QUESTIONNAIRE ON AN EVENTUAL
REVISION OF YAR 1994


1. The YAR originally provided for the distribution of expenses and sacrifices over the contributing interests only as far as they were incurred for the common safety of ship and cargo. Later on the scope was extended to include expenses incurred for the common benefit – like port of refuge and substituted expenses. Do you think time has come to reduce the scope of the YAR to the principle of common safety?

2.If so, do you support
2.1. that sacrifices and expenses should be included in G/A only if made or incurred while ship and cargo are “in the grip of a peril”?
2.2. that temporary repairs of the vessel in a port of refuge should be excluded from G/A?
2.3. that the same should apply to crew wages and maintenance in the port of refuge?
2.4. the cost of discharging, storage and reloading of cargo in the port of refuge should no longer be allowed in G/A?
2.5. that no substituted expenses should be made good in G/A?
2.6. that no non separation agreement should be allowed in G/A (revision of rule G)?
2.7. that in consequence Rules X and XI should be abolished?

3. Rule D deals with the influence of fault of one of the parties to the adventure. Such fault has had to be shown under the rules of the national law applicable in addition to the YAR. Do you think any non-compliance with international conventions like the “ISM Code or STCW should be considered a fault irrespective of the merits of the individual case and the applicability of such convention?

4. Salvage cases are settled in different ways in different countries. In some countries ship and cargo join in settling salvage remuneration, in other countries they do not. Do you support the view that salvage remuneration should not be distributed in GA if settled separately by ship and cargo with the salvor?

5. Expenses preventing or minimizing damage to the environment have been included in the YAR only in 1994, evidently as a consequence of the revision of LOF and the 1989 Salvage Convention. Do you take the view that no such expenses should be allowed in G/A?
6. The YAR have not included any rule on time bar leaving this matter to national law. Do you think a rule on time bar should be introduced so as to prevail over national law?

Any additional comments you may wish to make, particularly on items not dealt with in this questionnaire but treated in the report of IUMI, will be highly welcome.

February, 2000