Hardship in International Commercial Contracts: a Comparative Analysis of the Rules of Non-Legislative Codification

Objectives: This study examines hardship in international commercial contracts through non-legislative codifications, specifically the UNIDROIT Principles (PICC), the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL), and the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). It evaluates their effectiveness in regulating contractual imbalances and providing remedies for changed circumstances. Theoretical Framework: The research is based on contract law principles, particularly pacta sunt servanda and clausula rebus sic stantibus. It explores hardship and force majeure doctrines and assesses the role of non-legislative codifications as soft law in international commerce. Method: A comparative legal analysis was conducted using bibliometric data from Scopus and Web of Science. The study reviewed legal provisions, case law, and scholarly interpretations of hardship under PICC, PECL, and DCFR, examining their practical application in contract disputes. Results and Discussion: Findings show that while all three instruments share principles, they differ in addressing hardship. PICC and PECL promote renegotiation and equitable risk distribution, whereas DCFR imposes stricter modification criteria. Judicial and arbitral reliance on these principles is growing. Research Implications: The study emphasizes harmonizing hardship provisions in international contracts. It highlights the role of non-legislative codifications in fostering legal certainty and fairness, suggesting their integration into contract drafting and dispute resolution. Originality/Value: This research offers a comparative analysis of hardship in international contracts, providing insights into the legal and practical implications of non-legislative codifications in global commerce.