Thesis (doctoral)--Friedrich-Wilhelm-Universität Bonn.

Magister Legum - LLM / Arbitration is the preferred method of dispute resolution in international trade. Naturally, a set of rules is necessary to govern the conflict’s resolution. For cultural, political, economical or other reasons the parties’ national laws may not serve the individual interests and needs of that particular contract well. If one wants to avoid the application of both parties’ national laws, one can choose that the contract be governed by an a-national legal standard, e.g. general principles of International Trade Law or the general usages of a particular trade. These internationally accepted principles of law governing contractual relations are called lex mercatoria (law merchant). Lex mercatoria already existed in the Middle Ages and can even be dated back to antiquity. Later it disappeared through the nationalization of International Trade Law and was rediscovered in the 1950s, when international traders were again creating their own law and disputes were increasingly resolved outside of the national jurisdictions and applying a-national law. Lex mercatoria is being applied more and more by arbitrators and is therefore becoming increasingly important for dispute resolution in International Trade. Numerous different concepts and theories of lex mercatoria have been developed. Its being an autonomous legal system is questioned by some authors and the doctrine in favour of it called unfounded. The critics also argue that the authority to apply lex mercatoria may be a recipe for amateurism and the substitution of the arbitrator’s private preferences for the parties’ intentions, for itis easy to proclaim common principles on the basis of limited knowledge. The lex mercatoria is said only to exist because scholars talk about it. However, these and other allegations can be refuted by critically analyzing the arguments that are supposed to underline those assumptions. Applying lex mercatoria to solve international trade disputes has many advantages. By choosing lex mercatoria the parties avoid rules which are unfit for international contracts, e.g. peculiar formalities, brief cut-off periods and special difficulties created by domestic laws. In addition to that, neither of the parties has the advantage of having the dispute governed by his own law. Since one of the central rules is the principle of good faith and fair dealing, lex mercatoria neither leads to arbitrary results nor does it favour the rich. Is it possible for the arbitrators to apply lex mercatoria if no law has been chosen by the parties? The failure of the parties to indicate a choice could well mean that they did not wish to have their contract governed by any of their national laws. In some awards arbitrators applied lex mercatoria as they considered the community of international merchants to be autonomous and to exist beyond national legislation. However, it cannot be deduced from the absence of such a choice that the parties have impliedly chosen lex mercatoria to be the law governing the conflict. Lex mercatoria is applicable only as a subsidiary law in cases where no national law has been chosen and seems apt. / South Africa

Arbitration is the preferred method of dispute resolution in international trade. Naturally, a set of rules is necessary to govern the conflict&rsquo / s resolution. For cultural, political, economical or other reasons the parties&rsquo / national laws may not serve the individual interests and needs of that particular contract well. If one wants to avoid the application of both parties&rsquo / national laws, one can choose that the contract be governed by an a-national legal standard, e.g. general principles of International Trade Law or the general usages of a particular trade. These internationally accepted principles of law governing contractual relations are called lex mercatoria (law merchant).<br /> <br /> Lex mercatoria already existed in the Middle Ages and can even be dated back to antiquity. Later it disappeared through the nationalization of International Trade Law and was rediscovered in the 1950s, when international traders were again creating their own law and disputes were increasingly resolved outside of the national jurisdictions and applying a-national law. Lex mercatoria is being applied more and more by arbitrators and is therefore becoming increasingly important for dispute resolution in International Trade. Numerous different concepts and theories of lex mercatoria have been developed. Its being an autonomous legal system is questioned by some authors and the doctrine in favour of it called unfounded. The critics also argue that the authority to apply lex mercatoria may be a recipe for amateurism and the substitution of the arbitrator&rsquo / s private preferences for the parties&rsquo / intentions, for itis easy to proclaim common principles on the basis of limited knowledge. The lex mercatoria is said only to exist because scholars talk about it. However, these and other allegations can be refuted by critically analyzing the arguments that are supposed to underline those assumptions. Applying lex mercatoria to solve international trade disputes has many advantages. By choosing lex mercatoria the parties avoid rules which are unfit for international contracts, e.g. peculiar formalities, brief cut-off periods and special difficulties created by domestic laws. In addition to that, neither of the parties has the advantage of having the dispute governed by his own law. Since one of the central rules is the principle of good faith and fair dealing, lex mercatoria neither leads to arbitrary results nor does it favour the rich. Is it possible for the arbitrators to apply lex mercatoria if no law has been chosen by the parties? The failure of the parties to indicate a choice could well mean that they did not wish to have their contract governed by any of their national laws. In some awards arbitrators applied lex mercatoria as they considered the community of international merchants to be autonomous and to exist beyond national legislation. However, it cannot be deduced from the absence of such a choice that the parties have impliedly chosen lex mercatoria to be the law governing the conflict. Lex mercatoria is applicable only as a subsidiary law in cases where no national law has been chosen and seems apt.

Arbitration is the preferred method of dispute resolution in international trade. Naturally, a set of rules is necessary to govern the conflict&rsquo / s resolution. For cultural, political, economical or other reasons the parties&rsquo / national laws may not serve the individual interests and needs of that particular contract well. If one wants to avoid the application of both parties&rsquo / national laws, one can choose that the contract be governed by an a-national legal standard, e.g. general principles of International Trade Law or the general usages of a particular trade. These internationally accepted principles of law governing contractual relations are called lex mercatoria (law merchant).<br /> <br /> Lex mercatoria already existed in the Middle Ages and can even be dated back to antiquity. Later it disappeared through the nationalization of International Trade Law and was rediscovered in the 1950s, when international traders were again creating their own law and disputes were increasingly resolved outside of the national jurisdictions and applying a-national law. Lex mercatoria is being applied more and more by arbitrators and is therefore becoming increasingly important for dispute resolution in International Trade. Numerous different concepts and theories of lex mercatoria have been developed. Its being an autonomous legal system is questioned by some authors and the doctrine in favour of it called unfounded. The critics also argue that the authority to apply lex mercatoria may be a recipe for amateurism and the substitution of the arbitrator&rsquo / s private preferences for the parties&rsquo / intentions, for itis easy to proclaim common principles on the basis of limited knowledge. The lex mercatoria is said only to exist because scholars talk about it. However, these and other allegations can be refuted by critically analyzing the arguments that are supposed to underline those assumptions. Applying lex mercatoria to solve international trade disputes has many advantages. By choosing lex mercatoria the parties avoid rules which are unfit for international contracts, e.g. peculiar formalities, brief cut-off periods and special difficulties created by domestic laws. In addition to that, neither of the parties has the advantage of having the dispute governed by his own law. Since one of the central rules is the principle of good faith and fair dealing, lex mercatoria neither leads to arbitrary results nor does it favour the rich. Is it possible for the arbitrators to apply lex mercatoria if no law has been chosen by the parties? The failure of the parties to indicate a choice could well mean that they did not wish to have their contract governed by any of their national laws. In some awards arbitrators applied lex mercatoria as they considered the community of international merchants to be autonomous and to exist beyond national legislation. However, it cannot be deduced from the absence of such a choice that the parties have impliedly chosen lex mercatoria to be the law governing the conflict. Lex mercatoria is applicable only as a subsidiary law in cases where no national law has been chosen and seems apt.

La production de règles d'origine non étatique se développe dans les rapports internationaux privés. L'analyse de ces règles dans les activités commerciale et sportive construit progressivement une définition unifiée de la notion de droit non-étatique : ensemble des règles écrites et unilatéralement élaborées par des acteurs privés et/ou publics, ayant vocation à s'appliquer eu égard à l'activité considérée, indépendamment des frontières étatiques. Cette proposition est mise à l'épreuve des diverses interactions entretenues par le droit non-étatique, visant à en expliquer le fonctionnement. L'arbitrage atteste sa réception, la fréquence de son application, voire sa promotion, jusqu'à l'exclusion de législations nationales impératives. L'ordre juridique français, par principe, refuse la réception de ce droit, hormis action exceptionnelle des juges, du législateur ou d'organes auxquels il est reconnu compétence. À un niveau supra-étatique, la Cour de justice contrôle directement les règles non-étatiques susceptibles d'entraver les libertés garanties par l'Union européenne, dont la libre circulation des travailleurs. La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme a la possibilité de contrôler indirectement les règles non-étatiques transposées par des États, en raison d'atteintes potentielles aux libertés individuelles, dans le cadre de la lutte contre le dopage par exemple. Le droit international privé, par ailleurs, contribue à rendre compte de l'application du droit non-étatique, en renforce l'efficacité, et participe, potentiellement et à titre prospectif, de la résolution de conflits de normes produits par des règles non-étatiques. / The production of non-state norms is growing in private international relations. The analysis of these norms in commercial and sporting activities is progressively building a unified definition of the notion of non-state norms: set of rules written and unilaterally drawn up by private and/or public actors, has intended to be applied with regard to the activity concerned, regardless of State borders. This proposal is put to the test of the various interactions maintained by non-state norms, in order to explain how these norms work. Arbitration attests to its receipt, the frequency of its application and even its promotion, up to the exclusion of imperative national rules. The French legal system, as a matter of principle, refuses to accept these non-state norms. Exceptionally, this principle is contradicted by the action of judges, legislators or bodies whose competence is recognized by the French legal system. At a -supra-state level, the Court of Justice directly controls non-state norms which may hamper the freedoms guaranteed by the European Union, including the free movement of workers. The European Court of Human Rights has the possibility of indirectly controlling non-state norms transposed by States, due to potential breach of individual freedoms, for example in the fight against doping. Moreover, Private International Law helps to explain the application of non-state norms, enhances their efficiency, and potentially and prospectively participates in the resolution of conflicts of norms produced by non­state norms.