4.3 Treaty conform or national interpretation
The legal framework for global limitation based on limitation funds is, in general, apparently not easily accessible, even if the limitation regime of the 1976 and 1976/1996 Convention is clearly structured. (60) One reason is that the system of global limitation directly based on a limitation fund is an imported specialty of international maritime law, rather foreign to domestic law. Another reason is that the international conventions applying to this model of limitation of liability only set out the main principles thereof, leaving it to national law or courts to fill the lacunas. In state parties having ratified and implemented these conventions, however, the duty to treaty conform application of the imported provisions is often of consequence for the national supplements to, or the interpretation of, particular provisions of the implementing domestic legislation (supra note 1and 2.3.3), cf. the Convention Article 14.
A further reason is that the redrafting of the Maritime Code on the implementation of the 1976 and 1976/1996 Conventions is not entirely clear in all respects (supra 2.3.2 and 2.3.3). Thus, the lack of a clear distinction between the application of limitation of liability in separate actions related to particular limitable claims and the regimes for global limitation by means of limitation funds has actually proved to create unfortunate uncertainties and misunderstandings, particularly as to key issues relating to global limitation, cf. HR-2018-1260-A (Full City). This decision does not recognize that the paramount task of the 1976 and 1976/1996 Convention is to provide an internationally uniform globallimitation regime based on limitation funds. In My Comments in ND 2017 pp. xxxv-lxv, I have already discussed the various problems arising from the Full City decision.