Quick Links

Glossary of International Conventions and National Laws

of Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the People's Republic of China on Maritime Law

Copyright
William Tetley, Q.C.

(Not to be used without permission and attribution
Email: william [dot] tetley [at] mcgill [dot] ca)

Professor of Law, McGill University; counsel to Langlois, Gaudreau & O'Connor. The author acknowledges with thanks the assistance of rwilkins [at] blgcanada [dot] com (Robert C. Wilkins), B.A., B.C.L., in the preparation and correction of this Glossary.

(N.B. An earlier version of this Glossary was published as Appendix "B" of the article by W. Tetley, entitled "Uniformity of International Private Maritime Law- The Pros, Cons, and Alternatives to International Conventions - How to Adopt an International Convention", published in (2000) 34 Tul. Mar. L.J. 775-856)

[ Terms in bold link to definitions in Tetley's Glossary of Maritime Law. To get back to the Glossary of International Conventions and National Laws hit the "back" button in your web browser. ]

Contents:
International
Canada
United States
United Kingdom
France
China
I.Carriage of goods by sea
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
II. Responsibility for cargo ashore
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
III. Bills of Lading Act
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
IV.Collisions
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
V. Collision regulations
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
VI. Limitation of shipowner's liability
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
VII. Salvage
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
VIII. Sovereign immunity
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
IX. Arrest of ships
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
X. Maritime liens and mortgages
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
XI. Pollution
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
XII. Arbitration
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
XIII. Carriage of Passengers
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon
Arrow icon

For the status of maritime conventions, see the websites of the United Nations; International Maritime Organization and the Comité Maritime International.

I. Carriage of goods by sea

TOP OF PAGE

(1) International

The Hague Rules, 1924 Bills of Lading Convention, Brussels, 25 August 1924), entered into force 2 June 1931.

The Visby Rules, (1968 Protocol to Amend the Bills of Lading Convention, Brussels, 23 February 1968), entered into force 23 June 1977, amended by the Protocol of 21 December 1979 in respect of Special Drawing Rights (S.D.R.)(1), entered into force 14 February 1984. The Hague Rules 1924 , as amended by the Visby Protocols of 1968 and 1979, are referred to here as the "Hague/Visby Rules 1968/79".

The Hamburg Rules 1978 , (United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, Hamburg, 31 March 1978) entered into force 1 November 1992.
The following twenty-nine (29) States are now party to the Hamburg Rules: Austria, Barbados, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, Czech Republic, Egypt, Gambia, Georgia, Guinea, Hungary, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Morocco, Nigeria, Romania, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Senega, Sierra Leone, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia.

The Multimodal Transport Convention , (United Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, Geneva, 24 May 1980), is not in force.
States required for coming into force: 30. States party as at 1 May 2005: 10 - Burundi, Chile, Georgia, Lebanon, Malawi, Mexico, Morocco, Rwanda, Senegal, Zambia. See UN Treaty website.

TOP OF PAGE

(2) Canada

Marine Liability Act, S.C. 2001, c. 6, Part 5 and Schedule 3 (in force 8 August 2001). This is really the Hague/Visby Rules 1968/79. The package limitation is 666.67 S.D.R. per package or 2 S.D.R. per kilogram (approx. $1250.00 Can. and $3.78 Can., respectively, as of 1 May 2005), whichever is the higher (Hague/Visby Rules only ).

TOP OF PAGE

(3) United States

COGSA (Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936) , Act of 16 April 1936, c. 229, 49 Stat. 1207, 46 U.S. Code Appx. 1300-1315. This is really the Hague Rules, 1924. The package limitation is $500 U.S.

(4) United Kingdom

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, (1971) U.K. c. 19 (Hague/Visby Rules 1968/79 ) as amended by the Merchant Shipping Act 1981, (1981) U.K. c. 10, s. 2. The package limitation is 666.67 S.D.R. per package and 2 S.D.R. per kilo. As of 1 May 2005, this is approx. $1007.00 U.S. per package and approx. $3.02 U.S. per kilo (Hague-Visby Rules ), or approx. $1250.00 CDN per package and approx. $3.78 CDN per kilo.

TOP OF PAGE

(5) France

(a) International Carriage

The 1924 Bills of Lading Convention (the Hague Rules ) was authorized for ratification by the Law of 9 April 1936 and promulgated by the decree of 25 March 1937. This Convention was amended to comply with the Visby Rules by the Decree No. 77-809 of 8 July 1977. The Amending Protocol of 21 December 1979 in respect of S.D.R. was promulgated by Decree No. 87-235 of 3 April 1987, which substitutes 666.67 S.D.R. for the 10,000 p.g.f.(2) per package and 2 S.D.R. for the 30 p.g.f. per kilo. One S.D.R. is considered to be worth approximately 0.85 Euros, as of 1 May 2005.

(b) Domestic Carriage

Law No. 66-420 of 18 June 1966 (similar to the Hague Rules ) and Decree No. 66-1078 of 31 December 1966. The Law of 18 June 1966 was amended by Law No. 79-1103 of 21 December 1979 and Law No. 86-1292 of 23 December 1986 to make it more closely reflect the Visby Rules . The package limitation is determined by reference to art. 4(5)(a) of the Hague/Visby Rules 1968/79 .

TOP OF PAGE

(6) China

Arts. 41 et seq. of the Maritime Code of the People's Republic of China 1993 (hereinafter MCPRC) essentially ratify the Hamburg Rules 1978 , coupled with certain Hague/Visby Rules 1968/79 , and add new provisions, notably on liability for economic loss resulting from delay in delivery of the goods (art. 56).

TOP OF PAGE

II. Responsibility for cargo ashore

TOP OF PAGE

(1) International

There is no international convention presently in force with respect to responsibility for cargo before loading and after discharge. Nevertheless, the subject has been addressed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)in the United Nations Convention on the Liability of Operators of Transport Terminals in International Trade, adopted in Vienna on 19 April 1991 (not yet in force). States required for coming into force: 5. States party as at 1 May 2005: 3 - Egypt, Gabon and Georgia. See UN Treaty website.

TOP OF PAGE

(2) Canada

The Canada Shipping Act, 2001, S.C. 2001, c. 26, at sect. 250, has a cursory provision on responsibility before and after discharge. The provision is not of public order and so can be contracted out of in the bill of lading. The Supreme Court of Canada, on 26 June 1986, in Int'l Terminal Operators v. Miida Electronics v. The Buenos Aires Maru) [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752 at p. 779, 1986 AMC 2580 at p. 2601, ruled that responsibility after discharge falls under "Canadian maritime law" which is "uniform throughout Canada" and encompasses "the common law principles of tort, contract and bailment." The Supreme Court of Canada, on 26 November 1998, in Ordon et al. v. Grail [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437 at pp. 489-490, (1998) 232 N.R. 201 at pp. 261-262, 166 D.L.R. (4th) 193 at p. 229, 1999 AMC 994 at pp. 1019-1020, confirmed its holding in Chartwell Shipping Ltd. v. Q.N.S. Paper Co.. [1989] 2 S.C.R. 683, 101 N.R. 1, 26 Q.A.C. 81, refd. to pp. 695-97, finding that "Canadian maritime law" is comprised "of principles deriving in large part from both the common law and the civilian tradition."

TOP OF PAGE

(3) United States

The United States has an excellent law in respect of the responsibility of carriers for cargo before and after discharge-the Harter Act 1893, Act of February 1893, c. 105, 27 Stat. 445, formerly 46 U.S. Code Appx. 190-196, now 46 U.S. Code 30701-30707. Note that the Harter Act was codified in 46 U.S. Code as Chapter 307 ("Liability of Water Carriers") by the "Act to complete the codification of title 46, United States Code, 'Shipping', as positive law", being the Act of 6 October 2006, Public Law No. 109-304, 120 Stat. 1485. In the codification, certain changes were made to simplify, clarify and modernize the language and style of the statute, but the changes were to intended to modify the substance of the enactment. State legislation in respect of the liability of warehousemen, etc. also plays a role.

TOP OF PAGE

(4) United Kingdom

The former Merchant Shipping Act 1894, (1894) 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60 at sects. 492 to 501 dealt with delivery of cargo and incidentally with the responsibility for the cargo when it had been landed. These sections were repealed in 1993 (The Merchant Shipping Act 1993, c. 50, s. 1(1), Sch., Pt. XV). The common law rules on torts, contract and bailment generally apply before loading and after discharge.

TOP OF PAGE

(5) France

France has an excellent law in respect of cargo ashore, being Law No. 66-420 of 18 June 1966 at arts. 15 and 27, supplemented by Decree No. 66-1078 of 31 December 1966 at arts. 38 and 39. Carriers, stevedores and terminal operators are responsible for goods in their charge ashore but they may limit liability. Suit in contract is only possible against the terminal operators or stevedores by the person who hired their services: art. 52 of the Law of 18 June 1966. When it is the carrier who has hired the stevedore, the carrier will be held responsible for loss or damage to the cargo.

TOP OF PAGE

(6) China

The MCPRC deals with the period of responsibility at art. 46 (port to port for containerized goods; tackle to tackle for non-containerized goods), which essentially modifies art 4 of the Hamburg Rules (where the period of responsibility is from port to port for all cargoes).

TOP OF PAGE

III. Bills of Lading Act

TOP OF PAGE

(1) International

There is no international convention on bills of lading. The CMI adopted voluntary rules on shipping documents (CMI Uniform Rules for Electronic Bills of Lading, Paris, 29 June 1990, and CMI Rules for Sea Waybills, Paris, 29 June 1990). See the CMI Handbook of Maritime Conventions, LexisNexis, Newark, N.J., 2004 Vancouver Edition (hereinafter cited as "CMI Handbook"), Docs. 1-7 and 1-8 respectively.

TOP OF PAGE

(2) Canada

Bills of Lading Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-5 (very similar to the former U.K. Bills of Lading Act of 1855, see infra at III(4)).

TOP OF PAGE

(3) United States

The Pomerene Act 1916, recodified in 1994, 49 U.S. Code 80101-80116, is a remarkable statute that takes into account "non-negotiable bills of lading".

TOP OF PAGE

(4) United Kingdom

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, 1992 U.K. 1992, c. 50, which statute covers bills of lading, waybills, received for shipment bills of lading, electronic documents and ship's delivery orders. This statute repealed and replaced the former U.K. Bills of Lading Act. 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 111).

TOP OF PAGE

(5) France

There is no equivalent to a bill of lading act in France. The parties to the bill of lading contract and who may sue on it is determined in the light of arts. 33 and 49 of Decree No. 66-1078 of 31 December 1966, read with arts. 31 to 41 of Law No. 69-8 of 3 January 1969 that refer to risk allocation in maritime sale contracts.

TOP OF PAGE

(6) China

China essentially ratified arts. 14 and 15 of the Hamburg Rules 1978 with slight modifications at arts. 72 to 74 MCPRC. Re the negotiability of bills of lading at arts. 79 and 80 MCPRC, China was greatly inspired by the U.S. Pomerene Act 1916 (recodified in 1994).

TOP OF PAGE

IV. Collisions

TOP OF PAGE

(1) International

The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law With Respect to Collisions Between Vessels, Brussels, 23 September 1910, which entered into force 1 March 1913.

The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Penal Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision or Other Incidents of Navigation, 1952, Brussels, 10 May 1952, which entered into force on 20 November 1955.

The International Convention on Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision, 1952, Brussels, 10 May 1952, which entered into force on 14 September 1955.

The Draft International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matters of Collision, Rio de Janeiro, September 1977. For the text, see the CMI Handbook, Doc. 3-4.

The Draft Rules for the Assessment of Damages in Maritime Collisions ("Lisbon Rules" ), 29 February 1988. For the text, see the CMI Handbook, Doc. 3-5.

TOP OF PAGE

(2) Canada

Canada enacted The Maritime Conventions Act 1914, (1914) 4 & 5 Geo. 5, S.C. 1914, c. 13 (now repealed), to give effect to the Collision Convention, 1910. The relevant provisions are now to be found in the Marine Liability Act, S.C. 2001, c. 6 (in force 8 August 2001) at Part 2 (sects. 15 to 23), particularly at sect. 17. Part 2 applies wherever a claim is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of Canadian maritime law, as definined in the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 2 or any other law of Canada in relation to any matter coming within the class of navigation and shipping (sect. 16). Thus, Canada has the proportionate fault rule by statute, for ships that are at fault in causing the collision and their cargoes (sect. 17(1) and (3)). In other cases, there is joint and several liability among joint tortfeasors, with a right of contribution between them (sect. 17(2)). Innocent third party ships therefore receive 100% and death and personal injury claimants may recover 100% from vessels who are partially or fully at fault.

Proportionate fault also applies in respect of the division of damages resulting from maritime torts other than ship collisions, as well as in inland waters, by virtue of sects. 17(1) and (2) of the Marine Liability Act. This codifies the Supreme Court of Canada's previous decisions in Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1210 at pp. 1260-1268, (1997) 153 D.L.R. (4th) 385 (Supr. Ct of Can.) at pp. 419-425; Ordon Estate v. Grail [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437 at p. 517, (1998) 166 D.L.R. (4th) 193 at p.249-250, 232 N.R. 201 at p. 297-298, 1999 AMC 994 at p. 1039-1040.

TOP OF PAGE

(3) United States

The United States has not adopted the Collision Convention, 1910. Proportionate fault was introduced by the Supreme Court of the United States in U.S. v. Reliable Transfer Co. 421 U.S. 397, 1975 AMC 541 (1975), but only for damage to the vessels themselves. Cargo may therefore recover 100% from the colliding vessel; see The Atlas, 93 U.S. 302 (1876); Anco Princess (Gulfcoast Transit Co. v. The Anco Princess) 1978 AMC 2471, [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 293 (E.D. La. 1978); Oriental Hero-Castor 1976 AMC 1306 (S.D. N.Y. 1976); Allied Chem. Corp. v. Hess Tankship Co. 661 F. 2d 1044 (U.S.C.A. 5 Cir. 1981).

TOP OF PAGE

(4) United Kingdom

The U.K. adopted the Maritime Conventions Act 1911, (1911) 1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 57, which put into effect the Collision and Salvage Conventions of 1910. There is proportionate fault for ship and cargo and 100% recovery as in Canada for personal injury and death claims. This Act was repealed in part by The Merchant Shipping Act 1995, (1995) c. 21, s. 314(1), Sch. 12. Today, proportionate fault in ship collisions is provided for by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, U.K. 1995, c. 21 at sects. 187-189.

The U.K. ratified the International Convention on Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision, 1952, on 18 March 1959.

TOP OF PAGE

(5) France

(a) The international regime

France authorized ratification of the Collision Convention, 1910 by the Law of 2 August 1912, promulgated by the Decree of 12 March 1913. It governs collisions between ships of different countries which are party to the Collision Convention.

The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Penal Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision or Other Incidents of Navigation, 1952 was ratified on 20 May 1955, but France decided to exercise its option to reserve art. 4, para. 2 of the Convention.

France also ratified the International Convention on Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision, 1952, on 25 May 1957.

(b) The domestic and residuary regime

France has Law No. 67-545 of 7 July 1967 and Decree No. 68-65 of 19 January 1968, which largely reproduces the proportionate fault rule of the Collision Convention, 1910. It governs collisions between French ships (i.e. where the Collision Convention, 1910 does not apply).

TOP OF PAGE

(6) China

On 28 August 1994, China acceded to the Collision Convention, 1910.

TOP OF PAGE

V. Collision regulations

TOP OF PAGE

(1) International

The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea ("Collision Regulations 1972", also known as the "COLREGS" ) were enacted by the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, adopted at London, 20 October 1972, which entered into force on 15 July 1977. The COLREGS 1972 were amended on 19 November 1981 (in force 1 June 1983), on 19 November 1987 (in force 19 November 1989), on 19 October 1989 (in force 19 April 1991 on 4 November 1993 (in force 4 November 1995), and on 29 November 2001 (in force 29 November 2003).

TOP OF PAGE

(2) Canada

The Collision Regulations, C.R.C. 1978 c. 1416.

The Collision Regulations were enacted under the Canada Shipping Act, which later became R.S.C. 1985, c. S-9, sect. 562 et seq.. Authority to enact such regulations is now provided by the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, S.C. 2001, c. 26, at sects. 29(1), 35(1)(d) and Schedule 1, item 17. Under sect. 35(2), regulations adopted under sect. 35(1)(d) in respect of preventing collisions at sea may also apply to aircraft on or over Canadian waters. Sect. 120(1)(l) of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 also authorizes the Governor in Council (i.e. the federal Cabinet) to make regulations respecting the prevention of collision in Canadian waters or waters of Canada's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Such regulations may also be made in respect to aircraft on or over Canadian waters (sect. 120(4)) and in respect of pleasure craft in Canadian waters (sect. 120(5)).

TOP OF PAGE

(3) United States

The U.S. ratified the 1960 Rules, Pub.L No. 88-131, 77 Stat. 194, on 24 September 1963, 33 U.S.C. 1061-1094. They were repealed when the COLREGS were ratified on 23 November 1976. The COLREGS were removed from the Code of Federal Regulations (61 Fed. Reg. 10466, 14 March 1996) on 1 April 1996, but remain effective. See 33 U.S.C. 1602.

TOP OF PAGE

(4) United Kingdom

The COLREGS , as amended, were enacted by the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/75, in force 1 May 1996.

TOP OF PAGE

(5) France

The COLREGS 1972 were adopted in France by Decree no. 77-733 of 6 July 1977. The amendments to the COLREGS were ratified by Decree no. 83-448 of 27 May 1983 (1981 amendments); Decree no. 90-60 of 10 January 1990 (1987 amendments); Decree no. 92-314 of 31 March 1992 (1989 amendments) and Decree no. 97-748 of 2 July 1997 (1993 amendments).

TOP OF PAGE

(6) China

On 7 January 1980, China acceded to the COLREGS , as amended (see arts. 165 et seq. of the MCPRC ).

TOP OF PAGE

VI. Limitation of shipowner's liability

TOP OF PAGE

(1) International

The Brussels Limitation Convention of 1924, 25 August 1924, in force on 2 June 1931.

The Brussels Limitation Convention of 1957, 10 October 1957, in force on 31 May 1968, as amended by the Protocol of 21 December 1979, in force on 6 October 1984.

The IMO Limitation Convention of 1976, London, 19 November 1976, in force on 1 December 1986, amended by the IMO Protocol of 1996 to Amend the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, London, 2 May 1996, in force 13 May 2004.

TOP OF PAGE

(2) Canada

Canada first enacted the 1976 Convention , as amended by the 1996 Protocol, in 1998. The Convention and Protocol now have the force of law in Canada under the Marine Liability Act, S.C. 2001, c. 6, Part 3 (sects. 24-34) and Schedule 1, Parts 1 and 2, which came into force on 8 August 2001. The 1996 Protocol amending the 1976 Convention was ratified by Canada on May 9, 2008 and will enter into force in Canada on August 7, 2008. The instrument of ratification of Canada contained the following reservation: "Canada reserves the right to exclude the application of article 2, paragraph 1(d)[of the Protocol]:(d) claims in respect of the raising, removal, destruction or the rendering harmless of a ship which is sunk, wrecked, stranded or abandoned, including anything that is or has been on board such a ship."
Where the tonnage of the ship is less than 300 tons, the limitation is $500,000 CDN, and $1 million CDN for claims for loss of life and personal injury (sect. 28(1)). For ships for which no certificate is required and in the case of loss of life or personal injury, the limitation is the greater of two million S.D.R. and 175,000 S.D.R., multiplied by the number of passengers on board the ship (sect. 29(1)). As of 1 May 2005, this is approximately equivalent $3,780,000. CDN and $330,750. CDN respectively. Also, where no contract of passenger carriage has been signed, the limitation for claims of loss of life or personal injury is of 175,000 S.D.R., multiplied by the number of passengers authorized by the ship's certificate (sect. 29((2)).

TOP OF PAGE

(3) United States

(a) The Limitation Act 1851, Act of 3 March 1851, c. 43, s. 3, 9 Stat. 635, formerly 46 U.S. Code Appx. 183 et seq, and now codified at 46 U.S. Code 30501-30512, pursuant to the "Act to complete the codification of title 46, United States Code, 'Shipping', as positive law", being the Act of 6 October 2006, Public Law No. 109-304, 120 Stat. 1485. The U.S. is not party to any limitation convention.

(b) Limitation is based on the value of the shipowner's interest in the vessel after the collision, plus the value of any earned freight: Norwich Co. v. Wright 80 U.S. 104 at p. 120 (1871). See especially The City of Norwich (Place v. Norwich & New York Transportation Co.) 118 U.S. 468 at p. 493 (1886), where the value of the shipowner's interest was held to be calculated at the time of the termination of the collision voyage, i.e. when the ship had sunk and had to be raised.

(c) In the case of the total loss of the ship, if the fund is insufficient to satisfy claims, a fund of 420$ U.S. per ton will be established for death and bodily injury claims, as per the Sirovich Amendment of 1936, i.e. Act of 5 June 1936, c. 521, 49 Stat. 1480, as amended by Act of 19 October 1984, P.L. 98-498, title II, subtitle A, s. 213(a), 98 Stat. 2306. See Oliver J. Olson & Co. v. American Steamship Marine Leopard 356 F. 2d 728 at p. 737 (9th Cir. 1966); U.S. v. S/S Helena 295 F. Supp. 610 at p. 612 (E.D. La. 1969); Complaint of Caribbean Sea Transport Ltd. 748 F. 2d 622 at pp. 627-29 (11th Cir. 1984). In re Cleveland Tankers, Inc. 67 F. 3d 1200, 1996 AMC 151 (6 Cir. 1995).

(d) The charterer (unless by demise ) does not have the benefit of the limitation of liability provision: 46 U.S. Code 30501 (formerly 46 U.S. Code Appx. 186).

(e) Seamen's claim for wages or for maintenance and cure are not subject to the Act (nor to workmen's compensation legislation); 46 U.S. Code 30505(c) (formerly 46 U.S. Code Appx. 189). They may, however, take suit against the vessel owner under the Jones Act, Act of 5 June 1920, c. 250, s. 33, 41 Stat 1007, 46 U.S. Code 30104 (formerly U.S. Code Appx. 688). See Hugney v. Consolidation Coal Co. 345 F. Supp. 1079 (W.D. Pa. 1971).

(f) The century-old obsolescent doctrine that insurance proceeds paid to a shipowner entitled to limited liability are not available to the injured party must await the Supreme Court: Tug Huntington Lim. Procs. 683 F. 2d 42, 1982 AMC 2588 (2 Cir. 1982), modifying 1980 AMC 213 (E.D. N.Y. 1979). See The City of Norwich (Place v. Norwich& New York Transportation Co.) 118 U.S. 468 at p. 493 (1886).

(g) The prescription period applicable to the owner of the vessel is six months after a claimant has given to or filed with such owner written notice of the claim: 46 U.S. Code 30511(a) (formerly 46 U.S. Code Appx. 185); see also Rule F(1), Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claim, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

TOP OF PAGE

(4) United Kingdom

The 1976 Limitation Convention was originally set out in the Merchant Shipping Act 1979, (1979) U.K. c. 39, Sch. 4, Part 1 and came into force for the U.K. on 31 January 1980. The actual amounts to which liability is limited in arts. 6, 7 and 8 of the Convention were supplemented by s. 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1981, (1981) U.K. c. 10 which substituted S.D.R. in limitation provisions. Today, the 1976 Limitation Convention has the force of law in the U.K. by virtue of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, U.K. 1995, c. 21, sect. 185(1) and Sch. 7 Part I, in force 1 January 1996.

The Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997, (1997) U.K. c. 28, sect. 15(1), adding sect. 185(2A) to (2E) to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, provided for the coming into force of the 1996 Protocol amending the 1976 Limitation Convention , by proclamation. The 1996 Protocol was brought into force in the U.K. by The Merchant Shipping (Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims) (Amendment) Order 1998, S.I. 1998 No. 1258 of 19 May 1998.

TOP OF PAGE

(5) France

(a) The international regime

France ratified the 1924 Limitation Convention on 23 August 1935 (denunciation in 1976).

France also ratified the 1957 Limitation Convention by Decree No. 59-1365 of 3 December 1959 with certain reservations. See Decree No. 60-456 of 4 May 1960.

The 1976 Convention was authorized for ratification by Law No. 79-1146 of 29 December 1979, and promulgated by Decree No. 86-1371 of 23 December 1986. Ratification of the 1996 Protocol amending the 1976 Convention is expected.

(b) The domestic and residuary regime

Law No. 67-3 of 3 January 1967 at arts. 58-69 and Decree No. 67-967 of 27 October 1967 at arts. 59-70 largely incorporate the principles of the 1957 Convention . The Law of 3 January 1967 was modified by Law No. 84-1151 of 21 December 1984 so as to incorporate into French domestic law the principles of the 1976 Convention . These amendments came into force on 1 December 1986. See also Law No. 84-1173 of 22 December 1984, amending Law No. 67-545 of 3 July 1967, in respect of the salvor's limitation of liability.

TOP OF PAGE

(6) China

Arts. 204 et seq. of the MCPRC . China adopted the tonnage system (art. 210 MCPRC) replacing the old system based on the value of the ship (this more or less corresponds to the 1976 Limitation Convention ).

TOP OF PAGE

VII. Salvage

TOP OF PAGE

(1) International

The CMI Salvage Convention, Brussels, 23 September 1910 , which came into force on 1 March 1913, and the Amending Protocol of the Salvage Convention, Brussels, 27 May 1967, which came into force on 15 August 1977.

The International Convention on Salvage, adopted by the IMO , London, 28 April 1989, which came into force on 14 July 1996.

TOP OF PAGE

(2) Canada

The Maritime Conventions Act 1914, (1914) 4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 13 gave effect to the 1910 Salvage Convention . See the former Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-9 at sects. 450-472. The 1910 Convention was denounced by Canada when it ratified the Salvage Convention 1989 in 1994 and enacted it as Schedule V to the former Canada Shipping Act. The Salvage Convention 1989 now has the force of law in Canada under the Canada Shipping Act, S.C. 2001, c. 26, sect. 142(1) and Schedule 3, Parts 1 and 2. (Part 2 reflects the reservation, made by Canada to the 1989 Convention under art. 30 at the time of ratification, permitting non-application of the Convention to maritime cultural property of prehistoric, archaeological or historic interest and which is situated on the seabed.)

TOP OF PAGE

(3) United States

The United States proclaimed the 1910 Salvage Convention to be in force as of 1 March 1913. See 37 Stat. 1670. The judge-made American law on salvage was brought into conformity with the 1910 Salvage Convention by the Salvage Act, Act of 1 August 1912, c. 268, 37 Stat. 242, 46 U.S. Code Appx. 727-731.

The 1989 Convention on Salvage deposited its instrument of ratification with the IMO on 27 March 1992, but the Convention came into force in the U.S. only as of 14 July 1996, when it came into force internationally (i.e. one year after 15 States agreed to be bound by it). See Salvage Convention 1989 , art. 29(1); G. Brice, Maritime Law of Salvage, 2 Ed., Supp. 1, 1993, at para. 1-49. See also 137 Cong. Rec. S. 15398 (U.S. Senate's ratifying resolution of 29 October 1991). See McInnes, "Life Rescue in Maritime Law", (1994) 25 JMLC 451 at p. 452.

The Procedures and Guidelines of the Salvage Awards Committee of the American Institute of Marine Underwriters, New York, August 1988.

TOP OF PAGE

(4) United Kingdom

The United Kingdom adopted the 1910 Salvage Convention into its law by the Maritime Conventions Act 1911, (1911) 1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 57. See the Merchant Shipping (Safety Conventions) Act 1949, (1949) 12 & 13 Geo. 6, c. 43, sects. 21 & 22.

From 1 January 1995 the 1989 Convention has the force of law in the United Kingdom by virtue of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, U.K. 1995, c. 21 sect. 224(1) and (2) and Sch. 11, Part 1, which repealed and replaced the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994, U.K. 1994, c. 28.

TOP OF PAGE

(5) France

(a) The international regime

France made the 1910 Salvage Convention part of its law by the Law of 29 April 1916. It applies when he salvor ship or the salved ship belongs to a state which is party to the Convention. France promulgated, with reservations, the Salvage Convention 1989 by Decree No. 2002-645 of 23 April 2002, the Convention to come into force for France as of 20 December 2002.

(b) The domestic and residuary regime

When the salvor ship and the salved ship belong to different states, neither being party to the Convention, and the action being brought before and French court, Law No. 67-545 of 7 July 1967 and Decree No. 68-65 of 19 January 1968 apply.

TOP OF PAGE

(6) China

China acceded to the Salvage Convention 1989 on 30 March 1994, stating in its instrument "[t]hat in accordance with the provisions of art. 30, para. 1 of the International Convention on Salvage, 1989, the Government of the People's Republic of China reserves the right not to apply the provisions of art. 30, paras. 1(a), (b), and (d) of the said Convention." A similar reservation was made by the People's Republic of China for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, by notification dated 5 June 1997.

China also acceded to the 1910 Salvage Convention on 28 August 1994.

TOP OF PAGE

VIII. Sovereign immunity

TOP OF PAGE

(1) International

The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Immunity of State Owned Vessels, Brussels, 10 April 1926 with the Protocol of 24 May 1934, both of which entered into force 8 January 1937. Countries have adopted or are leaning towards "restrictive" foreign sovereign immunity , i.e. that commercial ships owned by a sovereign state are not immune from seizure.

The Law of the Sea Convention 1982 , adopted at Montego Bay, Jamaica, 10 December 1982, in force 16 November 1994, see art. 236 on foreign sovereign immunity.

TOP OF PAGE

(2) Canada

The State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, as amended, in force as of 15 July 1982. See in particular sect. 7 which refers to in rem and in personam actions. Canada now has restrictive foreign sovereign immunity. See also the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, s. 43(7)(c).

TOP OF PAGE

(3) United States

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (F.S.I.A.) 1976, 28 U.S. Code 1330, 1332(a), 1391(f), 1441(d), 1602-1611. An in rem action against vessels owned by a foreign sovereign is permitted when it is used for commercial purposes, and with respect to arrest for the enforcement of a preferred ship mortgage (see 28 U.S. Code 1605(c), 1610(e)), or with respect to attachment, subject to certain conditions (see sects. 1610 (d)(1) and (2)). Another important exception to the principle of foreign sovereign immunity is the Arbitration Exception (see sect. 1605(a)(6)(B)).

TOP OF PAGE

(4) United Kingdom

The State Immunity Act 1978, (1978) U.K. c. 33, in force 22 November 1978, designed in part to give effect to the European Convention on State Immunity 1972, Basle, 16 May 1972 (in force 11 June 1976). The restrictive foreign sovereign immunity doctrine is found in sect. 10.

The U.K. ratified the 1926 Immunity Convention on 3 July 1979 with reservations (1) as to the application of arts. 1 and 2 of the Convention, and (2) to give effect to the terms of any international agreement with a non-contracting State, as to the right to make special provision (a) as regards the delay or arrest of a ship or cargo belonging to such a State, and (b) to prohibit seizure of or execution against such a ship or cargo.

TOP OF PAGE

(5) France

France ratified the 1926 Immunity Convention on 27 July 1955. France therefore has restrictive foreign sovereign immunity. A ship owned by a foreign sovereign of a state which is not a party to the 1926 Convention may be seized as well when it is being used for commercial activity or when it is not performing a public act of state: Cour de Cassation, 25 February 1969, [1969] ETL 744.

TOP OF PAGE

(6) China

TOP OF PAGE

IX. Arrest of ships

(1) International

The Arrest of Sea-going Ships Convention, Brussels, 10 May 1952, entered into force 24 February 1956.

The Lisbon Draft Arrest Revision, 25 May 1985, is not in force.

And the Arrest of Ships Convention 1999, adopted by the IMO on 12 March 1999, is not yet in force. States required for coming into force: 10. States party as at 1 May 2005: 7 - Albania, Algeria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Spain, Syrian Arab Repoublic. See UN Treaty website.

TOP OF PAGE

(2) Canada

Canada has not adopted the 1952 Arrest Convention and has its own system of ship arrest, (largely modeled along the U.K.'s system). Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sects. 22 and 43(2) and (3). (Action in rem and Marevainjunction, but probably no attachment or "saisie conservatoire".) In Canada, the action in rem is no longer instituted by a writ in rem, but rather by a "statement of claim", issued pursuant to Rules 477 and 479 and Form 477 of the Federal Court Rules 1998 (SOR 98/106, in force 25 April 1998).

TOP OF PAGE

(3) United Kingdom

The U.K has ratified the 1952 Arrest Convention but has not fully implemented it. Under the Supreme Court Act 1981, U.K. 1981, c. 54, sects. 21(2), (3), (4) and (5), there is the writ in rem (now renamed the "claim form in rem", pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, S.I. 1998/3132, in force 26 April 1999, as amended with effect from March 25, 2002 by Part 61 (Admiralty Claims) and Practice Direction 61 (Admiralty Claims) adopted under those Rules) See aslso Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 5) Rules 2001 (adding CPR Rule 6.20(17A) re service out of the jurisdiction of certain Admiralty claims). There is no real attachment or saisie conservatoire, but the Mareva injunction (now renamed the "freezing injunction" (or "freezing order"), pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998), is recognized at sect. 37(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981.

TOP OF PAGE

(4) United States

The U.S. has its own very complete system which includes the maritime attachments and the action in rem. In virtue of the general maritime law, the U.S. system exists independently from the Supplemental Rules B & C, Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. Code, as amended in 1985. See Schiffahartsgesellschaft Leonhardt & Co. v. A. Bottacchi S.A. de Navegacion 1986 AMC 1, 773 F. 2d 1528 (11 Cir. 1985), confirming the decision in Manro v. Almeida, 23 U.S. 473 (1825) at p. 7.

TOP OF PAGE

(5) France

France is a party to the 1952 Arrest Convention which was promulgated by Decree No. 58-14 of 4 January 1958. There are two regimes of ship arrest (conservatory attachment): (a) arrest of ships belonging to states which are party to the 1952 Arrest Convention and (b) arrest of ships belonging to states which are not party to the Convention, as well as French ships in a French port by a French claimant. In the second regime, a ship may be arrested for any claim. There is sister ship arrest under both regimes, but in the second the owner of the sister ship must be personally liable on the claim. The arrest of a ship is subject to a single procedure - saisie conservatoire or attachment. See Law No. 67-5 of 3 January 1967 for ship attachment. See also Decree No. 67-967 of 27 October 1967 as amended by Decree No. 71-161 of 24 February 1971. The procedure relating to the attachment of cargo, freight and other assets (bank accounts, insurance proceeds, etc.) are subject to the general law of France on civil procedures of execution, found in Law No. 91-650 of 9 July 1991 as completed by Decree No. 92-755 of 31 July 1992.

TOP OF PAGE

(6) China

The arrest of ships in the People's Republic of China was governed by the Regulation of the Supreme People's Court concerning Arrest of Ships prior to Litigation 1986. It is now governed, however, by the Chinese Maritime Procedure Code 2000, arts. 21-43, which came into force on 1 July 2000.

TOP OF PAGE

X. Maritime liens and mortgages

TOP OF PAGE

(1) International

The Maritime Liens and Mortgages Convention, Brussels, 10 April 1926, entered into force 2 June 1931.

The Maritime Liens and Mortgages Convention, Brussels, 27 May 1967 is not in force. States required for coming into force: 5. States party as at 1 May 2005: 4 - Denmark, Morocco, Norway, Sweden. The Syrian Arab Republic was party, but is now party to the Maritime Liens and Mortgages Convention 1993 (infra). See UN Treaty website.

The Lisbon Draft Liens Revision, 25 May 1985, is not in force.

The International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993, Geneva, adopted by the IMO / UNCTAD on 6 May 1993 came into force on 5 September 2004. States party as at 1 May 2005: Ecuador, Estonia, Monaco, Nigeria, Russian Federation, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Spain, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Ukraine, Vanuatu. See UN Treaty website.

TOP OF PAGE

(2) Canada

Canada is not a party to any of the three Conventions: rather it has its own system of maritime liens and statutory rights in rem very similar to U.K. law. Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sects. 22 and 43, and Canadian maritime law. Special legislative rights now jeopardize the traditional ranking of liens.

TOP OF PAGE

(3) United States

The U.S. is not a party to any of the three Conventions but has a system of liens which is not too dissimilar to the 1926 Convention, especially in respect of tort liens, cargo liens and liens for necessaries. U.S. mortgages are favoured over foreign mortgages. See 46 U.S. Code 30101-31309, 31321-31330, 31341-31343.

TOP OF PAGE

(4) United Kingdom

The U.K. is not a party to any of the three Conventions and has its own law of liens and mortgages developed under the historical jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court. See in particular the Supreme Court Act 1981, (1981) U.K. c. 54 at sects. 20 and 21.

TOP OF PAGE

(5) France

(a) The international regime

The 1926 Liens and Mortgages Convention was authorized for ratification by the Law of 21 February 1935 and promulgated by the Decree of 29 November 1935. The Convention applies when the ship arrested in France belongs to a state that is party to the Convention and also in circumstances specified by French law.

(b) The domestic and residuary regime

Law No. 67-5 of 3 January 1967 and Decree No. 67-967 of 27 October 1967 largely incorporate the principles of the 1926 Liens and Mortgages Convention.

TOP OF PAGE

(6) China

China is not a contracting state to any of the three Conventions, but Chinese maritime law on the subject was drafted with reference to the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1993, with some differences (see arts. 21-30 MCPRC). These differences are: (1) unlike the 1993 Convention, claims for payment of harbour dues under the Maritime Code of the People's Republic of China 1993 precede those for payment of salvage claims (see art. 22 of the Code); (2) the 1993 Convention is more restrictive in its scope of application; and (3) the Code has no equivalent for art. 12(2) or (3) of the 1993 Convention.

China also enacted two regulations with respect to maritime liens and claims: (1) Regulation for Maritime Court Relating to the Arrest of Ships Before Suing, and (2) Regulation for Maritime Court Relating to the Auction of Seizing Property and Remedies.

TOP OF PAGE

XI. Pollution

TOP OF PAGE

(1) International

The Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil Convention, 1954, London, 12 May 1954, amended 11 April 1962, 21 October 1969, 15 October 1971, 2 November 1973, has being superseded by the more comprehensive International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, London, 2 November 1973 and its 1978 Protocol, London, 17 February 1978 (MARPOL 73/78). MARPOL 73/78 came into force on 2 October 1983, except for Annex II (Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances) (in force 6 April 1987), Annex V (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships) (in force 31 December 1988), Annex III (Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances in Packaged Form) (in force 1 July 1992), Annex IV (Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships) (in force 27 September 2003; revision of April 2004, in force 1 August 2005) and Annex VI (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) (adopted by a Protocol of 26 September 1997, in force 19 May 2005). The Annexes of MARPOL 73/78 have been amended numerous times, most recently in 2004. In particular, Annex I (Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil) and Annex II (Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances) were revised in 2004, the revisions to come into force 1 January 2007. For the States party to the MARPOL 73/78 Convention and its various Annexes, see the IMO website.

The International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in cases of Oil Pollution Casualties (Intervention Convention), Brussels, 29 November 1969, in force 6 May 1975. 83 States were party to the Convention as at 30 September 2006 (see the IMO website. By a London Protocol adopted on 2 November 1973 (in force 30 March 1983) it was made applicable to pollution caused by a list of noxious chemicals other than oil. The 1973 Protocol was in force in some 48 States as at 30 September 2006 (see the IMO website). The list of substances was amended on 4 July 1991 (in force 30 March 1993), 10 July 1996 (in force 19 December 1997) and 11 October 2002 (in force 22 June 2004).

The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969 (C.L.C. 1969), Brussels, 29 November 1969, in force 19 June 1975 (in force in 40 States as at 30 September 2006 - see the IMO website). The C.L.C. 1969 was first amended by a Protocol signed at London on the 19 November 1976 and in force on 8 April 1981, which changed the unit of account under the C.L.C. 1969 from gold francs to Special Drawing Rights (S.D.R.'s). There were 54 States party to the 1976 Protocol as at 30 September 2006 (see the IMO website). The C.L.C. 1969 was again amended on 25 May 1984 by a London Protocol which never came into force and was later superseded by another London Protocol, adopted on 27 November 1992, which came into force on 30 May 1996. There were 114 States party to the C.L.C. 1992 Protocol as at 30 September 2006 - see the IMO website. By virtue of art. 11(2) of the C.L.C. 1992 Protocol, arts. 1 to XII ter of the C.L.C. 1969, as amended by the 1992 Protocol, are now known as the "International Liability Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (1992 Liability Convention)", or the C.L.C. 1992.

Limitations of liability under the C.L.C. 1992 were increased by a resolution of the Legal Committee of the International Maritime Organization (I.M.O.), adopted 18 October 2000, adopting Protocols to the 1992 conventions. The limitations are 89.77 million S.D.R.'s (approx. $115 million. U.S. as of 30 June 2006) for a ship over 140,000 gross register tons under the C.L.C. 1992 and 203 million S.D.R.'s (approx. $260 million U.S. as of 30 June 2006) payable by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (I.O.P.C. Fund). The new limitations came into force 1 November 2003.

The International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (Fund Convention 1971), Brussels, 18 December 1971, in force 16 October 1978. This Convention established the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (I.O.P.C. Fund). The Fund Convention 1971 (no longer in force - see infra) was first amended by a Protocol signed at London on 19 November 1976, which came into force on 22 November 1994, amending art. 4 of the Convention, changing the unit of account under the Fund Convention 1971 from gold francs to Special Drawing Rights (S.D.R.'s). There were still 31 States party to the Fund Protocol 1976 as at 30 September 2006 (see the IMO website). The Fund Convention 1971 was again amended on 25 May 1984 by a London Protocol which never came into force, and was later superseded by another London Protocol, adopted on 27 November 1992, which came into force on 30 May 1996. This Protocol was in force in 98 States as at 30 September 2006 (see the IMO website). By art. 27(2) of the 1992 Protocol, arts. 1 to 36 quinquies of the Fund Convention 1971, as amended by the 1992 Protocol, constitute what is known as the "International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (1992 Fund Convention)" or Fund Convention 1992. It establishes the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (I.O.P.C. Fund) 1992.

By virtue of a further Protocol, amending art. 43.1 of the Fund Convention 1971, adopted on 27 September 2000, and which came into force on 27 June 2001, the Fund Convention 1971 ceased to be in force on 24 May 2002, the number of Contracting States to that Convention having then fallen below twenty-five. Most States which were party to the Fund Convention 1971 have now become parties to the Fund Convention 1992 and members of the I.O.P.C. Fund 1992.

A Protocol was adopted to the Fund Convention 1992 on 16 May 2003 in London, and came into force on 3 March 2005, establishing the International Supplementary Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage. Its object is to provide a third tier of compensation for oil pollution damage, over and above the compensation provided for under the C.L.C. Convention 1992 and the Fund Convention 1992. Participation in the Supplementary Fund will be optional for States party to the Fund Convention 1992. The compensation available from the Supplementary Fund in respect of any one incident will be limited to a combined total of 750 million S.D.R.'s, including the amount of compensation paid under the C.L.C. Convention 1992 and the Fund Convention 1992. Amendments to the compensation limits provided by the Supplementary Fund can be adopted by the tacit acceptance procedure, by the Legal Committee of the International Maritime Organization. The Supplementary Fund and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (I.O.P.C. Fund) share the same director and secretariat in London. As of 30 September 2006, 19 States were party to the 2003 Protocol establishing the Supplementary Fund. See the IMO website.

The International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes Convention, 1972, adopted in quadruplicate at London, Mexico City, Moscow and Washington, 29 December 1972, in force 30 August 1975 (sometimes called the "London Convention 1972"), as amended in London on 12 October 1978 (re incineration - in force 11 March 1979); 24 September 1980 (re list of substances - in force 11 March 1981); 3 November 1989 (re permits under Annex III - in force 19 May 1990); and 12 November 1993 (re low-level nuclear wastes - in force 20 February 1994). 81 States were party to this Convention as at 30 September 2006 (see the IMO website). A Protocol to the Convention was adopted at London on 7 November 1996, which came into force on 24 March 2006, and 29 States were party to the 1996 Protocol as of 30 September 2006. See the IMO website. The 1996 Protocol replaces the 1972 Convention for States party to both instruments.

The Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in case of Marine Pollution by Substances other than Oil, London, 2 November 1973, in force 30 March 1983, and amended 27 February 1978 and 7 September 1984. This Protocol was in force in 48 States as at 30 September 2006 (see IMO website).

The United Nations Law of the Sea Convention 1982, adopted at Montego Bay, Jamaica, 10 December 1982, in force 16 November 1994. This Convention was in force in 149 States as at 1 January 2006. See the UN Treaty website.

The Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation (OPRC) Convention 1990, London, adopted on 30 November 1990, in force 13 May 1995. 88 States were party to the Convention as at 30 September 2006 (see the IMO website). The OPRC Convention 1990 was amended by the "Protocol of 2000 to the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-oeration Relating to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances, 1990" (the "OPRC-HNS Protocol"), adopted in London, 15 March 2000, having been ratified by 15 States, comes into force on 14 June 2007. See IMO website.

The International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS) Convention 1996, London, 3 May 1996, not yet in force. States required for coming into force of the HNS Convention 1996: 12, including 4 each of which has not less than 2 million units of gross tonnage, and provided that persons in these States who would be responsible to pay contributions to the general account have received a total quantity of at least 40 million tonnes of contributing cargo in the preceding calendar year. States party as at 30 September 2006: 8 - Angola, Cyprus, Morocco, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Slovenia and Tonga. See IMO website.

The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001 was adopted at London on 23 March 2001, and will enter into force on 21 November 2008. States required for coming into force: 18, including 5 having ships of combined gross tonnage of at least 1 million tons. States party by 1 May 2008: 21 - Bahamas, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Jamaica, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Tonga and the United Kingdom. See IMO website.

The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, adopted at London 5 October 2001, and will enter into force on 17 September 2008. States required for coming into force: 25, representing 25% of the world's merchant shipping tonnage. States party by 1 May 2008: 29 - Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Bulgaria, Cook Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Poland, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Tuvalu. See IMO website.

The E.U. Environmental Liability Directive, being Directive 2004/35 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remeding of environmental damage, adopted and in force April 21, 2004, requiring all Member-States of the European Union to bring into force their laws, regulations and administrative provisions so as to comply with the Directive, by April 30, 2007.

TOP OF PAGE

(2) Canada

The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act (A.W.P.P. Act), R.C.S. 1985, c. A-12, amended by S.C. 1987, c. 7 which received royal assent on 26 March 1987.

In 1989, Canada acceded to the C.L.C. Convention 1969 and its 1976 Protocol and to the Fund Convention 1971. In 1995, Canada acceded to the 1976 Protocol to the Fund Convention 1971. By legislation adopted in 1987 (in force in 1989) and 1993, amending the former Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-9, Canada implemented (1) the 1969 C.L.C. as amended by the 1976 Protocol, (2) the 1971 Fund Convention as amended by the 1976 Protocol, which came into force on 22 November 1994, and (3)the MARPOL 73/78. In 1998, the former Canada Shipping Act was again amended to give effect to the 1992 Protocols to the C.L.C. Convention 1969 and the Fund Convention 1971.

The C.L.C. Convention 1969 and the Fund Convention 1971, as amended by their respective 1976 and 1992 Protocols (i.e. the C.L.C. Convention 1992 and the Fund Convention 1992) now have the force of law in Canada pursuant to the Marine Liability Act, S.C. 2001, c. 6, Part 6 (Liability and Compensation for Pollution) (sects. 47-105) (in force 8 August 2001). Part 6 includes divisions on "Civil Liability for Pollution" (sects. 51-71) and on "Compensation for Pollution" (sects. 72-105). Part 8 (sects. 165-184) of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, S.C. 2001, c. 26, deals with "Pollution Prevention and Response - Department of Fisheries and Oceans", while Part 9 (sects. 185-193) concerns "Pollution - Department of Transport", thus dividing the responsibility for the prevention of marine pollution in Canada between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Transport.

The Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, as amended by S.C. 1987, c. 7.

The Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, S.C. 1994, c. 22.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, S.C. 1999, c. 33.

Canada has implemented the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes Convention 1972, together with its 1996 Protocol, by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, S.C. 1999, c. 33, Part 7, Division 3, comprising sects. 122-137.

The Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. O-7.

Canada ratified the Law of the Sea Convention 1982 on 7 November 2003 and it came into force for Canada on 7 December 2003.

TOP OF PAGE

(3) United States

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), extensively amended and reorganized by the Act of 18 October 1972, P.L. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816 and the Act of 27 December 1977, P.L. 95-217, 91 Stat. 1566 (also known as the Clean Water Act); amended by the Act of 21 November 1978, P.L. 95-576, 92 Stat. 2467, amended by the Act of 21 October 1980, P.L. 96-483, 94 Stat. 2363; 33 U.S. Code 1251 et seq; and amended in large part by the Oil Pollution Act 1990 (OPA 90), 18 August 1990, P.L. No. 101-380, 104 Stat. 484, 33 U.S. Code 2701-2761.

By its sect. 2004, OPA 90 also replaces or amends the liability provisions of the Trans Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, Act of 16 November 1973, P.L. 93-153, title II, s. 204, 87 Stat. 586; 43 U.S. Code 1653; of the Deep Water Port Act, Act of 3 January 1975, P.l. 93-627, 88 Stat. 2126, amended by the Act of 25 September 1984, P.L. 84-419, 98 Stat. 1607; 33 U.S. Code 1501 et seq; and of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Act of 7 August 1953, c. 345, 67 Stat. 462, 43 U.S. Code 1331 et seq., and especially the 1978 amendments enacted by the Act of 18 September 1978, P.L. 95-372, title III, 92 Stat. 607; 43 U.S. Code 1811 et seq.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), Act of 11 December 1980, P.L. No. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767, 42 U.S. Code sect. 9601-9675, as amended.

TOP OF PAGE

(4) United Kingdom

The Prevention for Oil Pollution Act 1971, (1971) U.K. c. 60, consolidated the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts 1955 to 1971, which had given effect to the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil Convention, 1954, and to the Intervention Convention, 1969. The 1971 Act was slightly amended by the Merchant Shipping (Registration, etc.) Act 1993, U.K. 1993, c. 22, sect. 8(3) and Sch. 14, para. 66.

The Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971, (1971) U.K. c. 59 giving effect to the Civil Liability Convention, 1969.

The Merchant Shipping Act 1974, (1974) U.K., c. 43 giving effect to the Fund Convention, 1971.

The Merchant Shipping Act 1995, U.K. 1995, c. 21, sect. 128 provides for giving effect to the Prevention of Pollution from Ships Convention 1973, the 1973 Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in case of Marine Pollution by Substances other than Oil, the Protocol constituting attachment 2 to the final act of the International Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention, London, 17 February 1978, and to the OPRC Convention 1990. The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution: Substances Other than Oil) (Intervention) Order 1997, SI 1997/1869 (in force 1 September 1997), gives effect to the 1973 Protocol, and prescribes substances other than oil, the threat of pollution from which, following a ship casualty, triggers the Secretary of State's powers of intervention under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, sect. 137, in accordance with s. 138A.

By the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Intervention) Order 1980, SI 1980/1093, adopted under sect. 20 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979, the U.K. gave effect to the Protocol of 2 November 1973 and to the Intervention Convention 1969 applying the Convention to pollution caused by certain harmful chemicals other than oil, enumerated in the Annex to the Protocol.

The Dangerous Vessels Act 1985, U.K. 1985, c. 22.

The Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, U.K. 185, c. 48, Part II which replaced the Dumping at Sea Act 1974, (1974) U.K. c. 20 providing for the ratification of the Dumping from Ships and Aircraft Convention 1972, and the Dumping of Wastes Convention, 1972.

The Merchant Shipping Act 1995, U.K. 1995, c. 21, Chapter III, Part 1 at sects. 152 and 153 gives effect to the C.L.C. 1969, as amended by its 1992 Protocol, refd. to as the "International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1992". See the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, sect. 152(1). At sect. 128(1), the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 also gives the U.K. Government the power to enforce the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, the Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Marine Pollution by Substances other than Oil, 1973, and the OPRC Convention 1990. Sect 129 provides for Orders in Council giving effect to provisions of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, 1982, for the protection or preservation of the marine environment from pollution by matter from ships. See also the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Law of the Sea Convention) Order 1996, SI 1996/282 (in force 28 February 1996).

The Merchant Shipping (Liability and Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage) (Transitional Provisions) (Revocation) Order 1997, SI 1997/2566 (in force 16 May 1998), revokes a transitional order of 1996 concerning the C.L.C. 1969, consequentially upon the U.K.'s ceasing to be a party to the C.L.C. 1969 and thus being a party solely to the C.L.C. 1992 . From May 16, 1998, States party to the 1992 Protocol ceased to be party to the C.L.C. 1969 as the result of a mechanism for compulsory denunciaton of the 1969 regime established by the 1992 Protocol.

The Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Act 2006, U.K. 2006, c. 8, authorized the making of an Order in Council whereby the U.K. could implement the Protocol of 2003 establishing the International Supplementary Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage. The Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) (Supplementary Fund Protocol) Order 2006 (SI 2006/1265) was made on 9 May 2006, amending the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, U.K. 1995, c. 21, so as to give legal effect to the Supplementary Fund Protocol, as well as sect. 20 of the Supreme Court Act 198, U.K. 1981, c. 54.

The Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Act 2006, U.K. 2006, c. 8, further authorized the making of an Order in Council to enable the U.K. to implement Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention 1973/78 (Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) by amending sect. 128 (1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, U.K. 1995, c. 21. Accordingly, on 9 May 2006, the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Order 2006 (SI 2006/1248) was made. The Merchant Shipping (Pollution) Act 2006 also amended sect. 178(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, so as to clarify that the time limit under that statute for claiming compensation from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (I.O.P.C. Fund) is three years from the date when the damage occurred, as provided by art. 6 of the Fund Convention 1992.

The Merchant Shipping (OPRC Convention) Order 1997, SI 1997/2567 (in force 2 December 1997), enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purpose of giving effect to the OPRC Convention 1990, particularly in respect of (1) the carrying out of inspections for that purpose; (2) the extra-territorial operation of the regulations; and (3) punishment for offences relating to specific contraventions of the regulations.

The Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997, U.K. 1997, c. 28, sect. 14 and Schedule 3, adds to Part VI of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, Chapter V (Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances), comprising sects. 182A-182C, and Schedule 5A. This legislation permits the bringing into force of the HNS Convention 1996 by Order in Council, following ratification by the U.K., and also permits effect to be given to it by such an Order whether or not it has come into force.

The United Kingdom acceded to the Law of the Sea Convention 1982 on 25 July 1997. By the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Law of the Sea Convention) Order, SI 1996/282, of 14 February 1996, in force 28 February 1996, the U.K. gave effect to provisions of the Convention dealing with the preservation and protection of the marine environment from pollution by matter from ships.

The Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) (Bunkers Convention) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1244) amending the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, Part 6, Chapter 3, were adopted in order to implement Council Decision 2002/762/EC authorizing the Member States of the European Union, in the interests of the Comunity, to sign, ratify or accede to the The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001.

TOP OF PAGE

(5) France

The Law of 17 December 1926 as amended by Law No. 79-1 of 2 January 1979 (The Disciplinary and Penal Code of the French Merchant Marine) ratifies the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (Law No. 86-1271 of 15 December 1986 extended its scope).

The Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil Pollution, 1954 was promulgated in France by Decree No. 58-922 of 7 October 1958. The 1969 amendment to the Convention was promulgated by Decree No. 78-24 of 4 January 1978. See also Law No. 64-1331 of 26 December 1964 in respect of pollution of the sea by oil, amended by Law No. 73-477 of 16 May 1973 and Law No. 79-5 of 2 January 1979. France also adopted most of the numerous amendments that followed in 1978, in 1989, in 1990, in 1992, in 1995, and in 1996.

The Dumping from Ships and Aircraft Convention, 1972, was authorized for ratification by Law No. 73-1198 of 27 December 1983 and promulgated by Decree No. 74-494 of 17 May 1974. See also Law No. 76-599 of 7 July 1976 and Decree No. 82-842 of 29 September 1982 in respect of dumping from ships and aircraft and in respect of accidental pollution. See also Law No. 76-600 of 7 July 1976 in respect of dumping of incinerated wastes. The Dumping of Wastes Convention, 1972, was promulgated by Decree of 28 September 1977; the 1978 amendment was promulgated by Decree No. 82-426 of 29 May 1982. France is also a party to the Oslo Convention of 15 February 1972 on dumping in the North Sea and North East Atlantic and to the Ospar Convention 1992 on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic.

The 1969 Intervention Convention, was promulgated by Decree No. 75-553 of 26 June 1975. France also put into force the 1973 London Protocol, by Decree No. 86-1076 of 24 September 1986.

The C.L.C., 1969, was ratified on 17 March 1975, came into effect on 26 June 1975 by Decree No. 75-553 and was implemented internally by Law No. 77-530 of 25 May 1977. The 1976 amending Protocol was authorized for ratification by Law No. 79-1148 of 29 December 1979 and promulgated by Decree 81-473 of 7 May 1981. The 1984 Protocol was approved on 8 September 1987, but it never came into force. Authorized by Law No. 94-478 of 10 June 1994, France also approved the 1992 Protocol on 29 September 1994 by Decree No. 96-718 of 7 August 1996, and the Protocol came into force 30 May 1996.

The Fund Convention, 1971, was acceded to in May 1978, was authorized for ratification by Law No. 77-1407 of 23 December 1977 and promulgated by Decree No. 78-1186 of 18 December 1978. The 1976 amending Protocol was authorized for ratification by Law No. 79-1148 of 29 December 1979. And authorized by Law No. 94-479 of 10 June 1994, France approved the 1992 Protocol to the Fund Convention, 1971 on 29 September 1994 by Decree No. 96-719 of 7 August 1996, and the Protocol came into force 30 May 1996.

Law No. 64-1331 of 26 December 1964 on pollution liability and detention of ships, as amended by Law No. 73-477 of 16 May 1973 and Law No. 79-5 of 2 January 1979, was repealed and replaced by Law No. 83-583 of 5 July 1983 which took into account Annex I of the MARPOL 73/78 Convention and which provides for penalties within the meaning of the Intervention Convention 1969. Law No. 83-583 was amended several times, was codified in the Code de l'environnement in 2000, and was further amended in 2001 and 2003. Law No. 2004-204 of 9 March 2004 significantly increased the penal sanctions (imprisonment and fines) for both intentional and accidental pollution caused by the illegal dumping of wastes into French waters.

The Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Soil was authorized for ratification by Law no. 76-1180 of 22 December 1976 and Decree no. 78-605 of 3 May 1978. It was modified by Protocol of 26 March 1986, as of 11 February 1990, to include prevention of transatmosphérique pollution.

The Protection of the Mediterranean Sea from Pollution Convention, Barcelona, 16 February 1976 was authorized for ratification by Law No. 77-1424 of 27 December 1977 and promulgated by Decree No. 78-1000 of 29 September 1978.

The Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil, 1973, as amended was authorized for ratification by Law No. 81-742 of 5 August 1981. Amendments to the Convention's 1978 Protocol were promulgated in 1986 by Decree No. 86-25 of 3 January 1986, in 1997 by Decrees No. 97-610, 97-611 of 31 May 1997 and 97-799 of 22 August 1997, and in 1998 by Decree No. 98-1135 of 9 December 1998.

The Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in cases of Marine Pollution by Substances other than Oil signed in London in 1973 was authorized for ratification by Law No. 85-1172 of 12 November 1985 and promulgated by Decree No. 86-1076 of 24 September 1986.

France authorized the ratification of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention 1982 by Law No. 95-1311 of 21 December 1995, ratified the Convention on 11 April 1996, thus bringing it into force for France on 11 May 1996, and published it by Decree No. 96-774 of 30 August 1996.

TOP OF PAGE

(6) China

China adopted the Intervention Convention 1969, in force May 1990.

The C.L.C. 1969 was acceded to in April 1980, but at the time of depositing its instrument of accession the Representative of the People's Republic of China declared "that the signature to the Convention by Taiwan authorities is illegal and null and void." China also became a party to the C.L.C. PROT 1976 on 29 September 1986, notifying that "…the value of the national currency, in terms of S.D.R., of the People's Republic of China is calculated in accordance with the method of valuation applied by the International Monetary Fund." And just recently, the C.L.C. PROT 1992 was adopted on 29 March 1999.

The International Convention on the Prevention of Maritime Pollution by Dumping of Wastes Convention, 1972, came in force for China in December 1985.

China became a party to the MARPOL 73/78 in May 1990.

Several statutes and bylaws were also enacted in China with respect to pollution, e.g. the Maritime Environment Protection Law of China, 1982; the Bylaw of Environment Protection for Maritime Exploitation of Oil of China, 1983; the Administrative Regulation of Dumping of Wastes in Ocean, 1985.

China ratified the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention 1982 on 7 June 1996.

TOP OF PAGE

XII. Arbitration

TOP OF PAGE

(1) International

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) adopted on 10 June 1958, in force 7 June 1959. States party as at 1 May 2005: 135. See UN Treaty website.

The Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (Panama Convention), adopted by the Organization of American States (OAS) at the Specialized Inter-American Conference on Private International Law, in Panama City on 30 January 1975; in force 16 June 1976. States party as at 13 April 2005: 18 - Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela. See OAS website.

The Inter-American Convention on Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards, (Montevideo Convention), adopted by the Organization of American States (OAS) at the Specialized Inter-American Conference on Private International Law, at Montevideo, 8 May 1979; in force 14 June 1980. States party as at 13 April 2005: 10 -Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela. See OAS website.

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985, adopted on 21 June 1985 ("UNCITRAL Model Law 1985"). Legislation based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 has been enacted in Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bermuda, Bulgaria, Canada (by the federal Parliament and all provinces and territories), Chile, in China: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Macau Special Administrative Region; Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Oman, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukraine, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Scotland; in Bermuda, overseas territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; within the United States of America: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Oregon and Texas; Zambia, and Zimbabwe. See UNCITRAL website.

TOP OF PAGE

(2) Canada

The United Nations Foreign Arbitral Awards Convention Act, S.C. 1986, c. 21, ratifying the New York Convention, 1958.

The Commercial Arbitration Act, S.C. 1986, c. 22, ratifying the UNCITRAL Model Law 1985.

Also, the 10 provinces and 2 territories all adopted the two conventions in 1986.

TOP OF PAGE

(3) United Kingdom

The Arbitration Act 1950, 1950 U.K., c. 27, amended by the Arbitration Act 1979, 1979 U.K. c. 42.

The Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966, 1966 U.K., c. 41.

The Arbitration Act 1975, 1975 U.K. c. 3 giving effect to the New York Convention, 1958.

By virtue of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, 1990 U.K., c. 40, sect. 66 and Sch. 7., only Scotland is a party to the UNCITRAL Model Law 1985.

The Arbitration Act 1996, 1996 U.K., c. 23, assented to on 17 June 1996, SI 1996/3146, which continues to enforce Geneva Convention awards and New York Convention awards under the 1950 Act.

TOP OF PAGE

(4) United States

The United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S. Code sects. 1-14, first enacted 12 February 1925 (43 Stat. 883), codified 30 July 1947 (61 Stat. 669) and amended on 3 September 1954 (68 Stat. 1233). Chap. 2 was added on 31 July 1970 (84 Stat. 692); sect. 15 was added 16 November 1988 (102 Stat. 3969); sect. 16 was added 19 November 1988 (102 Stat. 4671) and redesignated 1 December 1990 (104 Stat. 5120); Chap. 3 was added 15 August 1990 (104 Stat. 448).

The U.S. is a party to the New York Convention,1958, but not the UNCITRAL Model Law 1985.

TOP OF PAGE

(5) France

France enacted the New York Convention, 1958 by Decree No. 80-354 of 14 May 1980, in force 1 October 1980, codified as arts. 1442 to 1507 of the New Code of Civil Procedure by Decree No. 81-500 of 12 May 1981.

France has not yet adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law 1985.

TOP OF PAGE

(6) China

China acceded to the New York Convention on 2 December 1986.

The People's Republic of China: Arbitration Law, promulgated 31 August 1994, in force 1 September 1994.

TOP OF PAGE

XIII. Carriage of Passengers

TOP OF PAGE

(1) International

The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Carriage of Passengers by Sea (the "Passenger Convention 1961") was adopted in Brussels on 29 April 1961 and came into force on 4 June 1965. It was in force in 11 States as of 1 May 2005 (see the IMO website), but never achieved general acceptance among major shipping nations, with the exception of France. France, however, denounced the Convention in 1975, alhtough national legislation based on it is still in force there. See infra.

The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Carriage of Passengers' Luggage by Sea (the "Luggage Convention 1967") was adopted in Brussels on 27 May 1967 but never came into force. States required for coming into force: 5. States party as at 1 May 2005: 2 (Algeria and Cuba). The Luggage Convention 1967 nevertheless served as the basis for national legislation in France (see infra).

The Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (the "Athens Passenger Convention 1974") was adopted in Athens on 13 December 1974 and came into force on 28 April 1987. The Convention was in force in 31 States as at 31 March 2005. See the IMO website. A Protocol to the Athens Passenger Convention 1974, replacing the poincaré gold franc (p.g.f.) limitations of liability of the carrier by limitations expressed in Special Drawing Rights (S.D.R.'s), was adopted in London on 19 November 1976 and came into force on 10 April 1989. The 1976 Protocol was in force in 25 States as at 31 March 2005. See the IMO website. A further Protocol was adopted in London on 29 March 1990. It never came into force, because it required the adherence of 10 States and had only 5 State parties (Albania, Croatia, Egypt, Spain and Tonga). See the IMO website. Nevertheless, the 1990 Protocol was enacted into national law by various countries, including Canada (infra), China (infra) and the Nordic countries. The 1990 Protocol was superseded by another Protcol, adopted in London on 1 November 2002, which, however, is not yet in force. The 2002 Protocol again increases the carrier's limitations of liability, authorizes their subsequent adjustment using the tacit acceptance procedure, provides for a measure of strict liability, introduces compulsory insurance for carriers, reverses the burden of proof in some cases, and permits an increase of some limitations by national legislation. States required for coming into force of the 2002 Protocol: 10. States party as at 31 March 2005: 3 (Albania, Latvia and Syrian Arab Republic). See the IMO website.

In brief, the Athens Passenger Convention 1974 applies to the international carriage of passengers (but not guests or stowaways) and their luggage aboard a ship flying the flag of a Contracting State, or under a contract of carriage made in such a State or where embarkation or disembarkation occurs there. Carriers and performing carriers are made jointly and severally liable, from embarkation to disembarkation (including periods of water carriage to and from the ship), for the bodily injury or death of passengers, and for loss of or damage to their luggage, occurring in the course of the carriage, due to the carrier's fault or neglect or that of its servants or agents acting within the scope of their employement. The Convention enacts specific rules on burden of proof and provides a rebuttable presumption of fault on the part of the carrier in cases of shipwreck, collison, stranding, explosion, fire or defect of the ship. The time for suit is two years from the date disembarkation occurred or should have occurred (or from the date of post-disembarktion death caused by an injury during the carriage, but no later than three years from the date of disembarkation). The passenger also has an option as to places in which to sue or arbitrate.

The carrier's limitations of liability under the Athens Passenger Convention 1974, as amended by its 1976, 1990 and 2002 Protocols, are as follows:
a) for personal injury or death (per passenger/per carriage):
700,000 p.g.f. (1974 Convention); 46,666 S.D.R.'s (1976 Protocol); 175,000 S.D.R's (1990 Protocol); 250,000 S.D.R.'s (2002 Protocol);
b) for loss of or damage to cabin luggage (per passenger/per carriage): 12,500 p.g.f. (1974 Convention); 833 S.D.R.'s (1976 Protocol); 1,800 S.D.R.'s (1990 Protocol); 2,250 S.D.R.'s (2002 Protocol);
c) for loss of or damage to other luggage (per passenger/per carriage): 18,000 p.g.f. (1974 Convention); 1,200 S.D.R.'s (1976 Protocol); 2,700 S.D.R.'s (1990 Protocol); 3,375 S.D.R.'s (2002 Protocol);
d) for loss of or damage to a vehicle or its contents (per vehicle/per carriage): 50,000 p.g.f. (1974 Convention); 3,300 S.D.R.'s (1976 Protocol); 10,000 S.D.R.'s (1990 Protocol); 12,700 S.D.R.'s (2002 Protocol).
These limitations may be broken only on proof that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier or of his servants or agents, done with the intent to cause the damage or recklessly and with knowledge that the damage would probably result. The applicable limits of liability may not be reduced by contract, although the parties may agree to higher limitations. The carrier may be exonerated or its liability may be reduced, however, on proof of contributory negligence on the part of the passenger.

The carrier and the passengers may also contract for deductibles as follows:
a) for loss of or damage to a vehicle (per vehicle/per carriage): 1,750 p.g.f. (1974 Convention); 117 S.D.R.'s (1976 Protocol); 300 S.D.R.'s (1990 Protocol); 330 S.D.R.'s (2002 Protocol); and
b) for loss of or damage to other luggage (per passenger/per carriage): 200 p.g.f. (1974 Convention); 13 S.D.R.'s (1976 Protocol); 135 S.D.R.'s (1990 Protocol); 149 S.D.R.'s (2002 Protocol).

TOP OF PAGE

(2) Canada

Prior to 2001, the carriage of passengers by water in Canada was subject to Canadian maritime law, with its mixed common law and civilian heritage. Accordingly, carriers enjoyed considerable freedom to contract out of liability for harm sustained by pssengers, even if it resulted from their own neligence or that of their servants or agents. The non-responsibility clause had to be clear, however, and reasonable notice had to be given to the passenger, nor could the clause excuse gross negligence.

Although Canada never ratified or acceded to any international convention on the responsibility of the carrier of passengers, Canada gave the force of law to the Athens Passenger Convention 1974, as amended by its 1990 Protocol, by the Marine Liability Act, S.C. 2001, c. 6, Part 4 and Schedules 1 and 2 (in force 8 August 2001). For the purposes of applying the Convention, Canada is declared a State party (Marine Liability Act, sect. 38). In giving effect to the Convention, Canada extended its application, so as to include a very wide definition of "ship", the carriage of passengers on inland waterways as well as by sea, and the carriage of passengers otherwise than under a contract of carriage (e.g. where one person purchases tickets for a number of other individuals or where a bus operator includes ferry transport in the cost of the bus trip).

TOP OF PAGE

(3) United States

The United States is a not party to any international convention on the carriage of passengers or their luggage by sea. Contracts for the carriage of passengers by water are regarded in the U.S. as maritime contracts falling within U.S. admiralty jurisdiction and subject to U.S. federal maritime law (i.e. the general maritime law), augmented by few statutory porivisions. Carriers are liable for negligence in failing to exercise "reasonable care" of passengers and guests on the vessel, but are not liable for harm to trespassers or stowaways (see Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique 358 U.S. 625, 1959 AMC 597 (1959)). Carriers are strictly liable, in most U.S. Circuits, for intentional torts committed by their crewmembers against passengers(e.g. assasults, harassment or fraud). The Circuits are divided, however, as to whether the carrier's strict liability in such cases arises wherever its servants deliberately commit such torts, or only where the wrongdoing occurs in the scope of employment of the employees concerned. Exemption and limitation clauses in passenger tickets are not valid to relieve the carrier from liabiilty for loss of life or personal injury caused to pssengers by the carrier's negligence or that of its servants or agents (46 U.S. Code 30509, formerly 46 U.S.C. Appx. 183c). Such provisions may be effective, however, in respect of claims for loss of or damage to luggage and effects of passengers, provided the provisions concerned are "reasonable under the circumstances" and are reasonably communicated to the passengers. The normal time for suit is three years for bodily injuries under 46 U.S. Code 30106 (formerly 46 U.S. Code Appx. 763a), but it may be restricted by reasonable contractual provisions adequately communicated to the passenger. Carriers may not, however, provide by contract for a period shorter than six months for notification by claimants of death or bodily injury claims (46 U.S. Code 30508(b)(1), formerly 46 U.S.C. Appx. 183b(a)), nor for a limitation period of less than one year for the taking of suit on such claims. Forum selection clauses in passenger tickets are generally given effect by U.S. courts, except where they are found fundamentally unfair. See Carnival Cruise Lines Inc. v. Shute 499 U.S. 585, 1991 AMC 1697 (1991).

TOP OF PAGE

(4) United Kingdom

Traditionally, the carriage of passengers in England was subject to the common law, which imposed on carriers an obligation of reasonable care, but which also afforded them considerable latitude to contract out of liability by exemption and limitation clauses in their passenger tickets, even in respect of harm caused to passengers by their own negligence or that of of their servants or agents. Over time, English courts gradually restricted this wide freedom of contract, requiring clarity in the non-responsibility clauses and reasonable notification of the passengers.

The U.K. first gave the force of law to the Athens Passenger Convention 1974 by the Merchant Shipping Act 1979, U.K. 1979, c. 39, sects. 14 and 16 and Schedule 3, effective 1 January 1981. The Convention now has the force of law in the U.K. by virtue of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, U.K. 1995, c. 21, sect. 183 and Schedule 6, Part I.

TOP OF PAGE

(5) France

Under the traditional civil law in France, carriers were rebuttably presumed responsible for bodily injury or death sustained by passengers under contracts of carriage by water, and could only escape that liabiity by proving that the harm was attributable to irresistible force (force majeure), the fault of the victim or the fault of a third party. Carriers could also benefit from exemption and limitation clauses, although such provisions could not excuse acts or omissions tantamount to fraud (dol) or gross negligence (faute lourde). Claimants sometimes circumvented these contractual bars by taking suit in delict or quasi-delict against the carrier or his individual employees.

France ratified the Passenger Convention 1961 on 4 March 1965. The Convention came into force for that country on 4 June 1965 and was published by Decree No. 65-533 of 1 July 1965. France incorporated the Convention's provisions into its internal law by Law No. 66-420 of 18 June 1966 (arts. 33-42) and Decree No. 66-1078 of 31 December 1966 (arts. 60-74). The carrier's limitation of liability for claims for bodily injury or death of passengers was first set at 82,000 p.g.f. per passenger by Decree No. 67-268 of 23 March 1967. This limitation was increased to 46,666 S.D.R.'s per passenger, not to exceed 25 million S.D.R.'s for any occurrence, by art. 4 of Law No. 86-1292 of 23 December 1986 amending art. 40 of Law No. 66-420, thus reflecting the carrier's limitation under art. 7(1) of the Limitation Convention 1976.

Law No. 66-420, art. 40 as amended, unlike the 1961 and 1974 passenger conventions, also provides for a limit for delay in the carriage of passengers and their luggage, being 167,000 S.D.R.'s for a ship with a tonnage not exceeding 500 tons, plus 167 S.D.R.'s for each ton from 501 to 30,000; plus 125 S.D.R.'s for each ton from 30,001 to 70,000, plus 83 S.D.R.'s for each ton exceeding 70,000 (these limitations reflecting art. 6(1)(b) of the Limitation Convention 1976.

All limitations are breakable only on proof that the loss or damage resulted from the personal act or omission of the carrier or its servants or agents, committed with intent to cause the damage or recklessly and with knowledge that the damage would probably result. Although France denounced the Passenger Convention 1961 on 3 December 1975, Law No. 66-420 as amended, in respect of passenger claims, continues to be in force as part of France's national law.

France, although it denounced the Passenger Convention 1961 in 1975, has not become party to the Athens Passenger Convention 1974, although that Convention may apply in France where designated by the country's private international rules on contract, notably the Rome Convention 1980.

France never became party to the Luggage Convention 1967 but its provisions inspired national legislation in Law No. 66-420 of 18 June 1966 (arts. 43-46) and Decree No. 66-1078 of 31 December 1966 (arts. 75-77). The limitations for baggage were established in poincaré gold francs (p.g.f.) by arts. 3 and 4 of Decree No. 67-268 of 23 March 1967, were increased by Decree No. 86-1065 of 24 September 1986 and were then converted to euros by Decree No. 2001-861 of 18 September 2001 (in force 1 January 2002). These limits are now as follows: 1,140 euros per passenger for cabin luggage (bagages de cabine); 4,600 euros per vehicle (véhicule de tourisme), including luggage contained in it; 1520 euros per passenger for luggage other than that mentioned above (carried in the hold), and 460 euros per passenger for personal effects and unregistered cabin luggage (effets personnels et bagages de cabine non enregistrés). These limitations can be broken on proof of the carrier's fraud (dol) or inexcusable fault (faute inexcusable). Valuable deposited by the passenger with the master or purser are not subject to any limitations of carrier liability, however.

TOP OF PAGE

(6) China

China acceded to the Athens Passenger Convention 1974 on 1 June 1994 and it came into force in that country on 31 August 1994. The provisions of the Convention are reflected in the Chinese Maritime Code 1993 at arts. 107-126. The Code also makes provision for national limitations of liability of the carrier in the case of carriage of passengers between ports of the People's Republic of China.

Appendix "B".doc

1. S.D.R. ("D.T.S.- Droits de tirage spéciaux") [Span.: "Derechos especiales de giro"] [Ital.: "D.S.P., diritti speciali di prelievo"] - Special Drawing Rights are an international value used to provide a regular comparative evaluation by the International Monetary Fund of the currency of member nations. Value of a national currency will rise in S.D.R.s as the value of the national currency rises on the world market. S.D.R.s therefore are a fair evaluation of the comparison of national currencies one with another and as such useful as a valuation for limitation in an international convention. If S.D.R.s adjust to the rise and fall of the currency of a single nation as compared with other nations, they do not adjust to world inflation and as a result, the limitation of liability in S.D.R.s in various conventions has fallen as all currencies have inflated. In this respect, S.D.R.s are unsatisfactory. Gold does adjust to world inflation over very long periods of time, but in the short run suffers violent fluctuations in value. Gold has also been controlled in price by many countries at various times. Both S.D.R.s and gold suffer from the reluctance of many nations to comply with a market evaluation of their currency.

 

For the period 2001-2005, as determined by the International Monetary Fund, the value of the S.D.R. is equal to the market value of fixed amounts of four currencies, the U.S. dollar 45%, the euro 29%, the British pound sterling 11% and the Japanese yen 15%. (Up to December 31, 1980, there were 16 currencies in the basket). If any of the component currencies weaken, the assumption is that other component currencies will strengthen, thus moderating fluctuations in the S.D.R.'s value.

As of 1 May 2005, the S.D.R. is worth approx. $1.51 U.S., $1.89 CDN, £1.29 pounds sterling and €0.85 Euros.

2. Poincaré gold franc (p.g.f.)- One p.g.f. is 65.6 milligrams of gold of millesimal fineness 900. It was first defined by the French Law of June 25, 1928 and named after Raymond Poincaré, the French Prime Minister who stabilized the currency of France.

TOP OF PAGE

The p.g.f. is worth approximately 13 cents CDN or approximately 10 cents US.