ESTADIOS DE NOLLA:

More than one of the unimodal transport conventions discussed in the above sections will be applied if the carriage of goods is performed by a combination of modes of transport. These different legal regimes are mutually exclusive to some extent, and conflicting with each other in some cases, and thus unpredictable and confusing to shippers as well as to transport providers. Therefore, there has been an urgent need for a uniform legal regime to be established under which multimodal transport is governed. That is why the United Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods (the MT Convention) was brought onto the scene in May, 1980. Thirty Contracting Parties are required for its entry into force, which has

not been satisfied yet. Therefore, it is really a very disappointing fact that the MT Convention has so far not yet come into force, despite the urgent need in practice for such a legal instrument.

If unimodal liability regimes must be applied to a contract which combines several modes of transport, confusions or chaos will inevitably be created. To set up a liability regime for multimodal transport, two basic possibilities might be explored.

One possibility is the so-called network system, the prime function of which is to harmonise the existing systems of carrier liability (usually contained in international conventions), and to make their particular rules applicable in a situation where more than one means of transport has been used. A pure network system, which is based upon the existing liability regimes without any additions, will be able to function, only when the location where loss or damage has occurred can be identified. In many cases, however, such a localisation will not be possible. In order to remedy this defect, the network system can be modified by adding a catch-all provision for these cases of unlocalized loss or damage. The modification should be statutory and not contractual in nature in order to promote uniformity.

Another possibility is the creation of a uniform system, which operates on a separate level from the underlying unimodal conventions. The contract for the multimodal carriage of goods exists as a separate entity, regardless of the means of transport actually used, and is subjected to a uniform system of liability, which remains the same during the whole carriage, from the taking over of the goods by the carrier until delivery. It has been endeavoured to demonstrate that from a technical legal point of view, a uniform system is preferable. The MT Convention is just an attempt in advocating such a uniform system of liability, governing the entire carriage from end to end.

The MT Convention was developed largely based on the Hamburg Rules. The structure of the latter was almost exactly followed in the MT Convention, which consists of the following parts: I. General provisions; II. Documentation; III. Liability

of the multimodal transport operator; IV. Liability of the consignor; V. Claims and actions; VI. Supplementary provisions; VII. Customs matters; VIII. Final clauses.

The MT Convention sets out to unify the present multitude of liability systems in use in multimodal transport. Its mandatory provisions mainly concern compensation for loss of, or damage to, the goods as well as compensation for delay in delivery. There is the freedom of the consignor to choose between multimodal transport and segmented transport, which reflects a high degree of flexibility in the MT Convention.

In building up the uniform liability system under the MT Convention, two types of damages occurring in multimodal transport need to be identified. One is the damage to goods which can be localised, i.e. it is possible to determine on which mode of transport the damage occurred; the other is the damage to goods which is non-localised or “concealed”, i.e. it is impossible to determine where the damage occurred.

In case of localised loss or damage, the precise rules relating to the specific mode might be incorporated into the multimodal transport contract. In such case, the claimant would be placed in the same position as he would have been if he had entered into a specific contract for that part of the transport. This is the so-called “network liability principle”. Obviously, the application of this principle should be based on the fact that loss or damage can be localised to a specific segment of the transport. However, the network system has a limited operation in practice, since it hardly has any practical effect upon the liability of the MTO.

In many cases it will not be possible to pinpoint where the damage took place, since loss or damage ordinarily will not be discovered before the goods have arrived at their destination and it will then remain unknown where and under what circumstances the loss or damage has occurred. Then it will not be possible for the MTO to recover from his subcontractors what he might have to pay to his customer. This inability to recover from a subcontractor, because the mode where the damage took place cannot be identified, represents by far the greatest risk for the MTO. It

exists equally under the Hague Rules, the Hamburg Rules, the MT Convention and the UNCTAD/ICC Rules for Multimodal Transport Documents for that matter.

The pure uniform system provides one uniform set of rules of liability with uniform limits. A pure uniform system with limits based on those operating at sea, including the Hague Rules, the Hague-Visby Rules, or the Hamburg Rules, would deprive shippers of taking advantage of the higher limits of liability available under other modal conventions, such as the Warsaw Convention, the CIM or the CMR. The MT Convention has adopted a mixture of the two systems in that it has uniform rules of liability, but varying limits of liability depending on a number of factors.

In setting a limit of liability for non-localised claims, the MT Convention differentiates between two situations. In case of multimodal transport including a maritime segment, a limit which is only slightly over that set by the Hamburg Rules is established. The limitation here is either SDR 920 per package or SDR 2.75 per kilogram. In case of a multimodal transport move without a sea leg, the lowest internationally recognised land transport convention limit in force, that of the CMR, is used, i.e. SDR 8.33 per kilogram. In this case, there is no package limitation.

In case of localised damage, that is when it has been possible to determine during which mode the damage took place, the MTO’s liability will depend on the level of limits of liability in force for that particular mode if an applicable international convention or mandatory national law provides a higher limit of liability than the limits mentioned previously. While several international conventions have higher per kilogram limits than the MT Convention, the package limitation of the MT Convention may effectively produce a higher limitation amount than those of the other conventions. The result of this will be that the MTO’s liability is likely to exceed that of his subcontractor. In this case he will not be able to recover as much from his subcontractor as he may be required to pay to a claimant. This will presumably encourage MTOs to select their subcontractors with great care and take extra precautions to reduce or avoid loss or damage.

A uniform liability system is essential for the development of multimodal transport. Unfortunately, however, it has been a rather slow progress for the entry into force of the MT Convention. Some people hold that it might not be the wisest choice for UNCTAD, a UN organisation, to prepare a convention as such, since many political issues, which have no place in a technical subject such as carrier liability, were raised. The original notion of uniform liability was bitterly opposed by a large number of states representing important carriage interests. The main argument was that conflicts would inevitably arise between a mandatorily applicable Multimodal Convention on the one hand, and the equally mandatory unimodal conventions on the other. Therefore, if a new convention were to be drafted, it might be a viable solution to incorporate some form of a modified network system into this new convention.