483

1 INTRODUCTION

The transportation of goods by sea is a crucial

component of global trade[1]. Two primary models

govern this sector: tramp shipping and liner trade[2],

[3]. These models are not merely logistical frameworks;

they encompass distinct operational and contractual

principles influenced by cargo volume, the number of

parcels, and the diversity of shippers involved. A

comprehensive understanding of these differences is

essential to grasp the complexities of their respective

chartering techniques and contractual structures.

The operational dynamics of tramp shipping

revolve around a single charter party, which is

negotiated between the carrier and the charterer. This

contract stipulates the terms and conditions governing

the transportation of the entire cargo, which is typically

managed by a single charterer[4]. In rare cases where

multiple charterers are involved, a secondary charterer

may contribute additional cargo alongside the primary

consignment. The charter party employed in tramp

shipping is tailored to each specific cargo, allowing for

flexibility in meeting the consignment's unique

requirements[5]. The level of detail and specificity in

these agreements reflects the customized nature of

tramp shipping contracts. Cargo and contractual terms

are adjusted to align with the charterer's particular

needs[6]. The most common contract of carriage in

tramp shipping is the voyage charter.

Conversely, liner shipping operates under a

fundamentally different framework. Carriers do not

negotiate individualized charter parties for each

shipment; instead, they issue a liner bill of lading, a

standardized document outlining the terms and

A Comparative Analysis of Voyage Charter Parties

and Liner Bills of Lading in Maritime Trade

D.Y. Dimitrakiev, O. D. Kostadinov & T.D. Koritarov

Nikola Vaptsarov Naval Academy, Varna, Bulgaria

ABSTRACT: Two types of maritime trade organizations are used to transport goods by sea: tramp shipping and

liner trade. The differences between the two are significant and necessitate the use of distinct carriage contracts.

This study highlights the key differences between voyage charter parties and liner bills of lading, the main

contracts used in tramp and liner shipping, respectively. Tramp shipping involves chartering vessels for specific

voyages to transport bulk cargo, with customizable charter parties negotiated between the shipowner and

charterer. In contrast, liner shipping follows regular routes and schedules, using standardized liner bills of lading

for smaller consignments from multiple shippers. The main distinctions arise from the operational and economic

characteristics of each model: voyage charter parties offer greater flexibility with freight rates and cargo

requirements, while liner bills provide a uniform framework for efficiency in high-volume shipping.

Understanding these differences is essential for stakeholders in maritime commerce, as they influence shipping

arrangements, legal responsibilities, and commercial strategies. This analysis aims to clarify the contractual

complexities in tramp and liner shipping for better decision-making in maritime trade.

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 19

Number 2

June 2025

DOI: 10.12716/1001.19.02.18

484

conditions of the transportation agreement[7]. This

document serves as a universal contract applicable to

all shippers utilizing the liner service. The liner bill of

lading facilitates contract formation by

accommodating a large number of shippers, each

transporting relatively small consignments on the

same vessel. Furthermore, it integrates standardized

rates and general conditions applicable to all

customers, ensuring consistency and enhancing

operational efficiency.

The divergence in contractual practices between

tramp and liner shipping is not incidental but rather a

direct consequence of their distinct operational models.

Tramp shipping is characterized by its customized

service for bulk cargoes, necessitating bespoke

contractual agreements tailored to the requirements of

individual charterers[6], [7]. In contrast, liner shipping

caters to a broad range of shippers transporting smaller

and more varied cargoes, necessitating the adoption of

standardized contractual frameworks to manage the

complexity of such operations effectively[6], [7].

This article aims to analyze the differences between

voyage charter parties and liner bills of lading,

focusing on their legal, operational, and economic

implications. The objective is to provide insight into the

practical applications of these contractual systems

within the evolving landscape of maritime commerce

while also highlighting the rationale behind their

distinct contractual approaches[8].

The research article posits that voyage charter

parties offer greater flexibility, while liner bills of

lading offer efficiency and consistency. This assertion

is predicated on the notion that they reflect the unique

requirements of the tramp and liner shipping models.

Despite the operational significance of these contracts,

there is limited comprehensive analysis comparing

their distinct features and implications. Understanding

the fundamental differences between these contractual

arrangements is essential for stakeholders in maritime

commerce, as it influences decision-making and

commercial strategies.

2 TRAMP SHIPPING SERVICES AND VOYAGE

CHARTER PARTIES

2.1 What is Bulk or Tramp Shipping?

Tramp shipping refers to a type of maritime transport

service that operates without fixed routes or

schedules[6]. Tramp vessels transport various

commodities for different charterers in multiple

directions, depending on market demand[9], [10].

Unlike liner shipping, tramp shipping does not follow

predetermined itineraries; instead, cargo is transported

at irregular intervals based on individual

agreements[11]. For each cargo transfer, a unique

charter party—a contractual agreement for sea

transportation—is negotiated between the carrier and

the charterer[12]. Freight rates are determined by

market conditions, and contractual terms are

established separately for each shipment[13].

Tramp shipping plays a significant role in marine

and river transportation, facilitating the movement of

raw materials for light industry and serving the needs

of heavy industry[14], [15]. The cargo transported

within this sector is commonly referred to as bulk

freight. This mode of transport relies primarily on bulk

liquid cargo tankers and single-deck dry cargo vessels.

Bulk carriers play a significant role in global maritime

trade. As of 2024, they accounted for approximately

43% of the world's merchant fleet in terms of

deadweight tonnage[16]. This indicates that a

substantial portion of maritime cargo is transported by

bulk carriers, highlighting their importance in

international shipping.

In the European Union, tramp vessel services are

regulated by Council Regulation (EEC) No.

4056/86[17]. This regulation defines tramp vessel

services—officially translated as "random vessels"—as

the transportation of bulk or packaged cargo on a

vessel chartered wholly or partially by one or more

charterers. Such services may operate under a voyage

charter, a time charter, or other irregular contractual

arrangements, where freight rates are freely negotiated

based on prevailing supply and demand conditions.

Under English private maritime law, tramp carriers

are classified as private carriers (also referred to as

contract carriers)[18], [19], [20]. A separate charter

party is executed for each cargo shipment, detailing all

necessary contractual elements, including freight rates,

which are determined by market standards. Tramp

shipping frequently operates under "free in and out"

(FIO) terms, meaning that charterers bear

responsibility for cargo handling and

transshipment[21].

Tramp vessels are designed to provide efficient,

flexible, and cost-effective transportation services,

ensuring the timely delivery of essential commodities

for industrial and agricultural production. The

maritime sector continually adapts to evolving

transportation demands, and maintaining a versatile

fleet is a key operational priority. The flexibility and

adaptability of tramp shipping makes it an

indispensable component of global trade, offering

customized shipping solutions based on market

needs[22], [23].

2.2 The Main Features of a Voyage Charter Party

Charter parties are maritime contracts made between

vessel owners and charterers[12]. They outline the

terms and conditions for hiring a vessel to transport

cargo[24]. Charter parties are primarily used in tramp

shipping, where ships are chartered for specific

voyages. They include the following important

features:

− Customized Agreements: Each charter party is

negotiated individually, considering the unique

needs of both the charterers and the type of

products being carried[25], [26].

− Defined Parties: There are typically two main

parties involved: the shipowner (the person who

owns the vessel or exploits the ship's earning

capacity) and the charterer (the person who

provides the cargo and pays the freight)[27].

− Comprehensive Terms: Specifies essential

information, including the type and amount of

cargo, the ports for loading and unloading, the

freight rates, the maximum time allowed for

loading and unloading (laytime), and the penalty

for exceeding this time (demurrage)[12].

485

− Different Employment Types: Includes various

types of charters, such as voyage charters (hiring a

ship for a single trip), time charters (hiring a ship

with crew for a specified period), and bareboat

charters (hiring a ship without a crew for a specific

period)[28], [29].

− Exclusive Vessel Use: In most cases, the charterer

has the right to utilize the entire vessel, or a specific

part of its cargo holds exclusively throughout the

charter period.

− Legal Framework: Governed by the terms outlined

in the contract, with disputes typically resolved

through arbitration or maritime courts, often in

London[30].

In short, charter parties are highly customized and

flexible contracts that facilitate the transportation of

bulk or specialized commodities by enabling shippers

to negotiate terms directly with the vessel owners[8].

3 LANER SHIPPING SERVICES AND LINER BILLS

OF LADING

3.1 What is Liner Trade?

Liner shipping is a form of marine transportation that

is structured and operates on a regular schedule[7]. In

liner shipping, carriers move goods between specific

ports according to a predetermined route and

timetable[7], [31]. All shippers are subject to the same

transportation conditions, and the rates are determined

based on a tariff that applies universally. The cost of

loading and unloading is included in the freight rates.

Regulation (EC) No 906/2009 of the European

Commission, issued on September 28, 2009, governs

liner shipping[32].

Liner shipping refers to the transportation of goods

that occur regularly over defined routes between ports.

This is done according to timetables and trip dates that

are publicly announced in advance, and anyone who

wishes to use the service may do so for a fee[33], [34].

According to English private marine law, liner

carriers are considered "common carriers[33], [35]."

They operate under publicly announced fundamental

rules that apply to all consignors, and they charge the

same transportation fees for everyone. Common

carriers are obligated to convey all passengers and

freight to the vessel is full. Carriage expenses are

typically paid in advance, and carriers who refuse to

deliver without a valid reason may be held liable for

damages. When transportation occurs within the

borders of one country, that country is responsible for

regulating the activity. The Carriers Act of 1830 (CA

1830) is the UK law that governs the regulation of

common carriers[36]. In liner shipping, ships at each

port are serviced by liner agents[34]. The secondary

principal responsibility of these agents is to request

cargo for transportation, also known as cargo booking.

Liner agents are responsible for receiving and

transferring goods on behalf of the carrier and for

managing transshipment activities at loading and

unloading ports[34]. This ensures that transportation

durations are predictable.

Liner-In/Liner-Out: Liner shipping has evolved

over time, leading to the continued use of conventional

liner shipping for general cargo and the introduction of

combination shipping with specialized vessels for

intermodal units. This evolution has resulted in the

classification of liner shipping into two categories:

− Traditional liner shipping: In this category, general

cargo (also known as break-bulk cargo) is

transported using double-deck and multi-deck

vessels[37]. The cost of shipping includes the

loading and unloading of the goods. Shippers must

deliver the goods to the carrier according to the

booking note and pay for the freight. In return, they

receive the transport document, also known as the

bill of lading. This type of transportation was

commonly used until the mid-1970s. Carriers faced

significant challenges because the cargo was in

different packets, requiring careful stacking,

reinforcement, and support with lumber[38]. This

process necessitated more manual labor, leading to

expensive and time-consuming loading times, as

well as the risk of loss or damage to goods.

− Liner transports (also known as combined

transport): These are carried out using specialized

container vessels, Ro-Ro ships for transporting

trucks, ferries for transporting railway trains,

lighter carriers, and pallet carriers. In these

shipments, shippers enter contracts with the

operators of intermodal transport units, which

include containers, lorries, trailers, railway trains,

lighters, and even pallets[39]. These units are

considered the carriers of the goods. In this context,

the shipping firms that the operators of intermodal

units’ contract with for marine transport are

considered subcarriers [22].

3.2 The Main Features of a Liner Bill of Lading

A liner bill of lading is a standardized document issued

by carriers in liner shipping to shippers[40]. It serves

three main purposes: it functions as a contract of

carriage, acts as a receipt for the goods, and serves as a

record of title[40]. Liner bills of lading, primarily used

in liner services where the goods of multiple merchants

are transported on the same vessel, include the

following key features:

− Standardized Format: Follows a predefined

structure that includes fundamental terms and

conditions applicable to all shipments, ensuring

consistency and predictability in transactions[7],

[41].

− Multifunctional Role: Serves as a contract of

carriage, a receipt confirming the goods' acceptance

for transport, and a negotiable instrument of title,

allowing for the transfer of ownership[40].

− Parcel Shipping: Suitable for smaller cargo

shipments, where multiple shippers share space on

the same vessel[12], [40].

− Pre-Determined Tariffs: Freight rates are

established based on fixed tariffs, providing

shippers with transparent and predictable pricing.

− Non-Negotiable Conditions: The terms of the liner

bill of lading are predetermined by the carrier and

cannot be individually negotiated, distinguishing it

from charter parties.

− Port-to-Port or Multimodal Coverage: May cover

transportation between two ports or include

multimodal shipping, integrating other transport

modes[34].

− International Legal Framework: Governed by

international treaties such as the Hague-Visby

486

Rules or the Hamburg Rules, ensuring a consistent

legal framework[41].

The liner bill of lading simplifies the shipping

process by providing a standardized and reliable

contractual framework for transporting goods in liner

shipping, effectively accommodating the needs of

various shippers.

4 CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS

4.1 Direct Comparative Overview and Analysis

Voyage charter parties and liner bills of lading

represent two distinct contractual models in maritime

trade, each with unique characteristics in formation,

negotiation, operations, and risk-sharing. A voyage

charter party is a bespoke contract negotiated between

a shipowner and a charterer for a specific voyage (or

series of voyages), usually in the tramp shipping

market [42]. This means the parties have considerable

freedom to tailor terms such as freight price, laytime

allowances, demurrage (delay penalties), routes, and

cargo quantity. In contrast, a liner bill of lading

functions as a standard-form contract of carriage

issued in the liner trade for scheduled services [42].

Unlike voyage charters, liner bills are generally

contracts of adhesion – shippers accept the carrier’s

pre-printed terms (often incorporated by reference on

the B/L and preceded by a booking note) with minimal

room for negotiation [34]. In practice, a liner bill of

lading’s terms and conditions are set in advance by the

carrier and simply “incorporated” into the contract,

whereas a voyage charter party’s terms are

individually negotiated between the parties[34]. This

fundamental difference in contract formation gives

voyage charterers far greater flexibility to define their

obligations and rights “vis-à-vis” the carrier, while liner

shippers must adhere to uniform contractual clauses

drafted by the carrier [43].

Freight rate setting and cost responsibilities under

each model also differ markedly. In voyage charters,

freight (the price for carrying the cargo) is typically

negotiated for each shipment in a volatile spot market,

reflecting supply-demand fluctuations for bulk vessel

capacity [13]. Charterers can bargain the rate and terms

for their particular cargo and voyage, and the agreed

freight might be a lump sum or per-ton rate, often

exclusive of loading and unloading costs. Indeed, as

one industry commentary observes, tramp shipping

freight rates must be negotiated afresh for every

contract, whereas liner shipping freight tends to be

fixed according to published tariffs or service contracts.

Liner operators historically maintained rate stability

through conference agreements or alliances, resulting

in more predictable pricing on set routes (though

subject to bunker surcharges and market trends).

Furthermore, operational cost allocation is handled

differently: voyage charter parties commonly use “Free

In/Out” terms, meaning the charterer bears the loading

and discharging expenses, thus freeing the shipowner

from port handling costs [34]. By contrast, liner bills of

lading are usually “Liner In/Out”, indicating that

loading and discharge are conducted by the carrier

(and included in the freight) [34]. This distinction

underscores how voyage charters are custom-tailored

– the charterer arranges cargo handling and port

logistics to some extent – whereas liner services offer a

turnkey solution where the carrier manages standard

port operations for the shipper. Operational routines

consequently diverge: tramp voyage charters have no

fixed schedule or itinerary beyond what the contract

specifies, giving flexibility to call at the ports needed

for that particular cargo on that voyage [7]. In other

words, tramp ships “wander” to where cargo is

available, and scheduling is ad-hoc. Liner shipping, on

the other hand, runs on fixed schedules and routes,

with vessels sailing regular lines and calling at

predetermined ports on published timetables [7]. This

scheduled nature of liner operations ensures rapid,

reliable departures and arrivals [7], which is essential

for shippers of packaged goods, whereas voyage

charters prioritize maximizing vessel usage for bulk

shippers even if voyages are irregular.

Another critical point of divergence is risk

allocation and legal liability. Voyage charter parties,

being privately negotiated, allow the shipowner and

charterer to apportion risks and responsibilities as they

see fit. The charter party can specify each party’s duties

for vessel readiness, cargo loading, seaworthiness, and

laytime (the allowed loading/unloading period) with

considerable freedom. For instance, the charter

contract will typically make the charterer responsible

for cargo handling and any delays beyond laytime

(incurring demurrage), thus shifting port congestion

risk to the charterer. Similarly, provisions on liability

for cargo damage or deviations can be customized. In

contrast, liner bills of lading are governed by

mandatory international regimes like the Hague or

Hague-Visby Rules, which impose minimum liability

standards on carriers [44], [45], [46]. These conventions

apply by force of law to bills of lading in international

trade, requiring (among other things) that the carrier

exercise due diligence to provide a seaworthy ship and

care for the cargo, and limiting the carrier’s ability to

exclude liability for negligence [45]. Notably, such

rules do not apply to charter parties as long as the

charterer remains the cargo owner [45]. Thus, under a

voyage charter, the shipowner and charterer can agree

to terms that might deviate from the standardized

liabilities of carriage conventions, whereas under a

liner bill of lading the carrier’s liberties to avoid

liability are curtailed by law [45], [46]. A practical

example of this structural difference is seen when the

same shipment is under a charter party versus a liner

contract: if a bill of lading is issued under a charter

(with the charterer as shipper), it often serves merely

as a receipt and document of title, not the contract of

carriage – the charter party remains the governing

contract between owner and charterer [47]. In liner

shipping, however, the bill of lading is the contract of

carriage for the goods between carrier and shipper,

fully encapsulating the terms of carriage [48]. This

means that in charter scenarios the primary legal

relationship is defined by the bespoke charter party,

whereas in liner scenarios any dispute with a shipper

(or a third-party bill holder) will be determined by the

standard bill of lading terms and relevant carriage law.

Consequently, the allocation of risks like delay,

damage, or route deviation is handled through

different mechanisms: voyage charters rely on detailed

negotiated clauses (e.g. exceptions, force majeure,

indemnities) between two commercial parties, and risk

is often borne by the charterer for commercial

uncertainties, while liner contracts spread risk across

487

many shippers and the carrier typically bears common-

carrier obligations to all cargo interests within liability

limits [49]. In summary, voyage charter parties offer a

high degree of customization in how costs and perils

are divided, whereas liner bills of lading adhere to

uniform risk allocations favoring cargo interests as

required by prevailing legal standards.

4.2 Concluding Statements

Crucially, the voyage charter party and the liner bill of

lading should be viewed as complementary

frameworks rather than competing ones. Each

developed to meet the specific needs of different

segments of maritime trade, and together they ensure

the industry can accommodate a wide variety of cargo

movements. Voyage charters are tailor-made for bulk

commodities and large-scale bespoke shipments,

where a single shipper (charterer) requires an entire

ship’s capacity (or a substantial part of it) on a non-

routine route. This model excels for cargos like grain,

coal, oil, or project equipment – cases where flexibility,

privacy of contract, and efficiency of moving huge

quantities point-to-point are paramount. Liner

carriage, by contrast, is designed for standardized,

containerized or general cargo shipments from many

different shippers, offering scheduled port calls and

consolidation of goods for economy of scale [7]. It

thrives on the regular flow of manufactured goods and

package cargo that benefit from reliable timetables and

established routes. Rather than one approach

superseding the other, both persist because they fulfill

different logistical and commercial requirements in

global trade. Indeed, industry analyses affirm that a

healthy shipping industry relies on both modes: tramp

shipping (via charters) provides flexibility and

capacity for bulk trades, while liner services provide

stability and consistency for regular trade lanes. By

recognizing that bespoke bulk transport and scheduled

liner transport are two sides of the same coin, we

underscore that no one model is universally “better” –

each is optimal for its intended purpose. In conclusion,

the comparative study of voyage charter parties versus

liner bills of lading underscores their distinct identities

yet interdependent roles. Together, they form a

complementary dual-system that allows maritime

trade to efficiently handle everything from a single

giant parcel of cargo to thousands of containerized

consignments. Appreciating the strengths and

limitations of both contractual models enhances

strategic decision-making and risk management in

maritime operations, ensuring that carriers and cargo

interests can select the arrangement that best fits their

particular needs in international shipping.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Xu, Q. Pan, A. Muscoloni, H. Xia, and C. V.

Cannistraci, “Modular gateway-ness connectivity and

structural core organization in maritime network

science,” Nat Commun, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 2849, Jun. 2020,

doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16619-5.

[2] O. F. Abioye, M. A. Dulebenets, J. Pasha, and M. Kavoosi,

“A Vessel Schedule Recovery Problem at the Liner

Shipping Route with Emission Control Areas,” Energies

(Basel), vol. 12, no. 12, p. 2380, Jun. 2019, doi:

10.3390/en12122380.

[3] B. D. Brouer, C. V. Karsten, and D. Pisinger,

“Optimization in liner shipping,” 4OR, vol. 15, no. 1, pp.

1–35, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10288-017-0342-6.

[4] K. Pourkermani, “Time Charter or Trip Charter? An

Assessment of Market Efficiency in Shipping Market,”

Transactions on Maritime Science, vol. 12, no. 1, Apr.

2023, doi: 10.7225/toms.v12.n01.010.

[5] E. Plomaritou and A. Menelaou, “Charter Market

Segmentation in Response to Trade’s Needs,” Journal of

Economics, Management and Trade, pp. 78–87, Mar.

2020, doi: 10.9734/jemt/2020/v26i130221.

[6] M. YORULMAZ, B. TONGUÇ, and A. TAŞ, “Role And

Importance Of Shipbroking In The Maritime Industry

And Required Qualifications Of Brokers,” International

Journal of Disciplines Economics & Administrative

Sciences Studies (IDEASTUDIES Journal), vol. 8, no. 38,

pp. 141–149, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.26728/ideas.57683.

[7] V. Gavrilov, R. Ushakov, L. Khamkhoeva, N. Kumalagov,

and I. Littih, “Comparative legal study defining the bill of

lading significance in maritime transport of goods,” E3S

Web of Conferences, vol. 376, p. 04009, Mar. 2023, doi:

10.1051/e3sconf/202337604009.

[8] E. Plomaritou and A. Papadopoulos, Shipbroking and

Chartering Practice, 8th Edition. Informa Law from

Routledge, Taylor and Francis, 2017.

[9] C. Atanasova, “Transforming Maritime Education for a

Digital Industry,” Strategies for Policy in Science and

Education-Стартегии на Образователната и Научната

Политика, vol. 31, no. 6s, pp. 9–18, Dec. 2023, doi:

10.53656/str2023-6s-1-mar.

[10] S. Dimitrakieva, E. Gunes, R. Dimitrakiev, and C.

Atanasova, “The Role of Digitalization in the Shipbroking

Business,” in Proceedings of the International Association

of Maritime Universities Conference, Batumi:

International Association of Maritime Universities, 2022.

[Online]. Available:

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-

85143847942&partnerID=40&md5=ec51c6e74663279e742

d952289448a83

[11] A. Behar and A. J. Venables, “Transport Costs and

International Trade,” in A Handbook of Transport

Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011. doi:

10.4337/9780857930873.00011.

[12] E. Plomaritou and Y. Voudouris, “The Relationships of

Bill of Lading, Charterparty and Other Transport

Documents,” Journal of Economics, Management and

Trade, pp. 1–8, Sep. 2019, doi:

10.9734/jemt/2019/v24i630182.

[13] S. Onyshchenko, O. Vyshnevska, and D. Vyshnevskyi,

“Justification of the optimal option and transportation

parameters for export supplies using marine transport,”

Technology audit and production reserves, vol. 2, no.

2(70), pp. 34–39, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.15587/2706-

5448.2023.277804.

[14] X. Huang, Y. Liu, M. Sha, B. Han, D. Han, and H. Liu,

“ETE-SRSP: An Enhanced Optimization of Tramp Ship

Routing and Scheduling,” J Mar Sci Eng, vol. 12, no. 5, p.

817, May 2024, doi: 10.3390/jmse12050817.

[15] İ. AKMAN DURGUT and G. DENKTAŞ ŞAKAR,

“Growth Strategy Preferences of Turkish Tramp Shipping

Companies: A Qualitative Research,” Mar Sci Technol

Bull, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 80–92, Mar. 2023, doi:

10.33714/masteb.1184702.

[16] United Nations publication - UNCTAD/RMT/2024.

Conference on Trade and Development, “Review of

maritime transport 2024. Navigating maritime

chokepoints,” Geneva, 2024. [Online]. Available:

https://unctad.org/system/files/official-

document/rmt2024_en.pdf

[17] European Economic Community, Council Regulation

(EEC) No 4056/86 of 22 December 1986 laying down

detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and 86 of

the Treaty to maritime transport. 1986. [Online].

Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31986R4056

488

[18] UK Parliament, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992. 1992.

[Online]. Available:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/50/contents

[19] UK Parliament, Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971. 1971.

[Online]. Available:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/19/contents

[20] UK Parliament, Merchant Shipping Act 1995. 1995.

[Online]. Available:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/21/contents

[21] I. Djadjev, “The FIOS(T) Clause,” in The Obligations of

the Carrier Regarding the Cargo, Cham: Springer

International Publishing, 2017, pp. 101–149. doi:

10.1007/978-3-319-62440-2_3.

[22] L. Gorton, R. Ihre, and A. Sandevärn, Shipbroking and

Chartering Practice, 4rth edition. LLOYD’S OF LONDON

PRESS LTD, 1995.

[23] Fearnley Consultants AS and Global Insight and Holman

Fenwick & Willan, “LEGAL AND ECONOMIC

ANALYSIS OF TRAMP MARITIME SERVICES, EU

Report COMP/2006/D2/002,” 2006.

[24] S. Girvin, “Voyage Charterparties,” in Carriage of Goods

by Sea, Oxford University Press, 2022, pp. 719–752. doi:

10.1093/law/9780198811947.003.0032.

[25] V. N. Gutsulyak, “The Types of the Charter-Parties in

International Commercial Shipping,” Proceedings of the

Institute of State and Law of the RAS, vol. 14, no. 4, pp.

108–130, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.35427/2073-4522-2019-14-4-

gutsulyak.

[26] Y. KOSKINA, S. ONYSHENKO, O. DROZHZHYN, and

O. MELNYK, “EFFICIENCY OF TRAMP FLEET

OPERATING UNDER THE CONTRACTS OF

AFFREIGHTMENT,” Scientific Journal of Silesian

University of Technology. Series Transport, vol. 120, pp.

137–149, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.20858/sjsutst.2023.120.9.

[27] D. Marinova, “LEGAL NATURE OF CHARTER

PARTIES AS A TYPE OF CONTRACTS ON

INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA,” in

THE LAW AND THE BUSINESS IN THE

CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY: Conference proceedings

of the 3-rd National Scientific Conference, University

publishing house “Science and Economics”, University of

Economics - Varna, Dec. 2020, pp. 40–45. doi:

10.36997/LBCS2020.40.

[28] I. Djadjev, “Shipping and the Law on Bills of Lading and

Charter Parties,” in The Obligations of the Carrier

Regarding the Cargo, Cham: Springer International

Publishing, 2017, pp. 1–30. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-62440-

2_1.

[29] F. Saeed, “Oil spill problems from the aspects of the

Claim, Performance and Insurance Functions,”

International Journal Papier Public Review, vol. 1, no. 2,

pp. 11–14, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.47667/ijppr.v1i2.13.

[30] N. Jovanović, “Maritime arbitrations,” Anali Pravnog

fakulteta u Beogradu, no. 2/2018, pp. 70–88, Jul. 2018, doi:

10.51204/Anali_PFUB_18203A.

[31] S. Dimitrakieva, D. Milev, and C. Atanasova, “Voyage of

Learning: Cruise Ships Weather Routing and Maritime

Education,” Strategies for Policy in Science and

Education-Strategii na Obrazovatelnata i Nauchnata

Politika, vol. 31, no. 6s, pp. 48–55, Dec. 2023, doi:

10.53656/str2023-6s-4-voy.

[32] Council of the European Union, Council Regulation (EC)

No 906/2009 of 28 September 2009 on the application of

Article 81(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of

agreements, decisions and concerted practices between

liner shipping companies (consortia). 2009. [Online].

Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009R0906

[33] O. Tang and P. Sun, “Anti-competition of ocean shipping

alliances: a legal perspective,” Maritime Business Review,

vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 4–19, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1108/MABR-08-

2017-0023.

[34] P. Brodie, Commercial Shipping Handbook, 3rd Edition.

Informa Law from Routledge. Taylor and Francis, 2014.

[35] Legal Information Institute, “Common Carrier,” Cornell

Law School. Accessed: Feb. 09, 2025. [Online]. Available:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/common_carrier

[36] UK Parliament, Carriers Act 1830. 1830. [Online].

Available:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4and1Will4/1

1/68/data.pdf

[37] J. M. Pérez-Canosa, J. A. Orosa, F. X. M. de Osés, and Fco.

J. Lama-Carballo, “Optimization of Ship’s Navigational

Parameters to Improve the Stowage and Securing Criteria

of Non-Standardized Cargo in Ships,” J Mar Sci Eng, vol.

11, no. 9, p. 1782, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.3390/jmse11091782.

[38] International Maritime Organization, CSS Code. Code of

Safe Practice for Cargo Stowage and Securing.

International Maritime Organization, 2021. doi:

10.62454/KC292E.

[39] I. V. Yotsov, “The Role of Short Sea Shipping Concept in

Black Sea Region as a Connection between Eurasian

Transport Systems,” Journal of Traffic and

Transportation Engineering, vol. 7, no. 6, Dec. 2019, doi:

10.17265/2328-2142/2019.06.002.

[40] S. Girvin, “Types of Bills of Lading,” in Carriage of

Goods by Sea, Oxford University Press, 2022, pp. 56–91.

doi: 10.1093/law/9780198811947.003.0003.

[41] J. Sosedová and A. Galierikova, “Carriage and legal

conditions of maritime transport in the process of

globalization,” SHS Web of Conferences, vol. 92, p. 09014,

Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1051/shsconf/20219209014.

[42] E. Plomaritou and Y. Voudouris, “The Relationships of

Bill of Lading, Charterparty and Other Transport

Documents,” Journal of Economics, Management and

Trade, pp. 1–8, Sep. 2019, doi:

10.9734/jemt/2019/v24i630182.

[43] Y. Baatz et al., Maritime Law, 3rd ed. Informa Law from

Routledge, 2017. doi: 10.4324/9781315162904.

[44] H. Karan, “The carrier’s liability under international

maritime conventions (The Hague, Hague-Visby and

Hamburg rules),” Thesis, Guildhall University, London,

1999. [Online]. Available:

https://repository.londonmet.ac.uk/7313/1/297508.pdf

[45] J. Green and T. Claesson, “Contracts of carriage and bills

of lading - who is the carrier?,” Standard Club Ltd, Jun.

29, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.standard-

club.com/fileadmin/uploads/standardclub/Documents/I

mport/publications/goto-handouts/2767689-contracts-of-

carriage-and-bills-of-lading-who-is-the-carrier.pdf

[46] Hague-Visby Rules. Convention of 25 August 1924 for

the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of

Lading (Treaty Series 1953, 109) including the provision

appearing in Section 1 of the accompanying Protocol of

signature, as that Convention was amended by the

Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 February 1968 (Treaty

Series 1979, 26) and as furthermore amended by the

Protocol signed at Brussels on 21 December 1979 (Treaty

Series 1985, 122). [47] Stephenson Harwood LLP, “CIF

Weekly – issue 29, Unicredit Bank A.G v Euronav N.V.

[2023] EWCA Civ 471,” Stephenson Harwood LLP, May

16, 2023. [Online]. Available:

https://www.stephensonharwood.com/docs/default-

source/news-insights-documents/2023/cif-weekly-29.pdf

[48] C. Hoffman, “Deciphering the differences: Bill of lading

vs. charter party bill of lading,” Trade Finance Global

(TFG), Aug. 09, 2024. [Online]. Available:

https://www.tradefinanceglobal.com/payments/decipher

ing-the-differences-bill-of-lading-vs-charter-party-bill-

of-lading/

[49] E. Birch, “Web Alert: Bills of lading as the contract of

carriage – Guiding principles as to the incorporation of

charterparty terms,” Standard Club Ltd, Feb. 17, 2016.

[Online]. Available: https://www.standard-

club.com/knowledge-news/web-alert-bills-of-lading-as-

the-contract-of-carriage-guiding-principles-as-to-the-

incorporation-of-charterparty-terms-497/