The 31st CMI Conference held at Rio de Janeiro in September, 1977, was attended by delegations from the Maritime Law Associations of 26 countries and also by observers from IMCO, ILU, IUMI, AIDE, Peru, Uruguay and The Peoples’ Republic of China.

Reports follow on proceedings on each of the subjects considered at the Conference, that is to say, Offshore Mobile Craft, (“Drilling Vessels”), Collisions and Charter-party Terms.

Preparatory work on each of these topics had followed the usual pattern within the CMI. First a questionnaire was sent to each National Association and, on the basis of the information received, a report and draft text prepared. The texts had then been considered by an International Sub-committee (composed of members of National Associations) for submission to the Conference.

The texts prepared on Offshore Mobile Craft and Collisions will now be submitted to the Legal Committee of IMCO for its consideration but the CMI will continue to be available for consultation if required.

The work done on Charter-party Terms was undertaken jointly with the Baltic & International Maritime Conference and the General Council of British Shipping. The definitions prepared at Rio de Janeiro will therefore be referred to a joint Committee consisting of representatives of BIMCO, GCBS and the CMI.

The Chairman of the Sub-Commission, Professor Nicholas Healy, of New York, explained that the purpose of the new draft was to supplant the 1952 Convention and add provisions on choice of law (Title II) and recognition and enforcement of judgments (Title III). The addition of these new elements involved, in the view of some delegations, a new approach which made it desirable that the places where jurisdiction could be founded under Title I should be limited. This general point formed the background to points made on several of the matters raised. However, it was finally agreed that Title I should do little more than reflect the provisions of the 1952 Convention.

This article does no more than indicate the scope of the Convention by way of preamble, definition and exclusion. The Convention is intended to cover the same ground as the 1952 Convention, with some notable exceptions. Perhaps the most important difference is that actions for personal injury and death are not included in the proposed draft. Several Associations considered this to be an important omission but a narrow majority felt that the proposed Convention would have a greater chance of general acceptance if no provisions were made for the inclusion of claims for loss of life or personal injury.