The Proposed New United States Senate COGSA: The Disintegration of Uniform International Carriage of Goods by Sea Law

Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 595-624

  Tetley, William ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033412686     PISSN: 00222410     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. The Hague/Visby Rules 1968/1979 are the Hague Rules 1924 (being the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading, adopted at Brussels on Aug. 25, 1924, which came into force on June 2, 1931), as amended by two "Visby Protocols." The first Visby Protocol was adopted at Brussels, Feb. 23, 1968, and came into force on June 23, 1977. The second Visby Protocol, sometimes called the Visby SDR Protocol, was adopted at Brussels on Dec. 21, 1979, and came into force on Feb. 14, 1984. The texts of these instruments are reproduced in W. Tetley, Marine Cargo Claims (3d ed. 1988) [hereinafter cited as MCC3d], at 1111-32 (the Hague Rules 1924 in their official French text and English translation). 1132-39 (the English text of the Visby Protocol 1968), and 1139-43 (the English text of the Visby SDR Protocol 1979).
2. The Hamburg Rules 1978 are the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, adopted at Hamburg on Mar. 31, 1978, which came into force on Nov. 1, 1992. The text is reproduced in MCC3d, supra note 1, at 1143-65.
3. For a general review of recent national laws on the carriage of goods by sea, see Tetley, Liability Structures in the Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea, in Swedish Maritime Law Ass'n, Cargo Liability in Future Maritime Carriage 95-132 (1998), being a collection of papers delivered at the eighth Axel Ax:son Johnson Colloquium on Maritime Law, sponsored by the Swedish Maritime Law Association and held at Hasselby, Sweden on Sept. 28-30, 1997.
4. The term "Senate COGSA '99" in this article refers to the Sixth Staff Working Draft of the Bill to Amend the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, prepared by the drafters of the U.S. Senate, and dated Apr. 16, 1999. The text of Senate COGSA '99 can be found on my website at http://www.admiraltylaw.com/ tetley/cogsa99.htm.
5. See U.S. MLA Doc. No. 723 (May 3, 1996) at 10887.
6. See supra note 4.
7. U.S. COGSA 1936 is the U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, Act of Apr. 16, 1936, ch. 229, 49 Stat. 1207-1213, 46 U.S.C. app. §§ 1300-1315. The text is reproduced in MCC3d, supra note 1, at 1199-1208.
8. See supra note 1.
9. Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528, 1995 AMC 1817 (1995).
10. See infra note 47 and accompanying text.
11. See also, in general, the dissenting report of Michael J. Ryan regarding the corresponding provisions of U.S. MLA COGSA '96 in MLA Doc. No. 724 (May 3, 1996) at 92-94.
12. The U.S. Bills of Lading Act (better known as the Pomerene Act 1916), see infra note 13, was recodified by the Act of July 5, 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-272, § 1(e), 108 Stat. 1346, 49 U.S.C. §§ 80101-80116. In this article, the Act as recodified is referred to as the Pomerene Act 1916/1994.
13. The Pomerene Act 1916, also sometimes referred to as the U.S. Bills of Lading Act, or the Pomerene Bills of Lading Act 1916, was the Act of Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 415, 39 Stat. 538-545, 49 U.S.C. app. §§ 81-124, prior to its recodification in 1994 (see supra note 12). The text of the Pomerene Act 1916 is reproduced in MCC3d, supra note 1, at 1210-22.
14. 18 & 19 Vict., c. 111. The text is reproduced in MCC3d, supra note 1, at 1234-35.
15. The United Kingdom's Bills of Lading Act, 1855, supra note 14, was repealed and replaced by the U.K. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, U.K. 1992, c. 50, which came into force on Sept. 16, 1992.
16. The Harter Act 1893 is the Act of Feb. 13, 1893, ch. 105, 27 Stat. 445-446, 49 U.S.C. app. §§ 190-196. The text is reproduced in MCC3d, supra note 1, at 1208-10.
17. The Multimodal Convention 1980 refers to the United Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport, adopted at Geneva on May 24, 1980 (not yet in force). The text is reproduced in MCC3d, supra note 1, at 1166-89.
18. Act of Mar. 3, 1851, ch. 43, § 1, 46 U.S.C. app. § 182 (U.S. Rev. Stats. § 4282), preserved by Senate COGSA '99 § 4(1).
19. See the Merchant Shipping Act 1979, U.K. 1979, c. 39, § 18(1)(a), now replaced by !he Merchant Shipping Act 1995, U.K. 1995, c. 21, § 186(1)(a). On the U.S. and U.K. Fire Statutes generally, see MCC3d, supra note 1, at 422-25. The U.K. Fire Statute benefits not only shipowners, but also "any part owner and any charterer, manager or operator of the ship." See the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 at § 186(5). Nor does the U.K. any longer have a "fault or privity" provisions in its Fire Statute, whereas the U.S. still deprives the shipowner or demise charterer of the exemption for liability for fire if the fire is "caused by the design or neglect of such owner," which expression has been deemed to have the same meaning as "actual fault and privity" as understood in U.S. COGSA 1936. See 46 U.S.C. app. § 182.
20. The "Vallescura Rule," laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision in Schnell v. The Vallescura, 293 U.S. 296, 1934 AMC 1573 (1934), is to the effect that where cargo loss or damage is caused by two separate causes, one for which the carrier is exempted from liability and the other for which it is not, the carrier has the burden of establishing what damage was due to the cause for which it is exempted, on pain of being held responsible for the entire damage. See generally MCC3d, supra note 1, at 314-16.
21. See supra note 9. The decision is unfortunate because the U.S. Supreme Court did not invoke forum non conveniens, but rather sent the claim (for a shipment from Morocco to the U.S.) to Japan, where there were few, if any, real contacts and considerable inconvenience to the witnesses and the claimants (and even to the defendants). The Court naively suggested that if there was no satisfaction in Japan, the case could come back to the U.S. See 515 U.S. at 538-41.
22. Adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization at Montreal, May 28, 1999, at the conclusion of the International Conference on Air Law, held from May 10-28, 1999 (not yet in force). This Convention is intended to modernize and consolidate the Warsaw Convention of October 12, 1929, governing the international carriage by air of persons, baggage, and cargo.
23. See Hague Conference on Private International Law, Special Commission on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Work Doc. No. 144E (Nov. 20, 1998). This proposed Hague Convention was the subject of the Herbert and Rose L. Rubin International Conference on the Proposed Hague Convention on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, being the Fifth Annual Herbert and Rose L. Rubin Symposium on International Law, sponsored by the New York University School of Law, and held in New York City on April 30-May 1, 1999, at which the author delivered a paper.
24. United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, adopted at New York, June 10, 1958, and in force June 7, 1959, 330 U.N.T.S. 38. See, in general, the dissenting report of George A. Zaphiriou in MLA Doc. No. 724 (May 3, 1996) at 97-98, regarding the corresponding provisions of U.S. MLA COGSA '96. See also Comment, Is Sky Reefer in Jeopardy? The MLA's Proposed Changes to Maritime Foreign Arbitration Clauses, 72 Wash. L. Rev. 625, 645, 648 (1997). See also infra text accompanying notes 76-78.
25. See U.S. MLA Doc. No. 724 (May 3, 1996) at 3, being the first sentence of the U.S. MLA COGSA '96 "Proposal Summary."
26. For a review of recent national carriage of goods by sea laws in respect of arbitration and jurisdiction, see Tetley, Arbitration & Jurisdiction in Carriage of Goods by Sea and Multimodal Transport - Can We Have International Uniformity?, [1998] Eur. Transp. L. 735.
27. See Act No. 1 of 1986, assented to Mar. 4, 1986, and in force July 4, 1986.
28. See Act No. 23 of 1997, in force Sept. 1, 1997.
29. See Act No. 42 of 1965.
30. See Act No. 105 of 1983.
31. See Aug. 10, 1937, Reichsgesetzblatt (RGBl.) I 891.
32. See Dec. 22, 1939, RGBl. II 1049; see also the Durchführungsverordnung (DVO) of Dec. 5, 1939, RGBl. I 2501.
33. See July 25, 1986 (Bundesgesetzblatt) BGBl. 1986 I 1120.
34. Art. 662 HGB is a mandatory rule, akin to art. 3(8) of the Hague Rules 1924 and Hague/Visby Rules 1968/1979, in that it prohibits parties to a bill of lading from excluding or limiting certain of the carrier's obligations in advance "by means of a legal transaction," while nevertheless permitting agreements concerning the "extension" of that liability under the bill (as do arts. 4(5) and 5 of the Hague Rules 1924 and Hague/Visby Rules 1968/1979). The basic, irreducible obligations of the carrier contemplated by art. 662 HGB include the due diligence obligation to make the ship seaworthy before and at the commencement of the voyage (art. 559 HGB); proper care of the cargo (art. 606 HGB); liability for error of navigation or management of the ship and fire where caused by the carrier's own fault (art. 607 HGB); a number of exceptions to liability arising without any fault of the carrier (e.g., perils of the sea, war, strikes, or lock-outs, acts of the shipper or forwarder, the saving or attempted saving of life or property at sea, wastage in bulk or hidden defects, and inherent defects of the goods) (art. 608 HGB); the notice of loss requirement (art. 611 HGB); the one-year time for suit and the three-month time for indemnity actions (arts. 611 and 612 HGB); the evidentiary value of the bill of lading (art. 656 HGB); the rule on measure of damages and the ASMV-ADMV principle (arts. 658 and 659 HGB)
35. These two provisions of the Hague/Visby Rules 1968/1979 are the only ones considered by the German legislator to be inconsistent with the Hague Rules 1924. See Herber, National Summary for the Federal Republic of Germany, in MCC3d, supra note 1, at 1030, 1031.
36. See the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprocessordnung, or "ZPO"), arts. 38-40, concerning the enforceability of jurisdiction clauses in their procedural aspects, in accordance with German law as the lex fori, and the Introductory Law to the Civil Code (Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, or "EGBGB"), art. 31, concerning the enforceability of such clauses as regards their substantive aspects, in accordance with the law which would be applicable if the clauses were enforceable.
37. Adopted June 21, 1985.
38. See the ZPO, arts. 1025-1066, especially art. 1029.
39. Adopted at the 28th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Seventh National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China on Nov. 7, 1992, promulgated by Order No. 64 of the People's Republic of China, and in force July 1, 1993. Chinese and English texts of the Code have been published by the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China.
40. Jurisdiction and arbitration in maritime disputes generally are governed not by the Maritime Code, 1993, but rather by the Civil Procedure Law 1991, adopted by the Fourth Session of the Seventh National People's Congress on Apr. 9, 1991, at arts. 243-246 (jurisdiction) and arts. 257-261 (arbitration).
41. See Z. Jinxian, China's Maritime Courts and Justice ¶ 7.2, at 48 (1997). As of 1997, only Dutch and German jurisdiction clauses were recognized in Chinese maritime courts under this condition of reciprocity.
42. See Civil Procedure Law 1991, at art. 257 (reflecting China's accession in 1987 to the New York Convention).
43. See No. 160 of 1991, in force Oct. 31, 1991. This statute repealed and replaced the former Sea-Carriage of Goods Act 1924, which had given effect to the Hague Rules 1924.
44. See No. 123 of 1997, in force Sept. 15, 1997.
45. See Statutory Rules 1998, No. 174, in force July 1, 1998.
46. See No. 104 of 1994.
47. The numbering of provisions differs as between the Danish and Norwegian Codes, on the one hand, and the Finnish and Swedish Codes, on the other hand. References here are to Part IV ("Contracts of Carriage"), ch. 13 ("On Carriage of General Cargo") of the Swedish Code, published in Swedish and English by Jurisförlaget (Stockholm 1995).
48. See Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, adopted at Brussels on Sept. 27, 1968, and in force as of Feb. 1, 1973, as amended by the Protocol of Interpretation of June 3, 1971, and various accession conventions (commonly known as the "Brussels Convention 1968"), now applicable in all States of the European Union.
49. See Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, adopted at Lugano on Sept. 16, 1988, binding the States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) (commonly known as the "Lugano Convention 1988"). Norway is a member-State of EFTA and as such is bound by the Lugano Convention 1988.
50. See S.C. 1993, c. 21, in force May 6, 1993.
51. See supra note 9.
52. CMI Executive Council Minutes, Nov. 7, 1998; see also Griggs, Repulse the Tetley Offensive, Fairplay, Dec. 3, 1998, at 30.
53. CMI Executive Council Minutes, Nov. 7, 1998; see also Griggs, Repulse the Tetley Offensive, Fairplay, Dec. 3, 1998, at 30.
54. U.S. MLA Doc. No. 723 (May 3, 1996) at 10884 (emphasis added).
55. Controversy Continues to Rage Over Plans to Alter US Carriage Act, Lloyd's List, Dec. 3, 1998. See also Unilateral Law, Lloyd's List, Feb. 18, 1999, noting the opposition of the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) to Senate COGSA '99, particularly in respect of its foreign forum provisions, which, as the article warns, could well provoke a backlash of similar unilateral legislation in other trading nations, thus resulting in a fragmentation of international transport law, which "would be appalling for everyone engaged in international trade and transport."
56. Tetley, No Hassles at Hasselby, Fairplay, Dec. 4, 1997, at 23.
57. Letter from the President of the CMLA to the President of the CMI, dated Apr. 2, 1999 (on file with the author).
58. See CMI Executive Council Minutes, Nov. 7, 1998, and CMI News Letter No. 4-1998, at 5.
59. The urgent need for an up-to-date American carriage of goods by sea law is highlighted by the fact that, with the liberalization of world trade under GATT and NAFTA, international shipping to and from U.S. ports is expected to grow dramatically in the foreseeable future, with a projected increase in the value of U.S. exports and imports from U.S. $454 billion in 1990 to U.S. $1.6 trillion in 2010, accompanied by an increase in volume of cargo at U.S. ports from 875 million metric tons to an estimated 1.5 billion metric tons in the same period. See Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (1995) (statement of Erik Stromberg, President of the American Association of Port Authorities).
60. And where do they get authority to negotiate and make concessions? And where do they get authority to be so paternalistic towards their own government?
61. According to the Lloyd's List issue of November 16, 1998, at a meeting in New York attended by Chester D. Hooper and Vincent M. DeOrchis of the U.S. MLA, "Mr Hooper said that if the P. & I. clubs would like to see parts of the draft [Senate COGSA] bill amended in a way which the [U.S.] Maritime Law Association did not object to then they should propose this to the US Congress so that it could be amended." Lloyd Watkins, secretary of the International Group of P & I Clubs, is reported in the same article to have said: "the group remained opposed to the revised Cogsa and to suggest that there was any consensus between it and the [U.S.] Maritime Law Association was incorrect."
62. Canada, in respect of U.S. Senate COGSA '99, is in the same position as Canadians in respect of trade relations with the U.S., especially over forest products. Tom Stephens, the American-born president of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., the giant Canadian forest products company, turned the company around in two years and is now out to restructure something else: trade relations between Canada and the United States. He told the annual meeting [of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.] that Canadian forest companies are wasting their time if they think trade concessions with U.S. producers will end trade disputes. He knows it, he said, because he ran one of those U.S. producers. Mr. Stephens was president and chief executive of Denver-based Manville Corp. before joining MacBlo in 1997. "By [making concessions to] a few big U.S. timber companies, all we are doing is enhancing their political clout in Washington," he said in his Arkansas drawl. Hasselback, MacBlo Turnaround Extends into 1st Quarter, Fin. Post, Apr. 22, 1999, at C1. Mr. Stephens added that Canadians must convince American consumers that high timber prices are hurting them. Id.
63. See supra note 20.
64. As Justice Stone observed: All the facts and circumstances upon which he [the carrier] may rely to relieve him of that duty [to care for and safely deliver the cargo] are peculiarly within his knowledge and usually unknown to the shipper. In consequence, the law casts upon him the burden of the loss which he cannot explain or, explaining, bring within the exceptional case in which he is relieved from liability. The Vallescura, 293 U.S. at 304.
65. The "fair opportunity rule," first laid down by the Second Circuit in The Edmund Fanning (Petition of Isbrandtsen Co.), 201 F.2d 281, 285, 1953 AMC 86 (2d Cir. 1953), requires the carrier to give the shipper a "fair opportunity" to declare a higher value for the goods shipped under the relevant bill of lading, in order to break the U.S. $500 package limitation otherwise applicable under U.S. COGSA 1936, § 4(5), 46 U.S.C. app. § 1304(5). See generally MCC3d, supra note 1, at 886-89.
66. U.S. COGSA 1936, § (4) in fine, 46 U.S.C. app. § 1304(4) in fine.
67. See MCC3d, supra note 1, wherein about 40% of the decisions cited are American.
68. See Great China Metal Indus. Co. v. Malaysian Int'l Shipping Corp. Berhad (The Bunga Seroja), (1998) 158 A.L.R 1, 1999 AMC 429, [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 512 (Austl. High Ct.).
69. See further MCC3d, supra note 1, which discusses the decisions of four nations - Canada, the U.K., France, and the U.S. The American decisions are by far the most important and lead the world.
70. See, e.g., Asariotis & Tsimplis, The Proposed U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, [1999] LMCLQ 126.
71. See, e.g., Sturley, Proposed Amendments to the US Carriage of Goods by Sea Act: A Response to English Criticisms, [1999] LMCLQ (forthcoming) (draft distributed in advance by the U.S. MLA).
72. "General" personal jurisdiction has been held to exist where the non-resident defendant's contacts with the forum state are "continuous and systematic," even if those contacts are not directly related to the cause of action. See, e.g., Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n.9 (1984); Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 647 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 930 (1994); Interglobal Shipping Co. v. Catholic Relief Servs., 1998 AMC 1079, 1082 (S.D. Tex. 1997).
73. "Specific" personal jurisdiction exists where the non-resident defendant's contacts with the forum state arise out of, or are directly related to, the cause of action. See cases cited supra note 71.
74. Rule 4(k)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted in 1993, permits the taking of jurisdiction over defendants who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of general jurisdiction of any U.S. state, provided that the plaintiff's cause of action arises under federal law (which includes federal admiralty law), and provided that the defendant's total contacts with the U.S. as a whole are sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction on the court without offending the constitutional requirements of due process. See, e.g., World Tanker Carriers Corp. v. M/V Ya Mawlaya, 99 F.3d 717, 1997 AMC 305 (5th Cir. 1996); Western Equities, Ltd. v. Hanseatic, Ltd., 956 F. Supp. 1232, 1997 AMC 2703 (D.V.I, 1997); Aerogroup Int'l, Inc. v. Marlboro Footworks, Ltd., 956 F. Supp. 427 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Rule 4(k)(2) permits personal jurisdiction to be taken over foreign defendant shipowners or ship managers, based on such factors as the number of calls the vessels concerned have made to U.S. ports over a given period of years. See, e.g., Mutualidad Seguros Del Instituto Nacional de Industria v. M.V. Luber, 1999 AMC 824 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
75. Section 7(i)(3) of Senate COGSA '99 provides: (3) COURT-ORDERED DOMESTIC ARBITRATION. - Except as provided in paragraph (4), if a contract of carriage or other agreement to which this subsection applies specifies a foreign forum for arbitration of a dispute to which this Act applies, then a court, on the timely motion of either party, shall order that arbitration shall proceed in the United States. Paragraph (4) provides that parties may nevertheless agree to litigation or arbitration in a foreign forum after the claim arises.
76. See supra note 24.
77. See Curtin, Arbitrating Maritime Cargo Disputes - Future Problems and Considerations, [1997] LMCLQ 31, 48: "In maritime arbitrations implicating [U.S.] COGSA, the proper public policy standard of review should be international public policy." Curtin points out that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 629 (1985), declared that American courts "should be slower to annul international arbitral agreements and awards because of 'concerns of international comity, respect for the capacities of foreign and transnational tribunals, and sensitivity to the need of the international commercial system. . . .'" [1997] LMCLQ at 47. He further cites (see id. at 46) the decision in Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Société Générale de l'Industrie du Papier (Rakta), 508 F.2d 969, 974 (2d Cir. 1974), where the Second Circuit held that the public policy defense should be construed narrowly and enforcement denied only where it would violate the forum state's "most basic notions of morality and justice." See also Waterside Ocean Nav. Co. v. International Nav. Ltd., 737 F.2d 150, 152, 1985 AMC 349 (2d Cir. 1984); Fotochrome, Inc. v. Copal Co., 517 F.2d 512, 516 (2d Cir. 1975)
78. See Asariotis & Tsimplis, supra note 69, at 138-39.
79. See supra note 70.
80. International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with Respect to Collision Between Vessels, adopted at Brussels, Sept. 23, 1910, and in force Mar. 1, 1913.
81. International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Sea-Going Vessels, adopted at Brussels, Aug. 25, 1924, and in force June 2, 1931.
82. International Convention Relating to the Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Sea-Going Ships, adopted at Brussels, Oct. 10, 1957, and in force May 31, 1968.
83. International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, adopted at London, Nov. 19, 1976, and in force Dec. 1, 1986.
84. International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Maritime Liens and Mortgages, adopted at Brussels, Apr. 10, 1926, and in force June 2, 1931.
85. International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Maritime Liens and Mortgages, adopted at Brussels, May 27, 1967 (not in force).
86. International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993, adopted at Geneva, May 6, 1993 (not in force).
87. International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Immunity of State-Owned Vessels, adopted at Brussels, Apr. 10, 1926, and its Protocol, adopted at Brussels, May 24, 1934, both in force Jan. 8, 1937.
88. International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, adopted at Brussels, May 10, 1952, and in force Feb. 24, 1956.
89. International Convention on Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision, adopted at Brussels, May 10, 1952, and in force Sept. 14, 1955.
90. International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Penal Jurisdiction in Matters of Collisions or Other Incidents of Navigation, adopted at Brussels, May 10, 1952, and in force Nov. 20, 1955.
91. Protocol to Amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading, adopted at Brussels, Feb. 23, 1968, and in force June 23, 1977.
92. Protocol Amending the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading, adopted at Brussels, Dec. 21, 1979, and in force Feb. 14, 1984.
93. International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC Convention), adopted at Brussels, Nov. 29, 1969, and in force June 19, 1975.
94. International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, adopted at Brussels, Dec. 18, 1971, and in force Oct. 16, 1978.
95. Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and Their Luggage By Sea, adopted at Athens, Dec. 13, 1974, and in force Apr. 28, 1987.