ABSTRACT
During the late 1960s, the Hague Rules and the Hague-Visby Rules came under vehement attack from underdeveloped nations who believed that the ‘operation of the “traditional maritime law” along with certain aspects of international trade law, impaired [their] balance of payments and ensured [their] continued poverty and perpetual underdevelopment in an industrial age’.1 The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD),2 charged with the task of examining the operation of the Hague Rules and the commission of a working paper,3 consulted interested parties ranging from shippers, shipowners, insurers and legal bodies from many countries, and concluded that there was a compelling need for a new carrier liability regime. A number of convincing objections in respect of the two existing conventions on carriage by sea were put forward. In brief:
• Lack of a uniform standard for burden of proof in both conventions. Where there was a reference to burden of proof, as in Art IV(1),4 the courts tended to interpret it in favour of the carrier, thus placing the shipper under a burden difficult to displace due to a lack of access to facts.
