• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.195-217
• /
• 2016

The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) endeavors to increase international trade through the creation of a uniform law of international sales. The CISG applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States. If a party has more than one place of business, the place of business if that which has the closest relationship to the contract and its performance. Despite the importance of a definition for 'place of business,' the CISG does not provide one. Lack of a definition of 'place of business' may cause problems for parties trying to determine whether the CISG applies to their contract. Also Contracting parties can opt out of the CISG. But the CISG does not state whether the parties must expressly exclude the CISG's application to a transaction or whether they might do so by implication. we need to consider how effectively opt out of the CISG. Under U.S. law, the CISG is considered to be a self-executing treaty. So the CISG's provisions apply directly as substantive sales law to contracts for the international sale of goods. Despite the CISG's political and economic significance to U.S., U.S. Courts have overlooked the terms of the CISG. This article considered how to the CISG was recognized, interpreted and applied by the U.S. Courts in related cases.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2010

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.