Lahey Kuralları'ndan Rotterdam Kuralları'na Sefere Elverişlilik Yükümlülüğü'nün Gelişimi

Öz

Taşıyanın gemiyi sefere elverişli halde bulundurma yükümlülüğü deniz ticaret hukukunun en temel prensiplerinden biridir ve nitekim denizcilik tarihi boyunca da her deniz yoluyla mal taşıma sözleşmesinin temel unsurlarından biri haline gelmiştir. Bu yükümlülük, başlangıçta İngiliz Hukuku’nda mutlak bir garanti sorumluluğu olarak değerlendirilmiş olsa da gemi sahiplerinin ve kargo sahiplerinin ticari çıkarları arasında bir denge bulmaya ilişkin çeşitli girişimlerin akabinde, taşıyanın sadece gerekli özeni gösterip göstermeği olgusuna indirgenmiştir. Gerekli özeni gösterme yükümlülüğü ise, ilk kez esasen Harter Yasası ile benimsenmiş olup, Lahey Kuralları ile uluslararası tanınırlık kazanmıştır. İşbu makalede, taşıyanın sefere elverişli bir gemi bulundurmak borcunun genel anlamda mahkemeler tarafından nasıl yorumlandığı ve sorumluluğun esası bakımından, Lahey/Lahey-Visby Kuralları, Hamburg Kuralları ve Rotterdam Kuralları arasındaki farklar incelenecek olup, buna ilişkin karşılaş-tırmalı bir değerlendirme sunulacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sefere elverişlilik
• Gerekli Özen
• Uluslararası Sözleşmeler
• Sorumluluğun Esası
• İspat Yükü

The Evolution of the Obligation of Seaworthiness from the Hague Rules to the Rotterdam Rules

Öz

Carrier’s duty to provide a seaworthy vessel has been one of the most fundamental principles in maritime law and hereby a core element of every contract of carriage of goods by sea throughout maritime history. Notwithstanding the duty was initially appraised to be absolute obligation under common law, it has been then boiled down to whether exercising due diligence by the carrier as a result of several attempts to find the balance between the commercial interests of carriers and shippers. The obligation of exercising due diligence was introduced in the Harter Act for the first time though, it has, in essence, gained international recognition through the Hague Rules. This paper hereby will comparatively scrutinize how the obligation of seaworthiness has been interpreted by courts, and whether there is a remarkable difference amongst the Hague/Hague-VisbyRules, the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules in the sense of the nature of the carrier’s duty to provide a seaworthy vessel.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Seaworthiness
• Due Diligence
• International Conventions
• Basis of Liability
• Burden of Proof

Kaynakça

1. ABDULRAHIM, Hani M.S., Maritime Carrier’s Liability for Loss of or Damage to Goods under the Hague Rules, Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules, compared with his Liability as an Operator under the relevant Rules of the International Multimodal Transport Convention, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Glasgow, 1994.
2. AIKENS Richard/ LORD Richard/ BOOLS Michael, Bills of Lading, 2nd ed., Abingdon, 2016.
3. BAATZ Yvonne, “Charterparties.” In Maritime Law, edited by BAATZ Yvonne, pp. 117-177, 3rd ed., Abingdon, 2014.
4. BARCLAY, Cedric, “Technical Aspects of Unseaworthiness”, L.M.C.L.Q., 1975.
5. BERLINGIERI, Francesco, “A Comparative Analysis of the Hague-Visby Rules, The Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules”, The General Assembly of the AMD, Marrakesh, 2009.
6. BERLINGIERI Francesco, “The History of the Rotterdam Rules” In The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea- An Appraisal of the “Rotterdam Rules”, edited by GÜNER M. Deniz, 1-62, Berlin, 2011.
7. CHACÓN Víctor H., The Due Diligence in Maritime Transportation in the Technological Era, New York, 2017.
8. DJADJEV Ilian, The Obligations of the Carrier Regarding the Cargo-The Hague-Visby Rules, Cham, 2017.

9. EDER Bernard/ BENNETT Howard/ BERRY Steven/ FOXTON David/ SMITH Christopher, Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading, 23rd ed., London, 2015.
10. FOSTER, Nicolas R., “The Seaworthiness Trilogy: Carriage of Goods, Insurance, and Personal Injury”, Santa Clara Law Review, V. 40, N. 2, pp. 473-510, 2000.
11. FREDERICK, David C., “The Political Participation and Legal Reform in the International Maritime Rulemaking Process: from the HR to the Hamburg Rules”, Journal of Maritime Law and Com-merce, V. 22, pp. 81-117, 1991.
12. FUJITA Tomotaka, “Obligations and Liabilities of the Shipper” In The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea- An Appraisal of the “Rotterdam Rules”, edited by GÜNER M. Deniz, 211-228, Berlin, 2011.
13. GIRVIN Stephen, Carriage of Goods by Sea, 2nd ed., Oxford, 2011.
14. GIRVIN, Stephen, “The Obligation of Seaworthiness: Shipowner and Charterer”, CML Working Paper Series, No. 17/11, 2017.
15. GIRVIN, Stephen, “The Carrier’s Fundamental Duties to Cargo under the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules”, The Journal of International Maritime Law, V. 25, pp. 443-462, 2019.
16. GOLD Edgar, Maritime Transport: The Evolution of International Ma-rine Policy and Shipping Law, Lexington, 1981.
17. KARAN Hakan, The Carrier’s Liability Under International Maritime Conventions The Hague, Hague-Visby, and Hamburg Rules, New York, 2004.
18. KASSEM, Ahmad H., The Legal Aspects of Seaworthiness: Current Law and Development, Doctoral Dissertation, Swansea University, Swansea, 2006.
19. KENDER Rayegân/ ÇETINGIL Ergon/ YAZICIOĞLU Emine, Deniz Ticareti Hukuku -Temel Bilgiler, Volume 1, Istanbul, 2019. LUDDEKE Christof/ JOHNSON Andrew, The Hamburg Rules from Hague to Hamburg Via Visby, 2nd Edition, London, 1995.
20. MANDARAKA-SHEPPARD Aleka, Modern Maritime Law-Managing Risks and Liabilities, Volume 2, 3rd ed., Abingdon, 2013.
21. MØLLMANN Anders, “Compensation for Damage” In The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea- An Appraisal of the “Rotterdam Rules”, edited by GÜNER M. Deniz, 201-209, Berlin, 2011.
22. NIKAKI, Theodora, “The Carrier's Duties Under the Rotterdam Rules: Better the Devil You Know?”, Tulane Maritime Law Journal, V. 35, I. 1, 1-44, 2010.
23. REYNOLDS, Francis, “The Hague Rules, the Hague-Visby Rules, and the Hamburg Rules”, MLAANZ Journal, V. 7, pp. 16-34, 1990.
24. SOYER Baris, Warranties in Marine Insurance, 1st ed., London, 2001.
25. SOYER, Baris/ NIKAKI, Theodora, “A New International Regime for Carriage of Goods by Sea: Contemporary, Certain, Inclusive AND Efficient, or Just Another One for the Shelves?”, Berkeley Journal of International Law, V. 30:2, pp. 303-348, 2012.
26. SÖZER, Bülent, “Teknolojik Gelişmelerin, Taşıyanın Gemiyi Sefere El-verişli Halde Bulundurmak Borcunun Kapsamına ve İçeriğine Etkileri”, Deniz Ticareti Hukukunda Yeni Sorunlar Sempozyumu - I, March 2019.
27. SÖZER Bülent, Taşıyanın Gemiyi Sefere Elverişli Halde Bulundurmak Borcu, Ankara, 1975.
28. STEVENS Frank, The Bill of Lading-Holder Rights and Liabilities, Abingdon, 2018.
29. TETLEY, William, “Interpretation and Construction of the Hague, Hague/Visby and Hamburg Rules”, The Journal of International Maritime Law, V. 10, 2004.
30. TETLEY William, Marine Cargo Claims, 3rd ed., Montreal, 1988.
31. TETLEY William, Marine Cargo Claims, Vol. 1, 3rd ed., Toronto, 2008.
32. TETLEY, William, “Mixed Jurisdictions: Common Law v. Civil Law (Codified and Uncodified)”, Louisiana Law Review, V. 60, N. 3, 677-738, 2000.
33. TETLEY, W., “Reform of Carriage of Goods-The UNCITRAL Draft and Senate COGSA’99, Tulane Maritime Law Journal, V. 28, N. 1, pp. 1-44, 2003.
34. THOMMEN, T. Kochu, “Carriage of Goods by Sea: The Hague Rules and Hamburg Rules”, Journal of the Indian Law Institute, V. 32, N. 3, 1990.
35. TODD Paul, Principles Carriage of Goods by Sea, Abingdon, 2016.
36. TONG-JIANG, Su/ PENG, Wang, “Carrier’s Liability under International Maritime Conventions and the UNCITRAL Draft Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea”, Transport, V. 24(4), pp. 345-351, 2009.
37. TREITEL Guenter/ REYNOLDS Francis, Carver on Bills of Lading, 2nd ed., London, 2005.
38. ÜLGENER M. Fehmi, “Obligations and Liabilities of the Carrier.” In The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea- An Appraisal of the “Rotterdam Rules”, edited by GÜNER M. Deniz, 139-153, Berlin, 2011.
39. WHITE, Roger, “The Human Factor in Unseaworthiness Claims”, LMCLQ, pp. 221-239, 1995.
40. WILSON John F., Carriage of Goods by Sea, 7th ed., London, 2010.
41. YETİŞ-ŞAMLI, Kübra, “Lahey-Lahey/Visby, Hamburg ve Rotterdam Kuralları’nda Sefere Elverişlilik”, İÜHFM, V. LXXI, I. 2, 2013.
42. ZHANG, Pengfei/ PHILLIPS, Edward, “Safety First: Reconstructing the Concept of Seaworthiness under the Maritime Labour Convention”, Marine Policy, V. 67, pp. 54-59, 2016. INTERNET RESOURCES
43. TETLEY, William, “The Burden and Order of Proof in Marine Cargo Claims, Chambre Arbitrale Maritime de Paris, (accessed, on 25 November, 2020).
44. UNCITRAL, “Text and Status”, (accessed, on 10 January, 2021).
45. UNCITRAL, Text and Status, United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Hamburg, 1978), (accessed, on 5 November, 2020).