This article examines how, in the absence of the parties’ express stipulation, the governing law of an international contract is to be ascertained under the Rome I Regulation. In particular, it seeks to analyse the consistency and cogency in the current academic views, under UK law, on the interpretation of Art.3(1) and Art.4 of the Regulation. The assessment of these accounts highlights that a fairly settled and coherent framework for the construction of Art.3(1) has been arrived at. However, the same observation cannot be made about Art.4. As this article seeks to demonstrate, academic opinion is divided (and, hence, points to inconsistent approaches) on the interpretation of that provision. This article attempts to address this confusion. Accordingly, its key contribution is to advance a reasoned case in favour of adopting the general framework which the Court of Justice employed, for the interpretation of Art.4’s predecessor provision under the Rome Convention, in Intercontainer Interfrigo SC (ICF) v Balkenende Oosthuizen BV.
|Number of pages||16|
|Journal||Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly|
|Publication status||Published - Nov 2015|