Vol 7 No 1 - Roger Williams University School of Law

commentator noted:By applying national law rather than some cyberspacelaw that would of course be heavily influenced by U.S.law, we try to keep some autonomy. By applying theconsumer’s law, we apply European law in most caseswhere a U.S. supplier is involved. But for how long canwe check the advance of U.S. notions of e-commerce? Thequestion is moot. Legislative autonomy is importantinasmuch as it allows Europe to bargain for fair termsand conditions when an international convention of somesort will be prepared. Legislative autonomy is not an endin itself, but a means to reach a balanced solution—forcontracting generally, for privacy, for intellectualproperty protection and transactions, and for conflicts oflaw.167Despite this apparent conflict, there is a lot to be learned fromUCITA and the drafting experience. One view is that the processis just beginning. There may be a lesson to learn here from theUCC; it was initially completed by the National Conference andthe ALI in 1952, and Pennsylvania quickly became the first toenact it. Adoptions stopped, however, when the Code came underintense scrutiny and attack, leading the drafters to abandonenactment efforts and completely overhaul the Code, resulting ina finally enactable version in 1958.168 It may well be time to sitback and reflect on UCITA: its contributions, its controversies andits criticisms.169 It is time for the international community tocritically scrutinize and (where appropriate) adopt and adaptprovisions from UCITA, allowing a symbiotic process to occurwhich furthers the improvement and harmonization of law.170167. Dessemontet, supra note 104, at 64.168. For an interesting comparison of the drafting histories of both the UCC andUCITA, see Thomas J. Murphy, It’s Just Another Little Bit of History Repeating:UCITA in the Evolving Age of Information, 30 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 559 (2000).169. See O’Rourke, supra note 73, at 657 (“The point is that [UCITA] should not beabandoned. Rather, it should provide the basis for a national and internationaldiscussion of how best to reconcile the sometimes conflicting goals of flexibility anduniformity in the context of an overarching desire to encourage global electroniccommerce.”).170. Amelia H. Boss, Electronic Commerce and the Symbiotic Relationship BetweenInternational and Domestic Law Reform, 72 Tul. L. Rev. 1931 (1998) (analyzing thesymbiotic process in the area of electronic signatures and electronic records leading tothe UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce and the Uniform Electronic