An event marking the 95th anniversary of the Maritime Arbitration Commission took place in Moscow on 11 December 2025. Over nearly a century, the Commission has secured authority and trust not only within Russia but well beyond its borders, noted Sergey Katyrin, President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, in his welcoming address. Citing official figures, he noted that the Commission has dealt with over 4,500 cases throughout its history, with parties drawn from more than 70 countries. Such figures, Sergey Katyrin said, speak to the institution’s standing and professionalism. Expressing his gratitude for the Chamber’s support and appraisal, Alexey Kostin, the current head of the Maritime Arbitration Commission, noted the Commission’s substantial role in shaping both Russian and international arbitration practice.

Yet the history of the Commission also contains profoundly tragic episodes. In the 1930s, 13 of its first 20 arbitrators fell victim to political repression. Drawing on archival sources, we have reconstructed their biographies and published them in issue 3/2025 of Maritime Law journal. Anna Arkhipova, Vice-President of the Maritime Arbitration Commission, also referred to this period in her remarks. Her conference presentation examined the issue of “channeled liability in mari time law and beyond.”

“A Defendant Chosen in Advance”

In principle, liability for damage caused by a source of increased danger, including a vehicle, is borne by the owner. However, determining who the owner actually is can be far from simple. An asset of this scale is never run by one person alone; it entails a full crew, operating under someone’s supervision. The issue is compounded by the fact that, under a time charter, the crew answers to both the shipowner and the charterer. As a result, the injured party may struggle to determine swiftly against whom a claim should be brought, explained Anna Arkhipova. The institution of channeled liability resolves this problem by predetermining the defendant, thereby obliging all injured parties to pursue their claims against the same party.

“Given that there is only one pre-designated defendant, the amount of that party’s liability may be reduced or limited. This represents a compromise: damages are not paid in full, but compensation is guaranteed within a defined limit.”

Anna Arkhipova, Vice-President of the Maritime Arbitration Commission

This mechanism is used in international regulatory instruments relating to marine pollution. The best-known example is Article 3 of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (1969), which provides that the ship’s registered owner is liable for any pollution damage caused by an incident. Anna Arkhipova noted that one of the document’s drafters was Alexander Makovsky, one of the most distinguished and sought-after arbitrators of the Maritime Arbitration Commission throughout its history.

A similar mechanism appears in the 2001 International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage. Arkhipova noted that this legal concept remains largely overlooked, despite its promise, which is complicated by the lack of an established foreign-language equivalent for the term “channeled liability.”

New Faces, National Law Interests, and Interim Measures

Speaking on the arbitrability of maritime disputes, Sergey Kurochkin, Associate Professor at the Ural State Law University, stressed the importance of promoting national law among today’s law students. This, he said, was key to ensuring that arbitration clauses refer to Russian law rather than “bourgeois English law.”

The issue of generational continuity in maritime law is no less pressing. Vladimir Mednikov, an arbitrator and member of the Presidium of the Maritime Arbitration Commission, drew attention to this point: “It is vital to remember where we come from,” he said. “We need seafarers among us, people capable of resolving disputes by speaking to the parties in their own language.”

Attention was also drawn at the conference to the President’s right to grant interim measures and determine their form and extent. Thus, at the request of one party, a dispute may give rise to the arrest of the other party’s vessel or cargo while it is located in a Russian port. The mechanism is distinctive, yet it remains rarely applied, owing to the limited attention it has received, noted Maria Andrianova, an arbitrator at the MAC and Head of the Department of International Private and Civil Law at MGIMO University.

Gross Negligence by Shipowners and a Sunken Fleet

At the very end of the event, two further topics were addressed. Elena Popova, an arbitrator at the Maritime Arbitration Commission and managing partner of the law firm Peregrina, clarified how the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code correlate with those of the Nairobi Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, which Russia joined in December 2021.

Thus, pursuant to the international statutory instrument, a Russian owner of a wrecked vessel may limit its liability arising from the removal of the wreck, provided that the casualty occurred within, or the wreck is located in Russian waters. The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code, by contrast, do not provide for such an option.

The Nairobi Convention further permits a Russian owner of a wrecked vessel to be relieved of the costs associated with its search and removal under certian conditions. The Merchant Shipping Code does not contain corresponding provisions, Popova underlined.

The qualification of a shipowner’s gross negligence likewise reflects specific features of national regulation. Members of Russian Maritime Law Association examined this issue in detail at their summer seminar, a report from which was published in issue 3/2025 of the Maritime Law journal.

Speaking at the December conference, Veronika Kharitonova, a representative of the Maritime Arbitration Commission, noted that when adjudicating cases of gross negligence, arbitral tribunals focus on whether standards of due care and prudence are embedded in the shipowner’s internal documentation, conveyed to the crew, and whether their implementation is monitored.

Kharitonova argued that shipowners can dispel allegations of gross negligence by pointing to regular vessel inspections, prompt repairs, and the introduction of loading requirements backed by effective supervision. These principles, she added, are well supported by the established practice of the Maritime Arbitration Commission.

Other Topics Discussed

– The structure of modern law of the sea (Vitaly Klyuev, Director of the Department of State Policy in Maritime and Inland Water Transport, Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation).

– On the experience of developing maritime arbitration in China (Li Hu, Vice Chairman of the China Maritime Arbitration Commission).

– The prejudicial effect of arbitral awards (Vladimir Mednikov, Arbitrator and Member of the Presidium of the Maritime Arbitration Commission).

– Effective mechanisms for resolving maritime disputes in Singapore (Neelakantan Vivekananda, Registrar, Singapore International Arbitration Centre).

– Current legal challenges surrounding demurrage (Sergey Sinitsyn, Deputy Director, Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation).

– On the limits of judicial supervision over arbitration (Maria Krasnova, Partner, KIAP Law Firm).

– The concept of “proper maritime practice” (Roman Makarov, Partner, Nektorov, Saveliev & Partners Law Firm).

– On the limitation of liability of maritime carriers (Alexander Matveev, LL.M., Russian School of Private Law). ■