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

726 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rulesthe application of the Hague Rules. On the contrary, the amendment proposed by theabove delegations widens the ambit of efficiency of the Convention which ought to beapplied also when the port of discharge, or one of the optional unloading ports, lies inthe territory of a contracting State.A final consideration supports the subject amendment. It has been said that the1924 Convention is good and satisfactory as is proved by the great number of ratificationsand accessions as well as by the many domestic laws moulded on its pattern.Now, it is improved by all the modifications which have been already decided andtherefore it is evident the opportuneness of enlarging its field of application, thusachieving our aim consisting of the uniformity of maritime law. Thank you.Mr. H. E. Scheffer (Netherlands). Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I fullyshare the regret expressed by the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom thatwe did not come to a complete agreement on this point. However, we agree on twopoints: we agree on the wish that we should give a large scope of application to the uniformlaw on bills of lading; and the second point on which we agree is that we shouldlike to adopt a text acceptable to all maritime nations that are interested in this matter;therefore, if we cannot agree on everything, we should at least make it possible forthose who have another point of view to follow their own system. It is in this respectthat we are lead by a spirit of conciliation.The reason why we still stick to the formulation of the scope of application of theConvention as it was worded in the so-called Stockholm protocol is that in our view ifwe want to have a large application, we should say so in plain words.Now the other method which is advocated by the delegations who are in favour ofthe other text which is before us, Document Conn. 25, means that what is wanted isnot said in the text of the Convention but is left to the parties to stipulate amongstthemselves. What in our view should be the duty of the Legislature is left to privateparties in business. I have the feeling that here is a lack of courage on the side of theLegislature. If we really want to give a wide application to the uniform rules, we shouldnot hesitate to say so in plain words.The arguments that were put forward by the distinguished delegate of the UnitedKingdom were, firstly, that this attitude was [77] based on a scrupulous regard for thejurisdiction of other States - he meant non-contracting States. Now, I want to give theassurance that the Netherlands do not fail in respect for the jurisdiction of other States.There is however no question of respect or non-respect with regard to non-contractingStates, whose jurisdiction remains intact, because what we are aiming at is that wewant, in the States who are parties to the Protocol and to the Convention as amended,the application of a unique system and not a manifold system, which may vary fromcase to case according to various doctrines on the points of connection.The second argument by the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom wasthat the text, as it was proposed in Stockholm, was leading to all sorts of conflicts oflaw. Mr. Chairman, I think it is just the other way round. It is the other text that givesrise to difficulties of conflicts of law because it subordinates the application of internationallyagreed uniform rules of law to rules of international private law, that is tosay, to rules of conflicts of law, whereas the object and aim of the unification of law isto avoid the application of these rules which are written for cases in which an internationaluniform rule is lacking. There is a contradiction in the system of DocumentCONN 25, because on the one hand it is restrictive, on the other hand it recognizesthe validity of Paramount clauses which emanate from another idea and give a broaderapplication to the Convention without giving an assurance that no conflicts of lawwould arise. The Stockholm text gives this assurance because it guarantees that withinany contracting State only one unique regime will apply.I am very sorry that I cannot follow the remark made by the distinguished delegate