المكانة القانونية لاتفاقية الأمم المتحدة للنقل الدولي للبضائع عن طريق البحر لعام 1978 (قواعد هامبورغ) بالنسبة للقاضي الأردني مقارنةً مع القاضي الفرنسي

Abstract

This study aims to compare the legal status of the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Hamburg, 1978) (Hamburg Rules) before the Jordanian judge with its legal status before his French homologue. It is illustrated that the Jordanian judge is bound by the provisions of the Convention since his country became a party to it in 2001. Therefore, the Jordanian judge cannot ignore the criteria of applicability prescribed in Article 2 of the Convention. In addition, when the two parties to the contract designate the Convention as a governing law, it becomes applicable ex proprio vigore. While the French judge finds a leeway when called to pronounce on the applicability of the Convention due to the fact that France did not accede to it. That is why he treats it as a foreign legislation. In fact, the French judge does not give efficacity to the Convention except if his private international law does. This happens mainly when the two parties to the contract of carriage of goods choose the Convention as the law governing their contract. Such an agreementcan be construed as a raise of the limits of the responsibility of the carrier and his obligations whose validity is recognized by the French judge’s legislation. Furthermore, the French judge can give effect to the agreement on the basis of the notion of foreign overriding mandatory rules since his private international law allows him to do so.