The Rotterdam Rules and the need for a broad and transparent debate.

In other parts of this web-site you can find descriptions how the advance of the use of containers, which started to take off in the seventies, brought radical changes, not only in maritime transport, but later affected all modes. This produced a huge reduction in global transport- costs. Later the advance of electronic commerce facilitated the transactions and gave an additional boost to efficiency. These factors together have completely changed the ways in which business transactions are made, costs have fallen dramatically and it is easy to prove that all this has been the basis of the enormous expansion of world trade. But these changes also have caused many problems of interpretation of the obligations and rights of the different "stakeholders", which need to be clarified. Almost all industrialized countries have adapted their laws and rules to accompany these improvements in the best possible ways and to obtain the maximum benefit for their economies. But many "emerging" countries have been reluctant to adapt their rules and in many of them, these still are based on the transport of horses and carts. Ultimately this has resulted in a situation where the Secretary General of the United Nations decided to declare in 1996, that the lack of uniform rules prevents the efficient flow of goods in the world. To search for remedies for this unsatisfactory situation he recommended a division of his organization, UNCITRAL ( = United Nations Conference on Trade Law), to begin actions to obtain greater uniformity in laws and regulations in the field of Commerce and Transport /Transport Law . As a result of this indication and after more than 12 years of intense negotiations and studies in commissions, the text was drafted for a new International Convention, which was accepted in the 2008 General Assembly. This Convention now has been given the name of the Rotterdam Rules. This Agreement shall enter into force one year after being ratified by 20 countries and would be a "United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea."

It is generally believed that the text of the new Convention has a complicated language, which has a clear explanation: It was decided, against the advice of some well-known lawyers, to give all stakeholders (traders, transporters, insurance, banking etc.) the opportunity to review the text, with the intention to cover the widest possible spectrum of changes that have been produced in the form of contracts and execution of modern logistics chains. This was done to prevent that the agreement after all would not be applicable in practice, as occurred in many previous cases, where the views and advices of all "stakeholders" in a modern transport chain, had not been taken into account.

The need for a broad and transparent debate:
Finally, the agreement has attracted many favorable, but also many opposing opinions. Now it is up to the countries to decide whether they should reject or ratify the Rotterdam Rules. In such a complicated scenario, the people who ultimately will have the responsibility to make the final decision, should receive good information about all the points that will be favorable and beneficial for the country's economy, and in the same way how they can be negative. And the best way to gather such data, is achieved by a broad and transparent debate, where everyone has the opportunity to express his views freely. The first step in this direction was made by the "Foundation Nuestromar" in December 2010 with the publication of the Montevideo Declaration in their website www.nuestromar.org, drafted by the "Group of Montevideo", which is quite contrary to the Convention. Almost immediately, others expressed their views in favor of the Rotterdam Rules and important points of view were brought forward. But unfortunately this debate in www.nuestromar.org closed in March 2011, for lack of resources to carry out this task that needs a lot of work. In June 2011 an Argentine lawyer, Dr. Alejandro Vega personally started a new debate on LinkedIn in English: "Shall Argentina ratify or reject the RR".

DR. ALEJANDRO VEGA MADE IT CLEAR IN ONE OF HIS FIRST COMMENTS, THAT THIS DEBATE IS INTENDED TO GATHER INFORMATIONS AND FACTS THAT WILL BE USEFUL FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WILL FINALLY HAVE THE GREAT RESPONSIBILITY TO DECIDE WHETHER THESE RULES ARE FAVORABLE FOR OUR COUNTRY IN WHICH CASE THESE SHOULD BE RATIFIED, OR WHETHER THERE ARE MORE UNFAVORABLE POINTS, IN WHICH CASE THE R.R. SHOULD BE REJECTED. IT IS NOT HIS INTENTION TO CONVINCE OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE DEBATE TO CHANGE THEIR OPINION, WHAT IS THE FORM OF ACTION OF MANY OTHERS.

• Almost immediately the debate of Dr. Vega received the attention of many people, just as had happened in the debate in Nuestro Mar. He got a great participation of international lawyers and technicians in transport issues, which contributed different points of view, which clearly demonstrates the importance of the issue worldwide.

• Despite the enormous work which is attached to such a task and which an organization like Nuestromar could not carry out, Dr. Vega began to devote most of his time to this topic and to gather the data which should be taken into account when the decision must be made whether or not the Rotterdam Rules are favorable for the country, with the intention of raising them to the right people at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is the instance where the process to decide on ratification or rejection, should begin.

• This information should include explicitly which are the activities that may be benefited and which may be affected negatively and must be put "on the scale" to finally make the balance of what matters most: the arguments which are in favor or those against. But this must be done in an objective way and not just by accepting personal notes.

• Considering that this point is of fundamental importance, please allow me to reflect an exchange of messages with one of the drafters of the Declaration of Montevideo (M. D.), the full text of which you can find elsewhere on this web-site. At the end of September 2011 I made a summary of what I consider arguments in favor of the ratification of the RR (which you can also find in this web-site) and which should to be a part of the information that the "decision makers" should receive in the case of Argentina. I sent this to participants in the debate and several others, including Mr. Jan Hoffmann of UNCTAD. In response to this summary in favor of the RR, I received on October 3rd a response from Dr. L. L. Goulart and almost in the form of "lightning", the following exchange was generated and which was followed by many people. I ended this interchange on October 6 with my letter to Mr. Jan Hoffmann, who helped us with his good advices, but without taking any position for either of the parties.

L.L.G to A.J.Z.
Mr.Zuidwijk, One may not know the Rotterdam Rules, as you. But it has been possible to understand that it is not maritime law. It's garbage, which will have the fate of the Hamburg Rules and other follies of the genre. Best regards, Leonardo Luiz Goulart

A.J.Z. to L.L.G.
My response: Dear Dr Goulart Thank you for confirming receipt of my message. But frankly I do not understand what you meant with, however, is that it is possible to understand maritime law. It's garbage, which will be the fate of the Hamburg Rules and other follies of the genre. In all my actions, I simply propose to make a transparent debate and seek rules that allow the Transportation and Trade to function efficiently, thus providing benefits to all. And to discuss whether theoretical views like yours, speaking of abstract rights, regardless of tangible rights of all people, are worth more than mine, thinking about people who buy things every day and about the producers of our "emerging" which have to sell their products.. Also let me ask you a question: What laurels can you show that give you the right to catalogue as "garbage", all the work that was done for so many years since the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1996 with the participation of renowned jurists? I suggest that you put your answer in the debate about the RR of Dr. Alejandro Vega on LinkedIn and whose existence you know. In addition I propose that we make the translations into English and Portuguese so that others who read us a copy, can give their opinions. Yours sincerely, Antonio Zuidwijk

L.L.G. to A.J.Z.
Mr.Zuidwijk, The laurels are certainly not ours, but of "maestros" (teachers) in many countries that made the construction of maritime law in the course of the centuries. And not you or public notaries who are paid by the interests of traders, for whom everything that does not correspond to their aspirations for easy profit is "abstract." (The italics are mine) As a humble student of law, I continue with my "abstract" concepts. And I reject the debate: I have no time to lose with a corpse, like the so-called " Rotterdam rules" (rules?) . For me, the concept of "bill of lading" (B / L) and the entire jurisprudence that was built on it, can not be suppressed by a club of dubious academic opportunists. Stay you with their laurels. I'm comfortable with my teachers. Leonardo Luiz Goulart

L.L.G. to A.J.Z.
Dear Dr Goulart If you really are so fortunate to have "maestros / teachers" who guide you, I suggest you write to them what you told me: And not you or public notaries who are paid by the interests of traders, for whom everything that does not correspond to their aspirations for easy profit is "abstract." (The italics are mine)." If they really are "masters in law," they will tell you, that YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to say what you said to me, and that you have committed a gross mistake. To-morrow I can put together dozens of local lawyers who can ensure you that you are wrong and I suggest you apologize for this error. I can show you many letters I received, which prove that all my life I have tried to teach things that are beneficial to the community and I have no other interest than the common good. I invite you to look in my past or my present if you can find any evidence that you could use to justify such an ugly accusation. If you beg my pardon, this stays between us and those that are copied now, but if you choose not to so, this accusation will be made public, including in my website. This way everyone can form their opinion on how you and I have acted, and make their conclusion who has the RIGHT on his side. Most likely the majority will conclude that my intention is to make an open debate, something which is absolutely always for the common good, and others like you, who do everything, including making completely unfounded accusations, to ensure that these cannot be performed. And when you speak of B / Ls, please learn how the trade functions in the whole world, not only in the small circle of your studies. Yours sincerely, Anonio.

L.L.G. to A.J.Z.
Senhor,Zuidwijk I have no time for comedy. Do not make me laugh and give up. Ah: I repeat everything I said and much more could be said if the Rules (rules? Hahaha) were not a dead body. Beg your pardon? As your principal use to say: "Give me a break!". Goodbye. I have a lot of work

The same day Dr. Fernando Aguirre sent this message to congratulate Dr. LLGoulart: Subject: Re: Re: RULES OF ROTTERDAM To: "Leonardo Goulart" <leonardo.goulart@veloxmail.com.br> Cc: "Giselle Javurek" <gjavurek@gmail.com>, "Julio Vidal Amodeo" <juliovidal@adinet.com.uy>, "Pedro Calmon Filho" <pcfbr@terra.com.br>, Date: Tuesday, 4 October 2011, 3:05 Sorry Leonardo,

When I asked if you still did not reply a Z, I had not read your answer. Magistral! Masterly, A big hug. Fernando. I then made a note to many friends, to express my deep disgust that these opponents of the RR have been able to accuse me of acting out of personal interest, saying that I was on the pay-roll of the interests of traders, for whom everything that does not correspond to their aspirations for easy profit,is "abstract" and included Dr. Aguirre among those who share the ridiculous ACCUSATION.. Dr. Aguirre immediately accused me of having improperly included him in this, saying that he by no means shares the accusation. But he clearly congratulated LLGoulart (as stated in his message) with the word "Masterly. Can he say afterwards that he disagreed with what Goulart said? Why did he disagree only after I began to tell many people how Dr. Goulart had dared to accuse? Why did he write "Masterly"? Frankly, I think that Dr. Goulart´s intentions were to convince those who do not know me, that I act out of personal interest, which may disqualify in the eyes of those who must judge my contributions to the debate.

After Mr. Jan Hoffmann gave some good advices and for me this event was closed on 6 October with a message to him, where I thanked him for his notes, which had helped me to put this exchange of e-mails in a proper perspective. I repeated how the debate of Nuestro Mar was interrupted, how Dr. Alejandro Vega took it up, emphasizing that this debate has the declared purpose of EVALUATION of FACTORS TO BE FULFILLED BY THE PEOPLE WHO FINALLY HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DECIDE WHETHER R.R. ARE BENEFICIAL FOR OUR COUNTRY OR NOT, AND THAT ARGENTINA SHOULD RATIFY OR REJECT THE ROTTERDAM RULES.

I have the impression that the modus operandi of the Montevideo Group is TOTALLY DIFFERENT: They have created the impression that they want to produce a doubt about my intentions and THAT IS why they accused me of being in the pay of the interests of traders, for whom everything that does not correspond to their desire for easy money is "abstract.". They have tried to confuse me, saying a law student was writing, who dared to insult me. BUT AT THE END THEIR REAL INTENTION OF ALL THIS WAS MADE CLEAR: WE ADVISE YOU TO GIVE UP.
I hope that the debate can continue in the future, without this type of attempted diversions and that everyone will bring honest and specific information that may serve for those who will have to make a decision which will result in the benefit of the country.