LEADER 04469nam 22007095 450 001 9910483728803321 005 20220808232347.0 010 $a3-662-46851-4 024 7 $a10.1007/978-3-662-46851-7 035 $a(CKB)3710000000416931 035 $a(EBL)2096937 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001501381 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11901910 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001501381 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11523717 035 $a(PQKB)10059602 035 $a(DE-He213)978-3-662-46851-7 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC2096937 035 $a(PPN)186030657 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000416931 100 $a20150529d2015 u| 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 14$aThe Carrier's Liability for Deck Cargo $eA Comparative Study on English and Nordic Law with General Remarks for Future Legislation /$fby Lina Wiedenbach 205 $a1st ed. 2015. 210 1$aBerlin, Heidelberg :$cSpringer Berlin Heidelberg :$cImprint: Springer,$d2015. 215 $a1 online resource (190 p.) 225 1 $aHamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, International Max Planck Research School for Maritime Affairs at the University of Hamburg,$x1614-2462 ;$v33 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a3-662-46850-6 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references. 327 $aIntroduction -- Background -- Treaty Law -- National Law -- When goods may be carried on deck -- Liability for deck cargo. 330 $aThis book deals with the carrier?s liability for deck cargo in the Nordic countries and England as state parties of the Hague-Visby Rules. The comparative method serves to illustrate two widely differing methods of dealing with, first, the exclusion of certain deck cargo from the scope of the Hague-Visby Rules and, second, where not excluded, the Rules failure to include a special deck cargo liability regime. Various solutions similar to the English or Nordic approach, or a combination of the two, have also been adopted in a large number of other jurisdictions. Taking into consideration the massive quantities of cargo that are carried on deck today, the subject is more topical than ever. The complexity of the problem stems from the way in which the deck has, over the years, gradually become a common place to stow cargo. When the Hague Rules were introduced in 1924, deck stowage was an absolute exception due to the great risks involved. As such, the topic must first be looked at in the context of the shipping realities in which the Hague Rules were drafted and then in terms of today?s shipping realities. The comparative analysis leading up to the author?s conclusions and general remarks for future legislation consists of two parts, the first dealing with the situations in which the carrier is permitted to stow cargo on deck, and the second with the carrier?s liability for deck cargo where he has stowed cargo on deck with, or as the case may be, without such permission. 410 0$aHamburg Studies on Maritime Affairs, International Max Planck Research School for Maritime Affairs at the University of Hamburg,$x1614-2462 ;$v33 606 $aLaw of the sea 606 $aInternational law 606 $aPrivate international law 606 $aConflict of laws 606 $aCommerce 606 $aLaw of the Sea, Air and Outer Space$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/R19060 606 $aPrivate International Law, International & Foreign Law, Comparative Law $3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/R14002 606 $aInternational Economic Law, Trade Law$3https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/R19050 615 0$aLaw of the sea. 615 0$aInternational law. 615 0$aPrivate international law. 615 0$aConflict of laws. 615 0$aCommerce. 615 14$aLaw of the Sea, Air and Outer Space. 615 24$aPrivate International Law, International & Foreign Law, Comparative Law . 615 24$aInternational Economic Law, Trade Law. 676 $a623.8881 700 $aWiedenbach$b Lina$4aut$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut$01082442 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910483728803321 996 $aThe Carrier's Liability for Deck Cargo$92597868 997 $aUNINA