English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The historiography of international legal regimes regulating freedom of parties to the contract of carriage of goods by sea is replete with uncertainties and enmeshed in disarray thereby deflecting the much desired effort to have a uniform and acceptable convention. This article examines the issue starting from the era of unfettered “one sided” freedom of “leave it or take it syndrome” down to the regulated hegemony under the Hague/Hague-Visby, as well as Hamburg Rules. This raises the question: to what extent should the freedom of parties be regulated under the proposed Rotterdam Rules? In an attempt to answer this question, the article apprises the antecedents of parties’ freedom under the existing anachronistic regimes in juxtaposition with the practice under the Rotterdam Rules with a view to promoting development of global commerce. The article further observes that the mechanism provided under the canopy of “volume contract” suggests a better package but with its attendant consequences. The article suggests the need for a holistic approach towards ratification of the Rotterdam Rules albeit, subject to some certain amendments with a view of eschewing the egocentric syndrome that pervaded the success of the Hamburg Rules by the major maritime players.

Revisiting Freedom of Contract in the Contract of Carriage of Goods by Sea under the Rotterdam Rules: Service Contracts in Disguise?