International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 6

Number 4

December 2012

1 INTRODUCTION

Globally applicable rules have always been a

necessity due to the merchant ships sailing through

the territorial waters of different states and facing

various problems generally stemming from the

highly divergent judicial systems in these different

geographies. In this context, to a great extent, the

studies on this matter have concentrated on the

liabilities of the carrier.

As is known, the current rules about the liabilities

of the carrier in maritime transport came into force

with the “Hague Rules” (1924 Brussels Convention)

and Visby Rules (1968 Brussels Protocol).

The

1978 Hamburg Rules, prepared by United Nations,

came into force in 1992 but the implementation

couldn’t reach the level of Hague Rules, which are

implemented world-wide.

In this framework, the attempts for

implementation of new international rules, namely

Rotterdam Rules, and expansion of the liabilities of

the carriers in maritime transport (though, not as

much as Hamburg) and transferring some of the

non-maritime transport liabilities to the carrier, have

speeded up.

Actually, there is also a 1968 Special Drawing Right protocol

amending the rules.

European Union's Stance on the Rotterdam

Rules

L. Kirval

Maritime Faculty, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey

ABSTRACT: In today's rapidly globalizing world economy, the importance of maritime transportation is

increasing. Today, approximately 80% of the global transportation services is done by the seas. Therefore, the

international laws and regulations that outlines the rights and responsibilities/obligations of the carriers and

cargo owners is of very high importance for the smooth running of this global maritime transportation system.

On the other hand, today, "door to door" and "multimodal" transport is getting widely used. However, during

this type of highly complicated transportation, the rules and the applicable laws with regards to rights and

obligations of the parties (carriers and cargo owners) greatly vary, and this creates several problems

particularly about the carrier's liabilities.

For offering solutions to these problems and creating world-wide uniformity about the carrier's and cargo

owners' rights and obligations, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has

offered alterations to the current international regulations in force (which are now generally called as

Rotterdam rules), and, to this date, more than 20 countries have signed this new international agreement.

On the other hand, as is well known, the European Union countries are important players as both carrier and

cargo owner countries today, and their perspectives and decisions concerning the approval of the Rotterdam

Rules is of very high importance for the future and international applicability of these rules.

In this context, this article will first focus on the history and the legal structure of the EU, and then study the

European Union's stance on the Rotterdam Rules, the impact of the possible EU legislation preparation on the

same areas, and the existent steps that are taken (as well as possible future steps) by the European

Commission with regards to alternative legislation creation for the EU seas.

555

As a result of these attempts, on 11 December

2008, the United Nations General Assembly, in its

63rd session, adopted the "Convention of Contracts

for the International Carrying of Goods Wholly or

Partly by Sea". The signing ceremony was held in

Rotterdam on 23 September 2009. Rotterdam Rules

composed of 96 articles and 18 chapters, basically

expanded the liabilities of the carrier compared to

the Hague Rules, and expand carrier’s liability to the

entire carriage process, considering it as a part of the

combined transport.

When analyzed thoroughly, by taking into

account its role in the world trade and the global

logistics services, the European Union is one of the

mostly affected regions by these kinds of regulations

with respect to its position as a block of states

composed of both cargo owners and carriers. So, the

analysis of the member states’ views about the

Rotterdam Rules and the attempts for probable

alternative rules is important. Currently EU has set

free its member states in adopting the Rotterdam

Rules.

But the European Commission is preparing

some binding regulations for member states and the

European carriers are putting pressure on the

Commission about this matter.

In this context, in the following sections, firstly

EU’s historical background and binding nature of

the EU law for the member and candidate states will

be briefly analyzed (regional law), then international

regulations regarding the liabilities of the carrier will

be summarized (international law) and finally the

effects of EU’s possible future legislation

preparation about the liabilities of the carrier on the

existing international law will be examined (the

relationship between regional and international law).

2 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE

EU AND THE EU LAW

Many political leaders have tried to create a united

and powerful Europe in the history. But a real

European integration movement, depending on the

free-will of the individuals, could only start after the

The EU has many regional regulations for transport in general, and

for maritime transportation in particular. These mentioned

regulations have a binding character for the member states but do

not have a regulatory character for the private law relationships

between parties. The EU regulations concerning the carrier’s

liability details the carrier’s liability epecially in air and road

transport. The regulations related to the carrier’s liability in

maritime transportation are about the rights of the passengers and

their luggage safety, yet, there are not detailed regulations pertaining

maritime carriage of goods. See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?

idReq=1&page=1 ve http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/Result.do?idReq=1&page=2

Second World War.

In this context, in the post-war

period, the Western Europe states took the first step

for the integration. France and England made an

alliance with the Treaty of Dunkirk. In March 1948,

these two powers and the Benelux countries, signed

the Treaty of Brussels, later called as the Western

European Union.

In those years, the USA, supporting the

Europeans to act together as a single body, played an

important role in the start of the integration process.

In 1947, Harry Truman, the president of the USA,

proposed an aid program, implemented under the

leadership of George Marshall, the secretary of the

state, to relieve Europeans from the hardships they

were facing.

The European federalists aimed to

establish a United States of Europe, and defended

that the integration had to depend on the free will of

the public.

For this goal, at the end of a conference

in London, they established The Council of Europe

in Strasbourg, which would harmonize the laws of

European states and promote the development of

human rights and cultural cooperation in Europe.

The other positively effecting factor in the

integration of Europe during those days was the

establishment of North Atlantic Treaty Organization

(NATO) in 1949. By means of this organization, the

European powers left the critical defense issues to

the NATO and concentrated on the economic

development, cooperation and formation of the

common law.

However, the really successful steps, promoting

further political integration in Europe, would be

taken in the following years. In this context, the

European decision makers concentrated on the

energy sources (the most valuable one being coal

during those days) and raw materials (iron and steel

being at the top of the list).

European leaders,

which came to conclusion that the political

integration would only be realized through technical

steps and prior economic integration, thought that

the single market and the integrated European

economy would be the catalyst for the solutions of

political problems of the continent.

For the historical analysis of the developments and integration

efforts in Europe See: Palmer, Robert Roswell (Edt.), A History of

the Modern World, New York, 1995, p. 97-389.

Dinan, Desmond: Europe Recast: A History of European Union,

London, 2004, p.13-45.

Oudenaren, John Van: European Integration: A History of

the Three Treaties’, Tiersky, Ronald (Edt.), Europe Today,

Oxford, 1999, p.241-273.

Dinan, p. 24-25.

Dinan, p.15.

Dedman, Martin J.: The Origins and the Development of

the European Union 1945-1995: A History of European

Integration, London, 1996, p.57.

Dinan, s. 13-45.

556

This plan was announced by the Schumann

Declaration on 9 May 1950, and the European Coal

and Steel Community (ECSC), the first organization

of the European integration was established in 1952.

Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxemburg and

Netherlands were the first six signatories of the

Treaty. The establishment of the European

Economic Community (EEC) and European Atomic

Energy Community (EAEC) by Treaties of Rome

took the integration idea further and expanded it to

other areas. Following the economic integration

theories of the period, the free movement of the

goods, services, capital and labor were seen as the

main tools of establishment of single market in

Europe and this was clearly expressed in the EEC

Treaty.

The Single European Act (SEA), signed in

1986, finalized the steps of forming a single market

by assigning a schedule, and finally, the single

market has been established in 1993. Maastricht

Treaty (Treaty of European Union (TEU), signed in

1992, had played a key role in transforming EEC

into EU, and additionally has founded the three

important pillars – European Communities (EC),

Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP),

Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) – on which the EU

is built on. By Maastricht Treaty, an economic and

monetary union (transition to Euro) policy has also

been established. Amsterdam Treaty, signed in 1997,

merged the existing legal texts and formed a legal

framework for the union. Subsequently, Nice Treaty,

came to force in 2003, replaced Amsterdam Treaty

as the highest legal text of the EU. A probable

constitution would play a key role for the EU

integration to gain a legal identity. However,

because of the lacking consensus on the matter

(especially due to vetoes of the France and

Netherlands), it was greatly simplified and has come

to life with the Lisbon Treaty in 2007. This treaty

has come to force in the end of the 2009 after several

referendums and debates in member states.

During this historical process in Europe, the

traces of the transformation from intergovernmental

nation states relationship to the multi-level

governance (local, national, supra-national levels

jointly producing common policies) can be found.

Today, the political power of the EU organs has

greatly increased and this situation can be seen when

highly developed legal framework of the EU –

Acquis Communautaire – is examined.

In addition to the sui-generis “deepening axis”,

the European integration has also “widened” in time.

The number of the EU members reached to 9 by the

memberships of United Kingdom, Ireland and

Denmark in 1973 and by the full membership of

Greece, the total number of the integration

Rosamond, Ben: Theories of European Integration, New York,

2000, p. 50-73.

movement reached to 10, starting the expansion to

the south-eastern Europe. The number of the EU

members reached to 12 by the memberships of Spain

and Portugal in 1986, and it reached to 15 by the

memberships of the Finland, Sweden and Austria in

1995. After the end of the Cold War and the collapse

of the Berlin Wall, the probability of the expansion

of the Union towards east including Central and East

European countries, and also unification of West and

East Germany became a hot issue. After the

unification of West and East Germany, by the fifth

enlargement wave, Poland, Check Republic,

Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia,

Latonia, Cyprus (de facto: South Cyprus) and Malta

became the members of the EU in 2004 and the

number of the members reached to 25. By the

memberships of the Bulgaria and Romania in 2007,

the number of the EU members has reached to 27.

By the future membership of the current candidate

countries; Turkey, Croatia, Macedonia, Iceland and

Montenegro, the number of the EU members will

reach to 32 and the remaining Balkan states will be

the potential candidates of the future enlargement

waves.

EU, during the above summarized deepening and

widening processes, has developed a continuously

evolving sui-generis supranational law.

Actually,

the EU Law (Acquis Communautaire), developed on

the Law of Causality, different from the Case Law,

is published within the in the Official Journal of

European Communities, which today is composed of

more than 100.000 pages including binding

regulations for the member states. These EU

regulations have started to affect maritime industry

in time. For example, the single cabotage for EU and

its related regulations has come to force during the

last decades.

These new supranational regulation are indeed

harmonious with the global regulations (for example

International Maritime Organization (IMO) rules),

but it takes them further for the EU member states

and bring new standards (for example; European

Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) inspecting the

maritime training in the member states, prevention

of marine pollution by means of EU legislation

supplementing the MARPOL Convention), and has

brought new additional regional and binding rules

for maritime transportation.

Likewise, probable EU legislation which will

develop in the same areas covered by the Rotterdam

Rules will cause a multiple law order in related

fields.

Additionally, contrary to the voluntary

Rotterdam Rules, the EU legislation will absolutely

be binding for the member states unless they declare

Dinan, p. 266-283.

For the related EU regulation See: reference 2

557

that they will not participate in and they can manage

to stay out of the scope of the legislation by means

of some political maneuvers, which the EU law

permits.

So the innovations brought by Rotterdam Rules

about the liabilities of the carrier will cause

interceptions or contradictions between the

developing and the current EU regulations, which

are effective in the EU waters. Under these

circumstances, the EU member states will

implement both international and EU law on this

matter.

As is known, in international trade, the existence

of uniform rules and the successful implementation

of these rules help to found an effective and global

trade system and provide safe and secure trading

activities. The carriage operations of goods, which

are the subjects of the international trade, are very

important for the international trade. These carriage

operations are to a great extent done by means of

maritime transportation (approximately 80 %).

Therefore, one can say that maritime transportation

plays a key role in international trade.

In this context, in the following section, the

current international regulations about the liabilities

of the carrier (also affecting the EU member states)

and the improvements which have been brought by

Rotterdam Rules to these regulations will be

examined. Subsequently, the EU’s perspective on

these regulations (the inter-connection of the

regionally binding EU law and the globally binding

international law) and the probable results of the

development EU Acquis in the same fields will be

examined.

3 THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL

REGULATIONS ABOUT THE CARRIER’S

LIABILITY AND THE ROTTERDAM RULES

The international characteristic of the maritime

sector in general and the maritime carriage of goods

in particular, require uniform legal regulations in

this field. This necessity, in the 20

century, has led

to the preparation and the implementation of Hague,

Hague-Visby and Hamburg rules (Conventions).

These mentioned conventions aimed at reaching an

international law order binding for the signatories in

maritime carriage of goods.

However these

conventions avoided of regulating all the issues

related to maritime transport and solving all the

problems of the sector, so the ownership, registry

and possessor of the ship and the agent services

UNCTAD, 2008 Review of Maritime Transportation.

Faria, J.A.Estrella: “Uniform Law for the International Transport

at UNCITRAL: New Times, New Players, New Rules” (Texas

International Law Journal, 2009, S. 44, p. 277-319).

issues were left to the national laws. Hague, Hague-

Visby and Hamburg Conventions, basically,

considered and regulated the loss and damage of the

goods carried by sea, conditions of the

irresponsibility from loss and damage and

limitations of the liabilities.

Also, the amount of the goods carried by sea

increased due to the boom in international trade

especially in the last decades. The increase in

maritime transport traffic caused new legal

problems.

Because of the development of new

transport methods; construction of new type of ships

for the new type of cargo, combination of maritime

transport with other transport modes

and the

innovations in the delivery methods of the

international trade, the rules of these conventions

had to be changed and adapted to new conditions.

Also, the development of the e-trade and the

replacement of the current written/printed papers of

transport law by the papers prepared in electronic

format

required the regulation of these new issues

which were not regulated by the related conventions

in the past.

The necessity of simplification of legal language

and eliminating the vague expressions, the aim of

taking different legal systems into a common

position, the inclusion of the practical solutions of

the implementation problems to the legal texts,

constituted a basis for preparation of a new

regulation concerning the international carriage of

goods.

The preparation process of a new international

convention started in 1990s by the joint study of The

United Nations Commission on the International

Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the Committee

Maritime International (CMI), and has been finally

completed after a 10 year long extensive work. The

Rotterdam Rules, which have appeared after this

effort, have touched on the issues related to the

transport law and in this framework (like the

previous similar regulations) have not focused on the

issues stemming from real law and agency law. The

issues related to carriage are forming the basis of

Rotterdam Rules but the issues like freight and right

For detailed information, evaluation and comparisons See. Ilgın,

Sezer: “Hamburg Kurallarının Türk Taşıyan ve Taşıtanlara Etkisi

(I)” (Denizatı, 1993, S. 2-3, p. 45-48 ve Ilgın, Sezer: “Hamburg

Kurallarının Türk Taşıyan ve Taşıtanlara Etkisi (II)” (Denizatı,

1993, S. 4-5, p. 37-44).

Schelin, Johan: “The UNCITRAL Convention on Carriage of

Goods by Sea: Harmonization or De-Harmonization” (Texas

International Law Journal, 2009, S. 44, p. 321-327).

Fujita, Tomotaka: “The Comprehensive Coverage of the New

Convention: Performing Parties and Multimodal Implications”

(Texas International Law Journal, 2009, S. 44, p. 349-373).

Alba, Manuel: “Electronic Commerce Provisions in the

UNCITRAL Convention on Contracts fort he International Carriage

of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea” (Texas International Law

Journal, 2009, S. 44, p. 387-416).

558

of claim are excluded. Rotterdam Rules have

prepared the legal substructure of the e-trade as well

as included regulations related to door-to-door and

multimodal transport. The Rotterdam Rules have

aimed at harmonizing the legislation about carriage

of goods with containers in parallel to the

development and increase in the container transport

sector. The Rotterdam Rules have preferred to stay

away from the doctrinal debates and showed a

pragmatic approach. The current global

implementation in maritime transport has been

upgraded to an international convention for the first

time by Rotterdam Rules and became binding for the

signatory states. In order to eliminate the differences

between the legal systems, Continental and the

Anglo-Saxon laws have been harmonized in the text

of the Rotterdam Rules.

Article 1.5 of the Rotterdam Rules defines

“carrier” as a person that enters into a contract of

carriage with a shipper. To eliminate the confusions

in practice, article 1.6 defines the concept of

“performing party”. Also, the definition of the

performing party has been written in a quite wide

perspective beyond the concept of carrier in practice.

In the article 1.6 a person that performs or

undertakes to perform any of the obligations with

respect to receipt, loading, handling, stowage,

carriage, care, unloading or delivery of the goods

called performing party and will be responsible. This

situation expands the definition and liabilities of the

carrier written in the international regulations.

The general scope of application of the Rotterdam

Rules is clarified by the article 5. According to this

article, convention applies to contracts of carriage in

which the place of receipt and the place of the

delivery are in different states, and the port of

loading of a sea carriage and the port of discharge of

the same sea carriage are in different states, but,

according to the contract of carriage, any one of the

following places should be located in a contracting

state:

− The place of receipt,

− The port of loading,

− The place of delivery or,

− The port of discharge.

According to the article 5.2, the convention

applies without taking in to consideration the

nationality of the vessel, the carrier, the performing

parties, the shipper, the consignee or any other

interested parties. Article 6 of Rotterdam Rules

designates the exeptions for the application of article

5. Article 6.1 states that the convention does not

Durak, Onur Sabri: Deniz Yolu ile Eşya Taşıma Hukuku’nda Son

Gelişmeler ve Rotterdam Kuralları Üzerine Değerlendirmeler,

Yağız Muammer/Yılmaz, Ayşe (Edt.), TMMOB Gemi Makineleri

İşletme Mühendisleri Odası IV. Ulusal Sempozyumu Bildiriler

Kitabı (s. 94-106), İstanbul, 2009.

apply to the following contracts in liner

transportation:

1 Charter parties; and

2 Other contracts for the use of a ship or of any

space thereon.

As stated by the article 6.2, Rotterdam Rules do

not apply to contracts of carriage in non-liner

transportation except when:

1 There is no charter party or other contract be-

tween the parties for the use of a ship or of any

space

on it; and

2 A transport document or an electronic transport

record is issued.

Obligations of the carrier are regulated in the 4

chapter of the Rotterdam Rules. According to the

article 11, the carrier shall carry the goods to the

place of destination and deliver them to the

consignee in accordance with the terms of the

contract of carriage. As stated by the article 12, the

carrier or a performing party (the carrier in practice

or any other person written in the contract) will have

the responsibility of the goods in the period which

starts at receiving the goods for carriage and ends

when the goods are delivered. The parties may

designate and extend the responsibility period with

the contract in accordance with the Rotterdam Rules

and limitations expressed in the convention.

By the article 13 of the Rotterdam Rules the

specific obligations of the carrier has been

designated. The carrier, during the period of its

responsibility, shall properly and carefully receive,

load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, unload and

deliver the goods. Specific obligations of the carrier

applicable to the voyage by sea are written in the

article 14. The carrier is bound before, at the

beginning of and during the voyage by sea to

exercise due diligence to:

1 Make and keep the ship seaworthy;

2 Properly crew, equip and supply the ship and

keep the ship so crewed, equipped and supplied

throughout the voyage; and

3 Make and keep the holds and all other parts of the

ship in which the goods are carried, and any con-

tainers supplied by the carrier in or upon which

the goods are carried, fit and safe for their recep-

tion, carriage and preservation.

A carrier or a performing party, as stated in

article 15, may decline to receive or to load, and

may take such other measures as are reasonable,

including unloading, destroying or rendering goods

harmless, if the goods are, or reasonably appear

likely to become an actual danger to persons,

property or the environment. In the frame of the

article 16 of Rotterdam Rules: after the loading of

the goods, the carrier or a performing party may

sacrifice goods at sea when the sacrifice is

559

reasonably made for the common safety or for the

purpose of preserving from peril human life or other

property involved in the common adventure.

Liability of the carrier for loss, damage or delay

has been written in the 5

chapter and between the

articles 17 and 23 of the Rotterdam Rules. Article 17

explains the basis of liability, article 18 regulates the

liability of the carrier for other persons and article 19

regulates the liability of maritime performing

parties. Article 20 points out the joint and several

liabilities, article 21 defines delay. In the article 22

the calculation of compensation has been written.

Article 23, at the end of the 5

chapter, considers the

notice in case of loss, damage or delay. In the

following part, the liabilities of the carrier stemming

from the loss, damage or delay are examined.

If the claiment proves that the loss, damage or

delay took place during the period of the carrier’s

responsibility, the carrier is liable for loss of or

damage to the goods as well as for delay in delivery.

However, the carrier is relieved of all or part of its

liability if he can prove his absence of fault that the

loss, damage or the delay has not caused by him or

any persons referred to in article 18. The carrier is

also relieved of all or part of its liability, if he proves

that the events or the circumstances referred to in

article 17.3 caused or contributed to the loss,

damage or delay. Being different from Hague Rules,

in Rotterdam Rules the carrier must prove his

absence of fault or negligence in order to be relieved

of all or part of its liabilities. “The navigation fault”

in article 4.2.(a) of Hague Rules has not been stated

in Rotterdam Rules, in other words, it has not

regarded as a cause that the carrier is relived of all or

part of its liability. There is a condition of

irresponsibility in Rotterdam Rules that Hague Rules

does not include, is the “reasonable measures to

avoid or attempt to avoid damage to the

environment” in article 17.3 (n).

If the claiment proves that the loss, damage or

delay was probably caused by or contributed to by,

1 The unseaworthiness of the ship;

2 The improper crewing, equipping and suppliying

of the ship; or

3 The fact that the holds or other parts of the ship in

which the goods are carried, or any containers

supplied by the carrier in or upon which the

goods are carried, were not fit and safe for recep-

tion, carriage and preservation of the goods, the

carrier is also liable, notwithstanding article 17.3,

for all or part of the loss, damage or delay.

As required by the article 18, the carrier is not

only liable for its own acts and omissions but also is

liable for the breach of its obligations caused by the

acts or omissions of:

1 Any performing party;

2 The master or crew of the ship;

3 Employees of the carrier or a performing party; or

4 Any other person that performs or undertakes to

perform any of the carrier’s obligations under the

contract of carriage, to extent that the person acts,

either directly or indirectly, at the carrier’s re-

quest or under the carrier’s supervision or control.

Unless the opposite is agreed in favor of the

shipper in the contract or there are causes

eliminating the limited liabilities of the carrier, the

liability of the carrier is limited to 100 sterling per

part or unit according to Hague Rules. However, the

weight unit of the goods and limitation of the

liabilities as to weight was not mentioned by Hague

Rules. By Visby Protocol, that amended Hague

Rules, the problem stemmed from the expression of

“unit” tried to be solved and the limit of the liability

was fixed with a certain amount of per part or per

each kilogram of grossweight, whichever amount is

the higher. In 1979, the protocol which was adopted

in Visby in 1968 was amanded and a new system

related to the limitation of the liabilities was formed.

As required by the rules known as Special Drawing

Right (SDR), the limit of liability per part or unit

was 667.67 SDR or 2 SDR per each kilogram of

grossweight, whichever amount is the higher. As

required by the Hamburg Rules, signed in 1978 and

came into force in 1992, the limit of liability is 835

SDR per part or 2.5 SDR per grosskilogram,

whichever amount is the higher.

In the 12

chapter of Rotterdam Rules, article 59

regulates “limits of liabilities”, article 60 regulates

“limits of liability for loss caused by delay” and

article 61 regulates “loss of the benefit of limitation

of liability”. As required by the article 59,

essantially regulating the limits of the carrier’s

liability, the carrier’s liability for breaches of its

obligations is limited to 875 SDR per package or

other shipping unit, or 3 SDR per kilogram of the

gross weight of the goods that are the subject of the

claim or dispute, whichever amount is the higher,

except when the value of the goods has been

declared by the shipper and included in the contract

particulars, or when a higher amount than the

amount of limitation of liability set out in the article

has been aggreed upon between the carrier and the

shipper. When compared with the previous Hamburg

Rules, it is seen that Rotterdam Rules have increased

the limits of liabilities from 835 SDR to 875 SDR

per part or unit, and from 2.5 to 3 SDR per weight

unit. Neither the carrier nor any of the persons

referred to in article 18 is entitled to the benefit of

the limitation of liability, if the claimant proves that

the loss resulting from the breach of the carrier’s

obligation under the convention was attributable to a

personal act or omission of the person claiming a

For the detailed study and the evaluation See: Ilgın, Sezer: Deniz

Hukuku – II, İstanbul, 2008, p. 42-44

560

right to limit done with the intent to cause such loss

or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss

would probably result.

Judicial or arbitral proceedings in respect of

claims or disputes arising from the breach of an

obligation of the carrier, must be applied in 2 years

after the day on which the carrier has delivered the

goods or, in cases in which no goods have been

delivered or only part of the goods have been

delivered, on the last day on which the goods should

have been delivered. This period, provided in article

62 shall not be subject to suspension or interruption.

However, as required by article 63, the person

against which a claim is made may at any time

during the running of the period extend that period

by a declaration to the claimant. This period may be

further extended by another declaration or

declarations.

4 CONCLUSIONS: EUROPEAN UNION AND

ROTTERDAM RULES

Adoption of Rotterdam Rules by a greater number of

countries is crucial for the increasing

implementation of the rules internationally. At this

point, it can be said that especially the carriers are

not approaching to these rules positively, because of

their expanding liabilities by Rotterdam Rules

compared to the Hague-Visby Rules. Since

Rotterdam Rules both expand the carrier’s liabilities

in certain areas and lessen them in other areas when

compared with Hamburg Rules, the comparison of

Rotterdam Rules with Hamburg Rules will be the

subject of another academic study. In this context,

this paper has concentrated on the differences

between Hague Rules, which have an

implementation in a larger geography, and the

Rotterdam Rules. When these differences

(expanding liabilities of the carrier) are considered it

can be understood why the carriers stay away from

the Rotterdam Rules.

Similarly, the EU member states as leading

carrier countries are approaching to Rotterdam Rules

cautiously. Although the EU set free its members to

about the rules, it is observed that EU Commission

is under pressure of the union’s carriers in order to

bring alternative regulations regarding the liabilities

of the carriers.

At this point, it can be said that the European

carriers are not considering the Rotterdam Rules as a

positive development, but they are pressing for

alternative legislation, to be exempted from these

regulations at least for the maritime operations

The evaluation and the critics regarding the liability of the carrier

See: Durak, p. 98-104.

performed in the EU seas, in which the Acquis

Communataire is valid, in case Rotterdam rules find

a global implementation area.

Yet, the European maritime carriers are also

uncertain about this issue because with regards to

the liabilities, they are not also approaching

positively to the regional regulations because they

increase the number of the legislations to be

complied with. The national and regional attitudes of

the EU countries, which are both carriers having

maritime fleets, and shippers making industrial

products, will affect the future of Rotterdam Rules.

Today, one can say that there is an uncertainty in

the EU, which is a regional political and economic

integration movement developing sui-generis law for

its own region, about Rotterdam Rules and which

legislation (international or regional) will be

effective within the EU seas.

There are contradictory opinions set forth about

the European carriers’ tendencies about the

Rotterdam Rules. In fact, at this point, one can say

that the carriers or the shippers lobbying activities

on the new legislation, will determine the result.

Yet, we can still say that the EU member states

will be the leading actors in the future of Rotterdam

Rules’ global implementation with their globally

dominant maritime transport companies such as

MAERSK, Hapag Lloyd, Hamburg-Süd, etc. At this

point, the attitudes of the interested parties such as

the carriers and the shippers (and their countries) on

this issue will determine the future of this

international legislation. The European carriers may

put more pressure on the EU Commission to prepare

alternative regional regulations, if they are forced to

adopt Rotterdam Rules in future because of the

commercial obligations.

Also, as mentioned before, if Rotterdam Rules are

not globally adopted, the maritime transportation

companies, which are generally critical of regional

regulations, may choose a way in line with the

Hague, Hague-Visby or Hamburg rules, and resist a

probable EU legislation. In the final analysis, one

can say that, as it is expanding its legislative

framework day by day, the EU may establish a

uniform legislation for the liabilities of the carriers

in EU seas, probably not in the near future but

certainly in the long term.

REFERENCES:

Alba, Manuel: “Electronic Commerce Provisions in the

UNCITRAL Convention on Contracts for the International

Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea” (Texas

International Law Journal, 2009, P. 44).

Dedman, Martin J.: The Origins and the Development of the

European Union 1945-1995: A History of European

Integration, London 1996.

561

Dinan, Desmond: Europe Recast: A History of European

Union, London, 2004.

Durak, Onur Sabri: Deniz Yolu ile Eşya Taşıma Hukuku’nda

Son Gelişmeler ve Rotterdam Kuralları Üzerine

Değerlendirmeler, Yağız Muammer/Yılmaz, Ayşe (Edt.),

TMMOB Gemi Makineleri İşletme Mühendisleri Odası IV.

Ulusal Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, İstanbul, 2009.

Faria, J.A.Estrella: “Uniform Law for the International

Transport at UNCITRAL: New Times, New Players, New

Rules” (Texas International Law Journal, 2009, P. 44).

Fujita, Tomotaka: “The Comprehensive Coverage of the New

Convention: Performing Parties and Multimodal

Implications” (Texas International Law Journal, 2009, P.

44).

Ilgın, Sezer: Deniz Hukuku – II, İstanbul, 2008.

Ilgın, Sezer: “Hamburg Kurallarının Türk Taşıyan ve

Taşıtanlara Etkisi (II)” (Denizatı, 1993, P. 4-5).

Ilgın, Sezer: “Hamburg Kurallarının Türk Taşıyan ve

Taşıtanlara Etkisi (I)” (Denizatı, 1993, P. 2-3 ).

Oudenaren, John Van: European Integration: A History of the

Three Treaties’, Tiersky, Ronald (Edt.), Europe Today,

Oxford, 1999.

Palmer, Robert Roswell (Edt.), A History of the Modern

World, New York, 1995.

Rosamond, Ben: Theories of European Integration, New York,

2000.

Schelin, Johan: “The UNCITRAL Convention on Carriage of

Goods by Sea: Harmonization or De-Harmonization”

(Texas International Law Journal, 2009, P. 44).

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?idReq=1&page=1 (Online,

27.05.2010)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?idReq=1&page=2 (Online,

27.05.2010)

562