Judicial Adaptation of International Commercial Contracts: Foreign Approaches and Russian Prospects
Abstract
Adaptation of a commercial contract provided for in international commercial law allows the court in exceptional cases to amend the terms of the contract in the event of the occurrence of circumstances that significantly affect the contract’s performance. An example of such circumstances are the unilateral sanctions restrictions that have affected international contracts involving Russian merchants, which brings the problem of adaptation into focus in the current Russian legal environment. The aim of the research is to identify the main models of contract adaptation by the court when applying the institute of hardship in international and foreign and to compare them with the Russian approach. The achieve the above the following objectives have been consistently reached: the concept of adaptation of an international contract was actualized, the latest approaches to judicial intervention in a contract in the main foreign legal orders (common law countries, France and Germany) were compared, legal grounds for contract modification by a court in the Russian legislation were identified and recent Russian court practice has been studied. The results were facilitated by the application of comparative legal technique with a predominance of functional method. Judicial intervention in a contract is an exceptional measure and is permissible in international turnover if there are sufficient grounds (in particular, those provided for in the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts). The basic approach here is centered on the priority of preserving the contractual relationship over termination of the contract by the court. In domestic turnover this measure is considered by legislators as extraordinary (France), or judicial intervention is not allowed at all by national law (the United Kingdom). However, some legal orders (Germany) take a position close to international commercial law, at the legislative level providing the court with quite wide opportunities to adapt a commercial contract. In Russian practice the approach of the courts has traditionally differed from the international standard, as the courts, based on the provisions of local civil law, preferred to terminate the contract in the event of a material change of circumstances. The recent years’ legal practice, dictated by the sanctions agenda, shows a shift of this vector towards judicial modification of the contract.
References
Alaeva A.S. (2023) Preservation and adaptation of the contract under changed circumstances: integration of the doctrine of hardship into the civil law of the Russian Federation. Jurist=Lawyer, no. 5, pp. 43–48 (in Russ.)
Alimova Y.O. (2022) Release from fulfilling obligations under cross-border and domestic contracts in connection with COVID-19: analysis of judicial practice. Vestnik Rossijskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Yuridicheskie nauki=Bulletin of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series: Legal Sciences, no. 1, pp. 40–59 (in Russ.)
Berger K.P. (2001) Power of arbitrators to fill gaps and revise contracts to make sense. Arbitration International, no. 1, pp. 1–18.
Berger K.P., Behn D. (2020) Force majeure and hardship in the age of corona: A historical and comparative study. McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution, no. 4, pp. 76–130.
Dozhdev D.V. (2018) Modification and cancellation of the contract due to a material change of circumstances: European legal tradition and modern trends. Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava RAN=Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 143–172 (in Russ.)
Fishich V.A. (2022) Concepts of change of circumstances in international trade turnover: hardship, frustration and others. Voprosy rossijskogo i mezhdunarodnogo prava=Issues of Russian and International Law, no. 8, pp. 459–466 (in Russ.)
Glandin C.V. (2021) Law on the right of sub-sanctioned persons to transfer judicial disputes to Russia: reasons and prerequisites. Mezhdunarodnoe Pravosudie=International Justice, no. 1, pp. 131–152 (in Russ.)
Guna A.N. (2023) Pandemic rent. Translation of decision of the German Federal Court of 12 January 2022 XII ZR 8/21 and commentary. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii=Bulletin of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation, no. 8, pp. 49–67 (in Russ.)
Lando Ο., Beale Η. (2000) Principles of European contract law. Parts I and II — combined and revised. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 561 p.
Miskovic M. (2023) Acts of state authorities as force majeure in international oil and gas sales contracts. Gosudarstvennaya sluzhba=Public Service, no. 4, pp. 110–118 (in Russ.)
Ochkhaev T.G. (2015) Modification and cancellation of the contract in connection with a material change of circumstances: Candidate of Juridical Sciences Summary. Moscow, 31 p. (in Russ.)
Petrishchev V.S. (2007) Substantial change of circumstances: law enforcement of Art. 451 and the experience of countries of common and continental law. Moscow: HSE Publishers, 60 p. (in Russ.)
Puginsky B.I., Amirov A.T. (2023) Modern Lex Mercatoria. Moscow: Zertsalo-M, 616 p. (in Russ.)
Rösler H. (2007) Hardship in German codified private law: in comparative perspective to English, French and international contract law. European Review of Private Law, vol. 15, pp. 483–513.
Starzhenetsky V.V., Bagrova Y.A. (2023) (Anti) sanctions clauses in international commercial contracts. Zakon=Law, no. 7, pp. 123–145 (in Russ.)
Yildirim A. (2011) Equilibrium in international commercial contracts: with particular regard to gross disparity and hardship provisions of the UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts. Nijmegen: Wolf Publ., 125 p.
Copyright (c) 2025 Fonotova O.V.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.