The Hague Rules are so called because their work began at a meeting of the International Law Association in The Hague in the Netherlands in 1921. They were finally adopted by a diplomatic convention in Brussels. in 1924 they are therefore also called the Brussels Convention, although they are normally called the Hague Rules. They represent the first effective, internationally agreed control of bill of lading conditions. Before the adoption of the Hague Rules, many shipowners took no responsibility. Some shipowners apparently excluded almost all or a large part of their liability. This exclusion clause was valid and excluded the liability of all shipowners for all events, including their own negligence. The shipowner's only basic responsibility for seaworthiness and care of the cargo was not excluded unless clearly stated. The philosophy behind this minimal liability was that maritime transit was a dangerous venture in those days (generally the era of wooden ships). One person who was involved assumed that the carrier would do its best, so it is fair to excuse it from the particularly maritime aspects as opposed to the liability aspects assumed. The shift from wooden to metal ships gave carriers a stronger position than before. This allowed them to take some responsibility, but the practice was not uniform. The nature and extent of liability varied depending on the negotiation between the carrier and shipper as well as the terms of the bill of lading issued by the carrier. The Hague Rules were the first attempt to bring this practice into a regulatory framework. The Hague Rules were brought forward to standardize bills of lading. The main argument was put forward at the time in fa...... middle of paper ...... on the international operation. To do this, state parties should adopt rules for outbound shipments from their ports. Any dispute regarding such shipment filed in the party state will follow the rules, but when the dispute is filed in the non-party state, that state is not required to follow the rules unless there is a overarching clause in the bill of lading stating that the rules will apply. But the problem arises when the overriding clause is omitted from the bill of lading for a shipment outside a Convention country and there is a choice of law clause for a jurisdiction. Through such a choice of law clause, the application of the rules can be avoided at all or for a particular trip. The absence of a primordial clause therefore leads to a circumvention of the rules. The result is that the international functioning of the rules, at least in many countries, has been to some extent torpedoed...