Lex Maritima in a Changing World: Development and Prospect of Rules Governing Carriage of Goods by Sea

Zhao, Lijun

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_37

Lijun Zhao⁵

Part of the book series: WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs ((WMUSTUD,volume 8))

1724 Accesses
1 Altmetric

Abstract

This chapter examines the attempts to unifying law governing carriage of goods by sea and the background to these attempts over the past hundred years or so. It finds that a repetition of the current mode of negotiating static conventions will not unify these rules. Moreover, from historic and legal perspectives, the attempts to unify the international carriage of goods by sea regimes in the past century have remained transitional. The active players have shifted from private entrepreneurs to government delegates. This research probes into the new trade practice for the shipping industry in the twenty-first century and argues that new ‘landscape’ calls for innovative modifications of the conventional approach to unifying carriage of goods by sea rules. This research also forecasts the prospects of the Rotterdam Rules and discusses several countries’ current attitudes, including the UK, the Netherlands, Scandinavian countries and, particularly, the USA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 149.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
CMI (1997).
2.
Hague Rules (1924).
3.
Visby Rules (1968).
4.
For an instructive comparison of the Hague Rules and Hamburg Rules processes, see Frederick (1991), pp. 81–117.
5.
Hamburg Rules (1978).
6.
Rotterdam Rules (2008).
7.
For example, Diamond (2009), pp. 445–536. Baatz (2009). Other literature provides comparisons among the related convention instruments from a doctrinal and analytical perspective. For example, the works of Force (1996) and Yancey (1982).
8.
For example, Faria (2008), pp. 277–310. Cf. Honnold (1993), p. 75.
9.
Croce and Ainslie (1960).
10.
Faria (2008), pp. 279, 319.
11.
Clapham (1952), p. 71. See Holt (1878), pp. 2–11.
12.
Ibid.
13.
Ibid. See Harley (1971), pp. 215–234.
14.
Harley (1971).
15.
Ibid.
16.
Fletcher (1958), pp. 556–573.
17.
Ibid, 558.
18.
Ibid.
19.
Ibid.
20.
See Boyce (1995), p. 25.
21.
See Armstrong (1991), pp. 55–65. See also Burley (1968). Although sailing ships were operated as liner shipping on the UK-Australia and Germany-South America routes, this was very exceptional.
22.
The distance was reduced nearly by half. For example, for a voyage from Bombay, India to Liverpool, UK a sailing ship required an 11,560 nautical-mile trip round the Cape of Good Hope; by substituting the Suez Canal route for the Cape, a steamship could save 5777 nautical miles. See Fletcher (1958), p. 559. See also Samuda (1870).
23.
Ibid, 558.
24.
Ibid, 558–559 (From December 1869 to 1875, there were only 238 sailing ships out of the 5236 vessels passing through the Suez Canal). Because there was insufficient wind power (and ocean currents) for them in the Suez-Canal-and-Red-Sea route as opposed to the open-seas route, sailing ships had to take longer routes via the Cape of Good Hope, However, the consumption of fuel made them less competitive than steamships on the Europe-Asia routes.
25.
Sjostrom (2004), p. 107.
26.
For example, the Australia conference was launched in 1884, the South African conference in 1886, the West African and northern Brazil conference in 1895, the River Plate conference in 1896, the west coast of South America conference in 1904, and a North Atlantic trade conference around 1900. These conferences covered most outbound transport from Europe, while inbound voyages were carried out by tramp ships for bulk cargo. See more in Dyos and Aldcroft (1969); Kirkaldy (1914). Marx (1953), p. 5.
27.
Faria (2008), pp. 277, 278.
28.
Ibid, 279, 319.
29.
Yiannopoulos (1958), pp. 609–627.
30.
In re Missouri Steamship Company (1889) LR 42 ChD 321, 322, it was for the court to decide if it was the English law or the US law which governed the contract of carriage in question, whereas the negligence clause would be enforceable in England but void in the United States in light of public policy. The Hague Rules afford protection to the underdog with weaker bargaining power, especially when a third party is engaged, who is necessarily bound by the contract of carriage without having had any chance to negotiate the contract under the public policy protection for them.
31.
Yiannopoulos (1958), p. 609.
32.
Knauth (1953).
33.
Sturley et al. (2010a, b, c, d), pp. 8–9, paragraphs 1.027–1.033.
34.
Petition of Glasgow Corn Trade Association (1890), reprinted in H.R. Rep. No. 1988, 52d Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1892), and cited in Sturley (1991).
35.
See Dor (1956).
36.
Knauth (1953), p. 116 (stating that US cargo interests regarded the bills of lading in North Atlantic trade as where a carrier “accepted goods to be carried when he liked, as he liked, and wherever he liked”).
37.
See e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 1988, 2 and 24 Cong. Rec. 172 (1892) (‘Rep. Coombs’).
38.
Mangone (1997), p. 79.
39.
Faria (2008), p. 279. The Europe was the undeniably supreme power of the world when the US Harter Act was ratified in 1893. However, Japan and the United States became ascendant powers before World War I. Europe, which had colonised virtually all the African continent, as well as many parts of Asia and the Pacific regions, was about to be surpassed by the US after World War I.
40.
United States, the Harter Act 1893, 27 Stat. 445 (1983). The Harter Act is currently codified at 46 U.S.C. app. §§ 190–196 (1998).
41.
See also Sturley (1991), pp. 11–14 (pinpointing the process of the passage of the US Harter Act as a compromise balancing cargo and hull interests).
42.
For example, in Missouri Steamship Co., Re (1889) 42 Ch D 321, the traditional conflicts rule to apply British law which upheld an exculpatory clause were overlooked, and the law of the US port of loading held the exculpatory clause invalid.
43.
See also Sweeney (1993).
44.
Before the American Civil War (1861–1865), foreign flag carriage in the American international trade accounted for approximate 33% during 1855–1859, but the effect of the northern blockade of the southern originating exportation and the destruction of the northern shipping industry increased foreign carriers’ involvement to 56%.
45.
Sweeney (1993), p. 1.
46.
See Sturley (1991), p. 4.
47.
Ibid, 10.
48.
Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1904, No. 14 (Australia), superseded by Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1924, No. 22 (Australia).
49.
Compare Shipping and Seamen Act, 1903, No. 96, § 293 (New Zealand), with the US Harter Act § 3; compare Shipping and Seamen Act, 1903, § 300(1) (a) with the Harter Act § 1; compare Shipping and Seamen Act, 1903, § 300(1) (b) with Harter Act § 2; compare Shipping and Seamen Act, 1903, § 300(2) with the Harter Act § 7.
50.
There were several significant differences between the Harter Act and the final Canadian legislation, the Water Carriage of Goods Act 1910, 9–10 Edw. 7, ch. 61 (Canada), superseded by Water Carriage of Goods Act, 1936, 1 Edw. 8, ch. 49 (Canada), codified as Carriage of Goods by Water Act, Can. Rev. Stat. ch. C-15 (1970). For example, § 5 of the Canadian Act of 1910 required a clause paramount in outbound bills of lading and prohibited choice-of-forum clauses purporting to oust or lessen the jurisdiction of any Canadian court at the port of loading. Sections 6 and 7 expanded the list of the carrier’s statutory exceptions to include latent defects, fire, any reasonable deviation, strikes, and losses “arising without [the carrier’s] actual fault or privity or without the fault or neglect of [the carrier’s] agents, servants or employees.”
51.
French Morocco, Code de Commerce Maritime, article 267 (French Morocco, 31 March 1919); Berlingieri (1921).
52.
Sturley (1991), pp. 17–18 mentions that France, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and South Africa were considering domestic legislation in line with the US Harter Act.
53.
Ibid, 15–18.
54.
Sturley (1990) (Volume 1), pp. 50–150 (examining how the US Harter Act introduced a mandatory framework of carrier’s liability into the seaborne carriage regime).
55.
Sturley (1991), p. 18.
56.
Bennett (1914), pp. 4, 19 (as long as the UK shipowners were regulated in their home ports, uniform regulation was preferred where they did business under the comparable regulations of their foreign competitors).
57.
Sturley (1991), p. 10. See also Westbrook (1990), pp. 77–85, 92–96.
58.
The International Law Association (ILA) was founded in 1873 and initially called the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations, changing its title to the current name in 1895. See ILA, Report of the 17th Conference 282–285 (Brussels Conference 1895).
59.
ILA, Report of the 30th Conference (‘Hague Conference 1921’), vii, cited in Sturley (1990) (Volume 1), pp. 50–150.
60.
Because the uniform draft of bills of lading was discussed during the ensuing ILA conference at the Hamburg Conference of 1885 and the London Conference of 1887, the Liverpool Conference is regarded as part of international efforts towards uniformity. See CMI, Travaux Preparatoires of the Hague Rules and of the Hague-Visby Rules, http://www.comitemaritime.org/Uploads/Publications/Travaux Preparatoires of the Hague Rules and of the Hague-Visby Rules.pdf., 16.
61.
Sturley (1991), pp. 6–7.
62.
Ibid.
63.
The model bills of lading were also known as the ‘Conference Form’. See ILA, Report of the 10th Conference 75, 78–80, 86 (Liverpool Conference 1882/‘Liverpool Conf. Rep.’), reprinted in Sturley, The Legislative History of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and the Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague Rules (Volume 2), 32–33, 36–38, 44.
64.
Sturley (1991), p. 7.
65.
Ibid.
66.
See CMI (1979), p. 16.
67.
Ibid, 16.
68.
Sturley (1991), p. 8. ILA, Report of the 12th Conference (‘Hamburg Conference 1885’), 165–168 reprinted in Sturley (1990) (Volume 2), 122–125. CMI (1979), p. 16.
69.
Ibid, 8 (stating that only a few German companies adopted the rules).
70.
Ibid.
71.
CMI (2013).
72.
Ibid. The Comité Maritime International (CMI) had its first conference in June 1897.
73.
Ibid.
74.
Sturley (1991), p. 9. Lilar and van den Bosch (1973), pp. 16, 72.
75.
Ibid, pp. 9–10.
76.
Ibid, 20. See, e.g. ‘Hague Conf. Rep.’, 38 (Sir Norman Hill), reprinted in Sturley (1990) (Volume 1), p. 144. Cf. Report of the Maritime Law Commission on Bills of Lading, xxxix, reprinted in Sturley (100) (Volume 1), p. 94.
77.
Sturley (1991), pp. 20, 26. See Hague Conference Report, cxiii–cxix, reprinted in ibid (Vol. 1), 168–174 listing the delegates and their occupations.
78.
Ibid.
79.
Sturley (1991), p. 21. See also Sturley (1990) (Vol. 3), p. 519 and (Vol. 1), p. 94.
80.
Frederick (1991), p. 87.
81.
Sturley et al. (2010a, b, c, d), pp. 10, 160, paragraphs 1.036, 5.222.
82.
Bell (2010), pp. 58–59 highlighting the importance of containerisation for the shipping industry.
83.
UNCTAD (2012), p. 26, Figure 1.2. International seaborne trade, by cargo type, selected years (millions of tons loaded). For 2006–2012, see breakdown by type of dry cargo based on Clarkson Research Services’ Shipping Review & Outlook, various issues. Data for 2012 are based on a forecast by Clarkson Research Services in Shipping Review & Outlook, spring 2012. See also Haralambides (2004), p. 4 concluding that the container revolution changed liner shipping and sea carriage in general.
84.
OECD (2001), p. 4.
85.
Grammenos (2010).
86.
Schmelzer and Peavy (1970).
87.
Donovan (2000), pp. 315–317.
88.
OECD database on Statistics on Transport, Sea Container Transport (n.d.).
89.
Nicholas (2010), pp. 113–117, paragraph 6.6 (stating that the containerisation of cargo allows for ease of transit and reduced freight rates).
90.
Schmelzer and Peavy (1970), p. 208.
91.
Daudin (2003), pp. 411, 425.
92.
Schmelzer and Peavy (1970), p. 208.
93.
Huybrechts (2010), p. 119 (looking at the historic genesis of the rules on “package limitation”).
94.
Visby Rules Article 4.5(c).
95.
Hamburg Rules Article 6 ‘Limits of Liability’.
96.
Rotterdam Rules Articles 59 and 60.
97.
See also Sturley et al. (2010a, b, c, d), pp. 160–162, paragraphs 5.221–5.226.
98.
UNCTAD (2012), pp. 21–23.
99.
Ibid, 22, Figure 1.5 ‘Global container trade, 1990–2011’. Source: Drewry Shipping Consultants, Container Market Review and Forecast 2008/09; Clarkson Research Services, Container Intelligence Monthly, May 2011. Note: The data for 2011 were obtained by applying growth rates forecasted by Clarkson Research Services in Container Intelligence Monthly, May 2011.
100.
Thomas (2010), pp. 284–294.
101.
See further, Wilson (2010), pp. 165–171.
102.
See Chapter 3 “Electronic Transport Records’ in the Rotterdam Rules” in Berlingieri (2010); Thomas (2010); Sturley et al. (2010a, b, c, d); Baatz et al. (2009).
103.
Alba (2009), pp. 803, 816 (referring to the Comite Maritime International Rules for Electronic Bills of Lading and noting that the electronic equivalence approach is a developed but problematic solution addressing the existing needs of electronic commerce). CMI (n.d.-a), Rules for Electronic Bills of Lading.
104.
Zhao (2016), pp. 1–27.
105.
On further implications regarding e-commerce in the shipping industry, see Wilson (2010), pp. 165–171 (illustrating the electronic bills of lading in the Atlantic container liner data freight system, the Electronic Data Interchange (‘EDI’) system and the Bolero system).
106.
See Wilson (2010), pp. 165–171. Thomas (2010), p. 292.
107.
Smart contracts are contracts in the form of a computer programme run within blockchain which automate the implementation of the terms and conditions of a contract between the parties.
108.
Lloyd’s List (2017).
109.
UNCTAD (2018), pp. 87–89.
110.
Joc.com, Blockchain success in shipping hinges on standardisation, 27 March 2018.
111.
Marine Electronics and Communications, Blockchain is not the silver bullet for cybersecurity, 9 March 2018.
112.
OECD Doc. DSTI/DOT/MTC (2001) 3, (11 January 2001), 4.
113.
Bauchet (1998), p. 191; Faria (2008), p. 304.
114.
Ibid.
115.
Ibid, p. 305.
116.
Bauchet (1998) (mentioning Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, Switzerland, 12–30 November 1979, United Nations Conference on a Convention on International Multimodal Transport, part I (B), art. 1(2), U.N. Doc.TD/MT/CONF/17.201.,141).
117.
Ibid.
118.
United Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, Geneva, 24 May 1980, UN Doc.TD/MT/CONF/16; Wilson (2010), pp. 253–259 (examining that the multimodal transport and the UN Multimodal Convention 1980).
119.
Ibid.
120.
The formal name of the Rotterdam Rules is “United Convention on Contracts for International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea”.
121.
Convention Concerning the Carriage of Goods by Rail (‘CIM’), 25 October 1952, 241 U.N.T.S. 336; The initials CIM stand for its French name “Convention Internationale concernant le transport des Marchandises par chemin de fer”. Retrieved 17 June 2018, http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/cim.rail.carriage.contract.uniform.rules.19xx/doc.html. The CIM is modified and incorporated as Appendix 2 to the COTIF from May 1999. International Convention Concerning the Carriage of Goods by Rail (‘COTIF’), 7 February 1970, 1101 U.N.T.S. 226.
122.
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (the ‘Warsaw Convention’), 12 October 1929, 49 Stat. 3000, 137 L.N.T.S. 1. The original Warsaw Convention of 1929 was first amended in Hague in 1955, and then in Montreal in 1975. In 1999, a new Convention, known as the ‘Montreal Convention’, on international air carriage was concluded in Montreal and on 28 June 2004, came into force in the European Union. See Chuah (2009), pp. 367–371.
123.
UN, Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (‘CMR’, abbreviated from the French ‘Convention relative au contrat de transport international des marchandises par route’), 19 May 1956, 399 U.N.T.S. 189, amended by the 1978 Protocol. Chuah (2009), pp. 379–388.
124.
E.g. carriers’ liability for delay: Warsaw Convention Article 19 (stating that under the Warsaw Convention the carrier shall be liable for delay in the air transportation of passengers, baggage, or goods); the CMR for truck transport, Article 17.2. See also the limitations of liability of carriers are different in related conventions. See more conflicts in Ulfbeck (2010), pp. 34–37.
125.
Chuah (2009), pp. 367–401.
126.
Rotterdam Rules Article 82 (International conventions governing the carriage of goods by other modes of transport).
127.
Cf. Sturley et al. (2010a, b, c, d), pp. 59–75, paragraphs 4.013–4.045 (addressing the complexity of conflicts). Berlingieri (2009), p. 54.
128.
Rotterdam Rules Article 82 (a). See also De Wit (2010), pp. 100–107, paragraphs 5.53–5.
129.
Montreal Convention Articles 38 and 18.4.
130.
Ibid, Article 18.4.
131.
Ralph De Wit (2010), pp. 100–101, paragraphs 5.53–5.58; see also G. van der Ziel in Cf. Sturley et al. (2010a, b, c, d), pp. 72–73, paragraphs 4.034–4.037.
132.
See also De Wit (2010), pp. 100–107, paragraphs 5.53–5.73.
133.
Diamond (2009), p. 454.
134.
Ibid.
135.
CMR Article 41.1 states “any stipulation which would directly or indirectly derogate from the provisions of this Convention shall be null and void”. Datec Electronics v United Parcels Services [2007] UKHL 23. See Ulfbeck (2010), pp. 43–76.
136.
CIM Articles 1.3 (governing a single contract including international road and inland waterway carriage), Article 5 (stating that the mandatory rules cannot be contracted out of or derogated from unless as otherwise provided for in the Rules themselves), Article 23.1.
137.
Sturley et al. (2010a, b, c, d), pp. 71–75, paragraphs 4.031–4.045, pp. 169–176; paragraphs 5.245–5.259; the UNCITRAL 20th Session Report, paragraphs 163–166.
138.
Thermo Engineers v. Ferrymasters Ltd [1981] 1 W.L.R.
139.
CMR Article 2.1 provides: “Where the vehicle containing the goods is carried over part of the journey by sea, rail, inland waterways or air, and, except where the provisions of article 14 are applicable, the goods are not unloaded from the vehicle, this Convention [CMR] shall nevertheless apply to the whole of the carriage.” CMR Article 41 states “1. Subject to the provisions of article 40, any stipulation which would directly or indirectly derogate from the provisions of this Convention shall be null and void. The nullity of such a stipulation shall not involve the nullity of the other provisions of the contract.” E.g. T Comedy v. Easy Managed Transport [2007] EWHC 611 (holding that the a general lien clause in the truck carriage contract would derogate from the consignees’ right to delivery on payment of the charges shown to be due on the consignment note (Article 13.1) would be null and void under Article 41 of the CMR).
140.
See also De Wit (2010), pp. 100–107, paragraphs 5.53–5.73.
141.
CMR Article 2.
142.
De Wit (2010), pp. 100–107, paragraphs 5.53–5.73.
143.
De Wit (2010). See also Sturley et al. (2010a, b, c, d), p. 73, paragraph 4.038.
144.
Rotterdam Rules Article 82(d).
145.
CMNI Article 2.2.
146.
Cf. Honka (2010), pp. 349–354.
147.
Si and Guo (2010), p. 259.
148.
Rotterdam Rules Article 26. See also De Wit (2010).
149.
A pure network system makes all the unimodal rules applicable directly between the carrier and the shipper as to each mode of transport. A uniform system makes the same rules apply between the carrier and the shipper to the whole multimodal transport with no regard to the unimodal rules applicable to individual legs of the multimodal transport. In a limited network system, which mixes uniform and network systems, the mandatory rules which apply between the carrier and the shipper vary according to and are based on the underlying unimodal rules applicable to a related mode of transport, while other issues remain governed by the Rotterdam Rules for the whole of the multimodal transport. See Uffe Lind Rasmussen (2009), pp. 143–145.
150.
Uffe Lind Rasmussen (2009), p. 146.
151.
Diamond (2009), p. 456.
152.
In order to cater for this need, UNCITRAL Working Group III drafted a provision, including mandatory national laws, into Article 26, so that “it specially identified the law in question, that the law applied to the loss or damage in question and that the damage occurred in that state’s territory.” But such a draft provision was left out in the final version.
153.
The limited network system on liability applies to the relevant provisions only of international instruments, such as EU regulations; see Uffe Lind Rasmussen (2009), p. 147. See also Sturley et al. (2010a, b, c, d), pp. 59–75, paragraph 4.022; UNCITRAL (1987), Doc.A/CN.9/642, 20th Session Report, paragraphs 163–166.
154.
The wording of Article 26 is “international instrument” rather than international “convention”, which refers to a broader range of international legislation. See Sturley et al. (2010a, b, c, d), multimodal aspects, pp. 59–75, paragraph 4.023; the UNCITRAL (1988) 21st Session Report, paragraph 84. Rasmussen (2010), p. 147.
155.
Rotterdam Rules Article 26. van der Ziel (2009), p. 989.
156.
Baughen (2018).
157.
Information gleaned from private communication with a US delegate at the Rotterdam Rules negotiations. Details are contained in Sturley (2016).

References

Alba M (2009) The use of electronic records as collateral in the Rotterdam Rules: the future solutions for present needs. Uniform Law Rev/Revue de Droit Uniformie XIV(4):801–829
Article Google Scholar
Armstrong J (1991) “Conferences in British Nineteenth-century” coastal shipping. Mariner’s Mirror 77:55–65
Article Google Scholar
Baatz Y, Debattista C, Lorenzon F, Serdy A, Staniland H, Tsimplis M (2009) The Rotterdam Rules: a practical annotation. Informa, London
Google Scholar
Bauchet P (1998) Les Transports Mondiaux, Instrument de Domination, 65
Google Scholar
Baughen S (2018) A small step on the road to Rotterdam? Retrieved 30 September 2018, https://iistl.blog/2018/08/06/a-small-step-on-the-road-to-rotterdam/
Bell MK (2010) Forget what you intended: surprisingly strict liability and COGSA versus Carmack. Transport Law J 37:57–71
Google Scholar
Bennett WP (1914) The history and present position of the bill of lading as a document of title to goods: being the Yorke Prize Essay for the year 1913. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Berlingieri F (1921) Notes on the Hague Rules, reprinted in Sturley, M.F. (1990). The legislative history of the carriage of goods by sea act and the Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague Rules, vol 3. Fred B. Rothman and Company
Google Scholar
Berlingieri F (2009) A comparative analysis of the Hague-Visby Rules, the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules. Paper delivered at the General Assembly of the AMD. Retrieved 30 November 2018, http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/workinggroups/wg_3/Berlingieri_paper_comparing_RR_Hamb_HVR.pdf
Berlingieri F (2010) Revisiting the Rotterdam Rules. Lloyd’s Marit Commer Law Q 35(4):583–639
Google Scholar
Boyce GH (1995) Information, mediation and institutional development: the rise of large-scale enterprise in British Shipping, 1870–1919. Manchester University Press, Manchester
Google Scholar
Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading (the ‘Hague Rules’), 25 August 1924, 51 Stat. 233, T.S. No. 931, 120 L.N.T.S. 155, 1931 Gt. Brit. T.S. No. 17
Google Scholar
Burley K (1968) British Shipping and Australia, 1920–1939. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Chuah JCT (2009) Law of international trade: cross-border commercial transactions, 4th edn. Sweet & Maxwell/Thomson Reuters, London
Google Scholar
Clapham JH (1952) An economic history of Modern Britain. Cambridge University Press
Google Scholar
CMI (1997) Travaux preparatoires of the Hague rules and of the Hague-Visby rules. http://www.comitemaritime.org/Uploads/Publications/Travaux-Preparatoires_-of-the-Hague-Rules-and-of-the-Hague-Visby-Rules.pdf. Accessed 26 Dec 2018
CMI (2013) History - Comité Maritime International. Retrieved 18 June 2013, http://comitemaritime.org/History/0,273,1332,00.html
CMI (n.d.-a) Rules for electronic bills of lading. Retrieved 7 December 2018, http://www.comitemaritime.org/Rules-for-Electronic-Bills-of-Lading/0,2728,12832,00.html
Comedy v. Easy Managed Transport [2007] EWHC 611
Google Scholar
Comité Maritime International (CMI) (1979) Travaux Preparatoires of the Hague Rules and of the Hague-Visby Rules. Retrieved 30 October 2018, https://comitemaritime.org/publications-documents/travaux-preparatoires/
Convention Concerning the Carriage of Goods by Rail (CIM) (1952) 25 October 1952, 241 U.N.T.S. 336. The initials CIM stand for its French name “Convention Internationale concernant le transport des Marchandises par chemin de fer”. Retrieved 17 June 2018, http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/cim.rail.carriage.contract.uniform.rules.19xx/doc.html
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (the “Warsaw Convention”), 12 October 1929, 49 Stat. 3000, 137 L.N.T.S. 1
Google Scholar
Croce B (author), Douglas A (translator) (1960) History, its theory and practice. Harcourt Brace Company
Google Scholar
Daudin G (2003) La Logistique de la Mondialisation. Revue de l’OFCE 87(4):409–435
Google Scholar
De Wit R (2010) Minimal music: multimodal transport including a maritime leg under the Rotterdam Rules. In: Thomas DR (ed) The carriage of goods by sea under the Rotterdam Rules. Lloyd’s List, London, pp 93–99, 100–107, paragraph 5.15–5.47
Google Scholar
Diamond A (2009) The Rotterdam Rules. Lloyd’s Marit Commer Law Q (4):445–536
Google Scholar
Donovan A (2000) Intermodal transportation in historical perspective. Transport Law J 27:317
Google Scholar
Dor S (1956) Bill of lading clauses and the Brussels International Convention of 1924: study in comparative law. W. Pickering & Sons Publisher, New York
Google Scholar
Dyos HJ, Aldcroft DH (1969) British transport: an economic survey from the seventeenth century to twentieth. Penguin Books
Google Scholar
Faria JAE (2008) Uniform law for international transport at UNCITRAL: new times, new players, and new rules. Tex Int Law J 44(4):277–320
Google Scholar
Fletcher ME (1958) “The Suez Canal and World Shipping”, 1869–1914. J Econ Hist (18):556–573
Google Scholar
Force R (1996) Comparison of the Hague, Hague-Visby, and Hamburg Rules: much Ado about? Tulane Law Rev 70(4):2051–2090
Google Scholar
Frederick DC (1991) Political participation and legal reform in the international maritime rulemaking process: from the Hague Rules to the Hamburg Rules. J Marit Law Commer 22(1):81–117
Google Scholar
French Morocco, Code de Commerce Maritime, article 267 (French Morocco, 31 March 1919)
Google Scholar
Grammenos CT (2010) Chapter I- “Shipping Economics and Maritime Nexus”. In: Grammenos CT (ed) The handbook of maritime economics and business, 2nd edn. Informa, London
Google Scholar
H.R. Rep. No. 1988, 2 and 24 Cong. Rec. 172 (1892) (“Rep. Coombs”) cited in Sturley, ‘The History of COGSA and the Hague Rules’ 11
Google Scholar
Haralambides HE (2004) Determinants of price and price stability in liner shipping. In: Workshop on The industrial organization of shipping and ports. National University of Singapore, 5–6 March 2004, Singapore
Google Scholar
Harley CK (1971) The shift from sailing ships to steamships, 1850–1890: a study in technological change and its diffusion. In: McCloskey DN (ed) Essays on a mature economy: Britain after 1840. Princeton University Press, pp 215–234
Google Scholar
Holt A (1878) Review of the progress of steam shipping during the last quarter of a century. Minutes Proc Inst Civil Eng 51:2–11
Google Scholar
Honka H (2010) Matters not governed by this convention. In: von Ziegler A, Schelin J, Zunarelli S (eds) The Rotterdam Rules 2008: Commentary to the United Nations Convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 349–354
Google Scholar
Honnold JDO (1993) Ocean carriers and Cargo; clarity and fairness: Hague or Hamburg? J Marit Law Commer 24:75
Google Scholar
Huybrechts MA (2010) Package limitation as an essential feature of the modern maritime transport treaties: a critical analysis. In: Thomas DR (ed) The carriage of goods by sea under the Rotterdam Rules. Lloyd’s List, London, pp 119–139
Google Scholar
In Re Missouri Steamship Co., (1889), 42 Ch D 321
Google Scholar
In re Missouri Steamship Company (1889) LR 42 Ch D 321, 322
Google Scholar
International Convention Concerning the Carriage of Goods by Rail (COTIF), 7 February 1970, 1101 U.N.T.S. 226
Google Scholar
International Law Association (ILA) (1921) Report of the 30th Conference (Hague Conference 1921), vii, reprinted in Sturley, M. F. (1990). The legislative history of the carriage of goods by sea act and the Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague Rules, vol 1. Fred B. Rothman & Co., New York
Google Scholar
Kirkaldy A (1914) British shipping, its history, organisation and importance. https://archive.org/details/britishshipping00unkngoog. Accessed 5 Aug 2018
Knauth AW (1953) American law of ocean bills of lading (American Maritime Cases) 116, 538
Google Scholar
Lilar A, van den Bosch C (1973) Le Comité maritime international, 1897–1972: International Maritime Committee. Le Comité Maritime International, Antwerp
Google Scholar
Lloyd’s List (2017) [Hyundai Merchant Marine] Completes Pilot Blockchain Voyage with Reefer-laden Box Ship. 7 September 2017
Google Scholar
Mangone GJ (1997) United States admiralty law. Kluwer Law International, Leiden
Google Scholar
Marx D (1953) International shipping cartels: a study of industrial self-regulation by shipping conferences. Greenwood Press, p 5
Google Scholar
New Zealand, Shipping and Seamen Act, 1903, No. 96, § 293 and § 300(1)
Google Scholar
Nicholas A (2010) The duties of carriers under the conventions: care and seaworthiness. In: Thomas DR (ed) The carriage of goods by sea under the Rotterdam Rules. Lloyd’s List, London, pp 113–117
Google Scholar
OECD (2001) Doc.DSTI/DOT/MTC (2001)3 (11 January 2001)
Google Scholar
OECD (n.d.) Statistics on Transport, Sea Container Transport. http://www.oecd.org/statistics/, http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DatasetCode=CONTAINERS_TRANSPORT, and http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DatasetCode=NATIONAL_SEA_TRANSPORT. Retrieved 1 March 2018 (providing data and corresponding charts of OECD countries)
Petition of Glasgow Corn Trade Association (1890), reprinted in H.R. Rep. No. 1988, 52d Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1892), cited in Sturley (1991) Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 22(1), p 10
Google Scholar
Protocol to Amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading (Hague-Visby Rules), 23 February 1968, 1977 U.K.T.S. No. 83 (Cmnd. 6944)
Google Scholar
Rasmussen UL (2010) Additional provisions relating to particular stages of carriage. In: von Ziegler A, Schelin J, Zunarelli S (eds) The Rotterdam Rules 2008: Commentary to the United Nations Convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn
Google Scholar
Samuda JD (1870) On the influence of the Suez Canal on ocean navigation. Trans Inst Naval Architects 11:1–8
Google Scholar
Schmelzer E, Peavy RA (1970) Prospects and problems of the container revolution. J Marit Law Policy 1:203
Google Scholar
Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1904, No. 14 (Australia), superseded by Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1924, No. 22 (Australia)
Google Scholar
Si Y, Guo P (2010) Limits of liability. In: von Ziegler A, Schelin J, Zunarelli S (eds) The Rotterdam Rules 2008: Commentary to the United Nations Convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, p 259
Google Scholar
Sjostrom W (2004) Ocean shipping cartels: a survey. Rev Netw Econ:107
Google Scholar
Sturley MF (1990) The legislative history of the carriage of goods by sea act and the Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague Rules, vol 1–3. Fred B. Rothman & Co, New York
Google Scholar
Sturley MF (1991) The history of COGSA and the Hague Rules. J Marit Law Commer 22(1):1–57
Google Scholar
Sturley MF (2016) What has become of the Rotterdam Rules? J Transport Law Logist Policy 2016(83):275–294
Google Scholar
Sturley MF, Fujita T, van der Ziel G (2010a) Multimodal aspect. In: Sturley MF, Fujita T, van der Ziel G (eds) The Rotterdam Rules: the UN Convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Google Scholar
Sturley MF, Fujita T, van der Ziel G (2010b) Chapter I- “Introduction and Historical Background to the Rotterdam Rule’s”. In: Sturley MF, Fujita T, van der Ziel G (eds) The Rotterdam Rules: the UN Convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Google Scholar
Sturley MF, Fujita T, van der Ziel G (2010c) Carrier’s liability. In: Sturley MF, Fujita T, van der Ziel G (eds) The Rotterdam Rules: the UN Convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Google Scholar
Sturley MF, Fujita T, van der Ziel G (eds) (2010d) The Rotterdam Rules: the UN Convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Google Scholar
Sweeney JC (1993) Happy Birthday, Harter: a reappraisal of the Harter Act on its 100th anniversary. J Marit Law Commer 24:1–42
Google Scholar
Thermo Engineers v. Ferrymasters Ltd [1981] 1 W.L.R
Google Scholar
Thomas DR (ed) (2010) The carriage of goods by sea under the Rotterdam Rules. Lloyd’s List, London
Google Scholar
Uffe Lind Rasmussen (2009) Additional provisions relating to particular stages of carriage’. In: von Ziegler A et al (eds) The Rotterdam Rules 2008: commentary to the United Nations convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 143–145
Google Scholar
Ulfbeck V (2010) Multimodal transports in the United States and Europe - Global or regional liability rules? Tulane Marit Law J 34(1):37–90
Google Scholar
UN, Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR, abbreviated from the French “Convention relative au contrat de transport international des marchandises par route”), 19 May 1956, 399 U.N.T.S. 189, amended by the 1978 Protocol
Google Scholar
UNCITRAL (1978) United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (the “Hamburg Rules”, 1978), U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 89
Google Scholar
UNCITRAL (1987) Doc.A/CN.9/642, 20th Session Report, paragraphs 163–166
Google Scholar
UNCITRAL (1988) 21st Session Report, paragraph 84
Google Scholar
UNCITRAL (2008) The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (“Rotterdam Rules”), New York, 11 December 2008, UN Doc.C.N.790.2009
Google Scholar
UNCTAD (2012) Maritime transport review. UNCTAD Publisher, Geneva
Google Scholar
UNCTAD (2018) Maritime transport review. UNCTAD Publisher, Geneva
Google Scholar
United States (1893). The Harter Act 1893, 27 Stat. 445
Google Scholar
United States, the US Harter Act § 3
Google Scholar
van der Ziel G (2009) Multimodal aspects of the Rotterdam Rules. Uniform Law Rev (Revue de Droit Uniforme) XIV:945–996
Google Scholar
Westbrook J (1990) Extraterritoriality, conflict of laws, and the regulation of transnational business. Tex Int Law J 25:71–85, 92–96
Google Scholar
Wilson JF (2010) Carriage of goods by sea, 7th edn. Pearson/Longman, Essex
Google Scholar
Yancey BW (1982) The carriage of goods: Hague, COGSA, Visby, and Hamburg. Tulane Law Rev 57(4):1238–1259
Google Scholar
Yiannopoulos AN (1958) Conflicts problems in international bills of lading: validity of ‘negligence’ clauses. Louisiana Law Rev 18:609–627
Google Scholar
Zhao L (2016) An analysis of transport documents and electronic transport records under the Rotterdam Rules. In: Zunarelli S, Musi M (eds) Current issues in maritime and transport law. Il Diritto Marittimo – Quaderni. Bonomo Editore publisher, Bologna
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

School of Law, Middlesex University, London, UK
Lijun Zhao

Authors

Lijun Zhao
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lijun Zhao .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China
Proshanto K. Mukherjee
Maritime Law and Policy, World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden
Maximo Q. Mejia Jr.
Plymouth Business School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
Jingjing Xu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zhao, L. (2020). Lex Maritima in a Changing World: Development and Prospect of Rules Governing Carriage of Goods by Sea. In: Mukherjee, P.K., Mejia, M.Q., Xu, J. (eds) Maritime Law in Motion. WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_37

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_37
Published: 24 January 2020
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31748-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31749-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics