Once upon a time a number of Victorian railway companies decided they needed some form of international convention to assist themselves in relation to international railway movement in continental Europe. This they agreed to in the 1890s, and the commercial world remained undisturbed for over a generation until the Hague Rules were introduced in the 1920s to regulate carriage of goods by sea and bills of lading. A few years later the aviation world decided it wanted part of the action and the Warsaw Convention was born. Finally, in 1956, the international road haulier found himself regulated by CMR. When the latter eventually came into operation after 1961, although not very well drafted, it did look as if the various modes of transport could settle down and make the various conventions work smoothly in relation to each other with the minimum of expense or bureaucratic interference.

At first it seemed that this hope was to be realised. However, warning signs appeared in the form of the Hague and Guadalajara Conventions which further regulated carriage by air. By the 1960s a new disease of “Conventionitis” was born. International bodies and national governments vied with each other to devise new ways of regulating as many forms of commercial activity as they could. Expert physicians and surgeons eagerly charted the course of the numerous patients who in turn succumbed to this new disease. Some patients had sufficient natural immunity to resist its onslaught, but these were the exception to the rule.

Now in 1978, inter alia, we are faced with two more Maritime Conventions, the Hague-Visby and the Hamburg Rules. Both in the air and on the sea the commercial world therefore faces a multiplicity of overlapping conventions for the forseeable future. In September of this year further efforts are to be made by UNCTAD in Geneva to formulate yet another draft Combined Transport Convention. Although previous attempts at this were unsuccessful we do have a most useful compromise in the ICC Combined Transport Rules, on which the majority of CT documents are now modelled, including FIATA. This system although both practical and capable of amendment to meet changing commercial needs is presumably to disappear. What therefore is the future outlook for combined transport operations if the September meeting produces any concrete results ?

It is to be hoped that the United Kingdom will not for once find itself dragged willy-nilly into yet another convention which neither meets the needs of our economy nor fits into our common law heritage. Enough problems have arisen over the past decade as we have endeavoured to digest the inadequate framework of CMR, and those of accommodating the Hamburg Rules in the near future appear rather daunting.

It is essential for the commercial consumer to realise that the greater the liability placed upon a transport operator, whether uni-modal or multi-modal, the higher will be the latter’s insurance premiums, which in turn will inevitably be passed on to the cargo interests.

On the question of claims it is possible that the cargo interest will not find it as easy to claim directly from the carrier as in the past when he claimed from his cargo underwriter. The burden of recovery from the carrier lies at present on the cargo insurer. In the future if shippers find direct recovery from transport operators difficult, they may resort to overlapping cargo cover which will merely result in double insurance.

Some of the larger Western European nations seem to have a positive interest in promoting a CT Convention, and at least one appears to support a system of uniform liability. Such a system, although perhaps attractive to the cargo interest, could place a heavy burden on the CTO, particularly if it is fixed at a level higher than that operating under the Hamburg Rules. The CTO will therefore suffer considerably if he cannot obtain an indemnity from his sub-contractors. The worst offenders in this respect are the port authorities and other non-carrying intermediaries who either accept a minimal liability or none at all.

By imposing an unsuitable system of liability a CT Convention could seriously inhibit the expansion of through transport operations which modern technological developments and the work of SITPRO and its foreign counterparts has done much to foster. CTOs who for many years have issued house forwarding documents for inland shipments to remote parts of the world where direct control of operations is not possible are not likely to offer such a service where a mandatory system of liability applies. Such house documents have long proved acceptable for international trade and banking purposes, and it would be regrettable if they were to disappear. The only alternative may be to abandon through documentation and re-contract at every stage, thus reverting to the practices of the traditional forwarder.

Where a CTO is able to control the various stages of his multi-modal operations the question of uniform liability and recovery from sub-contractors is perhaps of lesser importance. Insofar as he is unable to exercise such control the question becomes one of fundamental importance. For that reason a mandatory system of liability could severely affect through services. It is to be hoped that in a spirit of compromise a non-mandatory system can be agreed upon which will only operate, like the original Hague Rules, where a formal CT Convention document is issued.

In conclusion, it must not be forgotten that with the present rate of change in both trade and transportation, as with the Air Conventions, both developed and developing countries may find their national requirements radically different in another decade or so from what they appear to be at present. To be faced, as we have been with CMR, with a Convention drafted with potentially obsolescent practices in mind will not assist in fostering international trade.