• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제53권
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제51권
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.303-326
• /
• 2016

The Rotterdam Rules regulate both transport documents and the legal effect of the choice of document much more comprehensively than the existing maritime convention to bring international harmonization of issues relating to transport documents. The Rotterdam Rules use the generic term 'transport documents' rather than referring to specific title such as bills of lading, sea waybills. The generic term 'transport documents' allow four types of transport documents to be identified as follows. 1. negotiable 2. negotiable which dispense with surrender 3. non-negotiable which require surrender 4. non-negotiable. Each types of transport documents has its requirements to be satisfied. Also, the choice of transport documents affects legal effect. Thus parties to the contract of carriage not only need to know how the document will be classified at the time it is issued but also consider what the documents will bring legal consequences.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제49권
• /
• pp.325-358
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the implications of volume contract clause with Rotterdam Rules. The Hague-Visby Rules have been in force this jurisdiction for over 30 years. In those three decades they have performed valiant service, both for the development of maritime law in this country and for the countless parties from around the world who have chosen courts and arbitral tribunals in London for the resolution of disputes arising under bills of lading or under charterparties incorporating the Hague-Visby Rules. While the Hague-Visby Rules apply only to bills of lading or any other similar documents of title and hence all other contracts of carriage are not subject to the current regime, this is not the case for the Rotterdam Rules which, broadly speaking, apply to contracts of carriage whether or not a shipping document or electronic transport record is issued. To preserve freedom of contract where necessary, however, a number of significant concessions were made and Article 80 represents one of the most controversial: that of volume contracts. However, the provision lends itself to abuse under each one of the elements as there is no minimum quantity, period of time or frequency and the minimum number of shipments is clearly just two. This means that important contracts of affreighment concluded pursuant to, for example, oil supply agreements have the same right to be excluded from the scope of application of the Rotterdam Rules. The fact that a volume contract may incorporate by reference the carrier's public schedule of services and the transport document or other similar documents as terms of the contract would make a carefully drafted booking note for consecutive shipments a potential volume contract as well.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제74권
• /
• pp.55-79
• /
• 2017

The Rotterdam Rules introduces new issues that have been ignored by previous international transport conventions. Among them, provisions on delivery of goods have been a much debated topic as it deviate from well established principles. Rotterdam Rules provides several alternatives in order to resolve uncertainty regarding delivery practice. The carrier have to make a resonable effort to deliver the goods following the required procedure which is different from transport document issued. Where the goods are not deliverable, the carrier could discharge from its obligations to deliver the goods when he deliver the goods by delivery instruction of shipper. In addition, he can take actions reasonably required according to circumstances if it is impossible to deliver the goods. These alternatives are not ideal, but they seem to be partly helping to solve practical problems arising in the process of delivery. However the delivery regime under the Rotterdam Rules could cause confusion in the traditional delivery principle. On the other hand, it puts a new burden on the parties concerned. In conclusion, the parties concerned should consider practical implications in issuing and transferring transport document as well as requesting and instructing delivery of goods.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제46권
• /
• pp.181-210
• /
• 2010

The continuing advance of multimodal transport with the importance for efficient and effective logistics management emphasizes the need for uniform legal approach to international multimodal transport. However, the current fragmented instrument regulating such transport is being an obstacle to development of multimodal transport as it aggravates confusion and uncertainty. The Rotterdam rules, which was adopted in December 2008 by UNCITRAL, expands its scope of application to door-to-door transport. However, the new rules has some problems in its application to multimodal transport operation as it has been conceived not to regulate general multimodal carriage but to regulate contract of carriage by sea that extends its services to the transport by other modes. This article examines conflict of conventions in the Rotterdam Rules. The applicability of the Rotterdam Rules in international multimodal transport contract and possibility of potential conflict with other transport conventions are analyzed with some hypothetical cases. Furthermore, problems arising from application of the Rotterdam Rules under international multimodal transport Contracts are indicated in the chapter IV.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제75권
• /
• pp.71-94
• /
• 2017

The Rotterdam Rules is the first international maritime carriage of goods Convention that acknowledge electronic records of contracts of carriage. The Rules have developed separate chapter in relation to electronic transport records' issuing, transfer, etc. This paper aims to evaluate Rotterdam Rules' contribution to the use of electronic transport records. To achieve the aims firstly this paper have examined the related articles of Rotterdam Rules, Secondly in practical aspects, this paper explores the opportunities and obstacles which could be happened in practical procedures, applicable to transport industry, shipper and holder of electronic transport records. Findings could be summarized as follows, first the Rules shows high acceptability to whom it may involved in transport industry by simplify the contents of the Rules to avoid conflict with each countries' national laws. The Rules acknowledge the functional equivalence between paper and electronic transport records in specific provisions. This could be important development to facilitate the use of electronic transport records. But the Rules have not mentioned liability limit of transport industry when the problems arise from issuing, tele-transmission, transfer of the records. And the secure of the functional equivalence between paper and electronic transport records also could be remained in uncertain regime due to different stance of each national laws.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제42권
• /
• pp.189-210
• /
• 2009

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea(hereinafter referred to as "The Rotterdam Rules") on 11 December 2008. Rotterdam Rules aims to create a contemporary and uniform law providing for modern door-to-door container transport including an international sea leg. but not limited to port-to port carriage of goods. The structure of the liability regime in Rotterdam Rules are globally close to that of the Hague-Visby Rule even though it differs from that of the Hague-Visby Rules in some significant aspects. The Rotterdam Rules are very long. Therefore the Rotterdam Rules will be difficult to understand for even the skilled ship operator or owner or charterer or shipper or consignee or receiver because they are so complicated. This paper only seeks to highlight the salient features of the liability and limitation of liability regime under the Rotterdam Rules. It is expected that the harmonization and modernization of the international legal regime. coupled with the bold attempt to balance the carrier and cargo interests should lead to an overall reduction in transaction costs. increased predictability and greater commercial confidence for international business transactions.

• 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.