Regulations which guide potential lack of clarity and dispute disagreement represent a positive modification of the market environment controls and hence the viability of Article 2 of the Hamburg Rule repealing the Hague-Visby Rules along that line (Edmonson, 2001; Edmonson, 2009).Carr and Stone (2013) noted that there had been substantial misunderstandings under the vague Hague/Visby rules regarding which maritime transportation agreements were covered by the regulations. Articles 1(b) and 2 of the original Hague/Visby Rules enforce the regulation of lading charges and other comparable documents of ownership. Nonetheless, Article 6 indicates that the introduction of non-negotiable documents will only limit the application of the provisions minimally as a way to improve trade.There are a number of other limitations also captured in the body of law to eliminate the pre-existing ambiguity about the range of application of the original Rules (Antapases, Lia, & Røsæg, 2009). As McDorman (2006) said, it is arguable that while the regulations clearly aimed to omit non-negotiable payment documents, they also were intended to prevent attempt by parties to circumvent the rules by fielding the wild card in the non-negotiable receipts where there was no need to act that way. Specifically, Article 2(1) (a) of the latest Hamburg Convention was particularly aimed to seal the loopholes which had been institutionalized by Article 10(b) of the Hague-Visby rules.Moreover, in what is seen as a substantial improvement of maritime transportation regulations, the Hamburg Rules introduced a whole new legislation under Article 2(1)(b), that was lacking in the Hague-Visby Treaty. The provision is applicable in all agreements where the loading port is found in a contracting member state (Force, Yiannopoulos, & Davies, 2006). Kwiatkowska (2013) noted that the letter and spirit of the provision was captured in the US statutory law, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, and Hamburg Rules basically aimed to strengthen it by making it part of the international treaty for the first time in history. The subsequent Article 2(1) (c) is well targeted at preventing parties to a contract from capitalizing on the freedom in choosing recipient ports to circumvent the Rules (Schelin, 2009).Despite its effectiveness, the objectivity of the new provisions are arguably questionable where this clause is to be applied singly, in which case, it would imply that the repealing Hamburg Rules
Antapases, A.M., Lia, A.I., & Røsæg, A.I., 2009. Competition and Regulation in Shipping and Shipping Related Industries. London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Brödermann, E., 2013. The Chinese European Arbitration Centre An Introduction to the CEAC Hamburg Arbitration Rules. Journal of International Arbitration, 30(3), pp.303-327.
Carr, I., & Stone, P., 2013. International Trade Law. New York: Routledge.
Edmonson, R.G. 2008. UN group agrees to reform cargo-liability rules. Shipping Digest, 85(4464), pp.13-14.
Edmonson, R.G., 2001. Cargo liability standoff. JoC Week, 2(36), p.36.
Edmonson, R.G., 2009. New Rules of the Sea. Journal of Commerce, 10(37), pp.10-14.
Faria, J.A.E., 2009. Uniform Law for International Transport at UNCITRAL: New Times, New Players, and New Rules. Texas International Law Journal, 44(3), pp.277-319.
Force, R., Yiannopoulos, A.N, & Davies, M., 2006. Admiralty and Maritime Law. London: Beard Books.
Kwiatkowska, B., 2013. Submissions to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: The Practice of Developing States in Cases of Disputed and Unresolved Maritime Boundary Delimitations or Other Land or Maritime Disputes. Part One. International Journal of Marine & Coastal Law, 28(2), pp.219-341.
McDorman, T.L., 2006. The Carriers Liability under the International Maritime Conventions: The Hague, Hague-Visby, and Hamburg Rules. Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce, 37(1), pp.153-156.
Mukherjee, P.K., & Bal, A.B., 2010. A Legal and Economic Analysis of the Volume Contract Concept under the Rotterdam Rules: Selected Issues in Perspective. Journal of Transportation Law, Logistics & Policy, 77(1), pp.27-51.
Mukherjee, P.K., & Ying, L., 2013. Multimodality, Short Sea Shipping and the Rotterdam Rules in the Chinese Context: Selected Law and Policy Issues in Perspective. Journal of Transportation Law, Logistics & Policy, 79(3), pp.223-244.
Nikaki, T., & Soyer, B., 2012. A New International Regime for Carriage of Goods by Sea: Contemporary, Certain, Inclusive and Efficient, or Just Another One for the Shelves? Berkeley Journal of International Law, 30(2), pp.303-348.
Schelin, J., 2009. The UNCITRAL Convention on Carriage of Goods by Sea: Harmonization or De-Harmonization? Texas International Law Journal, 44(3), pp.321-327.
Sturley, M.F., 2003. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Laws Transport Law Project: An Interim View of a Work in Progress. Texas International Law Journal, 39(1), p.65.
Sturley, M.F., 2009. Modernizing and Reforming U.S. Maritime Law: The Impact of the Rotterdam Rules in the United States. Texas International Law Journal, 44(3), pp.427- 455.
Tozaj, D., & Xhelilaj, E., 2010. Hamburg Rules v Hague Visby Rules an English Perspective. Analele Universitatii Maritime Constanta, 11(13), pp.30-34.
Von Ziegler, A.2009. The Liability of the Contracting Carrier. Texas International Law Journal, 44(3), pp.329-348.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples