No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 April 2017
The economic interdependence of the different countries of the world explains the great importance of international transportation and, consequently, of legal rules able to make sure that the transfer of goods with the utmost simplicity, safety, and speed will be practicable. If this is true for the world as a whole it is, obviously, even truer in the case of Europe, a densely populated area, divided among many sovereign states. Up to a certain point the purely national legislation of the different countries may be able to provide for international transportation as well, but this point is soon reached and then international cooperation becomes a necessity. This works, at first, through bipartite agreements—which also serve as stop-gaps when attempts at broader collaboration have failed—but the truly promising way to regulate international transportation is by multipartite conventions. In Europe agreements of this type have existed for a long time.
1 Abbreviations used in this article:
B.T.I.: Bulletin des Transports Intemationaux par Chemins de Fer, Berne.
C.I.M.: Convention Internationale concernant le Transport des Marchandises par Chemins de Fer (International Convention on the Transports of Goods by Rail).
C.I.V.: Convention Internationale concernant le Transport des Voyageurs et des Bagages par Chemins de Fer (International Convention concerning the Transport of Passengers and Baggage by Rail).
Chamberlain: Joseph P. Chamberlain, International Organization, in International Conciliation No. 385, December, 1942.
Hudson: Manley O. Hudson, International Legislation, Washington, 1931–1931-.
League: League of Nations Publications.
Masters: Ruth D. Masters, International Organization of European Rail Transport, in International Conciliation No. 330, May, 1937.
Acknowledgment is gratefully expressed to Professor Joseph P. Chamberlain, Miss Anna M. Curtis, Judge Manley O. Hudson, and Professor Eric Hula for reading this paper in manuscript and making valuable corrections and suggestions.
2 Hudson, , Vol. I, p. xxiv Google Scholar; 2 Martens, Nouveau Receuil Général (3d series), p. 888; Masters, p. 500. They were, in each Conference, supplemented by Final Protocols “concerning the locking up of freight cars intended to pass custom barriers.”
3 Hudson, p. xxvii; 19 Martens, N.R.G. (2d series), p. 289.
4 Chamberlain, p. 461. Somewhat similar are the difficulties encountered today in the field of air transport among American countries, not all of which have adhered to the Warsaw Convention of 1929.
5 Articles 259 and 260: Hudson, , Vol. IV, p. 2318 Google Scholar.
6 Already the lack of an adequate regulation is felt and the Berne Conventions are hinted at as suitable models: Hellmut Simons, El Ferrocarril a Bolivia, Buenos Aires, 1934, pp. 133, 134 and 234.
7 E.g. for the Polish statute on transport by rail.
8 Namely between the Russian and between certain British roads and railroads subject to the Berne Conventions. Cp. e.g. the London Convention concerning the transport of goods between Great Britain and Germany via Belgium, in B.T.I., 1935, Annex, p. 251, later on transformed into the Convention concerning the transport of goods between the Continent and Great Britain via Belgium and the Netherlands, in B.T.I., 1939, p. 260.
9 Of October 12, 1929; Hudson, Vol. V, p. 100.
10 Hudson, Manley O. and Sohn, Louis B., Fifty years of arbitration in the Union of International Transport by Rail, this Journal , Vol. 37 (1943), p. 597 Google Scholar.
11 Following an old practice the conventions were prepared by experts in 1923 and formally adopted by diplomats in 1924. In 1933 there was only one conference, both for the drafting and for the adoption of the conventions. It was, however, not possible to dispense with the customary diplomatic conference to determine the date of the entry into force of the conventions. This took place at Berne on November 17, 1937; Hudson, , Vol. VII, p. 896 Google Scholar.
12 Hudson, , Vol. II, p. 1393 Google Scholar (English and French versions).
13 Hudson, , Vol. VI, p. 527 Google Scholar (French version); B.T.I., 1934, Annex, p. 71 (French, German and Italian versions). The conference sat at Rome, from October 3 to November 23,1933.
14 Hudson, , Vol. II, p. 1468 Google Scholar (Conventions of 1924, English and French versions); Hudson, Vol. VI, p. 568 (Convention of 1933, French version; French, German and Italian texts in B.T.I., 1935, Annex, p. 5).
15 Masters, p. 517; Chamberlain, p. 488.
16 Cp. the Convention on the Regulation of Aerial Navigation, Paris, October 13, 1919, especially Chapter VIII; Hudson, , Vol. I, pp. 359, 370Google Scholar.
17 Joseph P. Chamberlain, The Regime of the International Rivers: Danube and Rhine, New York, 1923.
18 B.T.I., 1938, Annex, p. 49.
18a See below, Part III.
19 Cp. the bibliography in Hudson, Vol. VI, p. 563 and B.T.I., 1937, p. 118.
19a Note 2, above.
19b Below, at note 40.
20 Denis P. Myers, Handbook of the League of Nations, Boston, 1935, p. 54.
20a Above, note 16.
20b Above, note 13.
21 B.T.I, 1939, p. 70.
22 B.T.I., 1914, p. 29.
23 Spain and Portugal joined the Berne Union after the first world war.
24 As to the efforts to bring about adhesion by Great Britain to the Berne Conventions see Noe in B.T.I., 1932, p. 272 and Eger in B.T.I., 1938, p. 98.
25 In the case of Great Britain they expanded into multipartite arrangements; note 8, above.
26 It was, e.g., Maxime Litvinov who acted as reporter when the Council of the League intervened for a speedier ratification of the Conventions of 1933. League of Nations, Official Journal, 1936, p. 61.
27 Of Lisbon, October 23, 1930; Hudson, Vol. V, p. 792.
28 Of Geneva, November 9, 1923; Hudson, Vol. II, p. 1156.
29 Of Barcelona, April 20, 1921; Hudson, Vol. I, p. 645.
30 On Collisions, on the Registration of and on Rights in Rem over Inland Navigation Vessels, and on Rights of Inland Navigation Vessels to a Flag (Geneva, December 9, 1930; Husdon, , Vol. V, pp. 815 Google Scholar, 822 and 848).
31 The idea of regulating international commercial motor transportation had to be abandoned; League 1931.VIII.10, p. 8; 1933.VIII.2, p. 5; 1934.VIII.2, p. 21; 1935.VIII.8, p. 29; and 1937.VIII.5, p. 25.
32 League 1935.VIII.2, a monograph on “Juridical and Administrative Systems in Force on the Frontier Sections of Railway Lines and at Junction Stations.”
33 E.g. scattered rules on the transport of dangerous goods.
34 Of Paris, July 23, 1921; Hudson, , Vol. I, p. 681 Google Scholar.
35 Of Dresden, February 22, 1922; Hudson, , Vol. II, p. 835 Google Scholar.
36 See above, at note 30. As far as international rivers were concerned the European members of the League had granted concessions (Convention of Barcelona; see below, note 39) which the South American members were not ready to accord, being too jealous of their sovereignties, as Carlos Sosa-Rodrigues explains (Le Droit Fluvial International et les Fleuves de I’Amerique Latine, Paris, 1935, pp. 92 and 95). But when it came to national rivers the European Powers proved just as jealous; League 1934.VIII.2, pp. 16, 57, in spite of the urgent need for international regulations.
37 The possible extent of these modifications has not been clearly defined, but it has been assumed that they may go rather far, in certain instances, and also in the case of combined transport by air and by rail, to which Articles 2, 4, C.I.M. and C.I.V. equally apply. Cp. this writer’s articles in the Zoll-, Speditions-und Schiff-fahrtszeitung, Vienna, 1938, nos. 23, 24 and 25.
38 Hudson, , Vol. I, p. 625 Google Scholar.
39 Statute on the Regime of Navigable Waterways of International Concern, of Barcelona, April 20, 1921, the same, p. 645, Art. 10.
40 Statute on the International Regime of Railways, of Geneva, December 9, 1923, II Hudson, p. 1138, Art. 1.
41 Namely emergency cases (Transit Statute, Art. 7, Railway Statute, Art. 29), grave economic situation arising out of devastation during the war 1914–1918 (Articles 12 and 34 respectively), lines constructed in the interest of particular localities or of national defense (Railway Statute, Art. 1, 4).
42 League 1930.VIII.9, p. 10; cp. also League 1930.VIII. 15, p. 21.
43 Cp. the Memel Convention of May 8, 1924, League of Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 29, p. 85: Annex III, Art. 3, the same, p. 113.
44 Permanent Court of International Justice, Publications, Series A/B, No. 42, p. 120.
45 See above, note 40.
45a See below, Part III.
46 Cp., as to secret tariff reductions and the possible recourse, the explanations given by M. G. Noë, French Secretary of the Central Office: League 1937.VIII.5, p. 32.
46a See note 38, above.
47 Commercial Court of Vienna, judgment of December 15, 1933, Eger, Eisenbahn-und Verkehrsrechtliche Abhandlungen und Entscheidungen, Vol. 56, p. 68.
48 Cp. German Reichsgericht, judgment of November 11, 1933, B.T.I., 1934, p. 364.
49 Vice President Wallace declared that “in no year during the past ten years did the Interstate Commerce Commission review as many as one per cent of the tariffs filed with it.” The New York Times, October 21, 1943, p. 21.
49a See note 13, above.
50 Gustav Pollaczek, An attack on the Zoll-, Speditions-und Schiffahrtszeitung, Vienna, 1933, No. 27, p. 6. This article—quoted, later on, with cautious approval by the Vice Director of the Central Office in Zeitung des Vereins Mitteleuropaeischer Eisenbahnverwaltungen, 1934, p. 480—had been published before the beginning of the Conference of Rome and distributed to the delegates.
51 Above, note 26.
52 Of March 31, 1934; Hudson, , Vol. VI, p. 818 Google Scholar.
53 Art. 31; Hudson, , Vol. V, p. 115 Google Scholar.
54 Daniel Goedhuis, National Airlegislations and the Warsaw Convention, The Hague, 1937, p. 303.
55 “The question arises whether this exemption in favor of the railroads is justified,” remarks the Permanent Committee for Transport by Rail (Report on the Eighth Session 1935, League C.293.M.156.1935. VIII.). See also note 37, above.
56 Cp. this writer’s study on the Uniform Supplementary Provisions in Zoll-, Speditions- und Schiffahrtszeitung, Vienna, 1933, No. 6.
57 Work cited above, note 1.
58 Miss Masters speaks of the many ways in which the Committee simplified the relations between railroads participating in international shipments and quotes as an example the “question of liability” (p. 516). What she means is, of course, not the responsibility to the shipper (Art. 26f, C.I.M.), but the recourse of the railroads against each other. I do not doubt that she distinguishes clearly between the two notions, but some of the terms she uses could be easily misunderstood.
59 B.T.I. 1938, Annex, p. 4.
60 Judgment of December 3, 1933; B.T.I., 1934, p. 486. The Commercial Court quoted Otto Loening, the best known commentator on the Berne Convention (Goods) and this writer’s article on the Supplementary Provisions (see note 56, above).
61 Mark, a former railroad official, mentions in B.T.I., 1934, p. 138, the example of oranges and lemons, carried from Jativa (Spain) to Breslau (Germany). The Convention of 1924 gave the carriers 41 (forty-one) days to cover the distance of 2735 km (about 1700 miles).
62 Ackerman, La C.I.M., Geneva, 1932.
63 Constitution of the International Labor Organization, Art. III; Hudson, Vol. I, p. 228 f.
64 Chamberlain, p. 488.
65 B.T.I., 1937, p. 332 (Coordination Air—Rail, Report by Henning).