Ship Arrest Jurisdiction Under The Rotterdam Rules

Since United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, namely the Rotterdam Rules, was passed in2008, it has always been a key subject in Maritime Law researches. This thesis is based on the provisions of the Chapter14of Rotterdam Rules and focuses on jurisdictional disputes on ship arrest in the new convention, including three chapters in all.Chapter one introduces the concept of ship arrest and raises the jurisdictional issues about ship arrest. Based on different legal systems(Common Law System and Continental Legal System), jurisdictional provisions on ship arrest vary from country to country. Preceding international conventions, such as Hamburg Rules, Arrest Convention1952and Arrest Convention1999, try to solve the jurisdiction disputes over ship arrest and try to unify the jurisdictional regulations on ship arrest, but the result is not that desirable.Chapter two analyses provisions of ship arrest jurisdiction under the Rotterdam Rules in detail and divides the issue into four respects:requirements for ship arrest jurisdiction, arrest measures, substantive jurisdiction over ship arrest and recognition and enforcement of ship arrest under the Rotterdam Rules. This chapter evaluates provisions of ship arrest jurisdiction in the Rotterdam Rules and concludes that these provisions are very essential. However, the parties may choose Arrest Convention instead and get around the Rotterdam Rules.Chapter three analyses the influence and inspirations of ship arrest jurisdiction under the Rotterdam Rules to China and attends to give some advice for China to modify the structure of Chinese ship arrest jurisdiction. China should have dialectical introspection on provisions of ship arrest jurisdiction under the Rotterdam Rules and draw lessons from it.