French Morocco Maritime Commercial Code 1919.
51 Several other jurisdictions
were also considering enacting Harter-style legislation.
52 In contrast, the international community had accomplished little towards uniformity of maritime law.
53
Consequently, this wave of unilateral legislation made shipowners face the prospect
of conflicting and non-uniform domestic regulation in many of their most important
markets in the 1920s.
Not only did the wave of unilateral legislation create a mandatory framework for
carrier liability,
54 but it also brought in the age of international unification of the
maritime transport regime. Litigation subjecting the hull interests to these conflicting
pieces of legislation increased their incentives to support an international resolution
of the problem.
55 One author notes that the UK made a concession before this
legislative wave of cargo interests, and decided to work towards international
uniformity on sea transport carriage.
56 Another author also claims that the domestic
legislation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, accompanying the
threat of more extensive unilaterally enacted legislation in the 1920s, turned out to be
the principal impetus for reaching an international agreement.
57
History has shown that the period of Harter-style domestic legislation marked the
transition of changing approaches to unifying laws on bills of lading from unilateral
legislation or private agreements to international agreements. In the short term, these
countries passed different unilateral domestic legislation governing exoneration
clauses in bills of lading which increased tension and conflict among national laws
in cargo-claim cases for ship as well as cargo interests. However, in the long run, this
conflict was an incentive to both interest groups to support international legislation
to replace conflicting and fragmented domestic legislation in different jurisdictions.
7 expanded the list of the carrier’s statutory exceptions to include latent defects, fire, any reasonable
deviation, strikes, and losses “arising without [the carrier’s] actual fault or privity or without the
fault or neglect of [the carrier’s] agents, servants or employees.”
51 French Morocco, Code de Commerce Maritime, article 267 (French Morocco, 31 March 1919);
Berlingieri (1921).
52 Sturley (1991), pp. 17–18 mentions that France, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden,
Finland, Iceland and South Africa were considering domestic legislation in line with the US
Harter Act.
53 Ibid, 15–18.
54 Sturley (1990) (Volume 1), pp. 50–150 (examining how the US Harter Act introduced a
mandatory framework of carrier’s liability into the seaborne carriage regime).
55 Sturley (1991), p. 18.
56 Bennett (1914), pp. 4, 19 (as long as the UK shipowners were regulated in their home ports,
uniform regulation was preferred where they did business under the comparable regulations of their
foreign competitors).
57 Sturley (1991), p. 10. See also Westbrook (1990), pp. 77–85, 92–96.
Lex Maritima in a Changing World: Development and Prospect of. . .
767
51 Several other jurisdictions
were also considering enacting Harter-style legislation.
52 In contrast, the international community had accomplished little towards uniformity of maritime law.
53
Consequently, this wave of unilateral legislation made shipowners face the prospect
of conflicting and non-uniform domestic regulation in many of their most important
markets in the 1920s.
Not only did the wave of unilateral legislation create a mandatory framework for
carrier liability,
54 but it also brought in the age of international unification of the
maritime transport regime. Litigation subjecting the hull interests to these conflicting
pieces of legislation increased their incentives to support an international resolution
of the problem.
55 One author notes that the UK made a concession before this
legislative wave of cargo interests, and decided to work towards international
uniformity on sea transport carriage.
56 Another author also claims that the domestic
legislation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, accompanying the
threat of more extensive unilaterally enacted legislation in the 1920s, turned out to be
the principal impetus for reaching an international agreement.
57
History has shown that the period of Harter-style domestic legislation marked the
transition of changing approaches to unifying laws on bills of lading from unilateral
legislation or private agreements to international agreements. In the short term, these
countries passed different unilateral domestic legislation governing exoneration
clauses in bills of lading which increased tension and conflict among national laws
in cargo-claim cases for ship as well as cargo interests. However, in the long run, this
conflict was an incentive to both interest groups to support international legislation
to replace conflicting and fragmented domestic legislation in different jurisdictions.
7 expanded the list of the carrier’s statutory exceptions to include latent defects, fire, any reasonable
deviation, strikes, and losses “arising without [the carrier’s] actual fault or privity or without the
fault or neglect of [the carrier’s] agents, servants or employees.”
51 French Morocco, Code de Commerce Maritime, article 267 (French Morocco, 31 March 1919);
Berlingieri (1921).
52 Sturley (1991), pp. 17–18 mentions that France, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden,
Finland, Iceland and South Africa were considering domestic legislation in line with the US
Harter Act.
53 Ibid, 15–18.
54 Sturley (1990) (Volume 1), pp. 50–150 (examining how the US Harter Act introduced a
mandatory framework of carrier’s liability into the seaborne carriage regime).
55 Sturley (1991), p. 18.
56 Bennett (1914), pp. 4, 19 (as long as the UK shipowners were regulated in their home ports,
uniform regulation was preferred where they did business under the comparable regulations of their
foreign competitors).
57 Sturley (1991), p. 10. See also Westbrook (1990), pp. 77–85, 92–96.
Lex Maritima in a Changing World: Development and Prospect of. . .
767