Cross-Border Trade: Applicable Law, CISG, INCOTERMS and Arbitration
Legal Aspects of Technology Management - NIT Northern Institute of Technology Management, Hamburg · part of my Technology Management MBA · study notes for revision.
Everything in the earlier part of the session assumed one legal system: one country, one set of statutes, one court. This part removes that assumption. The moment my seller sits in Hamburg and my buyer sits somewhere else, there are suddenly at least two candidate legal systems standing behind the same piece of paper, and each of them would answer the same question differently. Which one wins is not obvious and it is not decided by whoever shouts louder. It is decided by a separate layer of rules that exists precisely to point at the right legal system.
That layer has an unglamorous name in the deck: collision law. Its job is not to tell me who is right about the delivery, it is to tell me whose law decides who is right about the delivery. On top of it sits a second question that is just as practical: even once I know which law applies, who is going to apply it to my dispute, a state court somewhere or a private arbitral tribunal. Getting these two questions wrong is a commercial risk, not just a legal one, because the answer determines what my warranty period is, how long I have to complain about a defect, and whether I can enforce a decision in the country where my counterparty keeps its assets.
This chapter follows the deck’s own route through the topic: first where the rules come from, then Rome I for contractual obligations and Rome II for non-contractual ones, then the three instruments the deck says matter most in day-to-day trade in goods (the CISG, the Incoterms and the CMR), then EU product safety, and finally arbitration before the ICC with its standard clause pulled apart element by element.
1 · The core problem: two countries, one contract
Section titled “1 · The core problem: two countries, one contract”2 · Where the rules come from: the sources of international law
Section titled “2 · Where the rules come from: the sources of international law”The deck splits the sources into two levels.
- Collision law, the body of rules a country uses to decide which legal system applies to a situation with a foreign element
- It can exist either as case law or in codified form, depending on the country
- Multilateral agreements, concluded between many states at once
- Bilateral agreements, concluded between two states
Under multilateral agreements the deck names three bodies of material specifically:
| Source | What it is |
|---|---|
| The Hague Conference on Private International Law | A global inter-governmental organisation that produces conventions in this field |
| UN treaties | The treaty collection maintained by the United Nations, with its participation status listing |
| Treaty on European Union and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2012/C 326/01 | The EU’s own founding treaties, which contain the legal basis for the European instruments below |
Article 81 TFEU: the legal basis for the European rules
Section titled “Article 81 TFEU: the legal basis for the European rules”The deck quotes Chapter 3 of the treaties, headed judicial cooperation in civil matters. Paraphrased, the two paragraphs it reproduces say this.
Paragraph 1: the Union is to develop judicial cooperation in civil matters that have cross-border implications, and the foundation for that cooperation is the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and of decisions in extrajudicial cases. That cooperation may include adopting measures to bring the laws and regulations of the Member States closer together.
Paragraph 2: for that purpose the European Parliament and the Council adopt measures, particularly where they are needed for the proper functioning of the internal market, aimed at ensuring three things:
- (a) the mutual recognition and enforcement between Member States of judgments and of decisions in extrajudicial cases
- (b) the cross-border service of judicial and extrajudicial documents
- (c) the compatibility of the rules applicable in the Member States concerning conflict of laws and of jurisdiction
Point (c) is the one that matters most for this chapter, because it is the authority under which the two Rome regulations were made. They exist to stop each Member State answering the conflict-of-laws question its own way.
The deck names the two European instruments:
| Instrument | Full reference | Subject |
|---|---|---|
| Rome I | Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 | The law applicable to contractual obligations |
| Rome II | Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 | The law applicable to non-contractual obligations |
3 · Rome I: choosing the law that governs the contract
Section titled “3 · Rome I: choosing the law that governs the contract”Rome I is the instrument I reach for whenever the obligation in question comes out of a contract. The deck puts three items from it on the slide: freedom of choice under Article 3, the form of the contract under Article 11, and local law, also under Article 11.
Article 3, freedom of choice, paragraph by paragraph
Section titled “Article 3, freedom of choice, paragraph by paragraph”This is the heart of it, and the deck reproduces all four paragraphs. Paraphrased:
- A contract is governed by the law the parties choose
- The choice has to be made expressly, or be clearly demonstrated by the terms of the contract or by the circumstances of the case
- The parties may choose a law for the whole contract or for part only of it
- The parties may at any time agree to put the contract under a different law from the one that governed it before
- That holds whether the previous law came from an earlier choice under this Article or from other provisions of the Regulation
- A change made after the contract was concluded must not prejudice its formal validity under Article 11 and must not adversely affect the rights of third parties
- Where every other relevant element of the situation, at the time of the choice, sits in a country other than the one whose law was chosen
- The choice cannot prejudice the application of those provisions of that other country’s law which cannot be derogated from by agreement
- In plain terms: choosing a foreign law does not let you contract out of another country’s mandatory rules when the deal is really located there
- Where every other relevant element sits in one or more Member States, and the parties choose the law of a non-Member State
- That choice cannot prejudice the application of provisions of Community law which cannot be derogated from by agreement, where appropriate as implemented in the Member State of the forum
- Same logic as paragraph 3, applied to the mandatory core of EU law
The shape of Article 3 is therefore: a wide freedom in paragraph 1, an ongoing freedom in paragraph 2, and then two brakes in paragraphs 3 and 4 that stop the freedom from being used to escape mandatory law when the transaction is not genuinely international or not genuinely outside the EU.
Article 11: the form of the contract, and local law
Section titled “Article 11: the form of the contract, and local law”The deck lists two further items, both under Article 11 Rome I: the form of the contract, and local law. This is the reminder that choosing a governing law is not the end of the story. A contract also has to be validly made, and the question of what form it has to take (written, signed, notarised and so on) is dealt with separately, with the law of the place involved. Article 3(2) already pointed at this by saying that a later change of governing law must not prejudice the contract’s formal validity under Article 11. So the practical instruction is: pick the law, then check separately what the local law of the relevant place demands as to form.
4 · Rome II: non-contractual obligations
Section titled “4 · Rome II: non-contractual obligations”Rome II is the companion instrument, Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of 11 July 2007. The single distinction the deck draws is the one in the two titles, and it is worth holding onto because it decides which regulation you are even reading.
- Applies to the law governing contractual obligations
- The obligation exists because the parties agreed to it
- Article 3 gives the parties an express freedom of choice of the applicable law
- Typical setting: my sales contract, my licence, my supply agreement
- Applies to the law governing non-contractual obligations
- The obligation exists without anyone having agreed to it
- Typical setting: damage caused outside any contract between the parties
- Because there may be no contract at all between the parties, a contractual choice-of-law clause is not the natural starting point here
5 · The CISG, the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods
Section titled “5 · The CISG, the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods”Under the heading International Trade Law the deck names the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, published by UNCITRAL, and in its closing summary it labels the CISG as the provision that supplies international sales law. That is what the slides themselves assert about it.
Everything else about the CISG is set as group work, not stated on the slide. The deck asks the group to download and read both the CISG text and Rome I, and then to answer these questions to the class:
| The deck’s question | Why it is the right question to ask |
|---|---|
| Which material scope of application is regulated by the CISG? | Before anything else, you have to know which contracts it reaches at all. A convention on the sale of goods does not cover every deal you might sign |
| What is the relationship between the CISG and a national legal system? | This is the interface question. Does it sit on top of national law, replace it for certain contracts, or fill gaps in it |
| Must the CISG be excluded in a contract? | Note how the question is phrased. It asks about exclusion, not about agreement, which tells you where in the convention to go looking for the answer |
| Can the parties freely choose the law? Are there criteria the contracting parties must orient themselves on? | This is the Rome I Article 3 question again, restated: how wide is the freedom, and what limits it |
| What applies internationally to consumer contracts, for example online sales contracts? | The consumer case is singled out separately, which is a signal that the ordinary business-to-business answer does not simply carry over |
6 · Incoterms: the international commercial terms
Section titled “6 · Incoterms: the international commercial terms”The deck’s own definition, restated: the Incoterms, short for International Commercial Terms, are a series of voluntary clauses used for the interpretation of standard contractual terms in the international trade in goods. In the closing summary they are described as the provisions that supply the international delivery conditions. Voluntary is the key word: they are not imposed on anyone, they take effect because the parties refer to them in their contract, and their value is that both sides then read the same short abbreviation the same way.
The Incoterms are also set as group work, with the ICC’s own Incoterms rules pages as the research source. The questions:
| The deck’s question | What you are being asked to establish |
|---|---|
| What are the Incoterms used for, and which version is the most recent? | They are versioned, so citing them without a version is incomplete |
| Who developed them, and for what purpose? | Their authorship explains their authority: they are a commercial body’s product, not a statute |
| What do the Incoterms essentially regulate? | The substance question, that is, what exactly gets allocated between seller and buyer |
| What is the relationship between the Incoterms and UNCITRAL? | It forces you to place them against the UN’s own trade-law work, including the CISG |
| What abbreviations are used for international goods transactions? Give an overview of the abbreviations with explanations | The deliverable is a table of the three-letter terms with an explanation of each |
7 · The CMR: international carriage of goods by road
Section titled “7 · The CMR: international carriage of goods by road”Under International Transport Law the deck names the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, the CMR, concluded at Geneva on 19 May 1956, and the summary lists it as the provision that governs the freight. This is the one place in the section where the deck gives a fully worked-out rule rather than a research question, so it is worth learning precisely.
Three things to notice. First, the trigger is generous, since either the departure country or the destination country being a member state is enough. Second, this is genuinely mandatory law and not a default: a conflicting agreement is not merely overridden, it is null and void. Third, the CMR does not claim to answer everything, and where it is silent the national transport law fills the gap rather than being displaced. The deck adds the boundary that the agreement remains valid only for the loading of road vehicles.
8 · European product safety: the new GPSR
Section titled “8 · European product safety: the new GPSR”The deck’s last substantive item before the group work is European Product Safety Law, and specifically the new General Product Safety Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2023/988. The summary lists product safety as one of the provisions playing an essential role in international trade.
- Aims to ensure that only safe products are offered to consumers
- This holds regardless of the origin of the products
- And regardless of whether they are sold in shops or on online marketplaces
- Objective one: all consumer products on the EU market should be safe
- Objective two: a real safety net for consumers, addressing the safety of products or risks that are not regulated in other EU legislation
- Entry into force recorded as 23/06/12, with application from 24/12/13, in the deck’s own date notation
- Guidelines from the Commission and an implementing regulation are foreseen, and at the time of the deck these were still missing
- In Germany there is already a draft for a product safety law that is meant to contain specific requirements
- That German law existed only as a draft bill at the time of the deck
Product safety is also a group topic, and the questions show what a company actually has to work through: which products are exempt from the Regulation; what requirements retailers with online stores must fulfil and on what kind of documents; what obligations manufacturers have to observe for product safety; what information manufacturers or importers must provide and where it is best provided; which online marketplaces you know; and what obligations apply to providers of online marketplaces. The deck asks these rather than answering them, so again I record them as the checklist.
9 · Arbitration before the ICC
Section titled “9 · Arbitration before the ICC”For disputes, the deck points at the International Chamber of Commerce, and the closing summary puts it plainly: in case of disputes, arbitration before the ICC. The group questions ask what role the International Tribunal for Arbitration of the ICC plays, how the parties to an international contract can conclude an arbitration agreement and what the model clause looks like, what the procedure is, what the composition of the arbitral tribunal is, and what the arbitration costs. The slides do not answer these either. What I do have in full is the ICC’s own arbitration clauses document, and that answers the model-clause question directly.
The standard clause
Section titled “The standard clause”All disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules.
Two sentences, and every phrase is doing work.
| Element of the clause | What it actually does |
|---|---|
| All disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract | Sets the scope as wide as possible, so that arguments merely connected to the contract are caught too and nobody can split the dispute between two forums |
| shall be finally settled | Makes the outcome final, so the dispute ends here rather than becoming the first round of something longer |
| under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce | Adopts a complete, ready-made procedural rulebook by reference, so the parties do not have to design a procedure themselves |
| by one or more arbitrators | Leaves the number open; the ICC Rules contain a presumption in favour of a sole arbitrator, so silence means one unless you say otherwise |
| appointed in accordance with the said Rules | Hands the appointment mechanism to the Rules, which is what keeps the process moving if one side refuses to cooperate |
What the parties are free to adapt
Section titled “What the parties are free to adapt”The ICC recommends the standard clause, and states that parties are free to adapt it to their particular circumstances. The document names the adaptations explicitly:
- The number of arbitrators, which matters exactly because of the presumption in favour of a sole arbitrator
- The place of the arbitration
- The language of the arbitration
- The law applicable to the merits, which is where the Rome I choice-of-law decision from section 3 gets written down
It also states that the ICC Arbitration Rules do not limit the parties’ free choice of the place and language of the arbitration or of the law governing the contract. That is a genuine reason to like this route: three of the most consequential variables stay in the parties’ hands.
Two warnings come attached. First, when adapting the clause, care must be taken to avoid any risk of ambiguity, because unclear wording causes uncertainty and delay and can hinder or even compromise the dispute resolution process. Second, the parties should take account of factors that may affect the enforceability of the clause under applicable law, and specifically any mandatory requirements at the place of arbitration and at the expected place or places of enforcement. That second point is the commercial one: a decision you cannot enforce where your counterparty keeps its assets is not worth much.
The optional add-ons
Section titled “The optional add-ons”The ICC document gives a set of variations, each with the exact wording to add.
| Variation | How it is done |
|---|---|
| Exclude the Emergency Arbitrator | The parties must expressly opt out, by adding: the Emergency Arbitrator Provisions shall not apply |
| Exclude the expedited procedure | The Rules provide for an expedited procedure in lower-value cases; to exclude it the parties must expressly opt out, by adding: the Expedited Procedure Provisions shall not apply |
| Opt in to the expedited procedure for higher-value cases | Add wording agreeing, pursuant to Article 30(2)(b) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration, that the Expedited Procedure Rules apply irrespective of the amount in dispute |
| Raise the expedited-procedure ceiling | Add wording agreeing, pursuant to Article 30(2)(b), that the Expedited Procedure Rules apply provided the amount in dispute does not exceed a specified US dollar figure at the time of the communication referred to in Article 1(3) of the Expedited Procedure Rules |
| Keep awards unpublished | Use the variant of the standard clause that adds: no award or procedural order made in the arbitration shall be published |
Note the pattern in the first two rows: the Emergency Arbitrator Provisions and the Expedited Procedure Provisions apply unless you expressly opt out, whereas the expedited procedure in higher-value cases needs an express opt-in. Default-on versus default-off is exactly the kind of detail that gets missed when a clause is copied without being read.
Multi-tiered clauses
Section titled “Multi-tiered clauses”ICC arbitration does not have to be the first step. The document explains that it may be used as the forum for the final determination of a dispute after an attempt at settlement by other means, such as mediation, and that parties wanting such a tiered clause combining ICC Arbitration with ICC Mediation should use the standard clauses relating to the ICC Mediation Rules. Other combinations are possible too: arbitration can act as a fallback to expertise or to dispute boards, and parties in an ICC arbitration may provide for recourse to the ICC International Centre for ADR for the proposal of an expert if an expert opinion becomes necessary during the arbitration. Standard clauses for these combinations are published by the ICC in several languages.
10 · The deck’s closing summary
Section titled “10 · The deck’s closing summary”The session closes by widening the frame again, and it is worth reproducing the point it makes.
International law is far more comprehensive than the trade questions this session considered. Alongside trade and commercial law it also covers international family law, inheritance law and litigation law. In the corporate context, however, international trade in goods is of paramount importance, which is why the session concentrated there. The provisions that play an essential role in international trade are then listed:
Five names, and between them they cover the whole life of a cross-border sale: how the goods move, what the sale itself is governed by, who bears which delivery condition, what happens when it goes wrong, and what the product has to satisfy before it may be offered at all.
Worked example
Section titled “Worked example”A German seller of industrial sensors agrees to supply a buyer established outside the EU. Nothing exotic has happened yet, and already every slot in section 1 has to be filled.
| Decision | With a clause in the contract | With no clause | Reasoning from the sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing law | The parties write an express choice of German law. Under Art. 3(1) Rome I the contract is then governed by the law chosen by the parties, and that choice may be made expressly or be clearly demonstrated by the terms or the circumstances. They may even choose German law for part only of the contract | The deck does not reproduce the Rome I rules that apply where the parties have chosen nothing, so I do not state a result here. The practical conclusion for me is the important one: do not leave it blank, because the answer then comes from a provision I have to look up in the Regulation rather than from my own contract | Art. 3(1) Rome I as reproduced in the deck |
| Limits on that choice | Because the buyer is genuinely outside the EU, this is a real international transaction, so the brakes are not triggered on these facts. Worth remembering that under Art. 3(3) a choice cannot prejudice provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement where all other relevant elements sit in one other country, and under Art. 3(4) the same protection applies to non-derogable Community law where all other elements sit in Member States | Not applicable | Art. 3(3) and 3(4) Rome I |
| Changing the law later | Permitted at any time under Art. 3(2), provided the change does not prejudice the contract’s formal validity under Article 11 or adversely affect third-party rights | Not applicable | Art. 3(2) Rome I |
| Form of the contract | Check separately what form the contract must take, which the deck flags under Article 11 Rome I together with local law. Choosing the governing law does not settle the form question | Same check is required | Art. 11 Rome I as named in the deck |
| CISG | This is a sale of goods between parties in different states, so the CISG is squarely the instrument to test. Its material scope, its relationship to national law and whether it must be excluded are the deck’s own group questions and are not answered on the slides, so before signing I would read the convention itself and settle those three points | Same | CISG group questions |
| Excluding the CISG | The deck’s question is phrased as must the CISG be excluded in a contract, which is the direction to research: the mechanism lives in the convention text, not in the slides, so I would take the exclusion wording from the CISG itself rather than draft it freehand | Same | CISG group question wording |
| Delivery terms | Refer to a term from the current ICC Incoterms rules. Since they are voluntary clauses for the interpretation of standard contractual terms, they only bind because the contract points at them, and the contract must also name the version being used. The deck names no individual term and does not state what each one allocates, so I leave the specific term as the research slot that group work was set to fill | Nothing is allocated by default through the Incoterms, because they are voluntary and only apply if invoked | Incoterms definition and group questions |
| Carriage by road | If the goods travel by road and the country of departure and/or destination is a CMR member, the CMR consignment note is mandatory and the CMR supersedes the prevailing national transport law. Any contrary agreement is null and void, and national transport law applies only to fill topics the CMR does not cover | Identical, because the CMR applies by its own terms and not by the parties’ choice | CMR slide |
| Product safety | Since the sensors may end up on the EU market, run the GPSR checklist: exemptions, online-store documentation, manufacturer obligations, information duties and marketplace obligations | Identical | GPSR slide and group questions |
| Dispute resolution | Insert the standard ICC arbitration clause and adapt it deliberately: number of arbitrators, place, language, and the law applicable to the merits | With no clause, there is no arbitration agreement, so the dispute goes wherever the applicable rules on jurisdiction send it | ICC arbitration clauses document |
The dispute-resolution clause I would use. Start from the ICC standard clause exactly as recommended: all disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules. Then adapt it on the four permitted points, since the Rules do not limit the free choice of place, language or governing law: state the number of arbitrators explicitly rather than relying on the presumption in favour of a sole arbitrator, fix the place, fix the language, and state German law as the law applicable to the merits so that the clause and the Rome I choice agree with each other. Decide consciously whether to keep or opt out of the Emergency Arbitrator Provisions and the Expedited Procedure Provisions, whether to opt in to expedited treatment for a higher-value case under Article 30(2)(b), and whether to add the no-publication sentence. Finally, check enforceability against any mandatory requirements at the chosen place of arbitration and at the expected place or places of enforcement, and reread the finished wording for ambiguity, because unclear drafting here causes delay and can compromise the whole process.
Apply it to your project
Section titled “Apply it to your project”-
Establish that the situation really is cross-border. If any relevant element of the deal sits in another country, the collision-law layer is engaged and you cannot just apply your home law by habit.
-
Decide whether the obligation is contractual or non-contractual. Contractual sends you to Rome I, Regulation (EC) No 593/2008; non-contractual sends you to Rome II, Regulation (EC) No 864/2007. Open the right one before doing anything else.
-
Make an express choice of law and write it into the contract. Article 3(1) Rome I lets you choose the law for the whole contract or for part of it, and lets the choice be either express or clearly demonstrated. Express is better, because it removes the argument entirely.
-
Check the two brakes. Under Article 3(3), if all the other relevant elements sit in one other country, your choice cannot displace that country’s non-derogable provisions. Under Article 3(4), if they all sit in Member States and you have chosen a non-Member State law, non-derogable Community law still applies. If either applies, your clause is doing less than you think.
-
Handle the form of the contract separately, under Article 11 Rome I together with local law, and remember from Article 3(2) that a later change of governing law must not prejudice formal validity or third-party rights.
-
Test whether the CISG is in play, since it is the UN convention on contracts for the international sale of goods. Work through the deck’s own questions from the convention text: its material scope, its relationship to the national legal system, and whether it must be excluded. Settle this before signing, not afterwards.
-
Choose delivery terms and name the version. The Incoterms are voluntary clauses for interpreting standard contractual terms in trade in goods, so they apply only because you refer to them, and you have to say which version you mean.
-
If the goods move by road, check CMR membership of the country of departure and of destination. If either is a member, the CMR consignment note is mandatory, the CMR supersedes national transport law, and any conflicting agreement is void. Do not waste effort drafting around it.
-
Run the product-safety check against Regulation (EU) 2023/988 if the product will reach EU consumers, covering exemptions, online-store documentation, manufacturer obligations, information duties and online-marketplace obligations.
-
Insert the dispute-resolution clause last, and make it agree with everything above. Take the ICC standard clause, then set the number of arbitrators, the place, the language and the law applicable to the merits, so that the forum and the governing law tell the same story. Decide on the Emergency Arbitrator and Expedited Procedure options deliberately, then check enforceability at the place of arbitration and at the expected places of enforcement, and reread it for ambiguity.
Key terms
Section titled “Key terms”| Term | What it means in plain words |
|---|---|
| Collision law | The national rules that decide which country’s legal system applies to a situation with a foreign element; it can exist as case law or in codified form |
| Multilateral agreement | A treaty concluded between many states at once, such as the conventions of the Hague Conference or the UN treaties |
| Bilateral agreement | A treaty concluded between two states |
| Article 81 TFEU | The treaty basis for EU judicial cooperation in civil matters with cross-border implications, resting on mutual recognition of judgments and covering enforcement, cross-border service of documents and compatibility of conflict-of-laws and jurisdiction rules |
| Rome I | Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of 17 June 2008, on the law applicable to contractual obligations |
| Rome II | Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of 11 July 2007, on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations |
| Freedom of choice, Article 3 Rome I | The parties may choose the governing law expressly or clearly demonstrably, for the whole contract or part of it, and may change that choice later |
| Non-derogable provisions | Rules of a legal system that the parties cannot contract out of by agreement, which Article 3(3) and Article 3(4) protect against being displaced by a choice of law |
| Article 11 Rome I | The provision the deck names for the form of the contract, taken together with local law; a later change of governing law must not prejudice formal validity under it |
| CISG | The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, published by UNCITRAL and described in the deck’s summary as the source of international sales law |
| Incoterms | International Commercial Terms: a series of voluntary clauses for the interpretation of standard contractual terms in international trade in goods, supplying the international delivery conditions |
| CMR | The Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, Geneva, 19 May 1956, covering the freight leg |
| CMR consignment note | The transport document that becomes mandatory for the parties to the contract of carriage when the country of departure and/or destination is a member of the Convention |
| GPSR | The new General Product Safety Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2023/988, a framework meant to ensure that only safe products reach consumers regardless of origin and of whether they are sold in shops or online |
| Safety net | The GPSR’s role of addressing the safety of products and risks that are not already regulated by other EU legislation |
| ICC | The International Chamber of Commerce, whose Rules of Arbitration the standard clause adopts and before which the deck recommends arbitration in case of disputes |
| Standard ICC arbitration clause | The recommended wording under which all disputes arising out of or in connection with the contract are finally settled under the ICC Rules of Arbitration by one or more arbitrators appointed under those Rules |
| Expedited Procedure Provisions | ICC provisions for an expedited procedure in lower-value cases, which apply unless the parties expressly opt out and which can be opted into for higher-value cases under Article 30(2)(b) |
Test yourself
Section titled “Test yourself”- Name the two levels of source for international law that the deck gives, and say what the national level is called.
- Which two EU regulations does the deck name, what does each one govern, and how do you decide which of them to open?
- State what Article 3(1) Rome I allows, and then state the limit that Article 3(3) and Article 3(4) impose on it.
- A contract’s governing law is changed six months after signature. What two things does Article 3(2) Rome I say the change must not do?
- A shipment travels by road and the country of destination is a CMR member state. What follows for the consignment note, for the national transport law, and for a contract clause that contradicts the CMR?
- Write out the standard ICC arbitration clause in substance, then list the four things the ICC says parties may wish to stipulate when adapting it, and the two risks it warns about.
Revision summary
Section titled “Revision summary”Next: Data Protection Foundations → - the GDPR and what it actually demands.