This paper will start by explaining the concepts of Sharia law. In addition, this paper will explain how Islamic law interprets the UNIDROIT principle. This will entail a discussion of the ideals of Sharia, which are vital in the interpretation of UNIDROIT. Islamic law follows the Quran, which has broad principles that are in line with any decent system of laws[1]. However, the stance of the UNIDROIT principle during the formation of domestic laws and contracts by entity states will follow. This will entail reviewing the perspective of UNIDROIT principles in relation to governing business practices among different trade sectors based on the socio-economic surrounding wherein the business operates[2]. Finally, the requirement of the UNIDROIT on when domestic standards of business practices may be considered will follow.
Explaining the concepts of the Sharia law: How the Islamic law interprets the UNIDROIT principle
The Sharia law has become known as one of the emphases upon the centrality of the holy law, or sharing, in the good practice. Composed, it endorses with equal emphasis that the UNIDROIT principle ought to be passively received and applied to Islamic law. Relatively, it is to be actively constructed based on Islamic law. Islamic law prepares to be a monotheistic, universal and eternal concept of the world as well as the context of a global cosmos attitude. [3] However, Islamic law is perhaps less known than Roman law or common law. The aspect at the specificity of its commercial characteristics would appear on how it interprets in this regard with the UNIDROIT principle. [4] The Islamic commercial law has disappeared in complete countries. The one concession being has been apparent for quite a period, as depicted recently in the Saudi Arabia case. [5]
Furthermore, there are some problems that the Muslim jurists are doubtlessly constrained in the Islamic law than was in the UNIDROIT principle counterpart where it only occurred at least in principle. This appeared to be the case, given that they believed that the UNIDROIT principle depended on the intuition of the incoming resolutions to the commercial contract problems. The Muslim jurists had additional exhibitions when they knew that the working group intuition was derived from the UNIDROIT principle. However, the UNIDROIT principle originated from humanity despite the permissible backgrounds as well as the financial and biased setting of the countries where such principles are applied. Besides, the Muslim jurists believe that the UNIDROIT principle has currently been drafted through a workgroup of specialists who have no legislative power. In fact, they are probably not assumed as mere academic exercises of practical value. [6] In this paper, we will analyze the point that deserves further emphasis. That is the point that explains the concepts of Sharia law.
Muslim jurists mostly follow the principles of Islamic Sharia law, which is derived from the fundamental religious rule of Islam, the holy Quran, the Sunna, and other Islamic scriptures. Sharia law governs nearly all aspects of Islam. Sharia law hence imposes certain restrictions on commercial and contract within the Islamic principle. However, Muslim jurists have the assumption and belief that the Sharia is being sidelined. This materializes to be anchored on the fact that the current UNIDROIT principle is an international commercial framework that entirely derives from the Western legal framework. The Western legal framework might create obstacles in the acceptability of international commerce in the Middle East and even through Islamic law. [7] At the same time, the Sharia law strongly purposes to protect in most situations, particularly when dealing with contractual obligations.
On the other hand, the integration of Sharia law in the international commercial arena might obviously present unacceptable conditions when we recall the purposes of the UNIDROIT principle framework. The international commercial is intended to incorporate the enforceability of agreements, clauses, and arbitral awards. Besides, it is meant to protect the process equally much as probable from the interference by domestic courts and other law or international institutions. [8] There are essentially two constituents of Islamic law with regard to commercial transactions. The first is Mu’amalat, meaning transactions. As is frequently assumed, commercial law with the UNIDROIT principle accepted the sense of this adjective that deals purely with Sharia law and matters that are called Mu’amalat. Moreover, this component of the Islamic law that is Mu’amalat, meaning transactions deals with the same traditional legal provision as the UNIDROIT principle. [9] This knowledge to know regards what the distinction between commercial and non-commercial law in Islamic law is, the jurist’s of Islam categories of the principal divisions including akhlaq (morals), Ibada (religious observance) and Mu’amalat (transactions). Generally, Islam authorizes trade as well as commerce and the contracts that are applied thereto by Mu’amalat in the Sharia. Mu’amalat integrates the civil contracts, and all civil contracts can be used in a commercial contract.
Thus, this information did not have a similar description or significance as the UNIDROIT principle divides. The Sharia has principles that mostly apply to all situations; one would not act in one manner. Therefore, the Sharia law may be in defiance has deep roots. Nevertheless, the uniformity of the Sharia dealing may have a specifically significant aspect of the subject given that it contributes to the rise of some key differences between the Sharia law and the UNIDROIT principle commercial law[10].
Thus far, it is estimated that the distinction between the transactions of Sharia and the UNIDROIT principle might be difficult. The assertion is derived from the fact that the Sharia laws incorporate Islamic agreements resembling the affiliations, though such laws hardly include the fundamental perception of the permissible decree. Besides, the concept of the Islamic commercial contract through permissible contracts appears to be acceptable, and the application of funds is through contracts approved by the Sharia. The aspects of the Islamic commercial contract materialize to revolve around Sharia requirements. Most of these requirements refer to be ensuring that the contracts have all their essential basics with their required conditions. At the same time, they warrant the avoidance of the prohibitions that are not accepted in Islamic law. [11]
A discussion of the ideals of Sharia, which are vital in the interpretation of UNIDROIT
The legal community has been gaining momentum due to globalization. [12] The European Union, in this regard, has been employing an agreement seeking to authorize cross-border legal practice for its members. [13] Through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Trade Organization stakeholders have been initiating debates on the cross-border legal practice. This involves a range of proposals under the General Agreement on the Trade in Services (GATS)[14]. These debates cannot be isolated to the Western countries only. The debate on the cross-border legal practice will be considered incomplete if the legal and cultural concerns are not tackled, particularly those regarding the Middle East and the Muslim communities in general. [15]
In recent years, there have been rising concerns over legal ethics. Surprisingly, there have not been many academic concerns for moral perspectives regarding the cross-border practice in the Gulf. It is important to note that there is no single location that maintains absolute political and economic significance[16]. Similarly, there is hardly a specific location that provides a perfect model for the examination of the effect of cultural differences on legal practice. In the past, such differences contributed to the adjudication between the United States and Iran, culminating in settlements of over $3 billion. [17] Such variances in cultures between the Gulf and Western culture persist in being in play while acting a central role in modern legal relations just as they did in the state-sponsored expropriation period of western assets. [18] With contract negotiations in the Middle East rising, it is important to investigate the essential ethics that govern prospective legal representations that involve Islamic issues[19].
The UNIDROIT principles contribute an essential step towards the global synchronization of agreement law. The average quality test is provided by the Sharia law, which provides the objective criteria for non-conformity. Indeed, these objectives give the best criterion for interpreting the UNIDROIT principles. The concord laws stipulate that the conveyed goods shall be in shape for the ordinary purpose of using analogous goods. In the interpretation of UNIDROIT, the quality of merchandise put up for sale ought to be of the sensible standard, be it perishable or any other type. Such Sharia ideals are in line with the conformity of goods, including the CISG, UP, and PLCD. Thus, the interpreted Sharia principles provide several provisions to both the buyers and vendors in regard to their transactions under UNIDROIT principles. Conversely, the goods are obliged to be well for the purchaser’s specific purpose of utilization as required by the Sharia principles. When completing the contract, the interpretation puts the intention as implicit or explicit to the seller while the customer relies on the judgment and skills of the vendor. These constitute the ideals of Sharia[20].
The delivered goods should be in conformity and qualities with the sample goods shown to the consumer. The discrepancy then transpires once the contracting parties contract upon particular specifications regarding the goods. This part is ideal for the interpretation in that it is not reasonable for the shoppers to depend on the judgment and skills of vendors. In fact, the commodities ought to follow the form as implicitly granted by the constricting business entities. Regarding the concern of the UNIDROIT principles, the distributed goods should be bundled in a way sufficient to protect and conserve the goods. Failure of the above is a violation of the Sharia law, as may be deduced from several provisions of CISG. The entire criterion is ideal in Arabic law when interpreting the UNIDROIT principles. Inherently, the Arab codes avail law of obligation the outstanding position it takes in the public law system[21].
The stance of the UNIDROIT principle on the formation of domestic laws and contracts by entity states
The increase in the utilization of the UNIDROIT Principles in international arbitration has had and will continue to bring about ripple effects on domestic cases in regular courts. However, there is a general assumption asserting that there lacks a connection between the practice of lawyers in international adjudication and the practice of domestic courts. When the principles were first published, they were regarded as ‘soft law’. This meant that the principles were not legally binding in courts. However, after years of operation, the principles have proved that they offer tangible and valuable solutions while progressively synchronizing and amalgamating contract laws. [22] The primary intent of the UNIDROIT was to create and develop a set of ethical standards aimed at accommodating the requirements of the international commercial community. [23]
Although Sharia is very restricted on commercial activities, the principles assert that UNIDROIT replicates ‘models that are found in a multiplicity, if not all, the legal systems.’ They are therefore flexible and non-limitative as they leave significant room for suppleness. They accommodate particular provisions to enhance individual parties’ concerns in advancing private arrangements. They also promote national trade economic policies irrespective of other limitations such as those advocated for by Sharia. [24] Consequently, the principles are distinctive tools that can be acclimatized in any contract and help protect the parties’ anticipation arising from contracts entered.
The UNIDROIT principles have demonstrated that they are a realistic solution to the elucidation and functioning of contracts. They have been previously affected by the resolution of disagreements in mediations. The novel version released in the financial year 2004 notably distended the ground of influence past the undemanding conventional regulation. This indicates that they are effectively responding to the requirements of a worldwide market. The principles have inherently taken on the functioning of a lex mercatoria[25]. The preamble of the doctrine suggests that UNIDROIT ought to be functional in locations where the entities consent that the agreement should be handled via the universal bylaw ethics, also dubbed as the lex mercatoria[26].
Considering the comprehensive application of the principles in adjudication, it can be argued that the soft law stage of the principles has been passed. They have hence entered the ‘case-hardened’ law stage. However, this view is not entirely accepted. There are quarters that argue that the principles are not bona fide law but a sheer compilation of the generally recognized principles. [27] They hence cannot be a replacement of appropriate laws. It is important to highlight here that such an argument is not persuasive considering the comprehensive application of the principles in arbitration without much resistance. Regardless of the widespread tolerability to the degree that intercession becomes integrated, the inclusions of such doctrines have been strictly observed in restricted scenarios as well as in the obiter[28].
Irrespective of the controversies associated with the principles, they have affected local law in different countries. They influence municipal law through transplantation. In other settings, they have been used as a mock-up in the upgrading of domestic laws, particularly the contract law in China[29]. Another scenario where the principles have had an influence is the transformation of the Estonian Law of Obligation. The principles do not only shape the foundation on the outline of trade laws but also act as an essential base for underpinning the universal requirements, including the breach of contract[30]. These principles have applied tie to the views expressed in various laws.
The perspective of UNIDROIT principles in relation to governing business practices among different trade sectors based on the socio-economic surrounding wherein the business operates
The existence of diverse legal systems around the globe has been a source of an impediment to the smooth process of worldwide transactions. Several steps have been undertaken by the legal fraternity to synchronize the national laws to facilitate international trade[31]. Therefore, applying a uniform law is a very significant step in the outline of ensuring achievement among different trade sectors.
Notwithstanding the achievements that the principles have achieved globally, there have been criticisms of the principles. For instance, some critics argue that the laws lack authority in their concealed derivation as opposed to the domestic contract-based decree. Due to a lack of legitimacy in private law, the principles cannot be categorized as decree[32]. In addition, the critics claim that the codes lack authenticity since a small group of international professionals created them, none of whom stood for real global contractual practice. Other opponents argue that the non-binding nature of the principles raises concern about the legal assurance and inevitability in the international transactions among different sectors from diverse backgrounds.
Ultimately, the decision on when and where the UNIDROIT principles should be applied is the discretion of the players in the market. Therefore, the global business fraternity as well arbitrators have the responsibility of evaluating the principles from the viewpoint of accepted worldwide codes in the angle of decrees that reign in that subject among different players[33]. Available data indicates that the UNIDROIT principles have been used to solve a number of rows.
The latest internationalization of the world economy has exposed a number of countries to escalating business contracts. The growth in global business comes with an associated escalation in the number of legal issues and disagreements. The effects of such disputes have been the expansion of the marketplace for international law experts. Tendering disagreements to the international negotiation is a familiar aspect of international business contracts. The settlements of such disputes using international arbitration are favoured by the legal confidence as well as procedural elasticity[34]. Moreover, international business disputes are characterized by timely decisions on solutions among different nations. Such a situation functions best with the application of the UNIDROIT Principles as the guide to the conciliation and outlining contracts[35]. The principles enable effective interpretation of international laws in case of a dispute amongst different sectors emanating from diverse socio-economic backgrounds.
A majority of nations globally lack systematic laws that address issues related to disputes in international contracts[36]. With the principles, several issues pertaining to the general contract law are outlined. For instance, a rule pertaining to the formation of the treaty, legitimacy and non-performances is very significant in solving disputes between sectors from diverse socio-economic environments internationally[37]. The provisions on the interpretation and termination of transactions are equally important in solving disputes involving international transactions[38].
The conservative understanding advocates that the global trade dealings build the requirement for a set of laws apt for the attributes. Due to the escalating growth in global business transactions, there have been undertakings by both the non-governmental and governmental bodies to develop regulations governing the transactions.
Organizations such as UNIDROIT have dedicated considerable energy to the formulation of legal rules that are essential in the settling of disputes involving different sectors[39]. The international commercial laws are better suited in dealing with the disagreements than before when the national courts were offering an arbitration-friendly condition that presents an elastic settlement of disputes between different players from diverse backgrounds[40].
The basic ideas underlying the UNDROIT doctrine also emphasizes the independence of business entities entering the treaty along with their sovereignty in setting up the regulations provisions as well as the state of affairs managing the affiliation of natives from diverse socio-economic locale[41]. In essence, a party is liberated from constrictions and has the ability to act logically in deciding whether to purchase or sell. Further, the principles provide for equality in bargaining power as well as balance in knowledge among the parties irrespective of the socio-economic environment, thus leading to the effectiveness of the internal business transactions[42]. Moreover, the principles are essential in enabling the best potential allotment of interests and uncertainties among parties equally. Consequently, all the parties in the transaction gain equally[43].
Another key issue central to the UNDROIT principles is the adherence to good faith and just dealing in the undertakings of global trade. The observance of the ideas enables the parties not to derogate from the principles. In conducting global transactions, the foundation revolves around the moral standards of the business[44]. In other words, the principles advocate for fair and equitable conditions in global transactions. As such, the principles provide for equity in settling the disputes regardless of the state or socio-economic background of a party[45].
The UNIDROIT principles implement a strong strategy against injustice. The available information indicates that green individuals are always involved in undertaking international transactions[46]. As a result, there is always the need for monitoring the agreement against practical injustices and substantive unfairness. With the adoption of the policies against unfairness, parties from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds are empowered to compete with their counterparts in a just manner during the transaction of business[47]. The endorsements of provisions sanctioning the averting of an already finished contract by a party enhance unfairness among parties involved in transactions.
With respect to evading the significant inequality, the UNDROIT conventions encompass certain rules that allow direct intervention in the transaction by making vain the contractual terms considered as unjust[48]. For instance, the principles have an article on an exemption that confines the party’s burden to non-performance may not be terminated if the action is deemed unjust. The principles further have tried to regulate the procedural as well as substantive disparity to ensure fairness in the transactions. The provisions ensure the reduction of excess advantages that are enjoyed by the parties perceived to be from strong social and economic surroundings[49]. Moreover, UNDROIT favours the principle of the contract, which ensures that different parties involved in the transaction safeguard the agreement despite the adversity involved. As a result, the parties are able to share the financial liabilities during hardships[50].
Therefore, it is evident that the UNDROIT principles play a significant role in transactions involving international markets[51]. To sum up, it is observed that the ideas of the principles are attuned to the international business transactions. In the negotiation of global contracts, parties encounter several obstacles ranging from diversity in legal practices among different parties’ language barriers to diversities in culture[52]. The principles are very useful in dealing with language impediments since they are available in major languages.
The requirement of UNIDROIT when domestic standards of business practices may be considered
The preamble of the model law to the domestic system necessitates the establishment of a convincing motive. The attention of the court was that it would not be tolerable to have an option to the paroled evidence rule since it is no longer a component of domestic law. The appliance of UNIDROIT principles is properly initiated in the adjudication to get an excellent potency and undeniable reasons[53]. The arbitration provides a common language and concept that can bring easy understanding when applying the principles of UNIDROIT in domestic standards relating to business activities. Based on this fact, the court may employ the doctrine when adding on or inferring to the domestic bylaw. Hence, subject to the obligatory rule of domestic law, the UNIDROIT principles could be useful to domestic contracts in spite of being envisaged for intercontinental contracts[54].
The UNIDROIT Principles are merely persuasive in character and work as subordinate regulations supposed the principle of domestic business is soundless in a certain matter. However, this is hardly the case when parties in the business plainly propose to head off from some provisions. These principles can hardly guide in disrespect of such provisions. Moreover, conflict may happen when there is a deficiency of congruency amid the pertinent domestic law and the UNIDROIT principles[55]. In case there is no conflict between the developed national laws and UNIDROIT principles, the business becomes very productive. When considering the domestic standards of domestic business practices, the UNIDROIT principles would require a number of provisions[56].
First, the UNIDROIT principles would necessitate that a pecuniary obligation place of performance should be the obligee’s place of executing commerce. The UNIDROIT values stipulate that until the sum engaged in the domestic trade is truly certified as the ordinary code grants, then the sending of the financial check should hardly represent the imbursements[57]. In this context, once the damage has been recognized with an evenhanded extent of conviction, then the amount of smash up should never be authenticated with utter certainty. When evaluating the amount that ought to be rewarded, the court can put into effect its discretion. Consequently, adjudication can be utilized to trim down the liquidated costs as required by the UNIDROIT principles[58].
Conversely, the dispute resolution as well as the confidentiality obligations ought to be preserved at the end of a contract under domestic business standards. When pertinent domestic laws do not offer the same solution as the principles, business becomes very challenging. Thus, the UNIDROIT principles accept the establishment of two distinct conditions[59]. For instance, when the domestic regulations hardly tender apparent resolution to the question posed by the bylaws and when the patent explanation is offered yet dissimilar to that of the UNIDROIT doctrine. In case non-performance that should be performed under the UNIDROIT principles is exempted, it is necessitated that no extra awards of damages provisions should be made on preconditions like negligence[60]. This corresponds to the full reimbursement right when considering the domestic standards relating to business practices.
In order to apply the UNIDROIT principles, the arbitrator should not upset the flimsy equilibrium amid the contracting parties in business dealing under domestic law. As a derogation from the national law applicable to the parties’ consent, the UNIDROIT principles require the obligatory instruments such as CISG to be eligible[61]. While supplementing the domestic law, the responsibility of good faith in pre-contractual compromises needs to be clearly stated. This would be noteworthy when construing the intention and performance of the parties after they instigate the business. In addition, the force of majeure and adversity should be mentioned according to the UNIDROIT principles when domestic standards of business practices are considered[62]. The discretion linking the fundamental contravention of the contract and several other contracts is essential. In matters relating to the loss of chance, the UNIDROIT principles are endowed with the fixation of compensation when anticipating the occurrences.
The article on the UNIDROIT principles mentions the non-financial harm that prevents the limitation of poignant suffering and physical anguish in business. The rational application of the UNIDROIT principles comes from the goodwill of tackling and giving solutions to matters that can affect the well-being of the domestic business. Therefore, the UNIDROIT principles not only function to construe the law instruments offered in the universal expanses but also at the domestic law[63]. When applying the UNIDROIT principles in the domestic standards of business practices, the features of several scrutinized arbitrary awards should be consistent with augmenting the lengths of applicability. The UNIDROIT principles also represent a resolution divergent from the domestic law according to the studied decisions. The application of both the UNIDROIT principles and domestic law helps businesses to evade any apparent disagreements[64].
The UNIDROIT principles rile the denunciation of enforcing the long-lasting scrutiny of the reward pleas. Therefore, when employing the domestic standards of business practices, the UNIDROIT provides an excellent way of rewarding oneself with the advantages of the reinstated principles. This can be best elaborated when determining the best efforts and gross mistakes. For example, the interpretation of the law to get rid of the domestic law ambiguities. The UNIDROIT principles supplement the domestic law in areas experiencing controversies that are harmonized using the in print precedents and moderately deficient statutes. In order to achieve success in the execution of business under such an environment, the domestic standards of business practices should have not less than five affiliate members in the elementary committees as necessitated by the UNIDROIT principles[65].
The UNIDROIT principles spearhead education to produce judges and lawyers that produce the best solutions in the context of domestic law[66]. The UNIDROIT doctrines are progressively integrated into the domestic, commercial standards to accept the scholarly response. Such principles appear in annotated versions that assist in the comprehension of the important and practical application to the domestic business standards. The UNIDROIT principles will, in general, prevent conflicting awards[67]. The difference in the international and domestic application of these principles is minimal, and its outcome in the domestic business is paramount.
Reference
Oser, D. (2008). The UNIDROIT Principles of international commercial contracts: a governing law? Boston, Massachusetts: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p.66.
Jansen, L. (2010). The making of legal authority: Non-legislative codifications in historical and comparative perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p.73.
Bassiouni, M. C. (1969). “Islam: Concept, Law and World Habeas Corpus.” Rutgers-Cam LJ 1: 160.P164.
Badr, G. M. (1978). “Islamic law: Its relation to other legal systems.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 26(2): 187-P188.
Foster, N. H. (2006). “Islamic Commercial Law: An Overview (I).” Indret: Revista para el Análisis del Derecho (4): 384.
Bonell, M. J. (1994). An International Restatement of Contract Law (1994), Transnational Juris Publications Inc., P150.
Weiss, Bernard. “Interpretation in Islamic Law: The Theory of Ijtihād.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 26.2 (1978): P199.
Fox, W. F. (2009). International commercial agreements: a primer on D, Kluwer Law International.P44.
Twibell, T. (1997). “Implementation of the United Nations Convention of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) under Sharia (Islamic Law): Will Article 78 of the CISG Be Enforced When the Forum Is in an Islamic State.” Int’l Legal Persp. 9: 25.P68.
Fellmeth, A. (2012). U.S. state legislation to limit use of international and foreign law. The American Journal of International Law, 106(1), 107 – 117.
Ahmed, H. O. (1990). Shariah Contracts in Islamic Banking & Finance, Dar al Fikr, Beirut.P4.
Goldsmith, P. (1997). Globalization of Laws – Tearing Down the Walls. Ross Harper edition. P139.
Goebel, R. J. (1992). Lawyers in the European Community: Progress towards Community-Wide Rights of Practice. Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 559. P15.
Schlesinger, R. (1998). Comparative law: Cases, text, materials. Eagan, Minnesota: Foundation Press. p.981.
Daly, M. C. (1996). Will National Borders Matter to Lawyers a Century from now? Journal of Institution for Study Legal Ethics, p297.
Heidemann, M. (2007). Does international trade need a doctrine of transnational law? Some thoughts at the launch of a European contract law. New York City, NY: Springer Publisher. p.34.
Newman, L. & Hanessian, G. (1996). General Principles of International Commercial Law. World Arb. & Mediation Rep, Vol. 7(131), p135.
Tugendhat, C. (1969). Oil the Biggest Business. p.272.
McCary, M. (200). Bridging Ethical Borders: International Legal Ethics with an Islamic Perspective. Texas International Law Journal, Vol. 35: p291.
Schlesinger, R. (1998). Comparative law: Cases, text, materials. Eagan, Minnesota: Foundation Press. p.981.
Malkawi, B.H. (2008). Prescription in Arab Civil Codes and the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts of 2004: A Comparative Analysis. Bond Law Review, Vol. 20(10), p82.
Zeller, B. (2007). The UNIDROIT Principles of Contract Law; Is There Room for Their Inclusion into Domestic Contracts? Journal of Law and Commerce, Vl. 26 p115.
Seto, B. & Wahono, H. (2002). The UNIDROIT Principles and the Law Governing Commercial Contracts in Southeast Asia, Unif. L. Rev. p1005.
Mustill, M. (2008). The new Lex Mercatoria: The first twenty-five years. Arbitration International, 4(2), 87-88.
Fortier, L. Y. (2001). The new, new Lex Mercatoria, or back to the future. Arbitration International, 17(5), 121-125.
Fountoulakis, C. (2005). The Parties’ Choice of ‘Neutral Law’ in International Sales Contracts. European Journal of Law Reform, Vol. 7(303) P322.
Heidemann, M. (2007). Methodology of uniform contract law: The UNIDROIT principles in international legal doctrine and practice. New York City, NY: Springer Publisher. p.72.
Vogenauer, S. & Kleinheisterkamp, J. (2009). Commentary on the UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts (PICC). Oxford University Press. p.247.
Varul, P. (2003). A Source of Inspiration for the Estonian Law of Obligations. Unif. L. Rev., Vol. 8. P209.
Berger, K. P. (2008). International arbitral practice and the UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts. Arbitration Journal in Comparative Law, 46(16), 129-130.
Bonell, M. J. (2002). The UNIDROIT principles as a means of interpreting and supplementing international uniform law. Journal of International & Comparative Law, 38(6), 204-218.
Bonell, M. J. (2006). UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts: Sphere of application and general provisions. Journal of International & Comparative Law, 383(36), 404-408.
Bortolotti, F. (2000). The UNIDROIT principles and the arbitral tribunals. Journal of International & Comparative Law, 16(4), 141-142.
Derains, Y. (2002). The role of the UNIDROIT principles in international commercial arbitration: A European perspective. Journal of International Law and Arbitration, 32(16), 9-10.
Farnsworth, E. A. (2002). The role of the UNIDROIT principles international commercial arbitration: A US perspective on their aims and application. Arbitration International, 6(2), 21-27.
Furmston, M. P. (2006). The UNIDROIT principles and international commercial arbitration. Journal of International Business Law and Practice, 37(13), 199-200.
Bonell, M. J. (1999). A new approach to international commercial contracts. Hague: Kluwer, pp.56.
Baron, G. (2009). Do the UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts form a new Lex Mercatoria? Arbitration International, 115(15), 116-117.
Lei, C. (2008). The UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts: A governing law? Singapore Year Book of International Law, 12(3), p. 357.
Dessemontet, F. (2002). Use of the UNIDROIT principles to interpret and supplement domestic law” Journal of International Business Law and Practice, 39(11), 40-41.
Lando, O. (2003). Assessing the role of the UNIDROIT principles in the harmonization of arbitration law. Journal of International & Comparative Law, 6(3), 65-74.
Brower, C. N. (2001). The privatization of rules of decision in international commercial arbitration. Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag, pp.54.
Mayer, P. (2002). The role of the UNIDROIT principles in ICC arbitration practice. Arbitration International, 105(15), 111-12.
Van Houtte, H. (2005). The UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts. Arbitration International, 11(2), 373-377.
Finn, P. (2010). The UNIDROIT Principles: An Australian perspective. Australian International Law Journal, 17(5), p.193.
Lalive, P. (2002). The UNIDROIT principles as Lex Contract us, with or without an explicit or tacit choice of law. An Arbitrator’s Perspective, 4(2), 77-78.
Williams, D. A. R. (2006). The further development of international commercial arbitration through the UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts” New Zealand Business Law Quarterly, 7(1), 12-14.
Mann, F. A. (2005). Private arbitration and public policy. Journal of International Business Law and Practice, 16(2), 257-264.
Boele-Woelki, K. (2006). Principles and private international law: the UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts and the principles of European contract law: how to apply them to international contracts. Arbitration International, 4(1), 652-661.
Gabor, D. (2010). UNIDROIT principles applicable to international commercial contracts. Social Sciences and Law, 3(1), 199 – 202.
Bonell, M.J. (2001). A ‘Global’ arbitration decided on the basis of the UNIDROIT Principles: Re Andersen Consulting Business Unit Member Firms v Arthur Andersen Business Unit Member Firms and Andersen Worldwide Société Coopérative. Arbitration International, 17(3), 249-252.
Bodgan, M. (2012). Private international law as component of the law of the forum. Boston, Massachusetts: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p.278.
Kruisinga, S. (2004). Non-conformity in the 1980 UN convention on contracts for the international sale of goods: A uniform concept? Ardsley, NY: Intersentia NV Publisher. p.21.
Bonell, J. M. (2009). An international restatement of contract law: The UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p.132.
Béraudo, J. (1995). The UNIDROIT principles for international commercial contracts: A new Lex Mercatoria? Michigan: International Chamber of Commerce. p.123.
Elcin, M. (2010). The applicable law to international commercial contracts and the status of Lex Mercatoria: With a special emphasis on choice of law rules in the European community. Boca Raton, Florida: Universal-Publishers. p.31.
Bonell, J. M. (2006). The UNIDROIT principles in practice: Case law and bibliography on the UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts. Boston, Massachusetts: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p.17.
Armstrong, D. (2008). Routledge handbook of international law. New York, NY: Routledge Publishing. p.24.
Maggi, M. (2004). Review of the convention on contracts for the international sale of goods CISG 2002-2003. Netherlands, UK: Kluwer Law International. p.41.
Moens, G. (2001). International trade and business law annual. New York, NY: Routledge Publishing. p.236.
Brunner, C. (2009). Force majeure and hardship under general contract principles: Exemption for non-performance in international arbitration. Netherlands, UK: Kluwer Law International. p.75.
Guzmán, A. & Sykes, A. (2008). Research handbook in international economic law. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. p.284.
Morrissey, J. & Graves, J. (2008). International sales law and arbitration: Problems, cases and commentary. Netherlands, UK: Kluwer Law International. p.20.
Peters, L. (2011). International institute for the unification of private law (UNIDROIT). Netherlands, UK: Kluwer Law International. p.38.
Lew, D., Mistelis, L., & Kröll, S. (2003). Comparative international commercial arbitration. Netherlands, UK: Kluwer Law International. p.463.
Hideki Kanda, H., Mooney, C., Luc Thevenoz, L., Beraud, S., & Keijser, T. (2012). Official commentary on the UNIDROIT convention on substantive rules for intermediated securities. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.