| Abstract (croatian) | U radu se pokušava odgovoriti na pitanje koliko su Sjedinjene Američke Države, kroz stoljetnu povijest međunarodnih konvencija iz transportnog prava (počevši od Konvencije o međunarodnom prijevozu robe željeznicom, Bern, 1890. – CIM) zaista doprinosile unifikaciji međunarodnog prijevoznog prava. Prvi međunarodni ugovor globalnog značenja koji je SAD ratificirao bila je Međunarodna konvencija za izjednačavanje nekih pravila o teretnici, 1924. (Haaška pravila, 1924.) o prijevozu tereta morem – stupila na snagu 2. lipnja 1931., dok je posljednja konvencija koju je potvrdio bila Konvencija o ujednačavanju određenih pravila za međunarodni zračni prijevoz iz Montreala, 1999. (Montrealska konvencija, 1999.) – stupila na snagu 4. studenoga 2003. Dodatna specifičnost ove zračne Konvencije, zapravo zamjene za dugovječnu Varšavsku konvenciju iz 1929. je u tomu što ona jedina u jednom ugovoru uređuje prijevoz putnika i njihove prtljage kao i tereta, a što konvencije iz drugih grana prijevoza ne čine, nego imaju poseban ugovor za prijevoz putnika i njihove prtljage, a poseban za prijevoz tereta. U razdoblju između Haaških pravila, 1924. te Montrealske konvencije, 1999. (75 godina), niti prije, a niti nakon toga, Sjedinjene Američke Države nisu pokazivale pretjeran interes za unifikaciju međunarodnog transportnog prava cestom, željeznicom i unutarnjim vodama (jezera, rijeke, kanali). Jedan od glavnih razloga vidimo i u tome što kopnene konvencije imaju prije svega regionalno, a manje univerzalno značenje pa stoga nisu posebno zanimljive SAD-u.
Na temelju provedenog istraživanja zaključuje se da nema pravila u ponašanju SAD-a u donošenju pojedinih konvencija (međunarodnih ugovora) iz područja međunarodnog prijevoza putnika i njihove prtljage te stvari. Dodatnu potvrdu ove teze pronalazimo u doprinosu SAD-a u odnosu na Rotterdamska pravila, 2009. iz pomorskog transporta tereta koja unatoč velikim očekivanjima još uvijek nisu stupila na snagu, jer najviše nedostaje ratifikacija globalno najjače gospodarske i brodarske sile svijeta (bila je među potpisnicima 23. rujna 2009. u Rotterdamu pod okriljem Ujedinjenih naroda). Treba li razlog nepredvidljivosti tražiti i u vrlo složenom postupku ratifikacije međunarodnih ugovora u SAD-u koji, ako su ratificirani, postaju federalni izvor prava (engl. federal law) s višom pravnom snagom od propisa pojedine savezne države (engl. state law)?
Može se stoga govoriti o tomu da zakonodavstvo Sjedinjenih Američkih Država prihvaća samo najbolje od ostatka svijeta. Jednako tako, u ponašanju SAD-a pronalazimo i nacionalni ponos jer čvrsto drži do pravila koja su samostalno stvarana kroz stoljeća i u koja duboko vjeruje. |
| Abstract (english) | This paper attempts to answer the question of how the United States, through the centuries-old history of international conventions on the transport law (starting with the Convention on the International Transport of Goods by Rail, Bern, 1890 - CIM) actually contributed to the unification of the international transport law. The first international treaty of global importance that was ratified by the United States is the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Lading, 1924 (The Hague Rules, 1924), for the transport of cargo by sea, that came into force on 2ndJuly 1931, while the last convention confirmed was the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for the International Carriage by Air, Montreal, 1999 (Montreal Convention, 1999), that entered into force on 4th November 2003. Additional specifics of this Convention, actually the replacement for the long-term Warsaw Convention, 1929, was the fact that it is the only one governing the carriage of passengers and their baggage as well as cargo, while conventions referring to other means of transport do not regulate this part in the same, but have a separate contract for the carriage of passengers and their luggage and a special one for freight. In the period between the Hague Rules, 1924, and the Montreal Convention, 1999, (75 years), and even before and after that, the United States showed neither an excessive nor an expected interest in the unification of the international road, rail and inland waterways (lakes, rivers, canals) transport law. One of the main reasons is that the land conventions have primarily a regional rather than a universal character and therefore are not particularly interesting to the U.S.A.
On the basis of this study, it can be concluded that there are no rules in the behaviour of the U.S. in the adoption of certain conventions (treaties) in the field of international transport of passengers and their luggage and belongings. A further confirmation of this thesis can be found in the contribution of the United States in relation to the Rotterdam Rules, 2009, in the field of the transport of cargo by sea, because, despite the high expectations, it has not yet entered into force, since it lacks the ratification of the strongest global economic powers of the world in shipping (it was among the signatories in 2009 in Rotterdam under the auspices of the United Nations). On of the reasons for this unpredictability might be perhaps a very complex procedure for the ratification of international treaties in the U.S.A. which, if ratified, become a source of the federal law with a higher legal force than the state law regulations of a particular state.
One can therefore speak of the fact that the legislation of the United States accepts only the best from the rest of the world. Likewise, in the behaviour of the United States, we can identify their national pride because they firmly held to the rules that have been self-created through centuries and in which they deeply believe. |
