On the Stipulation of Autonomy of Will Principle by the Bustamante Code

INTRODUCTION. Autonomy of will principle (mainly, in case of international contracts) is firmly established in modern private international law. It has become more and more widespread in international treaties unifying choice of law and national legislation of numerous states through the whole XX century. The jurisprudence elaborated a position that the first comprehensive codification of private international law (the Bustamante Code) stipulates autonomy of will principle for parties to international private relations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The essential technique of this research is bases on the analysis dealing not only with the text of the Bustamante Code, but more with the framework and effects of its elaboration as well as with the peculiarities of its application by member states (especially in the view of general reservations made by several states).

RESEARCH RESULTS. It is pointed out that the Bustamante Code as comprehensive codification of private international law is based on compromise solutions and has been ratified with multiple reservations including those nullifying the very idea of unification. It is proved in series that art. 3 of the Bustamante Code, outlining three categories of legal norms (including voluntary, “applied only by manifestation, interpretation or presumption of will of the parties or one of the parties”), has too broad character, and fragmentary autonomy of will mentioning in respect of contracts’ interpretation and choice-oflaw rules dealing with contracts of adhesion are not sufficient to contend that the Bustamante Code has proclaimed, stipulated or even acknowledged the autonomy of will principle in private international law.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Two main conclusions are made: firstly, contrary to the point of view widespread in jurisprudence the grounds to contend that the Bustamante Code proclaims autonomy of will principle are absent; secondly, conclusion on legal principle stipulation by the international treaty (or by the other form of law) requires, in author’s opinion, quite definite terminology of provision or of the whole text of the corresponding document in the view of concept description and specific peculiarities of its mechanism.

1. Abdullin A.I. O nekotorykh voprosakh zarozhdeniya i formirovaniya otechestvennoi nauki mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava [On Several Issues of Origin and Formation of Native Private International Law Science]. – Vestnik ekonomiki, prava i sotsiologii. 2012. No. 4. P. 117–122. (In Russ.)

2. Albornoz M.M. Choice of Law in International Contracts in Latin American Legal System. – Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. División de Estudios Jurídicos. 2009. No. 36. 40 p. URL: http://repositorio-digital.cide.edu/bitstream/handle/11651/1302/95979.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed date: 25.04.2019).

3. Delić A. The Birth of Modern Private International Law: The Treaties of Montevideo (1889, amended 1940). – Oxford Public International Law. 2019. URL: https://opil.ouplaw.com/page/Treaties-Montevideo/the-birth-of-modern-private-international-law-the-treaties-of-montevideo-1889-amended-1940 (accessed date: 25.04.2019).

4. Doronina N.G. Diffuziya v prave kak napravlenie unifikatsii mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava: k voprosu ob ob"ekte informatsionnogo prava [Diffusion in Law as Unification Trend in Private International Law: on the Issue of Information Law Object]. – Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava. 2015. No. 5. P. 125–134. (In Russ.)

5. Doronina N.G. Unifikatsiya prava stran Latinskoi Ameriki [Unification of Law in Latin American Countries]. – Zakonodatel'stvo i ekonomika. 2002. No. 10. P. 73–85. (In Russ.)

6. Doronina N.G. Unifikatsiya prava v sovremennykh usloviyakh mezhdunarodnogo sotrudnichestva [Unification of Law in the Modern Framework of International Cooperation]. – Problemy unifikatsii mezhdunarodnogo chastnogo prava. Pod red. A.L. Makovskogo, I.O. Khlestovoy [Problems of Unification in Private International Law. Ed. by A.L. Makovskii, I.O. Khlestova]. Moscow: Institut zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya pri Pravitel'stve RF Publ. 2013. P. 13–27. (In Russ.)

7. Ivanov N.P. Osnovaniya chastnoi mezhdunarodnoi yurisdiktsii [Grounds for Private International Jurisdiction]. – Zolotoi fond rossiiskoi nauki mezhdunarodnogo prava. T. 2 [Golden Fund of Russian International Law Science. Vol. 2]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya Publ. 2009. P. 57–99. (In Russ.)

8. Kondrat'eva E.M. Svoboda dogovora i “avtonomiya voli storon” kak garantii osushchestvleniya konstitutsionnykh prav rossiiskikh uchastnikov vneshneekonomicheskoi deyatel'nosti v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave [Freedom of Contract and “Parties’ Autonomy of Will” as Guarantees for Execution of Constitutional Rights of Russian External Economic Activity Participants in Private International Law]. – Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N. I. Lobacheskogo. Seriya: Pravo. 2003. No. 1. P. 33–44. (In Russ.)

9. Lorenzen E.G. Pan-American Code of Private International Law. – Tulane Law Review. 1930. Vol. IV. No. 4. P. 499–528.

10. Maekelt T. de. Inter-American Codification of Private International Law. – Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. Vol. 177. 1982. P. 221–237.

11. Nadelmann K.H. The Need for Revision of the Bustamante Code on Private International Law. – American Journal of International Law. 1971. Vol. 65. Issue 5. P. 782–793.

12. Parra-Aranguren G. Recent Developments of Conflict of Laws Conventions in Latin America. – Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. 1980. Vol. 164. P. 55–170.

13. Rangel V.M. International Law, Regional Developments: Latin America. – International Development Law: The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Ed. by P. Minnerop, R. Wolfrum, F. Lachenmann. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2019. P. 545–559.

14. Strigunova D.P. Realizatsiya printsipa avtonomii voli storon v mezhdunarodnykh kommercheskikh dogovorakh [Realization of Parties’ Autonomy of Will Principle in International Commercial Contracts]. – Sovremennoe parvo. 2014. No. 4. P. 153–158. (In Russ.)

15. Symeonides S.C. Codifying Choice of Law around the World: An International Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2014a . 411 p.

16. Symeonides S.C. Party Autonomy in International Contracts and the Multiple Ways of Slicing the Apple. – Brooklyn Journal of International Law. 2014b. Vol. 39. Issue 3. P. 1123–1143.

17. Tuininga K. Cuban Private International Law: Some Observations, Comparisons, and Suppositions. – University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. 2009. Vol. 40. Issue 3. P. 433–452.

18. Vickers A.M. The Choice of Law Clause in Contracts between Parties of Developing and Developed Nations. – Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law. 1981. Vol. 11. Issue 3. P. 617–634.

19. Vilkova N.G. Unifikatsiya kollizionnykh norm v sfere mezhdunarodnykh kommercheskikh kontraktov [Conflict of Laws Unification in the field of International Commercial Contracts]. – Khozyaistvo i pravo. 1997. No. 11. P. 131–135. (In Russ.)

20. Zanibekov M.M. Avtonomiya voli storon i svoboda dogovora pri zaklyuchenii mezhdunarodnogo kommercheskogo dogovora: deistvuyushchii pravovoi mekhanizm ili yuridicheskaya fiktsiya? [Parties’ Autonomy of Will and Freedom of Contract in Conclusion of International Commercial Contract: Valid Legal Mechanism or Legal Fiction?]. – Vestnik Moskovskogo finansovo-yuridicheskogo universiteta. 2016. No. 2. P. 142–153. (In Russ.)