The Vienna Convention (CISG) has clearly set out a policy regarding its relation with other international agreements. Article 90 states that: “This Convention does not prevail over any international agreement which has already been or may be entered into and which contains provisions concerning the matters governed by this Convention, provided that the parties have their places of business in States parties, to such agreement.
” The said provision places the convention in equal footing with the other international agreement relating to international commercial transaction. The said provision places the Vienna Convention neither on top nor below other international agreements, but juxtaposed therewith. “The term “does not prevail” simply means that in cases of gaps eminent in the provision of the Vienna Convention (CISG) other international agreement that may have the same subject matter may come into the rescue to fill in and complete the gaps that may arise.
” The provisions of Article 90, moreover, sets out the proper rules of interpretation in cases of conflict and overlap with the provisions of other existing and binding international agreements and conventions. As it equally stands juxtaposed with other international agreements, the terms of the convention must be interpreted not to nullify or render nugatory the provisions of other international agreement, but to give effects to the provisions as well as to the purposes of the provisions.
Other International agreements do not stand at opposite end with the Vienna Convention (CISG), but may supply those matters, which the latter convention does not cover. Altogether, the Vienna Convention must be interpreted and applied in harmony and unity with the other international agreements, and not the other way around as a laid down policy inscribed under Article 90 of the Vienna Convention (CISG). Exception to that rule stated above is the Hague Convention of 1964.
Article 90 of the Vienna Convention (CISG) delves with the relationship between the two conventions. There is simply a clear overlap as the said provision requires the contracting parties to the Vienna Convention (CISG) to denounce the application of the Hague Convention in their jurisdiction, and such mandate has been states in express terms. The Vienna Convention (CISG) primarily creates an impact over Contracting States as being the primary subjects of this international convention.
Contracting States that has ratified the said convention are principally bound to apply the provisions thereof whenever the facts of a certain case calls for its application. This means that the Contracting States has to go away with the traditional Domestic – Conflict Model of dispute resolution but should observe the widely accepted uniform substantive rules laid down in the Vienna Convention (CISG) of resolving disputes involving international commercial transactions involving sale of goods.
This notion is within the context of Article 1, paragraph 1 (a) of the said convention which provides that the Convention shall apply to parties whose place of business is situated within a Contracting State. The application of the Vienna Convention (CISG) is sanctioned whenever parties are situated in different states, but the conflicts rules direct the resolution of the dispute to be under the law of the state, which is a contracting party as expressed under Article 1, paragraph 1(b) of the Convention.
“In this case, the Contracting State is not derogated from its Conflict rules under its private international law; rather, the convention presupposes the operation of the conflicts rules in order for it to be called for application. ” The Vienna Convention still allows the traditional system of a contracting to be applicable whenever the need for its application arises.