Unidroit and Asia

This chapter explores the impact of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (Unidroit) on Asia, as well as the role that Asia played and can play in Unidroit. An examination of Asia’s institutional involvement in Unidroit, reception of Unidroit instruments, and participation in legislative activities reveals that the interaction between Asia and Unidroit has been relatively limited. This is a result of a combination of several factors. One of the factors was the regional nature of Unidroit’s work until the mid-twentieth century. When Unidroit started in 1926 as an auxiliary organ of the League of Nations for a global unification of private law, only a handful of independent States existed in Asia. In addition, even after being re-established as an independent body in 1940, Unidroit’s activities remained mostly regional in the sense of contributing to regional unification of private law in Europe until the 1970s. One commentator refers to it as ‘regionalism in disguise’. This has been the cause of failure of some of its instruments, such as the Hague Sales Law. However, Unidroit in the twenty-first century has become a genuinely ‘global’ institution, and its activities have become more inclusive. This was a response to the lessons Unidroit learned from its failures and also due to the impact of the establishment of the United Nations Commission of International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in 1968. This inclusive approach removes the causes that have left Asia in the peripheries and is essential in facilitating the interaction of Unidroit and Asia. In fact, we observe that Asia’s institutional involvement and participation in legislative activities are gradually increasing. Nonetheless, we do not see a notable increase in the reception of Unidroit Conventions in Asia. This may be attributable to the ‘idiosyncratic’ attitude of Asian States towards unification of private law in general. Uniform law instruments, including those adopted by UNCITRAL and HCCH, generally have a low reception rate in Asia. Also, it is symbolic that regional economic integration in Asia is not accompanied by regional unification of private law, except for areas that border on regulatory law. The chapter suggests that uniform law instruments will be more successful in terms of reception if they present tangible benefits and a clear policy goal. It also suggests that, especially in Asia, more emphasis should be placed on non-binding instruments that can provide guidance to domestic law reform.