Nil Kula DEĞİRMENCİ

Rotterdam rules: is a solution to the uniformity problem in international maritime cargo transportation?

Hızla küreselleşen ticari hayatta taşımanın ve özellikle denizyolu ile uluslararası yük taşımacılığının önemli bir yeri bulunmaktadır. Denizyolu ile uluslararası yük taşımacılığının bu yükselen önemi bu taşımada yer alan tarafların haklarının, yetkilerinin ve sorumluluklarının düzenlenmesi gere- ğini doğurmuştur. Lahey, Lahey-Visby ve Hamburg Kuralları denizyolu ile yük taşımacılığını düzenleyen uluslararası sözleşmelerdir. Ancak bu sözleşmeler arasındaki farklılıklar, sözleşmelere geniş katılımın sağlana- maması ve sözleşmelerin kabulü aşamasında devletlerin ulusal mevzuatları aracılığı ile gerçekleştirilen değişiklikler bu alanda yeknesak olmayan bir düzen ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Rotterdam kuralları bu alanda yeknesaklığı sağlamak amacıyla kabul edilmiş olsa da, yenilikçi tarafları olan bu kural- lar bazı yönleriyle ise eleştirilmektedir. Bu nedenle çalışmada denizyolu ile uluslararası yük taşımacılığında yeknesaklık sorununu etkileyen bu boyutlar incelenmiş ve Rotterdam Kuralları’nın yenilikçi yönleri tespit edilmiştir. Bu şekilde Rotterdam Kuralları’nın denizyolu ile uluslararası yük taşımacılığına ilişkin hukuken yeknesak bir düzen kurmak konusun- daki yeterliliğini sorgulamak amaçlanmıştır.

Rotterdam kuralları: denizyolu ile uluslararası yük taşımacılığığındaki yeknesaklık sorununun çözümü olabilir mi?

The place of transportation and especially maritime cargo transpor- tation has a great importance in the rapidly globalizing commercial life. The rising importance of the maritime cargo transportation entailed the regulation of the rights, authorities and responsibilities of the parties that take place in that mode of transportation. Hague, Hague-Visby and Ham- burg Rules denote the international conventions that regulate international maritime cargo transportation. However the discrepancies in between these conventions, fail of the broad attendance of states and the modifica- tions on the conventions through domestic legislations in their acceptance process cause a non-uniform legal regime in this area. Rotterdam Rules have been accepted in order to ensure that uniformity, however besides the rules’ innovative sides; they have been criticized in several ways. There- fore in the study the dimensions that affect the uniformity problem in inter- national maritime cargo transportation have been examined and the inno- vative sides of the Rotterdam Rules have been determined. Thus it is aimed to discover whether the Rotterdam Rules are sufficient to establish a legal- ly uniform regime in maritime cargo transportation.

PDF

___

A.V. Ziegler, ‘The Liability of the Contracting Carrier’, (2009) 44 Texas International Law Journal.
B. H. Kobayashi and L. E. Ribstein, ‘The Non-Uniformity of Uni- form Laws’, (2010) 35(2) The Journal of Corporation Law.
B. W. Yancey, ‘The Carriage Of Goods: Hague, Cogsa, Visby and Hamburg’, (1982–1983) 57 Tulane Law Review.
C. L. Wei, Changes in the Sea Carrier’s Liability for Cargo as a Re- sult of Containerization and Multimodalism (US and Taiwanese Law) (Canada: Montreal University, 1999).
C. Legros, ‘Relations Between the Rotterdam Rules and the Conven- tion on the Carriage of Goods by Road’, (2011–2012) 36 Tulane Maritime Law Journal.
D. C. Hooper, ‘Forum Selection and Arbitration in the Draft Con- vention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, or The Definition of Fora Conveniens Set Forth in Rotter- dam Rules’, (2009) 44(3) Texas International Law Journal.
D. Damar, ‘Carrier’s Liability for Passengers-Baggage’, in Kerim Atamer and Duygu Damar (eds), Transport Law in Turkey, (Netherlands: Kluwer Law, 2013).
D. M. Bovio, Ocean Carriers' Duty Of Care to Cargo in Port: The Rotterdam Rules of 2009, (2008–2009) 32 Fordham Int'l L.J.
E. Rosaeg, ‘Conflicts of Conventions in the Rotterdam Rules’ (2009) 15(3) The Journal of International Maritime Law .
E. S. Lee, ‘The Changing Liability System of Sea Carriers and Mari- time Insurance: Focusing on the Enforcement of the Hamburg Rules’, (2002) 15 Transnational Law.
Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers, Legal Principles in Shipping Business, (Glasgow: Bell&Bain Ltd, 2012).
F. Berlingieri, ‘Uniformity in Maritime Law and Implementation of International Conventions,’ (1987) 18(3) Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce.
F. Berlingieri, ‘The History of the Rotterdam Rules’ in Meltem Den- iz Güner Özbek (eds), The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, (İstanbul: Springer, 2011).
F. Reynolds, ‘The Hague Rules, The Hague-Visby Rules and The Hamburg Rules’, (1990) 7 MLAANZ Journal.
F. Smeele, ‘The Maritime Performing Party in the Rotterdam Rules 2009’ (2010) EJCCL.
F. Ülgener, ‘Obligations and Liabilities of the Carrier’, (in M. D. Güner-Özbek (eds) The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, (İstanbul: Springer, 2011).
F. W. H. Chan, ‘In Search of a Global Theory of Maritime Electron- ic Commerce: China's Position on the Rotterdam Rules’, (2009) 40(2) Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce.
G. V. D. Ziel, ‘Chapter 10 of the Rotterdam Rules: Control of Goods in Transit’, (2009a) 44(3) Texas Law Journal.
G.V. D. Ziel, ‘Multimodal Aspects of the Rotterdam Rules’, (2009b) 14 Unif. L. Review.
H. Karan, Any Need for a New International Instrument on The Car- riage of Goods By Sea: The Rotterdam Rules?, (2011) 42(3) Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce.
H. Karan, ‘Transport Documents in the Light of Rotterdam Rules in M. D. Güner-Özbek (eds) The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, (İstanbul: Springer, 2011).
H. M. Kindred and M. R. Brooks, Multimodal Transport Rules (London: Martinus Nıjhoff Publishers, 1997).
H. O. Günther and K. H. Kim, Container Terminals and Automated Transport Systems (Heidenberg: Springer, 2005).
J. F. Wilson, Carriage of Goods by Sea, (London: Pearson, 2010).
J. M. Alcantra, ‘The Rotterdam Rules. Prelude or Premonition’ (2010) 2(1) Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional.
J. Ramberg, ‘UN Convention on Contracts of Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea’, (2009) CMI Yearbook.
K. Atamer, ‘Sources of Roman Maritime Law in the Digest’ (2010a) 26 (4) Batıder.
K. Atamer, ‘Construction Problems in the Rotterdam Rules Regard- ing the Performing and Maritime Performing Parties’, (2010b) 41(4) Jour- nal of Maritime Law and Commerce.
K. Atamer and C. Süzel, ‘Construction Problems in the Rotterdam Rules Regarding the Identity of the Carrier’ in M. D. Güner-Özbek (eds) The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, (İstanbul: Springer, 2011).
K. Atamer, Gemi ve Uçak İpoteğinin Hukuksal Temelleri (İstanbul: Oniki Levha Yayıncılık, 2012).
K. Atamer, ‘Introduction’ in K. Atamer and D. Damar (eds), Transport Law in Turkey, (Netherlands: Kluwer Law, 2013).
L. L. Burrell, ‘Current Problems in Maritime Uniformity’, (1992– 1993) 5(1) U. S. F. Mar. L. J.
L. S. Pallares, ‘A Brief Approach to the Rotterdam Rules: Between Hope and Dissapointment’, (2011) 42(3) Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce.
M. D. Güner-Özbek, ‘Extended Scope of the Rotterdam Rules: Mari- time Plus and Conflict of the Extension with the Extensions of Other Transport Law Conventions’ in M. D. Güner-Özbek (eds) The United Na- tions Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, (İstanbul: Springer, 2011).
M. Davis, ‘Two views of Free In and Out, Stowed Clauses in Bills of Lading’, (1994) Australian Business Law Review.
M. F. Sturley, ‘Uniformity In The Law Governing The Carriage Of Goods By Sea’, (1995) 26 JMLC 556.
M. F. Sturley, ‘The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’s Transport Law Project: An Interim View of a Work in Pro- gress’, (2003a) 39 Tex. Int’l. L.J.
M. F. Sturley, ‘The Treatment of Performing Parties’, (2003b) CMI Yearbook.
M. F. Sturley, ‘Modernizing and Reforming US Maritime Law. The Impact of the Rotterdam Rules in the United States’, (2009) 44(3) Texas International Law Journal.
M. F. Sturley, ‘General Principles of Transport Law and the Rotter- dam Rules’ in Meltem Deniz Güner Özbek (eds), The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, (İstanbul: Springer, 2011).
M. Hoeks, Multimodal Transport Law, (Netherlands: Kluwer Law, 2010).
M. Levinson, The Box: How The Shipping Container Made The World Smaller And The World Economy Bigger (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008).
M. Peters, ‘Jurisdiction and Multimodal Transportation: Bringing Uniformity of Carriage of Goods by Sea to the Shores of the United States’, (2008-2009) 17(3) Michigan State Journal of International Law.
P. Delebecque, ‘The UNCITRAL Draft Instrument on the Carriage of Goods by Sea’ (2003) CMI Yearbook.
P. J. S. Griggs, ‘Obstacles to Uniformity of Maritime Law The Nicholas J. Healy Lecture’, (2003) 34(2) Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 198–208.
P. K. Mukherjee and B. A. Bal, ‘A Legal and Economic Analysis of the Volume Contract Concept Under the Rotterdam Rules: Selected Issues in Perspective’, (2009) 40 (4) Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce.
R. D. Peltz, ‘The Myth of Uniformity in Maritime Law’, (1996– 1997) 21 Tulane Maritime Law Journal.
R. G. Bauer, ‘Conflicting Liability Regimes: Hague-Visby v. Ham- burg Rules-A Case by Case Analysis’, (1993) 24 (1) Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce.
R. Kender, E. Çetingil and E. Yazıcıoğlu, Deniz Ticaret Hukuku (Temel Bilgiler) (İstanbul: Oniki Levha Yayıncılık, 2012).
R. Konings, H. Priemus and P. Nijkamp, The Future of Intermodal Freight Transport (Cornwall: Edward Elgar, 2008).
R. Thomas, ‘An Appraisal of Diamond, The Rotterdam Rules’ (2009) LMCLQ.
S. Ünan, ‘The Scope of Application of the Rotterdam Rules and Freedom of Contract’ in M. D. Güner-Özbek (eds) The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, (İstanbul: Springer, 2011).
S. Zunarelli, ‘The Carrier and the Maritime Performing Party in the Rotterdam Rules’ (2009) Uniform Law Review.
T. Aladwani, ‘The Supply of Containers and “Seaworthiness”-The Rotterdam Rules Perspective’, (2011) 42(2) Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce.
T. Fujita, ‘The Compherensive Coverage of the New Convention: Performing Parties and the Multimodal Implications’ (2009) 44 Texas In- ternational Law Journal.
T. Fujita, ‘Obligations and Liabilities of the Shipper’ in M. D. Güner-Özbek (eds) The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, (İstanbul: Springer, 2011) 140.
T. Nikaki, ‘Conflicting Laws in "Wet" Multimodal Carriage of Goods: The UNCITRAL Draft Convention on the Carriage of Goods [Wholly or Partly] [by Sea]’, (2006) 37(4) Journal of Maritime Law & Commerce.
T. Nikaki, ‘The Carrier's Duties Under the Rotterdam Rules: Better the Devil You Know?’, (2010) 35(1) Tulane Maritime Law Journal.
T. Nikaki, and B. Soyer, ‘A New International Regime for Carriage of Goods by Sea: Contemporary, Certain, Inclusive And Efficient, or Just Another One for the Shelves?’, (2012) 30(2) Berkeley Journal of Interna- tional Law.
T. Nikaki, and B. Soyer, ‘Uniformity in the Maritime Law’, (1924) 37(8) Har- vard Law Review.
T. R. Leinbach and C. Capineri, Globalized Freight Transport, (USA: Edward Elgar, 2007).
UNCTAD, The Economic and Commercial Implications of Entry In- to Force of The Hamburg Rules and The Multimodal Transport Conven- tion, TD/B/C.4/315/Rev.1 (1991)
UNCTAD, Carrier Liability and Freedom of Contract under the UNCITRAL Draft Instrument on the Carriage of Goods [Wholly Or Part- ly] [By Sea], UNCTAD/SDTE/TLB/2004/2 (2004).
UNCITRAL, 35th Sess., UN Doc. A/CN.9/510 (2002) (Ninth Ses- sion Working Group Report) at: http://www.uncitral.org/english/sessions/unc/unc-35/510e.pdf.
UNCITRAL Note by the Secretariat, document A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.29.
W. Coffey, ‘Multimodalism and The American Carrier’, (1989- 1990) 64 Tulane Law Review.
W. Tetley, Marine Cargo Claims (Canada: Thomson-Carswell, 2008).