By Lina Wiedenbach
This ebook offers with the carrier’s legal responsibility for deck shipment within the Nordic international locations and England as kingdom events of the Hague-Visby ideas. The comparative approach serves to demonstrate largely differing equipment of facing, first, the exclusion of convinced deck shipment from the scope of the Hague-Visby ideas and, moment, the place no longer excluded, the principles failure to incorporate a different deck shipment legal responsibility regime. a number of strategies just like the English or Nordic process, or a mixture of the 2, have additionally been followed in numerous different jurisdictions. considering the large amounts of shipment which are carried on deck this present day, the topic is extra topical than ever.
The complexity of the matter stems from the way the deck has, through the years, progressively turn into a standard position to stow shipment. while the Hague principles have been brought in 1924, deck stowage used to be an absolute exception end result of the nice dangers concerned. As such, the subject needs to first be checked out within the context of the delivery realities within which the Hague principles have been drafted after which by way of today’s transport realities. The comparative research prime as much as the author’s conclusions and basic feedback for destiny laws includes components, the 1st facing the occasions during which the provider is authorized to stow shipment on deck, and the second one with the carrier’s legal responsibility for deck shipment the place he has stowed shipment on deck with, or because the case will be, with out such permission.
Read Online or Download The Carrier's Liability for Deck Cargo: A Comparative Study on English and Nordic Law with General Remarks for Future Legislation (Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs) PDF
Best comparative books
This quantity demanding situations the traditional knowledge approximately judicial independence in China and its dating to monetary development, rule of legislations, human rights safeguard, and democracy. the quantity adopts an interdisciplinary process that locations China's judicial reforms and the fight to augment the professionalism, authority, and independence of the judiciary inside of a broader comparative and developmental framework.
This research is an research into the comparative phonology and lexicon of six barely-known Bantu kinds spoken in Kenya. those forms (Imenti, Igoji, Tharaka, Mwimbi, Muthambi and Chuka) belong to the so-called Meru team. The learn develops a brand new class of those six dialects. accordingly, a dialectological method is used, inclusive of the research of wordlists and lists of brief words elicited within the box.
- Biochemistry of Parasitic Helminths
- Shipping Interdiction and the Law of the Sea (Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law)
- The power of music. A comparative study of literature and vase paintings from Classical Athens. Master’s thesis. Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Uppsala.
- Secularisms in a Postsecular Age?: Religiosities and Subjectivities in Comparative Perspective
Extra resources for The Carrier's Liability for Deck Cargo: A Comparative Study on English and Nordic Law with General Remarks for Future Legislation (Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs)
19 UNCTAD (1991), p. 2. 20 The Rules apply to all contracts of carriage and, thus, are no longer limited to contracts covered by a bill of lading (Art. 6). They extend the liability period to comprise also the terminal periods (Art. g. also when the port of discharge is located in a member state (Art. 2). Unlike the Hague Rules regime, the Hamburg Rules encompass also living animals and deck cargo (Art. 5) and in doing so provide special liability regimes for these (Art. 5 and Art. 9). 21 Baughen (2012), p.
2010), p. 129. 76 Hodges and Glass (2010), p. 265. Nevertheless, this seems to have been the drafters’ intention. The following passage appeared during the drafting work as a part of Art. 1 (ii) [corresponding to Art. ”: UNCITRAL (2002), p. 11. What, if anything can be inferred from the deletion is unclear. 77 Art. 4. 78 Berlingieri (2008), p. 296; Sturley et al. (2010), p. 129. 79 Hodges and Glass (2010), p. 259. 80 See Sect. 1. 81 Furthermore, the imprecise phraseology of Art. 3, renders its scope of application unclear.
2010), p. 129. 79 Hodges and Glass (2010), p. 259. 80 See Sect. 1. 81 Furthermore, the imprecise phraseology of Art. 3, renders its scope of application unclear. e. the part that would have occurred also if the cargo would have been stowed under deck – to be settled under Art. 83 Others have interpreted the wording so as to preclude the application of Art. 3 in favour of the general liability regime in Art. 84 One can question, as a matter of principle, why the strict liability in Art. 3 should not apply to the part of damage caused by unauthorised deck stowage solely on account of the cargo having been damaged also by another cause.