Here are some helpful instructions from the lecture today.

Normal essay format (intro, main body, conclusion), so no sub-headings needed No executive summary needed Dont use first person (of course) ssay needs to be coherent !ase names in italic, use Harvard "eferencing #ust ans$er the %uestion, if you agree or not does not matter &ust the $ay you bac' it up ( $ould suggest you to start $ith give ) or * arguments that there are some examples that harmonisation is possible $hen countries ma'e an effort +hen find examples to $hy it is not possible (( am sure that is her opinion so she $ill prefer that approach) +hen dra$ a conclusion of do$n the lines of that there are some proven cases $here it is possible but generally it is not because la$s and rules are too fragmented

+he slides called Dispute "esolution is concerning harmonisation ,he $ants that $e D ,!"(- .N (,,/ , .0012 +H 1.3, D".3 !4N!1/,(4N ,o ma'e a statement and then bac' it up $ith a case (&ust to prove the point, do not describe the actual case, &ust the outcome of case), different contracts (that are relevant concerning harmonisation), or rules and la$s (eg. !ommon 1a$, !ivil !ode, Hague "ules, Hague-5isby "ules, "otterdam and Hamburg "ules, 5ienna !onvention), legislation, conventions

,ome examples of $hat to $rite6 /N!(+.1, attempt of harmonisation (if they $or' or not depends on me, my arguments) 1oo' at different type of contracts (eg. insurance) or cases, then say this or that happened because there is no harmonisation, then explain $hy and then apply authority /7 applies Hague-5isby "ules other countries use Hamburg or "otterdam "ules $hich leads to problems (so harmonisation is not possible) /7 does not apply 5ienna "ules, $e use !ommon 1a$ (under $hich $e 8cover both, ris' and property), $e stic' to sales of goods (,9., ):;:)

Difference bet$een !ommon 1a$ and other countrys la$, conse%uently different interpretations and $ays to interpret them very time there is a reform (eg. carriage of goods) 4ther countries deal $ith different contracts and not $ith !arriage of 9oods .ct (so harmonisation is impossible, far too fragmented to achieve it6 different prudence, !ommon 1a$, thin' differently due to varying legal systems) Hague-5isby v. Hamburg "ules (ncoterms (made by (!!, are not regulations but are often incorporated in sales contracts) <orce =a&eure> different &urisdictions, see?interpret frustration of contract differently !ivil !ode v. !ommon 1a$ (Nor$ay much stricter so insurances get out of payment &ust because of a small breach of contract) /nder !ommon 1a$ (/7) &udges can apply !ase 1a$ rather than &ust follo$ing rules ($eird for countries $hich use !ivil !ode and &ust follo$ the rules), this is a problem for harmonisation xample of -anati case (they used (ndonesian la$), unfortunately ( do not 'no$ more about this case, she &ust mentioned it +he 9alati (a case), $hen does ris' pass, this is problem as there are differences in international practices /!0 (did not %uite understand $hat she meant but something concerning the clean transport documents, they do not distinguish (dont 'no$ $hat)) !4,!. ):;) (dont 'no$ $hat the point $as she $as trying to ma'e) .rbitration !lause ):@A (.sia has different mandatory mediation so /7 is affected by it $hen trading) !onclusion> even though there are attempts of harmonisation it is not possible due to many different interests, rules, contracts, regulations, international practicesB, not consistent, coherent