Well, I do not often write in English, but since I am writing a thesis in English I better start doing all that I can in order to polish my English.
Today I was preparing for my class in International Sales, it is a curious project upon which we work collaboratively with an actual company and we help them, professors and students, in the internationalisation of the company.
So, after talking about International Law, then WTO principles then I am immersing myself into the CISG, and I came across once again with Article 7(1) CISG which is an interpretation rule that establishes that: “In the interpretation of this Convention, regard is to be had to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade.”
Being right now immerse in the principle of systemic integration which is part of the rules of interpretation of treaties within article 31 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, the Customary Law of interpretation of Article 31(3)(c) comes with a hard resonance to my ears.
Both articles 7(1) CISG and 31(3)(c) VCLT reflect the idea of uniformity, and I will say integration of the law, in order to avoid contradiction in the application of the treaties.
This is a case from Vienna to Vienna, a fascinating possibility for treaty interpretation, since as it is the case, the CISG mainly is implemented for the interpretation regarding the commercial relation of the parties, and there is an actual academic dispute, whether or not the CISG must be subject to the four corners of interpretation with the Law of Treaties.
My stance is that there are both, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, is applicable to the CISG to the extent that what the Judge or the Arbitrator wants to interpret is a term within the CISG, however, this technique cannot be implemented in order to interpret the business relationship of the parties.
Since, there is a clear distinction between State parties than simply parties, signifying that State Parties agreed to the CISG, and what was agreed by the State Parties must be related and interpreted within the realms of the VCLT, and if the CISG refers to the parties, then it is referring to actual parties to a sales contract.
Hopefully I have the time to write in the Vindobona Journal on this matter. It requires time, effort, and reading, lots of it. But, here it is the seed of a possible article that maybe the future me or you beloved reader pick up on this argument and construe forward.