Enhancing of Carriers’ Liabilities in the Rotterdam Rules – Too Expensive Costs for Navigational Safety?

• Autorzy: Sooksripaisarnkit P.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12716/1001.08.02.17

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (the ‘Rotterdam Rules’) was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 11 December 2008. The Rotterdam Rules contain two oft-criticised changes from the existing regime governing international carriage of goods widely adopted among maritime nations, namely the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading, Brussels, 25 August 1924 (the ‘Hague Rules’) and its subsequent Protocol in 1968 (the ‘Visby Protocol’ or the ‘Hague-Visby Rules’). These changes are, namely, an extension of the carrier’s obligations to maintain seaworthy vessel throughout the voyage (Article 14) and a deletion of an exclusion of carrier’s liabilities due to negligent navigation (Article 17). This paper addresses implications of these changes and assess whether ship-owners and ship-operators can comply with these without having to incur excessive additional expenses.The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (the ‘Rotterdam Rules’) was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 11 December 2008. The Rotterdam Rules contain two oft-criticised changes from the existing regime governing international carriage of goods widely adopted among maritime nations, namely the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading, Brussels, 25 August 1924 (the ‘Hague Rules’) and its subsequent Protocol in 1968 (the ‘Visby Protocol’ or the ‘Hague-Visby Rules’). These changes are, namely, an extension of the carrier’s obligations to maintain seaworthy vessel throughout the voyage (Article 14) and a deletion of an exclusion of carrier’s liabilities due to negligent navigation (Article 17). This paper addresses implications of these changes and assess whether ship-owners and ship-operators can comply with these without having to incur excessive additional expenses.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Sea Transportation; Rotterdam Rules; Navigational Safety; International Carriage of Goods; Visby Protocol; Hague-Visby Rules; maritime policy; bill of lading

• Wydawca: Faculty of Navigation, Gdynia Maritime University
• Czasopismo: TransNav : International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: Vol. 8, no. 2
• Strony: 309--315
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 22 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Sooksripaisarnkit P.

• School of Law, City University of Hong Kong

Bibliografia

• [1] Bachxevanis, Konstatinos. 2010 ‘Crew Negligence’ and ‘Crew Incompetence’: their distinction and its consequence Journal of International Maritime Law 16:102‐ 131.
• [2] Baughen, Simon, 2012. Shipping Law Oxford: Routledge
• [3] Comite Maritime International, ‘CMI Yearbook 2010’ <http://www.comitemaritime.org/Uploads/Yearbooks/Yearbook%202010.pdf>
• [4] Frederick, David C.1991 Political Participation and Legal Reform in the International Maritime Rulemaking Process: From the Hague Rules to the Hamburg Rules Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 22:81‐117.
• [5] Girvin, Stephen, 2007. Carriage of Goods by Sea. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
• [6] Kirval L. 2012 European Union’s Stance on the Rotterdam Rules TransNav International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety at Sea Transportation 6:555‐562.
• [7] Nikaki, Theodora. 2010 The Carrier’s Duties under the Rotterdam Rules: Better the Devil You Know? Tulane Maritime Law Journal 35: 1‐44.
• [8] Nikaki, Theodora, and Soyer, Baris. 2012 A New International Regime for Carriage of Goods by Sea: Contemporary, Certain, Inclusive AND Efficient, or Just Another One for the Shelves? Berkeley Journal of International Law 30:303‐348.
• [9] Sweeney, Joseph C. 1991 UNCITRAL and The Hamburg Rules – The Risk Allocation Problem in Maritime Transport of Goods Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 22:511‐538.
• [10] Tetley, William. 2008 Marine Cargo Claims Volume 1. Quebec: Les Editions Yvon Blais Inc.
• [11] Ülgener, Fehmi M., ‘Obligations and Liabilities of the Carrier’ in Güner‐Özbeck, M.D. (ed.) 2011. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea: An Appraisal of the Rotterdam Rules. Berlin and New York: Springer.
• [12] United Nations Treaties Collection <https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XI‐D‐8&chapter=11&lang=en>
• [13] Weitz, Leslie Tomasello. 1997‐1998 The Nautical Fault Debate (the Hamburg Rules, the U.S COGSA 95, the STCW 95, and the ISM Code) Tulane Maritime Law Journal 22:581‐594.
• [14] Wilson, John F. 2010 Carriage of Goods by Sea. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
• [15] Yiannopoulos, Athanassios N. 1957‐1958 Conflicts Problems in International Bill of Lading: Validity of Negligence Clauses Louisiana Law Review 18:608‐627.
• [1] Manifest Shipping Co. Ltd v Uni‐Polaris Shipping Co. Ltd and Ors [2001] 1 UKHL/1; [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. I.R.247.
• [2] Maxine Footwear Co. Ltd v Canadian Merchant Marine Ltd. [1999] AC 589.
• [3] Papera Trading Co. Ltd and Others v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd and Another (The “Eurasian Dream”) [2002] EWHC 118(Comm); [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 719.
• [4] Riverstone Meat Company, Pty, Ltd v Lancashire Shipping Company Ltd [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 57.
• [5] Tasman Orient Line CV v New Zealand China Clays and Others (The “Tasman Pioneer”) [2010] NZSC 37; [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 13.
• [6] The Bank of Nova Scotia v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd (The “Good Luck”) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 191.
• [7] Union of India v N.V Reederij Amsterdam [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223.

Uwagi

PL

W Bibliografii zachowana oryginalna numeracja.