China’s Maritime Code 2026: sea of change
The revised Maritime Code of the People’s Republic of China, which comes into force on 1 May 2026, represents the most substantial reform of China’s maritime law regime in decades.
Although presented as a modernisation exercise, bringing the law in line with developments such as electronic documents and environmental awareness, the amendments go further.
They recalibrate the allocation of risk between cargo interests and carriers, while at the same time signalling a more assertive stance on the application of Chinese law.This article considers three central themes arising from the reform: first, the extent to which the new code strengthens the position of cargo interests; second, the respects in which it preserves or enhances protections for carriers; and third, the degree to which it departs from established English law principles.
Mandatory application of Chinese law
The most consequential development is the introduction of a mandatory choice of law rule in Article 295. Under this provision, where either the port of loading or the port of discharge is in China, Chinese maritime law will apply compulsorily to the contract of carriage.
This represents a marked departure from the traditional emphasis on party autonomy in international shipping contracts.
The practical effect is that contractual provisions selecting English law, or indeed any foreign governing law, may no longer be effective in disputes falling within the scope of the provision. Nor will the common device of incorporating charterparty terms into bills of lading necessarily displace the application of Chinese law.
Developments favouring cargo interests
Expanded carrier obligations
One notable change is the expansion of the carrier’s period of responsibility. The revised code makes clear that the carrier’s obligations extend beyond the traditional ‘tackle-to-tackle’ period associated with the Hague-Visby Rules, and now encompass the receipt and delivery of the cargo. This widening of the temporal scope of responsibility reduces the scope for arguments that loss or damage occurred outside the carrier’s period of liability. In practice, this is likely to make it more difficult for carriers to resist claims on the basis that responsibility had not yet attached or had already ceased.
More flexible limitation regime
The treatment of time limits for claims has also been adjusted in a manner favourable to cargo interests. While the general one-year limitation period remains, the circumstances in which that period may be interrupted have been broadened. Demands for performance, the commencement of proceedings, or an acknowledgment of liability by the debtor can now interrupt the limitation period. This reflects a more flexible, civil law-oriented approach and stands in contrast to the stricter treatment of time bars under English law, where the one-year period under the Hague-Visby Rules is applied with limited scope for interruption.
Restrictions on carrier liens
The revised code places restrictions on the carrier’s ability to exercise a lien over cargo in circumstances where freight has been prepaid. In such cases, the carrier will generally be prevented from asserting a lien against the cargo, thereby protecting consignees and cargo financiers from unexpected security enforcement. This reduces a form of commercial leverage that carriers have historically relied upon in disputes over unpaid sums.
Clarification on uncollected cargo
The code clarifies the allocation of responsibility for uncollected cargo by placing it squarely on the contractual shipper. Although this provision may appear to favour carriers, it also enhances legal certainty for cargo interests by delineating responsibility more clearly and reducing the scope for disputes over who bears the risk of cargo remaining undelivered.
Recognition of electronic transport documents
The express recognition of electronic transport documents as having full legal effect represents a significant step forward for cargo interests. It facilitates the use of electronic bills of lading in trade finance and logistics, reducing the risk of disputes over document validity and aligning Chinese law with modern commercial practice.
Protections preserved or enhanced for carriers
Broader definition of ‘actual carrier’
The expansion of the concept of the ‘actual carrier” allows a wider category of parties, potentially including port operators and subcontractors, to benefit from carrier defences and limitation rights. This reduces fragmentation of liability and enables a broader group of participants in the transport chain to rely on established protections.
Clarified seaworthiness and operational defences
The code refines the framework governing seaworthiness and operational defences. While it clarifies that seaworthiness obligations extend to containers provided by the carrier, it also codifies certain exemptions recognised in judicial practice, including situations where the vessel is subject to arrest through no fault of the carrier. This provides greater clarity and predictability in the application of defences.
Unified regime for domestic and international carriage
Another significant change is the extension of the code’s application to domestic carriage. By bringing domestic and international carriage within a unified legal regime, the reform removes historically lower liability standards applicable to domestic voyages. From the perspective of carriers, this harmonisation promotes consistency and reduces operational complexity.
Potential limitation rights for voyage charterers
The revised framework suggests that voyage charterers may, in certain circumstances, be able to invoke limitation of liability. If borne out in practice, this would represent an important development in recognising the commercial realities of modern chartering structures and providing additional protection to intermediaries.
Key departures from English law
Party autonomy versus mandatory law
A fundamental divergence lies in the treatment of governing law. English law has long been characterised by a strong commitment to party autonomy, with courts generally upholding contractual choices of law. By contrast, the new Chinese regime imposes a mandatory application of Chinese law in defined circumstances.
Approach to limitation periods
There is also a clear difference in the approach to limitation periods. English law adopts a strict and often unforgiving stance on time bars, particularly under the Hague-Visby Rules. The Chinese approach, by allowing interruption of limitation periods in a wider range of circumstances, is more flexible and more favourable to claimants.
Scope of carrier responsibility
The scope of the carrier’s responsibility also differs materially. English law remains closely tied to the Hague-Visby concept of the carrier’s period of responsibility, whereas the Chinese code adopts a broader conception encompassing the entire process of receiving and delivering cargo. This increases the number of situations in which carriers may be held liable.
Treatment of incorporated terms
Finally, the treatment of bills of lading and incorporated terms diverges. Under English law, incorporation clauses are generally effective in bringing charterparty terms into the bill of lading contract. Under the revised Chinese code, such mechanisms cannot override the mandatory application of Chinese law, and standard terms may be subject to closer scrutiny.
Conclusion
The Maritime Code 2026 appears to be a deliberate recalibration of the legal framework governing carriage of goods by sea in China. It enhances the protection afforded to cargo interests in several important respects. At the same time, it preserves key defences and introduces clarifications that benefit carriers.
Most significant perhaps is the mandatory application of Chinese law where either the port of loading or the port of discharge is in China. The implications will be profound.
Contracts of carriage involving Chinese ports will require careful reconsideration, particularly in relation to governing law clauses, risk allocation, and ultimately, dispute resolution strategies.