• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.101-133
• /
• 2012

The paper aims to analyse the obligations and Responsibilities of shipper in the Rotterdam Rules. The Rotterdam Rules, has underlying intention that it will provide uniform law for the international carriage of goods by sea. It is highly expected that the Rotterdam Rules will create the new international legal regime replacing Hague-Visby Rules and Hamburg Rules. Rotterdam Rules provide the obligations and responsibilities of shipper in express. The shippers obliged to provide, (a) duty as to the condition in which the cargo has to be delivered to the carrier, (b) cooperation of the shipper and the carrier in providing information and instruction, and (c) shipper's obligation to provide information, instructions and documents. The shipper is liable for loss or damage sustained by the carrier if the carrier proves that such loss or damages was caused by a breach of the shipper's obligations. However, the shipper is relieved of all or part of its liability if the cause or one of the causes of the loss or damage is not attributable to its fault or to the fault. But, the shipper shall indemnify the carrier against loss or damage resulting from the inaccuracy of such information. Rotterdam Rules is providing rather concrete as to the shipper's responsibilities and burden of proof in separate chapter. The question is whether such burden of proof of the fault should be imposed to the shipper.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.147-170
• /
• 2016

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.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information and Communication Engineering
• /
• v.23 no.7
• /
• pp.881-888
• /
• 2019

Dangerous cargo in maritime transportation is increasing in international trade. The types and forms of dangerous cargo are very diverse, complex, and the scope is expanding widely. For this reason, it is increase risk of accident threatens the safety of ships and other cargoes, as well as serious damage. Carriers' require special care and handling of dangerous cargo and have a duty of care for safe transport. The shipper is obliged to notify the carrier of the nature and characteristics of the dangerous cargo prior to loading on the ship, the responsibility of the carrier varies depending on the notification or not. This study compares and analyzes the concept and classification of dangerous cargoes, the provisions of the Hague rules, Hamburg Rules and Rotterdam Rules about Carriers' Dangerous Cargo Liability Regulations, after reviewing case studies. We intend to provide information to dangerous cargo handling, the carrier.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.1-17
• /
• 2006

In the Bill of Lading of The Irbenskiy Proliv is not subject to the Hague-Visby Rules in accordance with paragraphs (A) and/or (E) of cl.1 or to the Hague Rules in accordance with paragraphs (B) and/or (D) of cl.1. The Irbenskiy Proliv is very rare case that is effective to exempt the carrier as literal words of Bill of Lading. The action concerns cargoes of perishable goods shipped from Brazil to Japan, under Bills of Lading each of which contained an extensive carrier's exemption clause. A preliminary issue was ordered to be determined on the question whether c1.4 is effective to exempt the ralliers from any potential liability for the claims in this case. The court held that there is no reason to reject c1.4 as part of each of the contracts contained in or evidenced by the bills of lading; and it protects the carrier where damage to the goods shipped results from such causes. It is therefore effective to exempt the carriers from any potential liability for those claims.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.125-150
• /
• 2014

The number of dangerous goods are increasing in maritime transport. As a result, a number of nations and international organizations are establishing or amending the rules of dangerous goods. There is necessarily the transport of dangerous goods like fuel and the importance of the definition and scope of the goods is increased. In addition, the responsibility between the parties is different with the notification of the goods and its awareness of transporters. In particular, responsible clauses of the transport rule show antithetical concepts between the scope of immunity and the responsibility of a shipper concerned with wether transporters aware. This research performs two works. First, this research analyzes the definitions and scope of dangerous goods through prior research. Second, this research suggests the necessary of united interpretation of the articles through a comparative analysis on judical decisions concerned with awareness of transporters to dangerous goods. Dangerous goods have a distinctive feature and that is why responsibility and immunity between parties should be differently interpreted with general rules. Parties have duty concerned with faults on general goods and the scope of duty between parties can be specifically made. However, if there is no specific articles concerned with responsibility between parties to dangerous goods, they could confuse the responsibility on duties concerned with risk. Therefore, this research suggests solutions and necessary of the united criteria for the articles to dangerous goods through analyzing precedent cases.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.21-54
• /
• 2011

International commercial arbitration has established itself as the primary dispute resolution mechanism for international business transactions. Certainly, there are commonly-accepted standards that have evolved to reflect an internationally-harmonized approach to issues relating to the taking of evidence. This is reflected in International Bar Association("IBA") Rules for Taking of Evidence in International Evidence("IBA Rules"). This IBA Rules were revised in 2010. Designed to assist parties in determining what procedures to use in their particular case, IBA Rules present some of the methods for conducting international arbitration proceedings. Parties and arbitral tribunals may adopt IBA Rules in whole or in part - at the time of drafting the arbitration clause in a contract or once an arbitration commences - or they may use them as guidelines. They supplement applicable national laws and institutional or ad hoc rules. The IBA Rules were an ambitious undertaking, designed to overcome fundamental cultural differences relating to the taking of evidence under different national court systems. While it is difficult to assess how frequently the IBA Rules are actually adopted by parties, it is fair to say that they have had a considerable influence on the practice of taking evidence in international arbitration. This article mainly describes the essential provisions of IBA Rules, as revised in 2010, including but not limited to production of document, witnesses of fact, party-appointed experts, and tribunal-appointed experts. It also provides a comparison of relevant procedural rules of civil law and common law systems to each of the above mentioned provisions. It is important for arbitration practitioners to understand the differences in the taking of evidence under civil law and common law systems, respectively. This article will be helpful for practitioners and academics not only to understand the revised IBA Rules themselves but also to prepare for, and adequately deal with, the frictions that may arise as a result of the differences in approach for taking evidences. Indeed, so prepared, the arbitration practitioner will be able to anticipate the expectations, perceptions and the conduct of the parties, their counsel and the tribunal members.