Jurisdiction and choice of law under the Cape Town Convention and the Protocols thereto

By introducing a new supranational substantive law institution in the form of an 'international interest' the Cape Town Convention and the Protocols thereto eliminate, within their material scope of application, the need for conflict of laws rules. However, as the Convention/Protocol-regime is not a complete codification, recourse to provisions designating the gap-filling substantive rules remains unavoidable. In this respect, with the exception of a provision in the Protocols authorizing the parties to choose the law applicable to their contractual obligations, the Convention and the Protocols refrain from establishing autonomous conflict of laws rules. Instead, Article 5 of the Convention generally refers to the conflict of laws rules of the forum State for issues not settled under the Convention or the relevant Protocol in order to determine the applicable substantive law provisions. The rare jurisdictional rules of the Convention-choice of court agreement, concurrent jurisdiction in cases of urgency, orders against the Registrar-aim at guaranteeing the enforceability of rights acquired under the Convention.