Uniformity or Unilateralism in the Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea?

Abstract

The ideal of international uniformity has always been regarded as particularly important to maritime law. However, over the past decade or so, the uniformity of the law of international carriage of goods by sea has increasingly been undermined by the unilateral adoption by maritime jurisdictions of "hybrid carriage regimes" which depart from the established international uniform rules.In this article Paul Myburgh argues that this trend towards adoption of divergent carriage regimes is highly problematic, not merely because of their detrimental effects on international uniformity and the coherence of maritime law and international transport law in general, but also because of more fundamental concerns about the validity of these regimes at international law, the practical conflict of laws problems that that they will generate, and their distorting effects on multimodal transport. The article concludes with some suggestions for future reform in this area.

Liability Implications of the Rotterdam Rules for Indian Dry Ports

“…Under the current regime shippers and carriers do not have the benefit of a binding and balanced universal instrument in support of contracts of carriage involving various modes of transportation. To rectify this, the Comité Maritime International (CMI) and the UNCITRAL have formulated a unified set of rules (Myburgh, 2000). The final product has resulted in a Convention, known as the United Nations Convention on Contracts for International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, commonly referred as the Rotterdam Rules.…”