• 제목/요약/키워드: Multimodal Carriers

검색결과 3건 처리시간 0.015초

복합운송인(複合運送人)의 책임범위(責任範圍)에 관한 연구(硏究) - UN 복합운송조약(複合運送條約)과 UNCTAD/ICC 통일규칙(統一規則)을 중심(中心)으로 - (A Study on the Scopes of Liability of the Multimodal Carriers)

  • 송채헌
    • 무역상무연구
    • /
    • 제16권
    • /
    • pp.155-181
    • /
    • 2001
  • International Trade has led to the increase of the demand of international transport, and also the development of international transport not only incurs claims concerning transportation but also establishes various international rules to settle the claims between the shippers and carriers incurred in the course of transport. With a view to settling the claims successfully, the men who are concerned in the transport have to know the principle and scopes of carrier's liability. In this paper, I would like to find out the scopes of liability of multimodal carriers based on the principles of liability. In order to perform the purpose of this study, I classify the liability principle of the international carrier under the UNs Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Good(1980) and UNCTDAD/ICC Rules(1991) in three system-Network Liability System, Uniform Liability System and Modified Liability System. And that I show the results-the scopes of multimodal carriers' liability based on the UN's Multimodal Convention(1980) and the ICC/UNCTAD Rules(1991), and transport vehicles.

  • PDF

복합운송인(複合運送人)의 책임원칙(責任原則) - UN복합운송조약(複合運送條約)과 UNCTAD/ICC통일규칙(統一規則)을 중심(中心)으로 - (A Study on the Liability Principle of the Multimodal Transporter)

  • 송채헌
    • 무역상무연구
    • /
    • 제13권
    • /
    • pp.303-328
    • /
    • 2000
  • International Trade has led to the increase of the demand of international transport, and also the development of transport vehicles has been promoting the volumes of international trade. Therefore, the development of international transport not only incurs claims concerning transportation but also establishes various international rules to settle the claims between the shippers and the carriers in the course of transport. With a view to settling the claims successfully, the men who are concerned in the transport have to know the principle and scope of carrier's Liability. In this paper, I would like to find out the principle of Liability for the shippers. Therefore, I classify the Liability principle of the international transporter under the UNs Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Good(1980) and UNCTDAD/ICC Rules(1991) in three system - Network Liability System, Uniform Liability System and Modified Uniform Liability System.

  • PDF

국제항공운송협약의 Door to Door 운송에의 적용에 관한 문제점 (Problems on the Door to Door Application of International Air Law Conventions)

  • 최명국
    • 무역상무연구
    • /
    • 제78권
    • /
    • pp.1-29
    • /
    • 2018
  • This article demonstrates that both the Warsaw Convention Systemand the Montreal Convention are not designed for multimodal transport, let alone for "Door to Door" transport. The polemic directed against the "Door to Door" application of the Warsaw Convention systemand the Montreal Convention is predominantly driven by the text and the drafting philosophy of the said Contentions that since 1929 support unimodalism-with the rule that "the period of the carriage by air does not expend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport" playing a profound role in restricting their multimodal aspirations. The drafters of the Montreal Convention were more adventurous than their predecessors with respect to the boundaries of the Montreal Convention. They amended Art. 18(3) by removing the phrase "whether in an aerodrome or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of landing outside an aerodrome, in any place whatsoever", however, they retained the first sentence of Art. 18(4). The deletion of the airport limitation fromArt. 18(3) creates its own paradox. The carrier can be held liable under the Montreal Convention for the loss or damage to cargo while it is in its charge in a warehouse outside an airport. Yet, damage or loss of the same cargo that occurs during its surface transportation to the aforementioned warehouse and vice versa is not covered by the Montreal Convention fromthe moment the cargo crosses the airport's perimeter. Surely, this result could not have been the intention of its drafters: it certainly does not make any commercial sense. I think that a better solution to the paradox is to apply the "functional interpretation" of the term"airport". This would retain the integrity of the text of the Montreal Convention, make sense of the change in the wording of Art. 18(3), and nevertheless retain the Convention's unimodal philosophy. English courts so far remain loyal to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Quantum, which constitutes bad news for the supporters of the multimodal scope of the Montreal Convention. According the US cases, any losses occurring during Door to Door transportation under an air waybill which involves a dominant air segment are subject to the international air law conventions. Any domestic rules that might be applicable to the road segment are blatantly overlooked. Undoubtedly, the approach of the US makes commercial. But this policy decision by arguing that the intention of the drafters of the Warsaw Convention was to cover Door to Door transportation is mistaken. Any expansion to multimodal transport would require an amendment to the Montreal Convention, Arts 18 and 38, one that is not in the plans for the foreseeable future. Yet there is no doubt that air carriers and freight forwarders will continue to push hard for such expansion, especially in the USA, where courts are more accommodating.

  • PDF