coulomb/target-revenue
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Complete WP-0004 T09: global choice-of-law and dispute-resolution strategy

Browse source 
Cross-cutting research (New York Convention enforceability, neutral-seat
arbitration practice, and a consolidated drafting principle) revises the
China finding from T06/TREN-T06: China has enforced the New York
Convention since 1986 (arbitral awards travel via a ~172-state regime
with limited refusal grounds) but has ratified no foreign-judgment
convention, relying on patchy bilateral treaties and evolving reciprocity
for court judgments specifically. Arbitration, not the litigation-focused
China rider previously recommended, is likely the more promising
enforceability path for a Chinese Customer - and for the Enforcement
Partner Agreement too, per a cross-reference added to
specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md.

Also produces a consolidated drafting principle: write clarity-sensitive
clauses to satisfy Germany's Transparenzgebot, UK's UCTA reasonableness,
and Australia's expanded Unfair Contract Terms regime simultaneously,
since research this program has already found separately shows none of
the three reduces to another.

Updates License Appendix A item 6 and CUA Appendix A item 1 accordingly.
WP-0004 now has 9 of 10 tasks done; only the human-gated T10 synthesis
remains.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-07-29 18:56:38 +02:00
parent c7e23f5ef5
commit be25aef88a
6 changed files with 73 additions and 5 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

17
workplans/TREV-WP-0004-global-jurisdiction-research.md
View file

@ -299,11 +299,26 @@ Commercial Use Agreement is exactly such a standard-form contract).
```task
id: TREV-WP-0004-T09
status: todo
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "122be773-f59a-4725-9177-19094aef766c"
```
Result 2026-07-29: `history/260729-TRSL-GlobalChoiceOfLaw-Strategy.md`
produced. **Revises the China finding from T06**: China acceded to the New
York Convention in 1986 (arbitral awards enforceable via a ~172-state
regime with limited refusal grounds) but has ratified no foreign-judgment
convention, relying on patchy bilateral treaties/evolving reciprocity for
court judgments specifically. Arbitration (neutral-seat or China-seated) is
therefore a materially more promising enforceability path for a Chinese
Customer than the litigation-focused China rider T06 recommended — that
recommendation was correct *for litigation* but should not be read as the
only option now that arbitration is on the table. Also produces a
drafting principle: write every clarity-sensitive clause to satisfy
Germany's Transparenzgebot, UK's UCTA reasonableness, and Australia's
UCT regime simultaneously (prominent, proportionate, objectively defined),
since none of the three reduces to another.
Cross-cutting research, independent of any single jurisdiction, on how a
genuinely global commercial template chooses governing law and dispute
resolution: comparative enforceability of foreign court judgments versus