No abstract

No abstract

On March 24, 2021, M/V EVER GIVEN from Evergreen Marine Corp stranded in the southern part of the Suez Canal shortly after it entered the canal, resulting in the closure of the two-way channel of the Suez Canal and the blockage of hundreds of ships on the route between Asia and Europe. There exist quite tedious and complicated legal issues behind the stranding of M/V EVER GIVEN, including the contractual liability of M/V EVER GIVEN to the owners of cargo, the legal liability of M/V EVER GIVEN to the Suez Canal Authority and to the rescue force, and the establishment and contribution of general average. As to the specific claims for compensation, the legal relationship between the parties should be made clear firstly, and the establishment of the right to claim should then be confirmed. We should also distinguish claims which have been covered by the insurer or the P&I club from those which should be the responsibility of the ship owner. Combined with the gross tonnage data of M/V EVER GIVEN, the limitation of liability for maritime claims can be calculated according to the 2012 Amendment of CONVENTION ON LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR MARITIME CLAIMS 1976. To have a conclusion that the paper will predict whether the owner of M/V EVER GIVEN will be bankrupt, the value of the vessel should be compared with the amount of limitation of liability for maritime claims.

As the globalization of economy accelerates greatly, more and more cross-border trade and investment is inevitably coming into being, resulting in many bankruptcy cases in which the relationship of creditor's rights and debts is no longer limited to the territory of a country. In recent years, the most influential case is the bankruptcy case of Hanjin Shipping. Hanjin Shipping's bankruptcy has had a great impact on the international shipping market, the global supply chain has been interrupted, and a large number of commercial disputes have been triggered. The problems of insolvency international cooperation and the conflicts between bankruptcy and ship arrest proceedings in cross-border insolvency case have aroused widespread concern of experts and scholars in shipping. China has not adopted "UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency", making the case more complicated to deal with the proceedings under jurisdiction of China. In order to deal with cross-border bankruptcy cases in China and better protect the interests of stakeholders, this paper makes a detailed analysis of the legal provisions on cross-border bankruptcy under Chinese law, and statistically analyzes the practice of Chinese courts in dealing with cross-border bankruptcy cases. Through a comparative analysis of the similarities and differences of legal provisions and practices between China and "UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency" and other typical countries, this paper puts forward some suggestions and countermeasures to deal with similar cross-border bankruptcy cases under the jurisdiction of Chinese courts in the future.

have similar but different provisions on the nature of bill of lading. The Hague Rules use covered to stipulate that the bill of lading is the proof of carriage contract, while covered also means including. The Hamburg Rules and Maritime Laws of the People's Republic of China use evidence to stipulate that the bill of lading is the proof of carriage contract, while the United States Freight Act 1999 considers the bill of lading as the carriage contract directly. For this problem that the nature of the bill of lading is proof of the carriage contract or the carrier of the carriage contract, this paper adopts the methods of literature research and comparative study, starting from the relevant legal provisions of bill of lading, progressively analyze the legal nature of bill of lading and draw a conclusion from the perspective of the conclusion of carriage contract, the relationship between bill of lading and carrier of carriage contract and carrier of carriage contract three dimensions. That is, the bill of lading is not the carriage contract and the rights and obligations of both parties are subject to the carriage contract in the non-public carrier contract of human transport. In the public carrier contract of human transport, the bill of lading is the carrier of the carriage contract in some cases, but only the proof of the carriage contract iLn some cases.