DR. STEVEN L. SNELL slsnell@mindspring.com

DR. STEVEN L. SNELL slsnell@mindspring.com SYLLABUS: ADMIRALTY (LAW-603: 2 CREDITS) The casebook for this course will be CASES AND MATERIALS ON ADMIRALTY (5 th ed., Nicholas J. Healy, David J. Sharpe & David B. Sharpe eds., 2012) [ISBN: 978-0-314-27512-7] which contains the excerpts of the cases listed on this syllabus. (Page numbers for cases listed on the syllabus are those of the 5 th edition of the casebook.) In addition, the law review articles and excerpts from books that are listed on the syllabus will be available either through online services such as Lexis, Westlaw, and Hein Online or through MyWCL. Some of these supplemental readings will be assigned for discussion in class; most are provided as an introductory bibliography for those students who may wish to do research and writing in the field of admiralty law in the future. Portions of the monograph Courts of Admiralty and the Common Law: Origins of the American Experiment in Concurrent Jurisdiction [ISBN: 978-1-59460-173-6] are assigned reading for the course. Copies will be for sale at the bookstore and online from the publisher, Carolina Academic Press - and two copies are on reserve in the library. There will be a take-home examination at the end of the semester. WEEK 1 WEEK 4 JURISDICTION The introductory segments will examine the struggle between the common lawyers and the doctors of civil law in England in the seventeenth century and its impact on American colonial vice-admiralty jurisdiction. Progressing from the structure of maritime jurisdiction under the Articles of Confederation, the course will also examine the drafting of the Admiralty clause of the Constitution and the Saving to Suitors Clause of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Finally, the course will examine judicial attempts to grapple with concurrent state/federal maritime jurisdiction including gap theory, the maritime but local approach, and interest balancing. Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, sec. 9, 1 Stat. 73, 77 Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, sec. 1, 62 Stat. 931 Act of May 24, 1949, ch. 139, sec. 79, 63 Stat. 101 Delovio v. Boit (Case No. 3,776), 7 F. Cas. 418 (Story, J. 1815), pp. 7-13. Steven L. Snell, Courts of Admiralty and the Common Law: Origins of the American Experiment in Concurrent Jurisdiction (2007), pp. 83-123, 289-303, 400-434. George F. Steckley, Merchants and the Admiralty Court during the English Revolution, 22 Am. J. Leg. Hist. 137 (1978)

The Thomas Jefferson, 23 U.S. 428 (Story, J., 1825), p. 18 (excerpt); LEXIS (whole case) Peyroux v. Howard, 32 U.S. 324 (1833), p. 18 Waring v. Clarke, 46 U.S. 441 (1846), pp. 19-20 The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 53 U.S. 443 (1851), pp. 21-24 Fretz v. Bull, 53 U.S. 466 (1851), LEXIS (whole case) Jackson v. The Steamboat Magnolia, 61 U.S. 296 (1857), pp. 14-17 Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (McReynolds, J., 1917), LEXIS (whole case including dissent by Holmes) Frederick Bausman, Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction, 36 Am. L. Rev. 182 (1902) William R. Casto, The Origins of Federal Admiralty Jurisdiction in an Age of Privateers, Smugglers, and Pirates, 37 Am. J. Leg. Hist. 117 (1993) Kossick v. United Fruit Co., 365 U.S. 731 (1961), pp. 87-92 David W. Robertson, Displacement of State Law by Federal Maritime Law, 26 J. Mar. L. & Com. 325-348 (1995) Moragne v. United States Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375 (1970), pp. 594-597 Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19 (1990), pp. 600-604 Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (1996) LEXIS (whole case) Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 78 U.S. 1 (1871), p. 30 North Pacific Steamship Co. v. Hall Brothers, 249 U.S. 119 (1919), pp. 30-32 The Plymouth, 70 U.S. 20 (1866), pp. 24-25 United States v. Matson Nav. Co., 201 F.2d 610 (9 th Cir. 1953), [4 th edition of casebook, pp.27-28, available on MyWCL in PDF format] Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972), pp. 32-32 Foremost Insurance Co. v. Richardson, 457 U.S. 668 (1982), pp. 37-40 Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (1990), pp. 40-43 Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995), pp. 43-47 In re Three Buoys Houseboat Vacations U.S.A., Ltd., 951 F.2d 775 (8 th Cir. 1990), pp. 49-50 Supplemental Sir Edward Coke, The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (London: E. & R. Brooke, 1798), Ch. XXII at 134-136 [available in PDF format on MyWCL] Sir Leoline Jenkins, Argument, in Behalf of a Bill to Ascertain the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty, in the House of Lords (1670), reprinted in William Wynne, The Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins (1724) [available in PDF format on MyWCL] Arthur Browne, A Compendious View of the Civil Law and of the Law of Admiralty (2 vols., 1 st American ed., 1840), Vol. II, pp. 409-410 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1 st ed. 1765-1769), Book III, Ch. 7, pp. 113-114 [available in PDF format on MyWCL] An Act Extending the Jurisdiction of the District Courts of the United States to Certain Cases upon the Lakes and Navigable Water Connecting the Same, 5 Stat. 726 (1845)

David P. Currie, Federalism and Admiralty: The Devil s Own Mess, 1960 Sup. Ct. Rev. 138 (1960) David J. Bederman, Uniformity, Delegation, and the Dormant Admiralty Clause, 28 J. Mar. L. & Com. 325 (1997) The Moses Taylor, 71 U.S. 411 (1866) The Belfast, 74 U.S. 624 (1868) The Eagle, 75 U.S. 15 (1868) The Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. 557 (1870) The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199 (1886) The Hamilton, 207 U.S. 398 (1907) Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U.S. 233, 242 (1921) Just v. Chambers, 312 U.S. 383 (1941) Caldarola v. Eckert, 332 U.S. 155 (1947) The Tungus v. Skovgaard, 358 U.S. 588 (1959) Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (1959) Goett v. Union Carbide Corp., 361 U.S. 340, 346 (1960) Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Garris, 523 U.S. 811 (2001) WEEK 5 GENERAL AVERAGE The origins of this oldest of maritime claims can be traced to both the Corpus Juris Civilis and the Rhodian Sea-Laws, and was preserved with subtle variations in form in the various sea-laws of the middle ages. The concept of general average has no parallel in the common law. If a portion of a vessel s cargo is jettisoned to save the remainder of the cargo and/or the ship itself, the owners of the surviving property must partially compensate the owner of the jettisoned cargo for his/her loss. This session will examine the development of general average, examining statutory sources and case law, as well as the York-Antwerp Rules (2004). Barnard v. Adams, 51 U.S. 270 (1850), pp. 808-811 Corfu Navigation Co. v. Mobile Shipping ( The Alpha ), 2 Lloyd s Reports 515 (Q.B. 1991), pp. 815-816 Ralli v. Troop, 157 U.S. 386 (1895), pp. 803-806 Ravenscroft v. United States ( The West Imboden ), 301 U.S. 707 (2d Cir. 1937), pp. 806-808 Navigazione Generale Italiana v. Spencer Kellogg & Sons, Inc ( The Mincio ), 92 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1937), pp. 812-814 The Jason, 225 U.S. 32 (1912), pp. 816-820 Master Shipping Agency, Inc. v. The Farida, 571 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1978), pp. 820-823 Eagle Terminal Tankers v. Insurance Co. of U.S.S.R., 637 F.2d 890 (2d Cir. 1981), pp. 823-827 Supplemental Corpus Juris Civilis: Digest. 14.2.1-2

Steven L. Snell, Courts of Admiralty and the Common Law: Origins of the American Experiment with Concurrent Jurisdiction (2007), Ch. I at 52-59 York-Antwerp Rules (1994) [available in PDF format on MyWCL] WEEK 6 SALVAGE When a vessel founders, those who save all or portions of the vessel or its cargo are entitled to compensation a salvage award. The size of this award varies with the value of the property salved and the difficulty of the salvage-operations. This session will examine both pure salvage and contract-salvage as well as the issue of whether a wreck has been abandoned by its owners. The Sabine, 101 U.S. 384 (1879) Phelan v. Minges 170 F. Supp. 826 (D. Mass., 1959) Merritt & Chapman Derrick & Wrecking Co. v. United States, 274 U.S. 611 (1927) Historic Aircraft Recovery Corp. v. Wrecked and Abandoned Corsair Aircraft, 294 F. Supp. 2d 132 (2003) Casebook: Note on Salvable Property, pp. 725-726 Bertel v. Panama Transportation Co., 202 F.2d 247 (2 nd Cir. 1953), LEXIS; [4 th edition, pp. 732-733, available on MyWCL in PDF format] The Odenwald, 71 F. Supp. 314 (1947), pp. 730-734 The Blackwall, 77 U.S. 1 (1870), pp. 734-735 Margate Shipping Co. v. The J. H. Orgeron [ The Cherry Valley ], 143 F.3d 976 (5 th Cir. 1998), pp. 736-743 Casebook: Note on Salvage Rewards, pp. 742-744; Note on Salvage Conventions, pp. 744-748 Semco Salvage Marine v. Lancer Navigation Co. [ The Nagasaki Spirit ], pp. 748-755 The Elfrida, 172 U.S. 186 (1898), pp. 755-758 Flagship Marine Services Inc. v. Belcher Towing Co., 966 F.2d 602 (11 th Cir. 1993), pp. 758-762 Peninsular & Oriental Steamship Navigation Co. v. Overseas Oil Carriers, Inc., 553 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1997), pp. 762-767 Henner v. United States, 525 F. Supp. 350 (S.D.NY 1981), pp. 768-771 The Central America (I), 974 F.2d 450 4 th Cir. 1992), pp. 771-775 The Central America (II), 56 F.3d 556 (4 th Cir. 1995), pp. 775-779 The Titanic (I), 171 F.3d 943 (4 th Cir. 1999), pp. 779-787 The Titanic (II), 286 F.3d. 194 (4 th Cir. 2002), pp. 787-789 The Brother Jonathan, 533 U.S. 491 (1998), pp. 789-795 Supplemental The Bolivar v. The Chalmette, 3 F. Cas. 818 (E.D. Tex. 1872) Lloyd s Open Form ( LOF ), pp. 746-747 Salvage Convention of 1989 [available in PDF format online on MyWCL]

UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage [available online in PDF format on MyWCL] WEEK 7 PILOTAGE, TOWAGE, COLLISION, AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY While collisions between vessels are as old as navigation itself, in the age of sail they seldom resulted in serious damage. Today, however, collisions may result in either serious structural damage to both vessels or the loss of one or both. In addition, collisions or allisions (i.e. the striking stationary objects) involving modern vessels have the potential to cause catastrophic environmental damage. Environmental torts have caused many to rethink the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, under which a ship-owner could limit liability to the value of pending freight and the value of the vessel after a casualty. (In some environmental statutes, limitation of liability has been retained, though calculated as a monetary sum per ton of the ship s tonnage.) Although pilotage has been part of maritime commerce since the age of sail, towage is the product of nineteenth-century technology, when self-propelled vessels. This session will examine the substantive rules governing pilotage, towage and collisions as well as limitation of liability. Homer Ramsdale Transportation Co. v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 182 U.S. 406 (1901), pp. 461-463 United States v. Nielsen, 349 U.S. 129 (1955), pp. 464-466 Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp., 349 U.S. 85 (1955) Stevens v. The White City, 285 U.S. 195 (1932), pp. 471-476 The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. 407 U.S. 92 (1972), pp. 481-484 Southwestern Sugar & Molasses C. v. River Transportation Corp., 360 U.S. 411 (1959), pp. 479-480 Dixilyn Drilling Corp. v. Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., 372 U.S. 697 (1963), p. 581 Boston Metals Co. v. The Winding Gulf, 349 U.S. 122 (1955) [4 th edition of the casebook at p. 469, available online in PDF format at MyWCL] The Clara, 102 U.S. 100 (1880), pp. 624-626 The Jumna, 149 F. 171 (2d Cir. 1906), pp. 626-628 The Bywell Castle (Court of Appeals 1879, L.R. 4 PD 219), pp. 628-629 The Lusso, 47 Lloyd s List Rep. 214 (1933), pp. 629-630 The Pennsylvania, 86 U.S. 125 (1874), pp. 6340-638 Exxon Co., U.S.A. v. Sofec, Inc., 517 U.S. 830 (1996), pp. 638-641 State of Louisiana ex rel. Guste v. the Testbank, 752 F.2d 1019 (5 th Cir. 1985), pp. 652-658 United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U.S. 397 (1975), pp. 658-666 Prudential Lines, Inc. v. McAllister, 801 F.2d 616 (2d Cir. 1986), p. 667 In re Seiriki Kisen Kaisha 629 F. Supp. 1374 (S.D.NY 1986), pp. 667-669 The Belgenland, 114 U.S. 355 (1885), pp. 669-671 The Mandu, 102 F.2d 459 (2 nd Cir. 1939), pp. 671-673 In re Seiriki Kisen Kaisha, 629 F. Supp. 1374 (1985), pp. 673-675

Ishizaki Kisen Co. v. United States, 510 F.2d 875 (9 th Cir. 1975), pp. 675-677 Casebook: Fundamentals of Limitation, pp. 829-862 Supplemental United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 150 F.2d 182 (2d Cir. 1947) International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Collisions between Vessels (1910) [available online in PDF format on MyWCL] COLREGS WEEK 8 SEAMEN S WAGES; HYPOTHECATION Seamen s contracts of employment, or ships articles, regulate the relationship between a vessel s crew and the vessel. The general maritime law provides seamen with a claim in rem against the vessel for unpaid wages, and under American maritime law, their claim takes precedence over all those of all others in salvage. Nevertheless, breach of ships articles is a defense for a ship-owner s refusal to pay wages. In the era before modern communication, vessels often would require repairs in distant ports, and it neither practical nor cost-effective to wait for weeks for the ship-owners approval of payment for the repairs. In response to this problem, English courts had borrowed from the civil law the custom of permitting the ship s master to pledge an interest in the hull to the repair-yard to facilitate the ship returning to sea quickly. These hypothecations generally were in the form of written contracts, or bottomry bonds, though under some circumstances they were implied in law. Implied hypothecation became the one of the cornerstones in development of the modern maritime lien. Edwards v. The Hannah (Vice Admiralty Court of Maryland, 1763), reprinted in David R. Owen & Michael C. Tolley, Courts of Admiralty in Colonial America: The Maryland Experience 1634-1776 (1995) at 324 [available online in PDF format on MyWCL] Brown v. Jones (Case No. 2,107), 4 F. Cas. 404 (Story, J., C.C. D. Mass. 1815) [available online in PDF format on MyWCL] John E. Hall, An Essay on Maritime Loans, From the French of M. Balthazard Marie Emerigon: With Notes (1809), at 24 [available online in PDF format on MyWCL] Sheffield Howard v. The Moiety of the Charming Sally (Vice Admiralty Court of New York, 1759), reprinted in Charles M. Hough, Reports of Cases in the Vice Admiralty of the Province of New York and in the Court of Admiralty of the State of New York (1925) at 164 [available online in PDF format on MyWCL] Palatines v. Lobb ( The Loving Unity ) (Vice Admiralty Court of Massachusetts, 1732), reprinted in L. Kinvin Wroth, The Massachusetts Vice Admiralty and the Federal Admiralty Jurisdiction, 6 Am. J. Legal Hist. 250 (Part 1), 347 (Part II), 351-352 (1962) [available online in PDF format on MyWCL] WEEK 9 WEEK 10 MARITIME LIENS

Unlike a common-law mechanic s lien, which merely grants a chose in action a maritime lien attaches directly to the res (ship, cargo, etc.) itself. Today, maritime liens may arise out of maritime torts, unpaid wages, preferred ship-mortgages, or claims for sums owed for repairs, supplies, or services rendered to a vessel all enforceable against the vessel in rem. This session examines how the English High Court of Admiralty s procedure for compelling a defendant to appear in court was modified through adoption of the Roman-law actio in rem to create the in rem action eventually adopted in modern federal courts. Moreover, it explores the way in which the in rem action became intertwined with the emerging notion of a maritime lien in the early days of the Republic. Finally it examines both priority-of-liens and preferred ship-mortgages. The Bold Buccleugh, 13 Eng. Rep. 884 (Privy Council, 1852), pp. 225-226 The China, 74 U.S. 53 (1869), pp. 237-239 The John G. Stevens, 170 U.S. 113 (1898) [4 th edition of the casebook at p. 662; available online in PDF format on MyWCL] Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 U.S. 424 (1902), p. 236 John E. Hall, The Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty (1809), Title 28 at 60-67, Title 37 at pp. 77-78 [available online in PDF format on MyWCL] Edward F. Ryan, Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien: An Historical Perspective, 7 W. Ont. L. Rev. 183 (1967) Paul Macarius Hebert, The Origin and Nature of Maritime Liens, 4 Tul. L. Rev. 381 (1930) Intel Containers International Corp. v. Atlanttrafik Express Service, Ltd., 982 F.2d 765 (2 nd Cir. 1992), pp. 255-257 Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. The Joseph Warner, 32 F. Supp. 532 (D. Mass. 1939), p. 235 C.I.T. Corp v. The Peggy 424 F.2d 767 (5 th Cir. 1970), pp. 235-236 Casebook: Note on Classifying Maritime Liens, p.244; Note on Extinction of Maritime Liens, p.247, Note on Laches, p. 249 Oil Shipping B.V. v. Sonmez Denizcilik ve Ticaret A.S. 10 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 1994), pp. 257-260 Oil Shipping B.V. v. Sonmez Denizcilik ve Ticaret A.S., 10 F.3d 1015 (3d Cir. 1993), pp. 270-272 Maryland National Bank v. The Madam Chapel, 46 F. 3d 895 (9 th Cir. 1995) [4 th edition of the casebook at pp. 282-287: available online in PDF format on MyWCL] Supplemental 46 U.S.C.A. sec. 31301 (p.254), sec. 31307 (p.254) (on preferred maritime liens) 46 U.S.C.A. sec. 31323 (p.264), sec. 31326 (p.264) (on preferred ship-mortgages) Steven L. Snell, Courts of Admiralty and the Common Law: Origins of the American Experiment with Concurrent Jurisdiction (2007), Ch. II at 194-202; Ch. IV at 316-317 Samuel R. Betts, A Summary of Practice in Instance, Revenue, and Prize Causes, in the Admiralty Courts of the United States, for the Southern District of New York; and also on Appeal to the Supreme Court (1838), Introduction at 10

WEEK 11 CHARTERPARTIES Charterparties, or contracts for the lease of vessels, fall into three general categories: 1) voyage charters, specifying the lease of a vessel for a voyage between two ports; 2) time charters, under which the vessels are leased for a specified period of time; and 3) demise charters, under which the lessee obtains full control over the vessel, generally providing both the master and crew. Casebook: Section A The Business of Chartering, pp. 282-284; Fixing the Charterparty, pp. 284-284-285 The Junior K, 2 Lloyd s Rep. 583 (Q.B. 1988), pp. 285-291 The Cluden, 681 F.2d 121 (2d Cir. 1982), pp. 291-292 Casebook: Types of Charterparties, pp. 292-295; pp. 299-311 Aaby v. States Marine Corp., 181 f.2d 383 (2d Cir. 1950), pp. 311-315 Mobil Shipping & Transport Co. v. Wonslid Liquid Carriers, Ltd., 190 F.3d 64 (2 nd Cir. 1999), pp. 315-318 American President Lines v. United States, 208 F. Supp. 573 (N.D.CA 1961), pp. 318-320 Earn Line S.S. Co. v. Sutherland S.S. Co. 264 U.S. 276 (1920), pp. 331-333 Wong Wing Fai v. United States, 840 F.2d 1462 (9 th Cir. 1988), pp. 333-334 Clyde Commercial S.S. Co. v. West India S.S. Co., 169 F. 275 (2d Cir. 1909), pp. 329-330 United Transport Co. v. Berwind-White, 13 F.2d 282 (2d Cir. 1926), p. 334 The Saigon Maru, 260 U.S. 490 (1923), pp. 323-325 Krauss Brothers Lumber Co. v. Dimon S.S. Co., [ The Pacific Cedar ], 290 U.S. 117 (1933) [4 th edition of the casebook at p. 424, available online in PDF format on MyWCL] Lukenbach v. Pierson, 229 F. 130 (2d. 1915), pp. 326-329 Robbins Dry Dock v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 (Holmes, J., 1927), pp. 338-340 Venore Transportation Co. v. The Struma, 583 F.2d 708 (4 th Cir. 1978), pp. 340-343 Rainbow Line v. The Tequila, 341 F. Supp. 349 (S.D.NY 1972), pp. 239-240 Finora v. Amitie Shipping Ltd., 54 F.3d 209 (4 th Cir, 1995) [4 th edition of the casebook at pp. 434-438, available online in PDF format on MyWCL] The Caribe Mar, 775 F.2d 743 (5 th Cir. 1985), pp. 240-244 Continental Insurance Co. v. Polish S.S. Co., 346 F.3d 281 (2d Cir. 2002), pp. 355-356 Continental Grain Co. v. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority, 972 F.2d 426 (1 st Cir. 1992), pp. 356-357 Supplemental readings: Nicholas J. Healy & David J. Sharp, Cases and Materials on Admiralty (4 th ed. 1999), Demise Chartering (sample standard form) at 406-409; Time Chartering (New

York Produce Exchange Time Charter Form) at 409-414; Voyage Chartering (GENCON 1994 form) at 414-420 [available online in PDF format on MyWCL]. WEEK 12 MARINE INSURANCE Marine insurance encompasses both first-party and third-party coverage. This session addresses all risks versus named perils coverage, layup insurance, the duty of uberrimae fidei, the roll of Protection and Indemnity ( P. & I. ) Clubs, the traditional rule of pay to be paid, and the impact of direct action statutes upon this rule. In addition it will touch briefly upon compensation regimes in environmental law, such as that under the 1992 Civil Liability Convention ( C.L.C. ) and the 1992 Fund Convention. Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman s Fund Insurance Co., 348 U.S. 310 (1955), LEXIS (whole case, including dissenting opinions) Cusano v. Continental Casualty Co., 202 A.M.C. 1499 (D. CT 2002), pp. 176-178 Pacific Fisheries Corp. v. HIH & General Ins., Ltd., 293 F. 3d 1000 (9 th Cir. 2001), pp. 179-180 Albany Ins. Co. v. Anh Thi Kieu, 927 F.2d 888 (5 th Cir. 1991), pp. 185-189 Continental Insurance Co. v. Lone Eagle, 952 F. Supp. 1046 (S.D.NY 1998), pp. 189-198 United States v. The Marine Adventure, 101 F. Supp. 378 (D. Md. 2000), pp. 204-208 Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing, 347 U.S. 409 (1954), pp. 209-211 Supplemental Joel K. Goldstein, The Life and Times of Wilburn Boat: A Critical Guide, (Part I) 28 J. Mar. L. & Com. 395 (1997); (Part II) 28 J. Mar. L. & Com. 555 (1997) International Maritime Organization: 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (as amended by the 1992 Protocol: 1992 Civil Liability Convention ) International Maritime Organization: 1971 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (as amended by the 1992 Protocol: 1992 Fund Convention ) WEEK 13 CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA Beginning with the Harter Act in 1893, The United States sought to regulate the contracts between ocean-carriers and shippers. The Harter Act later loosely served as a model for the Hague Rules, an international convention designed to produce international uniformity in the rules governing carriage of goods by sea. The United States enacted the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ( COGSA ) as enabling legislation for its participation in the Hague regime. In response to complaints that the monetary limits on ship-owners liability were too low, the Visby Protocol to the Hague Rules was promulgated in 1969

(and amended in 1979). The U.S., however, is not a signatory. Unfortunately, many in the international community preferred replacing the Hague Rules to modifying them resulting in the drafting of the Hamburg Rules, which opened for signature in 1978. Today, the international community is divided in its treatment of carriage of goods by sea, with some nations following the Hague Rules, others the Hague/Visby regime, and still others the Hamburg Rules. Moreover, some nations such as China have opted against ratifying any of the competing treaties, instead promulgating their own domestic law on ocean-carriage. In 2008, the UNCITRAL Working Group on Transport Law completed a draft of a new convention designed to promote uniformity by replacing the controversial Hague, Hague/Visby, and Hamburg regimes. The convention known as the Rotterdam Rules - opened for signature in 2009. [U.S. participation in this convention would require some changes in COGSA.] Michael F. Sturley, The History of COGSA and the Hague Rules, 22 J. Mar. L. & Com 1 (1991) The Rotterdam Rules (available in PDF format online on MyWCL) Supplemental Mary Helen Carlson, Developments with the UNCITRAL Draft Carriage of Goods Convention and the MLA COGSA Amendment (Paper presented to the Maritime Law Association of the United States, Scottsdale, Az, Nov. 3, 2005) (available in PDF format online on MyWCL) Michael F. Sturley, Carriage of Goods by Sea, 31 J. Mar. L. & Com. 241 (2000) Michael F. Sturley, The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law s Transport Law Project, 39 Tx. Intn l L. J. 110 (2003-2004) Michael F. Sturley, Changing Liability Rules and Marine Insurance: Conflicting Empirical Arguments about Hague, Visby, and Hamburg in a Vacuum of Empirical Evidence, 24 J. Mar. L. & Com. 119 (1993)