Today’s topic on :- Law and Law-related [ Affixation / Unification]
Affixation / Unification – co-operation law
During such process, every state-representative tend to defend their States ́ own interests, which may result in incompatibilities. When it comes to the drafting of soft law instruments, conversely, text incompatibilities are not that relevant because their binding force is given by the parties or States that can adapt the content if they want. Another difference regards drafters, who usually are not state representatives, but experts on the subject matter.
incorporation of instruments The first problem has its origins in the existence of different juridical systems .Such differences usually lead to long discussions during the drafting of harmonizing/unifying instruments. Therefore, the careful choice of their characteristics can help facilitating their drafting process and the fulfillment of goals.
The second problem relates to the decision of a state to become bound by an instrument or not. When it comes to bringing international and transnational instruments to state legal order, it is the state itself the one to take decisions, such as to become part to treaties, to use model law texts when drafting domestic legislation, to allow arbitration procedures etc. Such decisions take into account multiple aspects that may impair the effectiveness of harmonizing/unifying instruments.
Some of them are the existence of other priorities the reduced number of State-parties the reduced personnel available to represent the country in conferences or meetings where the drafting is made apprehension on the results of the application of instruments avoidance of costs (which arise from the training to apply a new instrument) lack of foresee ability regarding results of application preference for domestic law and incompatibilities with domestic law (mandatory rules and public policy issues).
Law is a treaty organization that oversees conventions designed to develop a uniform system. The deliberations of the conference have recently been the subject of controversy over the extent of cross border jurisdiction on electronic commerce and defamation issues. There is a general recognition that there is a need for an international of contracts. In many nations have ratified the Vienna convention on the Internal sale of goods, the Rome convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations offers less specialized uniformity and there is support for the UNIDROIT Principles of international commercial contracts a private restatement all of which represent continuing efforts to produce international standards as the internet and other technologies encourage ever more interstate commerce and other branches of the law are less well served and the dominant trend remains the role of the forum law rather that a supranational system for conflict purposes.
And also remember Law in Africa (OHADA) Since World War II, international trade has grown exponentially and this convention adopts the same principles as the 1968 Brussels Convention. Even the EU [The European Continent] which has institutions capable of creating uniform rules with direct effect has failed to produce a universal system for the common market. Nevertheless, the Treaty Amsterdam does confer authority on the community’s institutions to legislate by council Regulation in the area with supranational effect. Article 177 would give the Court of Justice jurisdiction to interpret and apply their principles.
So, if the political will arises uniformity may gradually emerge in letter. Whether the domestic courts of the Member States would be consistent in applying those letters is speculative.
Thank you for reading…..