Choice of Law and Foreign Currency Debts: A Comparative Study

Yehya Badr
{"title":"Choice of Law and Foreign Currency Debts: A Comparative Study","authors":"Yehya Badr","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1963313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Choice of law in foreign currency debts is an area where several contradictory rules exist, leaving it unclear how a court will treat the issues of choice of law and foreign currency debt. This article aims at explaining the reasons courts have created ambiguity in this field. In part one I will survey the choice of law rules on foreign currency debts in four different jurisdictions. Two of them are common law jurisdictions, the U.S. and England, while the other two are civil law jurisdictions, France and Egypt. In Part One I demonstrate that courts tend to deal with foreign currency debts not as a single legal issue governed by a single choice of law rule but as a set of legal issues that requires the use of several choice of law rules and doctrines. In Part Two, I examine the manner in which courts have handled choice of law in foreign currency debts through evaluating courts' use of the choice of law rules and doctrines. I explain that in most cases courts have misused the choice of law rules and that the real explanation for their attitudes towards the choice of law in foreign currency debts is a desire to balance the need for enforcing agreements to the maximum extent possible, which requires using the party autonomy choice of law rule, and the need for complying with restrictions, imposed by the forum's law, foreign law, or even the IMF agreement, that guide the court towards other choice of law rules or doctrines such as lex loci solution is.In Part Three I suggest a better choice of law approach to foreign currency debts that is based on enforcing the parties' agreement by using party autonomy as a basic choice of law rule. However, the use of the party autonomy choice of law rule will be restricted in accordance with the IMF agreement whenever the parties’ agreement contradicts the law of a member state. I explain that this restriction should take place once the parties’ agreement at the time of conclusion or at the time of enforcement will affect the IMF member state's monetary system.","PeriodicalId":130703,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Public International Law: Courts & Adjudication (Topic)","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Other Public International Law: Courts & Adjudication (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1963313","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Choice of law in foreign currency debts is an area where several contradictory rules exist, leaving it unclear how a court will treat the issues of choice of law and foreign currency debt. This article aims at explaining the reasons courts have created ambiguity in this field. In part one I will survey the choice of law rules on foreign currency debts in four different jurisdictions. Two of them are common law jurisdictions, the U.S. and England, while the other two are civil law jurisdictions, France and Egypt. In Part One I demonstrate that courts tend to deal with foreign currency debts not as a single legal issue governed by a single choice of law rule but as a set of legal issues that requires the use of several choice of law rules and doctrines. In Part Two, I examine the manner in which courts have handled choice of law in foreign currency debts through evaluating courts' use of the choice of law rules and doctrines. I explain that in most cases courts have misused the choice of law rules and that the real explanation for their attitudes towards the choice of law in foreign currency debts is a desire to balance the need for enforcing agreements to the maximum extent possible, which requires using the party autonomy choice of law rule, and the need for complying with restrictions, imposed by the forum's law, foreign law, or even the IMF agreement, that guide the court towards other choice of law rules or doctrines such as lex loci solution is.In Part Three I suggest a better choice of law approach to foreign currency debts that is based on enforcing the parties' agreement by using party autonomy as a basic choice of law rule. However, the use of the party autonomy choice of law rule will be restricted in accordance with the IMF agreement whenever the parties’ agreement contradicts the law of a member state. I explain that this restriction should take place once the parties’ agreement at the time of conclusion or at the time of enforcement will affect the IMF member state's monetary system.
法律选择与外币债务:比较研究
外币债务的法律选择是一个存在几个相互矛盾的规则的领域,法院将如何处理法律选择和外币债务问题尚不清楚。本文旨在解释法院在这一领域造成歧义的原因。第一部分将考察四个不同司法管辖区外币债务法律规则的选择。其中两个是英美法系国家,即美国和英国,另外两个是大陆法系国家,即法国和埃及。在第一部分中,我证明了法院倾向于处理外币债务,而不是将其作为单一法律选择规则管辖的单一法律问题,而是作为一系列法律问题,需要使用几种法律选择规则和理论。在第二部分中,我通过评估法院对法律选择规则和理论的使用来研究法院在外币债务中处理法律选择的方式。我解释说,在大多数情况下,法院滥用了法律选择规则,他们对外币债务的法律选择态度的真正解释是,他们希望在最大程度上执行协议的需要(这需要使用当事人自主选择法律规则)和遵守论坛法律、外国法律甚至国际货币基金组织协议所施加的限制的需要之间取得平衡。指导法院走向其他法律选择规则或理论,如地法解决方案。第三部分提出了一种更好的外币债务的法律选择途径,即以当事人自治作为一种基本的法治选择,以执行当事人的协议为基础。但是,如果当事各方的协议与成员国的法律相抵触,则根据IMF协议对当事人自主选择法律规则的运用进行限制。我解释说,一旦各方的协议在签订或执行时影响到国际货币基金组织成员国的货币体系,就应该进行这种限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信