INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW ASSIGNMENT XXXXXXXXXXIs the autonomous interpretation of key concepts in the Brussels Regulation by the Court of Justice of the European Union justifiable in light of the...

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW ASSIGNMENT
Table of Contents
Introduction    3
Brussels Convention and Similar Legal Frameworks: Determinant Factors    3
Categories of Difference: Personal Contracts with International Concerns: British Legal Conventions and Perception of the Conflict Law under Brussels Convention    4
The Significance of the Commercial Jurisdiction in British Convention    8
Foundations of Commercial Jurisdiction in English Law    10
The Roman Conventions    13
Superiority of Brussels I over English Common Law    14
Conclusion    16
Bibliography    17
Introduction
The contractual terms and conditions are defined by English courts in various categories, which are based on the validity and nature of the contract. There can be multiple nationalities on behalf of the parties, which can be offered and documented in the contract, which is the overall terms and conditions of an international contract can have multiple parties as well as various nationalities.[footnoteRef:1] Thus, there is legal provision to examine the content and the validity of the contract in the light of the English Law. The present paper is a study in this context only.[footnoteRef:2] [1: Pocar, Fausto. "The Brussels Convention: 50 Years of Contribution to European Integration1, 2020.] [2: Ibid, 2020]
However, the technical aspect of this type of contract is that the parties should determine what kind of international law they expect to follow because as per their conventional legal system, the provisions and contractual terms can have different assumptions, other than the English Law. There can be conditions like no such law is applicable to the contract but in that case, the governing law is determined by the fact that, which country is ‘in close connection’ with the content, terms and conditions as well as with the parties. English Legal System applies the same governing law over the contract itself.
Historically, the Convention of Rome of 1980 has limited the contractual ability of nations over the international contract, giving them limited liabilities and expanding the influence and authority of the international laws over the contract structured with various nationalities involved. In the modern context, the replacement of the Roman Convention of Law applicable to the contractual obligation is constructed and processed under the old Brussels’ Convention of 1968, which is accepted by English Common law. The traditional approach adheres to the acceptance of the article 1(1) given in the Convention of 1968 when two or more parties are involved in a contract and their contractual obligation is expanded from one nationality to several. [footnoteRef:3] [3: Ibid, 2020]
Brussels Convention and Similar Legal Frameworks: Determinant Factors
Apart from the above, under English Law conventions, there are some other mediums and frameworks, which are used to define the legal obligation of English Common law to intervene into disputable conditions surging out of the contracts with international parties involved.[footnoteRef:4] The legal jurisdiction of the English Law is determined by these tools used. At the same time, the universal approach of these tools is applied to both kinds of disputes whether they are related to civil or commercial matters. These legal frameworks are known as the Brussels Convention of 1968 and the EU Council Regulation no 44/2001.[footnoteRef:5] The two frameworks not only define legal jurisdiction of the English Law over the contract but also they set the course of intervention, which the English Common law can have in terms of recognising, processing as well as deciding the cases of civil and commercial disputes. [4: Schmon, Christoph. The Interconnection of the EU Regulations Brussels I Recast and Rome I: Jurisdiction and Law, 2020] [5: Kulinska, Martyna. "Cross-Border Commercial Disputes: Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments After Brexit, 2020]
The following is an analysis of the effect, degree of justification as well as the relevance of the Brussels Convention over the traditional approach of the English Law to determine conflicts rose from contracts. The Brussels Convention brings in diversity of approach that the legal entities should have in terms of taking the course of action against disputes in commercial and civil contracts. At the same time, the application of the EU Council Regulation 44/2001 supports the Brussels Convention, pertaining to the fact that a number of conditions must be examined before determining the course of a case especially when multiple nationalities are involved in it.[footnoteRef:6] [6: Ibid, 2020]
Categories of Difference: Personal Contracts with International Concerns: British Legal Conventions and Perception of the Conflict Law under Brussels Convention
The conflict of laws was known as a part of a particular country's private law dealing with cases with a foreign aspect.' Private international law may be another word for conflict of law. The word 'international aspect' (as part of the above definition means that there is a relationship with the legal system that is different from that of the 'forum' within the framework of the English conflict of law.[footnoteRef:7] The following facts' were made with a foreigner or were to be done in a foreign country, or one of the parties is not English, as examples of such 'foreign elements.' Of particular interest is the fact that the conflict-of-law rules currently in place in England are not identical to those in any other country.[footnoteRef:8] [7: Srivastava, Ajendra. "International Cooperation in Dispute Settlement." In Modern Law of International Trade, 2020] [8: Ibid, 2020]
First, one should differentiate between the 'forum', which is the place-country where the conflict will be resolved, either by litigation or by arbitration and the applicable law, which is the law that determines the rights and responsibilities of the parties, specific to their contract. Under the rules of common law, by including in the above agreement a clause on the preferred place of litigation or arbitration that is a clause expressing a preference for the courts of a particular country, the parties, which choose the relevant law that, would prefer to regulate their contractual agreement.[footnoteRef:9] With this provision, the parties indicate their preferred country in relation to the settlement of a potential conflict arising from the contract and at the same time, specify the law in which country they would like to be the governing law of their contractual agreement. [9: Srivastava, Ajendra. "International Cooperation in Dispute Settlement." In Modern Law of International Trade, 2020]
In the other hand, the fact that a contract is regulated by the law of a particular country does not automatically preclude the courts of another country from the right to hear disputes concerning that contract (where such a right is justified according to the relevant rules of the Brussels Convention).[footnoteRef:10] In the case of Bryant v. Foreign & Commonwealth Office, in an employment tribunal, the employee issued a lawsuit claiming wrongful dismissal and the tribunal ruled that it had no authority to hear the allegations at the first level.[footnoteRef:11] The Employment Appeal Tribunal subsequently ruled that while Italian law was the law regulating the contract, there was nothing to prohibit the trial of the case in the United Kingdom from taking place in compliance with the rules laid down in the Brussels Convention and it determined that the case should be permitted to proceed before the Employment Court.[footnoteRef:12] [10: Schmon, Christoph. The Interconnection of the EU Regulations Brussels I Recast and Rome I: Jurisdiction and Law, 2020] [11: Ibid, 2020] [12: Ibid, 2020]
In any event, we must note here that the jurisdiction of the English courts is determined when a relationship between an established contract and territorial rights can be assumed, as defined in the applicable English laws or the Brussels Convention. In the event that such a relationship cannot be formed, the English courts are entitled to refuse to hear a case, which refers to a contractual dispute.[footnoteRef:13] In the case of Jackson v. Ghost Ltd and Ghost Inc., the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that there were no signs of relation between the employments of Ms Jackson, conducted exclusively in the United States. This was following the recruitment in that country, for a US company and the United Kingdom, such as enabling the jurisdiction of the employment court to entertain her complaints.'[footnoteRef:14] [13: Ibid, 2020] [14: Srivastava, Ajendra. "International Cooperation in Dispute Settlement." In Modern Law of International Trade,2020]
As previously mentioned, the existing English rules of private international law regulating the settlement of disputes concerning international contractual arrangements (and in this respect, the option of effective jurisdiction) have been replaced by the Rome Convention of 1980, which lays down rules of international private law applicable in all the Member States. It should be remembered that this implementation of the Rome Convention is only addressed where the parties have not already specified in their contractual agreement.[footnoteRef:15] This would be the regulatory law of the particular contract. The declaration of the applicable law is usually made through a statement about the courts that will have the right to resolve a dispute; that may arise from the contract. To this point, it can be claimed that in the dispute settlement of contractual agreements, including foreign ones, the English rules are still applied, but with the clear mention of their authority in the contract.[footnoteRef:16] [15: Franzina, Pietro. "The Changing Face of Adjudicatory Jurisdiction." In Universal Civil Jurisdiction] [16: Ibid, 2020]
In the light of the above review, the issue tends to occur where in a contractual arrangement; there is no clear clause as to the relevant law. The Rome Convention (as it has been applied in relation to conventional English rules) offers a solution to this problem by providing, in Article 4 that the law in effect would be that of the country, with which the contested matter has the closest link.[footnoteRef:17] The above subject matter is dealt with differently by the Brussels Convention, which specifies in Article 2 that “the 'plaintiff is to sue the defendant before the courts of the domicile of the defendant or if the defendant is a legitimate person. The courts of his domicile provided that the defendant has his domicile or his seat in the contracting State.”[footnoteRef:18] [17: Schmon, Christoph. The Interconnection of the EU Regulations Brussels I Recast and Rome I: Jurisdiction and Law, 2020] [18: Ibid, 2020]
In fact, in Article 5 of the same Convention and only for a number of particular matters— it is claimed that there is additional jurisdiction for the courts at the place of execution of the duty in question.' The purpose of both conventions, as stated by G. C. Moss (2000, 390), is to make the applicable law predictable. In any case, it is necessary, before the...