of the “surrender” of the electronic document,
100 which is not how things will work
with blockchain) but they may prove capable of replacing “the custom of merchants”
as the source of the legal effectiveness of an electronic bill of lading in a blockchain.
If that turns out to be the case, it will be at least one successful, if rather haphazard,
example of “maritime law in motion”. Or, most probably, not.
References
BIMCO (2016) NYPE 2015: New York produce exchange form time charter with explanatory
notes
Chetrit N et al (2018) Not just for Illicit Trade in Contraband anymore: using Blockchain to solve a
millennia-long problem with bills of lading. Virginia J Law Technol 22:56
Comité Maritime International (1990) Rules for electronic bills of lading
Comité Maritime International (2016) Status of the ratifications of and accessions to the Brussels
International Maritime Law Conventions. CMI Yearbook 2016
Forbes T, Knoll LB (2017) The fifty-year waypoint: collision, limitation, and salvage law in the
United States. Tulane Law Rev 91:977
Healy N (1983) Commentary on 1981 revision of the New York produce exchange form time
charter. J Marit Law Commer 13:521
Healy N (2001) The basis of apportionment of damages in both-to-blame collision cases. Loyola
Law Rev 47:993
Hudson NG, Harvey M (2010) The York–Antwerp rules, 3rd edn. Informa
Morris F (2007) The Pennsylvania rule: no longer the rule? Tulane Marit Law J 32:132
Murray C et al (2012) Schmitthoff’s law and practice of export trade, 12th edn. Sweet and Maxwell
Nasseri K (1988) The multimodal convention. J Marit Law Commer 19:231
Nikaki T (2006) Conflicting laws in ‘wet’ multimodal carriage of goods: the UNCITRAL draft
convention on the carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea. J Marit Law Commer 37:52
Pritchett R (1983) The New York produce exchange charterparty: the clause paramount and
responsibility for cargo operations and seaworthiness. J Marit Law Commer 14:69
Rainey Simon QC (2015) The construction of mutual indemnities and knock-for-knock clauses. In:
Soyer B, Tettenborn A (eds) Offshore contracts and liabilities. Informa Law
Rogers N (2003) BIMCO standard general average absorption clause. Available at http://www.
gard.no/web/updates/content/53338/bimco-standard-general-average-absorption-clause
Sturley M (2009) Modernizing and reforming U.S. maritime law: the impact of the Rotterdam rules
in the United States. Tex Int Law J 49:427
UNCTAD (2001) Implementation of multimodal transport rules. UNCTAD/SDTE/TLB/2
Wilford M, Coghlin T, Kimball D (1989) Time charters, 3rd edn. Lloyd’s of London Press
Wilford M et al (2014) Time charters, 7th edn. Informa
Williams RW (2015) Knock-for-knock clauses in offshore contracts: the fundamental principles. In:
Soyer B, Tettenborn A (eds) Offshore contracts and liabilities. Informa Law
100 Rotterdam Rules, Arts. 10(1)(a), 47(1)(a)(i).
When Was the Last Time You Were Restrained by a Prince? Conservatism. . .
173
100 which is not how things will work
with blockchain) but they may prove capable of replacing “the custom of merchants”
as the source of the legal effectiveness of an electronic bill of lading in a blockchain.
If that turns out to be the case, it will be at least one successful, if rather haphazard,
example of “maritime law in motion”. Or, most probably, not.
References
BIMCO (2016) NYPE 2015: New York produce exchange form time charter with explanatory
notes
Chetrit N et al (2018) Not just for Illicit Trade in Contraband anymore: using Blockchain to solve a
millennia-long problem with bills of lading. Virginia J Law Technol 22:56
Comité Maritime International (1990) Rules for electronic bills of lading
Comité Maritime International (2016) Status of the ratifications of and accessions to the Brussels
International Maritime Law Conventions. CMI Yearbook 2016
Forbes T, Knoll LB (2017) The fifty-year waypoint: collision, limitation, and salvage law in the
United States. Tulane Law Rev 91:977
Healy N (1983) Commentary on 1981 revision of the New York produce exchange form time
charter. J Marit Law Commer 13:521
Healy N (2001) The basis of apportionment of damages in both-to-blame collision cases. Loyola
Law Rev 47:993
Hudson NG, Harvey M (2010) The York–Antwerp rules, 3rd edn. Informa
Morris F (2007) The Pennsylvania rule: no longer the rule? Tulane Marit Law J 32:132
Murray C et al (2012) Schmitthoff’s law and practice of export trade, 12th edn. Sweet and Maxwell
Nasseri K (1988) The multimodal convention. J Marit Law Commer 19:231
Nikaki T (2006) Conflicting laws in ‘wet’ multimodal carriage of goods: the UNCITRAL draft
convention on the carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea. J Marit Law Commer 37:52
Pritchett R (1983) The New York produce exchange charterparty: the clause paramount and
responsibility for cargo operations and seaworthiness. J Marit Law Commer 14:69
Rainey Simon QC (2015) The construction of mutual indemnities and knock-for-knock clauses. In:
Soyer B, Tettenborn A (eds) Offshore contracts and liabilities. Informa Law
Rogers N (2003) BIMCO standard general average absorption clause. Available at http://www.
gard.no/web/updates/content/53338/bimco-standard-general-average-absorption-clause
Sturley M (2009) Modernizing and reforming U.S. maritime law: the impact of the Rotterdam rules
in the United States. Tex Int Law J 49:427
UNCTAD (2001) Implementation of multimodal transport rules. UNCTAD/SDTE/TLB/2
Wilford M, Coghlin T, Kimball D (1989) Time charters, 3rd edn. Lloyd’s of London Press
Wilford M et al (2014) Time charters, 7th edn. Informa
Williams RW (2015) Knock-for-knock clauses in offshore contracts: the fundamental principles. In:
Soyer B, Tettenborn A (eds) Offshore contracts and liabilities. Informa Law
100 Rotterdam Rules, Arts. 10(1)(a), 47(1)(a)(i).
When Was the Last Time You Were Restrained by a Prince? Conservatism. . .
173