Implementation of the Rotterdam Rules - Carrier’s obligations and liabilities

Abstract: The carrier has historically been strictly liable for all damage to the cargo carried, with the exception of acts of God and war. This changed during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s when the carriers began to limit their liabilities in the contract of carriage. They were soon not liable for very much which was problematic for the shippers, since they did not receive compensation when their goods suffered damage. The Hague Rules were drafted in order to find a balance between the carriers’ and the shippers’ interests. The Hague-Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules followed during the 20th century. The Swedish Maritime Code has evolved alongside these conventions together with the other Scandinavian maritime codes. The maritime world is split between the carrier-friendly Hague and Hague-Visby Rules and the shipper-friendly Hamburg Rules. The Rotterdam Rules have been drafted in order to update outdated provisions and unite the World under one maritime framework, as trade is simplified and cheaper when everyone applies the same rules. The Rotterdam Rules apply to more people and to a broader concept of “contract of carriage”. The period of responsibility is increased as it Begins as soon as the carrier receives the cargo and ends when he delivers the cargo. The carrier has an increased duty to care for the cargo and make the ship seaworthy. The carrier’s liability is increased as he is liable for the actions of more people, he has fewer exceptions from liability and the limit on the liability owed has been raised. The Swedish Maritime Code’s scope of application is not as wide because it requires a connection to Sweden. The period of responsibility is smaller as it begins when the carrier receives the cargo in the port of loading and delivers it in the port of unloading. The carrier’s obligation to care for the cargo is not as extensive in the Swedish Maritime Code. The carrier is not liable for as many people. The carrier’s liability is smaller, he has more exceptions from liability and the limits to liability are smaller. A Swedish ratification of the Rotterdam Rules would mean that the carrier’s obligations would be more extensive. The Swedish carriers would be liable more often and for larger sums. This is negative for the carriers, but it could be worth it if the rest of the world ratifies the Rotterdam Rules as well. The Scandinavian Commissions that have examined their respective States ratification of the Rotterdam Rules have proposed that the rules should be ratified, but only after that the USA have ratified the convention. It is proposed in this thesis that Sweden should ratify the Rotterdam Rules, in lack of a better alternative, if the rest of the world ratifies the Rotterdam Rules.