حمل کالا بر عرشۀ کشتی و مسئولیتِ متصدی حمل

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه حقوق خصوصی دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

2 کارشناس ارشد حقوق تجاری اقتصادی بین‌المللی دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

 در حقوق حمل و نقل دریایی، حمل روی عرشۀ کشتی موضوع مهمی را به خود اختصاص داده است. اینکه متصدی حمل، مُجاز به حمل کالا بر عرشۀ کشتی می‌باشد یا خیر، پرسشی است که پاسخ آن را باید در هر مورد و با توجه به قوانین و مقررات بین‌المللی (مانند قواعد لاهه، کنوانسیون هامبورگ و کنوانسیون رتردام) و داخلی (ازجمله قانون دریایی ایران) حاکم بر حمل موردنظر و نیز نوع و شروط و مفاد مندرج در بارنامۀ صادرشده یافت. به‌طور کلی، حمل کالا باید زیر عرشه انجام شود و حمل روی عرشه، امری استثنایی است. از‌طرف‌دیگر، برخی کالاها با توجه به نوع و ویژگیِ خاصی که دارند، به‌طور معمول روی عرشه بارگیری و حمل می‌شوند؛ مانند حیوانات زنده و کالاهای خطرناک. این نوشتار درصدد تشریح حمل کالا بر عرشۀ کشتی و مسئولیت متصدی حمل با توجه به قوانین و مقررات بین‌المللی و داخلی است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

DECK CARRIAGE AND CARRIER'S LIABILITY

نویسندگان [English]

  • Laya Joneydi 1
  • Siavash Sefidari 2
1 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Iran
2 LLM in International Trade and Economic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

In maritime transport law deck carriage is an important issue. Whether a carrier is or is not allowed to carry goods on deck is a question that must be answered in each case and according to international rules and conventions (such as Hague Rules, Hamburg and Rotterdam Conventions) and domestic laws and regulations (including Maritime Law of Iran) governing the carriage as well as the type and terms and conditions set forth in bill of lading was issued. In general, the goods must be carried under deck and it is exceptional to carry the goods on deck. On the other hand, some goods according to the type and special features of each type normally load and carry on deck, such as live animals and dangerous goods. This paper according to international and domestic laws and regulations aims to describe the carriage on deck and carrier's liability.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • breach of contract
  • Doctrine of deviation
  • Hague rules
  • Hamburg convention
  • Maritime law of Iran
  • Maritime transport
  • Rotterdam Convention

مراجع

  1. الف) فارسی

    1. قانون اصلاح قانون دریایی ایران، مصوب مجلس شورای اسلامی، 16/08/1391.
    2. قانون الحاق دولت جمهوری اسلامی ایران به کنوانسیون تحدید مسؤولیت برای دعاوی دریایی، مصوب مجلس شورای اسلامی، 05/03/1393.
    3. قانون دریایی ایران، مصوب کمیسیون مشترک مجلسین، 29/06/1343.
      1. محمدزاده وادقانی، علیرضا (1373)، کنوانسیون 1978 در مورد حمل و نقل دریایی «قواعد هامبورگ»، مجلۀ دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی (دانشگاه تهران)، شماره 32.
      2. محمدزاده وادقانی، علیرضا، کاردان، کتایون (1391)، کنوانسیون رتردام (1)، فصلنامۀ حقوق، مجلۀ دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی (دانشگاه تهران)، دورۀ 42، شمارل 1.
      3. محمدزاده وادقانی، علیرضا (1381)، مسئولیت متصدی حمل و نقل دریایی، مجلۀ دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی (دانشگاه تهران)، شمارۀ 55.

     

    ب) خارجی

     

    1. Berlingieri, Francesco (2009) "A comparative analysis of the Hague-Visby Rules,the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules", Paper delivered at the General Assembly of the AMD, Marrakesh. Available at:

    http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/workinggroups/wg_3/Berlingieri_paper_comparing_RR_Hamb_HVR.pdf

    1. Bill of Lading Clause Permitting Deck Stowage (Davidson v. Flood Bros., United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 30 Fed. Rep. (2d) 279), The Business Law Journal, Volume 13, Issue 5, May 1929.
    2. Bissell, Tallman (1970-1971) "The Operational Realities of Containcrisation and Their Effect on the "Package" Limitation and the "On-Deck" Prohibition: Review and Suggestions", Tulane Law Review, Volume XLV.
    3. Blanchard Lumber Co. v. S.S. Anthony II, 259 F.Supp. 857, 1967 AMC 103 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).
    4. Britannica Inc v. The ‘Hong Kong Producer’ and Universal Marine Corporation [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 536.
    5. Burton v. English (1883), 12 Q.B.D. 218 (C.A.).
    6. Calmaquip Engineering West Hemisphere Corp. v. West Coast Carriers Ltd., 650 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981). Available at:

    http://openjurist.org/650/f2d/633/calmaquip-engineering-west-hemisphere-corporation-v-west-coast-carriers-ltd-mv

    1. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1936, Title 46 United States Code §§ 1300-1315.
    2. Carr, Indira, Goldby, Miriam (2014) International Trade Law Statutes and Conventions 2013-2015, Third Edition, Routledge.
    3. Chandler, George F. (1997) "Damages to Cargo: The Measure of Damages to Cargo--Redux", Tulane Law Review, Volume 72, Issues 2 & 3.
    4. Chiang, Yung F. (1972) "The Applicability of COGSA and the Harter Act to Water Bills of Landing", Boston College Industrial and Commercial Law Review, Volume 14, Issue 2, Number 2.
    5. Clarke, Malcolm Alistair (1976) Aspects of the Hague Rules: A Comparative Study in English and French Law, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands.
    6. Compania de Navigacion La Flecha v. Brauer 168 U.S. 104 (1897).
    7. Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC), Adoption: 19 November 1976; Entry into force: 1 December 1986; Protocol of 1996: Adoption: 2 May 1996; Entry into force: 13 May 2004.
    8. Deutsch, Eberhard P. (1939) "Deck Cargo", California Law Review, Volume 27, Issue 5.
    9. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. v. SS HONG KONG PRODUCER, 422 F.2d 7 (2d Cir. 1969) cert. denied, 397 U.S. 964, 90 S. Ct. 998, 25 L.Ed.2d 255 (1970). Available at:

    http://openjurist.org/422/f2d/7/encyclopaedia-britannica-inc-v-ss-hong-kong-producer

    1. F Kanematsu & Co Ltd v The Ship ‘Shahzada’ (1957) 96 CLR 477.
    2. Force, Robert (2007) "Shipment of Dangerous Cargo by Sea", Tulane Maritime Law Journal, Volume 31, Number 2.
    3. Globe Solvents Co. v. S.S. California [1946] A.M.C. 674.
    4. Gonzales, Janice (1975) "Stowage of Containers on Deck", The Maritime Lawyer, Volume 1, Published by the Tulane Maritime Law Society.
    5. “Hague/Visby Rules 1968” refers to the Hague Rules 1924, as amended by the “Protocol to Amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading”, adopted at Brussels, February 23, 1968”.
    6. Hain S.S. Co. v. Tate & Lyle (1936) 41 Com.Cas. 350 at pp. 356, 361, 364.
    7. Harter Act, Act of February 13, 1893, Chap.105, 27 Stat. 445-46, 46 U.S. Code Appendix 190-196.
    8. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Calmar S.S. Corp., 404 F.Supp. 442, 1976 AMC 2636 (W. D. Wash. 1975).
    9. International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading ("Hague Rules"), and Protocol of Signature (Brussels, 25 August 1924).
    10. Jones v. The Flying Clipper (1954) 116 Fed Supp 386 (S.D.N.Y. 1953).
    11. Kenya Railways v. Antares Co Pte Ltd (The Antares) (Nos. 1 and 2) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 424 (CA).
    12. Nicaraguan Long Leaf Pine Lumber Co., Inc. v. The William G. Osment, 211 F.2d 715 (5th Cir. 1954).
    13. Nikaki, Theodora (2004) "The "Quasi-Deviation" Doctrine", Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Volume 35, Number 1.
    14. Nikaki, Theodora, Soyer, Barış (2012) "A New International Regime for Carriage of Goods by Sea: Contemporary, Certain, Inclusive AND Efficient, or Just Another One for the Shelves?", Berkeley Journal of International Law, Volume 30, Issue 2, Article 2.
    15. Nottebohn v. Richter (1886), 18 Q.B.D. 63 (C.A.).
    16. Smith, Hogg and Company, Limited Appellants; v Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Company, Limited Respondents, House of Lords, 24 June 1940, [1940] A.C. 997. Available at: http://login.westlaw.co.uk
    17. St. Johns N.F. Shipping Corp. v. S.A. Companhia Geral Commercial do Rio Janeiro, 263 U.S. 119, 124, 44 S.Ct. 30, 68 L.Ed. 201 (1923). Available at:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/263/119

    1. St-Siméon Navigation Inc. v. A. Couturier & Fils Limitée, [1974] S.C.R. 1176, Supreme Court of Canada. Available at: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/5251/index.do
    2. Stopford, Martin (1997) Maritime Economics, Second Edition, Routledge.
    3. Svenska Traktor v. Maritime Agencies (Southhampton) Ltd. [1953] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 124 (Q.B.).
    4. Tetley, William (1963) "Selected Problems of Maritime Law under the Hague Rules", McGILL Law Journal, Volume 9, Number 1.
    5. Tetley, William (1988) Marine Cargo Claims, Third Edition, Published by International Shipping Publications, Montreal (Canada).
    6. Tetley, William (1977) "Deck Carriage under the Hague Rules", Maritime Lawyer, Volume 3, Issue 1.
    7. Thomas, D. Rhidian (2010) "Special Liability Regimes under the International Conventions for the Carriage of Goods by Sea – Dangerous Cargo and Deck Cargo", Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Handelsrecht.
    8. Timberwest Forest Ltd. v. Gearbulk Pool Ltd. et al., 2003 BCCA 39. Available at:

    http://www.admiraltylaw.com/summary.php?case_id=286

    1. United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (New York, 2008) (the "Rotterdam Rules").
    2. United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (The Hamburg Rules) Hamburg, 30 March 1978.
    3. Whitehead, James F. (1981) "Deviation: Should The Doctrine Apply To On-Deck Carriage", The Maritime Lawyer, Volume 6.
    4. Wibau Maschinenfabrik Hartman SA v Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co (The Chanda) [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 494.
    5. Wooder, James B. (1991) "Deck Cargo: Old Vices and New Law", Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Volume 22, Number 1.
    6. Yoon, Seughee (2004) "On-Deck Shipment is not a Reasonable Deviation in Containerization Age", Korea Maritime Law Association, Volume 26, Article 6.
مطالعات حقوق خصوصی
دوره 46، شماره 2
تیر 1395
صفحه 207-224

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار