복합운송인의 책임체계에 관한 연구
A Study on the Liability Regime of Multimodal Transport Operator
0
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Today, the field of international transportations can be described in the multimodal transport era. The multimodal carriage is the transport of goods by two or more carriers using two or more types of carriage (i.e. truck, rail, sea and air). However, the problem is the carrier liability in multimodal transport because the cargo liability issues remain uncertain. In most cases involving multimodal carriage, one must first determine whether the intention of the parties is that the carrier's liability was for carriage over the entire voyage from origin to final destination, or only over the portion of the transportation undertaken by the carrier's own equipment. This is the problem concerning multimodal transport operator(MTO)'s liability regime. There are three approaches to MTO's liability regimes: the uniform liability systems; the network liability systems; the modified network liability systems. Under the uniform liability systems, the same liability rules apply all of the stages of the transport operation, regardless of the means of transportation. Therefore, the same rules of the uniform systems govern all legal connections concerning any cargo loss, damage or delay in delivery, even if they cannot be localized, or occurred gradually during several transport legs. In the meantime, a MTO in the network liability systems is responsible for 'the rules' that apply to the transport leg during which the loss, damage or delay occurred. Lastly, the modified network liability systems represent a compromise between the uniform systems and the network systems. Both the Rotterdam rules and the revised maritime law of Korea adopt the network liability regime to multimodal carriage. I think these two groups' options suggest the most comprehensive legal regimes for the multimodal carriage of goods. In my opinion, the uniform systems apply to any cargo loss, damage or delay in delivery that occurred from the time when the carrier or a performing party received the goods until the time when the goods were delivered to the consignee. Also, the uniform systems would cause conflicts with the mandatory provisions of the international transport liability regime(i.e. CMR or Warsaw Systems). Therefore, I think network systems have more effective solutions to the cargo liability issues than uniform systems. Also, this approach can match well with the present commercial practice in the international carriage of goods, other laws governing carriers liability, and the global trend.
Abstract
Today, the field of international transportations can be described in the multimodal transport era. The multimodal carriage is the transport of goods by two or more carriers using two or more types of carriage (i.e. truck, rail, sea and air). However, the problem is the carrier liability in multimodal transport because the cargo liability issues remain uncertain. In most cases involving multimodal carriage, one must first determine whether the intention of the parties is that the carrier's liability was for carriage over the entire voyage from origin to final destination, or only over the portion of the transportation undertaken by the carrier's own equipment. This is the problem concerning multimodal transport operator(MTO)'s liability regime. There are three approaches to MTO's liability regimes: the uniform liability systems; the network liability systems; the modified network liability systems. Under the uniform liability systems, the same liability rules apply all of the stages of the transport operation, regardless of the means of transportation. Therefore, the same rules of the uniform systems govern all legal connections concerning any cargo loss, damage or delay in delivery, even if they cannot be localized, or occurred gradually during several transport legs. In the meantime, a MTO in the network liability systems is responsible for 'the rules' that apply to the transport leg during which the loss, damage or delay occurred. Lastly, the modified network liability systems represent a compromise between the uniform systems and the network systems. Both the Rotterdam rules and the revised maritime law of Korea adopt the network liability regime to multimodal carriage. I think these two groups' options suggest the most comprehensive legal regimes for the multimodal carriage of goods. In my opinion, the uniform systems apply to any cargo loss, damage or delay in delivery that occurred from the time when the carrier or a performing party received the goods until the time when the goods were delivered to the consignee. Also, the uniform systems would cause conflicts with the mandatory provisions of the international transport liability regime(i.e. CMR or Warsaw Systems). Therefore, I think network systems have more effective solutions to the cargo liability issues than uniform systems. Also, this approach can match well with the present commercial practice in the international carriage of goods, other laws governing carriers liability, and the global trend.
참고문헌 (45)
- Thomas J. Schoenbaum, "Admiralty and Maritime Law 507, 3d Ed" (2001)
- 최준선, "국제거래법 제6판" (2008)
- 최준선, "보험법ㆍ해상법 제4판" (2009)
- 이균성, "보험ㆍ해상법요론", pp.230~ (2003)
- Benjamin W. Yancey, "The Carriage of Goods: Hague, COGSA, Visby, and Hamburg", 57 Tul. L. Rev. 1238 (1983)
- H. Edwin Anderson Ⅲ, "Assessing the Customary Freight Unit: A COGSA Quagmire", 9 U.S.F. Mar. L.J. 173, 175 (1996)
- Rolf Herber, "The European Legal Experience with Multimodalism", 64 Tul. L. Rev. 611, 612 (1989)
- Michael E. Crowley, "The Limited Scope of the Cargo Liability Regime Covering Carriage of Goods by Sea: The Multimodal Problem", Tul. L. Rev., 79, pp.1461~1463 (2005)
- Stephen G. Wood, "Multimodal Transportation: An American Perspective on Carrier Liability and Bill of Lading Issues", 46 Am. J. Comp. L. 403, 413 (1998)
- Saul Sorkin, "Limited Liability in Multimodal Transport and the Effect of Deregulation", 13 Tul. Mar. L.J. 285, 304 (1989)
- 정영석, "국제해상운송법 개정판" (2008)
- 최준선, "상법총칙ㆍ상행위법 제5판" (2009)
- 임홍근, "상법 - 상법총칙ㆍ상행위", pp.426~ (2001)
- 이기수, "상법총칙ㆍ상행위법 제6판", pp.452~ (2008)
- John F. Wilson, "Basic Carrier Liability and the Right of Limitation, in the Hamburg Rules on the Carriage of Goods by Sea", pp.138~ (1978)
- Johan Schelin, "The UNCITRAL Convention on Carriage of Goods by Sea: Harmonization or De-Harmonization?", Tex. Int'l L.J., 44, pp.321~ (2009)
- 최준선, "국제항공운송법론", pp.33~ (1987)
- Stephen Dempsey, "International Air Cargo and Baggage Liability and the Tower of Babel", Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev., 36, pp.239~313 (2004)
- 최준선, "Montreal Convention의 주요 내용 - 국제항공운송인의 책임에 관한 Warsaw Convention의 개정", 국제거래법연구, 8, pp.370~ (1999)
- 이강빈, "국제항공화물배상책임제도에 관한 고찰", 항공우주법학회지, 18, pp.43~ (2003)
- 전삼현, "신 몬트리올조약상 항공물건운송인의 책임", 상사법연구, 23(3), pp.553~576 (2004), 한국상사법학회
- 최준선, "商法 航空運送編 制定案의 意義", 상사법연구, 27(4), pp.319~340 (2009), 한국상사법학회
- 법무부, "상법 항공운송편 제정 자료집" (2009), 법무부
- 김두환, "국제항공운송인의 책임에 관한 최신 몬트리올조약의 주요내용과 논점", 항공진흥, (29), pp.153~154 (2003)
- 이기수, "보험ㆍ해상법 제8판", pp.484~ (2008)
- 서헌제, "콘테이너복합운송인의 책임법리" (1986)
- 임동철, "海上物件運送에서 ＂Door To Door＂ 運送에 관하여 - UNCITRAL", CMI 運送法草案과 관련하여 -, 2003, pp.25(2), 5~30[DOI]
- 송상현, "해상법원론 제4판", pp.288~ (2008)
- William J. Coffey, "Multimodalism and the American Carrier", 64 Tul. L. Rev. 569, 576 (1989)
- Kurosh Nasseri, "The Multimodal Convention", 19 J. Mar. L. & Com. 231, 243 (1988)
- 김만석, "1992년 FIATA 복합운송선하증권 표준약관", 해운산업연구, 통권 : 110, pp.40~58 (1993)
- David Moran Bovio, "Ocean Carriers' Duty of Care to Cargo in Port: The Rotterdam Rules of 2009", Fordham Int'l L.J., 32, pp.1162~ (2009)
- 김인현, "국제해상물건운송계약에 관한 2008년 UNCITRAL 조약(로테르담규칙)의 適用範圍와 契約自由의 原則", 법학연구, 49(2), pp.35~70 (2009), 법학연구소
- Tomotaka Fujita, "The Comprehensive Coverage of the New Convention: Performing Parties and the Multimodal Implications", Tex. Int'l L.J., 44, pp.349~ (2009)
- 김인현, "UN UNCITRAL 運送法會議에서 運送人의 責任制度", 한국해법학회지, 27(2), pp.357~404 (2005), 한국해법학회
- 김인현, "2007년 改正 商法 海商篇의 개정 내용과 의의", 한국해법학회지, 31(1), pp.99~156 (2009), 한국해법학회
- 송양호, "복합운송에 관한 입법논의와 외국입법의 검토", 기업법연구, 22(3), pp.53~88 (2008), 한국기업법학회
- 김인현, "법무부 상법해상편 복합운송 신설안에 대한 수정의견", 2007. 4. 23.자 법률신문, 14~ (2007)
- 고재종, "중국의 복합운송법에 관한 고찰", 외법논집, (24), pp.65~97 (2006), 법학연구소
- 孫珠瓚, "複合運送契約法試案論", 한국해법학회지, 26(2), pp.9~42 (2004), 한국해법학회
- 정찬형, "상법강의(하) 제10판", pp.833~ (2008)
- 金昌俊, "複合運送에 관한 商法規定의 新設", 한국해법학회지, 26(2), pp.337~378 (2004), 한국해법학회
- 이인애, "해상법내 복합운송규정의 입법 논란", 월간 해양한국, pp.42~43 (2005)
- 정완용, "해상법 개정 시안 - 선박, 해상위험, 선박채권 분야-", 한국해법학회지, 25(2), pp.233~252 (2003), 한국해법학회
- 김정호, "독일의 신운송법이 우리 상법에 미칠 수 있는 영향", 고려법학, 37, pp.52~ (2001)