• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.297-336
• /
• 2009

In modern industrial society carriage of dangerous goods by sea becomes more increasing than ever before. Dangerous goods are required for special care and handling in that shipment of dangerous goods could affect safety of the vessel and other cargoes. It is also true that dangerous goods could be used as a means of terrorism. his article investigates allocation of risk and liabilities between parties involved in the carriage of dangerous goods by sea. More specifically, this study examines principles of strict liability of the shipper in shipment of dangerous goods with some limitations based upon recent cases. Furthermore this article investigates the issues on identity of shipper who bears strict liability to the carrier where there exist actual or documentary shipper other than the contractual shipper. Lastly, whether it is reasonable that the transfer of strict liability to the transferee, who does not have opportunity to verify dangerous nature of the goods before shipment, by endorsing bills of lading will be discussed critically.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.18
• /
• pp.137-157
• /
• 2002

The clauses of bill of lading(B/L) consist of the terms of contract for the carriage of goods by sea because of clauses of B/L by the mutual agreement of contracting parties. There are some exempted cause of deviation clause in B/L for specific reasons. Then deviation clauses are influenced by Rules of international carriage of goods by sea, because the international rules become the governing law of contract for the carriage of goods by sea. The problem of deviation clauses in B/L is stipulated as follows. "It shall be prerequisite to the Merchant' claim for damages on account of deviation that the merchant's insurance shall first have been cancelled on account of alleged deviation. No deviation shall oust the right to limit liability or damages, and the Carrier shall always be entitled to the full benefit of all privileges, rights and immunities contained in this Bill of Lading and incorporated tariffs." This stipulation should be adjusted according to the confirmed cases, otherwise it will be invalid according to the Hague Rules and Hamburg rules. The sphere of a reasonable deviation in the deviation clause should be interpreted in the connection with the designed voyage and the commercial object of contract for the carriage of goods by sea and the deviation become valid unless the policy, the general object of international rules or the true intention of contracting parties has violated.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.267-292
• /
• 2003

UNCITRAL considered a proposal to include in its work program a review of current practices and laws in the area of the international carriage of goods by sea, with a view to establishing the need for uniform rules where no such rules existed and with a view to achieving greater uniformity of laws. And UNCITRAL Working Party, as of April, 2003, is reviewing the UNCITRAL's Preliminary Draft Instrument which was originally prepared by CMI. As said above, the Preliminary Draft Instrument has a lot of improved provisions in relation to the scope of application, period of responsibility, obligations and liability of carrier, obligations of shipper and so on, but it has also some provisions which should be reconsidered in light of changed environments. Therefore, UNCITRAL Working Party has to prepare more complete and widely adoptable new uniform rules under the sufficient discussion.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.377-401
• /
• 1999

This study is focused on the privity of the contract of carriage of goods by sea, so to speak, privity between B/L holder and carrier by transfer of bill of lading, privity by attornment to delivery order and conflict between bills of lading and charterparty terms. Under a CIF contract, possession of the bill of lading is equivalent to possession of the goods, and delivery of the bill of lading to the buyer or to a third party may be effective to pass the property in the goods to such person. The bill of lading is a document of title enabling the holder to obtain credit from banks before the arrival of the goods, for the transfer of the bill of lading can operate as a pledge of the goods themselves. In addition, it is by virtue of the bill of lading that the buyer or his assignee can obtain redress against the carrier for any breach of its terms and of the contract of carriage that it evidences. In other words the bill of lading creates a privity between its holder and the carrier as if the contract was made between them. The use of delivery orders in overseas sales is commen where bulk cargoes are split into more parcels than there are bills of lading, and this practice gives rise to considerable difficulties. For example, where the holder of a bill of lading transferred one of the delivery orders to the buyer who presented it to the carrier and paid the freight of the goods to which the order related, it was held that there was a contract between the buyer and the carrier under which the carrier could be made liable in repect of damage to the goods. The contract was on the same terms as that evidenced by, or contained in, the bill of lading, which was expressly incorporated by reference in the delivery order. If the transferee of the delivery order presents it and claims the goods, he may also be taken to have offered to enter into an implied contract incorporating some of the terms of the contract of carriage ; and he will, on the carrier's acceptance of that offer, not only acquire rights, but also incur liabilities under that contract. Where the terms of the charterparties conflict with those of the bills of lading, it is interpreted as below. First, goods may be shipped in a ship chartered by the shipper directly from the shipowner. In that case any bill of lading issued by the shipowner operates, as between shipowner and charterer, as a mere receipt. But if the bill of lading has been indorsed to a third party, between that third party and carrier, the bill of lading will normally be the contract of carriage. Secondly, goods may be shipped by a seller on a ship chartered by the buyer for taking delivery of the goods under the contract of sale. If the seller takes a bill of lading in his own name and to his own order, the terms of that bill of lading would govern the contractual relations between seller and carrier. Thirdly, a ship may be chartered by her owner to a charterer and then subchartered by the chaterer to a shipper, to whom a bill of lading may later be issued by the shipowner. In such a case, the bill of lading is regarded as evidencing a contract of carriage between the shipowner and cargo-owners.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.317-358
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the key differences of the sea waybill and electronic B/L in the international transport documents. Sea waybills look remarkably like ordinary bills of lading. Indeed, in two important ways, they are just like bills of lading: the front of the document will near a description of the quantity and apparent condition of the goods; and the back of the document provides evidence of the terms of the contract of carriage. They differ from bills of lading in that, far from indicating that the goods described are deliverable to the order of the shipper or of the consignee, they will make it explicit that the goods are deliverable only to the consignee. Again, different carries will do thai in a variety of ways. For example, the document may call itself non-negotiable, omitting the word order from the consignee box on the front of the document, and stating explicitly that the goods will be deliverable to the consignee or his authorised representative on proper proof of identity and authorisation. The Hague-Visby Rules and Hamburg Rules give no guidance as to any right to instruct the carrier in respect of goods while they are in transit. However, in applying Article 50 of the Rotterdam Rules, in particular when applying it in the context of seawaybills, straight bills of lading or ship's delivery orders, regard would need to be had to preserve the shipper's rights under any of those three documents even after the buyer of goods covered by them has acquired rights of its own. And, the right of control is defined at Article 1.12 of the Rotterdam Rules. The right to give instruction is further limited by the terms of Article 50.1 to three particular types of instruction in respect of the goods, relating broadly to the goods, their delivery en route, and the identity of the consignee. And, the CMI formulated the CMI Uniform Rules for Sea Waybills for voluntary incorporation into any contract of carriage covered by such a document. Recognising that neither the Hague nor the Hague-Visby Rules are applicable to sea waybills, the CMI Rules provide that a contract of carriage covered by a waybill shall be governed by whichever international or national law, if any, would have been compulsorily applicable if the contract had in fact been covered by a bill of lading or similar document of title.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.359-389
• /
• 2011

The Rotterdam Rules, which was adopted in December 2008 by UNCITRAL, has underlying intention that it will provide uniform law for the international carriage of goods by sea and modernize transport law reflecting modern transport custom. However, it is also true that there are various conflicting views on the Rotterdam Rules. This article tried to analyze main controversial issues such as scope of application, basis of liability of the shipper and the carrier, exception th the volume contract, legal position of the freight forwarder, delivery of the goods from the both sides of view. The Rotterdam Rules exposes some problems in applying and interpreting the Rules as many people indicated. These problems, I think, mainly due to the extended scope of application and broader range of issues. However, I do not think that the Rotterdam Rules will serious affect to the international transport industry. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect perfect Rules satisfying every interests.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.96-173
• /
• 1993

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.6
• /
• pp.91-185
• /
• 1993

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.23
• /
• pp.223-247
• /
• 2004

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(hereinafter"UNCITRAL"), the core legal body of the United Nations system in the field of international trade law, is currently in the process of preparing a draft instrument on the international carriage of goods. In order to facilitate and prompt for new draft instrument, Working Group Ⅲ was established under the auspicious of UNCITRAL in 2002. Working Group, which was composed of all member countries of UNCITRAL, considered the text of preliminary draft instrument on the carriage of goods by sea. According to the Working Group's report, this new convention deals with issues relating to the international ocean carriage of goods such as the scope of application, the period of responsibility of the carrier, liability of the carrier, obligations of the shipper and transport documents including electronic records. In the course of the second reading, however, there are lots of outstanding issues to deliberate and consider for formulating new version of the ocean cargo liability convention. One of the substantial issues is the snail's pace of progress in last sessions. Therefore legal adviser and industry representatives assume the next UNCITRAL meeting, in Vienna, Nov. 29-Dec. 10, would be more critical to complete the convention.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.10
• /
• pp.249-276
• /
• 1997