국제운송에 있어서의 히말라야 조항에 관한 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Over the past few decades, transport has not only improved in technical sense, but also achieved important development on legal level. Many new institutes were introduced; one of them was the Himalaya Clause, which enabled other participants in transport operations to avail themselves of carrier’s defenses and limitations of liability. The main reason for developing this clause is that there are more and more participants engaged in transport activities not performing transport services directly but providing different services necessary for its performance. This phenomenon has been accelerated by the appearance of new complex types of transport. For its successful conclusion, it is necessary that all the engaged parties are in the same position. This is not possible if some participants bear greater risks that others, which is what happens when some performers of transport can enjoy exclusion or limitation of liability and other defenses whereas others cannot. The consequence of such a situation is that all participants of a unified economic operation are not ready to contribute in an equal way to the success of economic operation. The main function of the Himalaya Clause is to overcome these problems. Nowadays the Himalaya Clause is an indispensable legal institute with a very promising future in International Transport Conventions. We should realize that it emerged from changing economic realities and should endeavor to enable all participants in transport operations to avail themselves of carrier’s defenses and limitations of liability.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김동진, "히말라야 약관(Himalaya Clause)에 대한 소고" (2) : 220-, 2007

2 최세련, "운송주선인의 법적 지위 및 히말라야 약관의 적용 범위 - 대법원 2007. 4. 27. 선고 2007다4943 판결의 평석 -" 한국해법학회 30 (30): 115-138, 2008

3 최준선, "운송법제의 개선방향" 65-, 2011

4 "서울고등법원 1998. 6. 9. 선고 97다48304"

5 "대법원 2007. 4. 27. 선고 2007다4943 판결"

6 "대법원 1997. 1. 24. 선고 95다25237 판결"

7 이균성, "국제해상운송법연구" 삼영사 1984

8 유중원, "船荷證券의 히말라야約款(Himalaya Clause)에 대한 고찰 - 대법원 2007. 4. 27. 선고, 2007다4943의 판례평석을 중심으로 -" 대한변호사협회 (381) : 172-190, 2008

9 "United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea 1980"

10 "United Nations Convention on Contract for the Carriage of goods Wholly or Partly by Sea 2009"

11 Theis, W. H., "Third-Party Beneficiaries in Multimodal Contracts of Carriage" 201-, 2005

12 Nikaki, T., "The statutory Himalaya-Type protection under the Rotterdam Rules: capable of filling the gaps?" 411-, 2009

13 "The Carmack Amendment: A Uniform System Of Liability For Interstate Transportation Carriers"

14 "Swiss National Insurance v. Blue Anchor Line 2008 AMC 2231"

15 "Sibyline Cass. B, 7 December 1973, A.C., 1974, 395"

16 "Rexroth Hydraudyne v. Ocean World Lines"

17 "Protocol to Amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading 1967"

18 Tetley, W, "Marine Cargo Claims" Butterworths 1855-1882, 2008

19 "International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading 1924"

20 Jerman, B., "Himalaya Clause" (1) : 9-20, 2011

21 Sweeney, J.C., "Crossing the Himalayas: Exculpatory Clauses in Global Transport" 117-, 2005

22 "Akiyama Corp. of America v. M/V Hanjin Marseilles(1999) AMC 650"

23 Robert C. Herd, "AMC 879"

24 Taisho Marine & Fire Ins. Co., "AMC 705 (N.D.Ⅲ. 1992)"

25 Sompo Japan Ins. Co. of America, "456 F.3d 54 2006 AMC 1817 (2nd Cir. 2006)"

26 Norfolk Southern Railway Co., "2004 AMC 2705"

27 Fruit of the Loom, "2000 AMC 387 (S.D.Fla. 1998)"

28 Midland Silicones Ltd., "2 Lloyd’s Rep. 365"

29 Adler v. Dickson, "2 Lloyd’s Rep. 267"

30 Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty. Ltd., "1Lloyds Rep. 317"

31 Canon, USA, Inc., "1997 AMC 1510 (N.D.Ga. 1996)"

32 Caterpillar Oversea, S.A., "1991 AMC 75 (4th Cir. 1990)"

33 Certain Underwriters in Lloyds, "1982 AMC 2638 (11th Cir. 1982)"

34 New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd., "1 Lloyd’s Rep. 534"