A Review on Hauge Protocol – 1955

The Hauge protocol has 3 chapters:

  • Chapter 1 – Amendments to the Convention
  • Chapter 2 – Scope of Application of the Convention as Amended
  • Chapter 3 – Final Clauses

In chapter 1, there are 18 articles that amended the articles of Warsaw Convention. Below are the highlighted of important ones.

  • Article 1 is simplifying the meaning of international carriage and that two countries should be part of the convention.
  • Article 2, simplifies the article 2 of Warsaw convention and clearly states that this convention shall not apply to carriage of mail and postal packages
  • In Article 7 of the protocol, Article 9 of the Warsaw Convention amended and replaced by the following:

“If, with the consent of the carrier, cargo is loaded on board the aircraft without an air waybill having been made out, or if the air waybill does not include the notice required by Article 8, paragraph (c), the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of Article 22, paragraph 2.”

The Article 22 of Warsaw is about the limitation of liability.

  • Article 9 of the Protocol amends Article 15 of Warsaw Convention and added below paragraph to it; “3. Nothing in this Convention prevents the issue of a negotiable air waybill.”

This is a big change. It means that the AWB can also be negotiable and shall be accepted for transfer of ownership. However, it is recommended by IATA in TACT Rules section 6.6.d. that no IATA member issue “To Order” or “negotiable AWB’s, therefore, the world “Not Negotiable” must not be crossed out or tempered with.

  • Article 10 of the protocol amended article 20 of Warsaw. “Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Convention shall be deleted.”

This is also a useful change. Warsaw in article 20, states that, if the carrier can prove that the damage happened due to negligence of pilotage or handling or navigation, the carrier will not be responsible. In Hauge, this part deleted. 

  • In Article 11 of the protocol, article 22 of the convention is amended. It amends and increases the liability of the carrier.

In the carriage of persons, the liability of the carrier for each passenger is limited to the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand francs. (This was 125,000 in Warsaw)

  • Item 4 added as follow: “The limits prescribed in this article shall not prevent the court from awarding, in accordance with its own law, in addition, the whole or part of the court costs and of the other expenses of the litigation incurred by the plaintiff. The foregoing provision shall not apply if the amount of the damages awarded, excluding court costs and other expenses of the litigation”
  • The sixty-five and a half milligrams of gold with fineness of 900 also defined as: “These sums may be converted into national currencies in round figures. Conversion of the sums into national currencies other than gold shall, in case of judicial proceedings, be made according to the gold value of such currencies at the date of the judgment.”
  • In Article 12 of the protocol, article 23 of the convention amended as follow:

“In Article 23 of the Convention, the existing provision shall be renumbered as paragraph 1 and another paragraph shall be added as follows:”

“2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply to provisions governing loss or damage resulting from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the cargo carried.”

  • Article 13 of the protocol is to amend the article 25 of convention;

“In Article 25 of the Convention – paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be deleted and replaced by the following:”

“The limits of liability specified in Article 22 shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, his servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result; provided that, in the case of such act or omission of a servant or agent, it is also proved that he was acting within the scope of his employment.”

  • Article 14 of the protocol add an article 25A to the convention;

“After Article 25 of the Convention, the following article shall be inserted:”

“Article 25 A”

“1. If an action is brought against a servant or agent of the carrier arising out of damage to which this Convention relates, such servant or agent, if he proves that he acted within the scope of his employment, shall be entitled to avail himself of the limits of liability which that carrier himself is entitled to invoke under Article 22. “

“2. The aggregate of the amounts recoverable from the carrier, his servants and agents, in that case, shall not exceed the said limits.”

“3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this articles shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the servant or agent done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result.”

  • In Article 15 of the Protocol, article 26 of the convention amended as below;

“In Article 26 of the Convention – paragraph 2 shall be deleted and replaced by the following;”

“2. In the case of damage, the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the dam- age, and, at the latest, within seven days from the date of receipt in the case of baggage and fourteen days from the date of receipt in the case of cargo. In the case of delay the com- plaint must be made at the latest within twenty-one days from the date on which the baggage or cargo have been placed at his disposal.”

This was 3 days for baggage, 7 days for cargo and 14 days for delay in Warsaw convention.

In Chapter 2 – Scope and application of the convention as amended,

  • Article 18 of the protocol stated that;

“The Convention as amended by this Protocol shall apply to international carriage as defined in Article 1 of the Convention, provided that the places of departure and destination referred to in that Article are situated either in the territories of two parties to this Protocol or within the territory of a single party to this Protocol with an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State.”