Search

A Critical Examination of Chapter 15 of the Rotterdam Rules: Analysis of the Reasons Why This Chapter Has Not Yet Been Opted For Application by Any Declaration of State

Author(s)

Yang Jing

Affiliation(s)

International Law School, East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai, China

Abstract

The Rotterdam Rules, the latest international regulation in the maritime shipping industry, were adopted following discussions and compromises in 2008. According to Article 78 of the Convention, only Contracting States that proclaim their intention to be bound by the provisions of Chapter 15, which deals with arbitration issues, will be obligated to follow them. However, no country has yet made such a declaration. Therefore, this article aims to ascertain the underlying factors. To commence, the article reviews the drafting process of the chapter and finds that the State Parties reached a consensus through a compromise, which has led to a conservative attitude towards the provisions of the chapter. Subsequently, the article assesses the innovative provisions of this chapter and determines that the implementation of some of these provisions may not only increase the costs and complicate the process of dispute settlement, but also create uncertainty. Finally, this article examines the legislative technique employed in this chapter and finds that the opt-in approach results in a lack of uniformity within the Convention, while the overuse of cross-references makes it difficult to grasp the true meaning of the chapter. These factors have collectively impeded the adoption of Chapter 15 of the Convention.

Keywords

Rotterdam Rules; Arbitration; Compromise; Statutory Arbitration Venues; Electronic Transport Records; Arbitration Agreement; Opt-In Application; Cross-Referencing

References

[1] Nevisandeh, M, The Nature of Arbitration Agreement, Procedia Economics and Finance 2016, 36, 314 – 320. [2] United Nations General Assembly: Official Records, Fifty-First Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/51/17). [3] Tarmam, Z.D. Jurisdiction and Arbitration Under the Rotterdam Rules. In The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea: An Appraisal of the “Rotterdam Rules”, 2011th edition; Gu¨ner-O¨ zbek, M.D.(ed）; Springer: Heidelberg, German,2011; pp.265-294. [4] Ma, De.; Zhou, M. Development and Innovation of Arbitration Agreement Legislation under Non-Liner Transport Modes(in Chinese). Journal of Ocean University of China (Social Science Edition) 2020, 5, 67–75. [5] Si, Y.; Han, L (Eds.). Research on the Rotterdam Rules. Dalian Maritime University Press: Dalian, China, 2009; pp. 509-510. [6] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Working Group III (Transport Law): Report on the Fifteenth Session, Document A/CN.9/576, paras. 176–179. [7] UNCITRAL, Working Group III (Transport Law): Report on the Sixteenth Session, Vienna, 28 November-9 December 2005, Document A/CN.9/591, para. 85. [8] Document A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.54 [9] UNCITRAL, Working Group III (Transport Law): Report on the Fifteenth Session, Document A/CN.9/572. [10] Dutch Proposal on Arbitration: Document A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.54. [11] UNCITRAL, Working Group III (Transport Law): Report on the Fifteenth Session, Document A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.49. [12] UNCITRAL, Working Group III (Transport Law): Report on the Eighteenth Session, Document A/CN.9/616, para. 270. [13] UNCITRAL, Working Group III (Transport Law): Report on the Eighteenth Session, Document A/CN.9/616. [14] UNCITRAL, Working Group III (Transport Law): Report on the Twenty-First Session, Document A/CN.9/645. [15] Document A/CN.9/658/Add.10. [16] Si, Y.; Han, L (Eds.). Research on the Rotterdam Rules. Dalian Maritime University Press: Dalian, China, 2009; pp. 522. [17] Document A/CN.9/658/Add.10. [18] Li, W.; Guan, Z. Analysis of Arbitration-Related Issues under the Rotterdam Rules(in Chinese). Beijing Arbitration Quarterly 2014, 192–202. [19] Xu, Z. Study on "Statutory Arbitration Venue" Provisions of the Rotterdam Rules. Chinese Journal of Maritime Law 2014, 25, 57–62. [20] Yuan, F. Legislative Evaluation of Jurisdiction Over Maritime Disputes in the Rotterdam Rules (in Chinese). Journal of Social Sciences 2013, 106. [21] Fourteenth Session Report § 156; Sixteenth Session Report §§ 85, 96; Eighteenth Session Report § 268. [22] Sturley, M.F. Jurisdiction and Arbitration under the Rotterdam Rules. Unif.L.Rev 2009, 14, 945-980. [23] Sturley, M.F. Jurisdiction and Arbitration under the Rotterdam Rules. Unif.L.Rev 2009, 14, 945-980. [24] Baatz, Y. Jurisdiction and Arbitration in Multimodal Transport. Tul Mar LJ 2012, 36, 643-658. [25] Alcantara, Jose Ma., et al. Particular Concerns with Regard to the Rotterdam Rules. Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional 2010, 2, 5-15. [26] Ma, D.; Zhou, M. Development and Innovation of Arbitration Agreement Legislation under Non-Liner Transport Modes—Empirical Analysis Related to the Rotterdam Rule (in Chinese). Journal of Ocean University of China 2020, 67–75. [27] Jiang, Y.; Zhu, Z. Legislative Characteristics of the Rotterdam Rules and Analysis of Several Issues Involving Major Interests. Annual of China Maritime Law 2010, 21, 26–34. [28] Tetley, W.A Cntique of and the Canadian Response to the Rotterdam Rules. In A New Convention For The Carriage Of Goods By Sea-The Rotferdam Rules.; D. Rhidian Thomas ed, 2009. [29] Schoenbaum, T.J. An Evaluation of the Rotterdam Rules. In The Hamburg Lectures on Maritime Affairs 2011-2013; Springer: Berlin Heidelberg, German, 2014; pp. 21-43. [30] Alcantara, Jose Ma., et al. Particular Concerns with Regard to the Rotterdam Rules. Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional 2010, 2, 5-15. [31] Bekker, P.H.F.; Ginzburg, D. ‘The“Rotterdam Rules” and Arbitration Questions and Warning Signs. Dispute Resolution Journal 2010, 65,1-5. [32] Li, W.; Guan, Z. Analysis of Arbitration-Related Issues under the Rotterdam Rules (in Chinese). Beijing Arbitration Quarterly 2014, 192–202. [33] Si, Y. Evaluation and Outlook of the Rotterdam Rules. Annual of China Maritime Law 2009, 20, 3–8.