Volume Contracts under the Rotterdam Rules： One Step Forward or Two Steps Backward ？.docVIP

Volume Contracts under the Rotterdam Rules： One Step Forward or Two Steps Backward ？ 　　Abstract Volume contracts are without a doubt one of the key provisions of the Rotterdam Rules but also one of its most controversial innovations. That is the reason why the present article offers an analysis of` the controversy surrounding this issue. It will be investigated to what extent the convention provides an adequate protection to shippers. 　　Key words volume contracts； the Rotterdam Rules； controversy 　　“A new and puzzling concept”， “a small revolution”， “a rather curious set of clauses”， “the single most inexplicable part” of the Rotterdam Rules. Numerous are the expressions used to describe “volume contract”， a subject which generates considerable controversy and represents a major source of concern for States， scholars and practitioners. In this regard， articles 1 （2） and 80 of the Rotterdam Rules governing volume contracts are at the heart of such controversy. Pursuant to article 1 （2）， a volume contract refers to “a contract of carriage that provides for the carriage of a specified quantity of cargo in a series of shipments during an agreed period of time [and] [t]he specification of the quantity may include a minimum， a maximum or a certain range”. 　　Strongly inspired by the American “service contract”， volume contract represents one of the major innovations of the Rotterdam Rules. Despite some similarities， volume contracts must be distinguished from service contracts. One of the main differences lies in the fact that service contracts are subject to mandatory regime whereas volume contracts allow derogations to the mandatory regime. This is the reason why volume contracts constitute one of the novelties of the Rotterdam Rules. Indeed， while The Hague， Hague-Visby and Hamburg Rules have established a mandatory regime of liability， the Rotterdam Rules innovate by introducing contractual freedom through volume contracts. 　　What justifies the introduction of