로테르담 규칙상 이행보조자로서 ‘이행당사자 (performing party)’에 관한 법적 연구
Legal Study on the Performing Party as Agent under the Rotterdam Rules
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This is true of performing parties, who are not maritime performing parties. They may perform significant services under a multimodal contract with a sea leg and in respect of whom the carrier is vicariously responsible. However, nonetheless, the Rotterdam Rules do not directly impose any duties upon them. The duties owed by non-maritime performing parties are to be determined by reference to the applicable law and not under the Rotterdam Rules. Although the Rotterdam Rules do not impose obligations on parties who have been styled in the text as secondary actors, they do not provide categories of secondary actors with the benefit of its protective provisions under the legal equivalent of a Himalaya clause. The reason is that because the employees are economically dependent on their employers, their disadvantages are ultimately borne by the employer, the carrier or maritime performing parties in this context. Due to their economic dependency, if we denied the defense and limit of liability for the employees, it would result in, in fact, depriving the carrier or a maritime performing party itself of the defense and limit of liability. Thus, the UNCITRAL Working Group, instead of modifying the definition of ‘performing party’, induced specific reference to employees and gave explicit solutions in each place. Article 19(4) explicitly denies the possibility of direct action against the employees under the Rotterdam Rules, article 18(c) treats the acts or omissions of the employee is attributable to the carrier as if it is its own, and article 4(c) extends the Himalaya protection to the employee.
Abstract
Article 1(6) of the Rotterdam Rules defines the term ‘performing party’ as a person who performs or undertakes to perform any of the carrier’s responsibilities under a contract of carriage and acts, either directly or indirectly, at the carrier’s request or under the carrier’s supervision or control. This notion is broader than ‘performing carrier’ or ‘actual carrier’ used in previous international conventions in the sense that it includes not only the sub-carrier who performs the actual carriage but also other persons involved in the performance of the carriage such as stevedores or terminal operators. But, the Rotterdam Rules do not impose liability on all performing party. Rather, they provide for liability only for the part of them called ‘maritime performing party’. A maritime performing party is vicariously responsible for the acts and omissions, amounting to a breach of his obligations, of any person to which he has entrusted the performance of any of the carrier’s obligations under the contract of carriage. This is true of performing parties, who are not maritime performing parties. They may perform significant services under a multimodal contract with a sea leg and in respect of whom the carrier is vicariously responsible. However, nonetheless, the Rotterdam Rules do not directly impose any duties upon them. The duties owed by non-maritime performing parties are to be determined by reference to the applicable law and not under the Rotterdam Rules. Although the Rotterdam Rules do not impose obligations on parties who have been styled in the text as secondary actors, they do not provide categories of secondary actors with the benefit of its protective provisions under the legal equivalent of a Himalaya clause. The reason is that because the employees are economically dependent on their employers, their disadvantages are ultimately borne by the employer, the carrier or maritime performing parties in this context. Due to their economic dependency, if we denied the defense and limit of liability for the employees, it would result in, in fact, depriving the carrier or a maritime performing party itself of the defense and limit of liability. Thus, the UNCITRAL Working Group, instead of modifying the definition of ‘performing party’, induced specific reference to employees and gave explicit solutions in each place. Article 19(4) explicitly denies the possibility of direct action against the employees under the Rotterdam Rules, article 18(c) treats the acts or omissions of the employee is attributable to the carrier as if it is its own, and article 4(c) extends the Himalaya protection to the employee.
참고문헌 (32)
- 김인현, "해상법" (2011), 법문사
- 이균성, "신해상법대계" (2010), 한국해양수산개발원
- 이기수, "보험･해상법" (2008), 박영사
- 이주흥, "해상운송법" (1992), 박영사
- 최종현, "해상법상론" (2009), 박영사
- 한국선주협회, "로테르담규칙 해설", ~ (2009)
- 권기훈, "이행보조자의 과실에 대한 운송인의 불감항책임", 해사법연구, 20(1), pp.87~110 (2008), 한국해사법학회
- 김선옥, "로테르담규칙에 있어서 해상물건운송계약당사자의 의무 및 책임에 관한 법리적 연구", 통상법률, (104), pp.76~97 (2012), 법무부[DOI]
- 김인현, "2008년 로테르담 규칙상 裁判管轄制度의 성립 과정과 내용 - 전속적 합의관할을 중심으로 -", 한국해법학회지, 32(1), pp.191~235 (2010), 한국해법학회
- 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
- 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
- 양정호, "로테르담 규칙상 이행당사자와 히말라야 조항", 해운물류연구, 26(3), pp.407~431 (2010), 한국해운물류학회
- 임동철, "재운송계약과 선박소유자의 책임 -운송책임의 주체와 관련하여-", 한국해법회지, 15(1) (1993), 한국해법학회
- 정영석, "항만하역사업자의 책임", 상사판례연구, 15 (2003), 한국상사판례학회
- 최세련, "상법 제798조 제2항의 해석 및 적용에 대한 검토", 해상･보험법연구, 5(1) (2009)
- 최준선, "UNCITRAL 국제(해상)운송법초안의 재판관할조항에 대한 고찰", 한국해법학회지, 28(1), pp.403~431 (2006), 한국해법학회
- Baatz, Yvonne, "The Rotterdam Rule: A Practical Annotation" (2009), Informa
- Schoenbaum, Thomas J, "Admiralty and Maritime Law, 2nd ed." (1994), West Pub. Co.
- Sturley, Michael F., "The Rotterdam Rules -The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea" (2010), Sweet & Maxwell
- Tetley, William, "Marine Cargo Claims, 3rd ed." (1988), Blais
- Treitel, G. H., "Caver on Bills of Lading, 2nd ed." (2005), Sweet & Maxwell
- Johan Schelin, "Alexander", pp.Kluwer Law International, Stefano Zunarelli, The Rotterdam Rules 2008 -Commentary to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea
- Berlingieri, F., "The Rotterdam Rules: The ‘The Maritime Plus’ Approach to Uniformity", EJCCL (2009)
- Diamond, QC Anthony, "The Rotterdam Rules", LMCLQ, part 4 (2009)
- Diamond, QC, Anthony, "The Next Sea Carriage Convention?", Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 2 (2008)
- Fujita, Tomotaka, "The Comprehensive Coverage of the New Convention: Performing Parties and the Multimodal Implications", Texas International Law Journal, 44 (2009)
- Mankowski, P., "The Rotterdam Rules, Scope of application and freedom of contract", EJCCL (2010)
- Sturley, M. F., "Modernizing and Reforming U.S. Maritime Law: The Rotterdam Rules in the United States", Texas International Law Journal, (Spring) (2009)
- Sturley, Michael, "The treatment of Performing Parties, CMI Yearbook" (2003)
- Sturley Michael F., "Issues of Transport Law: The Treatment of Performing Parties, CMI Yearbook" (2003)
- Thomas, D Rhidian, "A New Convention for the Carriage of Goods by Sea - Rotterdam Rules" (2009), Lawtext
- Report of Working Group Ⅲ (Transport Law) on the work of its 19th session, "UNCITRAL", ~, pp.A (2007), CN.9[DOI]