current state of play and prospects of success in relation to the latest such convention,
namely, the Rotterdam Rules.
The first breakthrough was the adoption of the Brussels Convention for the
Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading (“Hague Rules”)
in 1924.
2 As the law trailed behind commercial practice, a second attempt to create
uniformity was made through the Visby Protocol amending the original convention
(“Visby Rules”).
3 After the end of World War II, the work towards uniformity
underwent a shift from private commercial efforts to politicised pressures.
4 The
adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea
(“Hamburg Rules”)
5 in 1978, and the relatively recent United Nations Convention
on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea
(“Rotterdam Rules”)
6 adopted in 2008 exemplify the efforts of the international
maritime community to advance uniformity in this crucial area of commercial law.
Numerous scholars have devoted themselves to the technical aspects of these
convention instruments,
7 but there has been little literature scrutinising the dynamics
between all the attempts to unify the law.
8
It is said that “every true history is contemporary history.”
9 Over the centuries,
trade practices have been the primary driver of change in the way transport and
shipping operate in global trade. History is often seen to repeat itself. By setting out
the conventions preceding the Rotterdam Rules in their historical perspectives, it is
possible to better understand the aims of the Rules and the prospects of its success.
An historical review of the unifying efforts by the international community to date
provides the necessary vantage point for appreciating the cyclical and interactive
processes involved.
2 Hague Rules (1924).
3 Visby Rules (1968).
4 For an instructive comparison of the Hague Rules and Hamburg Rules processes, see Frederick
(1991), pp. 81–117.
5 Hamburg Rules (1978).
6 Rotterdam Rules (2008).
7 For example, Diamond (2009), pp. 445–536. Baatz (2009). Other literature provides comparisons
among the related convention instruments from a doctrinal and analytical perspective. For example,
the works of Force (1996) and Yancey (1982).
8 For example, Faria (2008), pp. 277–310. Cf. Honnold (1993), p. 75.
9 Croce and Ainslie (1960).
762
L. Zhao
namely, the Rotterdam Rules.
The first breakthrough was the adoption of the Brussels Convention for the
Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading (“Hague Rules”)
in 1924.
2 As the law trailed behind commercial practice, a second attempt to create
uniformity was made through the Visby Protocol amending the original convention
(“Visby Rules”).
3 After the end of World War II, the work towards uniformity
underwent a shift from private commercial efforts to politicised pressures.
4 The
adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea
(“Hamburg Rules”)
5 in 1978, and the relatively recent United Nations Convention
on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea
(“Rotterdam Rules”)
6 adopted in 2008 exemplify the efforts of the international
maritime community to advance uniformity in this crucial area of commercial law.
Numerous scholars have devoted themselves to the technical aspects of these
convention instruments,
7 but there has been little literature scrutinising the dynamics
between all the attempts to unify the law.
8
It is said that “every true history is contemporary history.”
9 Over the centuries,
trade practices have been the primary driver of change in the way transport and
shipping operate in global trade. History is often seen to repeat itself. By setting out
the conventions preceding the Rotterdam Rules in their historical perspectives, it is
possible to better understand the aims of the Rules and the prospects of its success.
An historical review of the unifying efforts by the international community to date
provides the necessary vantage point for appreciating the cyclical and interactive
processes involved.
2 Hague Rules (1924).
3 Visby Rules (1968).
4 For an instructive comparison of the Hague Rules and Hamburg Rules processes, see Frederick
(1991), pp. 81–117.
5 Hamburg Rules (1978).
6 Rotterdam Rules (2008).
7 For example, Diamond (2009), pp. 445–536. Baatz (2009). Other literature provides comparisons
among the related convention instruments from a doctrinal and analytical perspective. For example,
the works of Force (1996) and Yancey (1982).
8 For example, Faria (2008), pp. 277–310. Cf. Honnold (1993), p. 75.
9 Croce and Ainslie (1960).
762
L. Zhao