Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reflections on Spain’s Decision to Ratify the Rotterdam Rules

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Hamburg Lectures on Maritime Affairs 2011-2013

Part of the book series: Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs ((HAMBURG,volume 28))

  • 843 Accesses

Abstract

Sea carriage is a key sector in international trade, with particular value for a country like Spain, with a great maritime tradition, thousands of miles of coastline and important commercial ports. This goes a long-standing adherence to the process of establishing international uniformity of maritime law. The Kingdom of Spain signed and ratified the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, Brussels, 25 August 1924 (the so-called “Hague Rules”, hereinafter HR) on 2 June 1930, publishing it in the State Official Bulletin (Boletín Oficial del Estado) on the same day. Years later, Spain would also use the second channel planned for including the Convention under the internal regulation, upon the approval of the Act of 22 December 1949, on maritime carriage of goods covered by bill of lading. The two Protocols of 1968 (the so-called “Visby Rules”, hereinafter, VR) and 1979, which amended the HR, were also signed and ratified by Spain, thus integrating them into its internal regulatory framework. As such, from the outset Spain has belonged to the core of countries adhering to international regulations that govern maritime carriage of goods.

Of counsel “CMS/Albiñana & Suárez de Lezo”. The present study is included in a research project supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (DER2012-37543-C03-01).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Sánchez Calero, El contrato de transporte marítimo de mercancías (1957) passim.

  2. 2.

    The publication of the ratification instrument concerning these two Protocols took place in the Boletín Oficial del Estado on 11 February 1984, which gave rise to the theory that, as a consequence of it, the 1949 Act had been derogated (Gabaldón/Ruiz Soroa, Manual de Derecho de la Navegación Marítima (3rd ed. 2006) 548); however, the Spanish Supreme Court has confirmed that the 1949 Act remains in force and has only been partially modified by the VR (SSTS 7.4.1995, 21.7.2004).

  3. 3.

    Gómez Segade, El transporte marítimo de mercancías: de las Reglas de La Haya a las Reglas de Hamburgo, RDM (1980) 221 and ff.; Emparanza, El transporte marítimo bajo conocimiento de embarque: su régimen jurídico internacional tras la entrada en vigor de las Reglas de Hamburgo, in El Derecho del transporte marítimo internacional, ed. by Eizaguirre (1994) 41 and ff.; Illescas, Las Reglas de Hamburgo (Convenio de las Naciones Unidas sobre el transporte marítimo de mercancías, 1978), in Derecho uniforme del transporte internacional. Cuestiones de actualidad, ed. by Madrid Parra (1998) 67 and ff.; Gabaldón/Ruiz Soroa (supra n. 2) 548.

  4. 4.

    Emparanza/Martín Osante (eds.), Estudio Sistemático de la Propuesta de Anteproyecto de Ley General de la Navegación Marítima (2006). The “General Coding Commission” is a technical committee whose task consists in advising the Justice Ministry on the elaboration of good legal statutes.

  5. 5.

    On the other hand, the 1885 Commercial Code at many times simply copies the 1829 Code, and thus it was accepted that it was already out of date at birth (Girón, Problemas en torno al estado actual de la legislación marítima, in Tendencias actuales y reforma del Derecho mercantil (1986) 169, 176).

  6. 6.

    95 countries, which also represent the most important quantitative percentage in global commerce, are signatories of the HR.

  7. 7.

    Sales, The Rotterdam Rules, or The Power of Wishful Thinking, in Régimen del transporte en un entorno económico incierto, ed. by Martínez/Petit (2011) 485, 489.

  8. 8.

    By doing so, countries also must denounce the HR, VR and HambR (López Santana, Ámbito de aplicación del Convenio, in Las Reglas de Rotterdam, ed. by Emparanza (2010) 21, 23).

  9. 9.

    Sánchez Calero, El contrato de transporte marítimo de mercancías Reglas de La Haya-Visby, Hamburgo y Rotterdam (2nd ed. 2010) 595 and ff.; Ruiz Soroa, La responsabilidad del transportista marítimo de mercancías en las Reglas de Rotterdam. Una guía de urgencia, RDT 4 (2010) 13; Arroyo, Las Reglas de Rotterdam ¿para qué?, ADM 27 (2010) 33; Gorriz, Contrato de transporte marítimo internacional bajo conocimiento de embarque, ADM 26 (2009) 25; Recalde, Reflexiones sobre la significación de las Reglas de Rotterdam en la ordenación del régimen del Contrato de Transporte Marítimo de Mercancías, in XVII Jornadas de Derecho Marítimo de San Sebastián, ed. by Eizaguirre (2011) 93 and ff.; Emparanza (supra n. 8); Llorente Gómez De Segura, Las Reglas de Rotterdam, Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional 2 (marzo 2010) 25 and ff., 2 (Octubre 2010) 104. Conversely, one has to consider the position taken by other authors, comprising those who participated directly in the drafting of the RR; specifically Professors Illescas, Morán and Alba, who were part of the UNCITRAL Working Group III (Transport Law) (Illescas being the Chairman thereof), e.g. Illescas/Alba (eds.), Las Reglas de Rotterdam y la práctica commercial internacional (2012).

  10. 10.

    Alcántara, Los aseguradores ante las Reglas de Rotterdam, RDT 4 (2010) 167; id., The Rotterdam Rules. Reflections after the CMI Colloquium in Buenos Aires: Setting Things Straight, http://www.amya.es/publicaciones?lang=en; id., Las Reglas de Rotterdam en el camino de su ratificación por España, http://www.ime.es/blog/?p=1029. Also to be pointed out is the opposition of the Spanish Federation of Forwarders Associations (Federación Española de Asociaciones de Transitarios, FETEIA) (Vicens Matas, Reglas de Rotterdam: sus puntos fuertes y debilidades desde la visión de los transitarios, RDT 4 (2010) 173), this in contrast to the favourable vision stated by the Spanish Shipowners Association (Asociación de Navieras Españolas, ANAVE) (p. ej. Boletín Informativo de ANAVE, nº 490, 2009). Regular shipping liner companies appear to consider the RR to be closer to their interests.

  11. 11.

    European Shipper’s Council on the Convention on Contracts for the International Carrying of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea also known as the ‘Rotterdam Rules’, March 2009.

  12. 12.

    Sturley, General Principles of Transport Law and Rotterdam Rules, EJCCL 2 (2010) 103; id., JIML 14 (2008) 477; Carlsson, U.S. Participation in Private International Law Negotiations: Why the UNCITRAL Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea Is Important to the United States, Tex. Int’l L. J. 44 (2008–2009) 269, 273 and ff.

  13. 13.

    Arroyo (supra n. 9) 42.

  14. 14.

    Alba, Las Reglas de Rotterdam: tercera vía e instrumento para la modernización del régimen del contrato de transporte internacional de mercancías, in Eizaguirre (supra n. 9) 15.

  15. 15.

    The complexity and huge scale of the RR’s provisions are acknowledged even by the president of the UNCITRAL Working Group III (Transport Law) that drafted it (Illescas, Las claves de las Reglas de Rotterdam, in Estudios en Memoria del Prof. Sánchez Andrés (2010) 1818).

  16. 16.

    Arroyo (supra n. 9) 33; Tetley, Some general criticisms of the Rotterdam Rules, JIML 14 (2008) 626: “The Rotterdam Rules seem fit only for a small group of trained lawyers”; Asariotis, The Rotterdam Rules: A Brief Overview of Some of their Key Features, EJCCL 1 (2009) 111, 113. The first drafts were already criticized by the UNCTAD in its report “Electronic Commerce and International Transport Service”, (31 July 2001, TD/B/COM.3/EM.12/2): the text and the structure of the original CMI draft presupposed a deep legal expertise, which could generate costs and differences in interpretation (this is recognized by Alba (supra n. 14) 23).

  17. 17.

    Arroyo (supra n. 9) 33.

  18. 18.

    Ruiz Soroa (supra n. 9) 14.

  19. 19.

    Sáenz García De Albizu, Las obligaciones del porteador hasta la entrega de las mercancías en destino, in Emparanza (supra n. 8) 133.

  20. 20.

    Those provisions have been branded “muddy and confusing” (Arroyo (supra n. 9) 33).

  21. 21.

    Díaz Moreno/López Santana, El tratamiento de la multimodalidad en las Reglas de Rotterdam, in Emparanza (supra n. 8) 201, 222; Arroyo Vendrell, Régimen de responsabilidad de porteador en los contratos de transporte parcialmente marítimo, in Illescas/Alba (supra n. 9) 242.

  22. 22.

    Ruiz Soroa (supra n. 9) 33; Sánchez Calero (supra n. 9) 631, hard critical; Robles Martín-Laborda, Los contratos de volumen en las Reglas de Rotterdam: libertad contractual y contratos tipo, in Illescas/Alba (supra n. 9) 419; López Rueda, Las Reglas de Rotterdam: ¿un régimen uniforme para los contratos de volumen?, ADM 26 (2009) 101 ff.

  23. 23.

    Mankowski, The Rotterdam Rules – Scope of Application and Freedom of Contract, EJCCL 2 (2010) 9, 13.

  24. 24.

    Alba (supra n. 14) 86; Robles Martín-Laborda (supra n. 22) 436.

  25. 25.

    Ruiz Soroa (supra n. 9) 34 and f.; Arroyo (supra n. 9) 35 and f.

  26. 26.

    Tetley et al., A response to the attempt to clarify certain concerns over the Rotterdam Rules published 5 august 2009, <http://www.mcgill.ca/files/maritimelaw/Summationpdf.pdf>.

  27. 27.

    Alba, Las obligaciones y responsabilidad del porteador en las Reglas de Rotterdam, Illescas/Alba (eds.), Las Reglas de Rotterdam desde la perspectiva del contrato de seguro (2010) 15 f.; more critical Sánchez Calero, Reglas generales sobre la responsabilidad del porteador en las Reglas de Rotterdam, in Estudios de Derecho mercantil en homenaje al profesor José María Muñoz Planas (2011) 757 and ff.

  28. 28.

    Gondra, Régimen jurídico de las operaciones de carga y descarga en el transporte marítimo (1970) passim; Morán Bovio, Extremos del periodo de aplicación mínimo en la CB-PV (Convención de Bruselas-Protocolo de Visby sobre transporte de mercancías bajo conocimiento de embarque) (1998); Recalde, Delimitación temporal del periodo de responsabilidad del porteador marítimo y régimen jurídico de las operaciones de carga y descarga, in Estudios homenaje al profesor Duque (1998) 1523 and ff.

  29. 29.

    STS 30.3.2006 RAJ 2006\5290; SAP Barcelona 8.11.1990, ADM 10 (1993) 924 (Górriz, ADM 26 (2009) 47).

  30. 30.

    Pyrene Co. v. Scintia Navigation Co., 1954, 1 Lloyd’s Rep, 321; critical to the RR Ruiz Soroa (supra n. 9) 31; in doubt Delebecque, Obligation and Liability Exemptions of the Carrier, EJCCL 2 (2010) 88, seems to consider that Art. 12.3 would not validate strong FIOS clauses (as an exemption of liability); Berlingieri, The Rotterdam Rules: The ‘The Maritime Plus’ Approach to Uniformity, EJCCL 1 (2009), 49, 50; Arias Varona, La delimitación del periodo de responsabilidad y operaciones de carga y descarga, in Emparanza (supra n. 8) 51 59.

  31. 31.

    Ruiz Soroa (supra n. 9) 28 and f., highlights that Art. 17 RR contains 900 words; also critical Sánchez Calero (supra n. 1) 717 and f.; Arroyo (supra n. 9) 37.

  32. 32.

    Ruiz Soroa (supra n. 9) 28; Asariotis (supra n. 16) 119.

  33. 33.

    Escuin Ibáñez, La limitación de responsabilidad del porteador, in Emparanza (supra n. 8) 285, 291.

  34. 34.

    Escuín Ibáñez, La limitación de responsabilidad del porteador, in Emparanza (supra n. 8) 292.

  35. 35.

    Asariotis, (supra n. 16) 121 and 124; Diamond, The next sea carriage Convention?, LMCLQ (2008) 138; Chan, In Search of a Global Theory of Maritime Electronic Commerce: China’s Position on the Rotterdam Rules, JMLC 40, 2 (April, 2009) 185, 193; Recalde, La documentación del contrato. Derecho de control y transferencia de derechos sobre las mercancías, in Emparanza (supra n. 8) 161 and ff. More positive perception by Alba, Electronic Commerce Provisions in the UNCITRAL Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, Tex. Int’l L. J., 44 (2008–2009) 387 and ff.; Ramos Herranz, La noción del documento de transporte en el convenio. Los documentos de transporte negociables y no negociables, in Illescas/Alba (supra n. 9) 324.

  36. 36.

    Illescas, El transporte total o parcialmente marítimo según las Reglas de Rotterdam, in Illescas/Alba (supra n. 27) 9, 12. Nevertheless Art. 2 HR-VR applies to “contracts of carriage covered by a bill of lading or any similar document of title, in so far as such document relates to the carriage of goods by sea, including any bill of lading or any similar document as aforesaid issued under or pursuant to a charter party from the moment at which such bill of lading or similar document of title regulates the relations between a carrier and a holder of the same.” Thus, there should not be a problem in its application to contracts covered by a sea waybill or even an electronic document (Tetley, The Modern Contract of Carriage of Goods by Sea, JMLC 14 (1983) 465, 471; in doubt towards this extension Recalde, El conocimiento de embarque y otros documentos del transporte. Función representativa (1992) 384 and ff.).

  37. 37.

    Ruiz Soroa (supra n. 9) 17 and f.

  38. 38.

    Any harmonization process should be guided by a prior identification of the achievable goals, e.g. relating to contract law unification in Europe, Illescas, La unificación europea del Derecho de contratos privados, in I Congreso nacional de Derecho mercantil, ed. by Arroyo (2007) 457, 459.

  39. 39.

    Alba (supra n. 14) 67.

  40. 40.

    Critic Zekos, The Contractual Role of Documents issued under the CMI Draft Instrument on Transport Law, JMLC 35 (2004) 109, 111.

  41. 41.

    Baatz/Debattista/Lorenzon/Serdy/Staniland/Tsimplis, The Rotterdam Rules: A Practical Annotation (2009) 6.

  42. 42.

    Diamond (supra n. 35) 161.

  43. 43.

    Recalde (supra n. 36) 310 and ff.

  44. 44.

    That applies even in the case of a holder of a nominative or straight bill of lading (Canaris, Staub’s Grosskommentar HGB §§. 352–372 (1978) § 363 margin note 96), or, as the RR establish, a non-negotiable transport document that must be surrendered in order to obtain delivery of the goods, when it is transferred to the consignee acting in good faith.

  45. 45.

    Emparanza, Documentos de transporte: indicaciones sobre el porteador y sobre las mercancías; valor probatorio, in Emparanza (supra n. 8) 139, 154.

  46. 46.

    Ruiz Soroa (supra n. 9) 16.

  47. 47.

    Alba (supra n. 14) 80.

  48. 48.

    Goldby, LMCLQ (2008) 69 and f. The equivalence of traditional transport documents within these closed systems managed by the carrier is limited, compared to the open form systems that are managed by third independent agents (Recalde, Electronificación de los títulos-valor, in Régimen jurídico de Internet, ed. by Cremades et al. (2002) 569, 596, 599).

  49. 49.

    Diamond (supra n. 35) 166.

  50. 50.

    Clarke, LMCLQ, 2002, 357.

  51. 51.

    Goldby, JIML 13 (2007) 163.

  52. 52.

    Sánchez Calero (supra n. 1) 645; Recalde (supra n. 35) 173.

  53. 53.

    According to Art. 57.2, the same effect is given to electronic negotiable documents. Yet this provision refers to Art. 9.2, a provision which is not a complete regulation relating to electronic transport transmission, merely referring to private autonomy, and which, given the eventual consequences to of the circulation towards third parties, is at least questionable.

  54. 54.

    Different visions on this subject by Eizaguirre, La opción por el concepto amplio de título-valor, RDBB 57 (1995) 9 and ff.; id., Derecho de los títulos-valores (2003) 21 and ff.; Pérez Millán, Reflexiones críticas en torno al concepto amplio de título valor, in Liber amicorum prof. J. Mª Gondra Romero (2012) 363 and ff.

  55. 55.

    Asariotis, (supra n. 16) 121 and 124; Tetley et al. (supra n. 26) 8.

  56. 56.

    Different interpretations of this provision by Alba (supra n. 14) 69 fn. 116; Recalde (supra n. 35) 185 and f.

  57. 57.

    For road transport see Art. 12 CMR Recalde, El derecho de disposición en el transporte internacional de mercancías por carretera, RDM 261 (2006) 945 and ff.; for railway transport see Art. 18 CIM (according to the “Vilna Rules” 1999 version of the Convention) Recalde, “El derecho a ‘disponer de la mercancía’”, in El contrato de transporte internacional de mercancías por ferrocarril, ed. by Emparanza/Recalde (2008) 139.

  58. 58.

    Recalde, El ‘derecho de control’ en las Reglas de Rotterdam, RDT 8 (2011) 1; Arroyo Vendrell, El derecho de control sobre las mercancías en el nuevo marco legal del contrato de transporte internacional de mercancías total o parcialmente marítimo (Las Reglas de Rotterdam), in Régimen del transporte en un entorno económico incierto, ed. by Martínez/Petit (2011) 419 and ff.

  59. 59.

    Grönfors, Cargo Key Receipt and Transport Document Replacement (1982) 54 and ff.; id., Verfügungsrecht und Kreditsicherung beim Lufttransport ohne Dokument, in Festschrift Alex Meyer (1975) 105; Basedow, Der Transportvertrag (1987) 292 and 326.

  60. 60.

    Recalde (supra n. 36) 248, 395; id., voz “Seawaybill”, in Enciclopedia Jurídica Básica (1995) 6069.

  61. 61.

    Recalde (supra n. 58) 29.

  62. 62.

    Goldby (supra n. 51) 169 and f.

  63. 63.

    Recalde, La función representativa del conocimiento de embarque en las Reglas de Rotterdam, in Liber amicorum prof. J.M. Gondra Romero (2012) 395.

  64. 64.

    Ruiz Soroa (supra n. 9) 15 and f.

  65. 65.

    Tetley et al. (supra n. 26).

  66. 66.

    Cachard, Jurisdictional Issues in the Rotterdam Rules: Balance of Interests or Legal Paternalism, EJCCL 2 (2010) 1.

  67. 67.

    Ruiz Soroa (supra n. 9) 14 and f.

  68. 68.

    On the contrary, those countries with a strong shipping sector (or that of P&I insurers) have a much more positive view and have more effusively promoted the signature and ratification of the RR (Ruiz Soroa (supra n. 9) 15).

  69. 69.

    Llorente Gómez De Segura, El contrato de transporte maritime de mercantias, in Calvo Caravaca/Carrascosa González, Derecho del comercio internacional (2012) 947.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Autónoma of Madrid (Spain), Of Counsel “CMS/Albiñana & Suárez de Lezo”, Madrid, Spain

    Andrés Recalde Castells

Authors
  1. Andrés Recalde Castells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrés Recalde Castells .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany

    Jürgen Basedow

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Ulrich Magnus

  3. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Rüdiger Wolfrum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Castells, A.R. (2015). Reflections on Spain’s Decision to Ratify the Rotterdam Rules. In: Basedow, J., Magnus, U., Wolfrum, R. (eds) The Hamburg Lectures on Maritime Affairs 2011-2013. Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, vol 28. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55104-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation