Expansion of Applicable Sphere: A way to Uniformity
——Compare and Contrast between UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL Conventions
By Dongsheng Lu, Chen Yan

I. Introduction

Financing is paramount for the promotion of commerce. It has been noted that “in developed countries the bulk of corporate wealth is locked up in receivables”. As the economy develops, this wealth increasing is “unlocked by transferring receivables across national borders”. With the prompt and great increases in international trade, receivables financing now plays a more and more important role. Yet under the law of many countries, certain forms of receivables financing are still not recognized. Even transactions are involved in countries where the form of receivables financing is permitted, determining which law governs will be difficult. The disparity among laws of different jurisdiction increases uncertainty in transactions, thus constitutes obstacles to the development of assignments of receivables. To remove such obstacles arising from the uncertainty existing in various legal systems and promote the development of receivables financing cross-boarder, a set of uniform rules in this field is required. The international community has made great efforts in adopting uniform laws. Among those efforts, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) drafted, on 12 December, 2001, “United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNCITRAL Convention”), with its aim to “establish principles and to adopt rules relating to the assignment of receivables that would create certainty and transparency and promote the modernization of the law relating to assignments of receivables”. UNCITRAL is not the first international organization attempting to resolve the problems associated with receivables. As early as in May 1988, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) has already adopted a convention known as the “UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNIDROIT Convention”).

When compare and contrast between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, one might see a lot of inconsistency in detailed regulations, e.g. sphere of application, relations between parties, priorities, and choice of law, etc. Given the limited space available in this article, the author may only focus on the difference in “sphere of application” of these two conventions, as sphere of application is perhaps the most fundamental issue of a convention.

The purpose of an international convention is to create uniformity in its covered matter, thus the broader a convention’s sphere of application is, the higher could uniformity reach. This article will try to make compare and contrast the sphere of application between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, illustrate the differences exist between these two conventions, and demonstrate the expansion of sphere of application in the UNCITRAL Convention and its progress on the way to uniformity.

II. Sphere of Application: Subject Matter

As its title indicates, the subject matter of the UNIDROIT Convention is of course international factoring. Article 1(1) says, “this Convention governs factoring contracts and assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter.”

For “factoring contract”, the UNIDROIT Convention provides the following 4 characteristics:

(1) purpose of the contract is to assign receivables;

(2) receivables to be assigned arises from contracts of sale of goods made between the supplier and its customers (debtors), other than those of sale of goods bought primarily for personal, family or household use;

(3) the factor is to perform at least two of the four functions: (i) finance for the supplier; (ii) maintenance of accounts (ledgering) relating to the receivables; (iii) collection of receivables; and (iv) protection against default in payment by debtors;

(4) notice of the assignment of the receivables is to be given to debtors.

As about “assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter”, article 2 (1) describes assignments of receivables as assignment of receivables pursuant to a factoring contract.

Factoring is just a subset of the receivables financing, and perhaps the oldest and most basic one. Besides factoring, receivables financing still entail the following forms,

(1) Forfeiting, similar to factoring, involves the purchase or discounting of documentary receivables (promissory notes, for example) without recourse to the party from whom the receivables are purchased;

(2) Refinancing, also known as secondary financing, involves the subsequent assignment of receivables. In its basic form, one bank or financier will assign to another bank its interest, with the potential for further assignment;

(3) Securitization, in which both marketable (for example, trade receivables) and non-marketable (consumer credit card receivables) asset cash flows are repackaged by a lender and transferred to a lender-controlled company, which will issue securities, sell and then use the proceeds to purchase the receivables;

(4) Project Finance, in which repayment of loans made by banks or financiers to project contractors for the financing of projects are secured through the future revenues of the project.

The first draft of the UNCITRAL Convention has stated to cover factoring, forfeiting, refinancing, securitization and project finance. Somehow, the working group decides that rather than emphasize the form in which the receivables appear, it would instead concentrate on the way in which the receivables might be transferred (contractual or non-contractual) and the purpose of the transaction (for financing or non-financing purposes). It decides the contractual receivables and assignment made to secure financing and other related services would be covered. The non-contractual receivables such as insurance and tort receivables, deposit bank accounts, or claims arising by operation of law seems are not within the ambits of the UNCITRAL convention.

III. Sphere of Application: Special Requirements

Both of the conventions contain a series of requirements. Only when those requirements are satisfied, could the convention be applied. The higher and stricter the requirements are, the smaller the chance to apply the convention is.

a) Internationality requirement

Both the two conventions indicate their sphere of application is of internationality requirement, but the same word in these two conventions has different legal meaning. The internationality requirement of UNIDROIT Convention is exclusively based upon the parties to the underlying contract, i.e. the contract of sale of goods (the supplier and the debtor) having their place of business in different countries. In other words, where the receivables arise from a contract of sale of goods between a supplier and a debtor whose places of business are in the same State, the UNIDROIT Convention could not apply, no matter the following assignment of receivables is to assignee in the same or different State. Thus leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables untouched. The problem, at its simplest, is twofold: first, inconsistency. For instance, in the case where a bulk assignment is made and where part of the receivables are domestic (supplier and debtor are in the same State) and part are international (supplier and debtor are in different State), if the supplier assigns the receivables to a party which is located in another State, the bulk assignment between the same supplier and the same assignee will be governed by two sets of laws and regulations: the portion of international receivables may be governed by the UNIDROIT Convention while the domestic one will be left to the jurisdiction of certain domestic law.

Secondly, leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables to the jurisdiction of various law systems of different States can make “commercial practice uncertain, time-consuming and expensive”. The assignee of receivables from a foreign State may not know which State’s law governs the transaction, and, if the law of the assignor’s State applies, the assignee’s rights would be subject to the vagaries of that foreign law. This no doubt would greatly impede the development of such transaction.

广东省深圳市人大常委会


深圳市人民代表大会常务委员会公告
第四十七号


　　深圳市第三届人民代表大会常务委员会第十二次会议于2001年12月21日审议通过的《深圳市人民代表大会常务委员会联系代表和保障代表执行职务的规定》业经广东省第九届人民代表大会常务委员会第三十二次会议于2002年3月27日批准，现予公布，自2002年7月1日起施行。

深圳市人民代表大会常务委员会
二○○二年五月八日


深圳市人民代表大会常务委员会联系代表和保障代表执行职务的规定


　　（2001年12月21日深圳市第三届人民代表大会常务委员会第十二次会议通过2002年3月27日广东省第九届人民代表大会常务委员会第三十二次会议批准）

第一章 总 则

　　第一条 为加强深圳市人民代表大会常务委员会（以下简称常务委员会）与人民代表大会代表（以下简称代表）的联系，保障代表执行职务，发挥代表作用，根据《中华人民共和国全国人民代表大会和地方各级人民代表大会代表法》、《广东省实施〈中华人民共和国全国人民代表大会和地方各级人民代表大会代表法〉办法》，制定本规定。
　　第二条 常务委员会应当把联系代表作为重要的工作职责，加强领导，采取多种方式同代表保持联系，为代表执行职务提供服务和保障。
　　第三条 常务委员会选举联络人事任免工作委员会（以下简称选联任工委），是常务委员会代表工作的具体工作机构，负责代表工作的组织、协调、检查和落实，帮助代表解决执行代表职务中遇到的困难和问题。
　　第四条 市人民代表大会各专门委员会（以下简称专门委员会）、常务委员会各工作机构（以下简称工作机构）应当把为代表服务作为重要职责，由主任委员（主任）或者一名副主任委员（副主任）负责代表工作。
　　第五条 本规定所称的代表执行职务，是指代表出席人民代表大会会议或者列席常务委员会会议；常务委员会组成人员出席常务委员会会议；专门委员会组成人员出席专门委员会会议；代表参加市人民代表大会及其常务委员会、各专门委员会、各工作机构组织的执法检查、视察、调查等活动以及代表根据法律、法规进行的其他执行代表职务的活动。

第二章 联系代表和组织代表活动

　　第六条 常务委员会委托各区人民代表大会常务委员会协助建立代表联组、代表小组，专门委员会和工作机构根据工作需要建立代表专业小组。
　　代表联组、代表小组、代表行业小组推选组长、副组长。组长、副组长根据常务委员会工作安排和代表的意见，制订代表活动计划，并且负责组织代表开展闭会期间的活动。
　　组长、副组长可以在有关单位或者联组中指定一名代表为活动联络员。联络员协助组长、副组长开展工作，负责代表活动的服务工作。
　　代表在本行政区域内调动工作的，可以调整所参加的代表小组。
　　代表小组每四个月至少组织一次活动。
　　第七条 常务委员会组成人员应当加强与代表的联系，每年走访、约见若干名代表。
　　专门委员会、工作机构应当协助常务委员会组成人员做好走访、约见代表工作。
　　常务委员会组成人员在走访、约见代表中了解到的代表建议、批评和意见，交由选联任工委处理。
　　第八条 代表因执行职务的需要，可以约见常务委员会组成人员和专门委员会、工作机构负责人。
　　代表要求约见常务委员会组成人员的，选联任工委应当在三日内作出安排；代表要求约见专门委员会、工作机构负责人的，选联任工委应当在二日内作出安排。
　　第九条 常务委员会组成人员、专门委员会和工作机构工作人员到区、镇进行专题调查研究时，可以邀请当地有关代表参加。必要时可以列出专题，由代表就地进行调查研究。
　　第十条 常务委员会建立主任会议成员接访代表制度，每年至少开展一次接访代表活动。
　　专门委员会、工作机构负责做好接访的准备和服务工作。
　　对代表在接访活动中反映的问题，属于常务委员会工作范围内的，由安排接访代表的部门在一个月内答复；属于其他有关部门办理的，安排接访代表的部门应当及时交办，由承办单位在二个月内答复。
　　第十一条 经常务委员会同意或者推荐，市人民政府及其组成部门、市中级人民法院、市人民检察院可以邀请代表担任特邀咨询员、廉政监督员、邀请代表旁听审理重大案件及进行其他联系代表活动，市人民政府、市中级人民法院、市人民检察院可以通过常务委员会或者自行向代表通报重要工作，采取多种方式加强同代表的联系。
　　第十二条 常务委员会受省人民代表大会常务委员会的委托，组织在深圳工作和居住的全国人大、省人大代表开展闭会期间的活动，并协助建立深圳代表小组，为代表小组活动创造条件，提供服务。
　　第十三条 常务委员会在市人民代表大会会议召开前，应当组织代表对拟审议的会议议案进行视察。
　　第十四条 常务委员会在市人民代表大会会议召开前，统一安排代表对本级或者下级国家机关和有关单位的工作进行视察，为代表出席会议做好准备。
　　常务委员会统一安排的代表视察活动，可以委托各区人民代表大会常务委员会或者有关专门委员会和工作机构组织实施。
　　第十五条 常务委员会、专门委员会和工作机构，根据常务委员会年度工作要点和常务委员会会议的议题，通过组织代表开展视察、执法检查、专题调查、评议、接访、立法、调研等活动，加强同代表的联系。
　　第十六条 常务委员会举行会议时，应当邀请代表列席。代表在任期内，至少应邀列席一次会议。
常务委员会审议的法规（草案）或者有关决议、决定（草案），可以根据需要发给有关代表征求意见。
　　第十七条 常务委员会定期组织代表听取本级国家机关的有关工作情况报告，为代表提供有关文件和资料。
　　专门委员会和工作机构在组织代表开展活动时，根据活动的需要，安排听取本级或者下级国家机关及有关单位的工作情况报告。
　　第十八条 常务委员会要把组织代表学习和培训列入工作内容，定期举行报告会、法制讲座，组织代表学习法律、法规和执行代表职务的专业知识，提高代表的综合素质和执行代表职务的能力。
　　第十九条 常务委员会定期召开代表工作经验交流会和代表联组、小组、专业小组组长座谈会，听取建议和意见，推动代表工作。
　　第二十条 常务委员会应当围绕工作要点，每年安排一至二次代表活动日。
　　参加代表活动日的代表可以按照行业编组，或者自由组合，采取走访、座谈等形式，直接听取人民群众的意见。
　　代表也可以持代表证就地进行视察。
　　第二十一条 常务委员会建立代表接访群众日制度，听取人民群众对常务委员会和市人民政府、市中级人民法院、市人民检察院工作的建议、批评和意见。
　　代表接访群众日活动每年至少举办一次，接访地点一般设在街道办事处、区、镇等基层单位，也可以设在市、区人民代表大会常务委员会机关。
　　接访前，应当在新闻媒体上公布时间、地点和接访内容。接访后，有关专门委员会或者工作机构应当在一个月内将反映的问题交有关单位办理。承办单位应当在三个月内书面答复来访群众。
　　第二十二条 常务委员会为代表提供专用信封和信笺，设立代表"专线电话"，建立代表室，为代表履行职责提供方便。
　　第二十三条 选联任工委负责代表来信来访日常工作，对重要问题，转交有关专门委员会或者工作机构处理，必要时报主任会议审议。

第三章 保障代表执行职务

　　第二十四条 常务委员会应当为代表执行职务提供保障。
　　常务委员会为代表制发代表证，代表持证依法执行职务。
　　代表持证执行代表职务时，有关单位应当提供必要的协助和便利。
　　第二十五条 常务委员会应当为代表执行职务提供必要的物质条件，给予相应的活动经费和补贴。代表执行职务所需的经费，应当依法列入本级财政预算，专款专用。
　　市、区、镇人民政府应当为本选区的代表执行职务提供必要的物质支持和协助。
　　第二十六条 代表依法执行职务，其所在单位应当给予时间保证和提供便利条件，其工资、奖金、补贴及福利待遇，均按正常出勤对待。无固定工资收入的代表，由本级财政按照常务委员会确定的标准，给予补贴。
　　第二十七条 代表在市人民代表大会闭会期间，每年离开所在工作、生产岗位执行代表职务的时间不少于十二日。
　　第二十八条 代表在人民代表大会各种会议上的发言和表决，不受法律追究。
　　第二十九条 对代表实施逮捕、刑事审判以及其他限制人身自由的措施，必须按照法律规定的程序履行许可或者报告的手续。
　　第三十条 代表被限制人身自由时，应当主动表明代表身份，并且有权提交申诉书，执行机关应当在二十四小时内转交常务委员会。
　　第三十一条 一切组织和个人都必须尊重代表的权利，支持代表依法执行代表职务。
　　拒绝协助代表执行代表职务的，有关单位应当予以批评教育，直至给予行政处分。
　　阻碍代表依法执行代表职务的，根据情节，由所在单位或者上级机关给予行政处分，或者依照治安管理处罚条例的规定处罚；以暴力、威胁方法阻碍代表依法执行代表职务的，依法追究刑事责任。
　　对代表依法执行代表职务进行打击报复的，由所在单位或者上级机关责令改正或者给予行政处分；国家工作人员进行打击报复构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任。

第四章 附 则

　　第三十二条 本规定自2002年7月1日起施行。1991年4月4日深圳市第一届人民代表大会常务委员会第二次会议通过的《深圳市人民代表大会常务委员会联系代表及代表联系人民群众办法（试行）》同时废止。