Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Achieving uniform interpretations of uniform rules : a case study of containerisation and carriage of goods by sea.

By Qais Ali Mufleh Mahafzah
Topics: Law Law enforcement Prisons International trade
Year: 2002
OAI identifier:
Provided by: Durham e-Theses

Suggested articles


  1. (1999). 0., Uniform Law For doi
  2. (1969). 500-Per-Package Limitation in COGSA Inapplicable Due to Deviation",
  3. (1984). A Comparison of 'COGSA', the HagueNisby Rules, and the Hamburg Rules",
  4. (1996). A Comparison of the Hague, Hague-Visby, and Hamburg Rules: Much Ado About (?)",
  5. (1984). A Container is Not a COGSA Package \\'hcn the Bill or Lading Discloses the Contents",
  6. (2000). A Future Prefect: The Clwl/ellgc and Hidden Promise ofGlobalisatioll,
  7. (1998). A Guide to the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules, doi
  8. (1982). Admiralty-Carrier-Owned Shipping Container Found not to be COGS A Package",
  9. (1985). Admiralty-International Unifonnity and the Carriage of Goods by Sea",
  10. (1993). After Reaching a Century of the Harter Act: Where Should We Go From Here?",
  11. (1997). Babel Afloat: Some Reflections on Uniformity in Maritime Law",
  12. (1980). Cargo Recovery Actions in the United States",
  13. (1987). Carriage of Goods By Sea Act-Package LimitationFair Opportunity to Declare a Higher Value",
  14. (1997). Carriage of Goods By Sea-Hague Rules-Meaning of 'Package' or 'Unit''',
  15. Carriage of Goods by Sea, (Financial Times,
  16. (1996). Comment: COGSA Section 1304(5): 'Fair Opportunity' Update",
  17. (1946). Comparative Law, doi
  18. (1973). Conflicting Liability Regimes: Hague-Visby Y. Hambur Rules-A Case by Case Analysis",
  19. (1967). Container Transport and the Hague Rules",
  20. (1987). Containers: Conditions, Law and Practice of Carriage and Use,
  21. (1969). Conventions and Morals-Limitation Clauses III International Maritime Conventions",
  22. (1996). Creating Uniform Worldwide Liability Standards for Sea Carriage of Goods Under the Hague, COGSA, \'ishy and Hamburg Conventions",
  23. (1946). DocumentarY Credits and Bretton \\'oods", (}l)~2) 98 lOR. 526. "l ' .., --+ .' Mann F.A., "The Interpretation ofUnifonn Statutes",
  24. (1982). egal Problems Arising From Containerisation and Intermodal Transport,
  25. (1992). Evolution and Present State of the Ocean Bill of Lading from a Banking Law Prospective",
  26. (1973). In reply to 'The Container and the Package Limitation-The Search for Predictability"',
  27. (1991). International Shipping Law, doi
  28. (1984). Interpretation in International Law",
  29. (1998). Limitation of liability for Maritime Claims, doi
  30. (1991). Limitation of liability for Maritime Claims, (Lloyd's of London Press Ltd., 2d ed., doi
  31. (1995). Maritime Transport and Marine Pollution: Law Reform in New Zealand",
  32. (1982). Much Ado About Packages: Containers & the C()(iS.\ Limitation of Liability Provision",
  33. (1962). Negligence Clauses in Ocean Bills of Lading, doi
  34. (1986). Note: The Eleventh Circuit Tackles COGS A 's Per Package Limitation-Hayes-Leger V. MN Oriental Knight",
  35. (1980). Note: The Shipping Container as a COGSA Package-The Debate Continues-In Re Norfolk,
  36. (1993). Ocean Carriers and Cargo; Clarity and Faimess-Ha~ue or Hamburg?",
  37. (1980). Packaging Trends and Implications in the Container Revolution",
  38. (1989). Payne and Ivamy's Carriage of Goods By Sea, (London and Edinburgh: Butterworths,
  39. (1976). Per Package Limitation-A Diverging Approach In Canadian Courts",
  40. (1991). Political Participation and legal Reform in the International Maritime Rulemaking Process: From the Hague Rules to the Hamburg Rules",
  41. (1975). Shipowner's Liability and the Proposed Revision of the Hague Rules",
  42. (1995). Significant Carriage of Goods by Sea Reform in New Zealand",
  43. (1970). The 'Container Clause'
  44. (1973). The Bremen, COGSA and the Problem of Conflicting Interpretation",
  45. (1973). The Container and the Package Limitation-The Search for Predictability",
  46. (1977). The Container Revolution and the $500 Package Limitation-Conflicting Approaches and Unrealistic Solutions: A Proposed Alternative",
  47. (1996). The Container Revolution,
  48. (1997). The First Decisions Applying the Hamburg Rules",
  49. (1978). The Hague-Visby Rules",
  50. (1995). The Hamburg Rules From Hague to Hamburg Via Visby, (Lloyd's of London
  51. (1981). The Hamburg Rules,
  52. (1975). The International Unification of Private Law",
  53. (1975). The Law of Admiralty, doi
  54. (1990). The Legislative History of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and the Travaux Preparatoires of the Hague Rules, doi
  55. (1931). The Necessity of a New Technique of Interpreting the N.I.L.-The Civil Law Analogy",
  56. (1974). The New Hague Rules",
  57. (1970). The Ocean Bill of Lading-A Study in FT' "
  58. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost", doi
  59. (1999). The Proposed U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act",
  60. (1979). The Proposed Uniform Law on International Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes: A Discussion of Some Special and General Problems Reflected in the Form and Content, Choice of Law, and Judicial Interpretation Articles",
  61. (1981). The Shipping Container as a COGSA Package: The Functional Economics Test is Abandoned-Mitsui & Co. v. American E\port Lines",
  62. (1978). The Unifonn Interpretation of International Conventions",
  63. (1999). Unifonnity of Maritime Law, and Perspectiv F the U.S. Point of View",
  64. (1983). Uniform Statutes in English Law",
  65. (1999). Uniformity of Maritime Law-An International Perspective",
  66. (1961). Unit Limitation of Carrier's Liability, doi
  67. (1992). Why the U.S. Did Not Ratify the Visby Amendments",

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.