This thesis explains that the development of the law of the carriage of goods by sea has led to the appearance of the Hague, Hague-Visby and Hamburg Rules. The existence of these different conventions plainly contributes to the breakdown of uniformity. The thesis, nevertheless, argues that international uniformity is still valuable since it reduces the legal costs significantly. However, many conflicts arise among the various countries in interpreting these conventions. Such conflicts lead to uncertainty and unpredictability, and in consequence, to the increase of legal costs. In proving the latter, the thesis examines and evaluates the conflicts of interpretations of these conventions brought on by containerisation. The thesis proves the inadequacy of various propositions on the question of how to avoid such conflicts. It argues, however, that the failure to consider foreign decisions is a significant factor of having such conflicts. In proving the latter, the thesis provides a comparative study in evaluating various courts' decisions that relate to containerisation. The thesis, however, evaluates different measures to achieve international uniform interpretations. Most of these measures are not completely satisfactory solutions to such achievement. Accordingly, the thesis examines the obstacles that may face the applicability of comparative law in practice, and the capability of avoiding these obstacles. The thesis also offers various observations in relation to how the national courts shall consider comparative law. The key point is that the divergence that characterised the interpretation of the existing conventions will reappear unless there is some obligation on national courts to consider and apply comparative law. The thesis therefore proposes that any future convention relating to the law of carriage of goods by sea shall specify that the national courts of every contracting state shall refer to the decisions of the other contracting states when dealing with questions of interpretation.

Arbitration has previously been a dispute resolution method for commercial and investment disputes mostly concerning businesses and states. The recently launched Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration (The Hague Rules) are a universal set of rules for business-related human rights disputes in international arbitration, which offer an additional legal remedy for victims of human rights abuse linked to business activities. This thesis discusses if the legal remedies have been improved and reflects on previous legal remedies in order to analyse a potential improvement provided by the Hague Rules. The history of business-related human rights disputes has been strongly affected by the concept of corporate social responsibility which have contributed to a development of several soft law regulations. At the same time, businesses, states and arbitral tribunals have contributed to gradually include human rights aspects in arbitration. Despite this, the development before the Hague Rules was fragmentary and victims of the business-related human rights abuse were not provided a stable access to legal remedy. Corrupted and impartial domestic courts could in turn lead to the result of victims being completely excluded from access to justice. Through the Hague Rules, victims are provided with an opportunity to raise claims in arbitration, a development that have included human rights aspects in arbitration such as public interest, imbalance of power, expert arbitrators and witness protection. Even if the Hague Rules offer an effective legal remedy for the victims of business-related human rights abuse in many regards, imbalance of power between a well-funded corporation and the victims cannot be solved solely by a soft law instrument. Furthermore, domestic laws and domestic courts might raise issues for the Hague Rules which could also potentially decrease important features of the national adjudication process. Even if the Hague Rules could be improved further, they are still an improvement of legal remedies for victims of human rights abuse linked to business activities and have increased the access to justice.

This thesis aims to investigate the consequences of a judgement issued by UK Supreme Court in November 2021, known within the shipping industry as the "CMA CGM Libra" case. This case is perceived by the industry to have affected hte the understanding of the concept of seaworthiness and due diligence, as they should be understood within the context of the Hague Rules and Hague Visby Rules.  The focus lies on the understanding of these two concepts within an English as well as Swedish context, in order to further conclude whether the Judgement may have changed the definitioin of these concepts in any way; from the perspecteve of English as well as Swedish maritime law. This also includes a thorough discussion about the extent of influence English maritime law has on Swedish maritime law, if any.  This text is suitable for anyone with an intererst in or objective to learn more about seaworthines and due diligence as these concepts shall be understood from an English and/or Swedish point of view, and/or in getting better aquainted with the reasoning of the UK Supreme Court in the Libra judgement. As mentioned, the relationship between the two legal systems (including Denmark and Norway) will also be discussed. Students of maritime law will likely be best suited to read and understand this thesis and the conclusions thereof.

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.