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

PART II - INTRODUCTION 79The alternative between a model bill of lading and uniform legislationbecause I felt duty bound to do so, as I have been requested to follow the labours ofthis Conference and to report to the Comité Maritime International, who held theirsession in Antwerp at the end of July last.Now, Gentlemen, this question of Government intervention, or I should rather sayof settlement by legislation, has already been examined roughly at the AntwerpConference; in the first place, Dr. Loder, in the name of Holland, and various othergentlemen on behalf of France, Italy, the Scandinavian countries and of other Stateshave expressed their views on the subject. I even may add that Dr. Bisschop also waspresent there and expressed his views. As far as I can remember - and I think I am rightas I have not now the report of the Antwerp Conference before me - the general viewof that Conference was that the matter should be settled by a voluntary convention; allthe speakers there expressed the wish, which seems common to all of us here, that anunderstanding should be arrived at by a voluntary arrangement, for the present atleast, and not by legislation. (Hear, hear).Why not by legislation, Sir? I think that for the present moment, if everybody isagreed that an understanding is desirable on these matters, it would be quite out of thequestion to hope that one could arrive at a settlement by legislation within any space oftime sufficiently short to be practical for our present purpose. It is quite obvious thatthese Rules (I will not call them a Code, as Mr. Dor did) which would be called the“Hague Rules” as has been suggested, are based upon the results of what has been thepreliminary work done by the British Imperial Committee. I do not think that therewould be much chance prima facie to get the legislators of the various countries of theworld to take as a basis of an international agreement a document which, as a matter offact, is not an international document, but on the contrary one which must appear toeverybody as a sort of draft that was intended more especially for the British Empire.[64]Mr. H. J. Knottenbelt (Rotterdam): Mr. Chairman. It was not my intention to takepart in the fight fought out in this room. I think the gentlemen who have alreadydefended my standpoint have done it in such a form that their arguments do not needto be further developed. But I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you want to hear thestandpoint of different nations on this matter. Therefore, as a representative of theDutch Shipowners’ Association, I think it will be well to state what is our view in thismatter. I can say that the general feeling of our shipowners is that it is desirable toarrive at a uniform international regulation of the question. But we should like[65]to come to such a regulation in a free way, that is to say, that the rights and liabilitiesof both parties should be regulated by rules accepted by both parties of their own freewill (Hear, hear), and not under pressure of legislation. That is also the standpoint ofthe International Chamber of Commerce, which held its conference in July last inLondon. There the general opinion expressed was that we must try to get to a uniformregulation, not along the way of settlement by law, but on the lines of freeunderstanding between the parties interested. I think that the latter is the best way,because we know that it is very difficult to change laws, especially in this country; wehave a law dating back to 1838; we have been always trying to get it amended, but untilthis day we have not succeeded. I am very strongly under the impression that we mustnot seek for help from the Governments, but that we should try to come to anarrangement. Especially the International Chamber of Commerce is trying this, and itwill have the assistance of the Netherlands’ shipowners.