FRIDAY 25th November 2016, Prof. Katja Langenbucher (Sciences Po Ecole de Droit and Goethe-University’s House of Finance) & Brooke Adele Marshall (Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law)
Economic transplants as a common language? (Prof. Langenbucher)
Processes of “economization” have been observed and described by anthropologists, economists and sociologists (pars pro toto, see the work of Michel Callon). The presentation will focus on a related phenomenon in the world of legal research, law-making and adjudication which I address as “economic transplants“.
I will try, first, to capture reasons for the receptivity of lawyers and policymakers for “transplanting” findings based on economic methodology, both theoretical and empirical, into the law. Second, I shall ask if such “economic transplants“ live up to what they promise as far as legislative work is concerned. Third, economic transplants and the promises they hold are considered in the judicial context.
The presentation will rely on excerpts of a book forthcoming at CUP on “economic transplants“.
The CISG or the PICC as the governing law: normative ambiguities, dépeçage and the purportedly chosen law (Brooke Adele Marshall)
The Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts are “soft” private international law rules. They empower parties to choose either State law or soft “rules of law” to govern their contract, regardless of whether they litigate or arbitrate. This paper investigates the relationship between the Hague Principles and two sets of rules of law which parties may choose: the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) or the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). It makes three principal claims. First, the nature of the Hague Principles and their relationship with the PICC or the CISG gives rise to several normative ambiguities which need clarification. Second, the Hague Principles do not limit the parties’ ability to divide their contract at a choice of law level (horizontal dépeçage): parties can influence not only which rules of law govern the contract but also their content. This is undesirable as a matter of principle. It may also facilitate results which the PICC and the CISG do not intend. Third, the Hague Principles provide that the law which the parties purportedly chose determines whether the parties agreed on a choice of law. They also provide a mechanism which designates the law which the parties purportedly chose in standard contract terms. Applied to rules of law, the suitability of these provisions is questionable: alternatives should be explored.
When? Friday 25 November, 14:30 – 17:30
Where? at Sciences Po Ecole de Droit, 13 rue de l’université, 75007, Paris, Meeting Room (4th floor, room 410T)