bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Authors: Mazza Francesca 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 9.2.4 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the obligee's advance consent with respect to the transfer of an obligation. Article 9.2.4 states that the obligee may give its consent in advance, in which case the transfer of the obligation becomes effective when a notice of transfer is given to the obligee or when the obligee acknowledges it. ‘In advance’ means that it can be given before the original obligor and the new obligor agree on the transfer. The consent can be given before the obligation is due or comes into existence (provided that the obligation arises out of an existing contract). Notification can be made by either the original or the new obligor.
Authors: Mazza Francesca 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 9.2.7 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning defences and rights of set-off. According to Art 9.2.7, the transfer of an obligation does not cut off the obligor's defences. Rather, the new obligor can assert all the defences which the original obligor had been able to assert against the obligee. This can be justified on two distinct grounds: first, the obligee's legal situation is not impaired; and, secondly, the transfer requires the obligee's consent in any event. Art 9.2.7 gives the new obligor a right but does not impose an obligation on it. This commentary discusses the notion of defences, the time at which the defences come into existence, procedural defences, and rights of set-off under Art 9.2.7(2).
Authors: Wintgen Robert 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 10.4 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning new limitation periods by acknowledgement. All major jurisdictions accept that a new limitation period starts to run if the obligor acknowledges the obligee's right. This rule is consistent with the policy considerations underlying limitation periods, since an acknowledgement makes it clear that the obligor is aware of its debt. According to Art 10.4, if the obligor before the expiration of the general limitation period acknowledges the right of the obligee, a new general limitation period begins on the day after the day of the acknowledgement. The maximum limitation period does not begin to run again, but may be exceeded by the beginning of a new general limitation period under Art 10.2(1). This commentary considers the definition of acknowledgement, the time of acknowledgement, burden of proof relating to the new limitation period, and effects of the obligor's acknowledgement of the obligee's right.
Authors: Wintgen Robert 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 10.7 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the effects of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) on limitation periods. The provisions of Arts 10.5 and 10.6 apply with appropriate modifications to other proceedings whereby the parties request a third person to assist them in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute. This commentary considers the definition of ADR and three requirements that must be met for a suspension of the limitation period in accordance with Art 10.7. It also discusses appropriate modifications with regard to the commencement and end of suspension of the limitation period.
Authors: Wintgen Robert 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 10.8 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the suspension of the limitation period in case of force majeure, death or incapacity. Many domestic legal systems, along with Art 21 of the UN Limitation Convention, provide for a rule which prevents limitation periods from running in the case of vis maior or force majeure. Under Art 10.8, if the obligee has been prevented from causing a limitation period to cease to run due to an impediment that is beyond its control and that it could neither avoid nor overcome, the general limitation period is suspended so as not to expire before one year after the relevant impediment has ceased to exist. This commentary discusses the rationale and effects of force majeure on limitation period, the end of suspension in the case of death and incapacity, and burden of proof relating to the suspension of the limitation period in case of force majeure, death or incapacity.
Introduction to Chapter 11 of the PICC
Authors: Meier Sonja 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
Chapter 11 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) deals with the plurality of obligors and obligees. It addresses those legal issues arising from the fact that performance of a contractual obligation is owed by more than one obligor and/or owed to more than one obligee. In principle, the chapter does not deal with questions of plurality of parties to a contract as such. One example is the question of whether the right of termination for fundamental non-performance (Art 7.3.1) may be exercised by just one out of several buyers, and the consequences this might entail. However, the question of whether one of the obligors or obligees may exercise a right of avoidance according to Section 3.2 of the PICC, and what the consequences of such avoidance might be, is discussed.
Authors: Meier Sonja 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 11.1.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning definitions related to the plurality of obligors in a contractual setting. Art 11.1.1 defines two forms of plurality of obligors, joint and several obligations and separate obligations, but does not say under which circumstances they arise. According to this article, when several obligors are bound by the same obligation towards an obligee, the obligations are joint and several when each obligor is bound for the whole obligation; the obligations are separate when each obligor is bound only for its share. The PICC therefore appear to assume that, in principle, a plurality of contractual obligors produces either joint and several, or separate obligations. This commentary discusses the requirements for the plurality of obligors, joint and several obligations, separate obligations, and types of plurality not mentioned in Article 11.1.1, namely indivisible obligations, communal obligations, and accessory obligations.
Authors: Meier Sonja 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 11.1.5 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the effect of performance or set-off. According to Art 11.1.5, performance or set-off by a joint and several obligor or set-off by the obligee against one joint and several obligor discharges the other obligors in relation to the obligee to the extent of the performance or set-off. This rule is a necessary consequence of joint and several obligations. The burden of proof of performance by an obligor rests on the co-obligor being required to perform by the obligee. The same holds true for a discharge by set-off. The PICC contain no provision on the effect of a merger of obligations between the obligee and one of the obligors.
Authors: Meier Sonja 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This commentary analyses Article 11.1.9 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning the apportionment of shares among joint and several obligors. In a contractual setting, joint and several obligations arise from a common commitment of all the obligors towards the obligee or from separate commitments by each obligor acting in the knowledge of the other commitments. In general, it is not for the obligee to decide which of the obligors in the end has to bear the burden of the performance. Accordingly, all legal systems provide for an apportionment among the joint and several obligors under which the obligor which has performed to the obligee can claim contribution from its co-obligors. Under Art 11.1.9, joint and several obligors are bound in equal shares, unless the circumstances indicate otherwise. Art 11.1.9 is a default rule. The obligors are bound in equal shares only if the agreement between the obligors and the circumstances do not reveal a different measure. The party asserting a different measure of apportionment bears the burden of proof.
Appointment of Head of the Mission
Authors: Denza Eileen 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter explores the Article 6 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which describes the appointment of the head of the diplomatic mission to a foreign state. In essence, the Article expresses that an agrément or approval must be given to the person chosen to be head of the mission, and that the receiving State cannot give reasons to refuse the agrément. The Convention prescribes no form or method for requesting or granting agrément. In addition, the chapter elaborates the reasons for refusal of agrément. It is generally accepted that approval should relate to the proposed head of mission personally rather than to the relations between the sending and the receiving State. However, there are some instances that the public utterances and previous postings of the head of the mission lead to the refusal of agrément, such as in 1891 when China refused to accept Henry Blair as US Minister.
Multiple Accreditation
Authors: Denza Eileen 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter examines Articles 5 and 6 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which deal with multiple accreditation to foreign states by a diplomatic mission. Article 5 allows a sending State to accredit a head of mission or assign any member of the diplomatic staff to more than one receiving State, unless there is express objection by any of the receiving States. If there are none, then the sending State may establish diplomatic mission headed by a chargé d’affaires ad interim, a member of the mission who leads in the place of the head. Article 6 complements this by allowing two or more receiving States to accredit the same person as head of mission to another state, unless there is objection. Since 1961, there has been an increase of States using this practice due to the emergence of new sovereign States.
Persona Non Grata
Authors: Denza Eileen 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter examines Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which refers to the status persona non grata given by the receiving State towards members of a diplomatic mission. The state renders the members as ‘unwelcome’. Article 9 gives the receiving State the right to notify the sending State that any member of the diplomatic staff is considered a persona non grata at any time, including before arrival. After being notified, the sending State must either recall the member or terminate his or her functions. If the sending State refuses or fails within a period to carry out the obligation, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission. The Article proves to be a key provision in the Convention which enables a State to protect itself against unacceptable behaviour by members of diplomatic missions and forms an important counterweight to the immunities conferred elsewhere in the Convention.
Offices away from the Seat of the Mission
Authors: Denza Eileen 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter examines Article 12 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which refers to the establishment of offices away from the seat of the diplomatic mission. Article 12 states that the members of the sending State may not establish offices forming part of the mission in the localities other than those where the mission itself is established without prior express consent. The Article traces its roots from the general practice of missions being established in the seat of government of the receiving State and to follow that government if it moved either permanently or to a summer residence. However, there are exceptions to this. One example would be in China when between 1927 and 1937; many of the missions remained in Peking although the Government had moved to Nanking. In making the Article, the members of the International Law Commission stressed the difficulty for the receiving State in ensuring privileges and immunities away from the seat of government and to prevent abuses.
Commencement of Functions and Precedence of Heads of Mission
Authors: Denza Eileen 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter considers Article 13 and Article 16 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Article 13 deals with the commencement of functions of the heads of the diplomatic mission. The Article states that heads of the mission takes up his functions only when he either submits his credentials or when he has notified his arrival and a true copy of his credentials has been presented to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or any other similar office. The Article also states that the presentation of the head’s credentials will be determined by the date and time of his arrival to the receiving State. Complementary to this, Article 16 details the precedence of the heads of the diplomatic mission. Under the Article, precedence shall take place in the order of the date and time of taking up their functions in accordance with Article 13.
Flag and Emblem of the Sending State
Authors: Denza Eileen 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter explores Article 20 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which deals with the use of the flag and emblem of the sending State by the members of the diplomatic mission. The Article confers the right to the mission and its head to use the flag and emblem of the sending State on the premises of the mission, including the residence of the head of the mission, and on his means of transport. The chapter describes how international law imposes a high duty of protection on the receiving State wherever a flag of the sending State is flown. The main purpose of the privilege is to enable the authorities of the receiving State to extend special courtesies and priority in traffic. Identifiable registration numbers are also issued in many capitals, and these serve the same purpose.
Inviolability of the Archives
Authors: Denza Eileen 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter considers Article 24 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which deals with the inviolability of the archives. Article 24 states that the archives and documents of the diplomatic mission shall be inviolable at any time and wherever they may be. In essence, the Article highlights the protection of confidential information. The chapter describes the developments made by the International Law Commission and the Vienna Conference to extend the principle of inviolability of archives and documents. The expression ‘inviolable’ was chosen by the Commission to convey both that the receiving State must abstain from any interference through its own authorities and that it owes a duty of protection of the archives in respect of unauthorized interference by others. Secondly, the Vienna Conference added the words ‘at any time’ in order to make clear that inviolability continued without interruption on the breaking of diplomatic relations or in the event of armed conflict.
Freedom of Communication
Authors: Denza Eileen 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter considers the first sentence of Article 27.1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which discusses the freedom of communication given to all members of the diplomatic mission. According to the Article 27.1, the receiving State shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes. Representatives from the sending State may employ all appropriate means, including diplomatic couriers and messages in code or cipher, in communicating with their Government and the other missions and consulates. However, if the mission wishes to use a wireless transmitter, it must first have consent of the receiving State. Without the right of free communication, the mission cannot effectively carry out two of its most important functions—negotiating with the government of the receiving State and reporting to the government of the sending State on conditions and developments in the receiving State.
Inviolability of Official Correspondence
Authors: Denza Eileen 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter explores Article 27.2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which deals with the inviolability of official correspondence used in the diplomatic mission. Aside from granting inviolability to official correspondence, the second paragraph also outlines the scope of official correspondence. Under the Article, official correspondence means all correspondence relating to the mission and its functions. The term ‘official correspondence of the mission’ refers to correspondence from the mission, that sent to the mission from its chancellery or other authorities of the sending State, and correspondence between the mission and consulates situated in the receiving State. The primary importance of Article 27.2 lies in the protection which it gives from interference by the authorities of the receiving State.
Diplomatic Couriers
Authors: Denza Eileen 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter analyses Articles 27.5, 27.6, and 27.7 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The three sections mainly centre on matters regarding the functions diplomatic couriers. According to Article 27.5, the diplomatic courier, who shall be provided with an official document indicating his status and the number of packages constituting the diplomatic bag, shall be protected by the receiving State in the performance of his functions. He shall enjoy personal inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. Article 27.6 on the other hand states that the sending State or the mission may designate diplomatic couriers ad hoc. If this happens, then the provisions of Article 27.5 shall also apply. Lastly, Article 27.7 states that a diplomatic bag may be entrusted to the captain of a commercial aircraft and that he shall be provided with an official document indicating the number of packages constituting the bag but he shall not be considered to be a diplomatic courier.
Immunity from Jurisdiction
Authors: Denza Eileen 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter examines Article 31.1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which deals with a diplomatic agent’s immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. In addition, the agent shall enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of (a) a real action relating to private immovable property; (b) an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending State; and (c) an action relating to any professional or commercial activity outside his official functions. As inviolability was becoming recognised, it would have been unusual for criminal proceedings to take place without prior arrest and detention of the accused. Immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction, which is less obviously coercive in character, was the next to become established of the basic rules of diplomatic law.
Exemption from Personal Services
Authors: Denza Eileen 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter examines Article 35 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which concerns the exemption of diplomatic agents from personal services. The Article states that the receiving State shall exempt diplomatic agents from all personal services, from all public services of any kind whatsoever, and from military obligations such as those connected with requisitioning, military contributions and billeting. This exemption comes from the general international practice that any diplomat must be treated as exempt from the obligations imposed on the general public. The chapter describes how this principle of exemption is rarely discussed as because diplomats as foreign nationals would in any event not usually be subject to civic obligations and in the rare cases where they were liable, the diplomats would be protected by their inviolability.
Nationals and Permanent Residents of the Receiving State
Authors: Denza Eileen 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter looks into Article 38 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which deals with the status of nationals and permanent residents admitted by the receiving State. Article 38 states that a diplomatic agent who is a national of or permanently resident in that State shall enjoy only immunity from jurisdiction, and inviolability, in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions except insofar as additional privileges and immunities may be granted by the receiving State. The Article also states that other members of the staff and private servants, who are nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State, shall enjoy privileges and immunities only to the extent admitted by the receiving State. The chapter provides an overview of the question of whether a diplomatic agent or other member of the mission who was a national of the receiving State should be entitled to privileges and immunities.
Termination of Privileges and Immunities
Authors: Denza Eileen 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter analyses Articles 39.2 and 39.3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Both deal with the termination of privileges and immunities given to members of the diplomatic missions. Article 39.2 states that when the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an end, such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country, or on expiry of a reasonable period in which to do so, but shall subsist until that time, even in case of armed conflict. However, with respect to acts performed by such a person in the exercise of his functions as a member of the mission, immunity shall continue to subsist. Article 39.3 on the other hand states that in case of the death of a member of the mission, the members of his family shall continue to enjoy the privileges and immunities until the expiry of a reasonable period.
End of Diplomatic Functions
Authors: Denza Eileen 
Published: June 2017

Abstract
This chapter analyses Article 43 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which discusses the end of diplomatic functions. According to the Article, the function of a diplomatic agent comes to an end, inter alia: (a) on notification by the sending State to the receiving State that the function of the diplomatic agent has come to an end; (b) on notification by the receiving State to the sending State that, in accordance with Article 9, it refuses to recognize the diplomatic agent as a member of the mission. The chapter also looks into how conflict can end the functions of a diplomatic agent. A change of government on either side not involving the Head of State, or the constitutional replacement of an elected Head of State following his death, resignation, or the end of his term of office does not on the other hand automatically end the function of the diplomatic agent.