This collection of essays aims to explore issues surrounding art 7 of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”). Article 7 sets out the Convention’s methods of interpretation and application, reveals its international and autonomous nature and implicitly points to one of its central purposes: the unification of the law of international sales. The collection’s title—CISG Methodology—is apt, since exploring art 7 is like throwing a stone into a pond and observing water splashing in various directions, often beyond the pond’s borders.

In interpreting the Convention, “regard is to be had to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application” (art 7(1)). Considering that there is no institution which implements this mandate, ensuring the Convention’s uniform application in the world’s numerous fora may seem to be an insurmountable task. However, the view taken in several contributions exploring this challenge is far from gloomy. Eric Bergsten suggests that, if uniformity is understood as “something less complete” than absolute uniformity, then “extraordinary strides” have been made. Ulrich Magnus takes the view that the CISG functions satisfactorily but points out that courts must do more to take account of foreign cases and doctrine and to integrate into an existing “global CISG community”. According to Larry DiMatteo, a truly uniform law is made up of uniformity of text, reasoning and result. Applying this notion of uniformity, he also takes a positive view of the Convention’s development, while hoping that well-reasoned and autonomous interpretations will gradually win over “homeward trend-reasoned” decisions. Franco Ferrari defines and criticises the “homeward trend” but also points to a line of cases where tribunals have shown their understanding of the Convention’s nature and purpose. He argues that, for the CISG to fulfil its goals, it needs to become, through education, part of every lawyer’s domestic background assumptions and conceptions.

Several essays recognise that the themes and issues which arise in domestic systems in connection with statutory interpretation are relevant to the CISG. Sieg Eiselen finds that a literalist approach to interpretation, similar to the literalist tradition in the common law, is prevalent in CISG cases. He warns against the dangers of this approach and advocates a greater role for contextual, purposive and dynamic interpretation. Urs Gruber argues that the main goal of interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the legislator.

Article 7(2) provides that matters which are governed by the Convention but “are not expressly settled in it are to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which it is based”. André Janssen and Sörren Kiene identify several categories of general principles and suggest that general principles are there not only to fill gaps but also to help interpret unclear provisions. Bruno Zeller engages in a long-standing debate about the role of good faith in the CISG and argues that it is not merely an interpretative criterion, but also a general principle and standard governing the parties’ rights and obligations.