• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
The Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (CUECIC) was approved by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in July 2005. It is now available for ratification by U.N. member states. CUECIC is based on the Model Law on Electronic Commerce adopted by UNCITRAL in 1996. The Model Law has served as the basis for electronic signature and electronic commerce legislation at the federal and state levels in the United States and other countries. The similarity of CUECIC to domestic electronic commerce laws should facilitate its use for international contracts. CUECIC requires, however, that its terms be interpreted by domestic courts according to its international character and the need to promote uniformity in its application. These same rules of interpretation also apply to the UNCITRAL Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), but no implementing legislation accompanied CISG ratification by the United States to locate the CISG, and to annotate decisions interpreting it, within the body of the code of federal statutes. Like the CISG, there will be no authoritative judicial body or expert commentary to resolve conflicts or ambiguities in judicial interpretations of CUECIC. Varying interpretations may also result from the different versions of CUECIC that could be created by national declarations varying its scope of applicability. Therefore, despite the common source of CUECIC and U.S. electronic commerce laws in the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce, the use of CUECIC for international commercial contracts might be restrained by the same procedural difficulties that have limited the use of the CISG.

UNCITRAL, electronic contracts, electronic commerce, contracts, e-commerce, e-contracts, international conventions, international private law, international business transactions

Abstract:
Although no non-European Union convention focusing on international electronic commercial contracts is currently in effect, such contracts are growing in number and importance and do not exist in a legal vacuum. The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) has been interpreted by its Advisory Council to apply to such electronic contracts. International law, based on general principles of good faith and equity and on customary international law, is an existing and future source of international commercial electronic contract law. Customary international electronic commerce law is derived from the general practices of businesses contracting through electronic communications that are accepted as law, and from international treaties and model laws, and their interpretations, which have been accepted as authoritative descriptions of such practices. The United States will decide whether or not and how to ratify the Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (CUECIC) that was proposed by it to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and was drafted and approved by UNCITRAL. CUECIC advances further than existing law the legitimacy and functionality of international electronic commercial contracts. U.S. ratification decision makers should recognize this advancement, reinforce the freedom of contract norms promoted by CUECIC, and preserve the legitimacy of customary international law as a supplement to the limited contract formation rules of CUECIC.

contracts, electronic contracts, international law, treaties, conventions, United Nations, UNCITRAL, electronic commerce, e-commerce, e-contracts, trade usage, customary international law, international contracts

Abstract:
The Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan makes international human rights agreements equal in authority to constitutional articles. Azerbaijan is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Azerbaijan Constitutional Court has referred to European Court of Human Rights decisions in its interpretations of constitutional requirements.

Current domestic criminal defamation laws are used to restrict criticism of the performance of government officials. In future requests for interpretation of constitutional freedom of expression guaranties, the Constitutional Court should follow the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

It should require any government restrictions on freedom of expression to satisfy the evolving tests of "necessary in a democratic society for the protection of reputation of others", and "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued". These tests protect expression of opinion, require proof of falsehood by criminal defamation complainants, permit reasonable reliance on official government reports, and discourage use of criminal defamation prosecutions by government entities and officials.

Human Rights, Comparative Constitutional Law, Freedom of Expression, European Court of Human Rights, Azerbaijan