No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Proposed Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods: A Progress Report*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2016
Extract
The Growth of containerization and new transport technologies has encouraged widespread use of the international multimodal transport of goods. This development has given birth to the multimodal transport operator (MTO) who, contracting as a principal and not necessarily being a carrier, undertakes complete responsibility vis-à-vis a consignor for the transport of the consignor’s goods from the place of origin or acceptance situated in one country to the place of final destination or delivery situated in another country. The multimodal transport contract, which is sui generis, provides for the MTO to furnish or procure transport on each stage of the transport, whether by air, inland waterway, sea, rail, or road. There will be no contractual relationship between the original consignor and the stage carriers or even non-carriers (for example, warehousemen) who will be subcontractors of the MTO.
- Type
- Notes and Comments
- Information
- Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 17 , 1980 , pp. 247 - 279
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1980
References
1 For a general description of a user’s and supplier’s view of international multimodal transport, see TD/B/AC.15/7/Add. 1 15/7/74. Documents in this series have been issued by the Trade and Development Board (TD) of the United Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Two annexes hereto contain references to the main documents and instruments associated with the work of the Intergovernmental Preparatory Group (IPG) of the TD, thus : Annex 1 — Main documentation published in connection with the work of the Intergovernmental Preparatory Group (IPG) of the TD of the UNCTAD; Annex 2 — Unimodal Conventions.
2 For a description of the work carried out during this period, see FitzGerald, Gerald F., “Proposed Convention on the International Combined Transport of Goods: Implications for International Civil Aviation”(1973), 11 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 166–92Google Scholar; Mankabady, S., “Some Legal Aspects of the Carriage of Goods by Container”(1974), 23 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 317–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Massey, Eugene, “Prospects for a New Intermodal Legal Regime: A Critical Look at the TCM”(1971–72), 3 J. Mar. L. & Com. 725–57.Google Scholar
3 At the present time, the Group of 77 numbers some 119 states. The three main groups of states participating in UNCTAD bodies are: Group В — industrially developed states with market economies (including Canada) ; Group D — socialist states of eastern Europe; Group of 77 — developing states of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
4 E/CONF.59/47 February 5, 1973 Report on the United Nations/IMCO Conference on International Container Traffic held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, from November 13 to December 2, 1972.
5 E/RES/1734 (LIV)—Recommendations of the United Nations/IMCO Conference on International Container Traffic.
6 Of which fifty-six attended the Sixth Session of the IPG. Canada has been present at all sessions of the IPG which, for convenience, may be referred to as: IPG1, IPG2, IPG3 (1st part), IPG3 (2nd part), IPG4, IPG5, and IPG6.
7 For example, fourteen states, members of the UNCTAD, but not of the IPG, were present at the Sixth Session of the IPG.
8 For example, there were present at IPG6 representatives of the Economic Commission for Europe (ECA), the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), eight other intergovernmental organizations, and ten non-governmental organizations.
9 For a description of the work carried out during the first four sessions of the IPG, see Driscoll, William, “The Convention on International Multimodal Transport”(1978), 9 J. Mar. L. & Com. 441–60.Google Scholar
10 For the text of the Common Understanding, see TD/B/640, TD/B/AC.15/ 33, Annex 1.
11 For the provisions on documents, see TD/B/640, TD/B/AC.15/a3, Annex 4. For a discussion on documents, see TD/B/AC.15/7/Add. 2.
12 For provisions on the scope of application, see TD/B/640, TD/B/AC. 15/23, Annex 4. For a discussion on the scope of application, see TD/B/AC. 15/7/ Add. 5 and Corr. 1.
13 Documents on consultation include TD/B/AC. 15/28, TD/B/AC.15/36, and TD/B/AC. 15/38.
14 Documents on customs include TD/B/AC. 15/7/Add. 4, TD/B/AC.15/16 and Corr. 1, TD/B/AC.15/27, TD/B/AC. 15/39, and TD/B/AC. 15/51.
15 Documents on liability and insurance include TD/B/AC. 15/Add. 3, TD/B/ AC.15/L.11, TD/B/AC.15/14, TD/B/AC.15/25, TD/B/AC.15/29 and Corr. 1, TD/B/AC.15/52, and TD/B/AC. 15/55.
16 A document on draft preambular clauses is TD/B/AC. 15/26.
17 For the provisions on liability (there being no provisions on insurance), see TD/B/731, TD/B/AC.15/4B, Annex 1, 2–8.
18 For provisions on claims and actions, see TD/B/731, TD/B/AC.15/48, Annex 1, 8–11.
19 See TD/B/AC.15/50.
20 For the text, see TD/MT/CONF./1, TD/B/AC. 15/56, Part One.
21 See United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978 in U.N. Doc. A/CONF.89/13 March 30, 1978. Final Act of the United Nations Conference on the Carriage of Goods by Sea. Annex 1.
22 The International Chamber of Commerce Uniform Rules for a Combined Transport Document, 1975. ICC Headquarters, 38, Cours Albert 1er, 75008, Paris, France.
23 Indeed, while the Hague Protocol (1955) to Amend the Warsaw Convention (1929) provided that: “Nothing in this Convention prevents the issue of a negotiable air waybill,”this provision was dropped in Montreal Protocol No. 4 (1955).
24 While the Warsaw Convention provides for a rebuttable presumption of the liability of the air carrier in the carriage of cargo by air, Montreal Protocol No. 4, which is not yet in force, provides for strict liability of the air carrier in the case of the loss of or damage to cargo, and retains the presumed liability regime only for the case of delay in the carriage of cargo.
25 For the method of valuation of the Special Drawing Right, see Decision No. 5718 (78/36), March 31, 1978, in Gold, Joseph, Use, Conversion and Exchange of Currency under the Second Amendment of the Fund’s Articles, IMF Pamphlet Series, No. 23, at 112–13 (1978).Google Scholar For further information on the SDR, see Gold, Joseph, A Third Report on Some Recent Legal Developments in the International Monetary Fund, 35–43,Google Scholar (published by the World Association of Lawyers, Washington, 1978), and Gold, Joseph, SDRs, Gold, and Currencies: Third Survey of New Legal Developments, IMF Pamphlet Series, No. 26 (1980).Google Scholar
26 FitzGerald, op. cit. supra note 2, at 177–78.
27 Probably excluding provisions on such matters as claims and actions.
28 The Groups of 77 and D were for the deletion of the words “the contract for”; but Group B states were opposed to this since they did not want the provisions to apply to extracontractual actions. The conference will have to settle this question.
29 Discussed above in relation to Alternative В of Article 19 of the draft MT Convention.
30 Discussed above in relation to Alternative A of Article 19 of the draft MT Convention.
31 See the paper by Professor D. C. Jackson in TD/B/AC. 15/53.
32 The MT Convention would contain a short article on customs with more detailed provisions on guidelines in an Annex which would still be part of the Convention.
33 These words are still in square brackets.
34 See ICAO Doc. 9271 LC/182 28/5/79 Legal Committee 24th Session (Montreal, May 7-18, 1979). Summary Report on the Work of the Legal Committee during Its 24th Session, 15–63.
* Most, if not all, of these topics are also discussed in reports of the IPG sessions.