在自治

Christopher Hare
{"title":"在自治","authors":"Christopher Hare","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3165832","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the import and nature of the autonomy principle as applied to documentary letters of credit and other payment instruments. It argues that, while autonomy appears to have developed a degree of normativity, it is not a mandatory principle, but rather one that is subject in some degree to party autonomy. It follows that parties are free to choose whether they wish the doctrine of autonomy or only certain aspects to govern their dealings, but this is likely to have an impact upon the nature of the resulting instrument. This discussion regarding the nature of the autonomy principle raises the question of whether performance bonds should in principle continue to be treated as autonomous instruments, whether (as suggested academically) they should be placed on a lower point on a supposed scale of autonomy, or whether they are more logically equated with other non-autonomous forms of security. Somewhat controversially, this paper advocates the third of these options.","PeriodicalId":137765,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","volume":"263 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Autonomy\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Hare\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3165832\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper examines the import and nature of the autonomy principle as applied to documentary letters of credit and other payment instruments. It argues that, while autonomy appears to have developed a degree of normativity, it is not a mandatory principle, but rather one that is subject in some degree to party autonomy. It follows that parties are free to choose whether they wish the doctrine of autonomy or only certain aspects to govern their dealings, but this is likely to have an impact upon the nature of the resulting instrument. This discussion regarding the nature of the autonomy principle raises the question of whether performance bonds should in principle continue to be treated as autonomous instruments, whether (as suggested academically) they should be placed on a lower point on a supposed scale of autonomy, or whether they are more logically equated with other non-autonomous forms of security. Somewhat controversially, this paper advocates the third of these options.\",\"PeriodicalId\":137765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"263 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3165832\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3165832","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

本文探讨了适用于跟单信用证和其他支付工具的自主原则的重要性和性质。它认为,虽然自治似乎已经发展出一定程度的规范性,但它不是一项强制性原则,而是在某种程度上服从于当事人自治的原则。由此可见,各方可以自由选择是否希望以自治原则或仅以某些方面来管理其交易,但这很可能对所产生的文书的性质产生影响。关于自治原则性质的讨论提出了一个问题,即履约保证金原则上是否应继续被视为自主工具,是否(如学术上建议的那样)应在假定的自治尺度上置于较低的位置,或者它们是否更合乎逻辑地与其他非自主形式的担保等同起来。有些争议的是,本文提倡第三种选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On Autonomy
This paper examines the import and nature of the autonomy principle as applied to documentary letters of credit and other payment instruments. It argues that, while autonomy appears to have developed a degree of normativity, it is not a mandatory principle, but rather one that is subject in some degree to party autonomy. It follows that parties are free to choose whether they wish the doctrine of autonomy or only certain aspects to govern their dealings, but this is likely to have an impact upon the nature of the resulting instrument. This discussion regarding the nature of the autonomy principle raises the question of whether performance bonds should in principle continue to be treated as autonomous instruments, whether (as suggested academically) they should be placed on a lower point on a supposed scale of autonomy, or whether they are more logically equated with other non-autonomous forms of security. Somewhat controversially, this paper advocates the third of these options.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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