Commentary on the Rotterdam Rules
Table of contents
Table of Cases
1. Kopitoff v Wilson (1876) 1 QBD 337.
2. India v West Coast Steamship Co [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 278.
Table of Statues
1. The Hague Rules
2. The Hague-Visby Rules
3. The Hamburg Rules
4. The Rotterdam Rules
Commentary on the Rotterdam Rules
Ⅰ Introduction: Background of the Rotterdam Rules
It is known for quite a long time that there are no international conventions regulating multimodal transport which has been widely used in practise with the globalization of national economies and development of commercial system. Since the Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules are unable to cope with multimodal carriage, unimodal conventions will apply to the specific stages of the whole carriage which includes at least two different ways of transportation across borders. Each leg of multimodal transport may attract a different liability regime, making the issue of liability quite difficult.1. It will be quite difficult to define the regulating conventions at the very beginning for each convention has succeed only in introducing another competing international code, with the consequence that the world is currently burdened with three international codes each of which has succeed in attracting different degrees of state support.2 Apart from that, the range between different stages is not clear enough, especially when the loss occurred between two different stages. For example, the loss happened at the port during the time that the goods were unloaded from trucks and then loaded to a vessel, but it was found impossible to localise the loss specifically. Besides, the Hague-Visby Rules and Hague Rules are considered not to be able sufficiently to deal with electronic trade and containerisation, and the limitations of liability are also to be pro-carrier, while the Hamburg Rules are lack of universal application.3 In short, the
Table of Cases
1. Kopitoff v Wilson (1876) 1 QBD 337.
2. India v West Coast Steamship Co [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 278.
Table of Statues
1. The Hague Rules
2. The Hague-Visby Rules
3. The Hamburg Rules
4. The Rotterdam Rules
Commentary on the Rotterdam Rules
Ⅰ Introduction: Background of the Rotterdam Rules
It is known for quite a long time that there are no international conventions regulating multimodal transport which has been widely used in practise with the globalization of national economies and development of commercial system. Since the Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules are unable to cope with multimodal carriage, unimodal conventions will apply to the specific stages of the whole carriage which includes at least two different ways of transportation across borders. Each leg of multimodal transport may attract a different liability regime, making the issue of liability quite difficult.1. It will be quite difficult to define the regulating conventions at the very beginning for each convention has succeed only in introducing another competing international code, with the consequence that the world is currently burdened with three international codes each of which has succeed in attracting different degrees of state support.2 Apart from that, the range between different stages is not clear enough, especially when the loss occurred between two different stages. For example, the loss happened at the port during the time that the goods were unloaded from trucks and then loaded to a vessel, but it was found impossible to localise the loss specifically. Besides, the Hague-Visby Rules and Hague Rules are considered not to be able sufficiently to deal with electronic trade and containerisation, and the limitations of liability are also to be pro-carrier, while the Hamburg Rules are lack of universal application.3 In short, the
Bibliography: 2. D. R Thomas, New Convention for the Carriage of Goods By Sea - the Rotterdam Rules: An Analysis of the UN Convention On Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly By Sea (2009; Witney: Lawtext Publishing). 3. D. R Thomas, The Carriage of Goods by Sea Under the Rotterdam Rules (2010; London: Lloyd 's List). 2. Richard Williams, “The Rotterdam Rules: winners and losers” (2010) 16 Journal of International Maritime Law 191. 3. William Tetley, “Some General Criticisms of the Rotterdam Rules” (2008) 14 Journal of International Maritime Law 625. 4. Manuel Franco, “Multimodal Transport after the Rotterdam Rules: will it work this time?” (2012) 1 Journal of International Maritime Law 208. 5. T.Nikaki, “Conflicting Laws in “Wet” Multimodal Carriage of Goods: The UNCITRAL Draft Convention on the Carriage of Goods [Wholly or Partly] [by Sea]” (2006) 37 Journal of Maritime Law& Commerce 521. 6. Ellen Effestol-Wilhelmsson, “The Rotterdam Rules in a European Multimodal context” (2010) 16 Journal of International Maritime Law 274. 7. Rhidian Thomas, “And then there were the Rotterdam Rules” (2008) 14 Journal of International Maritime Law 189. 8. Anthony Diamond QC, “The Rotterdam Rules” (2009) 135 Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 445. 9. Francesco Berlingieri, “Revisiting the Rotterdam Rules” (2010) Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 584. 10. Theodora Nikaki and Baris Soyer, “A New International Regime for carriage of Goods by Sea: Contemporary, Certain, Inclusive AND Efficient, or Just Another One for the Shelves?” (2012) 30 Berkeley J. Int’l Law 303. 11. Theodora Nikaki, “The fundamental duties of the carrier under the Rotterdam Rules” (2008) Journal of International Maritime Law 512. 12. D A Glass and R Nair, “Towards flexible carriage documents? Reducing the need for modally distinct documents in international goods transport” (2009) 15 Journal of International Maritime Law 137. 2. Richard Williams: “The Rotterdam Rule: winners and losers” (2010) 16 Journal of International Maritime Law, Vol 16, p 191-209. 3. William Tetley: ‘Some General Criticisms of the Rotterdam Rules’, Journal of International Maritime Law, Vol 14 (2008), p 625-627. 4. Manuel Franco: ‘Multimodal Transport after the Rotterdam Rules: will it work this time?’ Journal of International Maritime Law, Vol 1(2012), p 208-227. 5. T.Nikaki: ‘Conflicting Laws in “Wet” Multimodal Carriage of Goods: The UNCITRAL Draft Convention on the Carriage of Goods [Wholly or Partly] [by Sea]’, Journal of Maritime Law& Commerce, Vol.37, No.4, October (2006) p521-544. 6. Ellen Effestol-Wilhelmsson: ‘The Rotterdam Rules in a European Multimodal context’, Journal of International Maritime Law, Vol 16 (2010), p 274-288. 7. Rhidian Thomas: ‘And then there were the Rotterdam Rules’, Journal of International Maritime Law, Vol 14(3) (2008), p189-190. 8. Anthony Diamond QC: ‘The Rotterdam Rules’, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 135, p445-536(2008). 9. Francesco Berlingieri: ‘Revisiting the Rotterdam Rules’, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, (2010), p 584-640. 10. Theodora Nikaki and Baris Soyer: ‘A New International Regime for carriage of Goods by Sea: Contemporary, Certain, Inclusive AND Efficient, or Just Another One for the Shelves?’, 30 Berkeley J. Int’l Law(2012), p303-348. 11. Theodora Nikaki: ‘The fundamental duties of the carrier under the Rotterdam Rules’, Journal of International Maritime Law(2008), p512-523.