THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW (무역상무연구)

The Korean Research Institute of International Commerce and Law (한국무역상무학회)
권호 표지

the Applying Differences of Excepted Perils in the Rotterdam Rules

로테르담 규칙하에서의 면책사유의 적용상 특징

  • 조종주 (창원대학교 글로벌비스니스학부)
  • Received : 2016.07.31
  • Accepted : 2016.08.26
  • Published : 2016.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

International maritime law conventions concerned with cargo liabilities have sought to achieve solutions which will be acceptable to a wide range of states. The Rotterdam Rules was approved by the UN Assembly on 11 December 2008. The Rotterdam Rules are intended to replace The Hague and Hamburg Rules. This paper is comparing The Rotterdam Rules with The Hague and Hamburg Rules for the carrier' liabilities and exceptions in order to find carrier' liability System, the burden of proof and exceptions in the International maritime Rules. The purpose of this paper is considering the carrier's principal recourse for defending himself inmost cargo claims. The first area analyze the transfer of carrier's fundamental Liability system in the International Rules. The second is the matter on the appointment of proof in order to establish liability or to be relieve of liability. And the third is the change of the carrier's possible exclusions from liability in the International maritime Rules. From the result of the said analysis, my paper suggests differences of the exclusions in the Rotterdam Rules comparing with the Hague and Hamburg Rules, and features of the Rotterdam Rules appling exceptions on the basis of the Hague and Hamburg Rules with regard to carrier's liability and burden of proof. The former is the inclusion of three exclusions, the deleted natural fault, and The provision making the carrier responsible for the acts of its servants or agents in the 'fire on the ship' of the Rotterdam Rules. The latter is deleting the principle of overriding obligation related to carrier's obligation of seaworthiness in the Rotterdam Rules, the burden of proof being diverted from the carrier to the carrier and the shipper in the cargo damage caused by two factors(one for which the carrier was liable and the other for which it was excusable) in the new rules.

Keywords

References

  1. 양정호, "국제복합운송계약에서 로테르담 규칙의 적용상 문제점에 관한 연구", 무역상무연구 제46권, 한국무역상무학회, 2010. 5.
  2. 이시환, "로테르담 규칙상 운송인의 책임", 무역상무연구 제42권, 한국무역상무학회, 2009. 5.
  3. 이주흥, 해상운송법, 박영사, 1992.
  4. 조종주, "해상운송인 책임의 문제점에 관한 비교연구- 국제운송관련규칙을 중심으로-", 박사학위 청구논문, 성균관대학교 대학원, 1995, 4.
  5. 池山明義, UNCITRAL물품운송조약안 시역(상), 해사법연구회지(No. 200.), 2008. 8.
  6. Alexander von Ziegler, Johan Schelin, Stefano Zunarelli, The Rotterdam Rules 2008, Wolters Kluwer, 2010.
  7. Alexander von Ziegler, The Liability of the Contracting Carrier, TEXAS INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Vol.44, 2009. 4.
  8. Alexsander von Ziegler, Liability of the carrier for loss, damage or delay, The Rotterdam Rules 2008, Wolters Kluwer, 2010.
  9. Anthony Diamond QC., The Rotterdam Rules, CMCLQ, 2009.
  10. D Rhidian Thomas, The carriage of goods by sea under the Rotterdam Rules, Lloyd's List: London, 2010.
  11. DR N J Margetson, Some remarks on the allocation of the burden of proof under the Rotterdam Rules as compared to the Hague Rules, The carriage of goods by sea under the Rotterdam Rules, Lloyd's List, 2010.
  12. Dr Regina Asariotis, Burden of proof and allocation of liability for loss due to a combination of causes under the new Rotterdam Rules, The journal of international maritime law, Vol. 14, No. 6, 2008.
  13. Francesco Berlingieri, A comparative analysis of the Hague-Visby rules, the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam rules, www.uncitral.org/uncitral, 2010.
  14. Frank Stevens, Appointment of damages under the Rotterdam Rules, JIML, 2011.
  15. G.F. Chandler, "A Comparison of 'COGSA', the Hague/Visby Rules, and the Hamburg Rules", JMLC, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1984. 4.
  16. John F. Wilson, Carriage of Goods by Sea, Pitman, 1988.
  17. Julian Clark and Jeffrey Thomson, Exclusion of Liability, The carriage of goods by sea under the Rotterdam Rules, Lloyd's List, 2010.
  18. Michael Tsimplis, The Rotterdam Rules -A practical annotation, informa: LONDON, 2009.
  19. R.G. Bauer, Conflicting Liability Regime: Hague-Visby v. Hamburg Rules - A case by case analysis, JMLC, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1993.
  20. Si Yuzhou/Henry Hai Li, The new structure of the carrier's liability for the carrier under the Rotterdam Rules, Rev. dr. unif. 2009.
  21. Sturley M.F., Modernizing and Reforming U.S. Maritime Law: The impact of the Rotterdam Rules in the United Nations, TEXAS INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Vol.44, 2009. 4.
  22. The CMI International Working Group on the Rotterdam Rules, Questions and Answers on the the Rotterdam Rules(ver.012.10.10), 2012.
  23. UNCITRAL Working Group III(transport Law), A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.41, 2004, 9.
  24. W. Tetley, "Canadian Comments on the Proposed UNCITRAL Rules - An Analysis of the Proposed UNCITRAL Text", J.M.L.C., Vol. 9, No. 2, 1978. 5.
  25. W. Tetley, The Hamburg Rules - A commentery, LMCLQ, Lloyd's of London Press Ltd., 1979.