3 The ILA, ICC, Private Participants and a Model Bill
of Lading
In addition to the domestic efforts to establish uniformity of maritime law in the late
nineteenth century, the international community also attempted to achieve unification through three other approaches. The International Law Association (‘ILA’)
58
devoted its attention to private law subjects with a heavy emphasis on maritime
topics.
59 Its first scheme to achieve international uniformity for the transport law
governing bills of lading was proposed at the Liverpool Conference of 1882.
60 This
local conference merely involved private entities rather than government representatives, which made it significantly different from its counterpart negotiations in the
twentieth century.
61 The participants were Liverpool merchants, shipowners, underwriters and lawyers.
62 Its approach to uniformity was “a model bill of lading that
would be available for voluntary adoption by [an] agreement between the shipper
and the carrier”.
63 This model bill of lading reflected a compromise between the
cargo and ship interests in that it amended common law liability.
64 It produced some
innovative concepts, such as “the navigation exemption”, “due diligence to make the
vessel seaworthy”, and “package limitation”.
65 Although this model never achieved
general acceptance, it exerted some influence.
66 Several of the innovations were
revived later in the Hague Rules (1921),
67 and thus the compromise between cargo
and the vessel interests was embodied and embedded in the Hague Rules.
In its second attempt to achieve uniformity in the international carriage of goods
by sea regimes, the ILA temporarily took a different approach. Instead of the detailed
model bill of lading, the Association proposed a set of rules known as the “Hamburg
58 The International Law Association (ILA) was founded in 1873 and initially called the Association
for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations, changing its title to the current name in
1895. See ILA, Report of the 17th Conference 282–285 (Brussels Conference 1895).
59 ILA, Report of the 30th Conference (‘Hague Conference 1921’), vii, cited in Sturley (1990)
(Volume 1), pp. 50–150.
60 Because the uniform draft of bills of lading was discussed during the ensuing ILA conference at
the Hamburg Conference of 1885 and the London Conference of 1887, the Liverpool Conference is
regarded as part of international efforts towards uniformity. See CMI, Travaux Preparatoires of the
Hague Rules and of the Hague-Visby Rules, http://www.comitemaritime.org/Uploads/Publications/
Travaux Preparatoires of the Hague Rules and of the Hague-Visby Rules.pdf., 16.
61 Sturley (1991), pp. 6–7.
62 Ibid.
63 The model bills of lading were also known as the ‘Conference Form’. See ILA, Report of the 10th
Conference 75, 78–80, 86 (Liverpool Conference 1882/‘Liverpool Conf. Rep.’), reprinted in
Sturley, The Legislative History of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and the Travaux
Préparatoires of the Hague Rules (Volume 2), 32–33, 36–38, 44.
64 Sturley (1991), p. 7.
65 Ibid.
66 See CMI (1979), p. 16.
67 Ibid, 16.
768
L. Zhao
of Lading
In addition to the domestic efforts to establish uniformity of maritime law in the late
nineteenth century, the international community also attempted to achieve unification through three other approaches. The International Law Association (‘ILA’)
58
devoted its attention to private law subjects with a heavy emphasis on maritime
topics.
59 Its first scheme to achieve international uniformity for the transport law
governing bills of lading was proposed at the Liverpool Conference of 1882.
60 This
local conference merely involved private entities rather than government representatives, which made it significantly different from its counterpart negotiations in the
twentieth century.
61 The participants were Liverpool merchants, shipowners, underwriters and lawyers.
62 Its approach to uniformity was “a model bill of lading that
would be available for voluntary adoption by [an] agreement between the shipper
and the carrier”.
63 This model bill of lading reflected a compromise between the
cargo and ship interests in that it amended common law liability.
64 It produced some
innovative concepts, such as “the navigation exemption”, “due diligence to make the
vessel seaworthy”, and “package limitation”.
65 Although this model never achieved
general acceptance, it exerted some influence.
66 Several of the innovations were
revived later in the Hague Rules (1921),
67 and thus the compromise between cargo
and the vessel interests was embodied and embedded in the Hague Rules.
In its second attempt to achieve uniformity in the international carriage of goods
by sea regimes, the ILA temporarily took a different approach. Instead of the detailed
model bill of lading, the Association proposed a set of rules known as the “Hamburg
58 The International Law Association (ILA) was founded in 1873 and initially called the Association
for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations, changing its title to the current name in
1895. See ILA, Report of the 17th Conference 282–285 (Brussels Conference 1895).
59 ILA, Report of the 30th Conference (‘Hague Conference 1921’), vii, cited in Sturley (1990)
(Volume 1), pp. 50–150.
60 Because the uniform draft of bills of lading was discussed during the ensuing ILA conference at
the Hamburg Conference of 1885 and the London Conference of 1887, the Liverpool Conference is
regarded as part of international efforts towards uniformity. See CMI, Travaux Preparatoires of the
Hague Rules and of the Hague-Visby Rules, http://www.comitemaritime.org/Uploads/Publications/
Travaux Preparatoires of the Hague Rules and of the Hague-Visby Rules.pdf., 16.
61 Sturley (1991), pp. 6–7.
62 Ibid.
63 The model bills of lading were also known as the ‘Conference Form’. See ILA, Report of the 10th
Conference 75, 78–80, 86 (Liverpool Conference 1882/‘Liverpool Conf. Rep.’), reprinted in
Sturley, The Legislative History of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and the Travaux
Préparatoires of the Hague Rules (Volume 2), 32–33, 36–38, 44.
64 Sturley (1991), p. 7.
65 Ibid.
66 See CMI (1979), p. 16.
67 Ibid, 16.
768
L. Zhao