306 |

THE HAMBURG RULES AND THE ROTTERDAM RULES

Chapter 11 of the Rules focuses on how to affect the transfer of rights incorporated into a negotiable transport document/electronic record to another. It is no different from the processes found for transferring bills of lading in English law. For instance, according to Art 57(1), an order document can be transferred through endorsement to a person or in blank. In the case of a negotiable electronic transport record, the transfer will have to follow the procedures that have been put in place for electronic transport records.126

Conclusion

It is still too early to predict whether the Rotterdam Rules will eventually replace the conventions from the perspective of shipowning interests, since there are a number of provisions that are weighted against them – for instance, the continuing obligation to exercise due diligence in relation to the seaworthiness of the ship and the higher liability limits. Regardless, the Rotterdam Rules also have a number of positive features – for example, their applicability to electronic versions of transport documents and the inclusion of important incidents relating to carriage of goods, such as delivery. So far, twenty-four states have signed the Rotterdam Rules, but only two have ratified the Convention – these being Spain and Togo. There is still a long way to go. It remains to be seen whether the current economic climate and the global financial crisis will convince the shipowning and insurance interests to lobby their governments to ratify the Rotterdam Rules.

Further reading

Astle, The Hamburg Rules, 1981, Fairplay.

Basanayake, ‘Origins of the 1978 Hamburg Rules’ (1979) 27 AJCL 353.

Bauer, ‘Conflicting liability regimes: Hague-Visby v Hamburg Rules – a case by case analysis’ (1993) 24 JMLC 53.

Berlingieri,‘AcomparativeanalysisoftheHague-VisbyRules,theHamburgRulesandtheRotterdam Rules’ paper delivered at the General Assembly of the International Association of Average Adjusters-AMD, Marrakesh, 5-6 November 2009, available online at www.comitemaritime. org/draft/pdf/Comparative_analysis.pdf.

Bovan, ‘The first decision applying the Hamburg Rules’ [1997] LMCLQ 351.

Chandler, ‘A comparison of the “COGSA”, the Hague-Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules’ (1984) 15 JMLC 233.

Diamond, ‘The Rotterdam Rules’ (2009) LMCLQ 445.

Donovan, ‘Why a new convention on carriage of goods by sea?’ (1979) 4 Maritime Law 9. Goldie, ‘Effect of the shipowners’ liability insurance’ (1993) 24 JMLC 151.

Grönfors, ‘The Hamburg Rules – failure or success?’ [1978] JBL 334.

Hellawell, ‘Allocation of risk between cargo owner and carrier’ (1979) 27 American Journal of Comparative Law 357.

Herber, ‘The UN Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea 1978: its future and the demands of developing countries’ (1984) Yearbook of Maritime Law 81.

Jackson, ‘The Hamburg Rules and confl ict of laws’, in Mankabady (ed), The Hamburg Rules on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978, Sijthoff.

Maher and Maher, ‘Marine transport, cargo risks, and the Hamburg Rules: rationalisation or imagery?’ (1980) 84 Dickinson LR 183.

126 See Chapter 6.

FURTHER READING

| 307

Makins, ‘Uniformity of the law of carriage of goods by sea in the 1990s: The Hamburg Rules – a casualty’ (1991) 8 MLAANZ Journal 34.

Mandelbaum, ‘Creating uniform worldwide liability standards for sea carriage of goods under the Hague, COGSA, Visby and Hamburg Conventions’ (1996) 23 Transportation LJ 471.

Mankabady (ed), The Hamburg Rules on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978, Sijthoff. O’Hare, ‘Cargo dispute resolution and the Hamburg Rules’ (1980) 29 ICLQ 219.

Pika, ‘The Hamburg Rules fault concept and common carrier liability under US law’ [1979] Virginia Journal of International Law 433.

Ramberg, ‘The vanishing bill of lading and the “Hamburg Rules Carrier”’ (1979) 27 AJCL 391. Sassoon and Cunningham, ‘Unjustifi able deviation and Hamburg Rules’, in Mankabady (ed), The

Hamburg Rules on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978, Sijthoff.

Selvig, ‘The Hamburg Rules, the Hague Rules and Marine Insurance Practice’ (1981) 12 JMLC 299. Sturley, ‘Changing liability rules and marine insurance: confl icting empirical arguments about Hague, Visby and Hamburg in a vacuum of empirical evidence’ (1993) 24 JMLC 119.

Sweeney, ‘UNCITRAL and the Hamburg Rules – the risk allocation problem in maritime transport of goods’ (1991) 22 JMLC 51.

Tetley, ‘Some general criticisms of the Rotterdam Rules’ (2008) 14 The Journal of International Maritime Law 625.

Thomas (ed), A New Convention for the Carriage of Goods by Sea – The Rotterdam Rules 2009, Lawtext Publishing.