ABSTRACT
After having established that party autonomy usually does not extend to a choice for non-state rules in litigation this chapter provides a closer study of the role of non-state rules in private international law. It first analyses several key international conventions to establish whether a choice of law for non-state rules is possible. It then examines several examples of jurisdictions where party autonomy is extended to non-state rules. These include jurisdictions that expressly allow for this (such as Oregon), jurisdictions where a wider definition of law is used (such as Louisiana), and jurisdictions where the court has allowed for the use of non-state rules as the applicable law (such as Venezuela). The final part of the chapter analyses why there is a reluctance to allow a choice of law for non-state rules in most jurisdictions and explores the arguments against extending party autonomy to include non-state rules. It concludes that there are no strong reasons why such a choice should not be allowed.
