As noted above, the doctrine of formality dominates the bills, i.e. the absence of at least one of the details stipulated by the law entails the invalidity of the document itself. This principle prevented the widespread use of bills in international trade, since each state provided for its own requirements for the bill (a strict mandatory list of certain details). That is why a bill issued in one state and fully complying with its requirements could be declared invalid in another state due to the lack of compliance with the requirements of another state.
For the above reasons, quite a long time ago, attempts have been made at the international level to unify the requirements for bills. For example, the Bills of arms within the framework of the North German Customs Union, the Unified Bills of Exchange and the Convention on its Implementation of 1912 and, finally, the three Geneva Bills of 1930 currently in force: Convention establishing a uniform law on bills of exchange and promissory notes, the Convention, with the aim of resolving certain conflicts of laws on bills of exchange and promissory notes, the Convention on stamp duty in relation to bills and promissory notes.
The Geneva bills, despite the fact that they do not contain the very definition of the term “vexel”, unified many provisions of the legal institution “vexel” by indicating the mandatory details of the bill, adoption of requirements for its preparation and form, endorsement, acceptance, aval, payment, protest in non-acceptance or non-payment, mediation in billing relations. Simultaneously with the Convention on the Uniform Law on Promissory Notes, containing substantive rules for bills, a Convention on the Resolution of Certain Conflicts was concluded, arising in connection with the possible application to the bill relations of national legislation of various states.
Despite the adoption of these Conventions, it was not possible to achieve uniformity in the national regulation of bill circulation, since a number of states, in particular France, Germany, the USSR, Japan and others, brought their national legislation into line with the Geneva Conventions, while another group of countries (primarily England, the USA, Australia and others) still used principles to regulate billing, inherent in English law
“On the bills” of 1882.
The existence of two systems simultaneously created significant difficulties in using bills in international trade, which is why the UN Convention on International Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes was developed within the framework of UNCITRAL, which was approved by the UN General Assembly 9 December 1988. This convention was adopted with the aim of developing a single means of payment, settlement and credit, which can be used as part of an international payment turnover, i.e. to develop the institutions of the “international bill of exchange” and “international promissory note” and, thereby, to evade the disagreement between the two main billing systems, creating a common international bill system. That is why the Convention contains a significant number of definitions by which these institutions of international trade law are characterized. At the same time, this Convention reproduces a number of provisions of the Geneva Conventions, which least caused objections from representatives of states that did not sign them.