The lack of uniformity for liability on multimodal transports Dissertation

The lack of uniformity for liability on multimodal transports - Dissertation Example As Nes (2002) points out, during last centuries, unimodal transport conventions such as an urban network, a regional network, or a national network of transport were the main modes of transport for goods and services. As the volume transport increased, the global traders were forced to develop improved alternatives to overcome the existed difficulties. Multimodal transport convention has been designed as an alternative to the unimodal transport system and it refers to the transfer of goods under a single contract but involves in at least two different methods of transport (Roemer). Multimodal transport contains a chain of process and steps such as multiple storage and handling stages which require a thorough control (Gocheva). Lack of uniformity in multimodal transports As Devia (2008) points out the main difficulty associated with the carriage of goods is that there is no international regime in force regarding various modes of transport. It produces many confusions and barriers for the smooth operation of the stages of transport. As a result of this lack of uniformity in regulation, it is forced to apply the determination of the law to a specific transport process when different modes of transport are deployed (Haak, 2005). It also creates some difficulties for the international transport of goods. According to Sturley (2007), there may arise some problems in the transport of goods between countries located at different continent if the goods in transit are damaged. He says the reason that the law regarding carriage of goods may vary from region to region and from continent to continent due to the absence of a common law in force (Sturley). In such cases, it is very difficult to identify the places or stages where the damages occurred so that the liability of the carrier varies in relation to the court where he is sued. The Multimodal Transport Operator (MTO) is the carrier of the contract and the responsibility of cargo or goods reaches his shoulders as soon as he takes the possession of goods and bears this risk until the goods are being delivered (Ralph, 3). Although the MTO bears the whole risk of the goods in transport, he does not directly take part in the process of actual transfer of goods. On the other hand, he usually subcontracts the certain parts of the same to the network of subcontractees on a commission basis. According to the uniform liability rules, the MTO is liable for the goods of the shipper so that he has to pay compensation to the shipper if the goods in transit are damaged at any stage of the transport (United Nations,.20). Sometimes, the shipper’s goods may get damaged due to the negligence of the sub carrier who does not have any direct liability towards the shipper since he has not entered into any contract with the shipper. At the same time, the sub carrier has jointly formed a contract with MTO and he has to pay compensation to the MTO if the contracted goods are damaged while their possession lies wi th the sub carrier (unimodal law). Due to the lack of uniformity of ‘uniform liability rules’ and ‘unimodal laws’, an MTO would not recover the whole compensation amount from the sub carriers; and it would lead MTO to huge losses. Although network liability system and modified liability system have developed to solve the difficulties associated with transport of goods, it cannot bring uniformity in applicable liability regimes for multimodal transport. Rotterdam Rules Rotterdam rules or United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International