Rule of Prescription Under Article III, Rule 6 of Hague/Hague-Visby Rules: When Does the Clock of Limitation Start Ticking?

Q3 Social Sciences
Adeel Abid, Yusra S. Khalid
{"title":"Rule of Prescription Under Article III, Rule 6 of Hague/Hague-Visby Rules: When Does the Clock of Limitation Start Ticking?","authors":"Adeel Abid, Yusra S. Khalid","doi":"10.2174/1874447802014010038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The pursuit of an internationally recognized regime which governs the allocation of risk of liability has been the predominant purpose of maritime law. At the same time, it is also necessary to set a time limit within which a legal action may be brought against the carrier. There are two regimes which govern the carriage of goods by sea and are adopted by many countries, the Hague Rules, and the Hague-Visby Rules and the time limit for claims set out in the rules against the carrier is one year from the day on which the goods are delivered or should have been delivered by the carrier. The rationale behind this is that the carrier cannot be expected to keep records for long periods and must be notified while the events are still fairly recent and recorded, as to what claims are to be presented. At present, Pakistan has adopted the Hague Rules in its Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 and despite the clarity embodied in the period of limitation as laid down under Article III, Rule 6, Pakistani Courts have given various interpretations to the term “delivery”, resulting in different outcome of the cases. In relation thereof, this article examines and discusses several judgments for decades on the subject of rule of prescription, along with the analysis of Article III, Rule 2 on the interpretation of “discharge”, and puts forward some suggestions and recommendations on the law laid down by the Convention. The rules for transport documents are based on Hague or Hague-Visby Rules, and therefore, it is necessary at the outset of the article to provide an overview of the transport system in the country. The need for efficient working of the transport system in the country is absolutely vital in view of its role in a country’s economic growth.","PeriodicalId":38631,"journal":{"name":"Open Transportation Journal","volume":"14 1","pages":"38-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Transportation Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874447802014010038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The pursuit of an internationally recognized regime which governs the allocation of risk of liability has been the predominant purpose of maritime law. At the same time, it is also necessary to set a time limit within which a legal action may be brought against the carrier. There are two regimes which govern the carriage of goods by sea and are adopted by many countries, the Hague Rules, and the Hague-Visby Rules and the time limit for claims set out in the rules against the carrier is one year from the day on which the goods are delivered or should have been delivered by the carrier. The rationale behind this is that the carrier cannot be expected to keep records for long periods and must be notified while the events are still fairly recent and recorded, as to what claims are to be presented. At present, Pakistan has adopted the Hague Rules in its Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 and despite the clarity embodied in the period of limitation as laid down under Article III, Rule 6, Pakistani Courts have given various interpretations to the term “delivery”, resulting in different outcome of the cases. In relation thereof, this article examines and discusses several judgments for decades on the subject of rule of prescription, along with the analysis of Article III, Rule 2 on the interpretation of “discharge”, and puts forward some suggestions and recommendations on the law laid down by the Convention. The rules for transport documents are based on Hague or Hague-Visby Rules, and therefore, it is necessary at the outset of the article to provide an overview of the transport system in the country. The need for efficient working of the transport system in the country is absolutely vital in view of its role in a country’s economic growth.
海牙/海牙-维斯比规则第三条第6条规定的时效规则:时效时钟何时开始滴答作响?
寻求一种国际公认的管辖赔偿责任风险分配的制度一直是海商法的主要目的。同时,还必须规定一个时限,在该时限内可以对承运人提起法律诉讼。管辖海上货物运输的制度有两种,许多国家都采用了这两种制度,即《海牙规则》和《海牙-维斯比规则》,这些规则规定的对承运人提出索赔的时限为自承运人交付或本应交付货物之日起一年。这背后的理由是,不能指望承运人长期保存记录,必须在事件仍然是最近的并记录在案的情况下通知承运人要提出什么索赔。目前,巴基斯坦在其1925年《海上货物运输法》中采用了《海牙规则》,尽管第三条规则第6条规定的时效期限很明确,但巴基斯坦法院对“交付”一词作出了各种解释,导致案件结果不同。为此,本文对几十年来关于时效规则的几项判决进行了审查和讨论,并对第三条第2条关于“解除”的解释进行了分析,并对《公约》规定的法律提出了一些建议和建议。运输单证规则以《海牙规则》或《海牙-维斯比规则》为基础,因此,有必要在本条开头概述该国的运输系统。鉴于运输系统在一个国家经济增长中的作用,该国运输系统高效运行的必要性至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Open Transportation Journal
Open Transportation Journal Social Sciences-Transportation
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信