Massimo Benedettelli, Applying the UNIDROIT Principles in International Arbitration: An Exercise in Conflicts, in Journal of International Arbitration, 2016, p. 653-686

The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, which recently celebrated its 90th anniversary, published in 1994 the Principles of International Commercial Contracts. Since then the UNIDROIT Principles have been more and more often referred to by arbitral tribunals when settling contractual disputes. As a non-binding instrument of soft law, however, the UNIDROIT Principles may play a very different function depending on whether they are used as “rules of law” for the regulation of a contractual relationship, are incorporated as terms of a contract governed by a state contract law, or are means to interpret and supplement the applicable contract law or the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Moreover, they can be applied pursuant to an express or implied choice made by the parties, either in the contract or after the dispute has arisen, or when the arbitral tribunal so decides by its own motion. In all such different scenarios different problems may arise for the coordination of the UNIDROIT Principles with sources of state law that have title to regulate the contractual relationship in dispute. Understanding such problems and finding a solution to them is essential in order to avoid the risk that the award may be later challenged or refused recognition. Such understanding could also foster the legitimacy of requests made by a party, or decisions taken by the arbitral tribunal, to apply the UNIDROIT Principles. It is submitted that private international law, taken as a technique for the coordination of legal systems, may offer a useful know-how to parties, counsel, arbitrators and courts for mastering such problems in a reasoned and sound way. This may result in enhancing the effectiveness of the UNIDROIT Principles, while balancing party autonomy with the sovereign interest of states in regulating international business.

La Società Italiana di diritto internazionale e diritto dell’Unione europea, ha bandito la nuova edizione del Premio SIDI, per un articolo in materia di diritto internazionale pubblico, diritto internazionale privato o diritto dell’Unione europea pubblicato da un giovane studioso nel corso del 2016.

La scadenza per la presentazione delle domande è fissata al 3 marzo 2017.

Il bando, con maggiori informazioni, è consultabile a questo indirizzo. 

The External Dimension of EU Private International Law After Opinion 1/13, a cura di Pietro Franzina, Intersentia, 2017, ISBN 9781780684376, pp. xii+226, EUR 59.

Con scritti di: Paul Beaumont, Marise Cremona, Serena Forlati, Pietro Franzina, Giorgio Gaja, Jan-Jaap Kuipers, Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti, Alex Mills, Chris Thomale, Chiara E. Tuo, Karen Vandekerckhove and Alessandra Zanobetti. Il sommario è disponibile a questo indirizzo.

La Società Italiana di Diritto Internazionale e di Diritto dell’Unione Europea (SIDI) ha indetto l’undicesima edizione del Premio di Laurea “Daniele Padovani”. Il Premio è attribuito alla miglior tesi di laurea in diritto internazionale privato e processuale.

L’ammissione al concorso è riservato alle persone che abbiano conseguito la laurea specialistica o magistrale in giurisprudenza successivamente al 30 maggio 2015, con voto non inferiore a 105.

Il termine per l’invio della domanda di partecipazione al concorso è il 3 marzo 2017.

Maggiori informazioni disponibili nel bando del concorso, consultabile qui.

Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti, The EU Succession Regulation and Third Country Courts, in Journal of Private International Law, 2016, pp. 545-565.

The European Union Succession Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012) (hereafter Succession Regulation) provides a comprehensive treatment of the diverse private international law issues concerning succession, encompassing within the same instrument rules on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions and authentic instruments in succession matters. At the same time, each of these sets of rules coexisting within the Regulation bears its own regime in terms of spatial applicability. As concerns the rules on jurisdiction, these tend to regulate comprehensively all succession disputes, including those more closely connected to a third country, by providing for subsidiary jurisdiction rules and for a rule on forum necessitatis. Still, the rules contained in the Regulation as concerns choice of forum, as well as lis alibi pendens and related actions, are conceived from a purely inter partes perspective. This causes on the one hand the impossibility of re-establishing Gleichlauf where the deceased made a professio iuris in favour of the law of a third country, and, on the other hand, does not ensure a satisfactory coordination with parallel proceedings pending before third country courts. The subsidiary jurisdiction rules may in turn cause an excessive enlargement of the scope of the jurisdiction of Member States’ courts, and could also hinder the unity of the succession. The latter concern is likely to arise also in respect of the mechanism embodied in Article 12(1) of the Regulation, which achieves a rather incomplete coordination with the jurisdiction exercised by third country courts. Some suggestions will be submitted for amendments to be made to the Succession Regulation in order to overcome these shortcomings.

An e-print of the article is available at http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/VMFHcZ2TSJdGCGNnHpTX/full