航海過(guò)失外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　附 錄</b></p><p>　　鹿特丹規(guī)則——在可以達(dá)到的范圍內(nèi)統(tǒng)一海運(yùn)法？Unified maritime laws within reach?</p><p>　　去年9月提出的新的國(guó)際海上運(yùn)輸公約已經(jīng)吸引了大量批評(píng)家和支持者。 This article looks at the opportunities connecte

2、d with the Rotterdam Rules, as well as at the concerns that have been raised about what will happen if they take effe本文著眼于與鹿特丹規(guī)則緊密聯(lián)系的機(jī)會(huì)，以及關(guān)注其生效會(huì)帶來(lái)什么影響。</p><p>　　《聯(lián)合國(guó)全程或部分海上國(guó)際貨物運(yùn)輸合同公約》又稱為《鹿特丹規(guī)則》，被應(yīng)用于海上聯(lián)合運(yùn)輸合同及

3、純海洋運(yùn)輸。這與在1968年實(shí)施的海牙維斯比規(guī)則及1978年的漢堡規(guī)則是不一樣的公約。</p><p>　　另外，《鹿特丹規(guī)則》旨在協(xié)調(diào)海上貨物運(yùn)輸?shù)氖澜绶煽蚣?。如果其被采用，《鹿特丹?guī)則》將代替上述提及的先前的公約。同時(shí)，也會(huì)使得中國(guó)《海商法》，美國(guó)及澳大利亞的海上貨物運(yùn)輸法律及其他法律過(guò)時(shí)。</p><p>　　Nevertheless, it remains to be seen

4、whether this bold effort will succeed.盡管如此，我們?nèi)杂写^察這一大膽的努力是否會(huì)成功。A number of hurdles have to be overcome before the Rotterdam Rules can take effect.許多困難要在《鹿特丹規(guī)則》生效前克服。 從2009年9月《鹿特丹規(guī)則》在鹿特丹的正式出臺(tái)至今，A total of 21 countries hav

5、e signed the convention since it was officially presented in Rotterdam in September 2009 (see box).一共有21個(gè)國(guó)家簽署了該公約。One thing that stands out is that the signatories include a number of African nations, in addition to the

6、USA and certain European</p><p>　　But the signatures do not mean that the convention has actually been adopted by any of these countries.但是，簽名并不意味著該公約已經(jīng)被這些國(guó)家所采用。The Rotterdam Rules have to be ratified by at

7、least 20 nations.鹿特丹規(guī)則必須得到至少20個(gè)國(guó)家的批準(zhǔn)。根據(jù)相關(guān)法律規(guī)定，They will become legally binding according to Article 94 RR only one year after the ratification documents have been officially filed with the United Nations.他們將在向聯(lián)合國(guó)正式提交批準(zhǔn)文件

8、一年后才可以具有法律約束力。However, it is the opinion of this author that worldwide harmonisation of maritime transport </p><p>　　What is new什么是新的？ </p><p>　　What would change if the Rotterdam Rules were ado

9、pted?如果《鹿特丹規(guī)則》被采用，什么將會(huì)改變？《鹿特丹規(guī)則》They would eliminate the «nautical fault defence», which currently prevents carriers and crews from being held liable for negligent ship management and navigation.取消了“航海過(guò)失免責(zé)”條款，即

10、承運(yùn)人因駕駛船舶或者管理船舶的過(guò)失所造成的貨物的滅失或者損壞，不負(fù)賠償責(zé)任。這個(gè)條款總是顯示在一般條款和條件適用于集裝箱貨物運(yùn)輸?shù)奶釂沃?。In addition, the non-liability clause has been codified in the laws of many countries.此外，非責(zé)任條款已被編纂在許多國(guó)家的法律中。例如，In Germany, for example, article 607, pa

11、ragraph 2 HGB of the </p><p>　　In addition, shipping lines will face higher penalties in case of loss or damage.此外，航運(yùn)公司在損失或損害的情況下將面臨更高的刑罰。Article 4a of the Hague-Visby Rules stipulates that a shipping line i

12、s liable for two special drawing rights (SDRs) per kilogram of the lost or damaged freight, or 666.67 SDRs per packed piece or shipped unit.《海牙-維斯比規(guī)則》第4A條規(guī)定，承運(yùn)人的賠償責(zé)任限額為每件666.67特別提款權(quán)或毛重每千克2特別提款權(quán)，以較高者為準(zhǔn)。This has been boost

13、ed to three SDRs per kilogram or 875 SDRs per package or shipped unit in Article 59 RR.這已被提高到每千克3特別提款權(quán)或每</p><p>　　Shipping lines will also be held accountable for failing to hold to the agreed transport time

14、s.航運(yùn)公司也將對(duì)未能按規(guī)定時(shí)間運(yùn)輸?shù)膿p失負(fù)責(zé)。相關(guān)法律Article 60 RR states that the shipping line must pay compensation for loss of or damage to goods due to delay.第60條指出，航運(yùn)公司必須對(duì)因遲延運(yùn)輸造成的貨物損失或損壞進(jìn)行賠償。The liability is limited to an amount equivalent

15、 to two and a half times the freight payable on the goods delayed.該責(zé)任限制，延遲交付貨物最多應(yīng)付相當(dāng)于2.5倍的運(yùn)費(fèi)。 This can obviously add up to tens of thousands of dollars or euros per event.這明顯的意味著每事件需支付數(shù)萬(wàn)美</p><p>　　Criticism

16、from Germany</p><p><b>　　來(lái)自德國(guó)的批評(píng) </b></p><p>　　As already pointed out at the beginning of this article, whether or not the RR will eventually rule the seas is still written in the st

17、ars.正如這篇文章開頭所指出，《鹿特丹規(guī)則》最終是否成功仍然有待觀察。It is noteworthy that the RR have elicited some public criticism (such as from Germany), but Asia and Latin America have met them with almost complete silence.值得注意的是，《鹿特丹規(guī)則》已經(jīng)引發(fā)了一些大眾批評(píng)

18、（如德國(guó)），但亞洲和拉丁美洲幾乎保持完全沉默。 </p><p>　　Critics such as the German Bar Association (Deutscher Anwaltverein DAV) say that the Rotterdam Rules, with their 96 articles, have a difficult structure and are too complica

19、ted.如德國(guó)律師協(xié)會(huì)批評(píng)說(shuō)，有著96條規(guī)則的《鹿特丹規(guī)則》有一個(gè)很難的結(jié)構(gòu)以及過(guò)于復(fù)雜。 The document is also marred by numerous references, exceptions and counter-exceptions.該文件還多次被大量的文獻(xiàn)，例外和反例外所詆毀。 </p><p>　　It is not likely that Germany will sign t

20、he Rotterdam Rules in the near future.德國(guó)在不久的將來(lái)簽署《鹿特丹規(guī)則》這是不太可能的。That is regrettable, despite the (valid) criticism.這是令人遺憾的，盡管其存在有效的批評(píng)。The attitude of the country's ministry of justice is all the more to be deplored as

21、 this is probably the last opportunity for a very long time to unify the international framework for the maritime carriage of goods.該國(guó)的司法部的態(tài)度，更是被視為十分反對(duì)認(rèn)為這可能是一個(gè)很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間以來(lái)統(tǒng)一海上貨物運(yùn)輸?shù)膰?guó)際框架的最后機(jī)會(huì)。 Neither the Hague Rules of 1924 (wi

22、th 52 ratifying countri</p><p>　　失敗將導(dǎo)致法律的不確定性 </p><p>　　If the Rotterdam Rules fail, the USA will go its separate way.如果《鹿特丹規(guī)則》失敗，美國(guó)將開始其獨(dú)立的方式。 That nation will resume its revision of the US Carr

23、iage of Goods by Sea Act, a task which had been suspended out of deference to the RR.該國(guó)將重新修訂恢復(fù)其自己的海上貨物運(yùn)輸法。其將在另一種協(xié)調(diào)全球航運(yùn)規(guī)則的嘗試出現(xiàn)的Decades are sure to pass before another attempt is made to harmonise global shipping rules.十年內(nèi)

24、被通過(guò)。 In fact, the current already enormous divergence of maritime laws around the world is likely to increase still more.事實(shí)上，目前，世界各地的龐大海事法例的分歧</p><p>　　A commission in Germany has been working for some time

25、to reform the maritime regulations in that country's commercial code.在德國(guó)，一個(gè)委員會(huì)已經(jīng)為修改本國(guó)商法下的海商法做了一段時(shí)間的努力。 其A draft was presented to the public at the end of 2009.草案在2009年年底公諸于眾。德國(guó)司法部的Leading German politicians in the mi

26、nistry of justice, along with certain associations, primarily want to come up with a solution that can be happily proposed to other countries as an alternative to the Rotterdam Rules.領(lǐng)頭政治家，以及某些特定團(tuán)體，主要想提出一個(gè)可以讓人欣然接受的建議，以作為

27、其他國(guó)家可以代替《</p><p>　　Apart from that, cost conditions alone should prevent anyone from recommending the German proposal.此外，僅成本條件就應(yīng)防止任何人推薦德國(guó)的提案。It would make more economic sense for the world's countries to

28、 sign and ratify the Rotterdam Rules.簽署和批準(zhǔn)《鹿特丹規(guī)則》將為世界更多的國(guó)家?guī)?lái)經(jīng)濟(jì)上的重大意義。瑞士安聯(lián)保險(xiǎn)公司律師Dr Vanesa Goglar, a lawyer at the Swiss insurance company Allianz Suisse, has calculated that lack of legal harmonisation would generate sign

29、ificantly higher costs than would the adoption of the RR.Vanesa Goglar已經(jīng)計(jì)算出缺乏統(tǒng)一的法律將產(chǎn)生比采用《鹿特丹規(guī)則》而</p><p>　　Will those who start too late miss the boat?開始太晚將會(huì)錯(cuò)失良機(jī)？ Many international transport law experts righ

30、tly say that it is too late for certain members of the EU to work out their own new laws.許多國(guó)際運(yùn)輸法專家肯定地說(shuō)，歐盟一些成員國(guó)制定自己的新法律已經(jīng)太晚了。 </p><p>　　The fact that many shipping lines are critical of the Rotterdam Rules is

31、 not surprising.事實(shí)上，許多船公司對(duì)《鹿特丹規(guī)則》的批判不足為奇。This is connected with the enhanced liability that was outlined above.這與上述賠償責(zé)任的增強(qiáng)密不可分。But their negative opinion is not shared by the protection and indemnity insurance associatio

32、ns (P&I Clubs).但他們的反面看法是不被保障及賠償保險(xiǎn)協(xié)會(huì)所認(rèn)同的。The latter think that harmonisation of maritime shipping regulations will lead to lower costs in the long term.后者認(rèn)為，海運(yùn)條例的協(xié)調(diào)將導(dǎo)致在長(zhǎng)期降低成本。 It would also greatly accelerate </p&g

33、t;<p>　　Opportunity for unification </p><p><b>　　機(jī)遇統(tǒng)一 </b></p><p>　　To sum up, six years were required to develop the Rotterdam Rules.總之，需要6年來(lái)發(fā)展《鹿特丹規(guī)則》。 Many countries were di

34、rectly involved.許多國(guó)家都直接參與。合理的It would certainly be a good thing if certain key points could be optimised, as some of the criticism is justifi批評(píng)有時(shí)是一件好事，如果某些關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)可以進(jìn)行優(yōu)化，這是很有道理的。 But there are only two options on the table at

35、 the moment – to either accept or reject the RR.但是，只有兩種選擇擺在桌面上- 接受或拒絕《鹿特丹規(guī)則》。Given this choice I can only agree with the German Bar Association.在這種選擇下，我只能同意德國(guó)律師協(xié)會(huì)。 We should</p><p>　　《鹿特丹規(guī)則》現(xiàn)行簽署的國(guó)家 </p>

36、;<p>　　Armenia, Cameroon, Congo, Denmark, France, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Madagascar, Mali, the Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Senegal, Spain, Switzerland, Togo and the USA.亞美尼亞，喀麥隆，剛果，丹麥，法國(guó)，加蓬

37、，加納，希臘，幾內(nèi)亞，馬達(dá)加斯加，馬里，荷蘭，尼日爾，尼日利亞，挪威，波蘭，塞內(nèi)加爾，西班牙，瑞士，多哥和美國(guó)。 </p><p><b>　　航海過(guò)失</b></p><p><b>　　背景</b></p><p>　　本論文涉及海商法在歷史上最重要的開脫罪責(zé)的例外之一。這也是在過(guò)去的十年中，無(wú)疑是最有爭(zhēng)議的一個(gè)。航海

38、過(guò)失免責(zé)在海上貨物運(yùn)輸中是獨(dú)特的。航空，鐵路，公路運(yùn)輸都沒(méi)有這方面的相應(yīng)規(guī)則。航空運(yùn)輸法，其早期使用相同的模式，但豁免規(guī)定被1955年海牙議定書所廢除。那么為什么海上航運(yùn)法律如此獨(dú)特？早期的羅馬法規(guī)定，承運(yùn)人對(duì)損失或損壞的貨物需進(jìn)行賠償，除非因不可抗力造成的貨物的損失或損壞責(zé)任。賠償責(zé)任制度因此僅僅是一種創(chuàng)新，在歷史上很年輕。在19世紀(jì)末，在航行和船舶管理上的錯(cuò)誤只是一個(gè)提單中使用的例外。該條款適用于提單，后來(lái)在一項(xiàng)規(guī)定下被接受，其構(gòu)建

39、不像我們今天這樣。那時(shí)的航海員僅依靠六分儀和星星，而對(duì)計(jì)算機(jī)和衛(wèi)星甚至沒(méi)有考慮。當(dāng)時(shí)的船都是舊鋼船或有著處理復(fù)雜的大型機(jī)器和脆弱的船帆的木船，任何航行或管理船舶的輕微故障都可能導(dǎo)致擱淺，碰撞和沉船。在這種情況下，船主遭受的損失往往大大高于貨主對(duì)貨物的損失。因此在這個(gè)時(shí)候有一個(gè)明確的和合理的理由分享通過(guò)航海過(guò)失免責(zé)的承運(yùn)人和貨主之間的責(zé)任。如果承運(yùn)人已為來(lái)自海上過(guò)失造成的損失承擔(dān)責(zé)任，他的經(jīng)濟(jì)前景可能已經(jīng)很危險(xiǎn)。然而，貨主也愿意承擔(dān)萬(wàn)一承

40、運(yùn)人船舶受損而引發(fā)的</p><p><b>　　6.2.1基本責(zé)任</b></p><p>　　航海過(guò)失的規(guī)定是1924年海牙規(guī)則下的結(jié)果及部分有名的妥協(xié)，承運(yùn)人強(qiáng)制對(duì)所謂的服務(wù)人商業(yè)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任及履行其所謂的航海過(guò)失所負(fù)責(zé)。 根據(jù)瑞典法規(guī)定的承運(yùn)人的賠償責(zé)任基礎(chǔ)不像我會(huì)在后面提及的漢堡規(guī)則。損害賠償責(zé)任規(guī)定，損失或由承運(yùn)人的過(guò)失或疏忽而造成延誤其強(qiáng)制負(fù)責(zé)。這些

41、主要規(guī)則其次緊跟著豁免，如航海過(guò)失，火災(zāi)，甲板貨和活的動(dòng)物，這可能免于承運(yùn)人的賠償責(zé)任。因此，原因不明的損失風(fēng)險(xiǎn)落在承運(yùn)人身上。一個(gè)實(shí)際結(jié)果是，它是在基于承運(yùn)人的利益上組織調(diào)查，檢查等，以維護(hù)其法律地位和證據(jù)。</p><p>　　該規(guī)則規(guī)定了承運(yùn)人的舉證責(zé)任倒置。因此，只要沒(méi)有相反的證明，承運(yùn)人推定為基本的疏忽承擔(dān)責(zé)任。逆轉(zhuǎn)的舉證負(fù)擔(dān)導(dǎo)致承運(yùn)人在普通過(guò)失責(zé)任和嚴(yán)格責(zé)任方面有了更嚴(yán)格的法律責(zé)任。舉證責(zé)任倒置的原因

42、是，所有貨物已被拘留，他可以接觸到相關(guān)信息。然而，正如上文所述，在無(wú)法證明引發(fā)失敗的錯(cuò)誤時(shí)，承運(yùn)人可以不承擔(dān)責(zé)任。</p><p>　　航海過(guò)失是承運(yùn)人的主要賠償責(zé)任規(guī)則中最重要的免責(zé)之一。該規(guī)則被強(qiáng)制用于所有海上的貨物運(yùn)輸。根據(jù)規(guī)則，承運(yùn)人如果他能證明損失或損壞是由于其雇用的船長(zhǎng)或船員在航行或管理該船只不當(dāng)所引起的，則承運(yùn)人不承擔(dān)責(zé)任。船只的管理，最初的表達(dá)增加了包括采取措施，船舶在港口。此外第26條免除承運(yùn)人

43、因火災(zāi)造成的損失所負(fù)的責(zé)任，除非火災(zāi)是由承運(yùn)人的過(guò)失或疏忽所造成。為了使承運(yùn)人已經(jīng)援引這些防御的優(yōu)勢(shì)，免除賠償責(zé)任的，他必須首先證明自己，他和他的雇用人已經(jīng)謹(jǐn)慎處理，使開航前船舶適航。</p><p>　　應(yīng)該指出的是，必須更準(zhǔn)確的掌握承運(yùn)人受雇人的信息，任何船員，引航員或在船上工作的其他人都是這個(gè)范圍之內(nèi)的。這是一個(gè)所謂的身份證明或有關(guān)的承運(yùn)人的賠償責(zé)任默契的結(jié)果，也就是說(shuō)，一個(gè)受雇人的忽視被認(rèn)為是承運(yùn)人的過(guò)失

44、。顯然，這樣的一種替代責(zé)任必須對(duì)承運(yùn)人規(guī)定，因?yàn)樗荒茏约郝男羞\(yùn)輸。海上貿(mào)易的發(fā)展，已經(jīng)發(fā)展到包括裝貨，搬運(yùn)，由專家配載，運(yùn)輸，保管和卸貨。目前，幾乎所有部門的運(yùn)輸是由第三方而不是由訂約承運(yùn)人。盡管如此，貨物被認(rèn)為是在承運(yùn)人保管期間的任何時(shí)間收到貨物的交付。然而，應(yīng)用相應(yīng)的替代責(zé)任時(shí)，承運(yùn)人的賠償責(zé)任，由于航海過(guò)失開脫。另一方面，如果錯(cuò)誤是在自己或部分高級(jí)管理人員，該規(guī)則對(duì)承運(yùn)人的保護(hù)被剝奪。此外，他還可能發(fā)現(xiàn)自己使用的全球限制排除。&

45、lt;/p><p>　　在北歐的法律規(guī)定中，如果認(rèn)為存在與該船只和她的安全利益有關(guān)，則在航行或管理該船只的錯(cuò)誤似乎存在。在應(yīng)用航海過(guò)失免責(zé)時(shí)，法院必須首先區(qū)分商業(yè)故障和故障船舶的適航航海過(guò)失。我將進(jìn)一步說(shuō)明這個(gè)區(qū)別，豁免背后的目的是在承運(yùn)人離開港口無(wú)法完全監(jiān)督的情況下，忽略導(dǎo)航和船舶管理。對(duì)船的命令必須是在危機(jī)情況采取立即決策和自己的獨(dú)立判斷。但是，承運(yùn)人對(duì)可控制的一切事負(fù)責(zé)。</p><p>

46、;　　6.2.2 航海錯(cuò)誤</p><p>　　沒(méi)有海事法試圖界定“航行或管理”的含義。不過(guò)，因?yàn)樗麄儙?lái)了巨大的討論多年來(lái)意義主體是相當(dāng)清楚的。航海過(guò)失的前提條件是包括故障例如轉(zhuǎn)向和操縱船，使用航行設(shè)備，燈塔，發(fā)出信號(hào)，測(cè)定其位置及航線，停泊地，拋錨處，對(duì)氣象新聞的評(píng)估，速度的調(diào)整，遺棄調(diào)整，參與港口避難，遵守航行規(guī)則，迫使經(jīng)歷了風(fēng)暴和確定什么時(shí)候進(jìn)行的船舶。由于導(dǎo)航錯(cuò)誤的結(jié)果，我們通常看到的船舶擱淺，觸礁，與

47、另一船舶或碼頭相撞。 在接地的情況下造成的貨物損失，往往沒(méi)有第三方參與。因此，貨物利益，可能會(huì)直接向承運(yùn)人呈現(xiàn)誰(shuí)可以使用航行過(guò)失免責(zé)為自己辯護(hù)。這種情況并不意味著什么大問(wèn)題。從碰撞的另一方面來(lái)說(shuō)，這是不尋常，它發(fā)生在因共同過(guò)失的船舶航行。這種情況意味著一個(gè)有點(diǎn)復(fù)雜的局面時(shí)，貨方可以不要求向合同承運(yùn)人的疏忽導(dǎo)致因航海過(guò)失碰撞的損害索要賠償。盡管如此，其他運(yùn)營(yíng)商可以通過(guò)召開侵權(quán)責(zé)任。根據(jù)瑞典的法律，侵權(quán)索賠不能超過(guò)船舶過(guò)失程度的比

48、例，雙方相互指責(zé)船舶碰撞問(wèn)題，船舶僅按其自身的過(guò)錯(cuò)程度比例承擔(dān)損害賠償責(zé)任。為了便于比較，連帶美國(guó)法律的碰撞責(zé)任。因此，目前的情況下貨物的利益，可向非簽約運(yùn)營(yíng)商索要侵權(quán)損害的全部金額。</p><p>　　6.2.3 船的管理</p><p>　　因管理船舶而造成的過(guò)失免責(zé)關(guān)心有關(guān)船舶的狀況，人員配備和設(shè)備。從船舶開始她的航程直到貨物卸出，都可能會(huì)出現(xiàn)過(guò)失。管理船舶的過(guò)失包括：船體適航狀態(tài)

49、的提供和維護(hù)方面的過(guò)失，閥門，（艙底）管材，水泵，壓載艙，機(jī)器檢查和清理，人手配備，船舶供應(yīng)和穩(wěn)定的壓艙，關(guān)閉港口洞，艙底泵和加油。在區(qū)別船舶導(dǎo)航和管理上是相當(dāng)沒(méi)有意義的，因?yàn)樵趦煞N情況下的規(guī)則運(yùn)作其結(jié)果仍是一樣的。盡管如此，航海過(guò)失與商務(wù)過(guò)錯(cuò)有很大相關(guān)性，即是否找到管理問(wèn)題中船舶處理或者貨物處理具有重大意義。</p><p>　　這一區(qū)分的重要性是顯而易見(jiàn)的，因管理船舶導(dǎo)致的過(guò)失時(shí)所負(fù)的責(zé)任屬于航海過(guò)失。而貨物

50、管理的過(guò)錯(cuò)，所謂的商業(yè)故障，落在承運(yùn)人身上。它往往是很難區(qū)分航海和商業(yè)的過(guò)失。一般以行為的對(duì)象和目的作為區(qū)分這兩種過(guò)失的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。一個(gè)很好的例子是在挪威的特立尼達(dá)，在卸貨時(shí)，一些糧食被發(fā)現(xiàn)燒焦，法院必須決定是否是錯(cuò)誤的開關(guān)轉(zhuǎn)向行為構(gòu)成了對(duì)船舶的管理或貨物的過(guò)失。挪威最高法院裁定，由于光開關(guān)可能是在對(duì)卸貨港的碼頭工人的工作時(shí)運(yùn)作，這構(gòu)成了在貨物管理的過(guò)錯(cuò)。另一個(gè)例子發(fā)生在瑞典最高法院，兩個(gè)貨物艙底閥門在排水后沒(méi)有正確關(guān)閉。這導(dǎo)致水進(jìn)入貨艙和貨

51、物損壞。承運(yùn)人免除因?yàn)榇嗽斐傻姆韶?zé)任。瑞典最高法院后得出了上述結(jié)論說(shuō)明該閥為維護(hù)雙方貨物和船舶的共同利益。</p><p>　　因?yàn)椋茱@然，從商業(yè)效益標(biāo)準(zhǔn)分離故障航海過(guò)失是相對(duì)的而不是客觀的設(shè)想，盡管在北歐管轄權(quán)，判例法似乎已作出了相當(dāng)明確的解釋模式。這在預(yù)測(cè)海上貨物運(yùn)輸?shù)娘L(fēng)險(xiǎn)時(shí)對(duì)兩締約方的重要性很大。</p><p>　　確保該船舶適航幾乎是同樣的事情，只有安全的船舶才可以提供安全的

52、運(yùn)輸。不過(guò)，學(xué)說(shuō)和判例制定和創(chuàng)建了一個(gè)清晰的途徑合和一般標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)解決問(wèn)題，并有多數(shù)案件決定。到目前為止，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，承運(yùn)人承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任時(shí)，主要是在貨物管理過(guò)錯(cuò)上進(jìn)行責(zé)任開脫。</p><p>　　The Rotterdam Rules——Unified maritime laws within reach？</p><p>　　A new convention on international

53、 maritime transport, which was presented to the world in September last year, has attracted both critics and proponents. This article looks at the opportunities connected with the Rotterdam Rules, as well as at the conce

54、rns that have been raised about what will happen if they take effect.</p><p>　　The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, known as the Rotterd

55、am Rules (RR), applies to intermodal contracts that include a sea journey, as well as to pure maritime transport. This was not the case with the Hague-Visby Rules adopted in 1968 or the Hamburg Rules of 1978.</p>

56、<p>　　In addition, the Rotterdam Rules aim to harmonise the world’s legal framework for the maritime carriage of goods. If adopted, the Rotterdam Rules will replace the earlier agreements mentioned above. They will

57、also render obsolete the Maritime Code of China, the USA’s and Australia’s Carriage of Goods by Sea Acts (Cogsa), and other laws.</p><p>　　Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether this bold effort will su

58、cceed. A number of hurdles have to be overcome before the Rotterdam Rules can take effect. A total of 21 countries have signed the convention since it was officially presented in Rotterdam in September 2009 (see box). On

59、e thing that stands out is that the signatories include a number of African nations, in addition to the USA and certain European countries.</p><p>　　But the signatures do not mean that the convention has act

60、ually been adopted by any of these countries. The Rotterdam Rules have to be ratified by at least 20 nations. They will become legally binding according to Article 94 RR only one year after the ratification documents hav

61、e been officially filed with the United Nations. However, it is the opinion of this author that worldwide harmonisation of maritime transport regulations will not be achieved by the ratification of a mere 20 countries. T

62、he</p><p>　　What is new?</p><p>　　What would change if the Rotterdam Rules were adopted? They would eliminate the «nautical fault defence», which currently prevents carriers and crews

63、from being held liable for negligent ship management and navigation. This is an item that always shows up in the general terms and conditions applicable to the bills of lading used by container shipping lines. In additio

64、n, the non-liability clause has been codified in the laws of many countries. In Germany, for example, article 607, paragraph 2 HGB</p><p>　　In addition, shipping lines will face higher penalties in case of l

65、oss or damage. Article 4a of the Hague-Visby Rules stipulates that a shipping line is liable for two special drawing rights (SDRs) per kilogram of the lost or damaged freight, or 666.67 SDRs per packed piece or shipped u

66、nit. This has been boosted to three SDRs per kilogram or 875 SDRs per package or shipped unit in Article 59 RR. It is not difficult to see that the change from the Hague-Visby Rules is significant. In addition, sh</p&

67、gt;<p>　　Shipping lines will also be held accountable for failing to hold to the agreed transport times. Article 60 RR states that the shipping line must pay compensation for loss of or damage to goods due to dela

68、y. The liability is limited to an amount equivalent to two and a half times the freight payable on the goods delayed. This can obviously add up to tens of thousands of dollars or euros per event.</p><p>　　Cr

69、iticism from Germany</p><p>　　As already pointed out at the beginning of this article, whether or not the RR will eventually rule the seas is still written in the stars. It is noteworthy that the RR have eli

70、cited some public criticism (such as from Germany), but Asia and Latin America have met them with almost complete silence.</p><p>　　Critics such as the German Bar Association (Deutscher Anwaltverein DAV) say

71、 that the Rotterdam Rules, with their 96 articles, have a difficult structure and are too complicated. The document is also marred by numerous references, exceptions and counter-exceptions.</p><p>　　It is no

72、t likely that Germany will sign the Rotterdam Rules in the near future. That is regrettable, despite the (valid) criticism. The attitude of the country’s ministry of justice is all the more to be deplored as this is prob

73、ably the last opportunity for a very long time to unify the international framework for the maritime carriage of goods. Neither the Hague Rules of 1924 (with 52 ratifying countries), nor the Hague-Visby Rules (with 27 ra

74、tifications), nor the Hamburg Rules (20 ratification</p><p>　　Failure will cause legal uncertainty</p><p>　　If the Rotterdam Rules fail, the USA will go its separate way. That nation will resume

75、 its revision of the US Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, a task which had been suspended out of deference to the RR. Decades are sure to pass before another attempt is made to harmonise global shipping rules. In fact, the c

76、urrent already enormous divergence of maritime laws around the world is likely to increase still more. This will be reflected in corresponding legal uncertainties, especially in cases of loss or</p><p>　　A c

77、ommission in Germany has been working for some time to reform the maritime regulations in that country’s commercial code. A draft was presented to the public at the end of 2009. Leading German politicians in the ministry

78、 of justice, along with certain associations, primarily want to come up with a solution that can be happily proposed to other countries as an alternative to the Rotterdam Rules. This would not lead to increased internati

79、onal harmony, however. It is considered absolutely certai</p><p>　　Apart from that, cost conditions alone should prevent anyone from recommending the German proposal. It would make more economic sense for th

80、e world’s countries to sign and ratify the Rotterdam Rules. Dr Vanesa Goglar, a lawyer at the Swiss insurance company Allianz Suisse, has calculated that lack of legal harmonisation would generate significantly higher co

81、sts than would the adoption of the RR. She concedes that it will be necessary to clarify new legal uncertainties arising out of the Rotterda</p><p>　　Will those who start too late miss the boat? Many interna

82、tional transport law experts rightly say that it is too late for certain members of the EU to work out their own new laws.</p><p>　　The fact that many shipping lines are critical of the Rotterdam Rules is no

83、t surprising. This is connected with the enhanced liability that was outlined above. But their negative opinion is not shared by the protection and indemnity insurance associations (P&I Clubs). The latter think that

84、harmonisation of maritime shipping regulations will lead to lower costs in the long term. It would also greatly accelerate cargo claim management, and it would establish more legal certainty.</p><p>　　Opport

85、unity for unification</p><p>　　To sum up, six years were required to develop the Rotterdam Rules. Many countries were directly involved. It would certainly be a good thing if certain key points could be opti

86、mised, as some of the criticism is justified. But there are only two options on the table at the moment – to either accept or reject the RR. Given this choice I can only agree with the German Bar Association. We should n

87、ot let the Rotterdam Rules fail. The opportunity to unify our maritime laws carries more weight than any</p><p>　　Current signatories of the Rotterdam Rules</p><p>　　Armenia, Cameroon, Congo, De

88、nmark, France, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Madagascar, Mali, the Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Senegal, Spain, Switzerland, Togo and the USA.</p><p>　　THE NAUTICAL FAULT</p><p>

89、　　Background</p><p>　　This thesis concerns one of the most important exculpatory exceptions in history of maritime law. It is also, at least over the last decades, doubtlessly one of the most argued. The nau

90、tical fault exemption from liability is completely unique to shipping business. Not air, nor railway, nor road transport has any corresponding rule of this kind. In air law, which earlier used the same pattern, the exemp

91、tion was abolished by the Hague Protocol in 1955. Why is then the law of shipping so unique? Th</p><p>　　6.2.1 Basis of liability</p><p>　　The rule of the nautical fault was a result and a part

92、of the famous compromise under the Hague Rules 1924 holding the carrier compulsory liable for so-called commercial fault of his servants on the one hand and discharging him from so-called nautical fault on the other hand

93、.</p><p>　　The basis for the carrier’s liability according to Swedish regulations, which is not very unlike the Hamburg Rules as I will come back to later in this thesis, is found in SMC Ch 13 Sec 25. Liabil

94、ity is imposed for damage, loss or delay caused by the fault or neglect of the carrier or someone for whom he is responsible. This main rule is followed by exemptions such as the nautical fault, fire, deck cargo and live

95、 animals, which may indemnify the carrier from liability. Thus the risk of unexplain</p><p>　　The rule imposes a reversed burden of proof on the carrier. Thus so long as nothing to the contrary is proved, th

96、e carrier is presumed to be liable on the basis of negligence. The reversed burden of proof results in a more stringent liability for the carrier which should lie somewhere between the ordinary liability for negligence a

97、nd strict liability in terms of severity. The reason the burden of proof is reversed is that after all, the goods have been in his custody and he is, or ought to be, t</p><p>　　The nautical fault is one of t

98、he most important exonerations from the main rule of the carrier’s liability. The rule, which is mandatory on all carriage of goods by sea, is stipulated in SMC Chapter 13 Section 26 item 1. According to the rule the car

99、rier is not liable if he can prove that the loss or damage was caused by the fault or neglect of his servants and committed in the navigation or management of the vessel. The expression management of the vessel was initi