로테르담규칙상 운송물처분권자의 권리에 관한 연구

The purpose of this study is to analyse the right of the controlling party under Rotterdam Rules. It should be said at the outset of this study that the right of control, which gives the controlling party the right to make various types of instructions to the carrier is heavily hedged around with sundry qualifications and indemnities all of which are set out in some details at Article 52. The right of control is defined on the Article 1.12. The right to give instruction is further limited by the terms of the Article 50.1 to three particular types of instructions in respect of the goods, relating broadly to the goods, the delivery en route, and the identity of the consignee. The controlling party, ie the person who can exercise the right of control, is defined on the Article 1.13, but again by direct reference to the Article 51, which itself defines the controlling party by reference to which of three types of document is issued, ie a negotiable transport document, a non-negotiable transport document and a non-negotiable transport document requiring surrender; the controlling party is also defined for the purposes of cases where an electronic transport record is issued. The Hague-Visby Rules and Hamburg Rules give no guidance as to any right to instruct the carrier in respect of goods while they are in transit. Nor does COGSA 1992 contain any rules dealing with a right of control, at any rate in terms. However, in applying the Article 50 of the Rotterdam Rules, in particular when applying it in the context od seawaybills, straight bills of lading or ship’s delivery orders, the section 2(5) of COGSA 1992, a section which preserve the shipper’s rights under any of those three documents even after the buyer of goods covered by them has acquired rights of its own under section 2(1) of that Act would need to be referred.