Comment by David Michael Collins
Maritime trade having an international character, the logical corollary flowing from this truth is that the ideal legal system to govern it be a uniform one, that is identical in every State . . . .
Man has long recognized that the conduct of maritime commerce is enhanced by the existence of a stable and uniform legal frame of reference. In ancient and medieval times, the incorporation of generally accepted custom into various ‘sea codes' sufficed to provide such a construct. The advent of nationalism, however, jeopardized the uniformity achieved by reliance on custom, as new laws were enacted to protect national interests rather than those of the international maritime community. In the context of world shipping, the regulation of commercial relationships at the national level became increasingly unsatisfactory as the number of sovereign states multiplied exponentially with the deterioration of colonial empires.
The threat to uniformity posed by these developments prompted the organization of the Comité Maritime Internationale (CMI) and other groups dedicated to unifying the substance of the world's maritime laws. To accomplish this objective, these organizations have primarily relied on the promulgation of international conventions dealing with various aspects of the admiralty law. This comment will evaluate the success of this tactic by focusing on one of the more widely accepted conventions, the 1924 Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading (Hague Rules). In the interest of brevity and clarity, only the national experiences of the United States, Great Britain, and France, nations which are fairly representative of others sharing their respective legal traditions and economic interests, will be specifically discussed. In addition, the impact of two recent conventions, the 1968 Brussels Protocol to the Brussels Convention (Visby Amendments) and the 1978 United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Hamburg Rules), on the goal of substantive unity, will also be examined. Finally, suggestions for improvements in achieving uniformity will be proposed.
About the Author
David Michael Collins.
Citation
60 Tul. L. Rev. 165 (1985)