PAUL CEZANNE UNIVERSITY - AIX-MARSEILLE

FACULTY OF LAW AND POLITICAL SCIENCE

MARITIME AND TRANSPORT LAW CENTER

CONTAINERIZATION IN INTERNATIONAL MARITIME TRADE

Thesis for the Master II in Maritime and Transport Law

Presented by Vola Marielle RAJAONARISON

Directed by Mr. Christian SCAPEL

Aix-en-Provence 2005

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIS Automatic Identification System

CFS Container Freight Station
CSI Container Security Initiative
C-TPAP Custom Trade Partnership Against Terrorist
EVP Equivalent Twenty Feet
FCL Full Container Loaded
IMTM Mediterranean Institute of Maritime Transport
ISO International Standardisation Organisation
ISPS International Ship and Port Facility Security Code
LCL Less than Container Load
NVOCC Non Vessel Operating (Owning) Common Carriers
IMO International Maritime Organization
SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

PART I – TECHNICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS

FROM CONTAINERIZATION

Chapter I – Technical evolution of material instruments

Section 1 – The container

Section 2 – The ships and the ports

Chapter II - Current Practice of Containerization

Section 1 – Containerization and intermodal transoceanic transport

Section 2 – The actors of containerization

PART II – LEGAL ASPECTS OF CONTAINERIZATION

Chapter I - The Legal Issues of Containerization

Section 1 - The operations preceding the maritime journey

Section 2 – The sea voyage and unloading

Section 3 – The dispute over the container

Chapter II – The container at the center

of a current issue:
the safety of maritime transport

Section 1 - The safety of containers

Section 2 – Actions taken at the international level

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION

The maritime space is defined as a geographical system whose purpose is to connect continental spaces.
Maritime transport is therefore a privileged instrument of international trade and has undergone several revolutions to adapt over time.
the time for the evolution of exchanges.

Containerization is undoubtedly one of the most significant revolutions in maritime transport. But what is it actually?
containerization and how it was born?

Containerization is the use of containers for the maritime transport of goods. It originated in the 1920s.
United States in rail transport, containerization gained France shortly after because the first uses in
Maritime records were established in 1925. Subsequently, containerization was used by the Americans during World War II.
World War and the Korean War.

The commercial exploitation of this packaging method as we see today dates only from 1956, when a
American road transport entrepreneur, Malcom Mac Lean had the idea of transporting his trailers without their chassis on a
ship. This was the beginning of the container revolution. Shortly after, he developed his idea and outfitted his ships.
especially for transporting containers. It was at this time that the construction of the first container ships was recorded.
the Ideal X and the Alema with a capacity of 58 units

Each. On April 23, 1966, the Fairland, with a capacity of 228 containers, was the first container ship to connect America and Europe.

Containerization is therefore less than a century old, yet its growth is making it a key player in the
international maritime trade. Indeed, 80% of international trade is conducted by sea with a volume estimated at 5.1
billion tons in 2004. The container accounts for almost 80% of this volume, or 300 million TEUs.

Our work titled 'CONTAINERIZATION IN INTERNATIONAL MARITIME TRADE' finds everything

naturally its interest at a time when container freight transport has become commonplace and where almost everything is being put
in "boxes". All goods that must be transported over long distances outside of bulk (coal for example,
cereals, iron ores for example) and liquids (hydrocarbons for example) are today loaded in containers. By
Elsewhere, 9,400,000 containers were in circulation in 2004, representing 14,300,000 TEUs.

These observations lead us to take an interest in the container and what it represents.

The term "box" used when referring to containers leads to seeing the container only in its material aspect of the
However, the concept aims at a material notion but also a legal notion. Being considered as a 'fake'
problem" [3] by Dean Rodière, we increasingly see that the container has its particularities in practice as well.
to other types of packaging, which inevitably leads to a legal specificity.

The container is complex in

its definition. It is packaging but also a product.

Indeed, the research around the container aimed to find the formula for packaging that could allow
to deliver an intact good through all the vicissitudes of maritime transport.
As the concern of shippers and carriers is to ensure the arrival of the goods in their original condition, the container has
was presented at its inception as a 'relatively new form of packaging' whose use would ensure the arrival of packages
safely and at the lowest cost while also offering a 'guarantee against damage, theft, and loss, without limitation'. The practice sees
in the container a waterproof, sturdy, tamper-proof and easy to handle packaging. Resistance and tamper-proofing are the strong points of
container.

But the container is not just a simple packaging. Compared to other types of packaging, it stands out for its value.
expensive and because it can be reused several times, it is considered a commodity and not an accessory of the ship.

The container has its advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of our work is precisely to show a general view of the
containerization in international maritime trade, how it has evolved and what it is like today. Furthermore, as
Containerization is evolving in the specific context of international trade in general, one cannot mention it without talking about
multimodal transport. Indeed, the container has become the "king tool" of maritime shipping and multimodal transport in general.

The first part of our work

will study the technical and practical aspects of containerization, in which we will discuss the technical evolution of the container
(Chapter I) and the current practice of containerization (Chapter II). Our second part will consider containerization in its
legal aspect through the legal problems of containerization (Chapter I) and a current topic that caught our attention,
the safety of containers (Chapter II).

PART I - TECHNICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF CONTAINERIZATION

Considered a true revolution in maritime transport, the container established itself in less than fifty years.
as the primary means of packaging in international trade.

We are currently far from the first wooden frames, ancestors of the container of the early twentieth century. The container has
to adapt to the evolution of exchanges. There are as many types of containers as there are goods transported.

This growth is accompanied by a change in the size of ships and in the layout and modernization of ports (Chapter I)
and cannot be isolated from the current context in which it evolves, that of multimodal transport (Chapter II).

( (((

CHAPTER I –
EVOLUTION TECHNIQUE OF MATERIAL INSTRUMENTS

Under the term material instruments, we group together the containers, which are the subject of our study, the ships intended to transport them and

the ports that must welcome them.

Section 1 - The container

The container is both a packaging method and a logistical support. We will discuss containers in this work.
maritime which, even used in other modes of

transports, are specifically designed for maritime transport.

Paragraph 1 - Notion of container

Before compiling the inventory of containers currently in circulation, it is important to define what a container is.

A - Definitions of container

The container can be broadly defined as a "box", usually metal, of parallelepiped shape, intended for
to contain goods in order to facilitate their handling and transportation.

But the container is more than just a box.

The International Bureau of Containers or BIC defines it as 'a container designed to hold bulk goods or
slightly packaged, especially for their transport without intermediate handling or breakage of load, by a means of
any locomotion or the combination of several of them.

In 1968, Dean Rodière, who criticized at the time the controversies surrounding the legal issue of 'containers',
defined as "fixed frames equipped with openings that are loaded with individualized or bulk goods and that are handed over
previously closed and even sealed to the carrier.

The 1972 Customs Convention on Containers (CCC) defines the container as a means of transport (whether it
whether it's a frame, a tank, or another similar device) constituting a compartment, completely or partially enclosed, intended for
to contain goods. It has a permanent character and is therefore durable enough to allow for repeated use.
Specifically designed to facilitate the transportation of goods,

without transshipment, by one or more modes of transport, it is designed to be easily handled, especially during
its transshipment from one transport to another. It is also designed to be easy to fill and empty and must have a volume
interior of at least one cubic meter.

The term "container" also includes "the accessories and equipment of the container according to its category, provided that they
may be transported with the container but does not include vehicles, accessories or spare parts of vehicles, nor the
packaging. Removable bodies are considered as containers.

However, as many definitions refer to this rectangular 'box' that, thanks to its adaptations, allows for the transportation of everything.
Almost. The multiplication of container types and their specialization have optimized their use.

B - The types of containers

In the 1950s, three types of containers were distinguished: 'ordinary' containers, 'liquid' containers, and the
"specialized" containers. The generalization of the container and the progression of globalization have led to the emergence of many types
of containers that the nature or form of the transported goods requires.

1 – Dry containers
They are containers designed for general cargo packaged in boxes, barrels, or pallets, or even in bulk. They
are characterized by a closed roof, side walls, and rigid ends, and are equipped with a door at one end. (fig.1 and 2)

2 - Ventilated containers

These are general-purpose containers whose natural ventilation area has been increased by the opening of ports.
ventilation in the lodgings. They are used for the transport of garlic, for example. (fig.3)

3 - Open top containers

These are open-top containers. The difference from dry containers is that the roof is replaced by a tarpaulin or a
removable rigid wall to facilitate vertical loading and unloading. (fig.4)

4 - Open side wall platform containers

These are flats made up of a base frame without side walls that are used as a load platform on the
ships for the transport of fragile and bulky goods. (fig.5)

5 - Refrigerated containers or reefers

These are thermal containers (insulated walls) equipped with refrigeration and heating devices. The containers
Refrigerators can either be powered by their own electrical installation or by the ship's or port terminal's installation.
(fig.6)

6 – Tank containers

These are containers intended for the transport of liquids and gaseous substances. (tank container). They are composed of the tank.
and the framework. (fig.7)

Paragraph 2 - The standardization of containers

In order to fulfill its role in international transport, the container must be able to be transported interchangeably by the
route, by rail or by sea and be identifiable at all stages of the transport chain. The success of the container lies in the
standardization.

A - Construction standards
The International Organization for Standardization (I.S.O.) has codified the construction of containers under standards ISO 668 and
ISO 1496.

These standards concern not only the internal and external dimensions of containers but also the rules of
construction to ensure the safety of handling, stacking, and transportation.

1 - The dimensions of the container

The ISO standard allows for the standardization of container dimensions in circulation around the world. Several dimensions are in
service[15] but certain categories tend to disappear, leaving primarily room for 20-foot and 40-foot containers
whose dimensions will be summarized in the tables below. The unit of measurement for containerization is TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit)
Feet) or in English TEU (Twenty Equivalent Unit) which corresponds to a 20-foot container.
Table 1 - Maximum external dimensions
| Length Width Height |
| |mm Ft in |mm Ft in |mm Ft in |
20 feet 6,058 19 10.5 2,438 |8 0 2 591 8 6 |
40 feet 12 192 |40 0 2,438 8 0 2,591 8 6 |

304.8 mm
Table 2 - Minimum interior dimensions[16]
|

Length Width Height |

| | mm mm mm |
20 feet 5,867 2,330 2,350 |
40 feet 11,998 |2 330 2 350 |

Table 3 - Minimum opening of doors

| Width Height |
| mm mm |
20 feet 2,286 2261 |
40 feet |2 286 2 261 |

Other standards are also taken into account.

The payload that can be lifted by gripping the container by the upper ISO corners is 24 tons for the 20 feet and
26 tons for the 40 feet, the height of the floor (step) is 160 mm and the thickness is 28/30 mm.
The gross weight and the tare must also be indicated on the container.

2 - Building standards

The floor: made of wood with a thickness of 28mm, it withstands the passage of carts over 5t.

The frame: made of 5mm steel frame, can support the weight of 5 other containers placed on top.
a mass of more than 125 t, resting solely on the 4 corners of the container.

The roof: made of steel, 1.5mm thick, must be able to support a load of 300 kg.

a surface of 60 cm x 30 cm (equivalent to the weight of 3 or 4 dockworkers) without undergoing any alteration.

✓The corner pieces: The uniqueness of the containers lies in the adoption of corner pieces or "ISO coins". Each of the eight
the container's coin is equipped with a steel cube drilled on three sides, adjusted to the millimeter, with dimensions that are
dimensions and the position are the same everywhere in the world. (see fig.8).

[pic]
fig.8 - The iso corner
With the dimensions and building standards, the identification number represents the third pillar of standardization.

B – The identification number or ISO alpha-codes

 The BIC proposed an international container identification code as early as 1969. This code was standardized by ISO under the
ISO 6346 designation - Containers for the transport of goods - coding, identification, and marking.

Example of ISO code: DVRU 590020 3.

Each container is identified by a unique identification number throughout its existence.

This number consists of:

of a 4-letter owner or operator code (MCLU, MAEU, DVRU, TRKU etc.)

of a serial number of 6 Arabic digits
a self-check number intended to validate the accuracy of data recording and transmission

Only the ISO codes registered with the BIC can be used as the unique identity mark for containers in all
international transport documents and customs declaration.

Despite the criticism regarding the incompatibility of the internal dimensions of the containers according to

the ISO standards with unit loads (e.g., pallets), the efforts made in standardization actively contribute to the
constant development of containerization. In the face of this growth, other material instruments such as ships and ports have
to adapt to follow the ongoing change

Section 2 – The ships and the ports

To meet the demands of globalization, the maritime industry is currently entering a phase of transformation towards
gigantism which is not without consequences for global port facilities.

Paragraph 1 - The gigantism of ships carries-

containers

The container ships, also referred to by the English term 'cellular ships', are vessels that are characterized by their
specific installations. They are equipped with wedges, fitted with slides (Cells) and are equipped with particular grabbing systems.
of lashing in cells. Several generations have succeeded each other since the first container ship 'The Ideal X', inaugurated in 1956.
The fleet of container ships now represents 89% of scheduled maritime transport.

A – The emergence of Very Large Container Ships (VLCS)

Table 4 above shows that container ships have always had a more or less significant capacity, but the observation of
In recent years, it is undoubtedly the construction of increasingly larger ships. The time has come for VLCS, that is to say, the ships of
more than 7500 TEU.

1 - The evolution of construction

In the 1970s, the average size of container ships was

2000 TEU. About thirty years later, we are at an average of 6000 TEU. Certainly, the dominant category remains that
ships between 1000 and 3999 TEU[20] because they are essential for transshipment, regional connections and certain routes
intercontinental. Nevertheless, we are currently witnessing orders for increasingly gigantic ships.
 The Panama Canal has always been the benchmark for ship size. In the 1980s, the 'Panamax' was distinguished.
by their size, which could not exceed the width of the Panama Canal (maximum of 32.26 m). During the 1990s, we
was witnessing the emergence of 'Overpanamax' (42.80m wide) that can hold up to 8000 TEU and this seems trivial in comparison to
projects of more than 10,000 to even 12,000 to 18,000 TEUs that are currently being developed (announced around 2010) with the
"Malaccamax" referring to the Strait of Malacca.

Table 4 – The generations of ships

First generation (1956-1970) Length Draft |

Converted Cargo Vessel 135 m | |500 |
Converted Tanker 200 m <9m 800 |
Second generation (1970-1980) |
| Cellular Containership 215 m | | 1,000 |
|

| 10 m 2,500 |
Third generation (1980-1988) |
| Panamax Class 250 m | 3,000- |
| 290 m 11-12 m 4,000 |
Fourth generation (1988-2000) |
| Post Panamax |275 m | 4,000- |
| 305 m 11-13 m 5,000 |
Fifth generation (2000 - ??) |
Post Panamax plus 335 m | 5,000- |
| | 13 - 14 m |8 000 |
New Panamax 385 m | 10,000 |
| | | 12,000 |
Malaccamax

396 m | up to 18,000
| | 15 m | |

Source: - Jean-Paul Rodrigue – Department of Economics & Geography – Hofstra University in B. Dreyer for the CECE TP2 2005
American shipper in Synthèse Isemar Feb. 2003
2 - The trend of armaments

The acquisition of large ships is a trend among all shipping companies. The largest container ships in the world are
the services are the CSCL Asia and CSCL Europe of the CSCL with a declared capacity of 8,468 TEU and the OOCL Shenzhen series of OOCL
with 8,063 TEU. Among the orders recorded in 2004, 165 out of 464 ships exceed 7,500 TEU, some of which
even reach 10,000 TEUs.
The title of the world's largest container ship is difficult to attribute. It is known that currently, the largest
shipowners compete in the size of ships which has almost become a trend. This 'competition' encourages shipowners to
Ordering more is not without consequences for the balance of the container fleet.

Table 5 - The top 5 containerized armaments as of January 1, 2004

RANK OPERATORS IN SERVICE ON ORDER |

| |tpl ships % chartered EVP Ships |
1 Maersk SL+Safmarine |12 562 129 920 051 |355
 44 156 030 |39 |
|2 MSC 7,850,139 536 040 |219 39 |175 816 26 |
|3 Evergreen 6,242,968 |454 834 |158 |23 |131 848 18 |
4 P&O Nedlloyd 5,600,781 |415 817 |153 54 |122 226 24 |
5 CMA - CGM 4221156 319 180 |155 78 136 239 19 |

JMM from November 26, 2004, page 34

B – Towards an overcapacity of the container fleet

The large container ship's logbook is huge. The experts from BRS observe that the container fleet
averages a growth of 10% per year and that the growth of maritime transport has remained stable at around 7% per year for the past 15 years

last years

On January 1, 2005, the global fleet of cellular ships consisted of 3,362 container ships with a capacity of 7.29.
millions of TEUs[27]. At the same time, the same experts recorded an order of 3.9 million TEUs representing 53% of the
capacity of the existing fleet[28]. According to them, the global cellular fleet is expected to reach 10.8 million TEUs by 2008[29].

In light of these statistics, we can easily conclude that the shift towards gigantism is underway. The increase in size
the number of container ships is constant and the port authorities, like the international handling groups must adapt to

to receive these ships and remain competitive in the global market.

Paragraph 2 – A necessity for the adaptation of ports to

containers

It is undeniable that the introduction of VLCS would be accompanied by an evolution of ports and the unloading system.
Operators must invest significant capital in specialized handling facilities and equipment (cranes,
container gantries, new terminal, etc.)

The increasingly fierce competition among terminals is partly responsible for the changing landscape of container ports.
We are witnessing the emergence of international handling groups specialized in containers. The Asians are carving out a
choice location in this area. These international handling groups are establishing themselves in high-potential areas (in Europe of
North, the ports of the Europe/Far East route, in Southeast Asia, in China, on the west coast of North America) to ensure
the servicing of major global markets. This geographical expansion is accompanied by a reorganization of the profession.

Some ports, like Rotterdam, already have the infrastructure capable of handling this evolution but in
In general, all major ports have either plans for the construction of new terminals or dredging works or
equipment investments

Table 6 - The new European terminals (2002-2010)

Terminals Commissioning Capacity |

Amsterdam Ceres Paragon 2002

0.9 M evp |
Hamburg Alterveden 2003-2004 1.9 million evp |
Rotterdam EuroMax 2004 2.4 M evp |
Anvers Left Bank 2004-2006 5.5 M evp |
Hamburg Eurogate 2004 0.5 M evp |
Le Havre Port 2000 2004-2006 1.5 M evp |
Flessingue Westerschelde 2006 2.5 M evp |
Bremerhaven CT4 2007 2.2 M evp |
Rotterdam Maasvlakte 2 2008-2010 8.5 M evp |
Wilhelmshaven Jade Weser 2010 2.3 M evp |

Summary Isemar Nov. 2003

Across the Atlantic, the port of New York is adapting to accommodate ships of 4,000 to 7,000 TEU by 2005. The budget
estimated by the port authorities is 732 million USD.

In Hong Kong, floating terminals have been experimented with to limit investments.

related to the constant increase in the size of ships.

We are therefore moving towards a modernization of handling structures everywhere, especially in Europe, in order to
to adapt to new market conditions. In any case, the goal is to respond to the growth of traffic and have
infrastructure for very large container ships. The following table shows that traffic continues to evolve in the major ports.
of the world.

Table 7 - Container traffic over the last 5 years of the top 10 ports in the world

Ports |1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 |

Singapore 15,944,793 17,086,900 15,571,100 16,940,900 18410500 |
Shangai 4,216,000 5,613,000 6,334,400 8,620,000 11,291,000 |
Shenzhen 2,986,000 3,993,000 5,076,000 7,613,754 10,649,900 |
Pusan 6,439,589 7,540,387 8,072,814 9 453 356 10,366,881 |
Kaohsiung 6 985 361 7,425,832 7 540 525 8 493 052 8 843 365 |
Los Angeles 3,828,852 4,879,429 5,183,520 |6 105 857 |7 178 940 |
Rotterdam 6 341 783 6,274,556 6,096,142 6,506,311 7,106,778 |
Hamburg

|3 738 307 4 248 247 4,688,669 5,373,999 6,137,926 |

Antwerp 3,614,246 4,082,334 4,218,176 4,777,151 5 445 437 |

Source: JMM of November 26, 2003, p 24

The description of the technical evolution of the material instruments of containerization has allowed us to establish this mode of
packaging in its current context. Being primarily a tool for international trade, the container cannot be
discussed separately from the 'cause' it serves: multimodal transport in general and more particularly multimodal transport
transmaritime.

CHAPTER II -

CURRENT PRACTICE OF CONTAINERIZATION

The rise of the container has continued since the 1960s, where it represented a true revolution in maritime transport.
In parallel to this development, we realize the growth of multimodal transport in international trade.
Containerization and multimodal transport. How is the automatic association of the two concepts explained? Moreover, it would be
interesting to see the players of containerization in practice.
 Section I – Containerization and transport
multimodal transmaritime

The expansion of multimodal transport in general and of maritime transport in particular is largely explained by the advantages we derive from

the generalization of the container considered as the 'king tool' of multimodal transport. What do we mean by multimodal transport?
transmaritime

Paragraph 1 - Definitions of multimodal transport

transmaritime

As with the container, French law does not provide a legal definition of multimodal transport. Several definitions are
data from different entities from which we will draw the common characteristics.

A - A plurality of definitions

Dalloz specifies that 'multimodal transport involves the carriage of goods under a single title and using various transport modes.'
less two modes of transport subjected to different regimes.

Professor Bonnassies defined multimodal transport as "transport that uses several different modes of transportation, the most
often two modes, road and maritime or maritime and rail, but managed by a single operator who takes responsibility for it
from end to end and which delivers a unique document to cover the operation.

The UNCTAD manual states that there is multimodal transport when 'a single carrier takes responsibility for the entirety of
the organization of operations between several modes, from one point to another under its sole responsibility.

The Geneva Convention on the international multimodal transport of goods of 1980, which is not yet in force, intends to
by international multimodal transport 'the transport of goods carried out by at least two different modes of transport, under
of a multimodal transport contract, starting from a place located in a country where the goods are taken over by the contractor
multimodal transport to the designated delivery location in a different country.

A recent definition has also caught our attention, that

of the European Union which defines multimodal transport as 'the transport of goods between member states for which the
truck, the trailer, the semi-trailer (with or without tractor) the mobile box or the container of at least 20 feet use the road
for the initial or terminal part of the journey and for the other part, the railway or the river, or even the shipping route when crossing
exceeds one hundred kilometers as the crow flies.[34] »

There are many definitions; however, they converge more or less towards the same characteristics.

B - Characteristics of multimodal transport

The combined reading of the definitions mentioned above summarizes the definition of multimodal transport in four main points:
involvement of at least two different modes of transport
management of transportation by a "single" operator who will be the link between the different transports
full responsibility for the transport lies with this sole operator
coverage of all operations by a single document, the multimodal transport document
 Furthermore, various expressions are also used to describe this end-to-end transport in practice. Depending on the situations
specifically, we talk about combined transport, mixed transport, or intermodal transport. The term 'multimodal' has the advantage of
cover all these situations. For the purpose of classification, we distinguish between transmaritime multimodal transport, multimodal
air freight and terrestrial multimodal.

Our work will only concern transmaritime multimodal transport, which is 'a door-to-door transport made without

cargo breakage and one of the modes of transport used is maritime." The term "transmaritime" was invented by Pr
Bonnassies during the preparatory meeting for the IMTM work in 1988. The expedition most often breaks down into a pre-
land transport, maritime transport, and post-land transport.

Even though multimodal transport, at the time referred to as 'mixed transport', emerged long before containerization, its success
is deeply connected to the container and its advantages.

Paragraph 2 – The container in the service of transport

multimodal

The many advantages concern both the shipper and the carrier as well as all other stakeholders involved.
the shipment. But this method of packaging does not only confer advantages.

A - The advantages of containerization

Practitioners agree that almost all goods can be transported by container.

the multiplicity of container types and their specialisation only optimises its use to the great satisfaction of its users.

1 - Advantages for the charger

The interchangeable nature of the container allows it to be transported by all modes of transport. It enables the realization of
transport chains without breaking bulk combining sea with road, rail, and inland waterways, hence the important role it plays in
end-to-end transport. The container facilitates shipping as it ensures door-to-door, i.e., the delivery of goods from the location of
production up to the distribution point.

This notion of transfer of load is important and a source of divergence. Professor Bonnassies believes "that there is a transfer of load

in a multimodal transmaritime transport when the maritime carrier, intervening after a 'road' phase, involves a
handling of the goods and not of the vehicle." He is emphatic that there is necessarily a break in load in case of
container transport since the container cannot be placed on the ship without handling. Furthermore, other doctrines
They advance that 'in multimodal transport, the transshipment is the separation of the goods from its container, it is the unloading of the

container or trailer..."[37]. Therefore, there is no break in bulk when transporting by container because the
Changing the mode of transport does not imply the unloading of containers. This reasoning seems more appropriate to us since, if there
had in the course of travel a planned separation of the goods and their means of transport, which transport organizer would attempt
is it indeed possible to issue a single transport document within the framework of multimodal transport?

As packaging, its resistant nature, waterproofness, and solidity allow for the protection of the goods. Its
standardization allows it to be stored and transported while minimizing the handling of goods. These qualities benefit
the time to the sender as well as to the carrier.

At this level, there is a facilitation of handling operations and a precious time gain in loading time and
unloading of the goods and the immobilization of the ship in the ports. This inevitably leads to

a gain in transportation costs compared to conventional maritime transport and allows for savings in this case.
 2 - Advantages of the carrier
For the carrier, the fact that everything or almost everything can coexist in the container allows him to expand his business to any transport.
condition nonetheless to respect good sense in packing.
The box stacking system makes it profitable because both in the hold and on deck, the ship's filling rate
increases significantly.
Furthermore, the goods, packed at the sender's and unpacked at the recipient's, travel anonymously, which can
reduce losses, breakages or thefts but as we will see in the disadvantages, this can be a double-edged sword.
The inviolability of the container could be a security guarantee against loss and damage but still a fragile guarantee.
For today's large container ship owners, they require less crew than those of the past, which reduces
the personnel costs of the shipowner.
For all interested entities, we can summarize the benefits as follows: speed, safety, performance, lower cost.
absence of break of load but behind this seemingly idyllic decor, the container also has its disadvantages, more or less
handicaps for international maritime trade.
B - The disadvantages of containerization

These disadvantages can be economic, technical, or legal.

1 - Economic disadvantages

Firstly, we saw that the investment required for containerization is

enormous: modernization of ports and terminals, acquisition of large ships. The container itself is relatively expensive and its
maintenance must be ensured regularly. It is the developing countries that are penalized by this lack of situation
means to equip ships and ports with special lifting devices yet they cannot escape the wind of the
containerization that keeps blowing.

For the carrier, the imbalance of goods flow requiring the transport of empty containers can be very costly and
yet inevitable in many cases.
2 - Technical Disadvantages

Despite the strengths of this packaging method, damage may occur due to the risks at sea, especially since the
containers are essentially transported on deck on container ships. A container can move up to 60 meters to
each roll, up to 4 times per minute. There are predictable losses and those that are less or not at all.

Regarding the first category, which accounts for about 70% of the damages, there is theft and missing items, handling damage and
packaging by destruction, leakage or crushing, contamination of goods with each other or other water damage
that by bad weather like fresh water, the hold's condensation ...

Regarding the second category, which represents about 30% of the losses, there are shipwrecks, groundings, fires,
collision, the bucket of the sea and the bad weather. These statistics show that the potential damages are roughly predictable.

3 - Legal Disadvantages

In his comments on the ruling of

the Court of Cassation on June 8, 1993, Yves Tassel notes that "the container is secret, sometimes inadequate and in a certain way
criminogenic.

Secret because the very presentation of the container can act as a "screen" between what we see and the things embedded.
Fraud is therefore easy since the registration number of the container, which alone allows for the identification of the container, does not provide any
indications of its content.

Inadequacy refers to the closed nature of the container which can be harmful to the goods. But as the author
who expresses reservations himself, we also believe that the failures could be due to the poor quality of the goods
They could be resolved or avoided through proper maintenance of the equipment.

The qualification of "criminogenic" stems from the fact that the impossibility for the maritime carrier to verify the goods, due to
the speed of operations and the multitude of quantities loaded leads to infringement. Indeed, in practice, the carrier
only assists in the positioning of containers on the ship.

Containerization has become a real institution that requires the intervention of several actors to operate efficiently.
The following section will focus on those entities whose cooperation makes containerization a success.

Section 2 – The actors of containerization

International maritime transport has always seen the involvement of several players due to the scale of operations,
the distance between the parties, the interests at stake, etc. Several contracts thus surround the transport contract:

commission contract, transit contract, handling contract, insurance contract, etc. The advent of containerization and the rise
multimodal transport has led certain professions to adapt. We will particularly discuss the freight forwarder. Moreover, it
It is worth mentioning an activity that was born with containerization, the NVOCC.

Paragraph 1 - Freight forwarders facing the container revolution

The freight forwarder is a transport intermediary whose mission is to 'ensure continuity between two distinct transports in
the strict framework of the instructions received." He is therefore an agent. Unlike the freight forwarder who is responsible for
the organization of the entire transport, the freight forwarder ensures the break of bulk, meaning that it transfers the goods from one means
from one transport to another by representing the principal at the points of rupture. The very purpose of his function shows that the freight forwarder is

deeply concerned about the container revolution.

A - Freight forwarders, weakened by the development of multimodal transport

As we know, the success of the container lies in the absence of transfer between two modes of transport which is to
to say that the merchandise does not undergo any handling between two successive modes of transport.

This change resulted in emptying the freight forwarder's role of all its meaning since this absence of transshipment
ensures that there are no more physical operations to be done on the goods: handling of goods, sampling, marking,
analyses, reconditioning, product certifications

etc. and customs transit concerning containers is limited to operations for checking seal numbers.

This revolution could have signed the disappearance of freight forwarders because their role was precisely located at the points where this break occurred.

The charge was made, but instead of letting themselves die a slow death, the best in the profession adapted their know-how to the new situation.
multimodal transport technique.

B – The changes in the freight forwarder function

Freight forwarders had the choice to either follow the movement and adapt or disappear. Their salvation lay in technical mastery and
commercial containers.

Instead of handling the goods, freight forwarders now handle the container. Their interest lies in mastering the
land transportation of shipping containers and the marketing of containerized freight.
 1 - The mastery of maritime containers
This stage concerns the pre and post transport of containers, which is mostly done by land. The forwarders
They have every interest in bringing their own shipping containers to their clients to prevent shipowners from having a monopoly on it.
container positioning. A real battle is taking place between freight forwarders and shipowners, pushing the latter to...
fight on multiple fronts because the 'maritime transport battle will now be won on land [42]'. For example, for the elimination
discriminatory taxes when the freight forwarder carries out the "merchant haulage" or the establishment of "freight exchange
"positioning" that reduces the empty movement of containers.

etc.[44]. But the struggle is not just technical, it is also commercial.

2 - The mastery of containerized freight

Freight forwarders must assert themselves to retain their customers since some shipowners are increasingly operating directly with the
freight forwarders. As a result, freight forwarders are investing in Container Freight Stations (CFS) to develop their activities in the
grouping and ungrouping operations of goods in containers.

The grouping system allows the freight forwarder to purchase freight on regular lines and detail it to the shipper who does not arrive.
not to fill a complete container. The collection of this grouping freight has given rise to a new activity that has interested the
freight forwarders but also other participants in maritime transport, the shipowners themselves, the shippers or even simple
entrepreneurs interested in the booming sector.

Paragraph 2 - The Non Vessel Operating (Owning) Common Carriers

NVOCCs can be considered a new category of players in the transport chain that emerged from development.
from containerization. The activity arrives from the United States in the 1960s and the term NVOCC is given by the Shipping Act.
from 1984 and established by the American Regulation of 1990. What does this activity consist of and how can it be legally qualified?

A - Activity Analysis

The activity of NVOCC is a contractual activity. The French translation of its name gives an idea of its function: a
a shipping carrier that does not operate ships but goods. In other words, the

NVOCC take charge of goods for container shipping even though they do not have ships. They are
paper shipowners [45].

The NVOCC can originate from various structures.

1 - From a shipowner structure

Shipowners have created NVOCC structures within themselves for various reasons: in order to diversify their activities in the face of
weakness in performance resulting from ship management and to face the threatening competition from NVOCC other structures
notably freight forwarders who have gained a reputation in the grouping market. This explains why all major shipowners have
NVOCC subsidiaries (VOTAINER for Van Omeren, OCTOMAR for Delmas, Kerrline for CMA CGM, Trans Service Line for SCAC, etc.)

2 - Coming from freight forwarders

It is the freight forwarders that are at the origin of the NVOCC. The maritime line services without ships are set up by the big ones.
freight forwarders whose advantage over shipowners is their ability to offer a greater number of departures and
destinations.

3 - Derived from large loaders

The interest of shippers in creating NVOCCs lies in controlling the freight rates. Indeed, shippers can constitute alone
or in cooperation with NVOCCs operating on their specific routes.
 4 - Originating from simple entrepreneurs

In light of the success of the activity, several entrepreneurs have seized the opportunity offered by this niche. The existence of good and

bad NVOCC has generated a strict public order regulation to provide clients with effective assurance

their respectability and their solvency.

B – Legal qualification of NVOCC

The activities of the NVOCC are based on a contractual relationship. The NVOCC issues bills of lading on which it appears.
as an apparent carrier. Unlike the maritime carrier operating ships, the activity of NVOCCs operates in two
time: a contract made with the actual carrier and another contract made with the shipper.

1 - The contractual relationship between the NVOCC and the carrier

The NVOCC enters into agreements with actual carriers, that is to say, shipowners who own vessels. Either they conclude
a chartering contract is a framework transport contract.

Regarding the charter contract, it is a partial voyage charter for which the shipowner makes available to the NVOCC.
a part of the ship. In the context of container transport, these are the 'slots' subject to 'slot charter'.

The framework contract, on the other hand, is a contract for 'space purchase.' Through these contracts, the NVOCC commits to a given period to

have a specific volume of containers transported by the carrier.

2 – The contractual relationship between the NVOCC and the shipper

NVOCCs offer shippers to transport their goods as an actual carrier would. It purchases freight in
We said large and sell it at retail, the difference makes its profit.

Like the shipping carrier, the NVOCC takes charge of the merchandise, issues a transport document to the shipper, and delivers.
the merchandise to the recipient. The big difference is

that he does not have control over the transportation operation. That is why the NVOCC is rather referred to as a 'contractual carrier.'

The study of this activity deserves much more in-depth research, but within the framework of our work, it was about
present an activity that was born with containerization and has established itself in the current practice of containerization.

If this is broadly the practical aspect of containerization, what about the legal side?

PART II - LEGAL ASPECTS OF CONTAINERIZATION

Dean Rodière saw a "false problem" in that of "containers". However, it must be noted that the container
is subject to a specific legal regime that raises particular legal issues.

This section will allow us to see in detail how container transport operations take place and to identify the
legal problems that arise from it (Chapter I).

Moreover, containerization is currently at the heart of a topic of interest, common to the entire transport sector but
which particularly affects the maritime: the security of containers (Chapter II).

((((
CHAPTER I –

THE LEGAL REGIME OF CONTAINERIZATION

The legal specificities generated by the use of the container start from the operations of 'pre-containerization' until the
Final unloading of the container. These elements will allow us to address the disputes of the container through the problems.
legal issues that can arise with containerization.

Section 1 - Operations preceding the trip

maritime

The repercussions of the use of the container on transport law manifest even before the actual transport takes place.
commence.

Paragraph 1 - The operations of 'pre-containerization'

Once the shipper has chosen or agreed to send their goods by container, three points must be considered by the
contract parties: the provision of the container, its filling, and the handling by the carrier.

A – The supply of the container

Statistics show that 50% of the containers belong to shipowners and 50% to lessors. Therefore, it is important to
distinguish the supply of the container by the carrier from that by a third party.

1– The leasing carrier

The rental of a container by the carrier involves providing a container for a price and with the obligation to
restitution of the one who rents. While the practice is very widespread, the legal qualification of this service is not universally agreed upon.
The disagreement concerns the accessory or autonomous nature of the provision in relation to the transport contract.

On this point, Raynaud supports the first thesis by perceiving the rental of the container as an 'ancillary service and
indispensable to transport" due to the fact that "except in exceptional cases, it is hard to conceive that a carrier would provide to one of
its clients a container without considering transporting it"[48]. On the other side, other doctrines lean more towards the second
qualification by aligning with the solution of the Saint Georges decision. Bonnasies finds this solution to be founded.

due to the fact that "(...) the rental of containers was the subject of a specific contract and a specific rent (...)".

The Court of Cassation ended these hesitations by overturning the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Versailles with its decision of March 5, 2002.

not by commenting on the exact qualification of the contract but by affirming the principle of exclusivity
liability regime of the maritime carrier, dismissing the interest of the controversy.

It should be noted that the carrier itself may be the lessee of the container it rents.

2 – Supply of the container by a third party

Two scenarios can be distinguished: either the sender rents a container that he will hand over to the carrier or the
The carrier rents a container that he will make available to the shipper who has contracted with him.
 In the first situation, the rental contract is completely independent of the transport contract.
In the second case, a 'de facto link' exists between the rental contract and the transport operation because the carrier provides for the...
the sender has a container that he rented himself.

Once the container is provided, we proceed to fill it, which is referred to in shipping jargon as stuffing, which can be done
by the charger, the carrier or a third party designated by the sender.

B – The stuffing of the container

Stuffing is defined as the operation of filling the container and securing it. The term bracing is used to avoid confusion.
with the securing of the container itself on board the ship.

Depending on the type of shipment,

We distinguish the FWL (Fully Loaded Weight and capacity) or FCL (Full Container Loaded) container from the LCL (Less than Container Load) container.

Container Load). FWL or FCL means that the container is full in volume and weight while a container is LCL when it receives
batches of goods that alone would not fill it and that are grouped together to be economically viable.

Loading is often the responsibility of the shipper. Indeed, there are few cases where the carrier takes care of it. As a result, a
Defective packaging thus represents an exonerating clause of liability for the carrier unless their liability is...
is held accountable for personal fault or in sharing with another party. Similarly, the defective securing of goods to
The interior of a container when it has not been carried out by the carrier may lead to the latter's exemption.

The primary responsibility, in case of damage to the goods during loading, lies with the one who took them in.
charges the operation, in this case the sender in many cases. Examples abound in case law: poor packing
cartons of lemons causing a greater heating than those placed in the center (Trib. Com. Parsi, December 7, 1977, DMF
1978, p 441), damaged by wet goods arising exclusively from excessive humidity during loading (Cass.
On February 20, 1990, Juris-data n° 1990-000533), absence of protection between the goods and the walls of containers and loading
dabs dry containers missing ventilation (Trib.com. Marseille, June 21, 1991, Revue Scapel 1991, p 108), stuffing

defective for failure to open the ventilation hatches of the container (CA Paris, July 3, 1987, BTL 1988, p 58), incorrect stowage of
merchandise (Cass.com. March 27, 1973, DMF 1973, p 446) etc.

In this packing operation, it happens that the sender designates an intermediary, who is often a specialized company, a
port handling company, a moving company or possibly a seller. In these cases, the responsibility of
The operation is the responsibility of these third parties, a responsibility that may be shared with the sender or another party involved.

Once this operation is complete, the container is ready to be handed over to the carrier.

C - The handling of the container by the carrier

The handling of the container creates obligations for the carrier: they must check the contents of the containers and
carry out a check against the loading list, he must also verify the seal number of the container under penalty of
negligence and must also ensure the boarding of all the containers taken into charge.

It is time for the issuance of the bill of lading and other customs documents. The shipper must declare to the carrier.
the goods contained in the container knowing that the latter did not attend the loading and that in most cases,
the container is handed over to him sealed.

These obligations, strictly observed by the courts, give full importance to the reservations made by the carrier to
bill of lading.

The practice of reserves is not specific to container transport; however, the particularity for this mode of packaging

it is the technical impossibility of verifying each container that the carrier receives unless the expected benefits are removed
the use of the container.

As the absence of a reservation places a presumption of conformity on the carrier regarding the quality, quantity, nature of the
goods loaded and those specified in the bill of lading, it is crucial for the carrier's liability in case of
damage caused to goods upon arrival that the reserves are valid.

To address the abuses perpetrated by the carrier by systematically placing style reservations on the bill of lading, the
courts require reasoned reservations and are strict on this point. Thus, the clause 'said to contain' is systematically applied to
almost all bills of lading are in most cases annulled by the courts for lack of justification (CA Rouen,
2nd Ch. Civ., March 21, 1985, DMF 1985, summary P. 751; Cass. com., January 29, 1980, DMF 1981, p 267, commentary Achard. The same applies.

the clauses "said to be" (cass.com., February 22, 1983, Bull. civ IV, n°77) or "shippers load and count" (CA Rouen, 2nd ch. Civ., 14
Apr. 1994, DMF 1995, p 380.

These operations precede the loading of the container on board the ship.

Paragraph 2 - Loading operations

Loading operations involve the placement of the container and its securing.

A - The containerization

The essential question related to this operation is undoubtedly that concerning the on-deck loading.

The deck loading raises the delicate issue of safety and protection of the goods.

The debate is particularly justified regarding conventional goods; however, their basis is currently tempered.
with the generalization of containers and their transportation aboard container ships. Nevertheless, practice shows that
The loader's agreement is always required for the bridge transport. It must be expressly stated, that is to say, affixed to the bill of lading.

implicitly for all transport on board container ships (article 22 paragraph 2 of the law of June 18, 1966 modified by law no. 79-
1103 of December 21, 1979, art. 1) for which "the consent of the shipper is presumed to be given in the case of loading in containers
on board ships equipped with appropriate facilities for this type of transport.

The Brussels Convention of August 25, 1924 excludes from its scope 'the cargo which, by the transport contract, is
declared as being on deck and in fact, is thus transported" (art. 1 c). The loading on deck is considered regular
that if the carrier obtains the prior authorization from the shipper.

The law of June 18, 1966 provides in Article 22 cited above three cases where loading on deck is regular: in the case of a
small cabotage, when regulatory provisions impose it on the carrier and when the carrier has obtained consent
of the charger.

B - The Stowage

The securing of the container on board the ship is entirely the responsibility of the carrier, as it is the captain of the ship who
must ensure the proper execution of this operation and assess the strength of the securing based on weather conditions.
Trib.com
Paris, June 23, 1971, DMF 1972, p 308

The issue of the consistency of the deck loading and proper securing is that these two conditions combined exempt.
Generally, the carrier is responsible for any damage incurred to the goods during maritime transport.

Section 2 – The maritime voyage and unloading

This step encompasses the actual maritime journey, the unloading of the goods, and the issues of liabilities that
can arise at the end of the journey.

Paragraph 1 - The obligations of the maritime carrier during the sea voyage

The carrier is obliged to 'transport the goods under the conditions stated in the bill of lading.' The question
It remains to know the distribution of responsibility between the shipper and the maritime carrier.

Like any maritime carrier, the one who makes a shipment on a container ship is equally required to put his
ship in good navigability condition than to 'care for' the transport.

Regarding the obligations related to containerization, we cannot provide a comprehensive inventory of cases of
responsibility of the carrier as there are no precise solutions for a specific case. However, there are known solutions.
highlighted by case law

the strict application of the shipping company's liability (Ship Sun Princess, T. com. Marseille, March 5, 1993, unpublished)

the irresponsibility of the maritime carrier for damage due to the unsuitability of transport conditions to the nature of
goods and the provisions thereof

but the shipper has freely accepted and chosen (Ship Neptune Garnet, Cass. Com., June 8, 1993: DMF 1994, 359 - CA Rouen,
October 28, 1993, DMF 1994, 392). Nevertheless, he must follow the instructions of the loader regarding the containers.
directed temperature (e.g. CA Rouen, 2nd ch. Civ., Nov. 4, 1999, DMF 2000, p 1023).

the liability of the shipping carrier who does not provide evidence of a fault by the shipper, in particular in the
packaging or the positioning of goods inside the container (Dart Americana ship, Cass.com., June 22, 1993, DMF 1994)
368).

Finally, the responsibility of the maritime carrier who, upon taking charge of the container, does not verify the compliance of the number.
of lead (cass.com., January 18, 1994, DMF 1994, 547) or who, in the absence of reservations, is presumed to have received merchandise in good condition

temperature (Ship Sederberg, CA Rouen, August 25, 1993, DMF 1994, 375).

The carrier must also ensure the safety of the goods and containers. To do this, they must ensure safety.
of machinery (e.g., CA Paris, 5th ch., sect.B, March 27, 1996, BTL 1996, p. 610 and 682). He must also monitor the containers.
as he would do with non-containerized goods. Moreover, he must take the necessary precautions to avoid the
the theft of goods in containers or the containers themselves (CA Rouen, 2nd civil chamber, January 13, 2000, Juris-Data no. 2000-
120052). To this effect, the carrier is subject to a specific obligation, which is to affix seals on closed containers.
numbered and to ensure that the container remains sealed until destination.

Paragraph 2 – Unloading operations

 Article 3§2 of the Brussels Convention of August 25, 1924 states that 'the carrier is obliged to proceed in a manner
appropriate and careful during the unloading of the goods, under penalty of incurring liability.

This article requires the carrier to ensure, for example, the re-connection of containers without a refrigeration unit.
autonomous once discharged.

The law of June 18, 1966 states in its article 27 that "the carrier is responsible for the unloading, up to the
delivery of the goods.

The particularity of this step is the taking of reserves upon delivery since the damages that may occur inside a
containers are rarely apparent during unloading. Must be submitted within 3 days of the delivery date of
container, the absence, the lack of motivation or the lateness of the reservations gives rise to a presumption of delivery in accordance with
carrier's benefit.

The goods will be unloaded following an operation opposite to stuffing and loading. The containers will be
depot and unbundled if applicable and the goods will be handed over to the respective recipients. The loop is closed when it
There are no incidents or claims, but in most cases, the container dispute arises after unloading.

Section 3 - The container litigation

The legal issues posed by the container generally relate to two categories of damage: on one hand, the damages
or losses caused to the goods contained in the container and others

part, the litigation concerning the container itself.

Paragraph 1 - The legal issues related to

packed merchandise

Like goods transported in other types of packaging, goods in containers can suffer damage,
of shortages or delays.

A – Responsibility in case of delay

Despite the 'normalization' of the issue of delays, the law of June 18, 1966 does not include delays in its scope of application.
the execution of maritime transport. The Brussels Convention does not specify the delay either but does not exclude it from its scope
application as damages regarding goods (art.4§5). It took the Hamburg rules to provide a definition
delayed. Article 5-2 of the said agreement defines that "there is a delay in delivery when the goods have not been delivered to the port of
unloading provided for in the maritime transport contract, within the expressly agreed timeframe or, in the absence of such an agreement, within the timeframe

that it would be reasonable to require from a diligent carrier given the factual circumstances.

When the delay is thus established, it is necessary to compensate the one who has suffered from it and to determine the amount of the compensation.

assess the delay and its amount? The question is difficult to grasp. The delay is established in reference to the timeframe stipulated in the contract.

As maritime transport is always an expedition characterized by its duration, the notion of delay is quite vague in the
texts.

Regarding the amount of the delay, a first reference would be Article 3§8 of the Brussels Convention which

provides that the shipping carrier cannot stipulate either a 'disclaimer' clause or a clause 'setting the limit of the'
"repair" to an amount "lower than that of the Brussels Convention" (Cass.com., March 19, 2002, Juris-Data n°2002-013750).
 Furthermore, more concretely, the amount of the delay may depend on the expenses incurred in vain by the sender due to the delay.
(customs, handling, and sorting fees related to delays) (CA Paris, 5th ch., sect. C, February 24, 1994, Juris-data no. 1994-
020628

B - Liability in case of damage and shortages

As in the conventional freight transport, the carrier's liability is presumed "if the goods
transported is spoiled or has missing items (...) unless he proves that he is entitled to one of the seventeen cases that exempt him" (art. 4
Brussels Convention.

The particularity of container transport is that they always travel closed and sealed. This seems to offer a
greater safety compared to traditional packaging and yet many 'boxes' arrive at their destination with the lead intact and
yet looted.

The carrier is exempt from its responsibilities for damages suffered to goods placed in a container that has
retained its original lead intact upon arrival (other than those due to a fall, a shock during transport or handling
Brutal), CA Versailles, 3rd ch., April 17, 1992, Juris-Data No. 1992-040770.

In other situations, the carrier must make a reservation to overturn the presumption of proper receipt, if he knows or
if he has reasons

to suspect that the goods do not match the indications provided by the shipper or if he could not control them
indications. These reservations must also be justified.

Paragraph 2 - Legal issues related to

container itself

Compared to ordinary packaging, damage to the container requires special treatment due to the high cost.
of this type of packaging and its sustainable use. We have seen that a new container costs about 2500 euros today
and that its normal lifespan is 5 to 6 years, even up to 10 years with regular maintenance. The container may be subject to damage or
of immobilization by the user.

A - Responsibility in case of damage

Due to shocks, falls, or rough handling, the container as a device may suffer damage. In this
In this case, a distinction must be made between the damage caused by the act of a third party and that caused by the act of the carrier.

The damage caused by a third party (handling contractor, port equipment) is often compensated by the insurer who
Return to the author of the damage. On the other hand, damages caused by the carrier fall under their responsibility.
as much as the damages related to the merchandise.

B – Responsibility in case of immobilization

A prolonged immobilization of a container can be costly for its owner. If the user does not return the container within
the specified return periods, the owner may claim damages.

These

problems stem from the recurring legal issues of container transport that have been present in the debates on containers
for always. Currently, it must be noted that the container is at the center of a particular problem which is security.
of maritime transport.

CHAPTER II –

THE CONTAINER AT THE CENTER OF A CURRENT ISSUE: THE SECURITY OF MARITIME TRANSPORT

The events of September 11, 2001, made it increasingly clear that the world's transportation infrastructure is
more vulnerable than ever to terrorist acts as it can not only be the target of terrorist acts but also be used
like a weapon of mass destruction. No mode of transportation is safe, and the damage can be severe, which has prompted the
the international community to give top priority to security in transport.

Since global trade largely depends on maritime transport and that 80% of international maritime exchanges
Containerization is at the heart of the issue of maritime transportation safety.

Section 1 - The safety of containers

The security of containers is not a new concern for the international community, but it has become the priority of
all countries after the events of 2001. Knowing that about 15 million EVP are circulating in the world currently, the threat
What containers can represent is not negligible. Measures have been adopted by the international community to
prevent risks and enhance safety.

Paragraph 1 – The risks associated with use

you
container

In terms of safety, the strengths of the container can turn against it. Indeed, due to its international nature and
multimodal, it becomes the container most likely to be used for a terrorist action.

A - The threats weighing on the container

All threats stem from the inability to exercise comprehensive control over circulating containers. It is
It's difficult to know indeed, at every point of the transport chain, where the containers are, what their destination is and what they
contain.

This impossibility is due among other things to the multitude of "boxes" in circulation combined with the speed that characterizes the
container treatment. Furthermore, the very sealing system of the containers grants them, in principle, inviolability and anonymity.
makes it difficult to control what it contains.

Besides being an excellent means for smuggling and illicit trafficking (arms trafficking, illegal immigration,
drug trafficking, etc.), the container represents three main dangers.

Firstly, the container can be the 'main vehicle for transferring the ingredients necessary for manufacturing the
"weapons of mass destruction". Then, it can be "an excellent means of delivering these weapons to the locations of
storage and positioning"[57]. Lastly, and not least, it can constitute "the weapon itself" through criminal explosion of
dangerous products loaded in containers[58].

B - The nature of risks

 Both during its packing, during the transit phases (from storage areas to the departure port and from the arrival port to
the final destination) that during the maritime journey itself the container can be subject to fraudulent diversion.

1 - The substitution of the container

A container recognized as 'healthy' at the time of stuffing can be replaced by a fraudulent container under the same
external characteristics. This can be easily done by reproducing the ISO identification number which is only painted on
the container.

But the substitution can also take place either during a stopover or during unloading with a container coming from outside or
Already on board. It is clear that such malpractices can only occur with the complicity of the crew. This substitution occurs
especially during maritime transit phases and in storage areas that are difficult to monitor.

2 - The substitution of the container loading

In this case, it involves the replacement of the goods checked at loading with another illicit one. This implies the opening
of the container while avoiding the breaking of seals. However, practice shows that this is easily achievable with tools and a little
of ingenuity. This substitution mainly occurs during the intermediate phases of dock storage but also takes place
during the layovers.

The attacks that the container must face have led the international community to take measures to
strengthen security worldwide.

Paragraph 2 – The measures

recommended

Having been personally affected by the attacks on the World Trade Center, the United States are the main initiators of
security measures in collaboration with other governments, industries, and international organizations. These
recommendations concern both prevention and offense.

A - Preventive measures

Preventive measures encompass everything that is upstream in the transport chain. They affect the entire transport sector and
its environment (global measures) and the container itself (separate measures).

1 – Global measures

These are measures aimed at securing all transportation. The safest way to achieve this would be to entrust the securing of
the transport chain has a single actor: the ownership or chartering of the carrying ship, the stuffing of the equipment, the supply of
land transport, the control of waiting storage port areas. This method would have the advantage of consistency and
Ease in control but taking responsibility for the entire transport chain is reserved for powerful companies.

Furthermore, upstream, securing the transportation environment involves:

Securing transportation means

Regarding the ship, the International Maritime Organization proposes on one hand the Automatic Identification System (AIS) which provides...
permanently the identity, the position, and the kinematics of the ship and on the other hand to draft a security plan for all ships.

Regarding passengers and cargo, the IMO proposes strengthening information exchanges.
 Finally, regarding the crew of the ships, the IMO proposes the designation of a security officer on each ship.

- The safety of port facilities

The United States proposes the mandatory implementation of security plans for port facilities, accompanied by a system.
vulnerability assessment of the port.

The protection of administrative and accounting environment.

This involves protecting the exchange of information electronically.

2 - The Separate Measures

In this case, the securing focuses on the container taken in isolation and concerns two points: the verification and the preservation of its
integrity on one hand and its traceability on the other hand.

The verification and preservation of integrity by placing lead seals on the container doors. For more
security, manufacturers are launching the use of electronic seals or electronic chips that detect the opening of doors. Another
the technique is also recommended to limit intrusions into containers, that of the 'door-to-door practice' which consists of
place the container doors tightly face to face to prevent them from opening.

The traceability of containers allowing for the detection of any substitution of a healthy container at loading by another one possessing the
the same identity but carrying an illicit cargo during the journey. This can be done either through constant monitoring by
the use of the GPS system either by authenticating the container at certain checkpoints (embarkation port, customs).

B – Intrusive measures

The measures

Intrusives are those applicable to containers that are already at the destination and whose contents raise doubts. Two solutions are available to
customs: deny boarding and/or check the contents.

1 – The refusal of boarding

Refusing boarding outright is certainly the safest way, but we must not forget that transport by
The container is part of a commercial context and such a measure can be commercially penalizing.

Moreover, this would hinder the principle of free trade advocated by the WTO and could even resemble an embargo for the countries.
economically weak who cannot meet the required conditions.

This method can therefore be a means of pressure, but examining the content seems more appropriate.

2 - Content Verification

The verification can be done either manually or by X-ray examination.

➢Manual search: Customs authorities may carry out searches either on land or at sea.

On land, this involves opening the container and checking its contents against the bill of lading, but the downside is the duration it takes.
the necessity on one hand and the material arrangements that this requires on the other hand.

At sea, it involves the inspection of containers during maritime transit. The drawback in this case is the legal difficulty.
such an operation because the high seas fall under the authority of the Flag State. The operation is also delicate from a material standpoint given
that the containers are inaccessible on board due to their stacking.

The X-ray examination

The system is comparable to that of carry-on baggage scanners at airports but on a larger scale.
The scanner allows for quick and reliable verification of the load. But despite its undeniable effectiveness, this equipment is
used only in the customs of developed countries.

If the initiatives taken are primarily driven by American demand, the entire international community is concerned.
and made container security a priority.

Section 2 - Actions taken at the level

International

The United States has launched a large-scale project aimed at improving container security, called the Container Security
Initiative (CSI), presented to the IMO in 2002. But the IMO has also continued its own work on improving safety on board.
ships and in the ports by implementing new measures to prevent maritime transport from becoming a
target of international terrorism, the ISPS Code.

Paragraph 1 - The American initiative

The measures taken by the United States consist of two devices: the Container Security Initiative (CSI) to which has joined the
Custom Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT).

A - The CSI or the Container Security Initiative

U.S. Customs defines the CSI as "a program aimed at significantly improving the way of
operation of maritime trade.
The CSI primarily targets the top 20 main foreign ports where container traffic destined for the United States is the
plus

important

1 - Program content

U.S. Customs articulates this program around four key concepts:

Establish security criteria to identify at-risk containers in advance.
Filter the containers as early as possible
Use technologies that allow for the rapid filtering of high-risk containers.
Develop and use technologies that ensure the container is healthy.

The starting principle is that "one can enhance the security of the commercial system by identifying and inspecting containers.
at high risk before their loading.

For implementation, the US government has entered into agreements with foreign governments under which
American agents, whose task would be to identify suspicious containers headed for the United States and to conduct a check.
prior to their shipment, will now be present in these foreign ports
 Another measure is closely linked to this initiative for container security.

2 - The 24-hour rule

This measure requires shipping companies of container ships bound for the United States to no longer have the detailed manifest.
goods on board but to transmit it to US customs 24 hours before loading in foreign ports.
This measure aims to obtain information as early as possible in order to enable 'intelligent targeting' of shipments.
at risk. The CSI has been supplemented by another device.

B - The C-TPAP or Customs and Trade Partnership Against Terrorism

C-TPAT is a partnership between U.S. Customs and businesses aimed at strengthening controls based on documents.
Customs officers to enhance the security of containers throughout the supply chain and at borders.

Exporters and their partners in the supply chain are committed to drawing up inventories or statements of
much more detailed packaging and to send them to the American customs in a timeframe allowing for a much more thorough examination
delves deeper. The American customs, for its part, commits to supporting partners by accelerating and facilitating the customs clearance of
merchandise at the border.

Since February 2003, ships that do not submit their documents before the loading of goods are subject to
heavy fines and long customs clearance delays.

These two measures constitute the American response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 regarding safety.
containers. Moreover, the international community through the IMO has intensified its work regarding illicit acts that
compromise the safety of ships and the security of their passengers and crews in the aftermath of these events.

Paragraph 2 – The new IMO rules

The International Maritime Organization is the United Nations institution responsible for the safety of maritime transport.
international. In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, it implemented swift and comprehensive measures to
to address the possibility of terrorist acts directed against ships, or to prevent terrorists from using

ships themselves as a weapon or use the profits arising from maritime activities to subsidize their illegal acts.

A – The ISPS code

The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code or International Code for the Security of Ships and Port Facilities
is a new regulatory regime adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in December 2002, on the occasion of a
Diplomatic conference. It constitutes an amendment to the SOLAS Convention[62] of 1974.

1 - The targeted groups

The new rules apply to all cargo ships over 500 gross tons, to boats for the
passenger transport, to mobile offshore drilling platforms and port facilities that serve the ships
ensuring international links. It came into effect on July 1, 2004.

The provisions of the Code address governments, ship and port facility operators, crews, and
all persons involved in maritime transport.

2 - The content of the Code

The ISPS Code is established by the new Chapter XI-2 of the SOLAS Convention. This chapter is divided into two parts.
The first contains mandatory safety requirements for governments, port authorities, and
shipping companies. The second, which is not mandatory, sets out recommendations regarding compliance with these requirements.

Implemented for the benefit of the entire international community and global trade, all of the aforementioned measures are not
not

welcomed without reservations by other countries in the world, particularly the countries of the European Union of which France is a part.

B - The position of the European Union countries

In general, France and the countries of the European Union support the United States in this fierce fight against the
terrorism nevertheless their positions can be examined around a few viewpoints: technological, security,
economic and political

Technologically, discrepancies will inevitably be recorded between French manufacturers and their counterparts across the Atlantic.
This is due to the fact that the American administration is stricter in this area but also because French industrialists and
Europeans seem less aware of the urgency of the situation.

On the security front, France and EU countries are largely aligning with the offensive led by the United States.
security officer, improvement of the quality and reliability of crew members' identification documents) but emit
reservations regarding the port security plan and crew security files.

The reservations are stronger on the economic front due to the very significant costs generated by the measures.
technology, cost of implementation or strengthening of structure, cost of increasing administrative constraints, etc.
especially since no funding is planned. The European Union is also concerned about 'distortions of competition between the
different ports of the EU " due to agreements between European ports and U.S. customs.

Finally, politically, France and the countries of the European Union acknowledge the legitimacy of the Americans' position but
they are, however, becoming aware of the unilaterality and brutality of the actions taken. The measures are too focused on the States-
United and do not take enough account of the rest of the world.

Moreover, the measures taken may in the long term deviate towards disguised protectionism or economic pressure on
some countries. However, not adhering to these initiatives means excluding oneself from an important part of trade with Americans.

CONCLUSION

This work has allowed us to provide an update on the general environment of containerization. Despite the generality of the subject,
we believe that taking stock of what exists allows us to confirm more than ever that the container has its specificities and
represents a field of investigation that is both technical and intellectually enriching.

The container has become an essential vector for international trade in less than a century. It is everywhere and the observation
today is that it constitutes a pillar of global trade.

We are far from having said everything about containers. Our difficulty in this work has been to grasp the scope of the subject because the

Containerization is vast and each subject it touches deserves more in-depth development.
 This work paves the way for other subjects, particularly the challenge of containers in developing countries as the
Containerization is experiencing exponential growth in developed countries and yet is still in a preliminary stage in the
developing country

notably in Madagascar.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Annex 1 - The types of containers

Annex 2 - Container Details

Annex 3 – Container ship

Annex 4 - G8 Declaration

Annex 5 – Certificate of approval by type of construction

Annex 6 – The 20 'mega-ports' exporting to the United States

BIBLIOGRAPHY

❖TREATIES, GENERAL WORKS

- REMOND GOUILLOUD Martine, Maritime Law, Ed. Pedone, 1993

RODIERE René, General Treaty of Maritime Law, Introduction - The Equipment, Dalloz 1976
VIALARD Antoine, Maritime Law, Coll. Fundamental Law, PUF 1997

THESES AND MEMOIRS

BALLO Flore Valérie, The Legal Aspects of Container Transport, DESS Thesis, Aix-en-Provence, 1990
BOKALLI Victor Emmanuel, Containerization and international multimodal transport of goods, DESS Thesis, Aix-en-
Provence, 1989
N'ZI Jean Claude, The legal problems of containerization, DESS thesis, Aix-en-Provence, 1993

ARTICLES

Bonnaud Jacques, Legal Bernard, Multimodal Transport and Logistics, Journal of Maritime, Air and Commercial Law
transports, 2001
- CHAO Andrée, Containers Assessment of 25 Years of Practice, BTL 1993, p 761

- CHAO Andrée, NVOCC searching for an identity, BTL 1993, p 320

- CHAOS Andrée, Maritime container transport - Reserves: necessary but not sufficient, BTL 1996, p872
CORNIER Gérard, Container ships: which is the largest? The Marin of November 26, 2004, No. 2994, p. 7
FREMONT Antoine, Containerization and the Third World through the example of the General Maritime Company 1965-1995, The notebooks
transport scientists,

No. 34/1998, pp 31-52

HUCHET Jean Philippe, Expert opinion: evolution of sizes and diseconomies of scale of mega-container ships, Gazette of the
Chamber, Newsletter of the Maritime Arbitration Chamber of Paris, No. 3, Winter 2003-2004
 - MERCADAL M., The legal problems of containerization in maritime transport, DMF 1982, 371
- MIRIBEL Stéphane, Multimodal Transport and Insurance, Comparative Law Conference, January 14-15, 1999, DMF 1999, p. 657
- PESTEL-DEBORD P., Containers and Jurisprudence, BTL 1991, p 348
- PINEUS Kaj, The containers and multimodal transport, DMF 1967, 394
RODIERE René, A false problem: that of "containers", DMF 1968, 707
- SCHADEE Henri, The legal content of the container, DMF 1967, 602
- TILCHE Marie, Containers, no increased liability for the carrier, BTL 1991, p 496
- WAROT Jean, The Advent of the Container in Maritime Traffic, DMF 1951, 263

❖ MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS

- BAILLY Valérie, The 25 Years of the Container, Conference organized by IDIT, 1993
UNCTAD, 11th session, June 13-18, 2004, Trade and transport facilitation: establishing a safe and efficient framework for
international exchanges thematic note.
- DREYER Bernard, Technologies of multimodal maritime transport, for the CECE, TP2, 2005.
IMTM, Multimodal transport by sea and air - The new UNCTAD/CCI rules, Proceedings of the meeting
International organized by the IMTM, April 1994
PEZARD François, Maritime Containers and Security, Foundation for Strategic Research, Dec. 2002.
EUROPEAN LAWYERS UNION, Transport Commission, Multimodal transport

in Europe, Jan. 2001

REVIEW

French Maritime Law

The Journal of Merchant Marine:
The OECD recommends door-to-door security for containerized transport, JMM of June 4, 2004 No. 4406
. Container File 2004, JMM November 26, 2004
. Container File 1999, JMM November 19, 1999
BRS Report, JMM of May 20, 2005
ISEMAR Summary:
Panorama of container ports in Europe, no. 59, Nov. 2003
. The container revolution, no. 49, Nov. 2002
Port container handling: international operators - European perspectives, no. 39, Nov. 2001
Giant container ships: myth or reality, n°52, Feb. 2003
- JURIS-CLASSEUR :
. Container regime, Bulletin 976, 1996
Container Transport, Publication 975, 2003
Annals of the IMTM, File: Multimodal Transport, 1988

WEBSITES
www.bic-code.org
www.containerinfo.net
www.lexmaritima.net
www.imo.org
www.iso.org
www.isemar.asso.fr

1
INTRODUCTION 3

PART I - TECHNICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF CONTAINERIZATION 6

CHAPTER I - 7
TECHNIQUE EVOLUTION OF MATERIAL INSTRUMENTS 7

Section 1 - The container 7

Paragraph 1 - Notion of container 7

A - Definitions of container 7
B - The types of containers 9

Paragraph 2 – The standardization of containers 10

A - The building standards 10

B - The identification number or ISO alpha-codes 13

Section 2 – The ships and the ports 14

Paragraph

1- The gigantism of the ships carries- 14

containers 14

A - The emergence of Very Large Container Ships (VLCS) 14

B – Towards an overcapacity of the container fleet 16

Paragraph 2 - A need for adaptation of ports to 17

containers 17

CHAPTER II – 20
CURRENT PRACTICE OF CONTAINERIZATION 20

Section I – Containerization and transport 20

multimodal transmaritime 20

Paragraph 1 - Definitions of multimodal transport 20

transmaritime 20

A – A plurality of definitions 20
B - Characteristics of multimodal transport 22

Paragraph 2 - The container in the service of transportation 23

multimodal 23

A - The advantages of containerization 23

B - The disadvantages of containerization 25
Section 2 – The players in containerization 27
 Paragraph 1 – Freight forwarders facing the container revolution 27

A – Freight forwarders, weakened by the development of multimodal

B - The changes in the function of forwarding agent 28

Paragraph 2 – The Non Vessel Operating (Owning) Common Carriers 29

A – Activity Analysis 29
B – Legal qualification of NVOCC

PART II - LEGAL ASPECTS OF CONTAINERIZATION 33

CHAPTER I – 34
THE LEGAL REGIME OF CONTAINERSHIP 34

The operations preceding the trip 34

maritime 34

Paragraph 1 - The operations of "pre-containerization" 34

A - The supply of container 34

B – The stuffing of container 36
C – The handling of the container by the carrier 37

Paragraph 2 - The operations of

loading 38

A - The containerization 38
B - The docking 39

Section 2 – The maritime journey and unloading 40

Paragraph 1 – The obligations of the maritime carrier during the sea voyage 40

Paragraph 2 – The unloading operations 41

Section 3 - The litigation of container 42

Paragraph 1 - Legal issues related to the 42

A – Liability in case of delay 42

B – Liability in case of damages and shortages 43

Paragraph 2 - Legal issues related to 44

container itself 44

A – Liability in the event of damage 44

B - Liability in case of immobilization 45
 CHAPTER II - 46
THE CONTAINER AT THE CENTER OF A CURRENT ISSUE: MARITIME TRANSPORT SECURITY 46

Section 1 – The safety of containers 46

Paragraph 1 – The risks associated with the use of 46

container 46

A - The threats facing container 47

B – The nature of risks 47

Paragraph 2 – Recommended measures 48

A – Preventive measures 49
B – Intrusive measures 50

Section 2 - Actions taken at level 52

International 52

Paragraph 1 – The American initiative 52

A – The CSI or the Container Security Initiative 52

B - The C-TPAP or Customs and Commercial Partnership against Terrorism 54
Paragraph 2 – The new IMO rules 54

A – The ISPS code 55

B - The position of the countries of the European Union 56

CONCLUSION 58

LIST OF ANNEXES 59

-----------------------
Antoine Frémont, Containerization and the Third World

through the example of Compagnie Générale Maritime, The Scientific Notebooks of Transport, no. 34, p. 31, 1998.
Twenty Feet Equivalent. It is the unit of measurement for containers
[3] RODIERE, A false problem: that of the 'containers', DMF 1968, p 707
M. Rémond-Gouilloud, Maritime Law, Ed Pedone, 1993, n°574 et seq.
K. Pineus, Containers and Combined Transport, DMF 1967, p 395.
A container costs about 2500 to 3000 euros new and between 1300 to 1500 euros second-hand.
The lifespan of a container is 5 to 10 years.
At that time, we were talking about 'container' since the French version of the word 'conteneur' was only imposed in 1977 by the circular of the 15th.

September 1977 (JO September 24, 1977, NC p.6077).

BIC was founded in 1933 by the International Chamber of Commerce to raise awareness among the business community about development.
international transport. It brings together on a global scale all parties involved in containerization and transport
manufacturers, carriers, lessors, shippers, freight forwarders, etc.
WAROT, The advent of the container in maritime traffic, DMF 1951, p 263
[11] RODIERE, op.cit.
RODIERE, General Treaty of Maritime Law, volume 2, 1968
Article 1c of the CCC.
[14] WAROT, id.
There are shipping containers of 50, 48, 45, 43, 30, and 24 feet.
In practice, the width is 2350mm and the length is 2590mm.
In practice, doors are 2,340mm wide and 2,280mm high.

The last letter is U for all freight containers. J for detachable container equipment. Z for the
trailers or chassis for container.

JMM from

May 20, 2005

According to studies by INRETS, ships between 1000 and 3999 TEU account for 47% of the operating container ship fleet and
61% of transported EVPs. In Isemar Summary, Feb. 2003
Width corresponding to a ship of 4800 TEU maximum.
The Strait of Malacca is one of the most important strategic navigation routes in the world that indeed presents interest.
crucial. This strait connects the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea and thus serves as a major artery through which a large
part of world trade.

10,000 TEU ships are currently ordered by Maersk Sealand JMM from November 26, 2004, p. 23
[24] The Seaman from November 26, 2004, p. 7.

Barry Rogliano Salles

JMM of November 26, 2004, p. 19
JMM of May 20, 2005
same
[29] the same

example Eurogate, PSA, HPH etc.

Isemar Summary - Feb. 2003
Isemar Summary - Feb. 2003
Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods of May 24, 1980.
Directive No. 92/106, decision of February 21, 1995, Official Journal of March 7.

The word transmaritime was invented by Professor Bonassies during the preparation of the IMTM conference on multimodal transport.
1988.
In 1876, the British Court of Appeal ruled on what was a transport operation that involved a
maritime transport from London to Montreal, followed by rail transport from Montreal to Toronto (Morr v. Harris, 1876 1 A.C 318.)

[37] Bonnaud - Legal, Multimodal Transport and Logistics, Review of Commercial, Maritime, Aerial Law and Transport 2001, p 62
s.
[38] same source.

Bernard Dreyer, Technology of

multimodal maritime transports, for the CECE TP2 2005

[40] Cass.com, June 8, 1993, ship Neptune – Garnet, DMF 1994, p 359
ibid.
[42] Cited by Bernard Dreyer, The Function of Freight Forwarding and Multimodal Transport, in Annales IMTM 1988.
Pre and post land transport carried out by the freight forwarder on behalf of their client shipper.
Bernard Dreyer, op.cit.
Andrée Chao, NVOCC, in search of an identity, BTL 1993, p 320.
RODIERE, op.cit.
Isemar synthesis No. 49 Nov. 2002
[48] Obs. M.N Raynaud, DMF 2002, p 969.
Court of Appeal of Versailles, 12th Chamber, 1st Section, dated January 14, 1999, DMF 1999, p. 933, observation by Cl. Humann.

DMF 2000, Positive law in 1999, no. 74.

DMF 2002, p 969, obs. M.N Raynaud.
Article 3§3 of the Brussels Convention of 1924.
Court of Appeal of Montpellier, April 25, 1995, ship Korrigan Obs. P. Bonnassies
[54] CA of Rouen, 2nd civil chamber, September 8, 1994, Observations by Yves Tassel, DMF 1997, p. 264

Around 13,000,000 containers were circulating in the world in 2004.

François PEZARD, Maritime Containers and Security, Study by the Foundation for Strategic Research, Dec. 2002, p 9.
Ibid.
OECD Report - JMM June 4, 2004 p 9.
A I S: enclosure comprising two interfaces, one of which allows for connection to transmission equipment.
long range, HF or satellite.
5 to 10 minutes per truck or 20-foot container.
The device provides a side view and a top view of the cargo that is easily comparable to the presented manifest.
Safety Of Life At Sea. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea.
François PEZARD, op.cit., p 31 s.