• 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.

• 한국항해학회지
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.195-205
• /
• 2001

중화인민공화국해상법은 1993년 7월 1일 시행되어서 이미 7년 이상이 지났는바, 그간 중국 해상운송관계 또는 해난사고의 분쟁을 조율하는데 있어서 큰 역할을 해 왔다. 그러나 중국 해상법이 입법 당시부터 타당하지 못한 부분이나 시행과정에서 드러난 합리적이지 못한 부분에 대한 개정은 불가피한 것이다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 중국 해상법 중 인도지연의 의의, 인도지연으로 인한 운송인의 법적 책임, 인도지연에 대한 운송인의 면책사유와 책임제한 그리고 운송인에 대한 손해배상 청구절차에 관한 규정에 대하여 대략적인 고찰을 하고 아울러 중국해상법 타당성 여부에 대하여 검토하고자 한다.

• 한국정보통신학회논문지
• /
• 제23권7호
• /
• pp.881-888
• /
• 2019

국가 간 무역거래 중 해상운송의 위험화물에 대한 비중이 늘어나는 추세이며 위험화물의 종류와 형태는 매우 다양해지고, 복잡해지면서 범위 또한 넓게 확장되고 있다. 이런 이유로 운송수단인 선박과 다른 화물의 안전을 위협하게 될 사고의 위험성은 증가하게 됨은 물론이고 심각한 피해를 발생 시킨다. 운송인은 위험화물에 대한 특별한 관리와 취급을 필요로 하며 안전한 운송을 위하여 주의의무가 있다. 따라서 송하인은 선적하기 전에 위험화물의 성질과 특성을 운송인에게 통지할 의무가 있으며 통지여부에 따라 운송인의 책임이 달라진다. 본 연구에서는 위험화물의 개념과 분류 및 국제해상운송규범인 헤이그 규칙, 함부르크 규칙과 로테르담규칙의 운송인의 위험화물 책임에 관한 조항을 비교, 분석하고 사례 분석 후, 국제해상운송에 있어 위험화물 취급, 관리자인 운송인에게 정보를 제공하는데 목적을 두고자 한다.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제6권
• /
• pp.191-215
• /
• 1994

The concept of 'wilful misconduct" was initally used in article 25 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929. The concept was defined in the Hague Protocol, 1955, as having the following two differing concepts: i) "with the intent to cause damage" and ii) "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." The concepts contained in the Hague Protocol were used in various international Conventions on carriage by sea, such as Article 2(e) and Article 3(4) of the Protocol adopted at Brussels on Feb. 23, 1968 to amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, signed at Brussels, Aug. 25, 1929(Hague-Visby Rules), Article 13 of the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, Dec. 13. 1974, Article 4 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, Article 8(1) of the U.N. Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978(Hamburg Rules) and Article 21 (1) of the U.N. Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, Geneva, 1980. The same concepts were also adopted in Article 746, 789-2(1), 789-3(2) of the Korean Maritime Commercial Law, revised in 1991. As of yet, the legal system of Korean Private Law recognizes only the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit", as is the case with German Private Law. The problem is that the concepts in the Convention do not coincide precisely with the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit". The author has conducted a comparative analysis of the treatment of the concepts of wilful misconduct and its varied interpretations, that is, "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" in the Anglo-American law and in the continental European law in the following manner: 1. Background in which the concept of wilful misconduct was introduced in the Warsaw Convention. 2. The concept of "dol" in French private law. 3. The concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in Korean private law. 4. Analysis of the concept of wilful misconduct in Anglo-American case law. 5. Analysis of the cases interpreting the concepts of "with intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result" in various jurisdictions. 6. The need to incorporate the concepts of "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." 7. Faute inexcusable in French private law. Based upon the comparative analysis, the author points out the difference between the concepts of "wilful misconduct" or "with the intent to cause damage" and "Vorsatz", and between the concepts of "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in the Convention and that of the Korean Private Law system. Additionally, the author emphasizes the importance of the unification in the interpretation of the provisions of the Conventions world wide.