Choosing Unconventional Law as the Governing Law of the Contract in Conflict Resolution Rules

While the principle of party autonomy in determining the governing law of a contract is widely acknowledged, certain instances of the choice of law continue to provoke debate. The key concern is whether parties can establish general indicators for the governing law at the time of contract formation and postpone the definitive determination of the applicable law to a future event. Although opting for a floating law fails to provide the desired certainty and stability in international contracts, commercial practices and judicial procedures in countries like the United States tend to prioritize flexibility in contractual relations over fixed and definite criteria, thereby endorsing the choice of law to be determined in the future. It appears that as long as the chosen law does not contradict public order, its suitability and validity are presumed by the contracting parties. The ability to determine the law at the required time, i.e. the time of filing a lawsuit, is deemed sufficient, and there is no prohibition to choose and implement the unreasonable law.