The book examines how the absence of insurance in the past led to some special maritime liability law principles such as ‘general average’ (i.e., losses or expenses shared by all the parties to a maritime adventure) and the limitation of shipowners’ liability. In the absence of insurance, these principles served the function of insurance mostly for shipowners. As commercial marine insurance is now widely available, these principles have lost their justification and may in fact interfere with the most important goal of liability law i.e., deterrence from negligence. The work thus recommends their abolition. It further argues that when insurance is easily available and affordable to the both parties to a liability claim, the main goal of liability law should be deterrence as opposed to compensation. This is exactly the case with the maritime cargo liability claims where both cargo owners and shipowners are invariably insured. As a result, the sole focus of cargo liability law should be and to a great extent, is deterrence. On the other hand in the vessel-source oil pollution liability setting, pollution victims are not usually insured. Therefore oil pollution liability law has to cater both for compensation and deterrence, the two traditional goals of liability law. The final question the work addresses is whether the deterrent effect of liability law is affected by the availability of liability insurance. Contrary to the popular belief the work attempts to prove that the presence of liability insurance is not necessarily a hindrance but can be a complementary force towards the realization of deterrent goal of liability law.

This fourth edition addresses certain developments, including the 1996 Protocol to the 1976 Limitation Convention, which have come into effect since publication of the previous edition. The chapters on limitation of liability for passenger claims and in relation to the carriage of goods have been updated, as has the chapter on limitation regimes worldwide. The book also focuses upon the practicalities of seeking to limit by reference to case law and procedural rules.

Limitation of liability for maritime claims is a concept of respectable antiquity which is now deeply entrenched in the maritime industry. Under this concept, the shipowner is entitled to limit his liability for maritime claims up to a maximum sum regardless of the actual amount of the claims. The concept of limitation of liability has been adopted by many conventions ranging from those relating to the carriage of goods by sea, carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea, liability and compensation for pollution damage, to liability for the removal of wrecks. Each of these conventions has its own approach to limitation of liability. However, these particular liability regimes share the international arena with global limitation conventions such as the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims and the 1996 Protocol thereto. This book approaches limitation of liability from an international perspective looking at a number of key conventions including the global limitation conventions, the conventions relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea (1974 Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and Their Luggage by Sea and the 2002 Protocol thereto), conventions relating to liability and compensation for pollution damage (1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and the 1992 Protocol thereto, the 1996 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea and the 2010 Protocol thereto, and the 2001 International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage), as well as the 2007 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks. Each chapter of this book sets out to analyze provisions in the conventions which have proved to be controversial and subject to debate by courts and authors, as well as the relationship between the limitation provisions in claim specific liability conventions and in the global limitation conventions. Particular attention is also given to the persons entitled to limit liability, ships in respect of which liability can be limited, claims subject to limitation, claims excepted from limitation, basis of liability (where applicable), loss of the right to limit, and the limits of liability. Limitation of Liability in International Maritime Conventions is of interest to academics and practicing lawyers who wish to understand the intricacies of the law of limitation.

How limitation issues arise -- Tonnage and value based limitation systems -- Who may invoke global limitation? -- For which types of vessel is limitation available? -- The claims to which limitation may apply -- When is the right to limited liability lost? -- The limits of liability -- Multiple funds, multiplicity of defendants and counterclaims -- Constitution of the fund and priority of claims -- The admiralty jurisdiction of the English High Court and English limitation procedure -- Jurisdiction for global limitation of liability proceedings -- Passenger liability -- Cargo claims and the Hague-Visby Rules -- Limitation of liability for oil pollution -- Bunker and lubricating oils -- Liability for oil pollution not covered by international conventions -- Hazardous and noxious substances -- Appendix I. Ratification status of the 1924 Limitation Convention -- Appendix II. Ratification status of the 1957 Limitation Convention and its 1979 Protocol -- Appendix III. Ratification status of the 1976 and 1996 LLMCs -- Appendix IV. 1924 Limitation Convention -- Appendix V. 1957 Limitation Convention -- Appendix VI. 1976 LLMC -- Appendix VII. 1996 LLMC.

Limitation of liability for maritime claims is an important system for the shipping industry. The original rationale for such a system was to encourage the shipping enterprise. However, in our today's much changed world, the system has been under severe attack and has been described as `hopelessly anachronistic'. Yet, the debate over repeal or retention of the system is far from settled. This book traces the history and development of limitation law around the world. It compares various limitation laws in operation under different legal regimes. In particular, it analytically scrutinizes the limitation systems under U.S. law, Chinese law and international conventions. It explores the possibility of international uniformity of maritime limitation law and points out that complete uniformity will not be achieved unless the United States joins the international community. It concludes that although there is a need for reform of the system, limitation of liability for maritime claims is here to stay. This book also thoroughly examines the limitation system under the Chinese legal regime through comparison with U.S. law and in the context of international conventions. Both practitioners and academic scholars will find this book helpful in understanding Chinese law in general and Chinese maritime limitation of liability in particular.

This book examines the concept of port state jurisdiction in the context of international maritime law. In particular the book focuses on situations where port states have used their jurisdiction over visiting foreign-flagged vessels to apply unilateral domestic law, as compared with the internationally-agreed standards enforced by regional port state control organisations. To illustrate the legal issues involved three recent pieces of legislation are analysed in detail: the United States' Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act 2010, the EU's liability insurance directive of 2009, and Australia's Fair Work Act 2009. Key issues include the legality of port states’ attempts to regulate aspects of a vessel’s structure or equipment, or even certain activities that may take place before a vessel’s arrival in port. The author argues that examples of unilateral measures being imposed by way of port state jurisdiction are growing, and that without active protests from flag states this concept will continue to expand in scope. As international law currently presents very few restrictions on the actions of ambitious port states, such developments may have a significant impact on the future of international maritime regulation.​