Despite Brazil’s importance in the world economy and its increasing participation in foreign trade, there is considerable legal uncertainty regarding the law applicable to international commercial contracts involving Brazilian parties because Brazilian judicial courts do not respect parties’ freedom to choose the governing law, thus this determination is only made by a judge, according to Private International Law rules of the forum. Applying these rules, this study demonstrates that there are at least three potential legal regimes: the Brazilian law, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, and a foreign domestic sales law. Making use of the American law as the foreign law, a comparative analysis of these three legal regimes regarding contract formation demonstrates that their approaches are very distinct, and this confirms the legal uncertainty. In order to reduce this problem, three different strategies are proposed to the Brazilian government.

Despite Brazil’s importance in the world economy and its increasing participation in foreign trade, there is considerable legal uncertainty regarding the law applicable to international commercial contracts involving Brazilian parties because Brazilian judicial courts do not respect parties’ freedom to choose the governing law, thus this determination is only made by a judge, according to Private International Law rules of the forum. Applying these rules, this study demonstrates that there are at least three potential legal regimes: the Brazilian law, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, and a foreign domestic sales law. Making use of the American law as the foreign law, a comparative analysis of these three legal regimes regarding contract formation demonstrates that their approaches are very distinct, and this confirms the legal uncertainty. In order to reduce this problem, three different strategies are proposed to the Brazilian government.

En vertu de la règle du principe dispositif qui s’applique au procès administratif, le litige est la chose des parties : la matière de l’instance est fixée par les écritures que les parties rédigent et qu’elles soumettent au juge administratif. L’essence de l’office de ce juge consiste à trancher le litige en répondant juridiquement aux prétentions et à l’argumentation développées par les parties dans leurs écritures. L’étendue de son intervention est donc tributaire de la formulation des écritures qu’il devrait se borner à interpréter littéralement, et ce même lorsqu’elles sont maladroitement rédigées. Pourtant, le juge s’autorise à les interpréter extensivement ou restrictivement. Les raisons qui président à ce choix sont incertaines. L’un des enjeux de cette recherche est de les clarifier. Elle doit aussi déterminer l’étendue de ce pouvoir, et notamment son caractère – est-ce une faculté ou une obligation ? –, les éléments des écritures susceptibles d’être interprétés, les parties dont les écrits peuvent être appréciés, les méthodes mobilisées, ou encore ses limites et les contrôles auxquels il est soumis. Mais, à cause du rôle central des écritures dans le procès administratif, leur interprétation peut avoir d’importantes conséquences sur cette instance. Certaines interprétations peuvent même la déstabiliser. La recherche doit donc envisager les mécanismes permettant de corriger ces déséquilibres. En interprétant les écritures des parties, le juge participe à la fixation de la matière de l’instance. Dès lors, cette étude doit, plus fondamentalement, contribuer à déterminer l’auteur de cette substance : les parties ou le juge ? / According to the principle of party autonomy that rules the administrative trial, the litigation is the thing of the parties: the disputed matter is set out in the contentious writings the parties submit to the administrative judge. The essence of the office of this judge is to settle the disputed by legally answering the claims and arguments developed by the parties in their written pleadings. The scope of his intervention is therefore dependent on the wording of the contentious writings, which the judge should confine himself to literally interpreting, even when they are badly written. However, he allows himself to interpret them extensively or restrictively. The reasons for this choice are uncertain. One of the stakes of this research is to clarify them. It must also determine the scope of that power, and in particular its character - is it a possibility or an obligation? -, the elements of the written submissions likely to be interpreted, the parties whose writings can be assessed, the methods used, or its limits and the controls to which it is subject. But, because of the central role of the written pleadings in the administrative process, their interpretation can have important consequences on this instance. Some interpretations can even destabilize it. This research should therefore consider ways to correct such imbalances. In interpreting the parties’ written submissions, the judge participates in the determination of the disputed matter. Consequently, this study must, more fundamentally, contribute to determining the author of this matter: the parties or the judge?