bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Authors: Schelhaas Harriet 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.1.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the definition of non-performance. Article 7.1.1 defines non-performance as ‘failure by a party to perform any of its obligations under the contract, including defective performance or late performance’. Non-performance under Art 7.1.1 also includes violations of accessory obligations, such as a duty of confidentiality or the duty to co-operate, including the accessory obligations of the aggrieved party. This commentary discusses reasons for non-performance, the concept of ‘default’, the relationship between non-performance and non-conformity, vicarious liability for contractual obligations, and the burden of proof relating to non-performance.
Authors: Schelhaas Harriet 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.1.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning interference by the other party. Art 7.1.2 deals with the situation known as mora creditoris — the obligee's failure to perform its duty to co-operate in order to allow the performance of the other party. It also addresses the situation in which the obligor's failure to perform is not due to a lack of co-operation by the obligee, but to another event for which the obligee bears the risk. The obligee that is responsible for the other party's resulting failure to perform is estopped from invoking non-performance. Art 7.1.2 is thus a particular instance of the general principle of the prohibition of venire contra factum proprium. This commentary also discusses partial interference, legal consequences of failure to perform, and the burden of proof relating to interference.
Authors: Schelhaas Harriet 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.1.4 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the non-performing party's right to cure its non-performance. Under Art 7.1.4, the non-performing party is allowed to cure its non-performance. The aggrieved party is obliged to allow cure if it has no legitimate interest in refusing. If the non-performing party offers cure, the remedies of the aggrieved party are only available after the other party has had a second chance to perform or cure its performance. This commentary discusses the requirements with respect to cure by non-performing party, the right of the non-performing party to cure its non-performance even after a notice of termination by the aggrieved party, and legal consequences of cure.
Authors: Huber Peter 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.3.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning notice of termination. Under Art 7.3.2, termination of the contract has to be made by notice to the other party and sets a time limit for giving notice in certain cases of breach. The provision serves two objectives: first, it aims to prevent the aggrieved party from speculating on market fluctuations by postponing its decision on whether or not to terminate and, secondly, it allows the non-performing party to avoid any losses due to uncertainty as to whether the aggrieved party will terminate the contract. This commentary also discusses time limits for the exercise of the right to terminate and the burden of proof concerning notice of termination.
Authors: Huber Peter 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.3.6 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning restitution with respect to contracts to be performed at one time. Under Art 7.3.6, when a contract to be performed at one time is terminated, either party may claim restitution of whatever it has supplied under the contract, provided that such party concurrently makes restitution of whatever it has received under the contract. This commentary discusses contracts to be performed at one time, concurrent restitution, reasonable allowance for restitution in kind that is not possible or appropriate, compensation for expenses reasonably required to preserve or maintain the performance received, rules on non-performance, rights of third parties with respect to performance, and burden of proof relating to restitution.
Authors: McKendrick Ewan 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 7.4.5 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning proof of harm in case of replacement transactions. Under Art 7.4.5, entry into a substitute transaction generally entitles the aggrieved party to recover damages. If the aggrieved party has terminated the contract and has made a replacement transaction within a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, it may recover the difference between the contract price and the price of the replacement transaction as well as damages for any further harm. This commentary discusses Art 7.4.5's overlap with Art 7.4.8 and the burden of proof of the aggrieved party to establish that it has terminated the contract, that it was entitled to do so, and that it has made a replacement transaction within a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner.
Authors: Mazza Francesca 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 9.1.9 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning non-assignment clauses. Under Art 9.1.9, the assignment of a right to the payment of a monetary sum is effective notwithstanding an agreement between the assignor and the obligor limiting or prohibiting such an assignment. However, the assignor may be liable to the obligor for breach of contract. The assignment of a right to other performance is ineffective if it is contrary to an agreement between the assignor and the obligor limiting or prohibiting the assignment. This commentary discusses rights to payment of a monetary sum and to a non-monetary performance, along with the legal consequences of violating a non-assignment clause.
Authors: Mazza Francesca 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 9.1.11 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning successive assignments. According to Art 9.1.11, if the same right has been assigned by the same assignor to two or more successive assignees, the obligor is discharged by paying according to the order in which the notices were received. Art 9.1.11 does not contain any explicit restrictions on whether the first or the successive assignments must be made under the PICC. The provision applies if both the first and the successive assignment have been made in application of the PICC. This commentary discusses the scope of Art 9.1.11 regarding successive assignments by the same assignor, along with cases in which a right is assigned two or more times in its entirety or partially to the extent that the successive assignments relate to the same part. It also considers the first in time rule, with particular emphasis on remedy of the assignee which does not prevail and knowledge of the obligor in the absence of a notice of assignment of a right.
Authors: Mazza Francesca 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 9.2.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning exclusion in the transfer of an obligation. According to Art 9.2.2, Section 9.2 of the PICC does not apply to transfers made under special (domestic) rules governing the transfer of obligations in the course of transferring a business. Hence, these types of assignment are generally subject to specific and distinct rules under the applicable domestic law, under which all (rights and) obligations are transferred under certain conditions in their entirety by operation of law. However, the PICC apply to the transfer of any individual or specific obligations pertaining to the transferred business.
Authors: Mazza Francesca 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 9.2.8 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the obligee's right to payment or other performance under the contract in respect of the obligation transferred. In the case of the assignment of a right, the assignment does not alter the obligor's situation. Securities can therefore continue to serve their purposes. The situation is different where an obligation is transferred to a new obligor. If the security were to be transferred with the obligation, the risk of breach or insolvency to be covered would be that of another person, unless the original obligor is not discharged. Art 9.2.8 contains special provisions with respect to the transfer of securities. This commentary discusses the transfer of an obligation with respect to securities given by the original obligor, securities given by a third party, and securities given by the new obligor.
Authors: Mazza Francesca 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 9.3.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the obligee's consent as a requirement for the assignment of contracts. As the assignment of a contract involves the transfer of obligations, it is necessary for the other party, the obligee of these obligations, to give its consent. The rationale for this rule is that the change of obligor may considerably affect the obligee's position. Therefore, the change may not be imposed on the other party. The other party must give its consent to the transfer of the contract. Furthermore, the obligee must also give its consent that the transfer occurs with reference to the application of the PICC. Lack of consent by the other party, whether because it has been refused or not solicited, makes the transfer of contract ineffective. Until the other party has given its consent or refused it, the agreement between the assignor and the assignee is not fully effective and can be said to be ‘in suspense’ or ‘in abeyance’.
Authors: Wintgen Robert 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 10.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning ‘limitation periods’. Art 10.2 stipulates that the general limitation period is three years beginning on the day after the day the obligee knows or ought to know the facts as a result of which the obligee's right can be exercised. The maximum limitation period is ten years beginning on the day after the day the right can be exercised. This commentary discusses the general limitation period under Art 10.2(1) based on the obligee's actual or constructive knowledge; ignorance as a ground for postponement of commencement, rather than for suspension, of the general limitation period; burden of proof in relation to the date of knowledge relevant for commencement of the general period; maximum limitation period under Art 10.2(2); and computation of time, taking into account the meaning of ‘year’, official holidays, non-business days, and time zones.
Authors: Wintgen Robert 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 10.9 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the effects of expiration of the limitation period. Limitation periods may be regarded by a legal system as a matter of procedural or substantive law. In the second case, there are two options with regard to the effects of the expiry of the limitation period. Either the obligation is extinguished (strong effect) or the obligation continues to exist but the obligor is granted a right to refuse performance (weak effect). Under Art 10.9, the expiration of the limitation period does not extinguish the right. For the expiration of the limitation period to have effect, the obligor must assert it as a defence. A right may still be relied on as a defence even though the expiration of the limitation period for that right has been asserted. This commentary also considers the PICC's stand on the influence of the running of the limitation period on securities, collateral, and ancillary claims.
Authors: Meier Sonja 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 11.1.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the presumption of joint and several obligations. The type of plurality of obligors is a matter of contractual agreement between the obligee and all the obligors. Usually, the ‘same obligation’ arises because the obligors bind themselves by way of a common contract. The type of plurality is then determined by way of interpretation of the contract, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. If the type of plurality cannot be inferred in this way, all major legal systems work with a presumption, either of separate obligations or of joint and several obligations. When several obligors are bound by the same obligation towards an obligee, Art 11.1.2 states that they are presumed to be jointly and severally bound, unless the circumstances indicate otherwise. This commentary discusses the requirements and consequences of the presumption in favour of joint and several obligations.
Authors: Meier Sonja 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 11.1.3 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the obligee's rights against joint and several obligors. When obligors are jointly and severally bound, Art 11.1.3 states that the obligee may require performance from any one of them, until full performance has been received. The obligee thus has the right to choose freely from which of the obligors it wishes to claim performance. In all likelihood this will usually be a solvent obligor. The risk of insolvency of one obligor is therefore borne by the remaining obligors, not by the obligee. This rule is a consequence of the practical rationale of joint and several obligations to serve as a form of personal security. The obligee is entitled to commence judicial proceedings against one of the obligors, claiming the whole performance from it, without involving or informing the other obligors. This commentary also considers the rights of the obligee in the case of non-performance.
Authors: Meier Sonja 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 11.1.7 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the effects of expiration or suspension of the limitation period. Joint and several obligations do not necessarily share the same fate in terms of limitation periods. Under Art 11.1.7(1), the limitation period of the obligee's rights against one obligor has expired while the limitation period of its rights against another obligor has not. This commentary explains how the expiration of limitation period affects the obligee's claims against other obligors. It also considers the suspension of running of limitation period due to initiation of legal proceedings and the effects of other events regarding limitation.
Authors: Meier Sonja 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 11.2.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning definitions related to the plurality of obligees. Art 11.2.1 defines three types of plurality of obligees which the parties can stipulate in their contract: separate claims, joint and several claims, and joint claims. There is no rule as to when one of these claims arises, and no default rule. This commentary discusses two types of plurality of obligees not mentioned in Art 11.2.1, namely communal claims and common law joint claims. It also considers the presumption of separate claims, noting that the PICC do not provide for any default rule for cases where the terms of the contract are silent on this matter.
Investment Promotion, Admission, and Establishment
Authors: Salacuse Jeswald W 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter begins with a brief discussion of how states exercise their sovereign authority to develop policies and laws that govern the admission and operation of foreign investment. States have complete legislative jurisdiction to determine to what extent foreign nationals and companies may undertake investments, which sectors and industries they may or may not enter, and whether or not they must fulfil additional conditions in order to undertake and operate an investment within state territory. The chapter then explains treaty provisions on investment promotion, admission, and establishment, by which the treaty movement has sought to achieve one of its aims, ie reducing internal barriers to foreign investment.
General Treatment Standards
Authors: Salacuse Jeswald W 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
In order to protect foreign investments against the political risk created b by placing assets under a host country’s jurisdiction, investment treaties stipulate obligations regarding the ‘treatment’ that host countries must give to investors and their investments. This chapter discusses the absolute and relative general forms of treatment most frequently accorded to investors and investments by international investment treaties. These include fair and equitable treatment, national treatment, most-favoured-nation treatment, full protection and security, and minimum treatment according to the standards of international law. However, the degree of protection afforded individual investments may vary significantly among treaties. Consequently, persons interpreting investment treaty provisions should give careful attention to the differing ways in which individual treaty texts articulate their protections.
Monetary Transfers and Treatment
Authors: Salacuse Jeswald W 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
The ability of a foreign investor to make international monetary payments freely both into and out of a host country is crucial to the success of any foreign investment. Investors need to transfer funds into the host country in order to establish an investment, operate it, expand it, and support it during economic hard times. This chapter discusses special treatment standards relating to monetary transfers. Treaty provisions on monetary transfers often address six basic issues: the general scope of the investor’s rights to make monetary transfers; the types of payments that are covered by such right; the nature of the currency in which payments may be made; the applicable exchange rate; the time within which the host state must allow the investor to make transfers; and exceptions to the right to make monetary transfers.
Treatment of State Obligations (the ‘Umbrella Clause’)
Authors: Salacuse Jeswald W 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
A large number of investment treaties contain provisions, often referred to as ‘umbrella clauses’, that require host states to respect non-treaty commitments and obligations made to foreign investment covered by the treaty. This chapter examines the general nature of umbrella clauses, their historical background, the various forms that they can take, and their application by arbitral tribunals. In view of the unsettled state of the jurisprudence on umbrella clauses, the chapter concludes with a suggested framework of analysis for applying umbrella clauses to specific investments, setting out a number of questions which persons applying umbrella clauses should seek to address.
Protection Against Expropriation, Nationalization, and Dispossession
Authors: Salacuse Jeswald W 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
While conditions may appear safe for investment property at the time an investment is made, they can change rapidly and dramatically due to shifting political and economic dynamics in host countries, the regions in which they are located, and internationally. Events such as popular uprisings, wars, regime changes, coups, economic crises, and insurrections can jeopardize investment property rights. Thus, when considering an investment in a foreign country, investors always weigh the risks of expropriation, dispossession, and nationalization. This chapter discusses treaty provisions that give protection against expropriation, nationalization, and dispossession. Disputes over expropriation may lead to arbitration or other legal action, and this is also discussed.
The Timeliness Criterion
Authors: Green James A 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter analyses the last criterion for the operation of the persistent objector rule, namely, timeliness. A common feature of all mainstream understandings of the rule is that a state's objections must occur during the period where the embryonic customary law being objected to is still ‘emerging’. The chapter starts by identifying the timeless criterion in the literature and argues that state practice supports it in a broad sense. The chapter then argues that the commonly advanced justifications for the timeless criterion are unsatisfactory. The chapter then examines more pragmatic rationales. It also engages with arguments that have been made by a few commentators in support of an ex post facto right of withdrawal from customary international law. The chapter finally turns to the problems associated with actually applying the timeless criterion.
Maintaining Exemption
Authors: Green James A 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
A notable minority critique of the persistent objector rule is that the rule is not supported by actual state practice. The first part of this book dismissed these critiques. This chapter explores the ‘softer’ versions of the persistent objector rule. The first is that persistent objection is not permissible in relation to particularly ‘fundamental’ customary international law norms, even those that have not attained jus cogens status. This claim has most commonly been made with regard to norms of customary international human rights law. The chapter then turns to a related claim made by critics of the persistent objector rule, which is that it is commonly unavailing, not just in the face of especially ‘fundamental’ norms, but in general.
The ICC and the AU
Authors: Maunganidze Ottilia Anna , du Plessis Anton 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
The relationship between the ICC and the AU has become a frequent bone of contention. The impact is naturally political, but it has also had an appreciable influence on ICC practice. This chapter analyses the legal and political background to the persistent disagreement, including the origin and foundation of divergent positions, such as, for instance, on head of state immunity and cooperation duties. It cautions against an oversimplification of ‘African’ views while also highlighting the progress made by some African countries in investigating, prosecuting, and adjudicating international crimes. It further examines the proposed expansion of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights’ jurisdiction to deal with serious crimes, including international crimes, and the implications thereof.
How Much Money Does the ICC Need?
Authors: Ford Stuart 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
The ICC’s budget has become a central and often thorny point of discussion between the Court, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the Assembly of States Parties (ASP). Some states have argued that the Court can make do with its existing budget and have stressed the necessity of zero growth, while the Court and many NGOs argue that it is underfunded. Underlying this debate is the question of whether the Court is efficient. This chapter explores these issues and places ICC performance in relation to the UN ad hoc tribunals (e.g. ICTY). It argues that the ICC may be able to rearrange its spending to devote a larger proportion of its budget to investigations, trials, and appeals, and less of its budget to support functions.