Shifting Seas: A Survey of US and European Liner Shipping Regulatory Developments Affecting the Trans-Atlantic Trades

Richard K Bank (), Ashley W Craig () and Edward J Sheppard ()
Additional contact information
Richard K Bank: Thompson Coburn LLP, 1909 K Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006, USA.
Ashley W Craig: Venable LLP, 575 7th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20004, USA.
Edward J Sheppard: Thompson Coburn LLP, 1909 K Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006, USA.

Maritime Economics & Logistics, 2005, vol. 7, issue 1, 56-72

Abstract: Beginning in the early 1900s, the United States instituted a regulatory scheme similar to the British ‘conference system’, which handled oversight of the international ocean shipping industry. This design was initially embodied in the Shipping Act of 1916. Various incarnations of the Shipping Act occurred throughout the 20th century, the most significant action resulting from passage of the Shipping Act of 1984 and the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998. Sparked by these regulatory changes, the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) – the governmental body overseeing implementation of the maritime regulatory laws – took on a more interventionist role. Until recently, European nations (and later the European Union) had chosen a more laissez-faire approach to regulating their ocean carriers and shippers. The US and European regulatory regimes vary in their approach to, jurisdiction of, and enforcement of regulations governing conduct of shippers, carriers, and intermediaries involved in ocean shipping. In part, these contrasting regulatory perspectives have led to sometimes significantly different economic consequences. For example, as the Shipping Act stands today, non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOCCs), commonly referred to as ‘freight forwarders’ in Europe, are not permitted to enter into contract rates with their shipper-customers but instead must publish a tariff rate covering every shipment they handle. Several of the larger, diversified NVOCCs that offer a variety of logistical services, filed petitions with the FMC requesting that they be granted the authority to offer confidential contract rates. By many accounts, the FMC's new NVOCC ‘service arrangement’ rulemaking has halted yet another round of comprehensive changes to the US regulatory approach to liner shipping for the time being. Maritime Economics & Logistics (2005) 7, 56–72. doi:10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100124

Date: 2005
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/mel/journal/v7/n1/pdf/9100124a.pdf Link to full text PDF (application/pdf)
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/mel/journal/v7/n1/full/9100124a.html Link to full text HTML (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:marecl:v:7:y:2005:i:1:p:56-72

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... nt/journal/41278/PS2

Access Statistics for this article

Maritime Economics & Logistics is currently edited by Hercules E. Haralambides

More articles in Maritime Economics & Logistics from Palgrave Macmillan, International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().