Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-68cz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-09T00:33:30.953Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Preference Accorded to General Principles Under Article 7(2) CISG

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2025

Kai Tik AU YEUNG
Kai Tik AU YEUNG*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hong Kong has recently ratified the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”). While Article 7(2) of the CISG acknowledges the potential incompleteness of the convention in addressing all issues it aims to govern and emphasizes the preference for seeking general principles within the CISG before resorting to domestic private international law, the extent of this preference remains unclear. This article highlights that while some scholars argue for private international law as a last resort, it is erroneous to suggest that the general principles embodied in the convention also include those exclusively stem from other international conventions. Such an approach would disregard the inherent international nature and proportionality envisioned by Article 7(1) of the CISG.

Keywords

CISGexpansionistexternal gapGeneral Principlesinternal gaprestrained interpretation
Type
Notes and Comments
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , First View , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Asian Society for International Law.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Faculty of Law, University of Basel, “China formally declares that the CISG shall apply to Hong Kong” (5 May 2022), online: CISG Online https://cisg-online.org/home/international-sales-law-news/china-formally-declares-that-the-cisg-shall-apply-to-hong-kong.

2 Paul LAM, “Speech by SJ at the Effectively Resolving Disputes with Chinese Parties under the CISG Vis East Moot Affiliated Event by CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center – The Adoption of the CISG and Its Impact on Resolving Disputes in Hong Kong (English only)” (31 March 2022), online: Department of Justice, Hong Kong https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/community_engagement/speeches/pdf/sj20220331e1.pdf.

3 Au JANSSEN and N.G. AHUJA, “The Imperfect International Sales Law. Time for a New Go or Better Keeping the Status Quo?” (2019) 9 Maandblad voor Vermogensrecht 318 at 323.

4 John E. MURRAY Jr, “An Essay on the Formation of Contracts and Related Matters under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods” (1988) 8 Journal of Law and Commerce 11 at 19.

5 Michael P. Van ALSTINE, “Dynamic Treaty Interpretation” (1998) 146 University of Pace Law Review 687 at 768.

6 Ibid., at 769.

7 Murray, supra note 4 at 17.

8 Van Alstine, supra note 5 at 770.

9 Foil case I, OLG Karlsruhe (F.R.G.), Decision of 25 June 1997, Case No 1 U 280/96.

10 Joseph LOOKOFSKY, “Walking the Article 7(2) Tightrope between CISG and Domestic Law” (2005) 25 Journal of Law and Commerce 87 at 89.

11 Ibid.

12 Gert BRANDER, “Admissibility of Analogy in gap-filling under the CISG” (1999), online: Pace Institute of International Commercial Law http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/brandner.html#N_25.

13 Phanesh KONERU, “The International Interpretation of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: An Approach Based on General Principles” (1997) 6 Minnesota Journal of Global Trade 105 at 116.

14 Ibid.

15 Van Alstine, supra note 5 at 733.

16 See also Art. 2 of ULIS.

17 Franco FERRARI, “General Principles and International Uniform Commercial Law Conventions: A Study of the 1980 Vienna Sales Conventions and the 1988 UNIDROIT Conventions on International Factoring and Leasing” (1998) 10 Pace International Law Review 157 at 164–5.

18 Ibid., at 165.

19 Ibid.

20 John HONNOLD and Harry FLECHTNER, Honnold’s Uniform Law for International Sales under the 1980 United Nations Convention (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2021) at 183.

21 Pascal HACHEM, “Commentary to Article 7” in Ingeborg H. SCHWENZER and Ulrich G. SCHROETER, eds., Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022) at 157.

22 Ibid.

23 Van Alstine, supra note 5 at 729.

24 Brander, supra note 12.

25 Gyula EÖRSI, “General Provisions” in Nina M. GALSTON and Hans SMIT, eds., International Sales: The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (New York: Bender, 1984) at 133.

26 Arthur ROSETT, “Critical Reflections on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods” (1984) 45 Ohio State Law Journal 265 at 299.

27 Michael Joachim BONELL, “Interpretation of Convention” in Cesare M. BIANCA and Michael J. BONELL, eds., Commentary on the International Sales Law: The 1980 Vienna Sales Convention (Milan: Giuffrè, 1987) at 76.

28 Ma del Pilar Perales VISCAILLAS, “Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts: Sphere of Application and General Provisions” (1996) 13 Ariz Journal of International & Comparative Law 381 at 404.

29 Eörsi, supra note 25.

30 Ibid.

31 Arbitral Award of the ICC Court of Arbitration-Paris, No. 7660/JK, 23 August 1994; Arbitral Award of the Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft-Wien, No. SCH-4366, 15 June 1994); Koneru, supra note 13 at 123.

32 Volker BEHR, “The Sales Convention in Europe: From Problems in Drafting to Problems in Practice” (1998) 17 Journal of Law & Commerce 263 at 296.

33 Franco FERRARI, “Uniform Application and Interest Rates under the 1980 Vienna Sales Convention” (1995) 24 Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law 467 at 476–7.

34 Scott D. SLATER, “Overcome by Hardship: The Inapplicability of the UniDroit Principles” Hardship Provisions to CISG” (1998) 12 Florida Journal of International Law 231 at 248.

35 Ibid., at 234.

36 Ibid., at 248.

37 Honnold and Flechtner, supra note 20 at 185.

38 Van Alstine, supra note 5 at 787.

39 Ibid., at 788.

40 Robert S. SUMMERS and Michele TAFURRO, “Interpretation and Comparative Analysis” in D. Neil MACCORMICK and Robert S. SUMMERS, eds., Interpreting Statutes (London: Routledge, 1991) at 474.

41 Eörsi, supra note 25 at 155.

42 Ibid.

43 Van Alstine, supra note 5 at 755.

44 Ibid.

45 Scafom International BV v Lorraine Tubes S.A.S. (Netherlands v. France), Decision of 19 June 2009. Hof von Cassatie, Belgium. C.07.0289.N.

46 Sarah Howard JENKINS, “Exemption for Nonperformance: UCC, CISG, UNIDROIT Principles – A Comparative Assessment” (1998) 72 Tulane Law Review 2015 at 2028.

47 Harry M. FLECHTNER, “The Exemption Provisions of the Sales Convention including Comments on ‘Hardship’ Doctrine and the 19 June 2009 Decision of the Belgian Cassation Court” (2011) Annals of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade (International ed) 84 at 90.

48 Franco FERRARI, “General Principles and International Uniform Commercial Law Conventions: A Study of the 1980 Vienna Sales Convention and the 1988 Unidroit Conventions” (1997) 2 Uniform Law Review 451 at 460.

49 Michael Joachim BONELL, “The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and CISG: Alternatives or Complementary Instruments” (1996) 79 Pravny Obzor 271 at 284; Alejandro M. GARRO, “Gap Filling Role of the Unidroit Principles in International Sales Law: Some Comments on the Interplay Between the Principles and the CISG” (1994–5) 69 Tulane Law Review 1149 at 1156–7.