the travaux préparatoires hague rules hague-visby rules - Comite ...

614 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby RulesIl y a un point qui n’est pas élucidé. Le représentant de la délégation canadienne afait remarquer que les arrimeurs pouvaient être des préposés aux stevedores. Je proposede laisser cette question de côté et de voter sur une énumération concrète plutôtque de voter sur des mots généraux comme “servant” et “agent” sans quoi je seraisobligé de demander qu’on veuille bien préciser, à l’intention du comité de rédaction,quels sont les services qui entrent dans ces deux catégories. En effet, il n’y a pas de traductionfrançaise pour ces mots. Le mot “agent” est souvent traduit en français d’unemanière approximative par “mandataire” ce qui, dans le cas qui nous occupe, n’auraitpas beaucoup de sens. Je crois donc qu’il est préférable de définir d’une manière concrèteles personnes appelées à bénéficier de cette disposition.Si vous n’y voyez pas d’objection, je propose de mettre aux voix la proposition consistantà faire bénéficier de la disposition de l’art. 2: “le capitaine, l’équipage et le pilote”.Nous aurons ensuite à nous prononcer s’il y a lieu sur des adjonctionséventuelles à cette liste qui constitue un minimum.L’Association britannique a-t-elle une objection à ce que nous énumérions d’unefaçon concrète le groupe de personnes qui doivent bénéficier de l’art. 2.La parole est à Monsieur Miller de la délégation britannique.[301]Mr. C. Miller (Great Britain). Gentlemen, I am only troubling you again at the invitationof our President.The manner in which this arises is this. The Canadian delegation has proposed thatwe suppress the words “servant or agent”. I am not talking about independent contractorsat all, that is a different point. The suggestion is that we suppress the words“servant or agent” and instead of them substitute a list of the servants or agents whomwe mean by that. I am very much afraid that if this is put to the vote we shall have to beopposed to it. The phrase “servants and agents” has been used in many, many conventions.It has been used in the Limitation of Liability Convention, it is used, if I rememberrightly, in the Nuclear Ship Convention. It is the way we designate persons who areemployed by the shipowner, distinguishing persons employed regularly by theshipowner in contradistinction to those employed as independent contractors to do oneparticular job. No-one could possibly argue that your servants or domestic staff are notyour preposés, but when you come to build a house you employ in the loose sense ofthe word a contractor to build it and you pay him for it. No-one could say that he is aservant, he is an independent contractor. Like the elephant it is very difficult to define,but you know it when you see it. And the worst possible thing we could do, gentlemen,would be to start to put into this Convention a list of people who would be includedunder servants or agents. I should hand over one of our textbooks on the law of agencyand say write the whole thing out in the Convention, and I would say many otherlawyers would say I shall have to do the same thing. Therefore we cannot appreciate theobjections raised against these hallowed words which have served us so well in the pastand which [392/310] we all understand though we have difficulty in defining them.And now I will go into the question whether there shall be a long enumeration ofthe type of persons who are servants and agents. Against that proposition I am afraidwe feel strong and we shall have most violently to vote against it. And we do equallyviolently support the proposition that the words “against an independent contractor”should be suppressed.I trust I have made myself clear, Mr. President.The last observation I have to make is a suggestion about the pilot. The pilot is neithera servant nor an independent contractor and the relationship between pilots andshipowners whose ships they take into port and the general public is regulated by theMaritime Convention of 1910, and for heaven’s sake let us not interfere with that.