Implementation of the Rotterdam Rules - Carrier’s obligations and liabilities
(2018) JURM02 20182Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- The carrier has historically been strictly liable for all damage to the cargo carried, with the exception of acts of God and war. This changed during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s when the carriers began to limit their liabilities in the contract of carriage. They were soon not liable for very much which was problematic for the shippers, since they did not receive compensation when their goods suffered damage. The Hague Rules were drafted in order to find a balance between the carriers’ and the shippers’ interests. The Hague-Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules followed during the 20th century. The Swedish Maritime Code has evolved alongside these conventions together with the other Scandinavian maritime codes. The maritime world is split... (More)
- The carrier has historically been strictly liable for all damage to the cargo carried, with the exception of acts of God and war. This changed during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s when the carriers began to limit their liabilities in the contract of carriage. They were soon not liable for very much which was problematic for the shippers, since they did not receive compensation when their goods suffered damage. The Hague Rules were drafted in order to find a balance between the carriers’ and the shippers’ interests. The Hague-Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules followed during the 20th century. The Swedish Maritime Code has evolved alongside these conventions together with the other Scandinavian maritime codes. The maritime world is split between the carrier-friendly Hague and Hague-Visby Rules and the shipper-friendly Hamburg Rules. The Rotterdam Rules have been drafted in order to update outdated provisions and unite the World under one maritime framework, as trade is simplified and cheaper when everyone applies the same rules.
The Rotterdam Rules apply to more people and to a broader concept of
“contract of carriage”. The period of responsibility is increased as it Begins as soon as the carrier receives the cargo and ends when he delivers the cargo. The carrier has an increased duty to care for the cargo and make the ship seaworthy. The carrier’s liability is increased as he is liable for the actions of more people, he has fewer exceptions from liability and the limit on the liability owed has been raised.
The Swedish Maritime Code’s scope of application is not as wide because it requires a connection to Sweden. The period of responsibility is smaller as it begins when the carrier receives the cargo in the port of loading and delivers it in the port of unloading. The carrier’s obligation to care for the cargo is not as extensive in the Swedish Maritime Code. The carrier is not liable for as many people. The carrier’s liability is smaller, he has more exceptions from liability and the limits to liability are smaller.
A Swedish ratification of the Rotterdam Rules would mean that the carrier’s obligations would be more extensive. The Swedish carriers would be liable more often and for larger sums. This is negative for the carriers, but it could be worth it if the rest of the world ratifies the Rotterdam Rules as well.
The Scandinavian Commissions that have examined their respective States
ratification of the Rotterdam Rules have proposed that the rules should be ratified, but only after that the USA have ratified the convention.
It is proposed in this thesis that Sweden should ratify the Rotterdam Rules, in lack of a better alternative, if the rest of the world ratifies the Rotterdam Rules. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Historiskt sett har transportören, med undantag för force majeure och
krigshandlingar, varit strikt ansvarig för all skada på det transporterade godset. Detta kom att förändrades under slutet av 1800-talet och början av 1900-talet när transportörerna började begränsa sina ansvarsgrunder med klausuler i transportavtalen. Snart var transportörerna inte ansvariga för i princip någonting, vilket var problematiskt för de avsändare som då inte fick någon ersättning när godset skadades. Haagreglerna författades för att finna en balans mellan transportörernas och avsändarnas intressen. Haag-Visbyreglerna och Hamburgreglerna följde under 1900-talet. Den svenska sjölagen har utvecklats jämsides med dessa konventioner, tillsammans med de övriga... (More) - Historiskt sett har transportören, med undantag för force majeure och
krigshandlingar, varit strikt ansvarig för all skada på det transporterade godset. Detta kom att förändrades under slutet av 1800-talet och början av 1900-talet när transportörerna började begränsa sina ansvarsgrunder med klausuler i transportavtalen. Snart var transportörerna inte ansvariga för i princip någonting, vilket var problematiskt för de avsändare som då inte fick någon ersättning när godset skadades. Haagreglerna författades för att finna en balans mellan transportörernas och avsändarnas intressen. Haag-Visbyreglerna och Hamburgreglerna följde under 1900-talet. Den svenska sjölagen har utvecklats jämsides med dessa konventioner, tillsammans med de övriga skandinaviska sjölagarna. Sjöfartssektorn är idag uppdelad mellan de transportörvänliga Haag- och Haag-Visbyreglerna och de avsändarvänliga Hamburgreglerna. Rotterdamreglerna har författats för att uppdatera föråldrade bestämmelser i de tidigare konventionerna samt förena världen under ett gemensamt regelverk, eftersom handeln förenklas och blir billigare när alla tillämpar samma regler.
Rotterdamreglerna är tillämpliga på fler personer och har en bredare
tolkning av begreppet ”transportavtal” än under Haag-Visbyreglerna.
Ansvarsperioden är längre då den börjar så fort som transportören tar emot godset och slutar när han levererar det, oavsett den geografiska platsen. Transportören har en utökad skyldighet att tillvarata godsägarens intressen och hålla fartyget i sjövärdigt skick. Transportörens ansvarsgrunder är utökade eftersom han är ansvarig för fler människors handlingar, han har färre omständigheter som befriar från ansvar och att nivån för ansvarsbegränsning har höjts.
Sjölagens tillämpningsområde är inte lika brett som Rotterdamreglernas,
eftersom sjölagen kräver en anknytning till Sverige. Ansvarsperioden är
mindre då den börjar först när transportören tar emot godset i
lastningshamnen och slutar när transportören levererar det i
lossningshamnen. Transportörens skyldighet att tillvarata godsägarens
intressen är inte lika omfattande i sjölagen. Transportören är inte ansvarig för lika många människors handlande och hans ansvar är mindre då han har fler undantag från ansvar och att nivån på ansvarsbegränsningen är lägre.
En svensk ratificering av Rotterdamreglerna skulle innebära att
transportörens förpliktelser blir mer omfattande. De svenska transportörerna skulle bli ansvarsskyldiga oftare och för större belopp. Detta är negativt för de svenska transportörerna, men det kan vara värt det om resten av världen också ratificerar Rotterdamreglerna.
Det föreslås i denna uppsats att Sverige bör ratificera Rotterdamreglerna i, avsaknad av ett bättre regelverk, om resten av världen ratificerar Rotterdamreglerna. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8966010
- author
- Lindström, Karl LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20182
- year
- 2018
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- International private law, sjörätt, Rotterdam, Law, Carrier, Shipper, Liability, Obligations, Swedish, Maritime, Code, Hague, Rules, Hague-Visby, Hamburg, Ratification, application, transporträtt, utrikeshandelsrätt
- language
- English
- id
- 8966010
- date added to LUP
- 2019-01-28 11:28:35
- date last changed
- 2019-01-28 11:28:35
@misc{8966010,
abstract = {{The carrier has historically been strictly liable for all damage to the cargo carried, with the exception of acts of God and war. This changed during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s when the carriers began to limit their liabilities in the contract of carriage. They were soon not liable for very much which was problematic for the shippers, since they did not receive compensation when their goods suffered damage. The Hague Rules were drafted in order to find a balance between the carriers’ and the shippers’ interests. The Hague-Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules followed during the 20th century. The Swedish Maritime Code has evolved alongside these conventions together with the other Scandinavian maritime codes. The maritime world is split between the carrier-friendly Hague and Hague-Visby Rules and the shipper-friendly Hamburg Rules. The Rotterdam Rules have been drafted in order to update outdated provisions and unite the World under one maritime framework, as trade is simplified and cheaper when everyone applies the same rules.
The Rotterdam Rules apply to more people and to a broader concept of
“contract of carriage”. The period of responsibility is increased as it Begins as soon as the carrier receives the cargo and ends when he delivers the cargo. The carrier has an increased duty to care for the cargo and make the ship seaworthy. The carrier’s liability is increased as he is liable for the actions of more people, he has fewer exceptions from liability and the limit on the liability owed has been raised.
The Swedish Maritime Code’s scope of application is not as wide because it requires a connection to Sweden. The period of responsibility is smaller as it begins when the carrier receives the cargo in the port of loading and delivers it in the port of unloading. The carrier’s obligation to care for the cargo is not as extensive in the Swedish Maritime Code. The carrier is not liable for as many people. The carrier’s liability is smaller, he has more exceptions from liability and the limits to liability are smaller.
A Swedish ratification of the Rotterdam Rules would mean that the carrier’s obligations would be more extensive. The Swedish carriers would be liable more often and for larger sums. This is negative for the carriers, but it could be worth it if the rest of the world ratifies the Rotterdam Rules as well.
The Scandinavian Commissions that have examined their respective States
ratification of the Rotterdam Rules have proposed that the rules should be ratified, but only after that the USA have ratified the convention.
It is proposed in this thesis that Sweden should ratify the Rotterdam Rules, in lack of a better alternative, if the rest of the world ratifies the Rotterdam Rules.}},
author = {{Lindström, Karl}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Implementation of the Rotterdam Rules - Carrier’s obligations and liabilities}},
year = {{2018}},
}