For presentations of individual articles of the CISG and further data on each provision, see CISG Table of Contents
Other texts
The intent is to present each official text and texts of the CISG in each of the languages into which it has been translated.
The CISG states that it has been:
"Done . . . in a single original, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic."
There are also many unofficial translations of the CISG.
Tristan Laflamme states:
"An abundance of this sort may provoke two contradictory situations. On one side, it may prove helpful to look at the different wordings in order to solve ambiguities. In this perspective, each text contributes to the construction of the others and clarifies the intention of the Contracting States.[1] The opposite may also be true, however, and the advantages of having many authentic versions become drawbacks.[2] It is extremely demanding to find equivalent expressions in six languages and literal translations can be misleading.[3] In addition, since any legal community tends to interpret a text with distinct cultural, linguistic and social reflexes, divergent constructions are a constant threat to the uniform application of the Convention on the international scale.[4] ("The United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods (Vienna 1980): Some Significant Changes for the Practitioner", March 1994, p. 15 [essay on file at the Institute of International Commercial Law of the Pace University School of Law]).
Roy M. Goode notes "the extreme difficulty not only in translating concepts that have no exact legal equivalent in the other system, but also in converting the structure and syntax of one language into the quite different structure of another." He states:
"This can lead to an unenviable choice between precise adherence to the original text in the translation, with the risk that the rendering of the translation is inelegant or out of harmony with linguistic usage, or a freer rendering which responds to the structure and usage of the second language, but at the sacrifice of legal accuracy."
("Reflections on the Harmonization of Commercial Law", 1 Uniform L.R. (1991) 71 n. 36).
Similarly, Amy H. Kastely states:
"[W]ords used in one language . . . carry implications different from those in another . . . The terms 'offer' and "acceptance" provide powerful examples of this. In English these words carry a rich heritage of legal doctrine, and their equivalents in the Western European languages have similar depth. . . Yet the translations of these words used in the other official versions, such as Chinese and Arabic, do not carry similar implications. . ." ("Rhetorical Analysis of the United Nations Sales Convention", 8 NW J. Int'l L.E. Bus. 593 (1988)).
Frank Diedrich states:
"[W]hen it comes to the interpretation of multi-lingual conventions, the question crops up, in which language the text of the conventions is . . . authentic . . . Although multi-lingual conventions are supporting their own international acceptance, and are presenting valuable advantages for parties from different countries to enter into a contract, they are, at the same time multiplying possible interpretations. . . . However, a stringent presumption exists in favor of that text which was declared as being authentic by the international legislator as representing the legislator's actual will as closely as possible with regard to the grammatical meaning of the text's wording. [A]ll texts that are not authentic are excluded for interpreting a multi-lingual convention autonomously. The only texts that have become binding for the court via ratification of the Convention are those that were declared authentic by the international legislator. . . . [A]n 'official' translation of a multi-lingual convention into a non-authentic language contains not more than a prima facie presumption of its correctness which still requires an examination on the basis of the authentic text(s). . ."However, if there are several, equally authentic texts of a multi-lingual convention, it could be questionable whether it is admissible for the purpose of an autonomous interpretation to let some languages prevail over others simply because of practical reasons, e.g., [where] there are as many as six equal languages, as is the case with the CISG. As the international legislature has . . . declared all those languages as being equally authentic basically, no language may prevail. A lawyer has, rather, to find a texte juste as the consensus of all of them. If such a comparison, in fact, brings disparities between the authentic texts to light that cannot be rectified, the interpretation rule in article 33 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [should] be applied, which provides that the real or normative intention of the final diplomatic conference, can be found by an historic interpretation in analyzing the travaux préparatoires. The conclusion for the CISG is that its official but non-authentic translation that was jointly drafted by Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, the former German Democratic Republic, and Switzerland, has to be ruled out as the basis for an autonomous interpretation. Then it seems reasonable to compare especially the English and French texts of the CISG out of the six authentic languages for finding a texte juste, because these were the languages in which the deliberations and legal negotiations among the representatives of the Contracting States took place. So it can be presumed that the English and French texts of the CISG represent the intentions of the representatives at the 1980 Diplomatic Conference at Vienna best as to the exact wording of the Convention's final text[5] ("Applicability of the CISG to Software Contracts: A Question of Autonomous Interpretation Uniform Law", March 1994, pp. 8-9 [essay on file at the Institute of International Commercial Law of the Pace University School of Law]).
1. In the Judgement of August 30th, 1924, on the Mavrommatis
Palestine Concessions, the International Court of Justice states that "Where
two versions possessing equal authority exist [a tribunal] is bound to adopt
the [version which is] in accordance with the common intention of the
Parties" (A Digest of the decisions of the International Court, vol
1, ed. K. Marek (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff 1974) 104).
2. Lord McNair, The Law of Treaties (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1986)
433.
3. Claude Samson, Méthodologie pour l'application uniforme des
conventions internationales, Twelfth Congress of the International
Academy of Comparative Law (Sydney/Melbourne: August 1986) 10 n.38.
4. Id at 8.
5. One German author even pointed out that the negotiations withing the
drafting committee of the 1980 Diplomatic Conference were exclusively done
in English and that, therefore, in case of doubt the English text should
prevail. See Herber in von Caemerer/Schlechtriem, Art. CISG, No. 22;
see also Magnus "Das UN-Kaufrecht tritt in Draft!" (RabelsZ 51
(1987) 123, 128) who underlined the practical importance of the English
version of the CISG because of the many similarities with the legal
terminology of the common law countries.
By calling for "the meaning which best reconciles the text, having regard
to the object and purposes of the treaty", article 33 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties seeks to aid the resolution of
discrepancies in official texts. However, because one can encounter
translated words that have different meanings which are difficult to
reconcile, parties may wish to include in their contract a Language Clause,
for example, "The applicable text of the Convention shall be the official
United Nations text in the language in which this contract is written."
Contract solution recommended
Pace Law School Institute of
International Commercial Law -
Last updated May 29, 1998
Comments/Contributions