For a long time now, the interconnectedness of the world has made cross-border transactions commonplace, through the simultaneous operations of companies, investors, and projects across multiple jurisdictions. In light of this, this dynamic is no longer purely legal — it is also cultural.
Modern cross-border legal support requires understanding that the law is not applied in a rigid manner or in a vacuum, but rather within diverse human, economic, and cultural contexts. Ignoring this dimension can turn a technically well-structured transaction into a fragile or even failed operation.
Beyond borders, the impact of culture on cross-border transactions directly influences negotiation styles, decision-making, risk perception, and the value assigned to time, hierarchy, and formality.
This highlights that not all parties negotiate in the same way or expect the same outcomes from a contract. Their particular realities — beyond the desire to close a good deal — are closely tied to culture. For example, while some cultures prioritize decentralization and flexibility, others value centralization, structure, and authority.
In addition to interpreting legal rules, today’s lawyer is no longer just an interpreter; they must be a strategist with the insight and tools necessary to carry out cross-border transactions for their clients with minimal risk.
As discussed in a previous article, an effective legal advisor must understand the differences between local and international normative approaches. The same legal mechanism may be acceptable in one culture and generate distrust in another. Therefore, there is no single correct way to structure a transaction — only a way that is appropriate for each context.
Without losing sight of the client’s true intentions, legal advisors must guide them through the transaction process from a technical standpoint, taking into account the culture they are entering or their prior experience. Avoiding rigid models can make it possible to design solutions that are both legally sound and culturally viable. However, this does not eliminate the need for clear rules.
