Rather than being primarily geared to protecting shippers and third party consignees, the draft instrument, based on the assumption that market conditions have changed somewhat over the years, appears to aim for a substantive liability regime to regulate the relationship between shippers and carriers as equal negotiating partners.

(a) Service contracts involving large shippers

(b) Service contracts involving small shippers

Individual stakeholders include consumers, disposers, employers, farmers, producers, regulators, researchers, suppliers, transporters, and workers.

Large shippers are just as able to effectively safeguard their interests in contractual negotiations, as are large carriers.

Freight forwarders may thus be both carrier (vis à vis the smaller shipper) and shipper (vis à vis a unimodal carrier, such as a sea carrier).

(a) Embarkation and destination points, as well as routes, carriers and means of transportation, known to be or suspected of being used by an organized criminal group engaged in conduct set forth in article 6 of this Protocol

Often, the big shippers are themselves carriers, namely freight forwarders, who do not operate any vessels, but have contracted with smaller shippers to transport the cargo from door to door.

Australia was seeking a regime that would strike a fair balance between the interests of shippers and carriers which was crucial if the instrument was to be widely accepted.

The initiative for such initial investments could come from transport service providers, such as ports, or also from shippers, who had an interest in more efficient transit corridors.

However, the view was also expressed that this paragraph was of great importance in some jurisdictions, where small shippers were virtually economically compelled to conclude volume contracts, and often on standard terms.

Given the danger that these standard terms could pose in terms of hiding derogations from the obligations in the draft instrument, it was thought that paragraph (b) provided practical and indispensable protection for small shippers faced with such standard terms.

In response, it was suggested that shippers in certain countries, while being fully aware of the needs of effective contract drafting, felt the need to be protected by a provision along the lines of draft article 88a (3).

Another view was that mandatory provisions should only exist in the draft instrument when truly necessary, and it was suggested that if the purpose of such provisions was to protect small shippers, paragraph 2 should be deleted in its entirety.