Arguments for and Against Rotterdam Rules Ratification
Introduction
The article will examine the arguments for and against the Rotterdam Rule, that is, the UN Convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly partly by sea signed on December 11, 2008, in the United Kingdom. It would focus on the UK government’s ramifications if it were ratified and enacted into law rescinding and restoring the Hague Visby Rules. Therefore, the Hague Visby weaknesses create an in-depth for the paper argument. Besides, the article will consider a review and comparison of primary aspects of current rules in place projected engender harmonization but have convoluted the area. Also, the paper will involve the project’s assessment that helps at enhancing the Rotterdam rules for the formation of the active system building block. Despite being considered as failure initiatives, they promote the UN Convention’s success on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly partly by sea. Besides, a review of UK law changes and projected uncertainties in international to ensure the Rotterdam rules limitations exist throughout the paper. Moreover, the primary points will indicate why the UK should ratify the Roterderm laws, conceptualizing a system development for international trade revolutionization.
Arguments for and Against
The convention of the carrier and shippers preamble encompasses a synchronized and integrated framework for allowing regular contract operation of carriage involving more than one intermodal transport. The Rotterdam laws significantly cover primary areas not covered in previous conventions associated with the transfer of rights, control rights, and delivery (Nikaki, 2012). The shipping laws mandate all parties to engender synchronized and integrative rules. In such a case, any state signature to the Rotterdam rules makes them a code that renders Hamburg, Hague-Visby, and Hague obsolete. As such, it enhances the harmonization. The existing jurisdictions require reform due to lack of consistency, shipping strategies changes, and upkeep with technology (Anderson, 2015). The Rotterdam rules encompass chapters on the door to door cover, transfer of rights, electronic documents and ways to combat them, rights of controlling party, and delivery of goods. The existing laws have such weaknesses governed by national legislation.
The rights to control allows the replacement of the consignee of goods involving the governing party. Under Art 50, during the carrier’s whole responsibility time, there exist tight to obtain delivery at the scheduled port. Claims arise that the convention failed to provide procedure on the issuance of transport procedure (Kirval, 2018). Therefore, independent authority delivery f goods to a carrier ensure a provision of an available system, whereby the shipper exercises the control rights to control the menace. Therefore, the Rotterdam rules ensure that cover by sea and carriage via other intermodal transport provided one leg of the voyage is by sea Art1(1). As such, the changes help tackle the Hague Visby system of the door-to-door framework (Kirval, 2018).
The contract ideology privity between contractors and third parties is uncertain due to technological changes, case law presence, and utilization of old conventions. For example, Pyrene Co Ltd v ScindiaNavigation Co Ltd (1954) addresses the Hague matters that only parties attached to the contract could sue given the prior Hague Visby amendments. Besides, Scrutton Ltd v Midland Silicon Ltd’s (1962) case significantly questions the privity contract. Even though the two instances display diverse ideologies, their stories justify the projected existence of presence or absence of implication between parties. The latter case gave the limelight of inclusion of the third party rights and provided prerequisites for the contract’s certainty. It drafted and defined third-party conditions on when to seek protection from the exclusion of contract clauses between parties leading to shipping practice changes (Anderson, 2015). In the case, Lord Reid’s comments contributed to the changes. Firstly, the bill of lading protects the stevedore from limit liability provisions. Secondly, the law of freight offers rights to the carriers and acts as the stevedore contracting agent. Thirdly, the carrier has the authority to undertake shipping practice and combat challenges in moving from stevedore. To affect the consignee, it considers the application of the Bills of Lading Act 1855. The phenomenon led to the drafting of Himalaya clauses to protect the third parties, as applied in the New Zealand Shipping v Satterthwaite case (Nikaki, 2012).
Therefore, the recognition of electronic documents plays a significant role in enhancing the international trade industry. Art 8 creates a revolutionizing framework for global trade through technological development in its utilization in the international carriage of goods (Güner-Özbek, 2016). Recognition of electronic documents is a significant step forward for the global trade industry. Art 8 paves the way for revolutionizing international trade as it acknowledges the development of technology and applies for its use in the international carriage of goods (Anderson, 2015). As such, Art 8 clause helps at escalating securities, fraud minimization, and environmental betterment. Transport of the products results at the beginning of a new era and equality among other industries applying technology, and due to legislation enactment. There exist no excuse for such development measures. As such, the US has ratified the Rotterdam rules to ensure the development of technology and software to work hand in hand with the UN Convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly partly by sea.
Despite the existence of BOLERO in a long time, in a more considerate manner, it failed to transition the international carriage of goods. It becomes a challenge for the small enterprises and the developing countries to run the business as it costs $12000 and $30,000 to join the initiative (Güner-Özbek, 2016). Therefore, from the weaknesses learned from BOLERO, it is worthy of developing a sound system. As for the UK, the embrace of reformed BOLERO leads to active systems management and ease of access as per the 2008 Rotterdam rules for the industrial revolution. As per the Hague Visby Fire Exception in Art 4(2)b, the carrier was responsible for fire onboard an not the crew undertaking the operation. It creates the most significant weaknesses and flaws in an unacceptable manner. The Rotterdam rules ratification proposes the removal of such liability. It does not bode well with carriers as burden proof of will and liability lie with them. For the justification, due diligence plays an essential role in engendering a feasibility framework.
Besides, the Rotterdam Rules ensures the elimination of the nautical fault exception Art 4(2), despite its relevance before 1900. In the Kalamazoo Paper Co v CPR Co, it becomes to justify the outcomes, given the crew failed to utilize pumping equipment effectively and opted for forceful beaching (Castellani, 2016). In such the Canadian supreme court held that the carrier could rely upon the exception. Moreover, Gosse Millerd Ltd. v Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd, The court ruled that the crew failed to close the hatch properly due to negligent failure to utilize the ship equipment in safeguarding the cargo (Schoenbaum, 2015). As such, the carrier becomes held responsible for the menace under Article 3(2). The sophistication of the shipping rules hinders the developing countries in penetrating to the global market., making it unfair initiative. Also, there exists a wide array of application complications of various laws of principle conflicts, depending on the case jurisdiction brought on the table (Gillette et al., 2016). There exist barriers of entry to the market, and if the Rotterdam Rule fails ratification, it leads to the elimination of such perception.
Art 14 executes particular obligations applicable to the sea voyage and enhancing regular cargo care. As such, carrier exhibits due diligence at the beginning of, before, and during the journey by ship sustenance. It applies particularly to the cargo location and vessel and equipment appropriate manning (Chetty, 2018). Therefore, further prerequisites enable regular improvements. The phenomenon does not rhyme effectively with carrier state as it allows extra investment in particular regions and possible transformation to liability insurance cost (Anderson, 2015). It leads to the myopic view that deters efficient development available in the global trade market. The phenomenon involves the inclusion of the execution of algorithms and checks to enhance due diligence and compliance. Therefore, the Rotterdam ensures that the care standards are not “strict” but follow due diligence. The convention ratification helps to escalate the limit liability of carriers to 875 units per shipping unit account (Chetty, 2018). Such measures outweigh the regulations brought by the Hague Visby.
However, several limitations have been attached to the UN Convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly partly by sea signed on December 11, 2008. Despite that, the paper offers solutions to such slight Rotterdam rule ratification weaknesses. There exist an electronic Bill of Lading constraint on its possible process in court and its authentication mechanism (Güner-Özbek, 2016). Despite it being a challenge when compared to the existing international conventions, its scope is low. The Rotterdam Rules exhibits some fundamental boundaries. There exist complications of transitioning to an electronic record system from a paper-based system. Due to the current cyberspace rights, the transmissibility of electronic bills rights of lading is challenging (Ogunyemi, 2019). Despite that, implementation of such laws is an anachronism act that impedes development as per the Rotterdam Rules. Currently, due to the obsolete nature of the Hague Visby mechanism, there is the use of electronic sea waybill replacing the bill of lading since a cargo arrives before it. Another problem attached to the sea waybills is that in cases where the owner needs to sell products on transit, it is not practical since it does not consist of a document of title (Gillette et al., 2016). Despite that, the previous papers and records lack sufficient regulation, and their operation is long overdue.
If Uk needs to ratify the Rotterdam Rules, they need to update laws for the accurate legislation application. There is no viable reference for saying that the electronic bill of lading suffices to document any UK statute. Therefore, a proper implementation plan needs execution to attain the Rotterdam Rules. The UK needs to amend its Electronic Communications act to avoid confusion (Castellani, 2016). There exist a global recognition of the entire trimmings and Bill of Lading that composes document of title (Ogunyemi, 2019). Despite that, the electronic signature of the document of title has not received international acknowledgement of its admissibility in courts. As such, the signatures play a considerable role in the authentication of documents and binding the parties.
Compared to the European Union’s Electronic Directive, which accommodates the use of electronic signatures in Art 2(a), the UK does not define its writing. As such, the Rotterdam Rules limitations associated with the phenomenon is due to UK law directive implementation. Therefore, the UK The Electronic Communications Act 2000, dealing with electronic signatures, needs extensive amendments to integrate advanced electronic signatures (Castellani, 2016). For the creation of harmonious international trade laws, the Rotterdam laws need ratification. Also, the Rotterdam Rules hosts new-age problems. Therefore, the older rule issues connected with the technology and historical case law will continue thriving. Despite that, the international carriage of goods by sea should not become myopic due to minimal concerns. The Rule also creates conflict with existing transport conventions. Despite that, Art 84 aims to solve the problems that may impact the international conventions applications of road, air, rail, and inland waterways. Besides, Art 27 provides an offering of the solution by other conventions in case of raise of incidences before or after loading (Castellani, 2016). Therefore, it may create complexities and complicated procedures in solving the problem.
Another challenge connected with the UN Convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly partly by sea is the availability of fraud sprouting. Therefore, the adoption of the right system may curb the problem. The BOLERO reform helps at minimizing the fraud incidences due to the production of original copies (Gillette et al., 2016). Despite that, the risks of fraud and insecurity breaches will continue due to the adaptation of technological development by the Rotterdam Rules (Anderson, 2015). There may also exist technical malfunctions that creating the dealy on the delivery of cargo at various destinations. Despite the availability of back-ups for the production workflow and processes, such delays impact multiple people in the logistics network, leading to economic deterioration.
Given that, the lack of required resources ad equipment in some regions in the word may impede the printing if bills of lading and electronic information. Such phenomenons lead to the rules complications and confusion of the legal rights. The Rules involve huge investment initial cost for research and development and innovation despite the later significant payback capital. The Art 1 addresses the contract carriage as an agreement in which a carrier, against the freight payments, undertakes to transition commodities from one area to another. In addition to the sea carriage, the contract involves integrating other intermodal transport (Anderson, 2015). The action of one leg in the sea serves as a limitation since it limits the objective scope of the multi-modal carriage of goods. It challenges the maritime law since it involves inland transportation, which operates differently (Schoenbaum, 2015). Due to such, the Rotterdam Rules create impudent laws. Despite that, the creation of massive laws by different states may lead to the deterioration of the international trade system. The Rotterdam Rules allow derogation, which creates the escalation of volume contract exception. There exists resistance among the countries on the ratification of the UN Convention on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly partly by sea signed on December 11, 2008, in the United Kingdom.
Conclusion
The Rotterdam rules encompass chapters on the door to door cover, transfer of rights, electronic documents and ways to combat them, rights of controlling party, and delivery of goods. The existing laws have such weaknesses governed by national legislation. The rights to control allows the replacement of the consignee of products involving the governing party. Art 14 executes particular obligations applicable to the sea voyage and enhancing regular cargo care. As such, carrier exhibits due diligence at the beginning of, before, and during the journey by ship sustenance. It applies particularly to the cargo location and vessel and equipment appropriate manning. Besides, the Rotterdam Rules ensures the elimination of the nautical fault exception Art 4(2), despite its relevance before 1900. The sophistication of the shipping rules hinders the developing countries in penetrating to the global market., making it unfair initiative. Also, there exists a wide array of application complications of varying laws of principle conflicts, depending on the case jurisdiction brought on the table. There exist an electronic Bill of Lading constraint on its possible process in court and its authentication mechanism. The risks of fraud and insecurity breaches will continue due to the Rotterdam Rules’ adaptation of technological development. There may also exist technical malfunctions that creating the dealy on the delivery of cargo at various destinations. The lack of required resources ad equipment in some regions in the word may impede the printing if bills of lading and electronic information. Such phenomenons lead to the rules complications and confusion of the legal rights. The Rules involve huge investment initial cost for research and development and innovation despite the later significant payback capital.
References
Anderson, V. (2015). A Critical Assessment of the Rotterdam Rules’ Potential to Be Ratified, in Light of the Proposed Multimodal Transportation System and the Proposed Changes to the Obligations and Liability of the Carrier. Southampton Student L. Rev., 5, 19.
Castellani, L. G. (2016). The United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts at ten: practical relevance and lessons learned. Journal of Law, Society, and Development, 3(1), 132-152.
Chetty, N. (2018). The basis of the carrier’s liability and the burden of proof in cargo claims arising under contracts for the carriage of goods by sea evidenced by bills of lading (Doctoral dissertation).
Gillette, C. P., & Walt, S. D. (2016). The UN Convention on contracts for the international sale of goods: theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
Güner-Özbek, M. D. (Ed.). (2016). The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly Or Partly by Sea: An Appraisal of the” Rotterdam Rules.” Springer Science & Business Media.
Kirval, L. (2018). 15. European Union’s Stance on the Rotterdam Rules. Transport Systems and Processes: Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 119.
Nikaki, T., & Soyer, B. (2012). New International Regime for Carriage of Goods by Sea: Contemporary, Certain, Inclusive and Efficient, or Just Another One for the Shelves. Berkeley J. Int’l L., 30, 303.
Ogunyemi, O. C. (2019). INTRODUCTION OF ELECTRONIC BILLS OF LADING TO THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: THE NEED FOR RATIFICATION OF ROTTERDAM RULES, 2008 (Master’s thesis).
Schoenbaum, T. J. (2015). An Evaluation of the Rotterdam Rules. The Hamburg Lectures on Maritime Affairs 2011-2013 (pp. 21-43). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.