CANADIAN ACADEMIC URGES CMI TO REVISE LIABILITY REFORM
William Tetley, professor of law at McGill University in Canada, has written to the international law associations’ Comite Maritime International, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and other bodies, urging them to revise a proposed reform of international cargo liability conventions.
The Comite Maritime International and other bodies have issued a “draft instrument” that is expected to serve as the basis for a new cargo liability convention, replacing the Hague/Visby convention, their national equivalent laws, such as the U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea, and other maritime transport conventions.
Tetley, a senior academic with experience of drafting laws, said the proposed “draft instrument” of the Comite Maritime International is “a multipurpose convention,” and an “ambitious project” which is a long way from completion.
He said that each of the component parts of the text — electronic communication, obligations of the carrier, liability of the carrier, multimodal liability, transport documents, freight, liens, delivery, right of control, negotiability, rights of suit, and others — are in themselves “complicated and demanding international conventions, waiting to be drafted and then adopted.”
“Not only is it an enormous task to hope to draft nine or 10 international conventions (multimodal carriage, negotiability, electronic commerce, freight, liens etc., etc.) into one international document, but is it realistic to expect the nations of the world to adopt such a document in the near future (were it drafted) when we have failed to agree only on ‘door to door’ (Hamburg, 1978) or multimodal carriage (The Multimodal Convention, 1980) and the United States is still locked into the Hague Rules 1924?” he wrote in his letter.
Because the work on non-liability matters is proceeding slowly and with many alternatives, the Canadian Maritime Law Association has suggested that the Comite Maritime International and United Nations Commission on International Trade Law proceed on two tracks, Tetley wrote.
Under the “fast track,” the Hague/Visby rules would be slightly modified by:
* Eliminating the error of navigation (also known as nautical defense of carriers).
* Adding port-to-port liability.
* Revising the package limitation.
* Adding “actual carrier” and “contracting carrier.'
* Adding the jurisdiction and arbitration provisions of the Hamburg convention.
Under the “detailed track,” provisions would be revised concerning especially: new definitions; e-commerce; obligations of the shipper; transport documents and bills of lading; freight and liens; delivery; right of control; and negotiability.
According to Tetley, the two-track approach would provide a text which should be satisfactory to the Hague/Visby signatory nations, would also be close to the Hamburg rules and so Hamburg signatory nations would not need amending their rules, and would meet the fundamental desires of American shippers, carriers and lawyers.
Tetley’s letter is available on the Internet at http://tetley.law.mcgill.ca/cmicomment.htm .