Od prve Međunarodne konvencije za izjednačenje nekih pravila o teretnici (Haaška pravila), 1924., preko Protokola o izmjeni Haaških pravila (Visbyjska pravila), 1968., Konvencije Ujedinjenih naroda o prijevozu robe morem (Hamburška pravila), 1978. do najnovije Konvencije UN-a o ugovoru o međunarodnom prijevoza stvari u cijelosti ili djelomično morem (Rotterdamska pravila), 2009. nije se mijenjao temelj odgovornosti prijevoznika u prijevozu stvari morem (kao što je slučaj u zračnom prijevozu ili u prijevozu putnika morem). Kontinuirano se temelji odgovornost na krivnji, i to u načelu na pretpostavljenoj (predmnijevanoj) krivnji. To se načelo zasnivalo, proizlazilo iz pojma «dužne pažnje» («due diligence») ili se izričajem u samom tekstu konvencije regulirala takva odgovornost. U dvjema konvencijama (Haaška i Rotterdamska pravila) primjenom instituta «iznimnih slučajeva, opasnosti» (excepted perils) prijevoznik je mogao odgovarati i na temelju dokazane krivnje, što je za njega bilo povoljnije rješenje. U slučaju štete od požara u Hamburškim pravilima odgovara također prijevoznik na temelju dokazane krivnje, što se i u Rotterdamskim pravilima ostvaruje primjenom instituta «iznimnih slučajeva». Čuva se tako odgovornost na temelju krivnje, makar je bilo (konvencijskih) pokušaja da se pooštri odgovornost pomorskog prijevoznika u prijevozu stvari kao u kopnenom i zračnom prijevozu, gdje je odgovornost kauzalna, objektivna. Autor smatra da zbog uspostavljene gospodarske ravnoteže subjekata koji u suvremenim uvjetima sudjeluju u poslu prijevoza stvari morem zbilja nema razloga mijenjati tradicionalno načelo odgovornosti prijevoznika.From the first international convention on the equalization of certain rules on cargo vessels (Hague Rules) in 1924, to the Protocol on changes to the Hague Rules (Visby Rules) in 1968, and the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea ( Hamburg Rules) in 1978, to the latest UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea ( Rotterdam Rules) in 2009, the basis for the responsibility of carriers of goods by sea has not changed (like the situation with air carriage or the carriage of passengers by sea). Consistently, the blame is based on responsibility. This is based on the principle of the presumed (putative guilt). This principle was created out of the concept of «due diligence». Or, it was expressed in the very text of the convention which regulated such responsibility. In two conventions- the Hague and Rotterdam Rules application of the institution of «emergencies, danger» (except for perils) the carrier could be responsible also on the basis of proved guilt which for him was a more favorable solution. In the case of damage by fi re, under the Hamburg Rules the carrier was also responsible on the basis of proven guilt which under the Rotterdam Rules was created by the application of the institution of «exceptional cases». Responsibility on the basis of guilt is protected although there was an attempt (convention) to increase sea carrier responsibility in the carriage of goods as is the case in land and air carriage where the responsibility is causal or objective. The author believes that due to the established economic balance of subjects which in modern conditions particpate in the work of the carriage of goods by sea, there is really no need to change the traditional principle of carrier responsibility
