Le commerce international est souvent relié au transport maritime. La poursuite des règles uniformes se rapportant à ce dernier avait débuté à la fin du XIXe siècle et a abouti à l’émergence des Règles de La Haye, des Règles de Hambourg et des Règles de Rotterdam. L’exonération du transporteur maritime, qui suscitait des controverses favorisant le développement des règles maritimes internationales, a été réglementée de trois façons différentes dans les trois Règles précitées. La question principale abordée dans la thèse présente est si elles sont suffisamment satisfaisantes. Une autre question, qui se pose s’il est prouvé qu’aucune d’entre elles ne l’est, est quelle serait une meilleure façon. Pour y répondre, deux critères, soit la justice et la clarté, ont été choisis. Les recherches effectuées dans le cadre de la thèse présente visent à donner une évaluation profonde des régimes existants en matière de réglementation de l’exonération du transporteur maritime ainsi que des suggestions d’amélioration à cet égard. / The international trade is usually connected with the carriage of goods by sea. The campaign in pursuit of uniform rules governing such carriage was launched in the late nineteenth century and has led to the emergence of the Hague Rules, the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules. The carrier’s entitlement to exemption from liability, which triggered much controversy contributing to the development of the international shipping rules, has been regulated in three different ways in the aforementioned three Rules. The principal question addressed in the present thesis is whether they are sufficiently satisfactory. Another question, which is to be dealt with if none of them proves to be the case, is what a better way could be like. Two criteria, namely fairness and clarity, have been chosen in answer to the aforesaid questions. The research contained in the present thesis aims to give a thorough evaluation of the existing regimes regarding the carrier’s exemption from liability and some improvement suggestions in this respect.

Abstrakt  Den här studien handlar om att ta reda på varför elektroniska bill of ladings inte används i internationell handel. Bill of lading är den äldsta frakthandlingen som fortfarande används inom sjötransport. I studien används en rättdogmatiskmetod i kombination med kompletterande samtal med personer som arbetar med dokumenten på en dagligbasis, representanter från två olika banker. Resultatet visar att anledningen bakom det låga intresset kring eB/L är säkerheten bakom dom negotiable dokumenten. I dagsläget finns ingen lag eller konvention som stödjer någon elektronisk transaktion av värdepapper. För att använda sig av den här typen av transaktioner måste dokumenten vara non-negotiable och kan inte överföras till en tredje part under resans gång. För att lösa den typen av transaktioner har några företag implementerat blockchainsystemet som ett säkert sätt att överlåta värdepapper elektroniskt. / Abstract  This Thesis is about finding the reason why the electronic bill of lading is not actively used in international trade. Bill of lading is the oldest transport document that is still used in maritime transport. In this thesis the legal method is combined with interviews with concerned parties who is working daily with these documents, two representatives from two different banks. The results show that the reason behind the lack of interest in eB/L is that there is no security behind the negotiable document. As of today, there is no convention or law that supports an electronic transfer of a document of title. To use these transfers the document must be non-negotiable and cannot be traded to a third party during the voyage. To solve the transfer of the documents, some companies have implemented the blockchain system as a safe way to trade documents of title electronically.

In the context of an international carriage of goods by sea contract, the consignees and endorsees are the two important categories of the parties whom their rights and liabilities have not been legislated for in any international carriage of goods by sea convention until the adoption of the Rotterdam Rules. The truth is that, in contrast to the rights and the correlative liabilities and obligations of the shippers and carriers, the rights and liabilities of the consignees and endorsees have always been dealt with by the domestic and national laws. However, the Rotterdam Rules, with the goals of promoting legal certainty, improving the efficiency of international carriage of goods and harmonization and modernization of the carriage rules, for the first time at an international level, have attempted to regulate the provisions governing the rights and liabilities of the latter parties. Thus, the application of the Rotterdam Rules, in case they gain the force of law, will be broader than any other international maritime convention. Therefore, this has compelled the necessity of carrying out a profound and detailed critical analysis of the new, and somewhat innovative, regulations, since the impact of the application of the Convention on the existing carriage of goods by sea rules, both nationally and internationally will be crucially significant. The UK as one of the major actors of the maritime industry has a long-established set of rules particularly in the field of rights and liabilities of the parties, both in the common law and statutory senses, governing the carriage of goods by sea affairs for centuries. This thesis aims to evaluate the relevant provisions of the Rotterdam Rules by way of comparison with their corresponding rules of the English law in order to find out whether these new sets of regulations can establish a reliable source of reference for the consignees and endorsees who wish to ascertain their rights and become aware of their obligations and liabilities. In other words, the main objective of this study is to examine whether the Rotterdam Rules clearly define and specify the rights and liabilities of the consignees and endorsees to a contract of carriage of goods by sea. Further, it is going to investigate whether the Convention succeed in achieving its goals with respect to the rights and liabilities of these parties. Also, ratification of the Rotterdam Rules is believed to have a significant impact on the English maritime law and therefore, the question whether it is reasonable for the UK to ratify the Convention will be answered in this research. It is suggested that the findings of this thesis in addition to the solutions proposed to solve the difficulties, ambiguity and complexity of the existing rules, will be of assist to the UK authorities as well as the legislative bodies in other jurisdictions in order to obtain a more effective decision on the adoption of the Rotterdam Rules. This study ends with illustrating an alarming vision of the future of maritime law which will be largely affected by the evolution of smart technologies in the shipping industry.

鹿特丹規則自1996年開始草擬，歷經大小數十次會議，迄2008年12月11日於聯合國第63屆大會第67次會議於紐約審議通過，該規則首次確立「海運加」（海運階段加上海運前後其他運送方式階段）之適用範圍，較諸傳統海上運送公約之適用範圍，變化甚鉅。「海運加」制度將鹿特丹規則之適用範圍擴大到傳統海上運送階段以外之其他領域，包括與海上運送連接之陸上運送，鐵路、公路、內陸河道運送甚至航空運送都包括在內。 因此，為因應鹿特丹規則適用範圍之延伸，鹿特丹規則創設了「海運履行輔助人」制度，意指「凡從貨物到達裝載港至貨物離開卸載港期間履行或承諾履行運送人義務之履行輔助人」。內陸運送人僅在履行或承諾履行其完全在港區範圍內之服務時方為海運履行輔助人。海運履行輔助人一方面承擔鹿特丹規則中運送人之義務及賠償責任，另一方面則同時享有運送人之抗辯及賠償責任限制。 我國雖然尚未加入鹿特丹規則，但該規則已明確規定，只要海上貨物運送契約之裝、卸載港或收、交貨地所在國已經批准、接受或核准公約，抑或該當事人適用或援引該公約，則將使其他任一當事人，不論其所在國是否批准、接受或核准該公約，同樣受到鹿特丹規則之約束。因此，我國海商法未來之修正方向，應深入了解並正確把握鹿特丹規則之原則及要領，以維持我國海運在國際市場上之競爭力。

Ces dernières décennies ont été marquées par une accélération des échanges mondiaux. Le transport maritime du fait de son coût peu élevé a contribué à ce développement. En effet, aujourd’hui près de quatre vingt dix pourcent des marchandises transportées dans le monde le sont par voie maritime. L’augmentation des volumes échangés et la capacité des navires ont fait augmenter les risques d’incidents et du même coup la responsabilité de tous les acteurs des contrats maritimes de transport de marchandises. La responsabilité du chargeur, qui a été longtemps restreinte à un simple cas excepté libérant la responsabilité du transporteur, prend son essor. Elle s’autonomise autour de la construction d’un régime général et spécial qu’il convient de mieux ordonner. A cet égard, l’étude comparative des expériences sino-françaises dans le domaine des responsabilités du chargeur fait apparaître de nombreuses disparités et différences de traitement. Les Règles de Rotterdam s’inscrivent dans cette perspective en consacrant ce phénomène. Elles prennent en considération de nouveaux types de chargeurs tels que le chargeur documentaire afin de mieux s’adapter à la réalité de l’opération de transport. Les risques d’atteinte à l’environnement par des marchandises dangereuses sont aussi pris en compte. Mais contrairement à la responsabilité du transporteur, la responsabilité contractuelle et délictuelle du chargeur est illimitée. En attendant une ratification des Règles de Rotterdam, la liberté contractuelle constitue un moyen intéressant pour le chargeur de limiter sa responsabilité dans le respect des dispositions d’ordre public ou de ses obligations impératives. / Recent decades have seen an acceleration of world trade. Due to its low cost, maritime transport has contributed to this development. Indeed, nearly ninety percent of goods transported in the world are seaborne. The increase in trading volumes and vessel capacity have increased the risk of incidents and thereby the responsibility of all actors in maritime carriage of goods contracts. The responsibility of the shipper, which has long been restricted to a simple except case releasing the carrier’s liability, is now taking off. This new autonomy, built around general and special ratings, should be better organized. In this regard, the comparative study of Chinese and French experiences in the responsibility of the shipper reveals many disparities and differences in treatment. The Rotterdam Rules follow the recent trend by taking into account new types of shippers, such as the documentary shipper, in order to better adapt to the reality of transport operations. The risks to the environment due to hazardous goods are also taken into account. But unlike the carrier's liability, the shipper’s liability and tort are unlimited. Pending the Rotterdam Rules’ ratification, contractual freedom is an interesting way for the shipper to limit his liability and tort in the respect of safety law or imperative obligations. / 国际间交换近数十年来加速了，海上运输的低价格，助长了他的发展，的确现在几乎百分之九十的国际货物运输都靠海运。由于交换的批量和船的容量增加，使得事件的风险和海上运输合同的各方责任提高了。托运人的责任长期以来限制在一个例外, 让承运人的责任释放。托运人的责任浮现，他的存在是建立在普通制度和专门制度中，需要更好的理清。在此情况下，中法海商法经验的比较，在托运人的责任上显出许多的差距和不同的待遇。在透视中 «鹿特丹规则»呈现了此现象。他考虑到新的托运人的类型，譬如提单托运人为了更符合实际运输的实现，被危险货物造成环保损害的风险,也算在内。但是不比承运人的责任，托运人的合同责任和侵权责任是无限的。在等待«鹿特丹规则»的批准之下，自由合同是一个有意思的办法, 为了限制托运的责任，需要遵守治安法和托运人的必需义务。