• 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.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2006

The objective of this study is to discuss damage to cargo caused by shipper's Liability. an analysis of the excepted perils of the carriers and the scope of marine insurance coverage reveals that the excepted perils of the carrier are covered by the most part by marine insurance. however damage to cargo caused by shipper's fault remains uncovered. Damage to cargo by insufficient packing is caused by the cargo owner's error or negligence, thus both the underwriter and the marine carrier are exmpted from responsibility. but a problem aries from the fact that there is no objective standard for full packaging. In order to solve these problems, it is required to specify the method of packaging for certain goods when making an individual agreement, so that the owner can be exmpted from responsibility for packaging conformed to the pertinent article.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.83-108
• /
• 2006

Regarding the ocean carrier's responsibility for damage indemnification, both his or her duty of care and reason of legal exemption have been considered important. The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Bills of Lading also provides that the ocean carrier indemnifies for the loss or damage of freight on the basis of the principle of liability with fault. In other words, the carrier assumes responsibility only for the loss or damage of freight which is under his or her control and whose safety must be carefully maintained by him or her. The carrier's duty of care which is required for freight safety in accordance with the convention is associated with two themes, seaworthiness of vessel and freight itself. To make ocean freight shipping effective necessities the seaworthiness of the ship that will conduct the shipping service under its responsibility. This will ultimately lead to making the service impressive to the shipper as freight owner. Thus the purpose of this study is to contribute to more reasonable shipping by the shipowner or the carrier who needs to ensure seaworthiness of vessel, and prevent unseaworthiness that may be incurred in accordance with freight characteristics. For the purpose, this paper reviewed the meaning of seaworthiness of vessel through a juridical approach to its causal relationship with ocean freight shipping.

• 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.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Construction Safety
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.45-49
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to study how to draw up a safety guarantee certificate and its future expected effects in connection with the Industrial Safety and Health Act as it becomes mandatory to draw up a safety guarantee led by the owner who exercises practical decision-making authority and pays for the construction work. Therefore, Therefore, this study predicts the expected effects of the health and safety guarantee on the construction industry and the weaknesses that future health and assurance have in settling in the construction industry in relation to the revised Act on Industrial Safety and Health. And It will be used as basic data on the changes that will be brought by the shipper-led preemptive safety and health management system, as well as strengthening responsibilities and safety for the role of the shipper in the construction industry.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.221-237
• /
• 2016

This study aims to review the article 26 of UCP 600. The article 26 of UCP 600 deals with 'on deck cargo' and 'unknown wording' in L/C transaction. The article 26 of UCP 600 says that a transport document stating that the goods may be carried on deck is accept able. UCP 600 requires to reject transport documents which evidence that the goods are or will be loaded on deck. So the bank will not accept the B/L containing a clause stating the goods are or will be loaded on deck. But in practice a container cargo is carried on deck actually but we do not describe this fact on the Bill of Lading. The deck stowage is not allowed under the clean B/L. But in case of container cargo, the carrier has the right to carry the container on deck in practice. In spite of this practice the carrier can not describe this fact correctly like this : "The container cargo loaded on deck". If carrier describes on B/L like this, the bank rejects the B/L in L/C transaction. So the carrier describes as "the goods may be carried on deck" on the back of the B/L. But they loaded the container on deck actually. This article suggests some ideas on this matter. In addition, the article 26 of UCP 600 says that a transport document bearing a clause such as "shipper's load count" or "said by shipper to contain" is acceptable. This means that a carrier has no responsibility on the contents of containers. In case of FCL Cargo, it is impossible for a carrier to check the details of container cargo. Therefore it is inevitable to insert the expressions such as "SLC(shipper's load and count)" or "STC(said to contain)". The wording described on the face of B/L should be interpreted as intended and consistently. The intention of the carrier is not the actual quantity or weight. So unknown wording does not represent the actual quantity or weight. But some cases show that the carriers are indemnified by such insertion but others reject the effectiveness of such insertion. So this study emphasizes that unknown wording can not fully indemnify the carriers and that the insertion of such expressions shall be minimized.

• 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.

• 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 the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.28 no.6
• /
• pp.946-954
• /
• 2022

More than half of barges have been surveyed and designated as an "unmanned barge". The main advantage of the unmanned barge is that it can carry more cargo equivalent to 25 percent of freeboard compared to that of a manned barge. In contrast, it needs an onboard crew barge because the bargeman is in charge of several tasks during sailing such as mooring or unmooring barges to or from a wharf, dropping and heaving up an anchor and turning on and of navigational lights and shapes. The instant recognition is that a tug assume the responsibility of operating a barge; however, different situations exist in which the shipper, as the operator of the barge, hires a tug. Although a tug might be a carrier of a barge under a specific contract, the master of the tug should fulfill his duty to complete its voyage. Most masters are not provided with the particulars of a barge and the information regarding the bargemen onboard, which is believed not to respect the master's authority and lead to an unintended violation of relevant laws. This paper presents three recommendations for resolving these issues: the policy approach for changing unmanned barges to manned barges, issuing a minimum safe manning certificate, and providing the master of tug information on the barge and the crew onboard. Thus, the proposed approach can be expected to improve the crew's working conditions, diminish the violation of the maximum number of persons onboard the barge, and ensure the authority of the master of tug through such recommendations.