ISSN 0778-9882 CMI NEWS LETTER Vigilandum est semper; multae insidiae sunt bonis.

No. 1 - 1999 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONAL QUARTERLY BULLETIN TRIMESTRIEL

This Issue Contains: News from Intergovernmental and International Organizations - News from IMO and UNCTAD - The International Convention on Arrest of , 1999 (by Francesco Berlingieri) - Text of the Convention - News from IMO - IMO Legal Issues (by Patrick Griggs) - News from the European Commission - Intermodal Liability (by Stuart Beare)

NEWS FROM THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

NEWS FROM IMO AND UNCTAD

THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON ARREST OF SHIPS, 1999

On 12 March 1999 the United Nations / was made to replace the list of maritime claims with International Maritime Organization Diplomatic a general definition of maritime claims. It was in fact Conference convened in Geneva has adopted a new pointed out that the closed list of the 1952 International Convention on Arrest of Ships. Convention had appeared unsatisfactory both The new Convention follows the structure of the because certain claims of a maritime nature (such as CMI Lisbon Draft in which the provisions of the claims for commissions of agents and brokers and for 1952 Convention have been rearranged in a much insurance premiums) had been omitted and because clear and orderly manner and the obscurity of some new types of claims (such as claims for environmental of them, in particular those of article 3, has been damage) had materialized. Since a minority still eliminated. favoured the closed list, or in any event a list of After the list of the maritime claims and the specific maritime claims, a compromise was arrived definitions of certain terms used in the Convention in at, consisting in adding to the general definition the article 1, all the provisions on the conditions for the list of specific maritime claims, the former being arrest, which were scattered in various articles of the linked with the latter by the words “such as”. 1952 Convention, have been assembled in article 2. During the sessions of the JIGE the majority was in The provisions on the relationship between the claim favour of the open list. At the Diplomatic and the or ships that may be arrested, on the Conference the position surprisingly appeared to be release from arrest and on the right of rearrest, are the opposite: the majority in fact supported the contained, in a logical sequence, in articles 3, 4 and 5. closed list approach, mainly on the ground that an There follow provisions on wrongful arrest (article open list would have caused great uncertainty and 6), on jurisdiction on the merits (article 7) and, lastly, would have left too great a freedom to the , on the scope of application (article 8). thereby adversely affecting uniformity. It was appreciated that new technological developments The maritime claims (Article 1) could in the future give rise to new types of maritime claims and it was suggested to take care of this Adoption of a closed list. problem by providing a mechanism for the At the CMI Lisbon Conference in 1985 the proposal amendment of the list. An attempt was made to find a compromise between to the JIGE draft of the specific reference to the majority in favour of the closed list and the occurrences described in other conventions as minority in favour of the open list by suggesting to follows: add at the end of the list the general description of - damage or threat of damage caused by the ship to maritime claims contained in the chapeau or a the environment, coastline or related interest: this reference to other claims of a similar nature of those text is derived from UNCLOS article 211(1) except previously listed, but it failed. At the end, however, that in UNCLOS reference is made to the “marine the idea behind such proposal was accepted, but only environment” but the word “marine”, existing in in respect of environmental claims, by adding at the the US proposal, was deleted; end of subparagraph (d) the words “and damage, - measures taken to prevent, minimize or remove costs, or loss of a similar nature to those identified in such damage: this wording is based on the this subparagraph (d)”. definition of “preventive measures” in article 1(7) of the CLC 1969; Individual maritime claims - compensation for such damage: “such damage” is that referred to in the previous two sentences; Mention will be made only of the amendments and - costs of reasonable measures of reinstatement of additions as respects the maritime claims listed in the environment actually undertaken or to be article 1(1) of the 1952 Convention. undertaken: this wording is taken from the Subparagraph (a). The wording had been changed in definition of pollution damage as amended by order to bring it in line with that of article 4(1)(e) of article 2(1) of the 1992 Protocol to the CLC; the 1993 MLM Convention but it was subsequently - losses incurred or likely to be incurred by third amended by deleting the word “physical” before parties in connection with such damage: this “loss” and the words “other than loss of or damage wording existed in the JIGE text; to cargo, containers and effects carried on - damage, costs, or loss of a similar nature to those the ship” because the loss in respect of which a identified in this subparagraph (d): as previously maritime claim should exist is not only physical and indicated, the concept of “opening” the list in order claims in respect of loss of or damage to cargo and to cover possible future new types of claim was passengers effects are specifically mentioned accepted by the Conference only in relation to amongst the maritime claims. Although probably the claims for environment damage. claims covered by this subparagraph are only Subparagraph (e). The suggestion made by the CMI claims, the definition is certainly very wide; much in the Position Paper to use the same wording of wider than the corresponding definition under the article 2(1)(d) of the 1976 LLMC Convention was 1952 Convention. accepted by the Conference except that the word Subparagraph (b). The text of the 1952 Convention “recovery” was added. In connection with has been changed in order to adapt it to that of subparagraph (d) it had been suggested by some article 4(1)(b) of the 1993 MLM Convention. delegations that mention ought also to be made of the Subparagraph (c). The words “or any salvage claims relating to costs incurred for the preservation agreement” were added in the Lisbon Draft in order of a ship abandoned by its owners but it was correctly to include claims arising out of a salvage agreement decided that this type of claims should be placed in cases where no salvage operation takes place. The elsewhere. It must be noted, however, that now in this words “including, if applicable, special subparagraph mention of an “abandoned ship” is compensation relating to salvage operations in made twice: first in connection with costs or expenses respect of a ship which by itself or its cargo relating to the raising, removal, destruction or the threatened damage to the environment” have been rendering harmless of an abandoned ship and, added during the Diplomatic Conference. Originally secondly, in connection with a quite opposite action, reference was made to article 14 of the 1989 Salvage that of the preservation of such ship. The concept of Convention, but then, in accordance with the abandonment is not the same in both cases: in the principle that reference to other Conventions should first case in fact the “abandoned ship” is the ship be avoided, it was decided to describe the principle abandoned by the crew which, therefore, may underlying article 14. become a danger to other ships; in the second case Subparagraph (d). The description of environmental the same conclusion cannot hold, since reference is claims, which in the CMI Lisbon Draft was limited to also made to the maintenance of the crew of the the removal or attempted removal of a threat of abandoned ship. It follows that this time the intention damage and to preventive measures, had been is to refer to a ship abandoned by her owners. expanded by the JIGE so to include also losses Subparagraph (g). The only change as respects incurred, or likely to be incurred, by third parties. subparagraph (f) of the 1952 Convention is the Proposals were made during the Diplomatic addition of the word “”. Conference with a view to further expanding the Subparagraph (l). The description of the supplies is description of environmental damage and finally a now wider, and includes provisions, bunkers, consensus was reached on the text proposed by the containers as well as services. Also their purpose has United States , consisting in the addition been widened by the reference to the preservation of

2 the ship, in addition to the operation and charges of a nature similar to the mortgage and the maintenance. “hypothèque” which, however, are named differently Subparagraph (m). The word “reconstruction” has in certain legal systems; provided they are registrable been added, following the suggestion of the CMI, in as mortgages and “hypothèques”. The deletion of the order to follow more closely the description of the word “registrable”, however, does not entail any right of retention under article 7(1)(b) of the 1993 change of substance in the type of charges in respect MLM Convention. of which arrest of a ship is permissible, since such charges must have the “same nature” of mortgages Subparagraph (n). In the 1952 Convention only and “hypothèques”. “deck charges and dues” were mentioned in article 1(1)(l) together with (claims arising out of) Subparagraph (v). This is a new maritime claim. construction, repair and equipment. Reference to port, canal and other waterway dues has been added Definition of arrest (Article 1(2)) since claims in respect of such dues are secured by a The words “as a conservatory measure”, which maritime lien under the 1993 MLM Convention. appeared both in the Lisbon Draft and in the JIGE Subparagraph (o). The wording of this maritime Draft, have been deleted for the reason that the word claim has been amended in order to adapt it to that “conservatory” has not, in English, the meaning of of the corresponding maritime lien under the 1993 the word “conservatoire” in French. Those words, MLM Convention. which do not exist in the 1952 Convention, had been Subparagraph (p). The CMI in its Position Paper added in order to make clear that the notion of arrest had pointed out that the wording of this does not include actions taken in order to enforce a subparagraph was unnecessarily cumbersome and, judgment. They, however, were superfluous, for the also, included claims unlikely to materialize, such as notion of arrest is made clear both by its purpose – to claims in respect of disbursements made by shippers. secure a maritime claim – and by the express It suggested, therefore, to adopt a much simpler statement that it does not include seizure. description of these claims, such as “disbursements The reference to the execution of an arbitral award made in respect of the ship”. This proposal was has been deleted because it has been considered to be adopted by the Conference, with only some drafting superfluous, in view of the general reference, after amendments. “judgment”, to “other enforceable instrument”. Subparagraph (q). This is a new maritime claim. Other definitions (Article 1(3)-(5)) Subparagraph (r). This also is a new maritime claim. Subparagraph (u). Mortgages and hypothèques (and The definition of “person” has remained practically now charges) are included in the list not as much in unaltered. The definition of “claimant” has been consideration of the nature of the claim secured slightly altered by replacing the words “who alleges thereby (which may not necessarily be maritime), but that a maritime claim exists in his favour” with the rather in consideration of the nature of the security. words “asserting a maritime claim”. The definition of The holder of the security, though normally may “” is new. enforce it by means of the seizure and forced sale of the ship, needs sometimes to make recourse to a Powers of arrest (Article 2) provisional measure such as the arrest in order to In this article there are assembled all the provisions of prevent the sailing of the ship and gain time for the the 1952 Convention relating to the arrest of a ship. subsequent seizure. The CMI in its Position Paper The most significant difference between article 2 of had pointed out that it was not correct to refer to the new Convention and the Lisbon and JIGE Drafts registered mortgages and “hypothèques” and to is the deletion of the paragraph concerning the arrest registrable charges, thereby indicating that only claims of a ship ready to sail. A provision in this respect related to registered mortgages and “hypothèques” exists in the 1952 Convention and its origin may be are maritime claims whilst for other charges it is traced in the provision of article 215 of the French sufficient that they may be “registrable” but do not Code de Commerce according to which a ship, when need to be actually registered. The CMI therefore “prêt à faire voile” could not be arrested anymore. At suggested to replace the word “registrable” in respect Lisbon it had been deemed advisable to permit arrest of charges with “registered”. The Conference agreed of a ship even after she had sailed and, therefore, the that the difference was not justified, but decided to words “or is sailing” were added after the words “is delete any reference to registration in order to extend ready to sail”. Objections were raised during the this maritime claim so to include also equitable sessions of the JIGE to such addition, on the ground mortgages. The effect of the deletion is clearly wider, that the arrest of a ship which is sailing may be since now claims arising out of a “hypothèque” prior prejudicial to her safety. On the other hand it was to its registration are included, as well as all claims pointed out that arrest of ships within the territorial arising out of a charge of the same nature. The word waters of a State is permitted by UNCLOS article “registrable” (charge) had been used in order to 28(3). The CMI in its Position Paper suggested to adopt the same language of the 1993 MLM delete this provision and thus to leave to national law Convention in which it had the purpose of including the issue of arrest of ships ready to sail or sailing. This

3 proposal was accepted and, therefore, article 2(3) new Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, was deleted. approved by the Lisbon Conference and, Paragraph 1 corresponds to article 4 of the 1952 consequently, such maritime liens were also listed in Convention. the draft Arrest Convention. In view, however, of the compromise adopted in the 1993 MLM Paragraph 2 corresponds to the first part of article 2 Convention, whereby States Parties are permitted of the 1952 Convention. to grant under their laws other maritime liens, the Paragraph 3 sets out in a positive and express proposal was made by the delegation of the United manner the principle, already clearly implied in States, supported by other delegations, to permit article 7(2) of the 1952 Convention, that the Court of the arrest also when the claim is secured by a the place where the ship lies is competent for the maritime lien recognized by the law of the State arrest even if it is not competent for the merits. where the arrest is requested. The CMI in its Paragraph 4 corresponds to the second paragraph of Position Paper supported this proposal and article 6 of the 1952 Convention. The CMI in its pointed out that, if it were accepted, there would be Position Paper had pointed out that it was not clear no need to list the maritime liens set out in the 1993 from the wording of the 1952 Convention whether MLM Convention, since if the Convention has the claimant must prove that a security is justified been ratified by the State where the arrest is and that article 6 of the 1952 Convention has been requested and has come into force, its provisions interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. It would become part of the law of that State. The was therefore suggested to provide that the law of the CMI therefore suggested the adoption of a very State in which the arrest of a ship or its release is simple provision, wherein reference is only made to applied for shall determine the circumstances in the maritime liens recognized by the law of the which arrest or release from arrest may be obtained State where the arrest is requested, provided, and the procedure relating thereto. This proposal however, the claim arises against the owner, demise was supported by several States, but the majority charterer, manager or operator of the ship. This preferred the JIGE Draft in which the text of the proposal was unanimously accepted, save that the 1952 Convention was reproduced, without any clear majority favoured the replacement of the word explanation of the reasons of such decision. “recognized” by the word “granted” in order to avoid the application of the private international Relationship between the claim and the ship law rules of that State. This proposal met with two (Article 3) objections. The first was that by preventing the application of the national rules of private Under the heading “Exercise of the right of arrest” the Convention would entail the article 3 sets out the rules governing the relationship obligation of States Parties to change such rules. between the claim and the ship or ships that may be The second was that in countries arrested. maritime liens are not “granted”, in that they are Paragraph 1. The Conference has adopted in not created by . In the attempt to find a paragraph 1 the text suggested by the CMI in its compromise on the first issue the suggestion was Position Paper, in which the various situations are made to add a provision to the effect that States arranged in a logical sequence. Parties would be permitted to apply their domestic First, the basic rule according to which a ship may be private international law rules but such suggestion arrested when the claim is against the owner of that was not adopted. The second issue was instead ship is set out in subparagraph (a). There follow then solved by adding the words “or arises under” after the exceptions: “granted”. - Sub-paragraph (b) provides that a ship may be Paragraph 2. Paragraph 2 of the JIGE Draft arrested in respect of a claim against the demise reproduced the provision of the Lisbon Draft on the charterer. In this case, however, the right of arrest arrest of sisterships. In view, however, of the is subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 3. evolution in several countries of the - Sub-paragraph (c) permits arrest of a ship when relating to the situations in which it is permitted to the claim is based upon a mortgage, or a pierce the corporate veil, the CMI deemed it hypothèque or a charge of the same nature. convenient to recommend, in its Position Paper, that - Sub-paragraph (d) permits arrest of the ship in is should be made clear that the Convention does not respect of a claim relating to ownership or prevent the Courts of States Parties to pierce the possession. corporate veil when this is permitted by the lex fori. - Finally, sub-paragraph (e) permits arrest of the ship However the UK delegation at the Conference made when the claim is secured by a maritime lien on a more far reaching proposal, suggesting that express that ship. This has been the most controversial provisions be included in the Convention in this provision. In fact at Lisbon it had been agreed that respect, and that arrest be permissible of a ship not the right to arrest a ship, irrespective of the claim owned by the person against whom the claim has being against the owner or another person, should arisen when it is “controlled” by such person. This be limited to the claims secured by one of the proposal was, however, rejected by the great majority maritime liens at that time listed in the draft of a of the delegations who at the same time supported

4 the text of the JIGE Draft which reproduced the text maintaining the arrest”. It was deemed convenient by of the Lisbon Draft. This prevented the final the CMI to specify in a separate article (article 5) the consideration of the more modest – but useful – cases in which rearrest is permissible and to regulate proposal of the CMI, which had already been separately the arrest of other ships. Three situations favourably received by the majority of the in which rearrest or multiple arrest is permissible delegations. have been envisaged: a) when the amount of the Paragraph 3. Article 3(4) of the 1952 Convention security is inadequate; b) when the guarantor is not contains a rather obscure provision on the arrest of financially reliable; c) when the ship has been released with the consent of the claimant, provided ships in respect of claims against the demise and other he acted on reasonable grounds, or when the ship has charterers. In fact, after having provided in its first been released and the claimant could not prevent the sentence that a ship may be arrested in respect of a release. claim against the demise charterer, it states in the The provisions of the Lisbon Draft have been second sentence that such rule “shall apply to any adopted by the JIGE and now by the Diplomatic case in which a person other than the registered Conference. owner of a ship is liable in respect of a maritime claim relating to that ship”. At Lisbon it was agreed first that arrest should be permissible only in respect of Liability for wrongful arrest (Article 6) claims against the demise charterer and, secondly, that even in such case, arrest should be permissible only if At the 1951 CMI Conference in Naples the questions under the law of the State where the arrest is whether the Convention should expressly require demanded a judgment in respect of such claim can be that the claimant must provide security for any loss enforced against that ship. Arrest of a ship in respect which may be incurred by the owner of the ship and of claims against a demise charterer is, therefore, only should, also, expressly regulate the liability of the permissible in the States where an action in rem in claimant for wrongful arrest were debated at length respect of such claim is permissible even when the and it was finally decided that these questions should claim is not secured by a maritime lien. be mentioned but left to be decided by the lex fori. The same discussion took place at Lisbon, where the same solution was adopted; the provision which was Release from arrest (Article 4) drafted was, however, more detailed and mentioned The provisions on the release of a ship arrested in a separately, though in the same terms, the cases in State Party are based on those of the 1952 which the provision of security may be required by Convention. the Court and the cases in which liability may be The proposal made by the CMI to specify that the established. amount of the security should not exceed the value of In addition, the Lisbon Draft provided that when the the ship was finally accepted, in consideration of the Court of another State or an arbitral is fact that the security replaces the ship, and that the competent for the merits, the proceedings relating to claimant cannot, in case of enforcement of his claim liability for wrongful arrest pending before the Court through the forced sale of the ship, obtain more than of the State in which the arrest has been effected may the proceeds of such sale. be stayed pending decision on the merits. The CMI The CMI deemed it convenient to regulate also the draft was adopted by the JIGE except that the case of the security being provided in a State Party in reference to the case of the arrest being unjustified respect of a ship arrested in a non-Party State. Two was the subject of discussion and consequently the situations were envisaged: first that where the ship is words “or unjustified” were placed in square not released after the security has been provided in a brackets. At the Diplomatic Conference the State Party and, secondly, that where the ship is suggestion was made to delete such words, on the released upon securities being provided both in the ground that it was difficult to conceive situations non-Party State in which the ship has been arrested where the arrest could be unjustified without being and in a State Party. It was provided that in the wrongful. The observer for the CMI mentioned as an former case the security given in the State Party must example the situation where the need for a security be released; and that in the latter case it must be does not exist, in view of the sound financial released to the extent that it exceeds either the conditions of the owner of the ship. Finally the words amount of the claim or the value of the ship, “or unjustified” were retained. whichever is the lower. This provision was adopted A much more relevant discussion took place in by the JIGE and then by the Conference, save that respect of the question whether the provision of they were divided into two separate paragraphs. countersecurity by the claimant should be made compulsory, rather than left to the discretion of the Rearrest and multiple arrest (Article 5) Court. The proposal was in fact made to replace in paragraph 1 the words “The Court may...impose Article 3(3) of the 1952 Convention prohibits a upon the claimant...the obligation to provide second arrest of the same ship or the arrest of security...” with the words “The Court shall...impose another ship except where the security has been upon the claimant...”, but was not adopted and the released or “there is other good cause for text of paragraph 1 was left unchanged.

5 Jurisdiction on the merits of the case are not brought within the time so ordered, the ship (Article 7) arrested or the security given must be released. Article 7 of the new Convention deals with the same Paragraph 5 is new. The 1952 Convention, in order to issues regulated by article 7 of the 1952 Convention. ensure the enforcement of a foreign judgment in the Whilst, however, in the 1952 Convention jurisdiction cases where the Courts of the State where arrest is on the merits, if it does not exist under the law of the made have no jurisdiction on the merits, provides that country in which the arrest is made, is granted only the security given in order to release the ship must in respect of claims arising in that country or require that it is given as security for the satisfaction concerning the last voyage as well as in respect of a of any judgment that may eventually be pronounced very limited number of specified maritime claims, by a Court having jurisdiction. Apart from the lack of whenever arisen, the new Convention has granted any reference to arbitration awards, this provision generally, in respect of all maritime claims, does not cover the case where no guarantee is given jurisdiction on the merits to the Courts of the State in and the judgment must be enforced on the ship itself. which the arrest has been made or security given For this reason the CMI Lisbon Draft provided that unless, of course, the parties have validly agreed to if proceedings are brought within the specified time submit the dispute to a Court of another State which limit, a final judgment issued by a competent Court accepts jurisdiction or to arbitration. or any final award shall be recognized and given The only amendment made to the Lisbon Draft effect with respect to the arrested ship or to the relates to the deletion of the case where security is security unless the proceedings brought before such provided to prevent the arrest, on the ground that in Court or arbitration tribunal do not satisfy the such case, contrary to that of security given to release general requirement of due process of law. This the ship from arrest, the security may be provided in provision was adopted by the JIGE. Subsequently, a State different from that in which the arrest has however, the CMI realised that the words “due been effected. process of law” could not have a precise equivalent in Also the other provisions of article 7 reproduce the certain jurisdictions and, therefore, suggested in its corresponding provisions of the CMI Lisbon Draft. Position Paper to adopt the same language of article 10(1) of the CLC 1969. The Conference accepted the Paragraph 2 does not exist in the 1952 Convention CMI proposal but added to the text suggested by the and provides that the Courts of the State in which the CMI the condition, which was implied anyhow, that arrest has been made or security has been given to the recognition must not be against public policy release the ship may refuse to exercise jurisdiction on adding in parenthesis the words “ordre public” in the merits when such refusal is permitted by the law order to make entirely clear what is meant by public of that State and a Court in another State accepts policy. jurisdiction. This provision has been added in order to cover the case of refusal to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Scope of application (Article 8) Paragraph 3, similarly to the 1952 Convention, The 1952 Convention regulates separately its provides that in the cases where a Court of the State application to ships flying the flag of Contracting where the arrest has been made does not have States and to ships flying the flag of non-Contracting jurisdiction or refuses to exercise jurisdiction on the States. However it is not entirely clear whether all the merits such Court may, or upon request shall, order provisions of the 1952 Convention or only article 1(1) a period of time within which the claimant shall apply to ships flying the flag of non-Contracting bring proceedings before a competent Court or States. The global application of the uniform rules is arbitral tribunal. The only material difference as instead clearly provided in article 8 of the new respects the 1952 Convention is that now all cases in Convention. which a Court of the State in which the arrest is made Paragraph 1 differs from the corresponding provision does not have jurisdiction on the merits or refuses to of the Lisbon Draft only because the word exercise such jurisdiction are covered by the same “seagoing” has been deleted. The Convention provision, whilst in the 1952 Convention when the therefore applies to all ships whether seagoing or not. Court does not have statutory jurisdiction, the order Also the other provisions of this article are taken from of a period within which proceedings on the merits the Lisbon Draft. must be brought is obligatory, and when the lack of Paragraph 2 excludes from the scope of application jurisdiction is due to the parties having agreed to of the Convention ships owned or operated by a State submit the dispute to the Courts of another State or and used only on Government non-commercial to arbitration such order is discretional. The service. The text has been amended as respects the difference is due to the fact that now the Courts of CMI and JIGE Drafts in order to use the same the State where the arrest has been made have always wording of article 13(2) of the 1993 MLM statutory jurisdiction on the merits save that the Convention, except that a reference to “naval parties have agreed otherwise or such Courts refuse auxiliary” has been added. to exercise jurisdiction. The provision of paragraph 3 already exists in the Paragraph 4 provides, similarly to paragraph 3 of 1952 Convention, where it is placed in article 2. The article 7 of the 1952 Convention, that if proceedings present place is much more logical, since the rule that

6 the Convention does not affect the rights of public 1976 LLMC Convention, States Parties are authorities to detain or prevent from sailing any ship granted the right to exclude the application of has the effect of limiting the scope of application of uniform rules in respect of ships which are not the Convention. seagoing; Paragraph 4 clarifies the relationship between the (b) ships not flying the flag of a State Party: article uniform rules on arrest and the domestic rules of the 8(3) of the 1952 Convention permits to States States Parties on bankruptcy and other similar Parties to provide that a ship flying the flag of a proceedings. The words used in the Lisbon Draft, non-Party State may be arrested both in respect and now adopted by the Diplomatic Conference, are of a maritime claim and in respect of any other such as to cover any type of liquidation proceedings. claim for which the national law permits arrest. In turn paragraph 5 clarifies the relationship between The CMI in its Position Paper had suggested to the provisions of the Convention and those of a reinstate such provision but the Conference has limitation convention and provides that the former deemed more convenient to allow States Parties shall not affect the latter. Quite logically this rule to wholly exclude such ships from the scope of applies only in respect of international conventions application of the Convention; on limitation and national laws implementing them: (c) claims in respect of disputes as to ownership or domestic rules on limitation in fact cannot prevail possession of the ship: these are claims of a over uniform rules on arrest. special character, since their object is not Paragraph 6 excludes from the scope of application payment of a sum of money and in some of the Convention the situation where the most jurisdictions may be secured by a different kind relevant elements (nationality of the ship and of arrest; their exclusion from the scope of habitual residence or principal place of business of application of the uniform rules is also permitted the claimant) are linked with the State in whose under the 1952 Convention and several States jurisdiction the arrest is demanded. This provision, have availed themselves of such option. which is taken literally from article 8(4) of the 1952 Paragraph 2 of article 10 allows States Parties, who Convention and includes its subsequent paragraph 5, are also parties to a treaty on navigation on inland is obsolete since, contrary to other recent waterways, to declare that the rules on jurisdiction, conventions (e.g. the 1976 LLMC and the 1993 recognition and execution of court decisions MLM Conventions), it limits the global character of provided for in such treaties shall prevail over the the new Arrest Convention). rules contained in article 7 of the 1999 Arrest Convention. This provision was inserted following a Non-creation of maritime liens (Article 9) request of the Swiss delegation in order to allow Article 9 repeats a provision already existing in States Parties to the revised Rhine Navigation article 9 of the 1952 Convention the purpose of Convention of 1868 to apply the provisions of such which is that of clarifying that it is not intended to Convention. A similar provision existed in article 7(1) create any maritime lien. In the 1952 Convention the of the 1952 Arrest Convention. English text of this provision differed significantly from the French text but now the two texts are States with more than one system of law (Article 13) identical and the wording is simpler and clearer. Article 13 provides that if a State has two or more In the JIGE Draft (as in the Lisbon Draft) this provision was incorrectly included in article 8 which territorial units in which different systems of law are regulates the scope of application but then, on the applicable in relation to matters dealt with in the suggestion of the CMI, it was moved to a separate Convention, it may at the time of signature, article. ratification, acceptance, approval or accession declare that the Convention shall extend to all its territorial Reservations and declarations (Article 10) units or only to one or more of them and may modify this declaration by submitting another declaration at Article 10(1) allows States Parties to exclude the any time. This provision was added to the text of the application of the Convention to: Convention following a proposal of the delegation of (a) ships which are not seagoing: as previously Hong Kong China. indicated, the word “seagoing” has been deleted in article 8(1) and, therefore, similarly to the FRANCESCO BERLINGIERI

7 International Convention on Arrest of Ships, Convention Internationale de 1999 sur la Saisie 1999 Conservatoire des Navires The States Parties to this Convention, Les États parties à la présente Convention, Recognizing the desirability of facilitating the Considérant qu’il est souhaitable de faciliter le harmonious and orderly development of world développement harmonieux et ordonné du seaborne trade, commerce maritime mondial, Convinced of the necessity for a legal instrument Convaincus de la nécessité d’un instrument juridique établissant une uniformité internationale dans le establishing international uniformity in the field of domaine de la saisie conservatoire des navires, qui arrest of ships which takes account of recent tienne compte de l’évolution récente dans les developments in related fields, domaines connexes, Have agreed as follows: Sont convenus de ce qui suit :

Article 1 Article premier Definitions Définitions

For the purposes of this Convention: Aux fins de la présente Convention : 1. “Maritime Claim” means a claim arising out of 1. Par “créance maritime”, il faut entendre une one or more of the following: créance découlant d’une ou plusieurs des causes (a) loss or damage caused by the operation of the suivantes: ship; a) pertes ou dommages causés par l’exploitation du navire; (b) loss of life or occurring, whether b) mort ou lésions corporelles survenant, sur terre on land or on water, in direct connection with the ou sur eau, en relation directe avec l’exploitation operation of the ship; du navire; (c) salvage operations or any salvage agreement, c) opérations de sauvetage ou d’assistance ainsi que including, if applicable, special compensation tout contrat de sauvetage ou d’assistance, y relating to salvage operations in respect of a ship compris, le cas échéant, pour indemnité spéciale which by itself or its cargo threatened damage to concernant des opérations de sauvetage ou the environment; d’assistance à l’égard d’un navire qui par lui- (d) damage or threat of damage caused by the ship même ou par sa cargaison menaçait de causer des to the environment, coastline or related dommages à l’environnement; interests; measures taken to prevent, minimize, d) dommages causés ou risquant d’être causés par le or remove such damage; compensation for such navire au milieu, au littoral ou à des intérêts damage; costs of reasonable measures of connexes; mesures prises pour prévenir, réduire reinstatement of the environment actually ou éliminer ces dommages; indemnisation de ces undertaken or to be undertaken; loss incurred dommages; coût des mesures raisonnables de remise en état du milieu qui ont été effectivement or likely to be incurred by third parties in prises ou qui le seront; pertes subies ou risquant connection with such damage; and damage, d’être subies par des tiers en rapport avec ces costs, or loss of a similar nature to those dommages; et dommages, coûts ou pertes de identified in this subparagraph (d); nature similaire à ceux qui sont indiqués dans le (e) costs or expenses relating to the raising, présent alinéa d); removal, recovery, destruction or the rendering e) frais et dépenses relatifs au relèvement, à harmless of a ship which is sunk, wrecked, l’enlèvement, à la récupération, à la destruction stranded or abandoned, including anything that ou à la neutralisation d’un navire coulé, naufragé, is or has been on board such ship, and costs or échoué ou abandonné, y compris tout ce qui se expenses relating to the preservation of an trouve ou se trouvait à bord de ce navire, et frais abandoned ship and maintenance of its crew; et dépenses relatifs à la conservation d’un navire (f) any agreement relating to the use or hire of the abandonné et à l’entretien de son équipage; ship, whether contained in a party or f) tout contrat relatif à l’utilisation ou à la location otherwise; du navire par affrètement ou autrement; g) tout contrat relatif au de marchandises (g) any agreement relating to the carriage of goods ou de passagers par le navire, par affrètement ou or passengers on board the ship, whether autrement; contained in a charter party or otherwise; h) pertes ou dommages subis par, ou en relation (h) loss of or damage to or in connection with goods avec, les biens (y compris les bagages) transportés (including luggage) carried on board the ship; par le navire; (i) general average; i) avarie commune; (j) towage; j) remorquage; (k) pilotage; k) pilotage;

8 (l) goods, materials, provisions, bunkers, equipment l) marchandises, matériels, approvisionnement, (including containers) supplied or services soutes, équipements (y compris conteneurs) rendered to the ship for its operation, fournis ou services rendus au navire pour son management, preservation or maintenance; exploitation, sa gestion, sa conservation ou son (m) construction, reconstruction, repair, converting entretien; or equipping of the ship; m) construction, reconstruction, réparation, transformation ou équipement du navire; (n) port, canal, dock, harbour and other waterway n) droits et redevances de port, de canal, de bassin, dues and charges; de mouillage et d’autres voies navigables; (o) wages and other sums due to the master, officers o) gages et autres sommes dus au capitaine, aux and other members of the ship’s complement in officiers et autres membres du personnel de bord, respect of their employment on the ship, en vertu de leur engagement à bord du navire, y including costs of repatriation and social compris les frais de rapatriement et les cotisations insurance contributions payable on their behalf; d’assurance sociale payables pour leur compte; (p) disbursements incurred on behalf of the ship or p) paiements effectués pour le compte du navire ou its owners; de ses propriétaires; (q) insurance premiums (including mutual insurance q) primes d’assurance (y compris cotisations calls) in respect of the ship, payable by or on d’assurance mutuelle) en relation avec le navire, behalf of the shipowner or demise charterer; payables par le propriétaire du navire ou par (r) any commissions, brokerages or agency fees l’affréteur en dévolution ou pour leur compte; payable in respect of the ship by or on behalf of r) frais d’agence ou commissions de courtage ou the shipowner or demise charterer; autres en relation avec le navire, payables par le propriétaire du navire ou par l’affréteur en (s) any dispute as to ownership or possession of the dévolution ou pour leur compte; ship; s) tout litige quant à la propriété ou à la possession (t) any dispute between co-owners of the ship as to du navire; the employment or earnings of the ship; t) tout litige entre les copropriétaires du navire au (u) a mortgage or a “hypothèque” or a charge of the sujet de l’exploitation ou des droits aux produits same nature on the ship; d’exploitation de ce navire; (v) any dispute arising out of a for the sale u) hypothèque, “mortgage” ou droit de même of the ship. nature sur le navire; v) tout litige découlant d’un contrat de vente du 2. “Arrest” means any detention or restriction on navire. removal of a ship by order of a Court to secure a maritime claim, but does not include the seizure of a 2. Par “saisie”, il faut entendre toute immobilisation ship in execution or satisfaction of a judgment or ou restriction au départ d’un navire en vertu d’une other enforceable instrument. décision judiciaire pour garantir une créance 3. “Person” means any individual or partnership or maritime, mais non la saisie d’un navire pour any public or private body, whether corporate or not, l’exécution d’un jugement ou d’un autre instrument exécutoire. including a State or any of its constituent 3. Par “personne”, il faut entendre toute personne subdivisions. physique ou morale ou toute société de personnes, de 4. “Claimant” means any person asserting a droit public ou de droit privé, y compris un État et maritime claim. ses subdivisions politiques. 5. “Court” means any competent judicial authority 4. Par “créancier”, il faut entendre toute personne of a State. alléguant une créance maritime. 5. Par “tribunal”, il faut entendre toute autorité judiciaire compétente d’un État.

Article 2 Article 2 Powers of arrest Pouvoirs de saisie

1. A ship may be arrested or released from arrest 1. Un navire ne peut être saisi, ou libéré de cette only under the authority of a Court of the State Party saisie, que par décision d’un tribunal de l’État partie dans lequel la saisie est pratiquée. in which the arrest is effected. 2. Un navire ne peut être saisi qu’en vertu d’une 2. A ship may only be arrested in respect of a créance maritime, à l’exclusion de toute autre maritime claim but in respect of no other claim. créance. 3. A ship may be arrested for the purpose of 3. Un navire peut être saisi aux fins d’obtenir une obtaining security notwithstanding that, by virtue of sûreté, malgré l’existence, dans tout contrat considéré, a jurisdiction clause or arbitration clause in any d’une clause attributive de compétence judiciaire ou relevant contract, or otherwise, the maritime claim in arbitrale, ou de toute autre disposition, prévoyant de respect of which the arrest is effected is to be soumettre la créance maritime à l’origine de la saisie à

9 adjudicated in a State other than the State where the l’examen au fond du tribunal d’un État autre que celui arrest is effected, or is to be arbitrated, or is to be dans lequel la saisie est pratiquée, ou d’un tribunal adjudicated subject to the law of another State. arbitral, ou d’une clause prévoyant l’application de la 4. Subject to the provisions of this Convention, the loi d’un autre État à ce contrat. procedure relating to the arrest of a ship or its release 4. Sous réserve des dispositions de la présente Convention, la procédure relative à la saisie d’un shall be governed by the law of the State in which the navire ou à sa mainlevée est régie par la loi de l’État arrest was effected or applied for. dans lequel la saisie a été pratiquée ou demandée.

Article 3 Article 3 Exercise of right of arrest Exercice du droit de saisie

1. Arrest is permissible of any ship in respect of 1. La saisie de tout navire au sujet duquel une which a maritime claim is asserted if: créance maritime est alléguée peut être pratiquée si a) la personne qui était propriétaire du navire au (a) the person who owned the ship at the time when moment où la créance maritime est née est the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim obligée à raison de cette créance et est and is owner of the ship when the arrest is propriétaire du navire au moment où la saisie est effected; or pratiquée; ou (b) the demise charterer of the ship at the time when b) l’affréteur en dévolution du navire au moment où the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim la créance maritime est née est obligé à raison de and is demise charterer or owner of the ship cette créance et est affréteur en dévolution ou when the arrest is effected; or propriétaire du navire au moment où la saisie est (c) the claim is based upon a mortgage or a pratiquée; ou “hypothèque” or a charge of the same nature on c) la créance repose sur une hypothèque, un the ship; or “mortgage” ou un droit de même nature sur le (d) the claim relates to the ownership or possession navire; ou of the ship; or d) la créance est relative à la propriété ou à la (e) the claim is against the owner, demise charterer, possession du navire; ou e) il s’agit d’une créance sur le propriétaire, manager or operator of the ship and is secured l’affréteur en dévolution, l’armateur gérant ou by a maritime lien which is granted or arises l’exploitant du navire, garantie par un privilège under the law of the State where the arrest is maritime qui est accordé ou applicable en vertu applied for. de la législation de l’État dans lequel la saisie est 2. Arrest is also permissible of any other ship or demandée. ships which, when the arrest is effected, is or are 2. Peut également être pratiquée la saisie de tout owned by the person who is liable for the maritime autre navire ou de tous autres navires qui, au moment claim and who was, when the claim arose: où la saisie est pratiquée, est ou sont propriété de la (a) owner of the ship in respect of which the personne qui est obligée à raison de la créance maritime claim arose; or maritime et qui, au moment où la créance est née, était: (b) demise charterer, time charterer or voyage a) propriétaire du navire auquel la créance maritime charterer of that ship. se rapporte; ou This provision does not apply to claims in respect of b) affréteur en dévolution, affréteur à temps ou ownership or possession of a ship. affréteur au voyage de ce navire. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 Cette disposition ne s’applique pas aux créances and 2 of this article, the arrest of a ship which is not relatives à la propriété ou à la possession d’un navire. owned by the person liable for the claim shall be 3. Nonobstant les dispositions des paragraphes 1 et permissible only if, under the law of the State where 2 du présent article, la saisie d’un navire qui n’est pas the arrest is applied for, a judgment in respect of that propriété d’une personne prétendument obligée à claim can be enforced against that ship by judicial or raison de la créance ne peut être autorisée que si, forced sale of that ship. selon la loi de l’État où la saisie est demandée, un jugement rendu en vertu de cette créance peut être exécuté contre ce navire par une vente judiciaire ou forcée de ce navire.

Article 4 Article 4 Release from arrest Mainlevée de la saisie

1. A ship which has been arrested shall be released 1. Un navire qui a été saisi doit être libéré when sufficient security has been provided in a lorsqu’une sûreté d’un montant suffisant et sous une satisfactory form, save in cases in which a ship has forme satisfaisante a été constituée, sauf dans le cas

10 been arrested in respect of any of the maritime claims où la saisie est pratiquée en raison des créances enumerated in article 1, paragraphs 1 (s) and (t). In maritimes énumérées aux alinéas s) et t) du such cases, the Court may permit the person in paragraphe 1 de l’article premier. En ce cas, le possession of the ship to continue trading the ship, tribunal peut permettre l’exploitation du navire par la upon such person providing sufficient security, or personne qui en a la possession, lorsque celle-ci aura may otherwise deal with the operation of the ship constitué une sûreté d’un montant suffisant, ou réglé during the period of the arrest. de toute autre façon la question de la gestion du navire pendant la durée de la saisie. 2. In the absence of agreement between the parties as to the sufficiency and form of the security, the 2. Si les parties intéressées ne parviennent pas à un Court shall determine its nature and the amount accord sur l’importance et la forme de la sûreté, le thereof, not exceeding the value of the arrested ship. tribunal en détermine la nature et le montant, qui ne peut excéder la valeur du navire saisi. 3. Any request for the ship to be released upon security being provided shall not be construed as an 3. Aucune demande tendant à la libération du acknowledgement of liability nor as a waiver of any navire contre la d’une sûreté ne peut être defence or any right to limit liability. interprétée comme une reconnaissance de responsabilité ni comme une renonciation à toute 4. If a ship has been arrested in a non-party State défense ou tout droit de limiter la responsabilité. and is not released although security in respect of that ship has been provided in a State Party in 4. Si un navire a été saisi dans un État non partie et respect of the same claim, that security shall be n’est pas libéré malgré la constitution d’une sûreté ordered to be released on application to the Court in concernant ce navire dans un État partie relativement the State Party. à la même créance, la mainlevée de cette sûreté est autorisée par le tribunal de l’État partie, par 5. If in a non-party State the ship is released upon ordonnance rendue sur requête. satisfactory security in respect of that ship being provided, any security provided in a State Party in 5. Si, dans un État non partie, le navire est libéré respect of the same claim shall be ordered to be contre la constitution d’une sûreté suffisante concernant ce navire, la mainlevée de toute sûreté released to the extent that the total amount of constituée dans un État partie relativement à la même security provided in the two States exceeds: créance est autorisée par ordonnance si le montant (a) the claim for which the ship has been arrested, or total de la sûreté constituée dans les deux États (b) the value of the ship, dépasse: whichever is the lower. Such release shall, however, a) soit le montant de la créance au titre de laquelle not be ordered unless the security provided in the la saisie a été pratiquée; non-party State will actually be available to the b) soit la valeur du navire; claimant and will be freely transferable. la moins élevée des deux devant prévaloir. Cette 6. Where, pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article, mainlevée n’est toutefois autorisée par ordonnance security has been provided, the person providing que si la sûreté constituée est effectivement such security may at any time apply to the Court to disponible dans l’État non partie et librement have that security reduced, modified, or cancelled. transférable au profit du créancier. 6. Toute personne qui a constitué une sûreté en vertu des dispositions du paragraphe 1 du présent article peut, à tout moment, demander au tribunal de réduire, modifier ou annuler cette sûreté.

Article 5 Article 5 Right of rearrest and multiple arrest Droit de nouvelle saisie et saisies multiples

1. Where in any State a ship has already been 1. Lorsque, dans un État, un navire a déjà été saisi et arrested and released or security in respect of that libéré ou qu’une sûreté a déjà été constituée pour ship has already been provided to secure a maritime garantir une créance maritime, ce navire ne peut claim, that ship shall not thereafter be rearrested or ensuite faire l’objet d’aucune saisie fondée sur la arrested in respect of the same maritime claim unless: même créance maritime, à moins que: (a) the nature or amount of the security in respect of a) la nature ou le montant de la sûreté concernant ce that ship already provided in respect of the same navire déjà constituée en vertu de la même claim is inadequate, on condition that the créance ne soit pas suffisant, à condition que le aggregate amount of security may not exceed the montant total des sûretés ne dépasse pas la valeur value of the ship; or du navire; ou (b) the person who has already provided the security b) la personne qui a déjà constitué la sûreté ne soit is not, or is unlikely to be, able to fulfil some or ou ne paraisse pas capable d’exécuter tout ou all of that person’s obligations; or partie de ses obligations; ou

11 (c) the ship arrested or the security previously c) la mainlevée de la saisie ou la libération de la provided was released either: sûreté ne soit intervenue: (i) upon the application or with the consent of i) soit à la demande ou avec le consentement the claimant acting on reasonable grounds, du créancier agissant pour des motifs or raisonnables, (ii) because the claimant could not by taking ii) soit parce que le créancier n’a pu par des reasonable steps prevent the release. mesures raisonnables empêcher cette mainlevée ou cette libération. 2. Any other ship which would otherwise be subject to arrest in respect of the same maritime claim shall 2. Tout autre navire qui serait autrement susceptible not be arrested unless: d’être saisi en vertu de la même créance maritime ne (a) the nature or amount of the security already peut être saisi à moins que: provided in respect of the same claim is a) la nature ou le montant de la sûreté déjà inadequate; or constituée en vertu de la même créance ne soit (b) the provisions of paragraph 1 (b) or (c) of this pas suffisant; ou article are applicable. b) les dispositions du paragraphe 1 b) ou c) du présent article ne soient applicables. 3. “Release” for the purpose of this article shall not include any unlawful release or escape from arrest. 3. La “mainlevée” aux fins du présent article exclut tout départ ou toute libération du navire de nature illégale. Article 6 Protection of owners and demise charterers of Article 6 arrested ships Protection des propriétaires et affréteurs en dévolution de navires saisis 1. The Court may as a condition of the arrest of a ship, or of permitting an arrest already effected to be 1. Le tribunal peut, comme condition à maintained, impose upon the claimant who seeks to l’autorisation de saisir un navire ou de maintenir une arrest or who has procured the arrest of the ship the saisie déjà pratiquée, imposer au créancier saisissant obligation to provide security of a kind and for an ou ayant fait saisir le navire l’obligation de constituer amount, and upon such terms, as may be determined une sûreté sous une forme, pour un montant et selon by that Court for any loss which may be incurred by des conditions fixées par ce tribunal, à raison de toute the defendant as a result of the arrest, and for which perte causée par la saisie susceptible d’être subie par the claimant may be found liable, including but not le défendeur et dans laquelle la responsabilité du restricted to such loss or damage as may be incurred créancier peut être prouvée, notamment mais non by that defendant in consequence of: exclusivement, à raison de la perte ou du dommage (a) the arrest having been wrongful or unjustified; or éventuels subis par le défendeur par suite: (b) excessive security having been demanded and a) d’une saisie abusive ou injustifiée; ou provided. b) d’une sûreté excessive demandée et constituée. 2. The Courts of the State in which an arrest has 2. Les tribunaux de l’État dans lequel une saisie a been effected shall have jurisdiction to determine the été pratiquée sont compétents pour déterminer extent of the liability, if any, of the claimant for loss l’étendue de la responsabilité éventuelle du créancier or damage caused by the arrest of a ship, including à raison de pertes ou dommages causés par la saisie but not restricted to such loss or damage as may be d’un navire, notamment mais non exclusivement, de caused in consequence of: ceux qui seraient subis par suite: (a) the arrest having been wrongful or unjustified, or a) d’une saisie abusive ou injustifiée; ou (b) excessive security having been demanded and b) d’une sûreté excessive demandée et constituée. provided. 3. The liability, if any, of the claimant in accordance 3. La responsabilité éventuelle du créancier, visée au with paragraph 2 of this article shall be determined paragraphe 2 du présent article, est déterminée par by application of the law of the State where the arrest application de la loi de l’État où la saisie a été was effected. pratiquée. 4. If a Court in another State or an arbitral tribunal 4. Au cas où le litige est, conformément aux is to determine the merits of the case in accordance dispositions de l’article 7, soumis à l’examen au fond with the provisions of article 7, then proceedings d’un tribunal d’un autre État ou d’un tribunal arbitral, relating to the liability of the claimant in accordance la procédure relative à la responsabilité du créancier with paragraph 2 of this article may be stayed prévue au paragraphe 2 du présent article peut être pending that decision. suspendue dans l’attente de la décision au fond. 5. Where pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article 5. Toute personne qui a constitué une sûreté en security has been provided, the person providing vertu des dispositions du paragraphe 1 du présent such security may at any time apply to the Court to article peut à tout moment demander au tribunal de have that security reduced, modified or cancelled. réduire, modifier ou annuler cette sûreté.

12 Article 7 Article 7 Jurisdiction on the merits of the case Compétence sur le fond du litige

1. The Courts of the State in which an arrest has 1. Les tribunaux de l’État dans lequel une saisie a been effected or security provided to obtain the été pratiquée ou une sûreté constituée pour obtenir la release of the ship shall have jurisdiction to libération du navire sont compétents pour juger le determine the case upon its merits, unless the parties litige au fond, à moins que les parties, de façon validly agree or have validly agreed to submit the valable, ne conviennent ou ne soient convenues de dispute to a Court of another State which accepts soumettre le litige au tribunal d’un autre État se jurisdiction, or to arbitration. déclarant compétent, ou à l’arbitrage. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 2. Nonobstant les dispositions du paragraphe 1 du of this article, the Courts of the State in which an présent article, les tribunaux de l’État dans lequel une arrest has been effected, or security provided to saisie a été pratiquée, ou une sûreté constituée pour obtain the release of the ship, may refuse to exercise obtenir la libération du navire, peuvent décliner leur that jurisdiction where that refusal is permitted by compétence si le droit de cet État le leur permet et si the law of that State and a Court of another State le tribunal d’un autre État se reconnaît compétent. accepts jurisdiction. 3. Lorsqu’un tribunal de l’État dans lequel une 3. In cases where a Court of the State where an saisie a été pratiquée ou une sûreté constituée pour arrest has been effected or security provided to obtenir la libération du navire: obtain the release of the ship: a) n’est pas compétent pour statuer au fond sur le (a) does not have jurisdiction to determine the case litige; ou upon its merits; or b) a décliné sa compétence en vertu des dispositions (b) has refused to exercise jurisdiction in accordance du paragraphe 2 du présent article, with the provisions of paragraph 2 of this article, ce tribunal peut et, sur requête, doit fixer au créancier such Court may, and upon request shall, order a un délai pour engager la procédure au fond devant un period of time within which the claimant shall bring tribunal compétent ou une juridiction arbitrale. proceedings before a competent Court or arbitral tribunal. 4. Si, au terme du délai fixé conformément au paragraphe 3 du présent article, la procédure au fond 4. If proceedings are not brought within the period n’a pas été engagée, la mainlevée de la saisie ou de la of time ordered in accordance with paragraph 3 of sûreté constituée est, sur requête, autorisée par this article then the ship arrested or the security ordonnance. provided shall, upon request, be ordered to be released. 5. Si la procédure est engagée avant le terme du délai fixé conformément au paragraphe 3 du présent article, 5. If proceedings are brought within the period of ou si la procédure devant un tribunal compétent ou time ordered in accordance with paragraph 3 of this un tribunal arbitral d’un autre État est engagée en article, or if proceedings before a competent Court or l’absence de fixation d’un délai, toute décision arbitral tribunal in another State are brought in the définitive prononcée à l’issue de cette procédure est absence of such order, any final decision resulting reconnue et prend effet à l’égard du navire saisi ou de therefrom shall be recognized and given effect with la sûreté constituée pour prévenir la saisie du navire respect to the arrested ship or to the security provided ou obtenir sa libération, à condition que: in order to obtain its release, on condition that: a) le défendeur ait été averti de cette procédure (a) the defendant has been given reasonable notice dans des délais raisonnables et mis en mesure de of such proceedings and a reasonable présenter sa défense; et opportunity to present the case for the defence; b) cette reconnaissance ne soit pas contraire à and l’ordre public. (b) such recognition is not against public policy (ordre public) 6. Aucune des dispositions du paragraphe 5 du présent article ne limite la portée d’un jugement ou 6. Nothing contained in the provisions of paragraph d’une sentence arbitrale étrangers rendus selon la loi 5 of this article shall restrict any further effect given to de l’État où la saisie du navire a été pratiquée ou une a foreign judgment or arbitral award under the law of sûreté constituée pour en obtenir la libération. the State where the arrest of the ship was effected or security provided to obtain its release.

Article 8 Article 8 Application Application

1. This Convention shall apply to any ship within 1. La présente Convention est applicable à tout the jurisdiction of any State Party, whether or not navire relevant de la juridiction d’un État partie, quel that ship is flying the flag of a State Party. qu’il soit, et battant ou non pavillon d’un État partie.

13 2. This Convention shall not apply to any warship, 2. La présente Convention n’est pas applicable aux naval auxiliary or other ships owned or operated by navires de guerre, navires de guerre auxiliaires et a State and used, for the time being, only on autres navires appartenant à un État ou exploités par government non-commercial service. lui et exclusivement affectés, jusqu’à nouvel ordre, à un service public non commercial. 3. This Convention does not affect any rights or powers vested in any Government or its 3. La présente Convention ne porte atteinte à aucun des droits ou pouvoirs, dévolus par une convention departments, or in any public authority, or in any internationale, une loi ou réglementation interne à un dock or harbour authority, under any international État ou à ses administrations, à un établissement convention or under any domestic law or regulation, public ou à une autorité portuaire, de retenir un to detain or otherwise prevent from sailing any ship navire ou d’en interdire le départ dans le ressort de within their jurisdiction. leur juridiction. 4. This Convention shall not affect the power of any 4. La présente Convention ne porte pas atteinte au State or Court to make orders affecting the totality of pouvoir d’un État ou tribunal de rendre des a debtor’s assets. ordonnances applicables à la totalité du patrimoine d’un débiteur. 5. Nothing in this Convention shall affect the application of international conventions providing 5. Aucune disposition de la présente Convention ne for limitation of liability, or domestic law giving effect porte atteinte à l’application de conventions thereto, in the State where an arrest is effected. internationales ni d’aucune loi interne leur donnant effet, autorisant la limitation de responsabilité dans 6. Nothing in this Convention shall modify or affect l’État où une saisie est pratiquée. the rules of law in force in the States Parties relating 6. Aucune disposition de la présente Convention ne to the arrest of any ship physically within the modifie ou ne concerne les textes de loi en vigueur jurisdiction of the State of its flag procured by a dans les États parties relativement à la saisie d’un person whose habitual residence or principal place of navire dans la juridiction de l’État dont il bat business is in that State, or by any other person who pavillon, obtenue par une personne ayant sa has acquired a claim from such person by résidence habituelle ou son principal établissement subrogation, assignment or otherwise. dans cet État, ou par toute autre personne qui a acquis une créance de ladite personne par voie de subrogation, de cession, ou par tout autre moyen.

Article 9 Article 9 Non-creation of maritime liens Non-création de privilèges maritimes

Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as Aucune disposition de la présente Convention ne creating a maritime lien. peut être interprétée comme créant un privilège maritime.

Article 10 Article 10 Réserves Reservations 1. Un État peut, au moment de la signature, de la 1. Any State may, at the time of signature, ratification, de l’acceptation, de l’approbation ou de ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession, or at l’adhésion, ou à tout moment par la suite, se réserver any time thereafter, reserve the right to exclude the le droit d’exclure du champ d’application de la application of this Convention to any or all of the présente Convention: following : a) les bâtiments autres que les navires de mer; (a) ships which are not seagoing; b) les navires ne battant pas le pavillon d’un État (b) ships not flying the flag of a State Party; partie; (c) claims under article 1, paragraph 1 (s). c) les créances visées à l’alinéa s) du paragraphe 1 de l’article premier. 2. A State may, when it is also a State Party to a specified treaty on navigation on inland waterways, 2. Un État qui est aussi partie à un traité sur la navigation intérieure, peut déclarer, au moment de la declare when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving signature, de la ratification, de l’acceptation ou de or acceding to this Convention, that rules on l’approbation de la présente Convention ou de jurisdiction, recognition and execution of court l’adhésion à celle-ci, que les dispositions de ce traité decisions provided for in such treaties shall prevail concernant la compétence des tribunaux et la over the rules contained in article 7 of this reconnaissance et l’exécution de leurs décisions Convention. prévalent sur les dispositions de l’article 7 de la présente Convention.

14 Article 11 Article 11 Depositary Dépositaire

This Convention shall be deposited with the La présente Convention est déposée auprès du Secretary-General of the United Nations. Secrétaire général de l’Organisation des Nations Unies.

Article 12 Article 12 Signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and Signature, ratification, acceptation, approbation et accession adhésion

1. This Convention shall be open for signature by 1. La présente Convention est ouverte à la signature any State at the Headquarters of the United Nations, des États au Siège de l’Organisation des Nations New York, from 1 September 1999 to 31 August Unies, à New York, du 1er septembre 1999 au 31 2000 and shall thereafter remain open for accession. août 2000. Elle reste ensuite ouverte à l’adhésion. 2. States may express their consent to be bound by 2. Les États peuvent exprimer leur consentement à this Convention by: être liés par la présente Convention par: (a) signature without reservation as to ratification, a) signature sans réserve quant à la ratification, acceptance or approval; or l’acceptation ou l’approbation; ou (b) signature subject to ratification, acceptance or b) signature sous réserve de ratification, approval, followed by ratification, acceptance or d’acceptation ou d’approbation, suivie de approval; or ratification, d’acceptation ou d’approbation; ou (c) accession. c) adhésion. 3. Ratification, acceptance, approval or accession 3. La ratification, l’acceptation, l’approbation ou shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument to l’adhésion s’effectuent par le dépôt d’un instrument à cet effet auprès du dépositaire. that effect with the depositary. Article 13 Article 13 États ayant plus d’un régime juridique States with more than one system of law 1. S’il possède deux ou plusieurs unités territoriales 1. If a State has two or more territorial units in dans lesquelles des régimes juridiques différents sont which different systems of law are applicable in applicables pour ce qui est des matières traitées dans relation to matters dealt with in this Convention, it la présente Convention, un État peut, au moment de may at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, la signature, de la ratification, de l’acceptation, de approval or accession declare that this Convention l’approbation ou de l’adhésion, déclarer que la shall extend to all its territorial units or only to one or présente Convention s’applique à l’ensemble de ses more of them and may modify this declaration by unités territoriales ou seulement à une ou plusieurs submitting another declaration at any time. d’entre elles, et il peut modifier cette déclaration en 2. Any such declaration shall be notified to the présentant une autre déclaration à tout moment. depositary and shall state expressly the territorial 2. La déclaration est notifiée au dépositaire et units to which the Convention applies. précise expressément les unités territoriales 3. In relation to a State Party which has two or auxquelles s’applique la Convention. more systems of law with regard to arrest of ships 3. Dans le cas d’un État partie qui possède deux ou applicable in different territorial units, references in plusieurs régimes juridiques concernant la saisie this Convention to the Court of a State and the law conservatoire des navires applicables dans différentes of a State shall be respectively construed as referring unités territoriales, les références dans la présente to the Court of the relevant territorial unit within that Convention au tribunal d’un État et à la loi ou au State and the law of the relevant territorial unit of droit d’un État sont considérées comme renvoyant, that State. respectivement, au tribunal et à la loi ou au droit de l’unité territoriale pertinente de cet État.

Article 14 Article 14 Entry into force Entrée en vigueur

1. This Convention shall enter into force six 1. La présente Convention entre en vigueur six mois months following the date on which 10 States have après la date à laquelle 10 États ont exprimé leur expressed their consent to be bound by it. consentement à être liés par elle. 2. For a State which expresses its consent to be 2. Pour un État qui exprime son consentement à bound by this Convention after the conditions for être lié par la présente Convention après que les

15 entry into force thereof have been met, such consent conditions de son entrée en vigueur ont été remplies, shall take effect three months after the date of ce consentement prend effet trois mois après la date à expression of such consent. laquelle il a été exprimé.

Article 15 Article 15 Revision and amendment Révision et amendement 1. Le Secrétaire général de l’Organisation des 1. A conference of States Parties for the purpose of Nations Unies convoque une conférence des États revising or amending this Convention shall be parties pour réviser ou modifier la présente convened by the Secretary-General of the United Convention, à la demande d’un tiers des États parties. Nations at the request of one-third of the States Parties. 2. Tout consentement à être lié par la présente Convention exprimé après la date d’entrée en vigueur 2. Any consent to be bound by this Convention, d’un amendement à la présente Convention est expressed after the date of entry into force of an réputé s’appliquer à la Convention telle que modifiée. amendment to this Convention, shall be deemed to apply to the Convention, as amended. Article 16 Article 16 Dénonciation Denunciation 1. La présente Convention peut être dénoncée par l’un quelconque des États parties à tout moment à 1. This Convention may be denounced by any State compter de la date à laquelle elle entre en vigueur à Party at any time after the date on which this l’égard de cet État. Convention enters into force for that State. 2. La dénonciation s’effectue au moyen du dépôt 2. Denunciation shall be effected by deposit of an d’un instrument de dénonciation auprès du instrument of denunciation with the depositary. dépositaire. 3. A denunciation shall take effect one year, or such 3. La dénonciation prend effet un an après la date à longer period as may be specified in the instrument laquelle le dépositaire a reçu l’instrument de of denunciation, after the receipt of the instrument of dénonciation ou à l’expiration de tout délai plus long denunciation by the depositary. énoncé dans cet instrument.

Article 17 Article 17 Languages Langues

This Convention is established in a single original in La présente Convention est établie en un seul the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and exemplaire original en langues anglaise, arabe, chinoise, espagnole, française et russe, chaque texte Spanish languages, each text being equally authentic. faisant également foi.

DONE AT Geneva this twelfth day of March, one FAIT À Genève, le douze mars mil neuf cent quatre- thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine. vingt-dix-neuf. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned being EN FOI DE QUOI, les soussignés, dûment autorisés duly authorized by their respective Governments for à cet effet par leurs gouvernements respectifs, ont that purpose have signed this Convention. apposé leur signature à la présente Convention.

16 NEWS FROM IMO

IMO LEGAL ISSUES*

Dr. Balkin has treated us to a most interesting and be widely acceptable because it will be based on an carefully researched history of the IMO Legal understanding of national laws and will be designed Committee and its relationship with the CMI. With to produce a harmonising law which creates the the creation of the Legal Committee in 1967 part of minimum number of conflicts with those national the effort to harmonise private international laws. maritime law was transferred from the private It would be wrong of me to stand here at 4 Albert enterprise of CMI to the public sector of the IMO. Embankment, the headquarters of the IMO, and This has resulted in a substantial shift of emphasis criticise, the work methods of the Legal Committee. for reasons which I shall explain. However I will just highlight the difference in work Members of the CMI are the 50 or so National method which people should, I believe, understand. Maritime Law Associations created according to the Delegates to IMO Legal Committee meetings are strict rules set out in the CMI Constitution. generally speaking drawn from shipping ministries Membership of National Associations, in order to or ministries of justice in member states. Often their qualify for membership of the CMI, must be “open agenda is political and the projects which they to persons (individuals or bodies corporate) who are propose do not necessarily stem from a simple desire either involved in maritime activities or are to harmonise international maritime law. There is a specialists in maritime law. Member associations tendency for a national government to identify a should endeavour to present a balanced view of the problem in the maritime sector and discuss this interests represented in their association”. This problem with one or two other like minded reflects what would now be called the “mission governments. These sponsoring governments will statement” of the founders of the CMI in 1896. They then prepare a paper for submission to the Legal went on to specify that no maritime law should be Committee which outlines the problem and promulgated which did not have input from frequently appends a draft instrument designed to shipowners, merchants, underwriters, average tackle the problem which has been identified. The adjusters, bankers and other persons interested in vital difference between this instrument and one maritime trade. They stated that once those in the produced by the CMI method of work outlined trade had expressed their views it was then, and only above is that it is not based on a careful analysis of then, the duty of the maritime to determine national laws in the area under examination. Nor is what the consensus was and devise an instrument there any input, before drafting starts from a wide which would achieve uniformity. range of people within the shipping trades and It is important to understand the method of work practising maritime lawyers. I will take the risk of which has been adopted by the CMI since its saying in public that I think that this lack of basic foundation. Once an area of the law has been research into national laws before drafting starts identified as being suitable for a harmonising often shows in the quality of the instrument which is instrument, a small International Working Group is ultimately produced and may also be reflected in the appointed by the CMI to work on the project. This level of ratification. IWG produces a questionnaire which is circulated I note with interest that when the Legal Committee to all member associations seeking advice on the was first set up in 1967 following the “Torrey national law on the topic under examination. From Canyon” incident it formulated a work method to the responses received the IWG will prepare a draft deal with the legal issues. Member Governments instrument and an International Sub-Committee will were requested to assist the Committee by providing then be set-up and hold a series of meetings to which a summary of relevant national legislation and every national MLA is invited to send a regulatory practice to be used as the basis for future representative. Ultimately the work product of the discussion. This suggests that the Committee International Sub-Committee in the form of a draft understood the importance of a knowledge of convention or code, will be debated at a full CMI national laws, on the subject under review, before Conference and a final text will be produced for any drafting took place. Perhaps the Legal submission direct to a Diplomatic conference or to Committee should consider reverting to this practice the IMO Legal Committee for further whilst recognising that it would lengthen the whole consideration. process. This method of work has the undoubted advantage There is another subtle difference between the that those who undertake the drafting process do so current batch of instruments under consideration by on the basis of a clear knowledge of national law on the Legal Committee and their predecessors based the subject in a large number of maritime nations. upon work undertaken by the CMI. The CMI has The resulting instrument is therefore more likely to always been interested in harmonisation of private

*Paper delivered at the Conference organized jointly by the Center for Oceans Law and Policy - University of Virginia and IMO.

17 international law. A large number of the instruments operation of the ship. Much of this liability insurance produced by the IMO Legal Committee have been has traditionally been placed with Protection & instruments of public international law Indemnity Clubs run on a mutual basis. masquerading as an instrument of private It has been a fundamental principle of this type of international law. To take a very simple example the liability insurance that the shipowner remains 1910 Salvage Convention which was drafted by the primarily liable to the claimant but is indemnified by CMI regulates relations between salvors and those the insurer in respect of claims which he has been to whom they render salvage services. The 1989 forced by legal judgment or otherwise to pay. This is Salvage Convention (which is based on a draft the “pay to be paid” principle which has been prepared by the CMI at its conference in Montreal upheld by the English Courts most recently in the in 1981) updates the 1910 Convention but also, for “Padre Island” case. An important feature of this reasons of public policy, specifies in article 14 that type of insurance is that the claim for indemnity is the well established no cure-no pay rule will not subject to the terms of the contract of insurance. If apply where a salvor has contributed towards the the liability insurer has a defence under the terms of prevention of oil pollution but has received no the insurance contract his obligation to indemnify remuneration because no has been saved. the shipowner ceases. In theory if the shipowner This is clearly a public international law provision does not possess sufficient assets to meet the claim, inserted in a private international law convention. I this could mean that the claimant does not get paid. have no problem with these “hybrid” conventions Where the claimant is an individual or corporation but I think that we should all be aware that the IMO this can cause financial hardship. Where the Legal Committee agenda tends towards imposing claimant is a government or government department regulations and requirements (i.e. serving a political it can cause a political storm. National Governments agenda) whereas the CMI has always tended to do not like to find themselves in the situation where produce instruments designed to harmonise existing with a perfectly legitimate claim they do not get paid national laws governing relations between private for reasons beyond there control. And Governments individuals. at the end of the 20th Century do like to be in Having said all this the message I wish to convey is control! that if the Legal Committee wishes to produce It is this thinking which informed the drafters of the instruments designed to harmonise maritime law in Civil Liability Convention of 1969 when they the private international law field it should revert to inserted a provision whereby the owner of a tanker is its old CLC work method which will produce required to maintain insurance or other financial instruments based upon a careful analysis of national security up to the amount of the limits of liability laws. There is undoubtedly room for more co- prescribed in the Convention to cover liability for operation in this context between the CMI and the pollution damage. Further the CLC provides that IMO Legal Committee. I believe that things are “any claim for compensation for pollution damage changing and I certainly hope that the CMI will may be brought directly against the insurer or other continue to be used by the IMO Legal Committee person providing financial security”. Thus for the for what it can do best i.e. preliminary work on an first time the indemnity principle of liability instrument of harmonisation which will be based insurance was violated. upon a proper analysis of existing national laws and If those in the insurance industry thought that the which will, in consequence, be more likely to be CLC was a one-off case they were sorely mistaken. adopted by states parties. If the political agenda This was, as some predicted at the time, merely the dictates that the instrument contains provisions thin end of the wedge. The HNS Convention of 1996 which are regulatory in nature these can always be contains a similar violation of the indemnity added at the Legal Committee stage. May I also principle and the Legal Committee now has before it make a plea for simpler Conventions leaving more three instruments all of which seek to remove the discretion to States parties and for more discussion fundamental principle of indemnity insurance. Thus regarding the form of the instrument to be used – it the draft Wreck Removal Convention which is need not be a Convention. currently under discussion would require (by article I seem to have taken up a fair proportion of my IV) the owner of a ship flying the flag of a state party allotted time in dealing with what I might describe “to maintain insurance or other financial security to as the political agenda. I would like to spend a few cover liability under the convention” and article moments talking about a particular aspect of the XI(9) provides that claims may be brought “directly Legal Committee’s work which interests me. This against the insurer”. concerns the new liabilities imposed on shipowners Equally the draft Convention on Compensation for and their insurers. Pollution from Ships’ Bunkers provides, by article 7 Traditionally no responsible shipowner has allowed that the “ship owner … shall be required to maintain his vessel to go to sea without carrying two distinct insurance or other financial security … to cover types of insurance. Firstly the hull and machinery of liability for pollution damage under this the vessel will be insured against loss or damage. convention”. Article 7 (8) of the draft Convention Secondly the shipowner will have insured himself provides that claims for pollution damage may be against liabilities which may arise out of the pursued “directly against the insurer”. If the Bunker

18 Convention and the WRC are eventually agreed and leaving it to the insurance company, issuing the come into force widely this will represent two personal accident insurance policy, to deal direct further nails in the coffin of the “pay to be paid” with the claiming passenger. The CMI suggested that principle. one of the advantages of this proposal was that the The third project, under review at the IMO Legal personal accident insurer would have no defences Committee at this time, started as a proposal that all against a passenger claim in contrast to the situation shipowners should carry of liability were the matter was dealt with by way of liability insurance or other security for all types of claim insurance where, as previously explained, the likely to arise out of maritime operations. It quite liability insurer can use any defences available to him quickly became apparent that it would be very under the liability insurance cover. Of course no difficult to impose such a compulsory insurance similar solution would be available to solve the requirement without defining in very clear terms insurance problems arising under the WRC and what the liabilities were against which the Bunker Conventions. shipowners should be required to carry insurance. I should mention, for completeness, that the idea of Put another way you cannot have a compulsory a compulsory insurance regime for all maritime liability insurance requirement without establishing claims, with the now familiar characteristic of direct a comprehensive liability regime. Because of this action against the insurer, has not been totally fundamental difficulty the Legal Committee decided abandoned. A number of Government delegations at to concentrate on producing an instrument which the 78th Session of the Legal Committee suggested would require the owners of passenger carrying that a Code should be published by IMO which vessels to maintain insurance or other financial would specify the minimum recommended security for claims for loss of life or personal injury standards for shipowners responsibilities in respect to passengers. of maritime claims against which they should obtain As originally drafted the protocol to the 1974 insurance. As previously indicated most responsible Athens Convention, which was to incorporate this shipowners would not allow their ships to go to sea compulsory insurance requirement for passengers, without adequate liability cover and the feeling is provided that “the carrier shall maintain insurance that this suggested Code whilst creating no problems or other financial security… to cover the liability of for the responsible shipowner might, on the other the carrier under this convention” and went on to hand, do nothing to ensure that the irresponsible provide that claims for compensation might be shipowner started to buy liability insurance. “brought directly against the insurer..”. So here is Discussion on these fascinating topics will continue yet another example of the CLC wedge continuing at the next session of the IMO Legal Committee in to undermine the “pay to be paid” principle. April. I have only picked one aspect of these In the course of the debate regarding protection of discussions which seemed to me to be worth passengers the CMI suggested that an alternative highlighting for the good reason that it will have a method of protecting the position of passengers fundamental effect on the form and cost of insurance would be to require the owners of all passenger which the insurance market will have to offer to carrying vessels to take out personal accident shipowners. I suggest that this is an issue which has insurance (PAI) for the benefit of passengers. This not been properly addressed to date. would create a direct contractual relationship between the passenger and the personal accident insurer enabling the carrier to step back from the need to deal directly with passenger claims and PATRICK GRIGGS

NEWS FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

INTERMODAL LIABILITY

The CMI was invited to attend a meeting, or needed further examination. The Commission “hearing”, on intermodal liability at the European followed this up in its Communication on Commission (Directorate-General VII Transport) on “Intermodality and intermodal in 19th January 1999. I was asked to represent the CMI the EU”. The Commission then requested a group of at the hearing as Chairman of the International legal experts from European Universities to make an Working Group on Issues of Transport Law. 33 enquiry into the area of intermodal freight liability participants attended representing about 14 and, more specifically, the adverse effects of the organisations. absence of a uniform intermodal liability regime on First some background. Task Force Transport the further development of freight intermodalism in Intermodality, which was set up by the Commission the European Union. This group, consisting of in 1995, carried out consultations with the industry. Regina Asariotis, H.-J Bull, Malcolm Clarke, As a result of its report intermodal liability was Professor Rolf Herber, Professor Aliki Kiantou- earmarked by the Commission as an area which Pambouki, D. Moran-Bovio, Professor Jan Ranberg,

19 Professor Ralph de Wit and Professor Stefano Second liability was fragmented and could not be Zunarelli, produced a draft report dated July 1998. assessed in advance. Third the current regulation of This draft report was circulated with the papers for liability was too complex and therefore not cost the hearing. effective. Fourth there was a proliferation of national An additional reason for the hearing was said to be solutions. She then outlined past attempts at the proposal to amend US COGSA 1936. The unification, including the 1980 UN Convention on papers for the hearing stated that the US MLA draft International Multimodal Transport of Goods and included extra-territorial dimensions and that the the 1992 UNCTAD ICC Model Rules for Commission had transmitted its concerns in fora Multimodal Transport Documents. She pointed out such as the Consultative Shipping Group and the that both systems gave precedence to mandatory EU-USA Forum on Freight Intermodalism. national and international law and that both systems The aims of the hearing were stated to be to gather were complex. The aim of any possible future the views of industry representatives on intermodal regulation must be to produce liability rules which liability, to discuss the industry’s views on the were compatible with existing regimes, cost effective proposed revision to the US COGSA 1936 and to and acceptable to the transport industry. To achieve identify possible strategies. Organisations which had compatibility with existing regimes liability should expressed an interest in attending were invited to be in excess of established minimum levels. To submit a written statement built around a achieve cost effectiveness the rules should be simple questionnaire. This questionnaire together with the and transparent, should cover loss damage and delay, Statement submitted on behalf of the CMI, will be should operate irrespective of the modal stage where published in the 1999 CMI Yearbook. loss occurred or the causes of a loss, and should The Chairman, Mr. Wim Blonk, opened the hearing concentrate the transit risk on the carrier. by explaining that development of intermodal Commercial acceptability would be achieved by transport was important in the context of the adopting a non-mandatory “default” system which globalisation of economies. It would improve enabled a carrier who did not wish to assume flexibility and the competitiveness of shippers. The extensive liability to opt out. Adherence to the Commission supported the concept of “sustainable regime would be a matter of commercial decision mobility”, which meant using the transport making. The function of the law in this area was to infrastructure in a more efficient way. The Task facilitate trade; there was no significant public policy Force had produced a “diagnosis report” which was consideration. an inventory of the problems facing the The representatives of the various organisations were development of intermodal transport. A number of then asked to make their statements, not all of whom obstacles to its development had been identified. had submitted written Statements. Some of these problems could easily be solved by The Chairman concluded the hearing by attempting the industry, but the three principal obstacles were: to summarise his personal impressions. The lack of 1. The lack of liberalisation in the railway sector. an intermodal liability scheme was considered by the 2. The lack of standardisation. industry to be one of the major problems in the way 3. The lack of an intermodal liability regime. of developing intermodal transport. There was a The Chairman went on to say that solving the third wish on the shippers’ side to solve it, but the reaction problem at European level would not be a complete from the transport side was more diverse. The answer. Consequently discussions had been held railways were aware that there was a problem and the with the United States, Canada and Mexico and the suggestion had been made that the UNCTAD/ICC Central and Eastern European countries. Rules should be promoted. There was a reluctance As regards the bill to revise US COGSA 1936, amongst the shipowners to open a Pandora’s box, representatives of the industry had written to the but nevertheless they were aware that there was a Commissioner and a number of political and legal problem and they were willing to continue problems had been identified. The Commission’s discussions. Some representatives were in favour of a concerns had been signalled to Capitol Hill the voluntary scheme and some were in favour of a previous week. regional solution, but words of warning had been Regina Asariotis then made a presentation of the given against this. draft report. She began by outlining the current legal The official Minutes of the hearing state that it was liability framework. She emphasised that no uniform agreed that the Commission would examine the costs regime governed liability for loss, damage or delay. for the industry of the absence of a uniform The framework consisted of a complex jigsaw of intermodal liability arrangement as well as simulate international conventions, diverse national laws and the economic impact of both a general use of the standard term such as FIATA FBL 1992. UNCTAD/ICC Rules and the introduction of a new More than one regime might apply and different voluntary intermodal regime. A steering committee rules governed liability for delay. She identified four consisting of not more than five members from particular problems. First liability varied in organisations which attended the hearing will incidence and extent depending on the applicable monitor progress and give input to the Commission. regime, the modal stage where loss or damage occurred and the causes of such loss or damage. STUART BEARE

20