This note has been prepared by the secretariat of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) for informational purposes only; it is not an official commentary on the Convention. Commentaries prepared by the secretariat on earlier drafts of the Convention appear in A/CN.9/213 (reproduced in UNCITRAL Yearbook, vol. XIII-1982) and A/CN.9/67 (reproduced in UNCITRAL Yearbook, vol. III-1972). 6. From the outset the work undertaken by UNCITRAL in this area consisted of finding ways to overcome the great many disparities between the various negotiable instruments laws of the world. Previous attempts at unifying the law of negotiable instruments had brought results only in a limited region or among countries of the same legal tradition. For instance, the efforts undertaken at the Hague in 1910 and 1912 and under the League of Nations in 1930 and 1931 culminating in the adoption of the Geneva Uniform Laws for Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes and Cheques had resulted in the harmonization of the negotiable instruments laws of only part of the civil law world and, on the common law side, a similar harmonization had flowed from the issuance of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 of the United Kingdom, on which the United States Negotiable Instruments Law (superseded by article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code) and the various Bills of Exchange Acts of the Commonwealth countries had been modelled. But notwithstanding these influences, considerable variation exists in the case law and commercial practice even among countries of the same legal tradition.
( International Trade/Commercial Law & e-Commerce Monitor )
W3 since October 3 1993 1993 - 2010
started @The University of Tromsø, Norway, 1993
hosted by The University of Oslo, Norway, since 1998
in fellowship with The Institute of International Commercial Law, Pace University, White Plains, New York, U.S.A.