• – Sinclair op.cit, p. 98. Vierdag 1995, Het Nederlandse verdragenrecht, Studiepocket staats- en bestuursrecht 27, Zwolle 1995, p. 33. ↑

1. 1. – P. Delebecque, 2003 ‘The Uncitral Draft Instrument on the Carriage of Goods by Sea’, CMI yearbook 2003,, p. 228. ↑

1. 1. – UNILC, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, 58th session 2006, A/CN.4/L.682, p. 117. ↑

1. 1. – Legal consequences of the entry into force of COTIF 1999 if not all States have ratified the Vilnius Protocol in due time’, ۷th General Assembly of the OTIF on 24 November 2005, AG 7/9 – Annex 2, p. 2. ↑

1. 1. – Diamond 1980, p. C6-7. ↑

1. 1. – Cheng 2001, p. 169-170. ↑

1. 1. – Article 1(1) CMR and COTIF-CIM. According to Cheng conflicts in uniform carriage law primarily arisebecause the carriage systems apply irrespective of the nationality of the carrier, the consignor and the consignee. B. Cheng, 2004 ‘A new era in the law of international carriage by air: from Warsaw (1929) toMontreal (1999)’, ICLQ ۲۰۰۴,, p. 858. ↑

1. 1. – Article 1(1) CMR and COTIF-CIM. According to Cheng conflicts in uniform carriage law primarily arisebecause the carriage systems apply irrespective of the nationality of the carrier, the consignor and the consignee. Cheng 2004, p. 858. ↑

1. 1. – Koning, op.cit, p. 75-77. See also Chapter 5, Section 5.1.1. ↑

1. 1. – Section 9.1.3 of this Chapter on the conflicts enabled by Article 1 COTIF-CIM. ↑

1. 1. – by Article 18 WC or MC. ↑

1. 1. – B. Cheng, 2004, ‘A new era in the law of international carriage by air: from Warsaw (1929) to Montreal (1999)’, ICLQ ۲۰۰۴,, p. 857-858. ↑

1. 1. – Cheng 2004, p. 857-858. ↑

1. 1. – Visby Protocol (VP) of 1968) ↑

1. 1. – Ibid. ↑

1. 1. – The Multimodal Transport Convention of 1980 was drawn up by the UNCTAD and the Hamburg Rules of 1978 were designed by the UNCITRAL. W. Driscoll & P.B. Larsen,1982, ‘The Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods’, TLR ۱۹۸۲,, p. 194. ↑

1. 1. – Article 103 of the UN Charter Expressions, UNESCO, 23 September 2004. ↑

1. 1. – UNCITRAL A/CN.9/526, p. 68; UNCITRAL A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.78, p. 5-6; UNCITRAL A/CN.9/510, p. 11. ↑

1. 1. – UNCITRAL A/CN.9/642, p. 52. ↑

1. 1. – Ibid. ↑

1. 1. – D.A. Glass, 2006 ‘Meddling in the multimodal muddle?’, LMCLQ ۲۰۰۶,, p. 309. Cf. OLG Düsseldorf 1 July 1993, TranspR 1995, p. 77-80. ↑

1. 1. – UNCITRAL A/CN.9/621, www.uncitral.org, p. 50. ↑

1. 1. – UNCITRAL A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.78, p. 4. ↑

1. 1. – A. Diamond, 2008 ‘The next sea carriage Convention?’, LMCLQ ۲۰۰۸,, p. 142-143. ↑

1. 1. – C. Hancock, 2008 ‘Multimodal transport and the new UN Convention on the carriage of goods’, JIML ۲۰۰۸,, p. 493. ↑

1. 1. – Laceys Footwear (Wholesale) Ltd. v Bowler International Freight Ltd. and Another, [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 369. ↑

1. 1. – Article 30 VC. ↑

1. 1. – Article 30 VC. ↑

1. 1. – Haak ‘Jurisdictieperikelen’ETL 2004.. ECJ (Case 533/08) reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 3 December 2008 (TNT Express Nederland BV v AXA Versicherung AG). ↑

1. 1. – mming TranspR 2007, p. 289. ↑

1. 1. – Van Beelen 1996, p. 49.Streng 2005, p. 156. Van der Velde 2009, p. 14.Wagner 2009, p. 106. ↑

1. 1. – Wagner 2009, p. 108. For more details on Wagner’s views see also Chapter 3, Section 3.3.2 on Article 25 RomeI Regulation. ↑

1. 1. – However, this is something which, given the signature of the Rotterdam Rules in September 2009, is somethingthat may occur in the near future. ↑

1. 1. – Which it did concerning the Montreal Convention by means of Regulation (EC) No 889/2002. ↑

1. 1. – O. Hartenstein, 2008 ‘Rom I-Entwurf und Rom II-Verordnung: Zur Bedeutung zukünftiger Änderungen im Internationalen Privatrecht für das Seerecht’, TranspR ۲۰۰۸, p. 143-161or R. Wagner, 2009 ‘Normenkonflikte zwischen den EG-Verordnungen und transportrechtlichen Rechtsinstrumenten’, TranspR ۲۰۰۹, p. 103-109 ↑

1. 1. – See Article 15 RC. Strikwerda 2004, p. 90. ↑

1. 1. – Explanatory report COTIF-CIM, www.otif.org, p. 10. ↑

1. 1. – Koppenol-Laforce (ed.) 1996, p. 141. ↑

1. 1. – D. Martiny, ‘Bestimmung des Vertragsstatuts’, in: C. Reithmann & D. Martiny (eds.), Internationales Vertragsrecht, Köln: Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt 2004,, p. 64, No. 55. M.Giuliano & P. Lagarde,1980, Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, [1980] O.J. No. C-282, or www.uninova.sk 1980, R. Plender & M Wilderspin, 2001, The European Contracts Convention, London: Sweet &Maxwell 2001, p. 87. ↑

1. 1. -. See for instance Rb Rotterdam 18 November 1999, S&S 2000, 39; Rb Rotterdam 14 September 2005, S&S 2006, 26; Rb Haarlem 6 July 1999, S&S 2000, 88. ↑

1. 1. – Green paper on the conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the law applicable to contractualobligations into a Community instrument and its modernisation, Brussels, 14.1.2003 COM(2002) 654 final, p. 23. The document can be found at www.europa.eu. ↑

1. 1. – L. Strikwerda, De overeenkomst in het IPR, Deventer: Kluwer 2004, p. 93. ↑

1. 1. – Shipping and Agencies PVT Ltd v Alcobex Metals Ltd., [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 336. ↑

1. 1. – Mumbai ↑

1. 1. – Avonmouth ↑

1. 1. – stanfford ↑

1. 1. – R. P. Streng, 2005 ‘De grenzen van de partij-autonomie in het internationaal contractenrecht’, NTHR ۲۰۰۵, p. 154; A. Briggs, The Conflict of Laws, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008, p. 165-166. ↑

1. 1. – R. Plender & M Wilderspin, The European Contracts Convention, London: Sweet &Maxwell 2001, p. 89. ↑

1. 1. – Article 27(3) EGBGB. ↑