Law - ISDA Provision
Content and comparisons
We are close to the turtles, here, ladies and gentlemen. The ISDA’s crack drafting squad™ definition of the “law” is as interesting for what it does not say as what it does, and all rounded out nicely by that sweetly ambivalent includes. Not means; just includes.
So — well, you know...
Summary
Now of all people you, would think a bunch of lawyers would know a law when they see one, but when it comes to the squad you can never be too careful. Nor should one arbitrarily restrict oneself to one’s field of competence — for who knows what sort of things could, under some conditions, from particular angles and in certain lights be for all intents and purposes laws even if, for other times and other peoples, they might not be? The answer is to set out the basic, sufficient conditions to count as a “law”, without ruling out other contrivances that one might also like to regard as laws, should the context recommend them. Here, using “includes” instead of “means” fits the bill admirably.