SpringerLink
Log in

International Trade Usages: What’s So Special About Them?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Customary Law Today

  • 483 Accesses

Résumé

Un ouvrage récent vient de faire état de la croissance du domaine et de la force des usages en matière d’arbitrage international.

Le présent chapitre vise à démontrer que cette spécificité des usages tient moins à l’internationalité qu’au recours à l’arbitrage. Ce mode de règlement des conflits s’avère en effet plus favorable aux usages qu’il s’agisse d’arbitrage international ou interne.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 117.69
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
EUR 160.49
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
EUR 160.49
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Gelinas (2016a).

  2. 2.

    Jolivet et al. (2016), p. 211.

  3. 3.

    In this direction: Mousseron (2011), p. 21.

  4. 4.

    Jolivet et al. (2016), p. 231. In 2005, E. Jolivet was already foreseeing this confusion with respect to the UNIDROIT Principles: Jolivet (2005) The UNIDROIT Principles in ICC arbitration, mentioning.

  5. 5.

    Gelinas (2016b), p. 253 et s.

  6. 6.

    Gaillard (1991), p. 203.

  7. 7.

    Paulsson J cited by Gelinas F (2016a).

  8. 8.

    Gelinas (2016b), p. 272.

  9. 9.

    Loquin (2013), p. 215; Polanski (2007), p. 127 and f.; Contra: Kassis (1984), (in particular n°502 and following and 545: “If one should ….).

  10. 10.

    See also, Mousseron (2010), p. 377.

  11. 11.

    Cass. civ. 1ère February 1, 2017, n°15-25697.

  12. 12.

    Postema (2007), p. 279, sp p 283.

  13. 13.

    For a critical presentation of the Kelsenian theory: see. Tropper (2015), p. 553.

  14. 14.

    Kassis (1984), in particular, n°475.

  15. 15.

    With respect to domestic arbitration, article 1478 of the French Code of Civil Procedure provides that “The arbitral tribunal shall decide on the dispute in accordance with the rules of law , unless the parties have granted it the mission to rule in amicable composition”. With respect to international arbitration, Article 1511 of the same code states that “The arbitral tribunal shall decide on the dispute in accordance with the rules of law chosen by the parties, or, where ne such choice has been made, in accordance with the rules of law it considers appropriate. In all cases, it shall take trade usages into account”.

  16. 16.

    Park (2003), p. 1245.

  17. 17.

    Sauvagnac (2016), p. 226.

  18. 18.

    « sans garder et observer les subtilités des loix ».

  19. 19.

    Jallamion and Clay (2014), p. 177.

  20. 20.

    Jallamion (2009), n°17, p. 3.

  21. 21.

    « inhibant tout recours en cassation ou par voye de requête civile ». On this topic, Jallamion (2004), p. 443 and following.

  22. 22.

    Oppetit (1998), p. 87.

  23. 23.

    Oppetit (1998), p. 106.

  24. 24.

    CA Grenoble September 16, 2010, n°10/00062, JCP éd. E 2011, p474, note P Mousseron. In this case, the Court of Appeal of Grenoble validated a domestic arbitral award which had referred to usages in order to squeeze out a shareholder even though the bylaws of that company did not provide for any squeeze-out provision.

  25. 25.

    Fouchard (1982), pp. 67–87.

References

  • Fouchard P (1982) Les usages, l’arbitre et le juge. À propos de quelques récents arrêts français, Le droit des relations économiques internationales. Études offertes à Berthold Goldman, Litec, Paris, pp 67–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard E (1991) La distinction des principes généraux du droit et des usages du commerce international. Etudes Pierre Bellet, Litec Paris, pp 203–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelinas F (ed) (2016a) Trade usages and implied terms in the age of arbitration. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelinas F (2016b) Trade usages as transnational law. In: Gelinas F (ed) . Trade usages and implied terms in the age of arbitration, Oxford University Press, pp 253–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Jallamion C (2004) L’arbitrage en matière civile du XVII au XIXème siècle. L’exemple de Montpellier, Thèse droit Montpellier

    Google Scholar 

  • Jallamion C (2009) Tradition et modernité de l’arbitrage et de la médiation au regard de l’histoire, Gaz. Pal. 17 janvier 2009, n°17

    Google Scholar 

  • Jallamion C, Clay T (2014) Justice publique et arbitrage. Hier et aujourd’hui, in Itinéraires d’histoire de la procédure civile, Regards français, Bibliothèque de l’IRJS André Tunc 51:177–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolivet E (2005) The UNIDROIT Principles in ICC arbitration, Bulletin de la Cour Internationale d’arbitrage de la CCI, in Principes UNIDROIT: nouvelles évolutions et applications, Supplément spécial 2005 (Paris)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolivet E, Marchisio G, Gelinas F (2016) Trade usages in ICC arbitration in trade usages and implied terms in the age of arbitration, (dir). Fabien Gelinas, Oxford University Press, pp 211–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassis A (1984) Théorie générale des usages du commerce. LGDJ, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Loquin E (2013) Retour sur les sources premières de la lex mercatoria: Les usages du commerce international. In: Mélanges en l’honneur du Professeur Jean-Michel Jacquet, LexisNexis, Paris, pp 215–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousseron P (2010) L’exception d’internationalité applicable aux contrats. Études à la mémoire de Fernand Charles Jeantet, LexisNexis, Paris, pp 377–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousseron P (2011) Faut-il dissocier les usages du commerce international des usages du commerce? Rev. jur. com. pp 21–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppetit B (1998) Théorie de l’arbitrage. PUF, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Park W (2003) The specificity of international arbitration: the case for FAA reform. Vanderbilt J Transnl Law 36:1241, 1245–1290

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanski P (2007) Customary law of the internet, In the search for a supranational cyberspace law, Information Technology & Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Postema GJ (2007) Custom in international law: a normative practice account. In: The nature of customary law, legal, historical and philosophical perspectives. Cambridge University Press, pp 279–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauvagnac I (2016) L’internationalité de l’arbitrage en droit français: un critère univoque ? Revue Droit des Affaires, Paris, pp 226–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Tropper M (2015) Sur quelques arguments de Kelsen contre la conception dualiste des rapports entre Droit international et droit interne. In: Droit international et culture juridique, in Mélanges offerts à Charles Leben, Editions Pedone, p 553–569

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to my colleague Carine Jallamion for providing me with historical and inspiring sources about arbitration. Thanks also to Rontavian Mack, Candidate for Juris Doctor at the University of Florida, Levin College of Law for reviewing this contribution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculté de Droit de Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Pierre Mousseron

Authors
  1. Pierre Mousseron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre Mousseron .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Berkeley Law, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Laurent Mayali

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Pierre Mousseron

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mousseron, P. (2018). International Trade Usages: What’s So Special About Them?. In: Mayali, L., Mousseron, P. (eds) Customary Law Today. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73362-3_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73362-3_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73361-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73362-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation