6 Conclusion
In this chapter, an attempt has been made to carry out historical and legal analysis on
attempts to unify carriage of goods by sea rules to shed light on the lex maritima and
the prospect of success of the Rotterdam Rules. In concluding the discussion, the
chapter probes into the attitudes which impact on the adoption of the Rotterdam
Rules, of the shipping powers and certain countries.
It is notable that most states, notably the Scandinavians and the Netherlands, are
adopting a “wait and see” attitude, observing whether major and influential maritime
states will ratify the Rules before taking any firm action although the Netherlands
have taken a more positive step by presenting two bills to Parliament concerning the
Rotterdam Rules. The first is in respect of the Netherlands and three of the Kingdom’s overseas territories, namely, Aruba, Curacao and St. Maarten. The ratification
of the Rotterdam Rules is concomitant with the denunciation of the version of the
Hague-Visby Rules to which they are party. The second would remove the HagueVisby provisions in its Civil Code and replace them with the Rotterdam Rules which
would be incorporated into the Code by reference. Both bills are expected to pass
soon but will not lead to an immediate replacement of the Hague-Visby Rules with
the Rotterdam Rules. The Dutch legislative move might constitute “a small step on
the road to Rotterdam”.
156 The explanatory notes to both Dutch bills provide that it
will be for the government to decide on the date of ratification and entry into force
and this may depend on ratification of the Rules by neighbouring states such as
Germany and France and major trading partners such as China and the
US. Incidentally, no mention is made of the UK. The Scandinavian countries seem
to be “friendly” towards the Rotterdam Rules. Initiatives were taken to ratify the
Rules since the year Spain did so, but have decided to wait and see what other
European neighbours and the USA will do.
The USA is facing domestic objections from its port industry seemingly based on
the belief that ratifying the Rotterdam Rules will harm their interests. This industry
has lobbied Congress to not accept the Rotterdam Rules.
157 This chapter is the end
product of research undertaken by the author to examine the lex maritima by taking a
close look at carriage of goods by sea. The historical and legal analysis of the
attempts to unifying carriage of goods by sea rules has demonstrated that this is an
odyssey. Further analysis of the attitudes of the shipping and trading countries
towards the Rotterdam Rules indicates that this Convention will not accomplish
legal uniformity of carriage of goods by sea, because it is not going to be widely
accepted, at least not in the forthcoming future.
156 Baughen (2018).
157 Information gleaned from private communication with a US delegate at the Rotterdam Rules
negotiations. Details are contained in Sturley (2016).
Lex Maritima in a Changing World: Development and Prospect of. . .
779
In this chapter, an attempt has been made to carry out historical and legal analysis on
attempts to unify carriage of goods by sea rules to shed light on the lex maritima and
the prospect of success of the Rotterdam Rules. In concluding the discussion, the
chapter probes into the attitudes which impact on the adoption of the Rotterdam
Rules, of the shipping powers and certain countries.
It is notable that most states, notably the Scandinavians and the Netherlands, are
adopting a “wait and see” attitude, observing whether major and influential maritime
states will ratify the Rules before taking any firm action although the Netherlands
have taken a more positive step by presenting two bills to Parliament concerning the
Rotterdam Rules. The first is in respect of the Netherlands and three of the Kingdom’s overseas territories, namely, Aruba, Curacao and St. Maarten. The ratification
of the Rotterdam Rules is concomitant with the denunciation of the version of the
Hague-Visby Rules to which they are party. The second would remove the HagueVisby provisions in its Civil Code and replace them with the Rotterdam Rules which
would be incorporated into the Code by reference. Both bills are expected to pass
soon but will not lead to an immediate replacement of the Hague-Visby Rules with
the Rotterdam Rules. The Dutch legislative move might constitute “a small step on
the road to Rotterdam”.
156 The explanatory notes to both Dutch bills provide that it
will be for the government to decide on the date of ratification and entry into force
and this may depend on ratification of the Rules by neighbouring states such as
Germany and France and major trading partners such as China and the
US. Incidentally, no mention is made of the UK. The Scandinavian countries seem
to be “friendly” towards the Rotterdam Rules. Initiatives were taken to ratify the
Rules since the year Spain did so, but have decided to wait and see what other
European neighbours and the USA will do.
The USA is facing domestic objections from its port industry seemingly based on
the belief that ratifying the Rotterdam Rules will harm their interests. This industry
has lobbied Congress to not accept the Rotterdam Rules.
157 This chapter is the end
product of research undertaken by the author to examine the lex maritima by taking a
close look at carriage of goods by sea. The historical and legal analysis of the
attempts to unifying carriage of goods by sea rules has demonstrated that this is an
odyssey. Further analysis of the attitudes of the shipping and trading countries
towards the Rotterdam Rules indicates that this Convention will not accomplish
legal uniformity of carriage of goods by sea, because it is not going to be widely
accepted, at least not in the forthcoming future.
156 Baughen (2018).
157 Information gleaned from private communication with a US delegate at the Rotterdam Rules
negotiations. Details are contained in Sturley (2016).
Lex Maritima in a Changing World: Development and Prospect of. . .
779