• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제65권
• /
• pp.51-70
• /
• 2015

The Rotterdam Rules are not phrased in favour of FOB seller's legal status. Whether it will be wise under the Rotterdam Rules to trade on the basis of cash against M/R largely depends on the interpretation of various provisions of the Rotterdam Rules. To protect his interests the M/R holder and his assigns must have a right of delivery of the cargo at the port of destination. The M/R holder and his assigns must be entitled to the bill of lading or at least be able to prevent the carrier from issuing the bill of lading to the shipper. Besides, any additional right of instruction on the part of the shipper must be blocked. Article 35 of the Rules entitles only the shipper to the bill of lading while 47 entitles only the holder of the bill of lading to delivery. When no bill of lading has been issued Article 45 grants to the shipper a right of instruction whereby the shipper is allowed to advise the carrier as to the name and the address of the consignee. I have suggested that by lack of a specific provision to the contrary the Rotterdam Rules have to be considered to be embedded in the system of law as a whole. From the Common Law it follows that a M/R holder, as owner of the cargo, can ask for delivery of the cargo. As owner of the cargo a M/R holder can also claim the bill of lading, if he does so in time, because it must be implied in the contract of carriage that the carrier must deliver the bill of lading to the owner of the goods. It is for the same reason that a M/R holder can prevent the carrier from issuing the bill of lading to any third party but the M/R holder and from taking instructions from the shipper as to name and address of a consignee other than the M/R holder.

• Architectural research
• /
• 제22권4호
• /
• pp.135-143
• /
• 2020

The Netherlands is a human-made country and an extremely well-designed European country as well. The general Dutch spatial planning for the city and environment takes place at a regional level. The local community determines the primary development conditions, and the prospect is included in a legally binding land-use plan. Especially, Rotterdam is a representative port city as the center of world trade and the gateway to western Europe. According to the history of war, the city reconstruction and the movement of the port area have led to a general change in Rotterdam and the regional redevelopment project on the southern port area of Mass river for the expansion of city functions and the balanced development. The research purpose is to understand the spatial development of the Netherlands city-region based on the analysis regarding the Kop van Zuid project, which is a representative implemented case in Rotterdam. The theoretical framework is the five dimensions and twelve indicators of territorial governance from the TANGO research project by the EU. The target case is assessed by planning and social aspect, respectively, and the results are discussed based on the theoretical framework. This research has the possibility to be utilized as advanced research by the European perspective for spatial development in other city-regions with the port area, such as Incheon and Busan in Korea.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제23권6호
• /
• pp.113-130
• /
• 2019

Purpose - This paper investigates applicability of blockchain based bill of lading under the current legal environment. Legal requirements of electronic bill of lading will be analyzed based on the Rotterdam Rules and recently enacted UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records. Using comparative analysis with the previous registry model for electronic bill of lading, this paper examines the advantages of blockchain based bill of lading. Design/methodology - This research reviewed previous efforts for dematerializing bill of lading with its limitation. Main features of blockchain technology which can make up for deficiencies of registry model also be investigated to analyze whether these features can satisfy the requirements for the legal validity of the negotiable electronic transport record or electronic transferable records under the Rotterdam Rules and the MLETR. Findings - Main findings of this research can be summarized as follows: Blockchain system operated in an open platform can improve transparency and scalability in transfer of electronic bill of lading by assuring easy access for transaction. Distributed ledger technology of blockchain makes it more difficult to forge or tamper with transactions because all participants equally shares identical transaction records. Consensus mechanism and timestamp in a blockchain transaction guarantee the integrity and uniqueness of a transaction. These features are enough to satisfy the requirements of electronic transferable records under the Rotterdam Rules and MLTER. Originality/value - This study has significance in that it provided implications for the introduction of electronic bill of lading by analyzing whether the blockchain based electronic bill of lading model meets the legal requirements under the current legal system prepared prior to the introduction of blockchain technology, and by presenting the advantages of the blockchain based bill of lading model through comparative analysis with the existing registry model.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2020

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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제58권
• /
• pp.127-148
• /
• 2013

The Rotterdam Rules provide that port terminal operator may avoid or limit their liability for cargo loss, damage or delay in delivery or breach of any other obligation under the Rules by invoking the provisions that may provide a defence for, or limit the liability of, the carrier. Consequently the port terminal operator who are involved in the provision of maritime services may avoid or limit their liability for cargo loss, damage or delay in delivery or breach of any other obligation under the Rules. The port terminal operator to be applied for the Himalaya clause under the Rules must show that it has the requisite link with a Contracting State. In addition, the port terminal operator performs service to the period of time between the arrival of the goods at the port of loading and their departure from the port of discharge. The port terminal operator's liability for breaches of its obligation is limited to 875 SDR per package or other shipping units, or 3 SDR per kilogram of the gross weight of the goods. In addition, compensation for delay shall be limited to an amount equivalent to two and one-half times the fright payable on the goods delayed.

• 건축사
• /
• 통권661호
• /
• pp.148-155
• /
• 2024

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.349-370
• /
• 2016

This thesis examines the problems faced in the electronic bill of lading for which improvements are necessary, and suggests various ways of overcoming those problems. First, to build a negotiation system for electronic B/Ls, active participation from related parties in addition to the government support is essential. Second, electronic B/Ls cannot be utilized within a short period of time in current commercial practices. Third, there should be infrastructure which connects all parties of international commerce through an electronic system. Fourth, instead of promoting mutual recognition through international treaty, there should be a plan which legally specifying mutual recognition between certification authorities. Fifth, it is needed to ease the strictness of electronic signature to promote the global negotiation of electronic B/Ls. Lastly, in prima facie weight of evidence, there was a significant difference with the Rotterdam Rules even in comparison with the Commercial Act which was amended with the significantly advanced rules on electronic B/L. He believed there should be a discreet consideration on these matters at the revision of the Commercial Act. For this, the government has to provide support more aggressively with more interest and commitments.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.327-348
• /
• 2016

Under the Korean legal system, as an actual carrier is not the contractual party to the contract for carriage of goods by sea, it has been tortiously liable for the damage to, or loss of cargo, should there be the negligence by its part. However, the Rotterdam Rules introduces a revolutionary liability regime for the actual carrier. According to the Rotterdam Rules, the liability of the actual carrier is same with that of a contractual carrier with the result that a shipper is entitled to bring the direct action to the actual carrier, as well as the contractual carrier on the same basis. Nevertheless, it is expected to take long time for the new approach in respect of actual carrier's liability to be confirmed by many countries, and furthermore most of shipping countries including Korea still adopt the Hague-Vis by Rules where the shipper is not allowed to bring the direct action to the actual carrier. This study reviews on whether or not the alteration of actual carrier's liability based on Rotterdam Rules would be reasonable, considering the current Korean legal system. Furthermore, this study, whilst recognizing that the overall introduction of the new liability regime is somewhat premature, suggests the imposition of contractual liability to the actual carrier from a long-term perspective. Having in mind that the article 809 of the Korean Commercial Act allows the shipper to bring the direct action to the shipowner only in the case that a time charterer is the contractual carrier, this study explores a method to apply the contractual liability to the actual carrier in the case that a slot charterer or freight forwarder is the contractual carrier, in order to establish the uniform liability system.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.235-260
• /
• 2012

The CMI Rules for Electronic Bills of Lading were based on sound principles that are now reflected in the provisions of the Rotterdam Rules, which provide for the use of electronic equivalents to bills of lading. Services involving bills of lading which exist in electronic form for at least part of their lives, and which use encryption to guarantee integrity and security of these electronic records, are already being offered by a number of carriers, among them APL. The relative success of APL's system demonstrates that the use of a system which embodies the basic ideas and processes underlying the CMI Rules could easily become a practical reality in the near future. The basic principles in the CMI Rules and the Rotterdam Rules adopt a minimum requirements approach and does not flesh out the details of procedures for the use of electronic bills. This is an improvement, as it allows adaptability to future technological developments. Successful electronic bill of lading systems can only be developed in response to customer demand, and carriers are in the best position to gauge this and design systems to cater for it. APL has demonstrated this by creating a system which is tailor-made to its customers' requirements. The CMI Rules were correct in their assumption that electronic bill of lading services should be provided by carriers. They also seem to have anticipated that the switch to the electronic medium would not be sudden and complete, but would require a gradual phasing out of paper documents over a long period of time.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제51권
• /
• 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.