No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2017
1 U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/SB.l.Prov., Jan. 31, 1968. The “first time” was, of course, the creation of the International Law Commission in 1947. General Assembly Bes. 174 (III).
2 The International Law Commission had been asked whether it would be prepared to undertake responsibilities in this field and responded that “in view of the manifold activities and responsibilities of the International Law Commission and considering its extensive agenda, the Commision does not believe that it would be appropriate for it to become responible for work in the field of the progressive development of the law of international trade.” Beport of the Secretary General, TJ.N. Doc. A/6396, Sept. 23, 1966, par. 5.
3 U.N. General Assembly Ees. 2102 (XX).
4 The name of the item was changed to ‘ ‘ International Trade Law'’ in order to emphasize that the purpose of the exercise was to further trade by removing obstacles caused by disunity and disharmony in the laws of states and in order to make it clear that preventive aspects of the law were involved as well as the clinical or conflict of laws aspects, sometimes thought to comprise the entire field of “private international law.“
5 Report of the Secretary General, U.N. Doc. A/6396, Sept. 23, 1966, par. 225.
6 The following members were elected: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Democratic Rçepublic of the Congo, Czechoslovakia, France, Ghana, Hungary, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Rumania, Spain, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America. The formula for allocation of “seats” on the Commission is set forth in U.N. General Assembly Res. 2205 (XXI). In addition to the states elected as members of the Commission, observers were present at the first session from the following organizations: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Labor Organization, International Monetary Fund, Commission of European Communities, Council of Europe, Hague Conference on Private International Law, International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, Organization of American States, United International Bureau for the Protection of Intellectual Property, International Chamber of Commerce, International Juridical Organization for Developing Countries. The observers participated in the debate.
7 No one present when the final arrangements were agreed upon in an informal negotiating session will soon forget the broad grin of deserved paternal pride that broke out on the face of Dr. Endre Ustor, the distinguished delegate of Hungary, when agreement was finally reached.
8 Art. 13: “The General Assembly shall initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of … encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification… . “
9 U.N. General Assembly Ees. 174 (III).
10 I.L.C. Statute, Art. 15 et seq.
11 H. C. Gutteridge, Comparative Law 183-184 (2nd ed., 1949).
12 U . N . Doc. A/CN.9/SE.4 Prov., Feb. 1, 1968.
13 The following topics were suggested: (1) International sale of goods (a) In general; (b) Promotion of wider acceptance of existing formulations for unification and harmonization of international trade law in this field including the promotion of uniform trade terms, general condition osf ale and standard contracts; (c) Different legal aspects of contracts of sale like (i) Limitations; (ii) Representation and full powers; (iii) Consequences of frustration; (iv) Force majeure clauses in contracts. (2) Commercial arbitration: (a) In general; (b) Promotion of wider acceptance of the United Nations Convention on the Eeoognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. (3) Transportation. (4) Insurance. (5) International payments: (a) Negotiable instruments and banker's commercial credit; (b) Guarantee and securities. (6) Intellectual property. (7) Elimination of discrimination in laws affecting international trade. (8) Agency. (9) Legalization of documents. Eeport of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 1st Sess., General Assembly 23rd Sess., Official Eecords, No. 16 (A/7216), par. 40.
14 “In view of the wide scope and complex nature of the subject of international sale of goods as laid down in paragraph 5 above, at this early stage the Commission found it impractical to deal with all the facets of the subject at the same time.“ Ibid., par. 48, subpar. 1,7. It should, however, be noted that the report goes on to state that “ I t was agreed that any member of the Commission would be at liberty to submit to the Secretary-General studies on any topic on the priority list other than the selected items referred to in paragraph 7 above.” Ibid., subpar. 1,8.
15 Convention Relating to a Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods (Corporeal Movables). I l l Int. Legal Materials 885 (1964).
16 Convention on the Law Applicable to International Sale of Goods. 510 U.N. Treaty Series 147.
17 Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 1st Seas., loc. tit., par. 48(14).
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid., subpar. (19).
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid., subpar. (20).
22 Ibid., subpar. (18). (Certain states have already indicated a willingnes to assume the burden of preparing such a study and the Secretary General will presumably consult to ascertain which states are in a position to assume such a burden and are willing to do so.)
23 Ibid., subpars. (22-29).
24 lbid., subpars. (30-35). UJT. Convention on the Eecognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 330 U.N. Treaty Series 38.
25 The United Kingdom produced an extensive working paper (U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/L.2) setting forth the means of carrying such a plan into operation. It was merely the fiscal caution of members of the Commission which prevented a decision to proceed forthwith. As it stands, governments will have an opportunity to examine the project in both the Sixth and Fifth Committees of the 23rd General Assembly as well as have it examined by the ACABQ.
26 Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 1st Sess., loc. cit., par. 64-68.
27 The constructive tone of the session resulted in no small part from the efforts of the Bureau, which consisted of Mr. Emmanuel K. Dadzie (Ghana), Chairman; Mr. Anthony Mason (Australia), Mr. Laszlo Beczei (Hungary) and Mr. Shinichiro Michida (Japan), Vice Chairmen; Mr. Jorge Barrera Graf (Mexico), Eapporteur; and those of Mr. Constantin A. Stavropoulos, the United Nations Legal Counsel, and his staff.
28 Statement made by Dr. Josef Smejkal, Czechoslovak representative, at the fourth meeting of the Commission on Feb. 1, 1968: “ I think that even if the procedure of the Commission does not require or will not require unanimity (consensus), we will seek it, I hope, on all substantive questions, such as those concerning the choice of subjects and the order of priorities. If we agree tacitly on this ‘gentlemen's agreement,' our efforts will be repaid by the results which we are pursuing.” (Unofficial translation). * The views expressed here are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Government