Comparative Study of Application of the Theory of Dépeçage to International Trade Contracts in Iranian, American and European Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Sciense, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran‌

Abstract

One of the crucial issues in international trade contracts is to determine which law is applicable to different aspects of the agreement and whether the applicable law is to be invoked during the execution of the contract and/or during settlement of disputes. In other words, determination of the applicable law in international trade contracts plays an important role with regards to the parties’ rights and liabilities. However, the question remains unsettled in various legal systems is whether the parties to an international trade contract can apply different laws and regulations to different terms and conditions in the same contract.
There are various approaches regarding the choice of applicable law and different theories have been expressed relating to choice-of-law provisions. This research explores one of these theories called Dépeçage in private international law and conflict of law. Before early 1960s, the doctrine of lex loci deliciti was the generally accepted choice-of-law rule which determine the law of the place where the tort was committed as the appropriate governing law. However, this traditional rule is not suitable for international contracts where usually the parties located in different countries. Accordingly, “center of gravity” was the next conflict of law approach. The problem was not completely solved and the doctrine of “most significant relationship” was the new choice-of-law rule. However, it is not always possible to meet parties’ expectations by the application of one governing law to the entire case. As a result, Dépeçage became the next choice-of-law rule added to aviation litigation.
The theory of Dépeçage is a concept in private international law that refers to the process of cutting a case into individual issues whereby each issue is constrained to a different applicable choice-of-law analysis. In other words, the theory of Dépeçage is the application of different laws to various legal issues arising from disputes. This research shows that there is an opportunity to gain many advantages by the application of the theory of Dépeçage in international trade contracts. However, adopting this theory ought to be treated with caution due to its disadvantages and the issues it may cause if not applied within a specific framework.
Therefore, for appropriate application of Dépeçage, certain criteria such as protecting parties’ justified expectations and maintaining parties’ interests have to be met. Also, this theory shall not be applied in cases that lead to dissatisfaction of parties, destruction of legislative intention, or invalidation of a contract. Moreover, the applicable law that has the greatest concern for each issue must be applied to effectuate the purpose of each of the applied rules. In other words, choice-of-law values are significant principles for the application of Dépeçage. Lastly, judges and arbitrators must provide criteria and legal reasons for the application of Dépeçage in international trade contract during the dispute resolution process.

Keywords

References

  1. الف) فارسی
    1. ابراهیمی، سید نصرالله و جعفری چالشتری، محمود (1394)، «تحلیل حقوقی انحصار و رقابت در بازار انرژی، با تأکید بر صنایع گاز و برق؛ چالش‌ها و فرصت‌ها»، فصلنامۀ مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، دورۀ ۴۵، ش ۳.
    2. ابراهیمی‌، سید نصرالله و جواندل جانانلو، فرخ (1394)، «مدیریت تفسلی ریسک در تنظیم قراردادهای بین‌المللی نفت»، مطالعات حقوق انرژی، ش ۱.
    3. اعلائی‌فرد، محمدعلی (۱۳۹۴)، حقوق تجارت بین‌الملل، تهران: انتشارات جاودانه.
    4. جنیدی، لعیا و کریمی، سحر (1394)، «زمان و مکان انعقاد قراردادهای الکترونیکی»، دوفصلنامۀ علمی- پژوهشی دانش حقوق مدنی، سال چهارم، ش 1 (پیاپی ۷).
    5. رستگار، عباس و بابایی، داریوش (1396)، «تبیین شرط ثبات در قراردادهای نفتی»، ماهنامۀ پژوهش ملل، دورۀ، 2، ش 20.
    6. شمسایی، محمد (1396)، «شرط ثبات در قراردادهای دولتی»، فصلنامۀ پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، سال پنجم، ش 18.
    7. شیروی، عبدالحسین (1393)، حقوق نفت و گاز، چ ۲،‌ تهران: نشر میزان.
    8. صادقی، محسن (1384)، «مفهوم و اعمال نظم عمومی در مراجع قضایی و شبه‌قضایی و جلوه‌های نوین آن»، مجلۀ دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، ش ۶۸.
    9. القشیری، احمد (1395)، «قانون حاکم بر نسل جدید قراردادهای نفتی، چرخش در روند داوری»، مترجم: محسن محبی، مجلۀ حقوقی دفتر خدمات حقوقی بین‌الملل، ش 58.
    10. کاتوزیان، ناصر (۱۳۸۳)، حقوق مدنی: قواعد عمومی قراردادها، ج ۱، چ ۶، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
    11. کریمی، عباس و کریمی، سحر (1396)، «اعمال نظریۀ تعدد قوانین (دپساژ) در روند انتخاب قانون حاکم»، ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣۀ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎت ﺣﻘﻮق ﺧﺼﻮﺻﻲ،‌ دورۀ ۴۷،‌ ش ۱.
    12. نصیری، مرتضی (۱۳۵۲)، حقوق تجارت بین‌المللی، تهران: مؤسسۀ تحقیقات و انتشارات ویسمن.
      1. Allen, William H & Erin A O’Hara (1999), "Generation Law and Economics of Conflicts of Laws, Baxter’s Comparative Impairment and Beyond" 51 Stan L Rev 1011.
      2. Antle, Stephen & Jennifer K Choi (2015), "Choice of Contractual Governing Law and Dispute Resolution Jurisdiction", Rocky Mt L Fdn 1.
      3. Baniassadi, Mohammad Reza (1992), "Do Mandatory Rules of Public Law Limit Choice of Law in International Commercial Arbitration" 10 Intl Tax & Bus L 59.
      4. Barraclough, Andrew & Jeff Waincymer (2005), "Mandatory Rules of Law in International Commercial Arbitration" 6(2) Melbourne J Intl L 205.
      5. Branson, David J, & Richard E Wallace (1986), "Choosing the Substantive Law to Apply in International Commercial Arbitration" 27 Va J Intl L 39.
      6. Collins, Robert (1995), French English Dictionary, 4th ed, United Kingdom: Harper Collins Publishers.
      7. Delaume, Georges R (1988-1989), "Comparative Analysis as a Basis of Law in State Contracts: The Myth of the Lex Mercatoria" 63 Tul L Rev 575.
      8. Farrow, Trevor C W (2014), Civil Justice, Privatization, and Democracy, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
      9. Felipe Ruiz v Blentech Corp (1996) 89 F (3d) 320, 1996 35 Fed R Serv 3d 1053, Prod Liab Rep (CCH).
      10. Garner, Bryan A (1999), Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed, United States: West Group.
      11. Gaston, Eric H (1999), "Reassessing Connecticut’s Eclectic Choice of Law Methodology: Time for (Another) New Direction" 73 Conn Bar J 462.
      12. Gertz, Craig M (1991-1992), "The Selection of Choice-of-law Provisions in International Commercial Arbitration: A Case for Contractual Dépeçage" 12 Nw J Intl L & Bus 163.
      13. Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 22 December 1986.
      14. Inter-American Convention on the Law Applicable to International Contracts, 17 March 1994, Organization of American States, 33 ILM 732.
      15. Kasimbazi, Emmanuel B (2012), "Environmental Regulation of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production in Uganda" 30 J Energy & Nat Resources L 185.
      16. King & Spalding (2017), Upstream Government Petroleum Contracts (A Practitioner’s Guide to Concessions, Production Sharing Contracts, and Risk Service Agreements), New York: Juris Publishing Inc.
      17. Mabadi, Amir Hosein (2008), "Legal Strategies in Upstream Oil and Gas Contracts to Attract Foreign Investment: Iran’s Case" LLM Dissertation (Tehran: Faculty of law of Shahid Beheshti University), online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1745427.
      18. Mayer, Pierre (1986), "Mandatory Rules of Law in International Arbitration" 2 Arb Intl 274.
      19. Moerbe, Charles (2000), "International Operations: Contracts with the Government and Basic Concepts of International Operating Agreements" Lewis Mosburg's Oil & Gas Newsletter.
      20. Nike Informatic System Ltd v Avac Systems Ltd, [1979] BJC No 1277.
      21. Ong, Allan Verman Yap (2009), "Issues in the Application of Dépeçage in Chinese Private International Law" 8 Chinese J Intl L 637.
      22. Oshionebo, Evaristus (2010), "Stabilization Cluases in Natural Resource Extraction Contracts: Legal, Economic and Social Implications for Developing Countries" 10 Asper Rev Int'l Bus & Trade L 1.
      23. Peterson, Courtland H (1998), "Private International Law at the End of the Twentieth Century:  Progress or Regress?" 46 Am J Comp L 197.
      24. Practical Law Glossary, "Stabilization Clause", Item 1-501-6477, online: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1501477?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1 , (Accessed 21 July 2019).
      25. Reavley, Thomas M & Jerome W Wesevich (1992), "An Old Rule for New Reasons: Place of Injury as a Federal Solution to Choice-of-law in Single-Accident Mass-Tort Case" 71 Tex L Rev 1.
      26. Reese, William L M (1973), "Dépeçage: A Common Phenomenon in Choice-of-law" 73 Colum L Rev.
      27. Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to the Contractual Obligations, 19 June 1980, 80/934/EEC, 1605 UNTS 59.
      28. Sedler, Robert A & Aaron D Twerski (1989), "The Case against All Encompassing Federal Mass Tort Litigation: Sacrifice Without Gain" 73 Marq L Rev 76.
      29. Symeonides, Symeon C (2013), "Issue-by-issue Analysis and Dépeçage in Choice-of-law: Cause and Effect" 45 University of Toledo L Rev 45.
      30. Travnickova, Simona (2009), "Limitation of Choice of Law; Mandatory Rules and Internationally Mandatory Rules", Právnická fakulta Masarykovy university, Česká republika.
      31. UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2010, International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), 2010.
      32. Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co, [1939] AC 277 (PC).
      33. Wawryk, Alexandra S, "International Environmental Standards in the Oil Industry: Improving the Operations of Transnational Oil Companies in Emerging Economies", University of Adelaide.
      34. Weintraub, Russell J (1974-1975), "Beyond Dépeçage: A «New Rule» Approach to Choice-of-law in Consumer Credit Transactions and a Critique of the Territorial Application of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code" 25 Case W Res L Rev 16.
    ب) خارجی
Comparative Law Review
Volume 11, Issue 1
Spring & Summer
April 2020
Pages 271-290

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics