1.2 Existing variants of global limitation
The origin of the traditional global limitation system is the 1957 Brussels Convention on the limitation of the liability of owners of seagoing ships and the subsequently adjusted redraft thereof in the 1976 London Convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims. At present, this treaty-based system also remains – at least in form – embodied in an amended and modernized, but restricted, version in the 1996 Convention, often termed – misleadingly – a regime for global limitation of maritime claims. The 1976 Convention also served as model, both for the structure of the limitation regimes of the two other above-mentioned conventions, adopted in 1992 and 2001 and also, in particular, for the specific limitation fund procedure for enforcing limitation of particular claims contained therein (supra 1.1).
Norway and the other Nordic states have regularly adhered to and thus implemented the various conventions on limitation of shipowner liabilities as elaborated, adopted, amended and replaced in international cooperation over the years. Consequently, international developments have recurrently entailed substantial changes to the national maritime codes and, in particular, to the parts of the MC implementing treaty-based legal regimes. As a matter of treaty law, however, none of the existing conventions provides an in all respects complete or self-contained limitation regime, thus leaving it to national legislation of state parties to provide both supplementary rules and other rules on related matters not regulated in the particular convention. When transposing the conventions to national law, Norway and the other Nordic states have done so, in recent years particularly in order to ensure adequate implementation of the 1996 Convention, the 1992 Liability Convention and the 2001 Bunker Convention.
The result of this approach is that, at present, the MC chapters 9, 10 and 12 on limitation of liability constitute a comprehensive and diversified piece of legislation. In addition to the provisions needed to implement fully the treaty-regulated limitation regimes actually in force, these chapters of the MC also contain a number of national legal provisions needed to cover appropriately any exemptions or actual lacunas in the international regimes, particularly by common provisions on limitation funds set out in MC chapter 12. Clearly, all the provisions of the MC are part of the national law. Nevertheless, there remains an important difference in legal character between the treaty-based provisions and the national additions contained in the MC. The reason is that the nationalcourts generally have a duty to interpret and apply the treaty-based provisions consistent with the international treaty obligations of Norway in relation to other state parties (supra 1.1 note 1).