¹ Hereinafter OAS, integrated by 35 American States from Argentina to Canada (34 effective because Cuba is ‘suspended’ since 1962).

² There is also another subject-matter which is actually the continuation of the main subject-matter of the last CIDIP (CIDIP VI, Washington, DC, 2002), that of security interests. Current developments in this field deal with the electronic registry implementation of the Inter-American Model Law on Secured Transactions—an instrument adopted at CIDIP VI. The topics for the agenda of the CIDIP VII were adopted by the General Assembly of the OAS in the AG/RES. 2065 (XXXV-O/05). See http://www.oas.org/dil/CIDIP-VII_res.2065.htm.

³ On the CIDIP process, in general, see G Parra-Aranguren, Codificación del derecho internacional privado en América (Caracas, Vol I (1982), Vol II (1998)); D Opertti Badán, ‘L’oeuvre de la CIDIP dans le contexte du droit international privé actuel’, Liber Amicorum Georges AL Droz (The Hague, 1996) 269, D P Fernández Arroyo, Derecho internacional privado interamericano (2nd edn, Mexico, 2003) 53–73.

⁴ See D P Fernández Arroyo, ‘La CIDIP VI: ¿cambio de paradigma en la codificación interamericana del derecho internacional privado?’ in XXIX curso de derecho internacional—2002 (Washington, 2003) 465.

⁵ These annexes will be called, in the frame of this paper, the Draft Model Laws.

⁶ All these proposals have been deeply analyzed by J M Velázquez Gardeta, La protección del consumidor online en el derecho internacional privado interamericano. Análisis sistemático de las propuestas presentadas para la CIDIP VII, Donostia-San Sebastián, UPV, 2008 (PhD thesis), passim.

⁷ The Brazilian Draft Convention was born from a particular initiative of Professor C Lima Marques, who proposed it in the 2000 Session of the OAS Course on International Law. See ‘A proteção do consumidor: aspectos de direito privado regional e geral’ in XXVII Curso de Derecho Internacional—2000 (Washington, OAS, 2001) 657. See also C Lima Marques, ‘Consumer Protection in Private International Law Rules: The Need for an Inter-American Convention on the Law Applicable to Some Consumer Contracts and Consumer Transactions (CIDIP)’ in T Bourgoignie (ed), Regards croisés sur les enjeux contemporains du droit de la Consommation (Quebec, 2006) 145. For that reason the proposal is also known as the ‘Lima Marques Draft’ (Projeto Lima Marques).

⁸ A favourable opinion on this option can be found in E Jayme, La vocation universelle du droit international privé—tendances actuelles, speech given at the inauguration of the new building of the Hague Academy of International Law, 23 January 2007. See http://www.vredespaleis.nl/shownews.asp?ac=view&nws_id=109

⁹ The term ‘provider’ is used in these paragraphs because it is the term used in the English version presented by the Brazilian delegation. In its Draft Model Laws the US delegation mainly uses the term ‘business’ instead.

¹⁰ Article 6(1). According to article 7(4) parties are only entitled to choice ‘a law of a state or nation’. Thus, no ‘transnational’ or ‘not national’ set of rules or principles on consumer transactions could be chosen by the parties. A heterogeneous list of ‘not national’ texts (including some EU instruments) may be found in G-P Calliess, Grenzüberschreitende Verbraucherverträge. Rechtssicherheit und Gerechtigkeit auf dem elektronischen Weltmarkplatz, Tübingen (2006) 375–485.

¹¹ The subjacent idea is that a consumer deserves more protection when it is the business who ‘goes’ to the consumer's residence to offer him a good or a service. On the contrary, if the consumer ‘goes’ across the boundaries to buy something he should be perfectly conscious of the internationality of that relationship and accept its legal consequences. About the different treatment pursuant to this distinction within the European private international law, see P Lagarde, ‘Heurs et malheurs de la protection internationale du consommateur dans l'Union européenne’ in Etudes Jacques Ghestin (Paris 2001) 511, and A Sinay-Cytermann, ‘La protection de la partie faible en droit international privé’ in Mélanges Paul Lagarde, Paris (2005) 737.

¹² Article 6(1), last sentence.

¹³ Article 6(3).

¹⁴ Article 6(5). Active consumer is deemed to be the one who contracts outside of his or her country of domicile. See (n 11).

¹⁵ Article 7(1). In the light of the current works accomplished in UNCITRAL, the agreement ‘in writing’ can appear under various forms and is likely to raise difficulties of construction. See Viscasillas, P Perales, ‘¿Forma escrita del convenio arbitral?: Nuevas disposiciones de la CNUDMI/UNCITRAL’ Derecho de los Negocios 197 (2007) 5Google Scholar. The subject was already analyzed in T Landau, ‘The Requirement of a Written Form for an Arbitration Agreement: When “Written” Means “Oral” ’ International Commercial Arbitration: Important Contemporary Questions, The Hague (2003) 19 (ICCA Congress Series N°11).

¹⁶ Articles 7(1) and 7(2).

¹⁷ Article 10(1).

¹⁸ EU Regulation 593/2008 on law applicable to contractual obligations (‘Rome I’)—not yet in force—calls these rules ‘overriding’ mandatory provisions. They are defined in Article 9(1) of the Regulation as follows: ‘Overriding mandatory provisions are provisions the respect for which is regarded as crucial by a country for safeguarding its public interests, such as its political, social or economic organization, to such an extent that they are applicable to any situation falling within their scope, irrespective of the law otherwise applicable to the contract under this Regulation.’

¹⁹ Article 9(1).

²⁰ Article 9(2).

²¹ Articles 12 and 13.

²² About CIDIP process in general and CIDIP VII process in particular, see supra notes 1–4 and accompanying text.

²³ See the proposal sent by Canada on 20 January 2004 in http://www.oas.org/dil/proposalcanada.pdf

²⁴ As defined by article 6(1)(c).

²⁵ Article 6(1)(a) and (b).

²⁶ As defined by article 7(2)(a) to (c), similar to article 6(1)(c).

²⁷ Article 7(2). Cf article 3117 of the Civil Code of Quebec.

²⁸ Article 3(a).

²⁹ Article 3(b).

³⁰ Article 4.

³¹ Articles 6(2) and 7(3). See (n 11). In fact there are many websites that prevent or impede conclusion of contracts for consumer in certain countries.

³² Article 5(1). As reflected in the final act of the Meeting of Experts of Porto Alegre, several delegations expressed concerns about this inclusion which is controversial in general but even more so when it comes to consumer relationships.

³³ Article 5(2).

³⁴ See the North-American letter to the OAS, sent on 24 February 2004, http://www.oas.org/dil/CIDIP-VII_home_topics_proposals_unitedstates.htm

³⁵ ibid. CIDIP VI was entirely accomplished in a single week. Actually, there was not even time to analyze this useful document which may be found and consulted in http://www.oas.org/dil/CIDIP-VII_topics_futures_cidips_electroniccommerce_signatures_3oct2001.htm

³⁶ See also D P Fernández Arroyo, ‘La contribución de la OEA al derecho internacional privado’, in XXXII Curso de derecho internacional (Washington 2006) 189, 205–208.

³⁷ See http://www.oas.org/dil/CIDIP-VII_topics_cidip_vii_proposal_consumerprotection_monetaryrestitution_unitedstates.htm

³⁸ The same document recognizes that ‘this proposal is drafted as a “conceptual” model law’. See http://www.oas.org/dil/CP-CAJP_2424_06_eng.pdf

³⁹ § 1(4). Italics are ours.

⁴⁰ Annexe A, article 3. Damage is defined in a very broad way.

⁴¹ Annexe A, articles 6 and 7.

⁴² Annexe A, article 6(8).

⁴³ Annexe A, article 5.

⁴⁴ Annexe A, article 6(2).

⁴⁵ Annexe A, article 8(1). This particular point deserves more discussion and it is at least debatable that the possibility to lodge an appeal should be excluded from the harmonization approach.

⁴⁶ Annexe C, article 3(2).

⁴⁷ Annexe C, article 4(1).

⁴⁸ Set forth in article 5.

⁴⁹ As provided for in article 6.

⁵⁰ Annexe C, article 6(1).

⁵¹ As included in the first footnote of each draft.

⁵² Article 3(a).

⁵³ Provided that consumers continue to have access to theirs own courts, the option for an international arbitration proceeding should be really attractive for them; in particular, from an economical point of view.

⁵⁴ See J M Velázquez Gardeta (n 6) 598–608, 612–615.

⁵⁵ See case law cited inibid, 577. For Canada, see in particular Dell Computer Corp C Union des consommateurs et Olivier Dumoulin (2007 CSC 34), July 13, 2007. See also R M Alderman, ‘The Future of Consumer Law in the United States—Hello Arbitration, Bye-Bye Courts, So-Long Consumer Protection’ in http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1015517 Cf the North-American judicial approach with the European one in CJCE, October 26, 2006, case C-168/05, Claro.

⁵⁶ See D P Fernández Arroyo (n 3) 64–65.

⁵⁷ See C Lima Marques, ‘As lições da Reunião Preparatória de Porto Alegre da Conferência Especializadad e Direito Internacional Privado—CIDIP VII—de proteção dos consumidores e das negociações posteriores’ in D P Fernández Arroyo and J A Moreno Rodríguez (eds), Protección de los consumidores en América. Trabajos de la CIDIP VII (Asunción, 2007) 179, 204–205.

⁵⁸ See E Tellechea Bergman, ‘Hacia una regulación interamericana sobre jurisdicción en materia de relaciones internacionales de consumo—Esbozo de bases a partir de algunos desarrollos del MERCOSUR’ in D P Fernández Arroyo and J A Moreno Rodríguez (eds)ibid 209.

⁵⁹ As it is expressly established in the final document of the Experts Meeting of Porto Alegre (‘Explanatory Introduction to the Experts Meeting carried out by the OAS—Porto Alegre, 2–4 December 2006’) ‘delegations agreed that the US proposal and the Brazilian proposal were complementary and not mutually exclusive’.

⁶⁰ § II(2).

⁶¹ § II(1), emphasis added.

⁶² See Molina, J M Wilson, ‘CIDIP VII: trabajos preparatorios para la Séptima Conferencia Especializada Interamericana sobre Derecho Internacional Privado’ DeCITA 5/6 (2006) 600–601Google Scholar.

⁶³ See C Lima Marques (n 57) 190, 205.

⁶⁴ See E Tellechea Bergman (n 58) 213.

⁶⁵ ibid 213–217.

⁶⁶ See C Lima Marques (n 57) 202 (underlining specially the problems arising from the discussions on a global judgment convention at the Hague Conference on Private International Law, and from the lack of the effectiveness of the MERCOSUR Santa Maria Protocol on jurisdiction on consumer contracts, adopted in 1996 and not yet entered in force).

⁶⁷ See (n 23): ‘In recognition of the exponentially increasing cross-border electronic transactions involving consumers, Canada notes the need to develop jurisdictional practicable and reasonably predictable rules for cross-border business and consumer transactions on the Internet.’

⁶⁸ Given its declared preference for a model law rather than a convention (see n 23), this addition seems an attempt to offer an option to the Brazilian proposal.

⁶⁹ The word ‘classical’ refers in this context to the two main branches of private international law, ie choice of law (prioritized by the Brazilian project) and jurisdiction (prioritized by the Canadian project). This view is, in addition, shared in Europe. Indeed, the European Union has included specific rules for international consumer contracts in the Regulation 44/2001 (‘Brussels I’ Regulation, on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judicial resolutions—see Michael Wilderspin, ‘Le Règlement (CE) 44/2001 du Conseil: conséquences pour les contrats conclus par les consommateurs’, Rev Eur Droit Consommation (2002/1) 5), and recently in ‘Rome I’ Regulation (law applicable), modernizing the old rules on the same subject already present, respectively, in the 1968 Brussels Convention and in the 1980 Rome Convention. Also the recent updating of 1988 Lugano Convention (a ‘parallel convention to the 1968 Brussels Convention, linking EU States with EFTA States) has touched consumer provisions. See Andrea Bonomi, ‘Les contrats conclus par les consommateurs dans la Convention de Lugano révisée’, in A Bonomi and E Cashin Ritaine/GP Romano (eds), La Convention de Lugano. Passé, présent et devenir (Geneva, 2007) 65.

⁷⁰ See, in the same vain, Gralf-Peter Calliess (n 10) 134–136.

⁷¹ See M J Dennis, ‘Diseño de una agenda práctica para la protección de los consumidores en las Américas’ in D P Fernández Arroyo and J A Moreno Rodríguez (n 57) 219, 219–221.

⁷² ibid 232.

⁷³ ICC Electronic Commerce Project (ECP)'s Ad hoc Task Force, Policy statement— Jurisdiction and applicable law in electronic commerce, 6 June 2001 (http://www.iccwbo.org/collection-4/folder165/id478/printpage.html?newsxsl=&articlexsl=) (emphasis added). Surprisingly, although M J Dennis (note 70, 224) cites this document, he does not mention this statement.

⁷⁴ Regulation 861/2007. See E Hondius, ‘Towards a European Small Claims Procedure?’ in Liber amicorum Bernd Stauder, Geneva (2006) 131, 142 (‘A small claims procedure should not replace the consumer complaints tribunals. A competition between the two systems cannot be harmful’).

⁷⁵ See P M All, ‘El diseño y la progresiva construcción de un sistema de protección del consumidor a escala americana. Avances y desafíos pendientes’ in D P Fernández Arroyo and J A Moreno Rodríguez (n 57) 273, 277–278.

⁷⁶ See C Lima Marques (n 57) 204.

⁷⁷ See the Preamble of the Draft Convention ‘having in mind […] the need to provide for an adequate protection to the consumer […] and to give greater juridical security to all the parties intervening in consumer transactions’.

⁷⁸ See the documents OAS/Ser.Q, CJI/doc.230/06 corr. 1, 18 August 2006 (by A F Pérez and J G Rodas), and OEA/Ser.Q, CJI/doc.227/06, 9 August 2006 (by A F Pérez).

⁷⁹ The US delegation sent to the experts a list of hypothetical cases aimed at demonstrating the difficulties of applying the most favorable law test. However, cases included in the US document do not seem hard to solve. According to C Lima Marques, students of the XXXIV OAS Course on International Law (2007) faced for the first time to this matter could resolve them in less than ten minutes. See C Lima Marques (n 57) 180–181.

⁸⁰ Article 6(2).

⁸¹ This idea that is present in the European private international law system in the 1980 Rome Convention\ (article 5) and in Regulation ‘Rome I’ (article 6) is particularly useful when all the member states have a good level of consumer protection. In fact, the EU is revising all its consumer acquis in order to achieve a complete harmonization on the matter; see Green Paper on the Review of the Consumer Acquis, COM (2006) 744 final. This EU feature provokes doubts and criticism as it is reflected in T Whilhelmsson, ‘Full Harmonization of Consumer Contract Law?’ ZEuP (2008–2) 225, and N Reich, ‘Die Stellung des Verbraucherrechts im ‘Gemeinsamen Referenzrahmen’ und im ‘optionellen Instrument’—Trojanisches Pferd oder Kinderschreck?' in Liber Amicorum Bernd Stauder (n 74) 364–369.

⁸² It would be the same general solution of European texts (Article 16 Regulation 44/2001, Article 6 Rome Convention, Article 6 Regulation 593/2008).

⁸³ Document sent to the experts of OAS Member States.

⁸⁴ See above (n 78).

⁸⁵ Generally discrimination is understood as the unequal treatment of the same (or comparable) situations, which is not the case in this example.

⁸⁶ See, in general, R Herbert and C Fresnedo de Aguirre, ‘Flexibilización teleológica del derecho internacional privado latinoamericano’ in Liber Amicorum Jürgen Samtleben (Montevideo, 2002) 55.

⁸⁷ Inter alia, the Electronic Consumer Dispute Resolution (ECODIR, www.ecodir.org) for consumer transactions; the Cibertribunal Peruano (www.cibertribunalperuano.org/portalcibertribunal/principal.aspx) for domain names, etc.

⁸⁸ See de Araujo, N, ‘Contratos internacionais e consumidores nas Américas e no MERCOSUR: Análise da proposta brasileira para uma convenção interamericana na CIDIP VII’ Cadernos do Programa de Pós Graduação em Direito–PPGDir/UFRGS 5 (2006) 107, 119Google Scholar (citing the Panasonic case, Superior Tribunal de Justiça, Resp 63.981, 13 August 2001, RSTJ, N° 137, 12 (Jan 2001), 387).

⁸⁹ See C D Iud, ‘Los acuerdos de prórroga de jurisdicción concluidos por consumidores en el derecho argentino’ in D P Fernández Arroyo and J A Moreno Rodríguez (n 57) 421, 436 (citing the decision of the Argentinean National Court of Appeal, Chamber B, of 22 June 2005, Volpi c/UBS AG, calling the application of article 16 of the Argentinean Constitution to void a clause which submitted the contract to the jurisdiction and to the laws of Switzerland); see also Arroyo, D P Fernández, ‘Chronique de jurisprudence argentine’ JDI (2008) 199, 204–205Google Scholar. Cf the French decision, Cass. 1ere civ, 23 mai 2006 JDI (2007) 537, note A Sinay-Cytermann.

⁹⁰ See Declaración de Córdoba (www.oas.org). See also J A Moreno Rodríguez, ‘La Convención de México sobre el derecho aplicable a la contratación internacional’ in D P Fernández Arroyo and J A Moreno Rodríguez (n 57) 107, 140–141.