HrnikovFifth Annual Olomouc Pre-Moot..................................................................... 361

Current Events, Past & Ongoing CYIL/CYArb Presentations ....................... 363

Selected Bibliography of Czech, Slovak and PolishAuthors for 2012 ...................................................................................................... 375

Important Web Sites .............................................................................................. 395

Index.......................................................................................................................... 409

All contributions in this book are subject to academic review.


12/31

|89

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

Leonid Shmatenko

IsLex MercatoriaJeopardizing theApplication ofSubstantive Law?

Abstract | The following article discusses the

application of lex mercatoria by domestic courts andinternational arbitral tribunals instead of orsupplementary to domestic substantive law.Emphasising the legal status of lex mercatoria, thearticle evaluates its value compared to substantivelaw. To provide legal certainty, it also tries to establishcertain criteria regarding the recognition of certainbusiness principles as lex mercatoria.*

| | |

* The author would like to thank Mr. Aron Leimbachfor the helpful feedback.

Key words:

lex mercatoria|merchant law| customarylaw| substantive law|arbitral tribunals|arbitration| requirements| applicable law|UNIDROIT| Russia|Ukraine| Germany

Dipl.-iur. Leonid

Shmatenkois a JuniorFellow and Doctoralcandidate at the Chairof German and ForeignPublic Law, EuropeanLaw and PublicInternational Law atthe Heinrich-Heine-University ofDsseldorf.e-mail:[email protected]


13/31

Leonid Shmatenko

90|

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

[Lex mercatoria is] a kind of Yeti or Loch Ness monster;no one has ever seen them but they might turn out to be useful.1

I. Introduction5.01. Law evolves over years. This is particularly true for transnational

commercial law and arbitration. Lex mercatoria is not a newphenomenon. It even existed in Roman law under the name of iusgentium, a body of law regulating the economic relations betweenforeigners and Roman citizens.2Some scholars in researching the rootsof lex mercatoria have found that it already existed in ancient Egyptand in the Greek and Phoenician sea trade of antiquity.3

5.02. Beginning in the 1960s, stimulated by the London Chamber on theSources of International Trade, the first discussions took place on theconcept of lex mercatoria as a common transnational law.4 Severalscholars such as Kegel, Goldman and Schmitthoff, take this approachleading to a broader discussion of the doctrine.5This debate continues,showing its effects in the jurisdiction of international arbitral tribunalsand domestic courts. This unification of transitional business andeconomic laws that led to the lex mercatoria we know today. The morefrequent and sometimes exclusive application of lex mercatoriainsteadof domestic substantive laws causes some legal uncertainty because it isnot clear when a principle should be considered as lex mercatoria. Thefollowing article discusses the legal status of lex mercatoria in thejurisdiction of domestic courts and international arbitral tribunals and

explores whether it replaces the application of private international lawor represents just a passing trend, afflicted with problems.

1 Roland Loewe, Kaufrechtsbereinkommen Lckenfllung durch nichtamtlicheKodifikationen, (Agreement on the Sale of Goods Gapfilling through non-legislatorycodifications), TRANSPORT-UND VERTRIEBSRECHT 2000, FESTGABE FR ROLF HERBER,Neuwied: Luchterhand 7 (K.-H. Thume ed., 1999).2 Ana Mercedes Lpez Rodrguez,Lex Mercatoria, 1 RETTID 46 et seq. (2002).3 Ibid., at 46 with further references.4 FELIX DASSER, INTERNATIONALE SCHIEDSGERICHTE UND LEX MERCATORIA (InternationalArbitration Tribunals and Lex Mercatoria), Zurich: Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag 39(1989).5 For further details see: GERHARD KEGEL,CRISIS OF CONFLICT OF LAWS, Leyden: Sijthoff17 (1964).


14/31

IsLex MercatoriaJeopardizing the Application of Substantive Law?

|91

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitration

II. The Concept ofLex Mercatoria and ItsSubstantive Qualities

5.03. It is first necessary to clarify the concept of lex mercatoria, also knownas merchant law and its substantive qualities as it directly competeswith domestic substantive laws. Unfortunately, there is no generalagreement on the definition of lex mercatoria. It could be defined as themerchants uniform (unwritten) rules created by the international tradecommunity to serve the needs of international trade. Other scholarsdefine it as transnational commercial law, general principles ofinternational commercial law, principles common in several legalsystems, and international trade usages.6It is clear that many partiesor arbitrators choose lex mercatoria as the lowest commondenominator to circumvent a range of legal problems arising out of theapplication of domestic laws. Hence, lex mercatoria and its(dis-)advantages shall be regarded vis--visdomestic legislation.

II.1. Is It Autonomous or Positivist? That Is theQuestion!

5.04. The relationship between lex mercatoria and domestic law can be seen intwo different ways. On the one hand, it is regarded as an autonomouslegal order in a sense that is different from both domestic andinternational legal orders.7On the other hand, it is seen as a defined bodyof rules with a transnational origin, existing only by virtue of state laws,which give effect to them, thus being founded on domestic law.8

6 JULIAN D. LEW, LOUKAS A. MISTELIS, STEFAN KRLL, COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONALCOMMERCIAL ARBITRATION, The Hague: Kluwer Law International 454 (2003).7 Berthold Goldman,The applicable law: general principles of law the lex mercatoria,in CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION, Dordrecht:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 116 (J. D. M. Lew ed., 1986); Filip De Ly, Feloc DassersInternationale Schiedsgerichte und Lex Mercatoria, Rechtsvergleichender Beitrag zurDiskussion ber Ein Nichtstaatliches Handelsrecht (Feloc Dassers International ArbitralTribunals, A Comparative Law Essay on the Discussion about Non-State Commercial Law),39 AM.J.COMP.L. 626 (1991); Ole Lando, The Lex-Mercatoria in International CommercialArbitration, 34 INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY 151 (1985); MichaelMustill, The New Lex Mercatoria: The First Twenty-Five Years , 4 ARB.INTL 86 (1988).8 Clive M. Schmitthoff,International Business Law: A New Law Merchant, 2 CURRENTLAW AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS129 (1961) (Reprinted in, CLIVE M.SCHMITTHOFF,SELECT ESSAYSON INTERNATIONAL TRADE, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 20 (C-J Ceng ed., 1988));and Clive M. Schmitthoff, The Unification of the Law of International Trade, JOURNAL OFBUSINESS LAW, Reprinted in CLIVE M. SCHMITTHOFF, SELECT ESSAYS ON INTERNATIONALTRADE, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 105-119 (C-J Ceng ed., 1988).


15/31

Leonid Shmatenko

92|

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

II.1.1. The Autonomous Perspective

5.05. According to the autonomists view, international commerce and thuslex mercatoria is a legal order sui generis guaranteeing a special andseparate regime of governance.9 Goldman even argues thatinternational commercial law was never bound to nations andterritories and is a direct successor of the ius gentiumof Roman law.10In the autonomist approach several scholars such as Berger11 orMustill12developed various lists of principles of lex mercatoria. Thoselists, be it the one by Mustill containing twenty principles, such asculpa in contrahendo, pacta sunt servanda and rebus sic stantibus,13orthe one by Berger describing the principles as creeping codification,are not exhaustive. They bring some legal certainty to the extensive

number of principles (from public international law; uniform laws andconventions; trade usages and customs, including standard formcontracts, which are observed in the dealings of the internationalcommercial community; general principles of law common tocommercial states, which are discovered through a comparativeapproach; the rules of international organisations; and the reports ofinternational commercial arbitral awards),14 They show on the otherhand how differently lex mercatoria is perceived and how muchuncertainty is connected with its application.

II.1.2. The Positivist Perspective

5.06. The positivist approach sees lex mercatoria and its origins in medieval

times as the so-called law merchant.

15

The lex mercatoria is a thirdgeneration law merchant in European history. According toSchmitthoff, it is the rediscovery of the international character of

9 Clive M. Schmitthoff,International Business Law: A New Law Merchant, 2 CURRENTLAW AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS27 (1961).10 Clive M. Schmitthoff,The Unification of International Trade, The Unification of theLaw of International Trade, (Reprinted in M. SCHMITTHOFFS SELECT ESSAYS ONINTERNATIONAL TRADE, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 170(C-J Ceng ed., 1988)).11 KLAUS PETER BERGER, THE CREEPING-CODIFICATION OF THE LEX MERCATORIA, TheHague: Kluwer Law International 213-216 (1999).12 Michael Mustill,supranote 7, at 91.13 Ibid., at 110.14 Jarrod Wiener, The TransnationalPolitical Economy: A Framework for Analysis, SISU(online publication) 1, 9 (1996). Available at: http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/the.transnational.political.economy.a.framework.for.analysis.jarrod.wiener.ukc/sisu_manifest.html (accessedon October 1, 2012).15 Aleksandar Goldstaijn, The New Law Merchant, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LAW12 (1961);Leon E. Trakman, The Evolution of the Law Merchant: Our Commercial Heritage ,12 JOURNAL OF MARITIME LAW AND COMMERCE1 (1980-1981).


16/31


|93

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitration

commercial law, i.e.moving away from national restrictions to a universaland international conception of international trade law.16 AlthoughSchmitthoff says that lex mercatoria is autonomous from any system oflaw,17 it should be noted that only three aspects must be taken intoaccount. First, it should contain universal principles, e.g.,pacta suntservanda, which are usually recognized in any legal system. Second, itshould contain certain standards applying to the formation of contractsand third, it should contain the growing jurisdiction of internationalcommercial arbitration.18 In conclusion, the whole doctrine ofSchmitthoff concentrates on the unification and harmonisation ofinternational trade law and is closely interwoven with domestic laws. 19This approach is more convincing than the autonomous one for many

reasons, the most striking one being the origin of lex mercatoria. As itoriginates from customs in commercial law, customary rules, generalprinciples of commercial law, etc. it is a logical consequence that lexmercatoria must be treated as transnational commercial law.20

III. Lex Mercatoria and Its Disadvantages

5.07. Lex mercatoria divides law scholars and practitioners into two factions,those who disapprove of the principles of lex mercatoria and those whothink that lex mercatoria is the way to salvation. It is undisputed thatlex mercatoria is relevant in international commercial arbitration,especially in the interpretation of international commercial contracts.However, in applying the rules of a constitutional state, lex mercatoria

shows a number of substantial deficits.5.08. From a systematic point of view, lex mercatoria lacks an inner system, afact which leads to a patchwork of many dispersed principles. With itsopen clauses, which allow for a number of arbitrary decisions, it isinsufficient to rebuild the reality of legal relations. Last but not least,which institution legitimately approved lex mercatoria is not evident.

16 Clive M. Schmitthoff,International Business Law: A New Law Merchant, 2 CURRENTLAW AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS 129 (1961) (Reprinted in, CLIVE M. SCHMITTHOFF S SELECTESSAYS ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 20 (C-J Cenged., 1988)); Clive M. Schmitthoff, The Unification of the Law of International Trade, JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LAW (Reprinted in CLIVE M. SCHMITTHOFF, SELECT ESSAYS ONINTERNATIONAL TRADE, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 105 (C-J Ceng ed., 1988)).17 Ibid.,at 27.18 Ibid.,at 31.19 Ibid.,at 32.20 Lpez Rodrguez, supra note 2, at 48; Roy Goode, Usage and Its Reception inTransnational Commercial Law, 46 INTERNATIONAL &COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY4(2008).


17/31

Leonid Shmatenko

94|

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

Contrary to codified law, especially to private international law with itslinks to other domestic regulations, lex mercatoria exists in a vacuum.This fact is underlined by the predominant doctrines about the relationof lex mercatoria to substantive law. Whereas these doctrines deal withthe relationship, they do not provide an answer to the question ofwhether lex mercatoria could be substantive law. This becomes moreobvious as lex mercatoria frequently reproduces principles anddoctrines already included in domestic legislation.

5.09. The traditional statutory laws of the nineteenth and twentieth centuriesdid not provide any options for considering lex mercatoria as anautonomous law. However, it still found its way into legislation ascustomary law. The best examples of this practice are found in Section

346 of the German Commercial Code and Article 9 of the UnitedNations Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Section346 of the German Commercial Code reads: Trade customs andusages must be observed among merchants, in respect of meaning andeffect of actions and omissions. Article 9(2) of the CISG has a verysimilar wording: The parties are considered, unless otherwise agreed, tohave impliedly made applicable to their contract or its formation a usageof which the parties knew or ought to have known and which ininternational trade is widely known to, and regularly observed by, partiesto contracts of the type involved in the particular trade concerned.

5.10. Hence, lex mercatoria as natural law, which always co-exists withstatutory law, is part of a reality that cannot be disregarded. It clearlydemonstrates that a parallel legislation is taking place in the

codification of state laws. The cornerstone of the whole discussion isstill whether lex mercatoria can meet the quality standards to betreated as law. No matter how relevant lex mercatoria may be inpractice, one should bear in mind its aforementioned disadvantages, e.g.its patchwork character and lack of legitimacy, which lead one to theconclusionthat lex mercatoriashould be a complementary, subsidiaryset of rules, but never an independent and colourful potpourri ofprinciples replacing substantive law. As long as there is no world-customary-law, lex mercatoria can never gain enough support tosuppress domestic laws. Hence, lex mercatoria cannot be a lex specialisto domestic laws as long as its principles are not reflected in them.

5.11. As a result, it can be said that as long as the principles of lex mercatoriaare dispersed and inconsistent, lex mercatoria cannot be an

autonomous law. To achieve this it is necessary to promote domesticcodification of these principles, while arbitral tribunals should return tothe application of substantive law and should not try to circumventthese provisions by the application of lex mercatoria. It is undisputed


18/31


|95

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitration

that lex mercatoria should be used in a complementary manner inorder to strengthen its position. However, only the application of hardlaw, i.e. substantive law can provide the demanded certainty whenenforcing arbitral awards.

IV. Lex MercatoriasAdvantages

5.12. Although there are several disadvantages to the application of lexmercatoria, there are a few positive aspects that should be mentioned.The community of lex mercatoria supporters that consists of Goldman,Schmitthoff, Berger, Lando and Gaillard, brings forward severalarguments detaching lex mercatoria from the discussion on whether asubstantive law is needed. Whereas it is clear that a law cannot exist

in a vacuum and needs a legitimate legislator, Fouchard, Gaillard andGoldman state that it is by no means evident that to be the object of avalid choice of governing law the rules chosen must necessarily beorganised in a distinct legal order.21 Goldman, who has argued thatinternational trade was autonomous from domestic laws as a majorityof international business was not regulated by domestic laws,introduced the idea of lex mercatoriabeing an international trade law.22This ad hoc approach is needed to meet the demands of the always-evolving reality of transnational trade. Thus, lex mercatoria reflectscustomary and spontaneous regulations.23 Schmitthoffs argumentproviding three pillars for the foundation of lex mercatoria, mentionedabove, underlines this approach. As these principles can be combined

with domestic law, they allow the parties to have a more flexible handlingof their dispute as long as they do not violate the mandatory rules of therespective country.24 It was described above how lex mercatoria can bespontaneous as well as customary, thus giving the parties remarkableflexibility in shaping their commercial relations. Such flexibility cannotbe found in domestic law, which can be unpredictable as well.Additionally, lex mercatoria is frequently applied in internationalpractice, where parties do not always want to apply domestic laws.

21 FOUCHARD, GAILLARD, GOLDMAN ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION,Hague: Kluwer Law International 809 (E. Gaillard & J. Savage eds., 1999).22 Berthold Goldman, Frontires du Droit et Lex Mercatoria, Le droit subjectif enquestion, ARCHIVES DE PHILOSOPHIE DU DROIT181 (1964).23 Berthold Goldman, The applicable law: general principles of law the lex mercatoria,CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION, Doldrecht: Martinus NijhoffPublishers 113 (J. D. M. Lew ed., 1987).24 Katharina Boele-Woelki, Principles and Private International Law, 1 UNIFORM LAWREVIEW652 (1996).


19/31

Leonid Shmatenko

96|

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

V. Codification ofLex Mercatoria Halfway There?

5.13. Bergerspeaks about a creeping codification of lex mercatoria. Indeedthe practices and principles of international trade have been translatedinto numerous codifications by UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL. Thelatter contain, e.g., the Convention on the Limitation Period in theInternational Sale of Goods25 and the very successful CISG.26 Othersources can be found in the ICC INCOTERMS.27These codificationsshow the transnational origin of lex mercatoria, though their existencedepends on the discretion of every single state. These principlesbecome only a part of domestic law if the states ratify them. Theunification nevertheless proceeds: UNCITRAL, ICC, UNIDROIT, theHague Convention on Private International Law, and the InternationalMaritime Committee all pursue the codification of trade principles andtry to achieve a maximal adoption of these rules. Even the EuropeanUnion recognizes this trend and wants to introduce a CommonEuropean Sales Law28 incorporating the latest developments ininternational trade. Although the latter aims at B2C relationships, therehas been a distinct tendency toward development of a CommonEuropean Civil Code.29 While it might take some time until such a

25 The convention was not very successful. As of today only 21 parties have amended it.For further information see the status available at: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/sale_goods/1974Convention_status.html (accessed on August 14, 2012).The convention can be accessed in English at: http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/

sales/limit/limit_conv_E_Ebook.pdf (accessed on August 14, 2012).26 As of today 78 parties have amended the CISG. See the status at: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/sale_goods/1980CISG_status.html (accessed onAugust 14, 2012). The undisputed access of the CISG and its close relationship tointernational commercial arbitration can be seen in the Willem C. Vis CommercialArbitration Moot Court, taking place in Vienna and attracting 280 student teams fromover 67 countries. For further details see: Hew R. Dundas, The Willem C Vis InternationalCommercial Arbitration Moot, 1 STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION REVIEW155(2008); ANA BARBARA BAIDE, CISG THROUGH THE WILLEM C VIS MOOT CASEBOOK SEVENTEEN YEARS OF THE CISG EVOLUTION EXPLORED THROUGH ANNUAL DISCUSSION,Dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington (2009), available at: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10063/1246/thesis.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on August 15,2012) 2009.27 See http://www.iccwbo.org/incoterms/ (accessed on August 14, 2012).28 See Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and Council on a CommonEuropean Sales Law, EC COM(2011) 635 final. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0635:FIN:EN:PDF (accessed on August 14, 2012).29 See e.g. STEFAN LEIBLE, WEGE ZU EINEM EUROPISCHEN PRIVATRECHT:ANWENDUNGSPROBLEME UND ENTWICKLUNGPERSPEKTIVEN DES GEMEINSCHAFTSPRIVATRECHTS(The Ways to European Civil Law: Problems of Application and Perspectives of Evolution ofa Common European Civil Code), Habilitationsschrift, Bayreuth (2001).


20/31


|97

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitration

uniform law is introduced, the only logical step would be a CommonEuropean Commercial Code finally unifying and codifying the scatteredprinciples of lex mercatoria.

VI. The Application ofLex Mercatoria inInternational Practice

5.14. Even though domestic courts do acknowledge the principles of lexmercatoria, not every domestic court wants to deal with it and producea decision that might be overruled in the next instance. This applies toarbitral tribunals as well, as there is some risk that an award based onlex mercatoria rather than on substantive law might be set aside, or not

enforced in the domestic courts. Success in enforcing an award basedon the principles of lex mercatoriavery much depends on whether thedomestic court is familiar with the principle. This might be the case forculpa in contrahendo in Germany; however, for e.g., in Russia thedoctrine of culpa in contrahendo is unknown both in substantive lawand in jurisprudence. An evaluation of some domestic decisions fromGermany, Russia and the Ukraine, as well as arbitral awards using lexmercatoria illustrate this point.

VI.1. Lex Mercatoriain International Arbitration

5.15. The application of lex mercatoria in international arbitration is seen asa success of transnational law against substantive law.

VI.1.1. SCC Case 117/1999 Application of the UNIDROIT

Principles

5.16. This dispute involved a Luxembourg company and a Chinese company.Both companies were a licensor and licensee. They had a contractualrelationship from 1980 to 1995. In 1998, they entered into a non-disclosure agreement (settlement), which effectively imposed on them asecrecy obligation until 31 December 2002.30However, alleged breachesof the secrecy obligation were recorded. The European company filed arequest for arbitration with the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm

30 Loukas Mistelis, UNIDROIT Principles Applied as Most Appropriate Rules of Law ina Swedish Arbitral Award, 8 UNIFORM LAW REVIEW 630 (2003). Available at:http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/mistelis1.html (accessed on August 14, 2012);see also Case summary with observations Herbert Kronke & Juan Fernndez-Armesto, Separate Arbitral Award rendered in 2001 in SCC Case 117/1999, STOCKHOLMARBITRATIONREPORT59 (2002).


21/31

Leonid Shmatenko

98|

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

Chamber of Commerce, claiming damages for breach of the secrecyobligation.31

5.17. The case was referred to the arbitration tribunal in July of 2000. Theplace of arbitration was Stockholm and the arbitration tribunalconsisted of two Swedish arbitrators (one being the Chairman) and oneChinese arbitrator.32 On 24 October 2000, the European companyrequested a determination of the issue of applicable law in a finalpartial award. The Chinese company agreed with the Europeancompany in this request. There had been no agreement as to theapplicable law in either the 1980 or the 1998 agreement.33Both partiesmade submissions regarding the applicable substantive law since therewas no choice-of-law clause. The tribunal had as choices Swedish law,

Chinese law, the UNIDROIT Principles or Luxembourgian law.5.18. There were no provisions in the Swedish Arbitration Act to determine

the applicable substantive law. It did allow the arbitrators to apply therules of law it considered most appropriate. Chinese law could not beapplied due to the Swedish conflict-of-law rules of the 1980 RomeConvention.34Swedish law was not a good option as its choice wouldhave been hypothetical and fictional.35Bearing that in mind, the arbitraltribunal applied the UNIDROIT Principles stating that: [thePrinciples] have wide recognition and set out principles that in theTribunals [sic] opinion offers [sic] a protection for contracting partiesthat adequately reflects [sic] the basic principles of commercialrelations in most if not all developed countries.36

VI.1.2. ICC Case No. 8502 Application of UNIDROITPrinciples

5.19. Another example of the application of the UNIDROIT Principles andthus lex mercatoria is ICC Case No. 8502.37This dispute arose out of acontract that was silent as to the law to be applied on the merits. It didnot contain any express choice of law clause, neither written norimplied. The contract and the arbitration involved a Vietnamese sellerand a Dutch buyer acting through its French company. The place of

31 Ibid.,at 633.32 Ibid., at 634.33 Ibid., at 634.34 Ibid., at 635.35 Ibid.36 Herbert Kronke & Juan Fernndez-Armesto,supra note 29.37 ICC Case No. 8502. Available at: http://www.unilex.info/case.cfm?id=395 (accessed onAugust 14, 2012).


22/31


|99

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitration

arbitration was Paris, France.38 As in the case above, the dispute hadconnections with several national laws, all of which might have played arelevant role.

5.20. Under Article 13(3) of the ICC Rules, the arbitral tribunal should applythe law designated by the rule of conflict which it deems appropriate.39However, the contract referred to international trade usages, such asthe INCOTERMS or the Uniform Customs and Practice forDocumentary Credits. Bearing this in mind, the arbitral tribunaldecided to base its award on trade usages and generally acceptedprinciples of international trade40and to integrate when required bythe circumstances, [] the provisions of the 1980 Vienna Conventionon Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna Sales

Convention) or [] the Principles of International CommercialContracts enacted by UNIDROIT, as evidencing admitted practicesunder international trade law.41

VI.2. Lex Mercatoriain Domestic Courts

5.21. Generally, domestic courts tend to be unwilling to rule on somethingrather unknown and wish to remain conservative. This, however, is notthe case for lex mercatoria. Lex mercatoria finds its counterpart innational legislation and is frequently applied by domestic courts. TheGerman counterpart of lex mercatoria, mentioned above and found inSection 346 of the German Commercial Code, refers to the so-calledHandelsbrauch, meaning mercantile customs. Article 7 paragraph1, sentence 1 and 2 of the Ukrainian Civil Code even provides a legaldefinition of a (torhovyi zvyaj). It states that amercantile custom is a rule, which is not set forth in the Civil Code,but represents a fortified rule in a certain area of civil relations.Article 5 paragraph 1 of the Russian Civil Code follows the sameapproach as the Ukrainian Civil Code. (Obyai delovogo oborota) means the customs of a commercialturnover. The definition contained in Article 5 paragraph 1 of theRussian Civil Code itself states that: A mercantile custom is anacknowledged and broadly applied rule in any branch of businesswhich is not positively regulated by law, legally independent ofwhether it is in writing or not.

38 Ibid.39 Ibid.40 Ibid.41 Ibid.


23/31

Leonid Shmatenko

100|

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

VI.2.1. Handelsbrauch in German Jurisdiction

5.22. German domestic courts frequently apply Handelsbrauch in theirjurisprudence. This is because the application found its codification inSection 346 of the German Commercial Code. The following decisionsare examples of when the courts appliedHandelsbrauch.

VI.2.1.1. Implicit Arbitration Agreement as Handelsbrauch

5.23. In a rather old case from 1992, the Federal Supreme Court had to applyHandelsbrauch to establish an implicit arbitration agreement betweentwo parties.42

5.24. On 1 May 1987, Corporation R sent a telegram to the respondent,

ordering 3000 dozen wetblue-sheepskins and referring to contract C3132. The respondent confirmed that order and assumed thatCorporation R was the contractual partner for the 3000 dozenwetblue-sheepskins. In the respondents letter with the contractnumber 7297 it was stated inter alia: Remarks basis: InternationalHide & Skin Contract No. 2 Arbitration and Appeal H. On 7 May1987, Corporation R sent a Contract Note to the claimant, a thirdparty, with the number C 3132 which stated that it dealt as an agentof the S-KG selling to the claimant 3000 dozen wetblue-sheepskins.The claimant, being a third party to the contract, confirmed receipt ofthe contract and the terms and conditions. On the same day,Corporation R sent a contract note C 3132 to the respondent (S-KG).The latter received the letter on 14 May 1987, and responded in a

telegram to Corporation R on 20 May 1987 asking to modify thecontract stating: Please modify our contract 7297 accordingly. Thisrequest was sent with the intention of clarifying the identity of thecontracting buyer. On 22 June 1987, the respondent issued an invoiceto the claimant, as a third party, demanding 161000 USD based oncontract 7297, concluded 8 May 1987. The claimant paid the invoice on13 July 1987.

5.25. After the claimant cancelled the contract, it demanded the purchaseprice from the respondent. The respondent claimed in the revision thatthere was still the objection of the presence of an arbitrationagreement. The regional court ruled that due to this objection theclaim was inadmissible. The appellate court did not concur with thisruling and remitted the case to the regional court.

42 Decision of the Federal Supreme Court, 3 December 1992, Case No. III ZR 30/91.Published in NJW 1993, 1798.


24/31


|101

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitration

5.26. The Federal German Court stated that both parties contracted for anarbitration agreement through the International Hide & Skin ContractNo. 2 as a Handelsbrauch. A Handelsbrauch could also lead to animplicit arbitration agreement, as is typical for this business branch andthe participating parties took actions in the relevant business branch.

VI.2.1.2. Business-like Letter of Confirmation as Handelsbrauch

5.27. Another acknowledged Handelsbrauch in German commercial law isthe business-like letter of confirmation (kaufmnnischesBesttigungsschreiben).43 This principle states that a businessman44implicitly accepts an offer by another businessman unless it isimmediately contradicted.

5.28. In a recent case that came before the Federal Supreme Court45

aclaimant sought to have an arbitral award declared enforceable, whichwould oblige the respondent to pay damages. The regional court of firstinstance granted the request, confirming the existence of a validarbitration agreement. The court stated that there were no grounds torefuse the declaration of enforceability within the meaning of Article Vparas. 1 and 2 of the New York Convention (NYC). Although there wasno written arbitration agreement within the meaning of Art. II para. 2of the NYC, the court found that in light of the most-favouredtreatment clause contained in Article VII of the NYC, the requirementof an arbitration agreement signed by both parties could be dispensedwith. The court held further that the claimant could rely upon anarbitration agreement established by a business-like letter of

confirmation, thus complying with the less stringent provision of Section1031 paragraphs 2 and 3 of the German Code of Civil Procedure.46Thus

43 See the established law practice in the Decisions of the Supreme Court of the GermanReich: RGZ 54, 176; RGZ 95, 96; RGZ 129, 347, 349.44 According to Section 1 of the German Commercial Code a businessman is someonewho carries out mercantile trade. In its original text it provides: 1(1) Kaufmann im Sinne dieses Gesetzbuchs ist, wer ein Handelsgewerbe betreibt. (Abusinessman in the sense of this Code, is someone who is conducting a business).(2) Handelsgewerbe ist jeder Gewerbebetrieb, es sei denn, da das Unternehmen nach Artoder Umfang einen in kaufmnnischer Weise eingerichteten Geschftsbetrieb nichterfordert. (A business is every commercial undertaking, unless, the business, due to itstype or scope, does not demand commercial operations).45 Decision of the Federal Supreme Court, 30 September 2010, Case No. III ZB 69/09.Published in 332 SCHIEDSVZ (2010).46 Section 1031 Form of arbitration agreement(1) The arbitration agreement shall be contained either in a document signed by theparties or in an exchange of letters, telefaxes, telegrams or other means oftelecommunication which provide a record of the agreement.


25/31

Leonid Shmatenko

102|

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

a valid arbitration agreement is also concluded if a business-like letterof confirmation is sent to the opposing party according to Section 1032paragraph 3 of the German Code of Civil Procedure.

5.29. The Federal Supreme Court in the last instance confirmed the decisionof the appellate court holding that the most-favoured treatment clausein Article VII para. 1 of the NYC permits the application of the lessstringent provision of Section 1031 paras. 2 and 3 of the German Codeof Civil Procedure. Such a broad interpretation of the most-favouredtreatment principle applying recognition-friendly national provisions,not only for national but also for foreign arbitral awards, is supportedby international law.47

VI.2.2. Torhovyi Zvyaj in the Ukrainian Jurisdiction5.30. From 2006 to today, 728 court decisions on torhovyi zvyaj can be

found in the Ukrainian jurisdiction.48 The following paragraphevaluates the application of two different principles of lex mercatoria.

VI.2.2.1 Pacta Sunt Servanda in the Ukrainian Jurisdiction

5.31. The principle of pacta sunt servanda is acknowledged by the majorityof scholars as a principle of lex mercatoria. In the Ukrainianjurisdiction there is only one case in which the court applied thisprinciple. The Commercial Court of ernivecka Oblast ruled upon acancellation of a contract.49

5.32. In this case the claimant wanted the contract it had with two

respondents to be declared invalid. In its view the contract violatedArticles 512, 516, 527, 1077 and 1079 of the Civil Code of Ukraine andthus was invalid according to Article 215 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.On 23 January 2002 the claimant and the second respondent enteredinto a construction contract containing a clause stating that the rightsarising out of the contract could not be part of an assignmentagreement. On 15 November 2010, the claimant and the first

(2) The form requirement of subsection 1 shall be deemed to have been complied with ifthe arbitration agreement is contained in a document transmitted from one party to theother party or by a third party to both parties and if no objection was raised in good time the contents of such document are considered to be part of the contract in accordancewith common usage.47 Decision of the Federal Supreme Court, 30 September 2010, Case No. III ZB 69/09.48 This number originated from a case search with the term torgovyj zvyay in theCommon Register of Court Decisions of Ukraine (in Ukrainian only) available at:http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/ (accessed on August 14, 2012).49 Decision of the Commercial Court of ernivecka Oblast, 14 March 2011, Case No. 6/97,Available at: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/14406665 (accessed on August 14, 2012).


26/31


|103

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitration

respondent entered into a contract, which stated that the firstrespondent became the cessionary of the second respondent and thuscould demand payment from the claimant which arose from asubcontract. The first instance court ruled that this contract wasinvalid, and the second respondent stopped fulfilling the contract. TheCommercial Court of ernivecka Oblast ruled that the secondrespondent had to continue the fulfilment of its obligations (pacta suntservanda) as the contract forbidding the assignment had been validlycontracted (actio ex contractu).

VI.2.2.2 UNIDROIT Principles in the Ukrainian Jurisdiction

5.33. The UNIDROIT Principles were applied frequently in the UkrainianJurisdiction. An example of their application in domestic courts is seenin the case of the Kiev Commercial Court. The courthad to rule uponthe frustration of an easement contract, which resulted in thecancellation of the latter.50 The claimant, a private stock corporation,entered into an easement contract with the respondent, a municipallimited liability company, on 1 December 2007. On 14 July 2011, and 29August 2011, the municipal parliament issued two decisions limitingthe rights of municipal agencies and transferred the rights to othermunicipal companies that did not include the respondents company.Referring to Article 406 sec. 2 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, theclaimant wrote to the respondent that it was entitled to cancel theeasement contract due to hardship. Article 652 of the Civil Code of

Ukraine contains a definition of hardship and states that the partiesshall renegotiate the contract; if the negotiations fail, the equilibriumcan be either adjusted by the courts or cancelled. Thus the claimantcancelled the contract on 1 December 2011. The municipal companyclaimed, however, that the contract had not been cancelled because thedecisions by the municipal parliament were not retroactive.Furthermore, they were not connected to the dispute in the case andthus this did not constitute fundamental changes.

5.34. When applying Article 652 para. 2 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, thecourt interpreted the definition of hardship in the light of Article 6.2.2UNIDROIT Principles by referring to its definition, saying thathardship was where the occurrence of events fundamentally alters theequilibrium of the contract either because the cost of a partys

performance has increased or because the value of the performance

50 Decision of theKiev Commercial Court, 12 April 2012, Case No. 5011-18/3397-2012,Available at: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/23656295 (accessed on August 14, 2012).


27/31

Leonid Shmatenko

104|

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

decreased. However, it said that such circumstances did not occur inthis case and there was no need to adjust the equilibrium.

VI.3. Lex Mercatoriain Case Law A Brief Summary

5.35. In conclusion, both arbitral tribunals and domestic courts apply lexmercatoria. Whenever a codification of a principle is missing indomestic legislation, lex mercatoria is able to bridge this gap. Lexmercatoria can also be useful for cases where it is unclear whichsubstantive law applies. However, lex mercatoria as an independentsubstantive law is rarely applied. It rather acts as an addendum tosubstantive law. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that lex mercatoria hasbecome an important part of jurisprudence and has almost entered the

legal mainstream. Yet the application of substantive laws still prevails,thus making lex mercatoria a nice bonus given to the tribunals, courtsand parties to shape their business relations in a globalised world.

VII. Requirements for Acknowledgement ofPrinciples asLex Mercatoria

5.36. As seen above, lex mercatoria principles are applied in arbitral awardsand in domestic courts. However, there is as yet no criteriasubstantiating when a certain rule may be seen as applicable lexmercatoria. Courts rather tend to apply it arbitrarily, which makes theresults unpredictable compared to results based on substantive law.This leads to legal uncertainty. Consequently, it would be a major

improvement to the application of lex mercatoria if the principles hadto fulfil certain requirements to be seen as applicable and applied.Thus, in the following discussion, we will make an attempt to establishsome requirements for making a mere business practice a lexmercatoria.

VII.1. Real Practice (longa consuetudo)

5.37. As a first requirement, the practice should really be a practice. In caseswhere the practice is only limited to the business between two parties,it would not fulfil this requirement. It is fair to demand that thepractice be at least regional.51 This practice should take place in acertain branch of business and it should be distinguishable from

51 See also: Ulrich Magnus, Michael Martinek, Art. 9 CISG, in KOMMENTAR ZUMBRGERLICHEN GESETZBUCH MIT EINFHRUNGSGESETZ UND NEBENGESETZEN (Commentaryon the German Civil Code and Other Laws), Mnchen: Sellier-de Gruyter para. 23 (J.Staudinger ed., 2005).


28/31


|105

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitration

ordinary contractual obligations. Consequently, an objective point ofview must be applied. The application of an objective point of viewmakes it possible to identify the principle as a practice in a certainbranch of business, which is not just limited to certain parties.

VII.2. Common Understanding betweenBusinesspersons (consensus mercatoria)

5.38. Second, it is obvious that both parties must be businesspersons. Acontractual relationship between a businessperson and a customercannot establish a practice resulting in lex mercatoria. However, it isquestionable how businessperson can be defined in legal practice.

VII.3. Over a Certain Period of Time

5.39. Third, it is necessary that the practice be applied over a certain periodof time. A first hint toward defining this period can be taken fromcustomary law, which demands a practice of thirty years.52However, fora business practice such a period would be too long.53 For theestablishment of a prolonged period of time, it is necessary that thepractice take place regularly and consciously and not by sheercoincidence. This means that the legal effects are foreseeable for any ofthe parties. In times of crisis, such as war or inflation, this period oftime could be relatively short.

VII.4. Legal Significance (opinio necessitatis)

5.40. Although legal significance is demanded for customary law only,54oneshould demand some degree of legal significance for lex mercatoria as

52 FRIEDRICH KARL ROTH, HANDBUCH DES FORSTRECHTS UND DES FORSTPOLIZEIRECHTS:NACH DEN IN BAYERN GELTENDEN GESETZEN (Handbook of Forest Law and Forest PoliceLaw: According to the Laws of Bavaria), Mnchen: Lindauer 7 (1863); PETER BYDLINKSI,BRGERLICHES RECHT,BAND 1,ALLGEMEINER TEIL (Civil Law, Vol. 1, General Part), Wien:Springer-Verlag 13 (2007).53 NADIA AL-SHAMARI, DIE VERKEHRSSITTE IM 242 BGB: KONZEPTION UNDANWENDUNG SEIT 1900 (TheCustomary Law in Section 242 of the German Civil Code:Concept and Application since 1900), Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck 200 (2006); Ingo Koller,Wulf-Henning Roth, Winfried Morck, in GROKOMMENTAR HANDELSGESETZBUCH(Commentary on the German Commercial Code),Mnchen: C. H. BeckSec. 346, marg. no.7 (20thed. 2001); KARSTEN SCHMIDT, MNCHENER KOMMENTAR ZUM HANDELSGESETZBUCH(Munich Commentary on the German Commercial Law), Mnchen: C. H. Beck Sec. 346marg. no. 6 (2nded. 2009).54 For an extensive overview on opinio necessitatis see: Alan Watson, An Approach toCustomary Law, in 1 FOLK LAW: ESSAYS IN THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LEX NON


29/31

Leonid Shmatenko

106|

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

well. It cannot suffice that the principle exist and yet lack bindingeffect. However, it is necessary that the principle is recognised inbusiness relations. A mere one-sided acknowledgement is notsufficient. Nevertheless, it can be sufficient if a principle is establishedin a certain branch of business and has some legal significance. In thatcase, an individual businessperson does not necessarily have to knowthe applied principles. It requires only that the businessperson shouldhave anticipated that they might apply. Consolidation of the legalsignificance might also lead to codification in terms and conditions.

VII.5. In Brief

5.41. Whenever a business principle fulfils the criteria mentioned above, it

might be considered as lex mercatoria. Its application should beallowed and courts might use the principles as support for theinterpretation of substantive law or, in cases where substantive lawdoes not provide such regulations, as independent law.

VIII. Conclusion

5.42. It is undisputed that lex mercatoria is part of a globalised world.Commercial transactions always have been international, and in anincreasingly globalised world, with hundreds of different laws, there isneed for a uniform framework. The historical experience of lexmercatoria shows that even though it is a non-governmental and moreor less autonomous law, it can be efficient and productive. Being a

transnational self-regulator, lex mercatoria sets trends, assisted byspecialists and associations such as UNCITRAL or UNIDROIT, fordomestic legislators who incorporate the principles into their laws.

5.43. However, in its current state lex mercatoria is soft law withoutrequirements regarding its formation that is incapable of establishing alegal system coequal to the existing domestic substantive laws. Unlesslex mercatoria provides a codified and reliable system of principles,which are acknowledged by the whole transnational legal community, itwill continue to be afflicted by uncertainty in its results and the lack ofan inner system, being but a compilation of diverse trade habits. Theon-going codification through transnational organisations andcommercial arbitration jurisprudence is a positive step toward thefuture of a codified lex mercatoria and may help it shed this rather

unfortunate reputation.

SCRIPTA, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press 143 et seq. (A. Dundes Renteln & A.Dundes eds., 1995).


30/31


|107

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitration

5.44. There is no doubt that a unified and codified lex mercatoria would leadto swift adoption of the principles in national legislations all around theworld. The best example of such an adoption is the CISG, which hasbeen amended by 78 states and even partially translated into domestictrade law. In conclusion, it is hoped that lex mercatoria will surpass thisdifficult situation of uncertainty and will finally become a fullyacknowledged tool of the international substantive law community.

5.45. So long as lex mercatoria is but a nice supplement to substantive law,but does not jeopardize the application of the latter, it will be beneficialto substantive laws and help arbitral tribunals, domestic courts, andparties interpret their agreements according to international tradehabits.

| | |

Summaries

DEU [Ist lex mercatoria eine Gefahr fr die Anwendbarkeit desmateriellen Rechts?]Die lex mercatoria ist selbst nach fast 50 Jahren ihrer Wiederentdeckungund Wiedereinfhrung in die moderne Rechtswissenschaft ein sehrumstrittenes Phnomen, sowohl vor staatlichen Gerichten, als auch vorSchiedsgerichten. Der hier vorliegende Artikel zeigt in welchem Umfangdie lex mercatoria angewandt wird und ob sie tatschlich das staatlichematerielle Recht in seinem vollem Umfang verdrngt oder lediglich alsAuslegungshilfe verwendet wird. Da die lex mercatoria zu diversen

Problemen der Rechtssicherheit fhrt, versucht der Autor anhand vondiversen Voraussetzungen einen Vorschlag fr die Anerkennung diverserlex mercatoria zu erarbeiten, um so die Rechtssicherheit zu erhhen.

CZE [Ohrouje lex mercatoria aplikaci hmotnho prva?]Pedmtem nsledujcho pspvku je analza aplikace legismercatoriae nrodnmi soudy a mezinrodnmi rozhodmi soudy mstovnitrosttnho hmotnho prva nebo spolen s nm (jako subsidirnhopramene prva). lnek zdrazuje prvn postaven legis mercatoriaea posuzuje jeho hodnotu ve srovnn s hmotnm prvem. V zjmuzajitn prvn jistoty se rovn pokou zakotvit kritria uznvnuritch obchodnch zsad jako legis mercatoriae.

| | |


31/31

Leonid Shmatenko

108|

Czec

h(&

Centra

lEuropean

)Year

boo

ko

fAr

bitr

ation

POL [Czy lex mercatoria zagraa stosowaniu prawa materialnego?]W przedmiotowym artykule Leonid Szmatenko omawia stosowanie legismercatoriae przez sdy krajowe i midzynarodowe trybunayarbitraowe. Ponadto prbuje okreli kryteria uznawania pewnychzasad handlowych za legis mercatoriae.

FRA [Est-ce que la lex mercatoria represente une risque pourlapplication du droit matriel?]Larticle explique lapplication de la lex mercatoria par les tribunauxnationaux et internationaux et des tribunaux darbitrage au lieu de oucomplmentaire la loi de fond intrieur. Soulignant le statut juridiquede la lex mercatoria il value sa valeur par rapport au droit positif.

Pour assurer la scurit juridique, il essaie aussi dtablir certainscritres concernant pour la reconnaissance des principes de lexmercatoria.

RUS [ lex mercatoria ?] Lex Mercatoria

. , Lex

Mercatoria

. ,

,

, LexMercatoria.

ESP [Es la lex mercatoria un riesgo para la aplicacin del derechosustantivo?]El artculo analiza la aplicacin de la lex mercatoria por los tribunales

nacionales y los tribunales arbitrales internacionales en lugar de o

complementarias al derecho sustantivo nacional. Haciendo hincapi en

la situacin jurdica de la lex mercatoria se evala su valor en

comparacin con el derecho sustantivo. Ofrecer seguridad jurdica

tambin intenta establecer determinados criterios sobre el

reconocimiento de ciertos principios de negocio como lex mercatoria.

| | |

czech (& central european) yearbook of arbitration

Documents