This article examines the establishment of those legal principles that have historically evolved in this area under French civil law. The article also traces the development of the practice of the French courts, which is gradually moving away from the limitations contained in previous decisions concerning the validity of jurisdictional clauses.

The article deals with the legal nature of the contract of carriage of goods. For this purpose, the author defines the economic purpose of the contract, its subject matter and the liability for its breach. According to these three components, the article is divided into three parts. The author also examines the regulation of the contract of carriage in foreign jurisdictions, namely English, German and French law. On the basis of the material analysed, the author concludes that it is possible to subdivide the obligations under the contract of carriage into obligations on the cargo and obligations on the vessel. It is pointed out in the article that Russian legal doctrine has a view of carriage which is a bit unique from the other legal systems while there are no actual grounds for such understanding. The author concludes that the contract of carriage in Russian law is an obligation on the cargo which includes an obligation on the vessel.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the concept and importance of mediation in the legal system. The author introduces the stages of planning and conducting mediation, highlights the key functions of the mediator. The article also examines the use of mediation as a way to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens.

The article examines the problem of expropriation of foreign vessels during the *** in Ukraine. The authors consider expropriation without monetary compensation and not on the grounds of a court judgement is an illegal and Unfavourable act. The point is that vessels are registered in the registers, which are usually kept by ports all over the world. The registration is a condition of vessels’ operation. In case of illegal expropriation, it is impossible to change the entry for a vessel in a foreign register. Consequently, the vessel cannot leave the port of any state since she will be arrested. Vessels, which were expropriated illegally, cannot be operated for their intended purpose in the modern world.

Russian court refused to provide information to a shareholder owning 43% of the voting shares of the Russian joint-stock company Kaliningrad Commercial Seaport because the claimant was a UK resident. The UK authorities have adopted regulations allowing the imposition of restrictive measures on Russian entities operating in the transport sector and a wide range of others. The defendant carries on activities in the field of transport and is the operator of a marine terminal, therefore, the provision of documents and information to the plaintiff in accordance with the requirements of the Joint Stock Companies Act may lead to the introduction of new restrictive measures against the Port and/or other persons, of which the plaintiff learns from the documents of the defendant.

Interview with senior lecturer of the National Research University «Higher School of Economics», Saint-Petersburg Konstantin Putrya

This article is essentially a historical review of the Russian Maritime Law Society. The text is divided into four parts. The first part deals with the foundation of the Society and the role of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich Romanov, who approved the Charter of the Society. The second part describes the purpose of the Society, namely, to unite the efforts of lawyers to study, develop and unify maritime law; this part also describes the international analogue of the Society, the Comite Maritime International. The Russian Society was its member. The third part describes the activities of the Comite Maritime International in developing international conventions in the field of maritime law. The lack of information regarding the Russian Society of Maritime Law in the Russian archives is made up for through the archives of Comite Maritime International, namely, the minutes of the negotiations of the conventions drafts. The fourth part deals with the personalities and their activities in the Society.

The article examines the main problems that arise in determining the citizenship of a child born onboard a ship. It is concluded that even among the states that use the «right of blood» as a general principle for determining citizenship, the «right of soil» is actively used as an optional method for determining the child’s right to citizenship. Russian legislation requires precising the regulations with respect the status of children born onboard a ship flying the flag of the Russian Federation.

The article deals with the new proforma BIMCO SHIPSALE 22, developed for the secondary ship market. At the beginning of the article, a general idea is given of what the proforma is. Having briefly reviewed the proforma that preceded SHIPSALE 22, which were used in practice for the sale of ships, the author offers an analysis of the main changes in the new proforma and gives them a short commentary based on his own experience.

The article studies the real effect of the abandonment in Russian maritime insurance. On the one hand, the author examines the reasons why the institution of the abandonment arose in English maritime insurance and the goals which it was intended to fulfil. On the other hand, she analyses the mechanism for the emergence of title (ownership) under the Russian Civil Code. As a result, the author concludes that the need to preserve the real effect of the declaration of abandonment in Russian maritime law is highly questionable.

The commercial court concluded that the risk of loss of the cargo sealed was borne by the carrier and not by the shipowner. Unless the property insurance contract provides otherwise, the insurer who paid the indemnity shall be entitled to claim the damages by way of subrogation.

In this article, the author continues the study of the allocation of tortious liability between the shipowner and software developer in the case of harm to third parties due to an error of the artificial intelligence of an autonomous vessel. Now the focus of attention shifts to the second of the two previously formulated model situations, namely the infliction of harm due to a ship collision (on the basis of Russian law). This analysis provides a new perspective on the standard of shipowner’s liability in a collision. Where harm is caused by a software error of an autonomous vessel, it is more equitable to impose the burden of strict liability on the shipowner for program errors. This approach should be pursued explicitly to avoid a mixture of de jure strict liability and de facto strict liability imputed under the guise of a fault-based breach of a duty to make a ship seaworthy. This does not exclude further recourse by the shipowner against the software developer. On the contrary, as regards the liability of the software developer towards third parties, the conclusions of the first part of the study remain valid: the software developer may bear the liability for fault-based violations committed while creating the IT product. At the same time, the question as to how far such a link between the software and its creator can be established remains open.

In December 2021 a bill on autonomous shipping has been introduced into the Russian State Duma. The article analyzes whether it is time to adopt legislation on this subject. The author describes international experience in the field of autonomous shipping and sets out various scenarios according to which Russian legislation on this matter can be developed. Some concerns are raised in relation to the Bill’s terminology, its provisions on classification of autonomous vessels, status of remote crew, and performance of shipping contracts. The article points out that adoption of the Bill in its current wording, especially without detailed provisions on autonomous vessels’ liability and its insurance, may result in serious problems.

The article is devoted to the history of the institution of the judicial letters (Richterbriefe), the implementation of which was one of the measures of the German Reform of 1942 of justice institutions and judicial system. According to the idea of its creators, this institution was supposed to form a «correct» view of judicial manpower concerning the judicial practice, corresponding to the needs of society and of the state, by means of the selective publications of extracts from judgements on specific cases. The Imperial Ministry of Justice was assigned to make the systematisation of the judicial practice for its «streamlining» and «direction». Law reviews and generalisations were published in a specially created press organ with a Ministry’s assessment of the correctness of the judgements. The task of the judicial letters was not to create direct, meaningful directives on the judgements to be made in specific cases, but indirectly to formulate principles for evaluating positive law through the prism of society’s needs in certain adjudication. The article describes the conditions for the establishment of the institution of judicial letters in Nazi Germany, defines also the causes and the motives of the reform of justice announced in 1942, its goals and objectives, as well as its measures to overcome the «crisis of justice». Concerning the institution of judicial letters, the article represents the provided by the reform process of the collection and systematisation of judicial practice, the selection criteria for publication of court decisions, analyses the methodological impact of judicial letters on the law enforcement process, describes the introduction of this institute into practice, including the distribution of judicial letters, and related complications relating to this history. Such a way of influencing the process of administration of justice was not accepted by the German judiciary. It was manifested in the large-scale evasion of judges from fulfiling the obligation to send copies of judgements to the Ministry for systematisation of judicial practice, strengthening with the end of the war approaching. More experienced and old judges interpreted the judicial letters as an instrument for intrusion into their exclusive competence area, which

Commentary to case No. A40-33406/2021 (DHL Global Forwarding LLC v ATP No. 99-SPb LLC)

Commentary to case No. A70-14648/2021 (FSUE “Atomflot” v. Zapsibgazprom-Gasification Ltd.)

Whilst numerous information in the English language is available on sanctions imposed on Russia, foreign parties are less informed on countersanctions enacted by the Russian government. The latter have serious implications on parties dealing with Russia.

The article analyses the legal nature of “dead freight” as losses caused by the failure default to execute the obligation of the charterer to provide the volume of cargo agreed under the contract of carriage of goods by sea. The author gives examples of approaches to the qualification of “dead freight” in Russian and foreign judicial practice, emphasizes the practical relevance of the correct legal qualification of “dead freight”, and also highlights the features of the “dead freight” institute.

The relations on transshipment (reloading) of goods remain poorly studied, questions arise about the possibility of separating transshipment (reloading) into the class of independent, but related to carriage, transport obligations. Transshipment (reloading) cannot be considered outside the form and content of civil law regulation and be identified only with a technical operation in transport. The legal regulation of transshipment (reloading) in Russian and foreign legislation is not uniform, the legislator is faced with the difficulty of harmonizing the interests of all persons in the law, whose rights may be affected by its implementation. The Russian legislation initiated an approach requiring discussion to the regulation of offshore transshipments with the inclusion of special articles in the Merchant Shipping Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – MSC RF), although no fewer interesting questions about determining the nature of obligations for transshipment (reloading) of goods in private maritime law remain on the agenda.

Case No. A33-15874/2020 (FSUE “Rosmorport” v JSC “Khatanga Commercial Seaport”)

Case No. A05-3827/2021 (PJSC “Rosgosstrakh” v JSC “Northern River Shipping”)

Commentary to the Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 3, 2021, No. 307-ЭС21-1344 in case No. А21-4281/2018 (Rosprirodnadzor v “Global-Flot”)