Atamer, KerimSuzel, Cuneyt2024-07-182024-07-182011978-3-642-19649-2https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19650-8_6https://hdl.handle.net/11411/7019International Conference on United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea -- MAY 06-07, 2010 -- Semahat Arsel Int Business Law Implementat & Res Ctr, Istanbul, TURKEYThis paper addresses Articles 37 and 65 of the Rotterdam Rules regarding the identity of the carrier and the additional time for suit. Firstly, a detailed working example is set out on the basis of current industry practice in order to demonstrate the practical problems. This is followed by a description of the drafting history of these rules. The three alternatives adopted under Art. 37 are distinguished as the identified carrier, presumed carrier and proven carrier. Each alternative is critically scrutinized in the light of the drafting history, their interaction with the remaining definitions and Articles of the Rotterdam Rules, as well as their projected application in practice. The same analysis is then conducted for the additional period. In conclusion, it is established that the final wording of these provisions does not fully reflect the true intention of the Drafters. Therefore, it is submitted that, as the rules stand today, more complications are likely to arise than be solved.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessConference Object10.1007/978-3-642-19650-8_6+155N/AWOS:000323458800006