A Commentary on the Meaning of Objective Good Faith in the Translex Principles through International Arbitration: a Law & Economics Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4013/rechtd.2021.132.03Resumo
Despite its numerous enunciations, the meaning of objective good faith remains obscure. The usual manner in which legal scholars have attempted to provide for such meaning is by presenting a definition of the general principle of good faith into more general principles, such as fairness. Objective good faith, as presented in the Translex Principles does not escape from this problem. This theoretical reflection attempts to provide for such a meaning in this particular codification. This will be achieved by means of the findings of economic institutionalism, paying attention to the transaction costs that potentially arise in context of wide information asymmetries, at which point, it is the objective of institutions to reduce said asymmetry. In international commercial transactions, opportunistic behavior is ripe. There is a demand for a legal institution that is able to, directly or indirectly, curtail opportunistic behavior, which from the standpoint of legal studies is equated to bad faith. In this sense, objective good faith is identified with a general legal institution, the aim of which is precisely to limit opportunistic behavior. From it more specialized legal institutions are born, its concretization being possible partly possible by the practice of international arbitration, contributing thusly to transnational law.
Referências
AKERLOF, G. A. 1970. The Market for “Lemons”: Quality, Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3):488–500.
ARNULL, A. 2013. Judicial activism and the European Court of Justice: how should academics respond? In: M. Dawson, B. De Witte, & E. Muir (Eds.), Judicial activism at the European Court of Justice. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing.
BENSON, B. L. 1989. The Spontaneous Evolution of Commercial Law. Southern Economic Journal, 55:388-400. https://doi.org/10.2307/1059579
BENSON, B. L. 1990a. Customary Law with Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing Justice: a Description of a Modern System of Law and Order Without State Coercion. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 9(2):25–42. Retrieved from https://dev.mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_2.pdf
BENSON, B. L. 1990b. The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State. San Francisco, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.
BENSON, B. L. 1999. To Arbitrate or Litigate: That is the Question. European Journal of Law and Economics, 8(2):91-151.
BENSON, B. L. 2000. Arbitration. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, 5:159-193.
BERGER, K. P. 2019. The Lex Mercatoria ( Old and New ) and the TransLex-Principles. Trans-Lex Law Research, retrieved from https://www.trans-lex.org/the-lex-mercatoria-and-the-translex-principles_ID8 [English]
BJORKLUND, A. K. 2008. Investment Treaty Arbitral Decisions as Jurisprudence Constant. In: C. B. Picker, I. D. Bunn, & D. W. Arner (Eds.), International Economic Law: The State and Future of the Discipline. Oxford, Hart Publishing, pp. 265-280.
BRUNET, E. 1987. Questioning the Quality of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Tulane Law Review, 62(1):1-56.
BURTON, S. J. 2017. Breach of Contract and the Common Law Duty to Perform in Good Faith. Harvard Law Review, 94(2):369-404.
CAPLAN, B. 1997. The Economics of Non-State Legal Systems. Legal Notes, 26:1-29.
CAPLAN, B.; STRINGHAM, E. P. 2008a. Privatizing the adjudication of disputes. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 9(2):1-23. https://doi.org/10.2202/1565-3404.1195
CAPLAN, B.; STRINGHAM, E. P. 2008b. Privatizing the Adjudication of Disputes. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 9(2):503-528. https://doi.org/10.2202/1565-3404.1195
CARBONNEAU, T. E. 2002. The Ballad of Transborder Arbitration. University of Miami Law Review, 56:773-830.
CARNAHAN, S.; AGARWAL, R.; CAMPBELL, B. 2008. The Effect of Firm Compensation Structures on the Mobility and Entrepreneurship of Extreme Performers. Strategic Management Journal, 29(January 2006):1451-1463. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj
CENTRAL -University of Cologne. (n.d.). History | Trans-Lex.org. Retrieved July 10, 2020, from https://www.trans-lex.org/history_ID30/
CHENG, T.-H. 2006. Precedent and Control in Investment Treaty Arbitration. Fordham International Law Journal, 30(4):1014-1049.
COHEN, G. M. 1992. The Negligence-Opportunism Tradeoff in Contract Law. Hofstra Law Review, 20(4):941-1016.
COOTER, R. D.; RUBINFELD, D. L. 1989. Economic Analysis of Legal Dispute and their Resolution. Journal of Economic Literature, 27(3):1067-1097.
DRAHOZAL, C. R. 2009. Private Ordering and International Commercial Arbitration. Penn State Law Review, 113(4):1031–1050. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1877967
EDWARDS, H. T. 1986. Alternative Dispute Resolution: Panacea or Anathema? Harvard Law Review, 99(3):668-684.
HEINRICH, C. 2006. Die Generalklausel des § 242 BGB. In B. R. Kern, E. Wadle, K. P. Schroeder, C. Katzenmeier (Eds.), HUMANIORA Medizin—Recht—Geschichte. Berlin, Springer, pp. 585–607.
HENNRICHS, J. 1995. Treupflichten im Aktienrecht—zugleich Überlegungen zur Konkretisierung der Generalklausel des § 242 BGB sowie zur Eigenhaftung des Stimmrechtsvertreters. Archiv Für Die Civilistische Praxis, 195(H. 3):221-273.
HESSELINK, M. 2004. The Concept of Good Faith. In: A. S. Hartkamp, E. H. Hondious, C. Mak, C. E. du Perron (Eds.), Towards a European Civil Code. 4th ed. Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer International Law, pp. 619–649.
HOUH, E. 2003. Critical Interventions: Toward an Expansive Equality Approach to the Doctrine of Good Faith in Contract Law. Cornell L. Rev., 88:1025-1096.
ICC. 1975. ICC Award No. 2291, Clunet 1976, at 989 et seq. | Trans-Lex.org. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://www.trans-lex.org/202291/mark_902000_highlight__subsidiary_responsibility/icc-award-no-2291-clunet-1976-at-989-et-seq/#head_1
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. 1994. Westland Helicopters Ltd. and Arab Organisation for Industrialisation, United Arab Emirates, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, State of Qatar, Arab Republic of Egypt and Arab British Helicopter Company (Order) [International Chamber of Commerce, Court of Arbitrati. International Law Reports, 80:613.
KESSLER, F., & Fine, E. 1964. Culpa in Contrahendo, Bargaining in Good Faith, and Freedom of Contract: A Comparative Study. Harvard Law Review, 77(3):401-449. https://doi.org/10.2307/1339028
KOLB, R. 2017. Good Faith in International Law. Oxford, Bloomsbury Publishing.
LANDES, W. M.; POSNER, R. A. E. 1979. Adjudication as a Private Good. The Journal of Legal Studies, 8(2):235-284.
MACKAAY, E. 2012. Good Faith in Civil Law Systems: a Legal-Economic Analysis. Revista Chilena de Derecho Privado, 18(18):149-177. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-80722012000100004
MACKAAY, E.; LEBLANC, V. 2003. The Law and Economics of Good Faith in the Civil Law of Contract. Conference of the European Association of Law and Economics, (August), 1–30. Retrieved from https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/jspui/handle/1866/125%5Cnhttp://hdl.handle.net/1866/125
MACKENZIE, I. A.; OHNDORF, M.; PALMER, C. 2012. Enforcement-proof Contracts with Moral Hazard in Precaution: Ensuring “Permanence” in Carbon Sequestration. Oxford Economic Papers, 64(2):350-374.
MERTENS, B. 2003. Culpa in contrahendo beim zustande gekommenen Kaufvertrag nach der Schuldrechtsreform. Archiv Für Die Civilistische Praxis, 203(6):818–854. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40995853
MURIS, T. J. 1980. Opportunistic Behavior and The Law of Contracts. Minn. L. Rev., 65:521-590.
SCHÄFER, H.-B.; CAN AKSOY, H. 2015. Good Faith. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6
STRINGHAM, E. P. 1999. Market chosen law. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, 14(1):53-78.
SUMMERS, R. S. 1968. “Good Faith” in General Contract Law and the Sales Provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. Virginia Law Review, 54(2):195-267.
SUMMERS, R. S. 1981. General Duty of Good Faith-Its Recognition and Conceptualization. Cornell L. Rev., 67:810-840.
TRANS-LEX. 2019. Principle No . I . 1 . 1 - Good faith and fair dealing in international trade www.trans-lex.org/901000 . Retrieved from www.trans-lex.org/901000
TRANS-LEX. 2020. Principle I.2.1 - Standard of reasonableness | Trans-Lex.org. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://www.trans-lex.org/902000/highlight_subsidiary_responsibility/standard-of-reasonableness/
Wieacker, F. 1956. Zur rechtstheoretischen Präzisierung des § 242 BGB. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck.
WILLIAMSON, O. E. 1973. Markets and Hierarchies, some Elementary Considerations. American Economic Review, 63(2):316-325.
WILLIAMSON, O. E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational contracting. New York, Free Press.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Concedo a Revista de Estudos Constitucionais, Hermenêutica e Teoria do Direito (RECHTD) o direito de primeira publicação da versão revisada do meu artigo, licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution (que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista).
Afirmo ainda que meu artigo não está sendo submetido a outra publicação e não foi publicado na íntegra em outro periódico e assumo total responsabilidade por sua originalidade, podendo incidir sobre mim eventuais encargos decorrentes de reivindicação, por parte de terceiros, em relação à autoria do mesmo.
Também aceito submeter o trabalho às normas de publicação da Revista de Estudos Constitucionais, Hermenêutica e Teoria do Direito (RECHTD) acima explicitadas.
