Comité Maritime International

Overview

The Comité Maritime International (CMI) is a non-governmental, not-for-profit international organisation established to promote the unification and development of maritime law. It was founded in Antwerp, Belgium, in 1897 and has worked through National Maritime Law Associations, maritime lawyers, academics, and other specialists to promote greater international uniformity in maritime law.

Its work has extended across Bills of Lading, Carrier liability, General Average, collision, salvage, maritime liens, limitation of liability, and other fields specific to international shipping. The historical and institutional role of the CMI is particularly relevant to an understanding of the Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules, and York-Antwerp Rules.

However, not every instrument published or adopted by the CMI automatically has the force of law. An international convention, an amending Protocol, contractual uniform rules, soft law, and a database of judicial decisions have fundamentally different legal effects.

The practical question is therefore not whether a document originated with or was developed through the CMI, but which convention, rule, version, or principle applies to the particular case and through what legal or contractual mechanism it applies.

Specific Scope of This Article

Item	What This Article Covers	What Requires Separate Analysis
Status of the CMI	Its purpose, non-governmental character, and role in maritime-law unification	Detailed internal governance and membership
Hague Rules	The 1924 Convention and the historical role of the CMI	Application to an individual carriage and calculation of limitation
Hague-Visby Rules	The role of the 1968 Visby Protocol and subsequent amendments	Implementation and mandatory application in individual jurisdictions
York-Antwerp Rules	CMI revision work, version control, and contractual incorporation	Allowance and adjustment of an individual General Average claim
CMI Lex Maritima 2025	Status and use of The Tokyo Principles of Maritime Law	Detailed comparative analysis of each Principle
Judgments Database	Value of comparing judicial interpretation of international instruments	Legal evaluation of individual judgments
Freight forwarders and NVOCCs	CMI-related rules in B/L terms, Carrier liability, and recourse	Detailed liability analysis is covered in specialist articles
Marine insurance	Indirect relationship through General Average, salvage, cargo claims, and recourse	Coverage under an individual insurance contract
CMI and IMO	Difference between a specialist non-governmental organisation and an intergovernmental organisation	Detailed IMO conventions and technical regulations

Purpose and Institutional Background of the CMI

International sea carriage commonly involves different flag States, loading and discharge countries, cargo interests, Carrier jurisdictions, governing laws, and dispute forums.

If each jurisdiction applied fundamentally different maritime rules, the outcome of cargo claims, collision cases, General Average, salvage, Bills of Lading, and limitation disputes would become significantly less predictable.

The CMI developed as a forum in which National Maritime Law Associations and maritime-law specialists could conduct comparative research and develop common rules, draft conventions, and other methods of promoting uniformity.

The CMI is not a State or an intergovernmental organisation. Adoption of a resolution by the CMI therefore does not itself amend the domestic law of any country.

CMI-Related Instruments Do Not All Have the Same Legal Effect

Type	Example	Role of the CMI	Practical Legal Effect	What Must Be Confirmed
International convention	1924 Hague Rules	Historical involvement in developing uniform rules	May operate through treaty obligations or domestic implementing law	Ratification, domestic law, and mandatory scope
Protocol	1968 Visby Protocol and 1979 SDR Protocol	Participation in revision of the existing convention regime	Applies where the relevant Protocol has legal effect	Which amended regime applies
Contractual uniform rules	York-Antwerp Rules	Drafting and revision	Generally applied through incorporation into a B/L, Charterparty, or other contract	The version specified in the contract
Soft law	CMI Lex Maritima 2025	Identification and adoption of general maritime-law principles	Not itself an international convention or binding Model Law	Whether applicable law permits or supports reference to such principles
Guidelines and forms	General Average Guidelines and security forms	Support for consistency of practice	Practical guidance rather than legislation	Whether the material is appropriate to the particular case
Judicial information	CMI/CML Judgments Database	Collection and comparative accessibility of judgments	A foreign judgment does not automatically bind courts in another jurisdiction	Jurisdiction, applicable law, and factual differences

Do Not Confuse the CMI with the IMO

The CMI and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) both influence international maritime law, but their legal and institutional status is different.

The CMI is a non-governmental, not-for-profit international organisation centred on maritime-law specialists and the international unification of maritime law.

The IMO is a specialised agency of the United Nations operating through Member Governments and dealing with international conventions and regulations concerning maritime safety, environmental protection, liability and compensation, and related matters.

The CMI has maintained a long-standing cooperative relationship with the IMO and is one of the international non-governmental organisations holding consultative status with the IMO.

Work undertaken by a CMI Working Group or CMI Conference should therefore not be treated as legally equivalent to a convention adopted through an intergovernmental diplomatic process.

The Hague Rules and the CMI

The Hague Rules represent one of the principal international attempts to harmonise the relationship between cargo interests and ocean Carriers under Bills of Lading.

The underlying treaty is the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, adopted in Brussels on 25 August 1924 and commonly referred to as the 1924 Hague Rules.

The CMI played an important historical role in the international unification work relating to Bills of Lading and Carrier liability.

The Hague Rules address matters including Carrier obligations, seaworthiness, handling of cargo, specified defences, limitation of liability, and time limits for claims.

However, the mere appearance of the words “Hague Rules” in a B/L does not by itself determine the governing law or final liability amount. The Clause Paramount, loading and discharge jurisdictions, mandatory legislation, and other applicable rules must also be examined.

The 1968 Visby Protocol and the Hague-Visby Rules

The 1924 Hague Rules were subsequently amended in response to developments in international shipping and trade.

A Protocol adopted in Brussels on 23 February 1968 amended the Hague Rules and produced the regime commonly known as the Hague-Visby Rules.

A further Protocol adopted in 1979 introduced the Special Drawing Right (SDR) as the relevant unit of account for limitation purposes in the amended regime.

Accordingly, practical analysis should not stop at the expression “Hague-Visby.” It may be necessary to determine whether the relevant jurisdiction has adopted the 1924 Convention, the 1968 Protocol, the 1979 SDR Protocol, or a particular domestic implementation of those instruments.

Distinguishing Domestic Law, B/L Terms, and International Conventions

A uniform maritime instrument associated with the CMI and the law actually governing an individual carriage are separate questions.

Where a State has implemented the Hague-Visby Rules through mandatory domestic legislation, that legislation may govern the carriage regardless of inconsistent contractual terms.

In other circumstances, a Clause Paramount in the B/L may incorporate the Hague Rules or Hague-Visby Rules contractually even where those Rules are not otherwise mandatorily applicable.

Practical review should therefore consider:

• Whether mandatory domestic legislation or an international convention applies
• Whether the B/L contains a Clause Paramount
• Which Rules and Protocols are identified
• The period of responsibility to which those rules apply
• Applicable limitations, notices, and time bars

York-Antwerp Rules and General Average

The York-Antwerp Rules (YAR) are international uniform rules used to determine which sacrifices and expenditures are allowable in General Average and how the adjustment is conducted.

The YAR are not an international convention automatically applicable to every voyage. They are generally applied because a B/L, Charterparty, or another contract incorporates them.

The CMI is responsible for the continuing revision of the YAR. The 2016 Rules were approved at the CMI Conference in New York in May 2016, and a technical alteration to the interest provision in Rule XXI was made at the Antwerp Conference in 2022.

Earlier versions, including the 1994 Rules, may remain relevant because they are still incorporated in existing contracts or apply to continuing General Average cases.

The practical question is therefore not merely which version is currently recommended by the CMI, but which version of the York-Antwerp Rules is incorporated into the B/L or Charterparty governing the particular voyage.

CMI Lex Maritima 2025

On 17 May 2025, the CMI General Assembly at the Tokyo Conference adopted The CMI Lex Maritima 2025 – The Tokyo Principles of Maritime Law.

The instrument identifies and articulates general principles considered to form part of the common international foundations of maritime law.

It consists of five preliminary Rules and twenty-five substantive Principles addressing ships, shipowners and operators, the Master, limitation of liability, maritime contracts, collision, salvage, General Average, wreck removal, prioritised claims, and other maritime-law subjects.

The CMI expressly states that the CMI Lex Maritima is not an international convention, a Model Law, or another legally binding instrument. It is a soft law instrument sui generis.

It therefore does not automatically amend domestic legislation, Bills of Lading, Charterparties, or insurance contracts.

Marine Insurance Is Not Included in CMI Lex Maritima 2025

The CMI as an institution has significant connections with issues relevant to marine insurance, but the CMI Lex Maritima 2025 itself does not contain a Principle governing Marine Insurance.

During preparation of the instrument, proposals were made concerning marine-insurance principles. The CMI concluded, however, that further study would be required to identify legal principles supported by sufficiently broad international consensus, and Marine Insurance was therefore omitted from the present version.

The CMI Lex Maritima 2025 should consequently not be used as a direct basis for deciding cargo insurance coverage, exclusions, insured value, subrogation, or other policy issues.

Those matters must be determined under the actual policy, applicable insurance law, and governing law.

How CMI Lex Maritima May Be Used in Practice

Situation	Appropriate Use	Inappropriate Use	Practical Review
Maritime-law education	Understanding general internationally shared maritime-law principles	Replacing domestic statutory provisions	Read together with applicable law
Contract review	Providing context for generally recognised maritime concepts	Automatically modifying B/L terms	The actual contract controls
Comparative research	Identifying common foundations across jurisdictions	Ignoring national differences	Research the relevant jurisdiction
Dispute interpretation	Possible supplementary material where positive law permits reference to general principles	Displacing mandatory law	Positive Maritime Law has priority
Legislative research	Reference point for common maritime-law principles	Treating the instrument as a Model Law	Adapt to the domestic legal system
Marine insurance	Background understanding of related maritime-law principles	Determining policy coverage directly	Review the policy and applicable insurance law

CMI/CML Database of Judicial Decisions

The CMI works with the Centre for Maritime Law (CML) at the National University of Singapore to make judicial decisions concerning international maritime conventions, Protocols, and other uniform instruments more accessible.

The significance of such a database is not simply the collection of judgments. It allows comparison of how courts in different jurisdictions interpret the same international maritime instrument.

Even where countries apply the same Hague or Hague-Visby framework, judicial interpretation of particular expressions, periods of responsibility, or limitation issues may not be identical.

A foreign judgment should therefore be analysed in the context of its jurisdiction, governing law, B/L wording, and factual circumstances.

Relationship with Freight Forwarders and NVOCCs

Freight forwarders and NVOCCs do not normally consult the CMI directly when making routine Bookings or customs arrangements.

CMI-related uniform rules become more visible when a dispute arises through a Clause Paramount, General Average Clause, limitation provision, governing-law clause, or other term in a House B/L or Master B/L.

For an NVOCC, contractual liability to the cargo owner under the House B/L and upstream recourse against the shipping line under the Master B/L must be analysed separately.

If the two B/Ls contain different governing laws, liability regimes, limitations, or claim periods, the amount payable to the cargo owner may not correspond to the amount recoverable from the Actual Carrier.

Relationship with Marine Cargo Insurance

The CMI is not an insurer and does not determine insurance coverage.

Nevertheless, Marine Cargo Insurance frequently interacts with General Average, salvage, Carrier liability, limitation, Bills of Lading, and Subrogated Recovery, all of which depend on wider maritime-law principles.

Where General Average is declared, the version of the York-Antwerp Rules incorporated into the relevant B/L or Charterparty should be identified before the Average Adjuster, shipowner, cargo owner, and Marine Cargo Insurer proceed with security and contribution arrangements.

Where a cargo insurer has paid a loss and pursues Subrogated Recovery against a Carrier, the applicable Hague Rules regime, B/L terms, limitation provisions, and claim deadlines may become central to the recovery analysis.

Practical Flow for Reviewing CMI-Related Rules

1. Identify whether the issue concerns a B/L, Carrier Liability, General Average, Salvage, Collision, or another field of maritime law.
2. Review the B/L, Charterparty, policy, or other contract for the applicable Rules and any Clause Paramount.
3. Identify not merely the name of the Rules but also the year, Protocol, or version referred to.
4. Determine whether a mandatory international convention or domestic statute applies.
5. Distinguish contractual incorporation of Rules from mandatory application by law.
6. For General Average, identify the version of the York-Antwerp Rules incorporated into the B/L or Charterparty.
7. Where both a House B/L and Master B/L exist, review the applicable Rules, governing law, and liability provisions under each document separately.
8. Where foreign judicial interpretation is relevant, use the CMI/CML Database and other authoritative materials to compare decisions under the same instrument.
9. Where CMI Lex Maritima is cited, confirm its soft-law status and relationship with the relevant Positive Maritime Law.
10. Do not reach a conclusion from CMI material alone; review the actual contract, domestic law, applicable convention, jurisdiction, and casualty facts.
11. For major casualties, General Average, foreign law, limitation, or international litigation, obtain advice from a maritime lawyer.

Cases Commonly Problematic in Practice

Case	Main Problem	CMI-Related Item to Review	Practical Response
B/L refers only to “Hague Rules”	The actual legal regime is unclear	1924 Convention, domestic law, and Clause Paramount	Determine governing and mandatory law
B/L refers to Hague-Visby	Adoption of the 1968 and 1979 Protocols may differ	Implementation in the relevant jurisdiction	Do not assume the limitation amount
General Average is declared	Applicable YAR version	1994, 2016, or another contractual version	Review the B/L and Charterparty
The latest YAR is applied automatically	The contractual version is different	CMI recommendation versus incorporated terms	Start with the contractual version
House and Master B/Ls contain different Clauses Paramount	Mismatch between downstream and upstream liability	Rules and governing law under each B/L	Analyse the contracts separately
CMI Lex Maritima is cited as a binding treaty	Its legal status is misunderstood	Soft-law status	Identify the Positive Maritime Law
A foreign judgment is applied mechanically to a Japanese case	Jurisdiction, wording, and facts differ	Context of the CMI/CML Database decision	Use it comparatively, not mechanically
CMI Lex Maritima is used to determine insurance coverage	The 2025 instrument contains no Marine Insurance Principle	Scope of the Lex Maritima	Apply the insurance policy and governing law

Application Scenario 1: Dispute over the Version of the York-Antwerp Rules

The following is a hypothetical example illustrating the practical role of a CMI-related rule.

A cargo vessel sailing from Kobe to Rotterdam suffers machinery failure and faces a serious risk of grounding. Emergency towage, salvage, and other measures are undertaken and the shipowner declares General Average.

One cargo owner has goods valued at JPY 120 million and is requested by the Average Adjuster to provide General Average Security.

The reverse terms of the B/L state that General Average is to be adjusted according to the York-Antwerp Rules 1994.

The cargo owner argues that the CMI now recommends the 2016 Rules and asks why the 2016 version is not being applied.

The Average Adjuster responds that the existence of a later CMI version is a separate issue from the version incorporated into the particular contract of carriage, which expressly refers to the 1994 Rules.

The key point is that a newer version of the York-Antwerp Rules does not automatically replace the version incorporated into an existing contract.

Application Scenario 2: Different Rules under a House B/L and Master B/L

Electronic equipment valued at JPY 80 million is shipped from Yokohama to Hamburg. A Japanese NVOCC issues the House B/L and a shipping line issues the Master B/L to the NVOCC.

A casualty during the voyage causes JPY 30 million in cargo damage.

The cargo owner claims JPY 30 million against the NVOCC, while the NVOCC assumes that the same amount can be recovered from the shipping line as Actual Carrier.

Review of the documents reveals different Clauses Paramount, limitation provisions, governing laws, and jurisdictions in the House and Master B/Ls.

The NVOCC argues that both contracts concern international sea carriage and should therefore produce the same result under the Hague-family rules.

Maritime counsel explains that mandatory law and the contractual terms of each B/L must be examined separately in the downstream and upstream relationships.

The practical lesson is that the existence of internationally harmonised rules does not make separate contracts legally identical.

Application Scenario 3: Treating CMI Lex Maritima as Binding Law

Assume that a ship casualty off Singapore gives rise to a dispute of approximately JPY 50 million between a cargo owner and a shipowner.

One party cites a Principle in the CMI Lex Maritima 2025 and argues that, because the CMI adopted the instrument in 2025, the court is legally required to apply that Principle.

The opposing party responds that the CMI Lex Maritima is neither a treaty nor domestic legislation and is expressly identified as a soft-law instrument.

The proper analysis begins with the domestic law, international conventions, contract, and jurisdiction governing the dispute. Only if the relevant legal system permits reference to general maritime-law principles does the question arise whether the CMI Lex Maritima may serve as supplementary material.

The key point is that the practical value of the CMI Lex Maritima and its legally binding force are two different questions.

Common Misconceptions

Misconception	Actual Practice	Practical Caution
The CMI is a United Nations agency	It is a non-governmental, not-for-profit international organisation	Do not confuse it with the IMO
Every CMI rule automatically becomes law	Legal effect depends on the type of instrument	Distinguish conventions, contractual rules, and soft law
The Hague Rules are merely private CMI terms	They developed into the 1924 international convention	Review domestic implementation and applicability
The Hague Rules and Hague-Visby Rules are identical	The regime was amended by the 1968 Protocol and subsequently by the SDR Protocol	Identify the applicable regime
YAR 2016 automatically governs every General Average	An earlier version may be incorporated contractually	Review the B/L or Charterparty
CMI Lex Maritima is a new international maritime convention	It is a non-binding soft-law instrument	Positive Maritime Law has priority
CMI Lex Maritima contains rules governing marine insurance	The 2025 instrument contains no Marine Insurance Principle	Apply the policy and insurance law
Foreign judgments in the CMI database bind Japanese courts	They are valuable comparative and interpretative material	Review jurisdiction and governing law
Understanding B/L wording makes CMI background irrelevant	Institutional history helps explain international Rules and Clauses Paramount	Final conclusions still depend on contract and applicable law
CMI-related uniform rules guarantee identical downstream and upstream liability	House and Master B/L terms may differ	Analyse each contract independently

Decision Checklist

Situation	Party to Consult	Item to Confirm	Action if a Problem Is Identified
Draft B/L review	NVOCC or shipping line	Clause Paramount and General Average Clause	Identify the Rules and version clearly
Cargo casualty	Contracting Carrier	Hague, Hague-Visby, or other applicable regime	Do not decide liability from the name alone
House B/L claim	NVOCC	House B/L law and liability terms	Review separately from the Master B/L
Upstream recourse	Actual Carrier	Master B/L limitation and claim deadline	Check whether the upstream position is Back-to-Back
General Average declaration	Average Adjuster	Specified York-Antwerp Rules version	Do not automatically apply the latest version
GA Security	Marine Cargo Insurer	Average Bond, Guarantee, and policy cover	Coordinate with the Average Adjuster and insurer
Reference to Lex Maritima	Maritime lawyer	Extent to which soft law may be used	Give priority to applicable law
Marine insurance dispute	Insurer and maritime lawyer	Policy, clauses, and governing law	Do not decide coverage from Lex Maritima
Foreign case-law research	Maritime lawyer	Convention, jurisdiction, B/L terms, and facts	Do not transplant a foreign judgment mechanically
Limitation dispute	Carrier and maritime lawyer	Applicable Protocol, domestic law, and unit of account	Recalculate the applicable limitation
Foreign litigation or arbitration	Maritime lawyer	Governing law, jurisdiction, and convention	Obtain advice on local law promptly

When to Consult a Maritime Lawyer

• It is unclear whether the Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules, or domestic legislation applies mandatorily
• The 1968 Visby Protocol or 1979 SDR Protocol affects the applicable limitation
• The Clause Paramount and governing-law clause interact in a complex manner
• The House and Master B/Ls contain different governing laws, limitations, or jurisdictions
• The applicable version of the York-Antwerp Rules or the allowance of a General Average item is disputed
• A substantial General Average Contribution or salvage expense is involved
• A party seeks to rely on CMI Lex Maritima as a source in contractual interpretation or litigation
• Courts in different jurisdictions have interpreted the same international convention differently
• A Marine Cargo Insurer pursues a substantial Subrogated Recovery
• The application of CMI-related Rules is disputed in foreign litigation or arbitration

Summary

The Comité Maritime International is a non-governmental, not-for-profit international organisation that has played an important role in the international unification and harmonisation of maritime law since its establishment in Antwerp in 1897.

The Hague Rules emerged as the 1924 Brussels Convention and were subsequently developed through the 1968 Visby Protocol and later amendments. The CMI has been historically central to this work concerning Bills of Lading and Carrier liability.

The CMI also maintains the York-Antwerp Rules, but the current 2016 Rules do not automatically govern every General Average. The version incorporated into the relevant B/L or Charterparty must be identified.

The CMI Lex Maritima 2025 – The Tokyo Principles of Maritime Law, adopted in Tokyo in 2025, is an important articulation of general maritime-law principles but is neither an international convention nor a Model Law. It is a soft-law instrument. The current 2025 instrument also contains no Marine Insurance Principle.

For freight forwarders, NVOCCs, cargo owners, and Marine Cargo Insurers, the practical value of understanding the CMI is not simply recognising the names of institutions and Rules. The essential task is to determine which international rule applies, which version applies, and through which contractual provision, convention, or domestic law it applies to the particular case.