• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.23 no.6
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.54
• /
• 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.

• 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.69
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.337-353
• /
• 2010

On payment of the insurance money the insurer is entitled to be subrogated to all right and remedies of the assured in respect of the interest insured in so far as he has indemnified the insured. The purpose of subrogation is to prevent the assured from recovering more than once for the same loss, e.g. where goods are lost owing to a collision, the assured cannot claim the insurance money from the insurer and then sue the owners of the ship that negligently caused the collision. Under the doctrine of subrogation the right to sue owners of the negligent ship passes from the assured to the insurer on payment of the insurance money. The insurer is subrogated to the assured 'rights against the carrier under the contract of carriage. To defeat the cargo underwriters' subrogation righters, the carriers inserted in their B/L a clause allowing the carriers to have the "benefit of the shipper's insurance. But, in the Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules, Rotterdam Rules, its makes void any clause that assigns a benefit of insurance of the goods in favour of the carrier. In practice the insurer asks the assured to sign a letter of subrogation and retains the documents in order to prosecute the rights subrogated to him.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• 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.

• 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 Ship and Ocean Technology
• /
• v.5 no.3
• /
• pp.1-13
• /
• 2001

Present-day rules and regulations for the design and construction of ships are almost without exemption of a prescriptive and deterministic nature. Often it is argued that this situation is far from ideal; it does no right to the advances, which have been made during the past decades in engineering tools in marine technology, both in methodology and in computational power. Within IMO this has been realized for some time and has resulted in proposals to use Formal Safety Assessment(FSA) as a tool to improve and to modernize the rule making process. The present paper makes use of elements of the FSA methodology, but instead of working towards generic regulations or requirements, a Risk Assessment Approach, not unlike a 'safety case'; valid for a certain ship or type of ship is worked out. Delft University of Technology investigated the application of safely assessment procedures in ship design, in co-operation with Anthony Veder Shipowners and safety experts from Safely Service Center BV. The ship considered is a semi-pressurized-fully refrigerated LPG carrier. On the basis of the assumption that a major accident occurs, various accident, scenarios were considered and assessed, which would impair the safety of the carrier. In a so-called Risk Matrix, in which accident frequencies versus the consequence of the scenarios are depicted, the calculated risks all appeared lo be in the ALARP('as low as reasonable practicable') region. A number of design alternatives were compared, both on safety merits and cost-effectiveness. The experience gained with this scenario-based approach will be used to establish a set of general requirements for safety assessment techniques in ship design. In the view that assessment results will be most probably presented in a quasi-quantified manner, the requirements are concerned with uniformity of both the safety assessment. These requirements make it possible that valid comparison between various assessment studies can be made. Safety assessment, founded on these requirements, provides a validated and helpful source of data during the coming years, and provides naval architects and engineers with tools experience and data for safety assessment procedures in ship design. However a lot of effort has to be spent in order to make the methods applicable in day-to-day practice.