Journal of Korea Trade

Korea Trade Research Association (한국무역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Assessment of Legal Instruments and Applicability to the Use of Electronic Bills of Lading

  • Lee, Un-Ho (Institute of Legal Research, Kyushu University)
  • Received : 2019.12.25
  • Accepted : 2020.04.06
  • Published : 2020.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose - This study mainly investigates two potential legal regimes expected to govern the use of electronic bills of lading: the Rotterdam Rules (2009) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (2017). Widespread use of electronic bills of lading has been unsuccessful partly due to the absence of a uniform legal regime and protracted uncertainties. This paper aims to carry out an assessment of the possibilities where either of two potential legal regimes could provide certainty to the effect and validity of the use of electronic bills of lading, and contribute to the facilitation of electronically transferring the rights to goods carried by sea. Design/methodology - This paper first introduces two legal instruments and the relevance to electronic bills of lading. Since neither of these legal instruments has yet entered into force, the following section looks into the ratification or enactment possibilities based on a literature review and track records of the past legal regimes of the same kind. Assessment of the different adoption possibilities further requires comparative work of the two legal instruments, which will be based on an analysis of relevant provisions and a literature review. The literature review on the Rotterdam Rules delves into various studies and data produced since the UNCITRAL's adoption in 2009. The literature review on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records heavily relies on UNCITRAL working group documents from 2011 to 2017 together with the final explanatory note. Findings - The main findings can be summarized as follows. Application of the Rotterdam Rules would negate the role of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records assisting in the implementation of the Rotterdam Rules due to some conflicting issues. Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law alone can sufficiently provide a higher level of certainty in the use and effect of electronic bills of lading so long as lawmakers and parties are aware of some issues with the application. What concerns potential users most is the extension of the status quo, where neither of the legal instruments have any effect. It is necessary to take a number of alternatives into consideration, such as promotion of standard clauses and confirmation by a court ruling. Originality/value - Existing studies focus either on the Rotterdam Rules or on the UNCITRAL Model Law, but not both. Not many papers have yet dealt with the Model Law, which was adopted by UNCITRAL only 2 years ago, particularly in the context of a potential legal regime for electronic bills of lading. This paper attempts to introduce the differences between the two legal instruments in regulating the use of electronic bills of lading while providing an assessment of the various possibilities for which parties involved in international trade can be better prepared for the changing legal environment.

Keywords

References

  1. Alba, M. (2009), "The Use of Electronic Records as Collateral in the Rotterdam Rules: Future Solutions for Present Needs", Uniform Law Review, 14(4), 801-829. https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/14.4.801
  2. American Bar Association (ABA) (2010), Report to the House of Delegates (101). Available from http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/UN_Rotterdam_Rules_2.auth checkdam.pdf (accessed September 8, 2019)
  3. Bolero (1999), Bolero Rulebook, Walton-on-Thames, UK: Author.
  4. Bolero (n.d.), About Us. Available from http://www.bolero.net/about-us (accessed May 28, 2018)
  5. CMI (2018), Rotterdam Rules and E-commerce (CMI Colloquium). Available from http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/colloquia/EC/Rotterdam_Rules_and_E-Commerce_-_May_2018.pdf (accessed October 12, 2019)
  6. essDOCS (n.d.), essDOCS Paperless Trade Solutions. Available from http://www.essdocs.com (accessed November 5, 2019)
  7. European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistic and Customs Services (CLECAT) (2009), Position Paper: The European Voice of Freight Logistics and Customs Representatives. Available from http://www.clecat.org/media/PP010OMAma090529PosPapRottRules.pdf (accessed September 12, 2019)
  8. European Parliament (2011), Strategic Goals and Recommendations for the EU's Maritime Transport Policy until 2018 (European Parliament Resolution of 5 May 2010 on Strategic Goals and Recommendations for the EU's Maritime Transport Policy until 2018 (2009/2095(INI)) (2011/C 81 E/03). Available from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52010IP0128 (accessed September 30, 2019)
  9. European Shippers' Council (ESC) (2009), View of the European Shippers' Council on the Convention on Contracts for the International Carrying of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea also known as the Rotterdam Rules (UNICTRAL Database). Available from https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/transport/rotterdam_rules/ESC_PositionPaper_March2009.pdf (accessed September 9, 2019)
  10. Goldby, M. (2011), Legislating to Facilitate the Use of Electronic Transferable Records: A Case Study - Reforming the Law to Facilitate the Use of Electronic Bill of Lading in the United Kingdom (UNCIRAL Colloquium on Electronic Commerce), 8-9. Available from http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/colloquia/EC/Legislating_to_facilitate_the_use_of_electronic_transferable_records_-_a_case_study_.pdf (accessed October 15, 2019)
  11. Goode, R. M. (1989), Proprietary Rights and Insolvency in Sales Transactions (2nd ed.), London: Sweet & Maxwell.
  12. Hart, C. R. and U. Mathur (2016), Rotterdam Rules - Ratification Status in the US and Effectiveness of Choosing to Apply Them Voluntarily. Available from http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/140550/rotterdam-rules-ratification-status-in-the-us-andeffectiveness-of-choosing-to-apply-them-voluntarily (accessed September 16, 2019)
  13. Hjalmarsson, J. and J. Zhang (2017), Maritime Law in China: Emerging Issues and Future Developments, New York, NY: Routledge.
  14. Hooper, C. D. (2011), Spain the First Nation to Ratify the Rotterdam Rules. Available from https://www.hklaw.com/publications/Spain-the-First-Nation-to-Ratify-the-Rotterdam-Rules-02-01-2011/ (accessed September 18, 2019)
  15. Hooper, C. D. and C. R. Nolan (2017), International Maritime Treaties Recognition and Trump: Protectionist or Progressive?. Available from https://www.hklaw.com/Publications/International-Maritime-Treaties-Recognition-and-Trump-Protectionist-or-Progressive-01-10-2017/ (accessed September 18, 2019)
  16. House of Representatives of the Netherlands (2013), Letter of the Minister of Justice and Security to the Speaker of the House of Representatives (Maritime Policy 31409, No. 53). Available from https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-31409-53.pdf (accessed September 30, 2019)
  17. Hu, J. Z. and S. Sun (2016), "A Study On the Updating of the Law on Carriage of Goods by Sea in China", Austria and New Zealand Maritime Law Journal, 30(1), 114-124.
  18. ICS, ECSA, BIMCO and WSC (2009), Press Release: The Rotterdam Rules, Wide Support by States at Signing Ceremony in Rotterdam (UNCITRAL Database). Available from http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/news/ICS_ECSA_BIMCO_WSC_press_release.pdf (accessed September 6, 2019)
  19. International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations (FIATA) (2009), FIATA Position on the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (the "Rotterdam Rules") (Annex II of FIATA's Document, No. MTI/507). Available from http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/transport/rotterdam_rules/FIATApaper.pdf (accessed September 12, 2019)
  20. Kozolchyk, B. (1992), "Evolution and Present State of the Ocean Bill of Lading from a Banking Law Perspective", Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 23(2), 161-245.
  21. Nikaki, T. and B. Soyer (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(2), 303-348.
  22. Savkovic, V. (2014), "Towards Broader Use of Electronic Bills of Lading in International Transport of Goods", South East European Law Journal, 1(1), 85-95.
  23. Tetley, W. (2008), A Summary of General Criticisms of the UNCITRAL Convention (The Rotterdam Rules) (New University of Lisbon Faculty of Law Database). Available from https://docentes.fd.unl.pt/docentes_docs/ma/wks_ma_32001.pdf (accessed September 15, 2019)
  24. UNCITRAL (n.d.), Status on UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996). Available from https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/ecommerce/modellaw/electronic_commerce/status (accessed October 15, 2019)
  25. UNCITRAL Secretariat (1999), UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce, Vienna: UN Publication.
  26. UNCITRAL Secretariat (2007), United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts, Vienna: UN Publication.
  27. UNCITRAL Secretariat (2011a), Legal Issues Relating to the Use of Electronic Transferable Records (A/CN.9/WG.IV/WP.115), Vienna: Author.
  28. UNCITRAL Secretariat (2011b), Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on Its 44th Session (A/66/17), Vienna: Author.
  29. UNCITRAL Secretariat (2012), Legal Issues Relating to the Use of Electronic Transferable Records (A/CN.9/WG.IV/WP.118), Vienna: Author.
  30. UNCITRAL Secretariat (2018),UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records, Vienna: Author.
  31. UNCITRAL Secretariat (2019), Status of Conventions and Model Laws (A/CN.9/979), Vienna: Author.
  32. UNCITRAL Working Group III (2007), Report of Working Group III (Transport Law) on the Work of Its Twentieth Session (A/CN.9/642), Vienna: Author.
  33. UNCITRALWorking Group IV (2001), Report of Working Group IV (Electronic Commerce) on the Work of Its 38th Session (A/CN.9/484), Vienna: Author.
  34. UNCITRAL Working Group IV (2015), Report of Working Group IV (Electronic Commerce) on the Work of Its 51st Session (A/CN.9/834), Vienna: Author.
  35. UNCTAD (2003), The Use of Transport Documents in International Trade (UNCTAD/SDTE/TLB/2003/3), Vienna: Author.
  36. UNCTAD (2008), UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (Rotterdam Rules), Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
  37. UNECE Inland Transport Committee (2009), The Rotterdam Rules: An Attempt to Clarify Certain Concerns that Have Emerged (Informal Document WP. 24 No. 2), Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
  38. UNICITRAL (2017), UNICITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records, Vienna: Author.
  39. Yiannopoulos, A. N. (1995), "General Report to the XIVth International Congress of Comparative Law". In A. N. Yiannopoulos (Ed.), Ocean Bills of Lading: Traditional Forms, Substitutes, and EDI Systems, Hague, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 3-56.
  40. Yuzhuo, S. and Z. Jinlei (2018), An Analysis and Assessment on the Rotterdam Rules in China's Marine Industry (CMI Database). Available from https://comitemaritime.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Paper-of-Prof.-Si-Yuzhuo-and-Dr.-Zhang-Jinlei.pdf (accessed September 23, 2019)
  41. Devonald v Rosser & Sons [1906] 2 K.B. 728
  42. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Glencore International AG, Court of Appeal, Civil Division [2017] EWCA Civ 365
  43. Three Rivers Trading Company Ltd (Plaintiffs) v Gwinear and District Farmers Ltd [1967] 111 Sol Jo 831.
  44. UAE Maritime Law, Art. 267(2), Available from https://www.stalawfirm.com/en/blogs/view/1.html