Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
THE YORK-ANTWERP RULES 1994—THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE AT SYDNEY
Howard L. Myerson*
At the meeting of the Comité Maritime International at Sydney in October 1994 one of the three major items on the agenda was to consider possible revisions to the York-Antwerp Rules 1974. For some years prior to that meeting, preparatory work had been done by various associations of average adjusters, maritime lawyers, marine insurance groups and even the United Nations. As the work proceeded and preliminary reports were issued, there began to emerge several distinct approaches to possible revisions, at times reflecting the commercial interests of some groups and at others simply an academic and intellectual wish to produce as nearly perfect a product as possible. Before going into details of the major changes in the Rules, it might be worthwhile to characterize the various players at Sydney, and the positions they held.
The participants
First of all, there were the “purists”. They were of the opinion that general average had been grossly overexpanded, and wanted the Rules to return to what they perceived as first principles. Some of the “purists” urged that the “common benefit” sections be purged from the Rules, with a return to the “common safety” sections as the only true subject-matter of general average. Others were not quite that radical, but still expressed the opinion that the Rules should be revised so as to eliminate from general average expenditures which, in their opinion, were solely the obligation of the carrier under the contract of carriage; that obligation should be borne by the carrier alone, rather than being shared by the contributing interests of vessel, cargo and freight.
Closely allied with the “purists” were the “fiscal conservatives”. Their objection to what they perceived as the overexpansion of general average was not based on a return to first principles, but more on the fact that they were the very ones called upon to pay a considerable portion of the additional bill. Their visible position at Sydney was an attempt to redraft the Rules so as to reduce their monetary contribution, but perhaps their real thrust at the conference was to try and ensure that the outcome did not result in the 1994 Rules becoming a theoretical and, ultimately, a financial expansion of the 1974 Rules.
Interestingly enough, cries for the abolition of general average had been heard from various parties prior to Sydney, but the “abolitionists” did not make an appearance at Sydney, nor at any of the prior meetings held by interested Maritime Law Associations, insurance underwriters groups or similar bodies in preparation for Sydney.
379