|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
03084nmm a2200373 u 4500 |
| 001 |
EB001034049 |
| 003 |
EBX01000000000000000827571 |
| 005 |
00000000000000.0 |
| 007 |
cr||||||||||||||||||||| |
| 008 |
150601 ||| eng |
| 020 |
|
|
|a 9783662468517
|
| 100 |
1 |
|
|a Wiedenbach, Lina
|
| 245 |
0 |
0 |
|a The Carrier's Liability for Deck Cargo
|h Elektronische Ressource
|b A Comparative Study on English and Nordic Law with General Remarks for Future Legislation
|c by Lina Wiedenbach
|
| 250 |
|
|
|a 1st ed. 2015
|
| 260 |
|
|
|a Berlin, Heidelberg
|b Springer Berlin Heidelberg
|c 2015, 2015
|
| 300 |
|
|
|a XV, 178 p
|b online resource
|
| 505 |
0 |
|
|a Introduction -- Background -- Treaty Law -- National Law -- When goods may be carried on deck -- Liability for deck cargo
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Private International Law, International and Foreign Law, Comparative Law
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a International Economic Law, Trade Law
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Aeronautics / Law and legislation
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Trade regulation
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a International law
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Law of the Sea, Air and Outer Space
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Law of the sea
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Conflict of laws
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Comparative law
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Private international law
|
| 041 |
0 |
7 |
|a eng
|2 ISO 639-2
|
| 989 |
|
|
|b Springer
|a Springer eBooks 2005-
|
| 490 |
0 |
|
|a Hamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, International Max Planck Research School for Maritime Affairs at the University of Hamburg
|
| 028 |
5 |
0 |
|a 10.1007/978-3-662-46851-7
|
| 856 |
4 |
0 |
|u https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46851-7?nosfx=y
|x Verlag
|3 Volltext
|
| 082 |
0 |
|
|a 341.4
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a This book deals with the carrier’s liability for deck cargo in the Nordic countries and England as state parties of the Hague-Visby Rules. The comparative method serves to illustrate two widely differing methods of dealing with, first, the exclusion of certain deck cargo from the scope of the Hague-Visby Rules and, second, where not excluded, the Rules failure to include a special deck cargo liability regime. Various solutions similar to the English or Nordic approach, or a combination of the two, have also been adopted in a large number of other jurisdictions. Taking into consideration the massive quantities of cargo that are carried on deck today, the subject is more topical than ever. The complexity of the problem stems from the way in which the deck has, over the years, gradually become a common place to stow cargo. When the Hague Rules were introduced in 1924, deck stowage was an absolute exception due to the great risks involved. As such, the topic must first be looked at in the context of the shipping realities in which the Hague Rules were drafted and then in terms of today’s shipping realities. The comparative analysis leading up to the author’s conclusions and general remarks for future legislation consists of two parts, the first dealing with the situations in which the carrier is permitted to stow cargo on deck, and the second with the carrier’s liability for deck cargo where he has stowed cargo on deck with, or as the case may be, without such permission
|