Research On Carrier Identification Problem When Bill Of Lading Issued By Captain

How to accurately identify the carrier is crucial for the claim indemnity of the cargo owner,which is a challenge in maritime law research.In shipping practice,"master’s bill of lading" is used widely,which means a bill of lading issued by the master of the carrying vessel.The Maritime Law of the People’s Republic of China does not have specific provisions on the identification of the carrier when the captain issues a bill of lading,which has caused difficulties for the identification of the carrier in shipping practice.Therefore,it is necessary to improve the carrier identification path in China,so that carrier identification no longer becomes a challenge.There are multiple reasons for the identification of the carrier in the captain’s bill of lading.The ambiguity of the captain’s bill of lading in legal regulations has to some extent led to a series of issues in carrier identification.Although improving the definition of carrier is helpful for carrier identification,it is still impossible to rely solely on its definition to identify the carrier.The existence of complex lease chains and non-standard transportation documents further exacerbates the difficulty of carrier identification.Accurately identifying the carrier when the captain issues a bill of lading not only enables the cargo owner to quickly identify the object of claim,but also helps to improve the theory of carrier liability.The three traditional international conventions rely on the definition of the carrier to identify the carrier.Only the Rotterdam Rules establish a carrier presumption system,which is an improvement and innovation on the basis of the old system and should be used for reference.Foreign countries have their own methods for identifying carriers.Britain adopting the principle of "employer’s liability under most circumstances and time charterer’s liability as an exception,which is the most valuable experience that we should use for reference.The identification path of "agency principle" and "employer’s liability principle" is mainly adopted in Chinese judicial practice and the priority order for applying the two identification paths has not been determined.Analysis shows that the identification method of "agency principle" has hidden troubles,while the identification method of "employer’s liability principle" has the drawback of blindness.The carrier identification system in China needs to be improved.China should improve the identification method of carriers based on the reference of Three major International conventions on maritime transport and other national legislation.On the one hand,it is necessary to standardize the expression in law.A judicial interpretation can be issued to allow the lessee who is responsible for collecting goods to operate freight business and signing a transport contract to be identified as the carrier,regardless of whether he has signed a maritime transport contract with the bill of lading holder.In addition,the lease should include necessary provisions that stipulate that the sublessee has the same status on the bill of lading as the lessee in the first lease.On the other hand,it is necessary to improve the existing identification path,and the identification order of "applying the ’agency principle’ first and applying the’employment principle’ second" should be identified.What’s more,China should establish a carrier identification system.