论国际民事诉讼中《国际商事合同通则》的明示选择适用

On Application of UNIDROIT Principles in International Civil Litigation by Explicit Choice of Contracting Parties

在国际民事诉讼中,法院是否支持当事人明示选择《国际商事合同通则》作为准据法,受制于法院地的冲突法规则,即有关冲突法规则是否允许选择"非国家法"作为国际商事合同准据法。尽管欧盟新条例依然将非国家法排除在意思自治选法范围之外,也鲜有明确支持当事人选择《国际商事合同通则》等非国家法作为国际商事合同准据法的国内法,但海牙《国际商事合同法律选择原则》第3条明确将国际、跨国家或区域范围内作为一套中性、平衡规则被普遍接受的法律规则纳入当事人可以选择的法律范围。国际普遍实践仍然是将当事人明示选择为准据法的《国际商事合同通则》作为合同并入条款。我国立法并未明确将当事人可选择的国际商事合同准据法限定于"国家法",缺乏对当事人选择适用国际惯例的规范,实践中法院做法不一。本文主张将《国际商事合同通则》作为国际惯例,并通过司法解释对选法范围的规定间接框定当事人意思自治可选择的"法律"范围,对那些可以经由当事人意思自治选择而成为准据法的国际惯例的标准加以界定,规定法院应认可当事人选择被普遍接受、具有中立和平衡规则体系的国际惯例作为国际商事合同的准据法。

In international civil litigation, the court shall apply rules of conflict law in which the court locates, so whether or not the court respect contracting parties' explicit choice of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts as governing law may depend on whether the applicable conflict law rules allow for the choice of non-state law as governing law of international commercial contract. Though the new EU regulation excludes non-state law from scope of party autonomy and almost no state law expressly allows non-state law, such as UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, to be chosen as governing law of international commercial contract by contracting parties, Article 3 of Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts provides that rules of law that are generally accepted on an international, supranational or regional level as a neutral and balanced set of rules may be chosen by the parties. International common practice is to integrate UNIDROIT Principles explicitly chosen as governing law by contracting parties into the contract. Chinese domestic law has no provision to confine governing law expressly chosen by contract parties to state law, nor hasprovision about the choice of international custom as governing law by parties. Chinese courts Threat such choices diversely. The article argues to deem UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts as international usage, and calls for judicial interpretation to indirectly define the scope of 'law'among which contracting parties can choose governing law of their contracts by clearing states the sources of law choice. The expected judicial interpretation shall allow contracting parties to choose international usage generally accepted as neutral and balanced set of rules to be governing law of their international commercial contract.