Appliance of Lex Mercatoria as an alternative of domestic substantive laws causes more recurrently and occasionally exclusive legal uncertainty since it is not apparent when a rule should be regarded as Lex Mercatoria.
It is a primal necessity to elucidate the notion of Lex Mercatoria, and its substantive character hence it unswervingly contends with domestic substantive laws. It is lucid that numerous parties or arbitrators prefer Lex Mercatoria as the least common denominator to avoid a variety of legal evils occurs by the use of domestic laws. Therefore, Lex Mercatoria and its pros and cons shall be considered vis-à-vis domestic legislation.
The affiliation amid domestic law and Lex Mercatoria can be perceived in two diverse ways. In a way it can be viewed as an autonomous legal order in an intellect that is poles apart from both domestic and international legal doctrines (Autonomous Perspective).
In another perspective, it is observed as a distinct body of set of laws with a universal origin, remaining merely by mode of state laws, which give effect to it, in consequence being established on domestic law (Positivist Perspective).
CASE LAW
In the Norsolor case of 1979, ICC Case No. 3131 the Turkish agent claimed damages for termination of the agreement by the French principal which he was entitled to under French Law but not under Turkish Law. But the arbitrators decided the case neither on the basis of French or Turkish law but on Lex Mercatoria reasoning that the contract was international.
In another case where the claimant was a French company which held exclusive license to manufacture, sell and distribute the respondent’s products in Europe, challenged a subsequent licensing agreement that the respondent Japanese Compan...
... middle of paper ...
...law, and in the absence of such common principles by such general principles of international trade law as have been applied by national and international tribunals.
Thus in the case of National Iranian Oil Company, the concession agreements made by them recognized the preference of principles common to the countries connected with the contract. It was stated in the agreement that;
In view of the diverse nationalities of the parties to this agreement, it shall be governed by and interpreted and applied in accordance with the principles of law common to Iran and the several nations in which the other parties to this agreement are incorporated, and in the absence of such common principles than by and in accordance with principles of law recognized by civilized nations in general, including such of those principles as may have been applied by international tribunals.
Lex Mercatoria is Latin for the Law Merchant. Much of the Law Merchant originated from the Roman commercial law. However, the Roman commercial la...
In contrary to its contemporary antagonist philosophical schools, who advocate the practices of humanness and the rightness and set ideal of the past, the Legalists, in their complete rejection of the traditional ethics, embraces the efficacy of political power and uphold a society of laws and punishments. As the old feudal states decayed and the smoke of endemic warfare suffused, the need for a more rational government that can afford greater centralized power so as to strengthen a state against its rival increased substantially among the Warring States. Such a rising urge necessitated the emergence of the Legalists and further predetermined the Legalists’ inherent nature – realistic, totalitarian and problem-solving – which, with the realization of its significance and duty in the stream of history, finds its hegemonic character as well.
The judicial statement of Roskill LJ observed in The Albazero [1977] AC774 held plenty of arguments in modern world today. To reach an extent of agree or disagree the judicial statement, it should be critically analysed from a legal perspective:
The Lex mercatoria was an international law of commerce governing the trades and disputes based on the customs and practices of merchants. By the nineteen century, the law of merchant was fully incorporated in the Common law, but the development of commercial law led to a conflicting mass of case law . Following the commercial community recommendations, European countries started to rationalized the commercial law by building codes . English law didn’t follow this path, but instead adopted a series of Act of Parliament focusing on specific area, such as Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and the Sale of Good Act 1893 . Finally, the rise of the consumerism forced the Parliament to recognize the separateness of certain commercial transaction and to adopted an interventionist approach that aimed to create a body of laws protecting consumers, such as the Unfair Contract Terms ACT 1977 and Consumer Protection Act 1987
In this essay I will be discussing how the formal theory of the rule of law is an erroneous means of establishing laws within a state. A central theme to addressing this is essay is the distinction between formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. In order to reach my conclusion of the formal theory being proven to be insufficient, one must first appreciate the significant advantages which the substantive theory obtains. However, before doing so, I will briefly mention the importance of the rule of law in society and the requirements it needs to fulfil.
The English legal system is ostensibly embedded on a foundation of a ‘high degree of certainty with adaptability’ based on a steady ‘mode’ of legal reasoning. This rests on four propositions
Legal Pluralism is the presence of various legal systems within a single country or a geographical area. Legal Pluralism is omnipresent although it is generally assumed to exist in countries only with a colonial past. This is because in most countries with a colonial past, colonial laws co-exist alongside indigenous laws. However, if we look at the expansive definition of legal pluralism, it can be said that every society or country if legally plural. The modern definition of legal pluralism also deals with the issues of relation between state and non-state legal orders. It shows the dichotomy that exists between customary legal norms and state law. The judiciary of India has upheld this principle of pluralism in many cases by showing that
Where this structure is present we may legitimately speak of human society, together with its sovereign, as a single independent state, and we may also speak of its law. Where this structure is absent we cannot legitimately apply those expressions, because the relation of the sovereign to the subjects constitutes, according to this theory, part of the very meaning of those expressions [2].
The central aim of this essay will be to support the legal-positivist that law and morality are strictly separable. In its simplest form many understand legal positivism to be the existence and content of law, which depends on social facts, and not on its merits. I will engage closely with the work of John Austin and his concept of law, which offered a developed and progressive piece of work from Bentham, focusing on Austin’s The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) in order to demonstrate one of the earlier accounts of legal positivism. By exploring Austin’s theory of sovereignty, in which he outlines that in every state there exists an authority to which a large mass of citizens show compliance, I will address the consideration that
The Lotus case garners attention due to the fact that it was among the first cases dealing with whether jurisdiction was assumed in accordance with principles of international law. While the Lotus case was heard in the context of criminal jurisdiction over a collision in the high seas, the Lotus principle has been applied in a variety of other cases in varying contexts. For this reason, the judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice is critiqued for specifically answering only the question in the special agreement as the continued application of the Lotus Principle as a general principle in other contexts such as anti-trust regulations may lead to ambiguous results.
According to Article 38 of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Court shall apply “international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law” in its decisions (Kritsiotis 123). In other words, the International Court of Justice cites customs as a formal source of law. According to Roberto Unger, author of Law in a Modern Society, customary international law is best defined as “any recurring mode of interaction among individuals and groups, together with the more or less explicit acknowledgement of these groups and individuals that such patterns of interaction produce reciprocal expectations of conduct that out to be satisfied (Shaw 72-73). In other words, customary international laws are primarily concerned with how and why sates behave in a particular manner. Customs derive from the behavior of states (state practice) and the subconscious belief that a behavior is inherently legal (opinio juris). Evidence of state behavior is documented in the decisions of domestic courts, international courts, and international organizations. Unlike treaty law, customary laws are binding on all states. Additionally, if a treaty derives from a custom it is also binding on all states. Some of the international court cases that have been instrumental in the development of customary international law include the Nicaragua v. United States case, the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case, the Scotia case, the Asylum case, the Paquete Habana case, and the Lotus case.
Von Galhn and Taulbee. 2013. Law Among Nations. An Introduction to Public International Law. Pearson Education.
About the power of the subjects of international law, it is the basic properties, the special legal ability of the subjects that inherited the rights and shoulder the obligations, legal responsibility in international legal relations. Subjects' power includes two aspects, and only when ones get all these two aspec...
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.
Public International law International law contains of rules and principles, which preside over the relations and communication of nations with each other. International Law that is in most other countries referred to as Public International Law concerns itself only with questions of rights among more than a few nations or nations and the citizens or subjects of other nations. In dissimilarity, Private International Law deals with controversies among confidential persons, natural or juridical, arising out of situations having important association to further than one nation. In current years the line up connecting public and private international law have became more and more doubtful. Issues of private international law may also associate issues of public international law and numerous matters of private international law nave considerable meaning for the international group of people of nations. International Law consists of the basic, classic concepts of law in nationwide legal systems, status, property, responsibility, and tort. It also includes substantive law, procedure, process and remedies. International Law is rooted in receipt by the nation states, which comprise the system. Customary law and conventional law are primary sources of international law. Customary international law results when states trail convinced practices usually and time after time out of an intelligence of legal responsibility. Lately the customary law was codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Conventional international law derives from international agreements and may obtain any appearance that the constricting parties have the same opinion upon. Agreements may be complete in admiration to any substance except for to the leve...