This article examines the situations in which hardship takes place and offers a substantiated analysis about the desirability or necessity of certain remedies under domestic laws, model hardship clauses and international legal instruments. The authors submit that the duty to renegotiate as well as the remedies of contract adaptation and/or termination by a court or arbitral tribunal, although present in several legal systems, are neither necessary nor desirable under current trade practice and dispute resolution methods. The authors take the view that the traditional remedies, e.g. exemption of damages, duty to mitigate loss and/or avoidance of contract by a party’s declaration, may serve, more adequately, the interests of contracting parties in hardship scenarios.

中文翻译：

---

在困难情况下重新谈判和合同适应的义务

本文考察了发生困难的情况，并根据国内法、示范困难条款和国际法律文书对某些补救措施的可取性或必要性进行了实证分析。作者认为，重新谈判的义务以及法院或仲裁庭对合同调整和/或终止的补救措施，尽管存在于多个法律体系中，但在当前的贸易实践和争议解决方法下既不必要也不可取。作者认为，传统的补救措施，例如免除损害赔偿、减轻损失的义务和/或通过一方的声明解除合同，可能更充分地服务于困难情况下的缔约方的利益。