A new approach to address the multimodal problem by Gertjan van der Ziel

Key issue How to achieve -a single legal regime for -a single contract of carriage, performed by -more than one mode of carriage. Rotterdam Rules achieve this for mm transport with maritime leg. Why not making this possible for mm transport with other legs?

Example carriage Bergen (Norway) – Oslo by road/rail Oslo - Hamburg by sea Hamburg – Bern by road/rail under a single contract of carriage concluded by a Norwegian road/rail carrier Currently, this contract does not qualify for application of COTIF/CIM or CMR. Once in force, the RR will apply, which would be odd. The better option would be making also COTIF/CIM or CMR to apply to this contract and leaving the choice to the parties which convention should apply.

Why is it the better option? Parties and their insurers use the conditions to which they are used to and thoroughly know. Nevertheless, it provides for uniform liability for a multimodal contract. It avoids the disadvantages of the network liability system: the complications of the patchwork and the need for a residual liability regime (for non-localised damages and to fill possible gaps between different modes).

What is, from legal point of view, required to achieve this? Adding a Protocol to each unimodal convention (also RR) that includes: (i) an extension of its scope of application to unimodal-plus, and an alignment of this scope with the unimodal-plus scope of the other conventions, (ii) a proper conflict of convention provision, also to be aligned with the corresponding provision in the other conventions, and (iii) possible consequential adjustments that are specific for the convention involved.

What is, from political point of view, required to achieve this? Willingness of the (private and public) organisations involved to cooperate. Sufficient support of State-Parties to the existing unimodal conventions. These two political conditions apply anyhow, whatever the possible solution for the multimodal problem.