The Governing Law of Multimodal Transport within the Framework of Hamburg and Rotterdam Rules

Document Type : Scientific research

Authors

• Negar Rokhchakav
• azam ansari

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

https://doi.org/10.22067/le.v24i11.60847

Abstract

The use of containers as a means of moving cargo has rapidly increasing over the last decades and has given rise to the concept of multimodal transport. This mode of transport takes place by at least two different modes through one single contract from a place in one country where the goods are taken in charge by the carrier to a place designated for delivery situated in a different country. This way of transport has many advantages such as overcoming many of the technical problems as well as reducing loading and discharging time. While a new convention related to multimodal transport is expected but all efforts in this subject have failed for some reasons as unfortunately there is neither any uniform international law on multimodal contract nor is one expected in the near future. To solve this problem, some solutions have been proposed among which using network system for ascertaining the applicable law is one of the best possible options. The network system links existing sets of unimodal convention to the substantive rules. Under the network system, the multimodal transport agreement is divided into parts and the law applicable to each separate stage is determined as if it were a separate contract. So, all applicable unimodal international conventions are applied only to the related multimodal transport. It means that the convention on the contract for the international carriage of goods by road (CMR, 1956) on the road leg, the convention concerning international carriage by rail (COTIF, 1980) and its amendments (1999) on the rail stage, the convention for the unification of certain rules related to the international carriage by air (Warsaw Convention, 1929) and its amendments (1955), the convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air (Montreal Convention, 1999) on the air leg, the Hague Rules as Amended by the Brussels Protocol (Hague-Visby Rules, 1968), the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Hamburg Convention, 1978), and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly or partly by the sea (Rotterdam Rules, 2009) on the sea leg will be applied.
Anyway, there is a considerable overlap between mandatory provisions of different unimodal conventions and the multimodal transport. These overlaps will lead to problems in governing law on multimodal transport. In order to solve this problem, sometimes theses conventions have created their own conflicts with the rules. The aim of this paper is to explore the possibilities of legal overlaps between the provisions of Hamburg Rules and Rotterdam Rules (as two international conventions related to the sea leg) in multimodal transport by relying on the descriptive-analytic research.
This essay shows Hamburg Rules contain a specific reference to multimodal carriage. In Article 1(6), the scope of application of convention is established concerning the situations where the carriage by sea is a part of a larger contract. Nevertheless, Hamburg rules don’t apply to the whole contract but are restricted to the international sea stage. Rotterdam Rules are intended to provide a modern uniform law which can regulate all international carriages of goods including an international sea leg, while the convention regulates parts of the wet multimodal transports. There are various possible situations in which more than one carriage may apply. Most of the potential conflicts resulting from the multimodal carriage are created by the multimodal articles in the unimodal carriage regimes which means that the articles extending the scope of the regimes beyond the type of carriage are primarily intended to regulate. Fortunately, some conventions contain rules that can solve some conflicts. In fact, they have conflicting rules. Following the overview of some conflicts among Hamburg Rules and Rotterdam Rules regulations, the essay shows that Article 25(5) of Hamburg Rules is conflicting with some other conventions such as Article 2 CMR and Article 3(1) COTIF convention which indicates that these rules should prioritize the Hamburg rules. In this regard, it is necessary to pay attention to Articles 26 and 82 of Rotterdam Rules. Although Article 26 of Rotterdam Rules does not prevent all possible conflicts with the international conventions on carriage other than by sea, it solves a lot of potential conflicts by incorporating the provisions on the carrier liability, the limitation of liability and time for the suit of other conventions. Article 82 deals with the relationship between Rotterdam Rules and other conventions regulating carriage by air, road, rail or inland water ways. According to Article 82 first paragraph, nothing in the Rotterdam Rules affects the application of any unimodal convention when the Rotterdam Rules enters in force regarding the liability of the carrier for the loss of or damage to the goods. Nevertheless, this general step-back rule is only applicable to the conflict with the international conventions on carriage of goods by air. In other cases the step-back rule is restricted to certain situations in Articles 82 (b) to (d).

Keywords

• carriage of goods
• multimodal transport
• unimodal conventions
• conflict of laws

References

[1] Adamsson, Joakim. (2011). The Rotterdam Rules A transport convention for the future?.Unpublished Thesis, Faculty of Law Lund University, Sweden, Available at: http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2292311&fil. Last visited at 11 December 2015.

[2] Amuzad Khalili, Majid, (2012), Multimodal Transport New Approach of Transportation in Strategic Development: the Article presented in 1st seminar on the role of Multimodal Transport in national and international Trade. (In Persian)

[3] Basnayake, Sinha. (1979). Introduction: Origins of the 1978 Hamburg Rules. The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 27, No. 2/3, pp.353-355.

[4] Berlingieri, Francesco. (2009). Multimodal Aspects of the Rotterdam Rules. Colloquium on the Rotterdam Rules (Rotterdam: September 21. Available at: http://www.rotterdamrules2009.com/cms/uploads/Def.%20tekst%20F.%20Berlingieri%2013%20OKT29.pdf. Last Visited at 10 Febuary 2015.

[5] Butakova, Alexandrovna Nadezda. (2013). Legal Regime of Carriage by Sea. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2286999 , last visited at 14 August 2016.

[6] Chenal, Thomas K. (1978). Uniform Rules for a Combined Transport Document in Light of the Proposed Revision of the Hague Rules. Arizona Law Review, No. 20, pp.953-982.

[7] Colebunders, Caroline. (2013). Multimodal cargo carrier liability and insurance: in search of suitable regime.Unpublished Thesis, Faculty of Law

University of Ghent, Belgium. Availabe at: http://docplayer.net/13683118-Multimodal-cargo-carrier-liability-and-insurance-in-search-of-suitable-regime.html.Last visited at 20 August 2016.

[8] Conrado, Iara Costa. (2011). Multimodal Aspect of the Rotterdam Rules: a critical analysis of the liability of the MTO.Unpublished Thesis, Faculty of Law Lund University, Sweden. Available at: https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/1976401. Last visited at 22 June 2016.

[9] De Wit, Ralph. (1995).Multimodal transport. London, Lloyd's of London Press.

[10] Diamond, Anthony. (1980).Legal Aspects of the Convention in: Multimodal Transport the 1980 UN Convention, Papers of a one day seminar held by Southampton University’s Faculty of Law on September 12th 1980, pp. 1-39.

[11] Fayzi Chekab, Gholam Nabi & Azarmehr, Mahsa. (2015). Applicability of the Rotterdam Rules to Multimodal Transportation and Coexistence With Other Transportation Conventions, Journal of Private Law Research, Volume 3, Issue 8, pp137-174. (In Persian)

[12] Hashemzadeh, Seyyed Alireza (1999): The Liability of Maritime Carrier for Goods based on Brussels Convention, 1924 and Hamburg Rules 1978, Ms thesis, Imam Sadeq university. (In Persian)

[13] Hoeks, Marian. (2008).Multimodal carriage with a pinch of sea salt: door to door under the UNCITRAL Draft instrument. European Transport Law, Vol.10, pp.257-280.

[14] Hoeks, Marian. (2009).Multimodal Transport Law (The law applicable to the multimodal contract for the carriage of goods). Netherlands, Breda.

[15] Jeon, Haedong. (2013).Coping With Muddles and Uncertainty in the Field of Multimodal Transport Liability.Unpublished Thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton. Available at: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/359284/. Last Visited at 24 March 2016.

[16] Kindred, Hugh. Mand Brooks, Mary. R. (1997).Multimodal Transport Rules. Netherlands, Kluwer Law International.

[17] Mankovski, Peter. (2010).the Rotterdam Rules – Scope of Application and Freedom of Contract.European Journal of Commercial and Contract Law, Vol.2, No. 2, pp. 9-21.

[18] Mashhadi, Hadi (2013), Maritime Law: Exemptions of Maritime Carrier Liability, First Edition, Tehran, Hoghughe Emrooz Publication. (In Persian)

[19] Mirasi. Asadollah, Asoudar, Mohammad Amin & Abdshahi, Abbas (2012), the Study of Multimodal Transport’s Advantages in Iran, the Article Presented in 1st Seminar on the role of Multimodal Transport in national and international Trade. (In Persian)

[20] Mohammadzadeh, Alireza, (1994), United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by see (Hamburg Rules), Journal of Law and Political Sciences Faculty, Issue 32, pp.253-281. (In Persian)

[21] Najandimanesh, Heybatolah & Lalegani Samaneh. (2015). Applicable Law to International Multimodal Transport Contracts for Goods, Journal of Public Law Research, Volume 16, Issue 46, pp.155-190. (In Persian)

[22] Selvig, Erling. (1979).Through-Carriage and On-Carriage of Goods by Sea. The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 27, No. 2/3, pp. 369-389.

[23] Simaee Sarraf, Hossein & Yari, Meysam, (2012). General Scope of Application of the Rotterdam Convention: Conflicts of Application with Other Conventions, International Law Review, Volume 28, Issue 45, pp105-138. (In Persian)

[24] Special Report of Shipping Industry and Multimodal Transportation, (2004), Payam Darya, Volume12, Issue128, pp.64-65. (In Persian)

[25] Sturley, Michael F. (2011).General Principles of Transport Law and the Rotterdam Rules in: Gu¨ner-O¨ zbek, Meltem Deniz(ed), The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea An Appraisal of the “Rotterdam Rules. Berlin, Springer.

[26] Taghizadeh, Ibrahim, Transport Maritime Law (2010) First Edition, Tehran, Majd Publication . (In Persian)

[27] Thempson, Scott M. (1992).THE HAMBURG RULES: SHOULD THEY BE IMPLEMENTED IN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND? Vol.4, No.2, pp.168-185.

[28] Van der Ziel, Gertjan. (2009). Multimodal Aspects of the Rotterdam Rules. Uniform Law Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 981-995.

[29] Wilson, John .Furness. (2004). Carriage of Goods by Sea. Harlow, Pearson Education.

[30] Yaghuti, Manizheh (1994) Analysis of Hamburg Convention and Study of its Advantages than Hague Regulations, MS thesis, Shahid Beheshti University. (In Persian)