Potential Defect (2-2) in the Maritime Law (2025 Revision):
Article 2 Fails to Clearly Define the Scope of Application to Carriage of Passengers by Sea
After 33 years of development and refinement, the Maritime Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Maritime Law”) has evolved into the Maritime Law (2025 Revision). One of the purposes of the revision is to align the Maritime Law more closely with commercial practice and to improve its regulation of maritime transport relations, particularly by refining the specific scope of maritime transport to which the Law applies. The provision governing the scope of application is contained in Article 2 of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision), which provides that the Law applies to carriage of goods or passengers by sea, including direct sea-river transport and direct river-sea transport. Pursuant to Article 105 of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision), carriage of passengers by sea refers to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea route by vessel. It includes both international carriage of passengers by sea (also referred to as cross-border or ocean-going passenger transport) and domestic carriage of passengers by sea. (Carriage of passengers by sea in the traditional sense has now virtually disappeared and has been replaced by a new form of carriage of passengers by sea for leisure and entertainment purposes, namely cruise tourism transport.)
The author has identified a potential defect in Article 2 of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision): it fails to clearly define the scope of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision)’s application to carriage of passengers by sea. As a provision intended to delineate the Law’s scope of application, Article 2 does not specify what categories of carriage of passengers by sea, or what characteristics such carriage must possess, in order to fall within the ambit of the Law. Moreover, Article 2 does not clarify whether the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) applies to certain special forms of carriage of passengers by sea involving inland water transport, including cruise tourism transport in which the place of departure and the destination are identical (see the analysis of Transport Scenario 3 below). The apparent manifestation of this defect lies in the absence of precise legal definitions for several key terms that are fundamental to determining the scope of application. For example, what do the expressions “sea-river,” “river-sea,” and “direct transport” mean in Article 2? Does “sea-river” include inland rivers or lakes that are directly or indirectly connected to the sea or river? Does “direct transport” refer to uninterrupted carriage of passengers (passenger-based directness), or to carriage performed by a vessel without intermediate port calls (vessel-based directness)? Similarly, what is meant by the expression “by sea route” in Article 105, which is closely connected with Article 2? Does it require the entire voyage to take place on maritime routes, or is it sufficient that only part of the voyage is conducted via maritime routes? Although these deficiencies may appear to be mere drafting imperfections, their underlying cause lies in the failure of the Maritime Law reform to adequately consider the integrated and inseparable nature of the waterborne transport system, as well as the failure to properly address the legal issues concerning inland water transport that is closely connected with maritime transport.
The waterborne transport system is highly complex. It can be broadly divided by navigable waters into inland water transport and maritime transport, with maritime transport further subdivided into domestic maritime transport (also referred to as coastal transport) and international maritime transport. Within China’s waterborne transport system, inland water transportation, domestic maritime and international maritime transport each occupy a significant portion. More importantly, these three modes are closely integrated, interpenetrate one another, and cannot be treated in isolation. At the practical level, the integrated nature of the waterborne transport system is vividly evident. For example, nearly all insurance companies treat domestic maritime transport, inland water transport, and vessels as a single entity when formulating insurance terms, as exemplified by the “Domestic Coastal and Inland Waterway Vessel Insurance Terms (2009 Edition)” issued by People’s Insurance Company of China. At the legal level, the integrated nature is also recognized. For instance, Article 240 of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) treats accidents occurring on inland waterways that relate to maritime navigation as maritime insurance incidents. Similarly, the Supreme People’s Court’s Pronouncement on Determining the Limitation Period for Claims arising from Coastal and Inland Water Carriage treats inland water transport, domestic maritime transport, and international maritime transport as a single entity, uniformly applying the limitation periods set out in the Maritime Law. It is evident that inland water transport is closely linked with maritime transport, and legislation should aim to encompass the entire waterborne transport chain based on market practice rather than treating these modes separately. However, Article 2 of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) failed to carefully consider or properly address the application of the Law to inland water transport and the overall waterborne transport system, resulting in a potential defect that may affect the normal operation of the maritime legal system.
The author uses the following transport scenarios as examples to analyze how the potential defect in Article 2 of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) could give rise to broader issues concerning the scope of the Law’s application in commercial practice and judicial proceedings. It should be noted that market conditions evolve rapidly and transport arrangements continue to change. Accordingly, the analysis below is confined to the principal transport scenarios most likely to generate practical difficulties.
Transport Scenario 1: Passenger 1 boards a cruise ship at Nanchong (inland river port) on the Jialing River. The cruise ship calls at Chongqing (river port) and Wuhan (river port) before arriving at Shanghai (seaport/river port), where Passenger 1 disembarks.
Applicability Issue: Pursuant to Article 2 and Article 105 of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision), the Law applies to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by vessel by sea route, including direct sea-river transport and direct river-sea transport. (Note: Transport between “sea” and “river” is commonly understood as transport from a seaport to a river port, or from a river port to a seaport.) Passenger 1 boards the vessel at Nanchong, which is not a port on the main stream of the Yangtze River (and is therefore not commonly regarded as a river port in the traditional sense), but rather a port on the Jialing River, a tributary connected to the Yangtze River (and is therefore commonly regarded as an inland river port in the traditional sense). Passenger 1 disembarks at Shanghai. Shanghai is a seaport. However, it is in fact a dual-function seaport/river port, possessing both riverside port areas and wharfs (such as Waigaoqiao Port) and coastal port areas and wharfs (such as Yangshan Port). The waterways surrounding Shanghai likewise possess both river-route and sea-route characteristics. (Note: Like Shanghai, nearly all major Chinese seaports are located at river estuaries and therefore possess dual seaport-river port characteristics.) Accordingly, does this transport scenario constitute transport from a “river (port)” to a “sea (port)” and, at the same time, transport conducted “by sea route”? (Note: Transport Scenario 1 also raises issues concerning “direct transport”; see the analysis of Transport Scenario 2 below.)
Analysis: Neither the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) nor any other law provides clear definitions of the key terms “river (port),” “sea (port),” and “by sea route” as used in Articles 2 and 105. (Note: The issue of “by sea route” consists of two components: first, the issue arising from dual-function seaport/river ports; and second, the degree of sea-route involvement required for a transport route to be regarded as being conducted “by sea route”. Only the former is examined here; the latter will be discussed under Transport Scenario 5 below.) How, then, should these terms be interpreted? Chinese law has not yet established general principles governing the interpretation of statutory provisions, nor has the relevant field developed any recognized customary interpretation of these terms. Under such circumstances, the only reliable approach is a literal interpretation — that is, to ascertain the meaning of the statutory language through a natural and strict reading of the words employed. In the case of Passenger 1’s transport scenario, each of the foregoing terms admits multiple possible literal interpretations.With respect to “river (port),” one interpretation is “a port located on a river directly connected to the sea,” while another is “a port located on a river, or on another body of water, that is directly or indirectly connected to the sea.” With respect to “sea (port),” one interpretation is “a port recognized by the competent port authority, or commonly regarded, as a seaport, regardless of whether the place of embarkation or disembarkation is located in its river-port area/wharf or seaport area/wharf.” Another interpretation is “a port recognized by the competent port authority, or commonly regarded, as a seaport, and where the place of embarkation or disembarkation is actually located in its seaport area/wharf.” With respect to “by sea route,” one interpretation is that transport is deemed to be conducted by sea route whenever either the port of embarkation or the port of disembarkation is a seaport, regardless of whether the transport route actually passes through the waters surrounding that seaport or any other sea route in the true sense. Another interpretation is that either the port of embarkation or the port of disembarkation must be a seaport and that the transport route must in fact pass through the waters surrounding that seaport or another sea route in the true sense.Whether one proceeds from the legislative purpose of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision), or from the coherence of the Law as a whole and the interrelationship among its provisions, each of the foregoing literal interpretations is tenable. The fact that the cruise ship departs from an inland river port and arrives at a dual-function seaport/river port places Transport Scenario 1 at the intersection of these competing interpretations. Such a situation gives rise to uncertainty regarding the applicability of law: some industry participants may take the view that the carriage of Passenger 1 satisfies the relevant requirements and is therefore governed by the Maritime Law (2025 Revision); others may take the opposite view; while the remainder may remain undecided.
In summary, the lack of clear definitions of these key terms, together with the ambiguity arising from competing legal interpretations, will result in uncertainty regarding the applicability of law and ultimately produce adverse consequences for commercial practice and judicial proceedings: cruise operators may become reluctant to carry passengers, passengers may hesitate to board cruise ships, insurers may be unwilling to provide insurance, and courts may hesitate to render judgments. Although the immediate cause of such uncertainty appears to be the absence of clear definitions of terms such as “river (port),” “sea (port),” and “by sea route” in the Maritime Law (2025 Revision), the underlying cause is the Law’s failure to consider and address the legal issues concerning the applicability of law to inland water carriage of passengers that is closely connected with carriage of passengers by sea.
Transport Scenario 2: Passenger 2 boards a cruise ship at Chongqing (river port). The cruise ship calls at Wuhan (river port) and Shanghai (seaport/river port) before arriving at Fuzhou (seaport), where Passenger 2 disembarks.
Applicability Issue: Article 2 of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) provides that the Law applies to maritime transport, including direct river-sea transport. The cruise ship carries Passenger 2 from a river port to a seaport and therefore, in form, performs river-sea transport (which falls within maritime transport). Although Passenger 2 remains on board the cruise ship throughout the voyage, the vessel makes intermediate port calls at another river port and another seaport during the voyage. Does this scenario constitute “direct transport”? (Note: Shanghai is a dual-function seaport/river port. The issues arising from such dual-function ports in relation to “sea-river” and “river-sea” transport are discussed under Transport Scenario 1 above.)
Analysis: Neither the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) nor any other law provides a clear definition of the key term “direct transport” in Article 2. How, then, should “direct transport” be interpreted? As discussed in Transport Scenario 1 above, “direct transport” admits at least three possible literal interpretations. The first is uninterrupted carriage of passengers (passenger-based directness), meaning that the passenger remains on board a single vessel throughout the voyage and is carried from a river port (or seaport) to a seaport (or river port), regardless of whether that vessel makes intermediate port calls at other river ports or seaports. The second is carriage performed by a single vessel without intermediate port calls (vessel-based directness), meaning that the passenger is carried on a single vessel from a river port (or seaport) directly to a seaport (or river port) without any intermediate port calls. The third is hybrid directness, meaning that the passenger is carried on a single vessel from a river port (or seaport) to a seaport (or river port), and that the vessel may make intermediate port calls at other seaports but not at other river ports.Whether one proceeds from the legislative purpose of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision), or from the coherence of the Law as a whole and the interrelationship among its provisions, each of the foregoing literal interpretations is tenable. The fact that the cruise ship carrying Passenger 2 calls at Wuhan and Shanghai places Transport Scenario 2 at the intersection of these three interpretations. Such a situation gives rise to uncertainty regarding the applicability of law and ultimately produces adverse consequences for commercial practice and judicial proceedings. The underlying cause of this uncertainty is that the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) fails to consider and address the legal issues concerning the applicability of law to inland water carriage of passengers that is closely connected with carriage of passengers by sea.
In addition, pursuant to Article 105 of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision), carriage of passengers by sea refers to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by vessel by sea route. Neither the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) nor any other law provides a clear definition of the key term “by sea route” in Article 105. The issues concerning the applicability of law arising from this term are discussed in the analysis of Transport Scenario 1 above.
Transport Scenario 3: Passenger 3 boards a cruise ship at Chongqing (river port). After calling at Wuhan (river port) and Shanghai (seaport/river port), the cruise ship proceeds to Fuzhou (seaport). Passenger 3 may temporarily disembark at Shanghai (seaport/river port) or Fuzhou (seaport) for sightseeing. On the return voyage, the cruise ship calls at Nanjing (river port) before returning to Chongqing (river port), where Passenger 3 disembarks.
Applicability Issue: Articles 2 and 105 of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) provide that a contract for carriage of passengers by sea refers to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by vessel by sea route. If Passenger 3 temporarily disembarks at Shanghai (seaport/river port) or Fuzhou (seaport) for sightseeing, the entire transport process under Transport Scenario 3 may be divided into two stages: Chongqing (river port) to Fuzhou (seaport), and Fuzhou (seaport) to Chongqing (river port). Whether each stage, as well as the transport process as a whole, is governed by the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) may be analyzed by reference to Transport Scenarios 1, 2, and 5 below. If, however, Passenger 3 does not temporarily disembark at Shanghai (seaport/river port) or Fuzhou (seaport), but instead remains on board the cruise ship throughout the voyage, Transport Scenario 3 gives rise to an additional issue beyond those discussed in Transport Scenarios 1, 2, and 5: does the “carriage” of Passenger 3 by the cruise ship from Chongqing back to Chongqing constitute “carriage of passengers” within the meaning of Articles 2 and 105 of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision)?
Analysis: Neither the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) nor any other law provides a clear definition of the key term “carriage of passengers” as used in Articles 2 and 105. As discussed in Transport Scenario 1 above, the term should therefore be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning through literal interpretation. However, “carriage of passengers” admits at least two possible literal interpretations. The first interpretation is that carriage of passengers exists so long as a vessel carries passengers and undertakes an actual voyage, regardless of whether the place of embarkation and the place of disembarkation are identical. The second interpretation is that a vessel must carry passengers and undertake an actual voyage, and the place of embarkation and the place of disembarkation must not be identical, that is, the passenger must undergo geographical displacement.Whether one proceeds from the legislative purpose of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision), or from the coherence of the Law as a whole and the interrelationship among its provisions, each of the foregoing literal interpretations is to some extent tenable. The fact that Passenger 3 boards the cruise ship at Chongqing, undergoes a voyage involving calls at multiple river ports and seaports, and ultimately returns to Chongqing places Transport Scenario 3 at the intersection of the foregoing interpretations. Such a situation gives rise to uncertainty regarding the applicability of law and ultimately produces adverse consequences for commercial practice and judicial proceedings. The underlying cause of this uncertainty is that the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) fails to consider and address the legal issues concerning the applicability of law to inland water carriage of passengers that is closely connected with the new form of carriage of passengers by sea, namely cruise tourism transport.
Transport Scenario 4: Passenger 4 boards a cruise ship at Wuhan (river port). The cruise ship calls at Shanghai (seaport/river port) before proceeding to Fuzhou (seaport). Passenger 4 may temporarily disembark at Shanghai (seaport/river port) or Fuzhou (seaport) for sightseeing. On the return voyage, the cruise ship calls at Nanjing (river port) and Chongqing (river port) before proceeding to Nanchong (inland river port) on the Jialing River, where Passenger 4 disembarks.
Applicability Issue and Analysis: The difference between Transport Scenarios 3 and 4 is that, in the former, the passenger returns to the port of embarkation and therefore undergoes no geographical displacement, whereas in the latter, the ports of embarkation and disembarkation are different and the passenger does undergo geographical displacement. If Passenger 4 temporarily disembarks at Shanghai (seaport/river port) or Fuzhou (seaport) for sightseeing, the analyses of Transport Scenarios 1, 2, and 5 may be referred to in determining whether the entire transport process under Transport Scenario 4, as well as the two transport stages involved, falls within the scope of application of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision). If Passenger 4 does not temporarily disembark at Shanghai (seaport/river port) or Fuzhou (seaport), but instead remains on board the cruise ship throughout the voyage, the analyses of Transport Scenarios 1, 2, and 5 may likewise be referred to in determining whether Transport Scenario 4 falls within the scope of application of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision).
Transport Scenario 5: Passenger 5 boards a cruise ship at Wuhan (river port). The cruise ship calls at Shanghai (seaport/river port) before proceeding to Fuzhou (seaport). Passenger 5 may temporarily disembark at Shanghai (seaport/river port) or Fuzhou (seaport) for sightseeing. On the return voyage, the cruise ship calls at Nanjing (river port), where Passenger 5 disembarks.
Applicability Issue: Pursuant to Article 2 and Article 105 of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision), the Law applies to carriage of passengers and their luggage by vessel by sea route, including direct sea-river transport and direct river-sea transport. (Note: Transport Scenario 5 gives rise to the same issues concerning the applicability of law as those arising under Transport Scenarios 1, 2, and 4, including issues relating to “sea (port),” “river (port),” “sea-river,” “river-sea,” “direct transport,” and the dual-function seaport/river port aspect of “by sea route.” Those issues will not be repeated here. Under Transport Scenario 5, the analysis focuses only on the degree-related aspect of “by sea route,” which likewise arises under Transport Scenarios 1–4.) In Transport Scenario 5, both the port of embarkation and the port of disembarkation are river ports, while the cruise ship passes through a (small) portion of sea route during the overall voyage. Does such transport constitute carriage of passengers by sea involving direct sea-river transport or direct river-sea transport within the meaning of Article 2, thereby bringing it within the scope of application of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision)?
Analysis: Neither the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) nor any other law provides a clear definition of the key term “by sea route” in Article 105, particularly with respect to the degree requirement - namely, the extent to which a transport route must proceed “by sea route” before the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) becomes applicable. As discussed in Transport Scenario 1 above, the phrase “by sea route” admits at least four possible literal interpretations in terms of degree. The first interpretation is that the port of embarkation and the port of disembarkation must respectively be a river port and a seaport, and that the majority of the transport route must consist of sea routes. The second interpretation is that the port of embarkation and the port of disembarkation must respectively be a river port and a seaport, and that part of the transport route must consist of sea routes. The third interpretation is that, regardless of whether the ports of embarkation and disembarkation are river ports or seaports, the majority of the transport route must consist of sea routes. The fourth interpretation is that, regardless of whether the ports of embarkation and disembarkation are river ports or seaports, part of the transport route must consist of sea routes.Whether one proceeds from the legislative purpose of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision), or from the coherence of the Law as a whole and the interrelationship among its provisions, each of the foregoing literal interpretations is tenable. Yet the adoption of any of these interpretations may produce unintended consequences. If the first or third interpretation is adopted, every transport contract and legal dispute will inevitably become entangled in determining the proportion between sea routes and river routes, as well as the criterion by which that proportion should be measured, such as distance, voyage time, or transportation cost. If the first or second interpretation is adopted, the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) may fail to govern a substantial number of new forms of carriage of passengers by sea, particularly cruise tourism transport. Such a situation gives rise to uncertainty regarding the applicability of law and ultimately produces adverse consequences for commercial practice and judicial proceedings. The immediate cause of this uncertainty lies in the absence of clear legal definitions of key terms such as “by sea route.” The underlying cause, however, remains the failure of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) to adequately consider the legal issues concerning cruise tourism transport and inland water carriage of passengers that is closely connected with carriage of passengers by sea.
In light of the foregoing, the potential defect in Article 2 of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) may affect the Law’s application to carriage of passengers by sea and should therefore be remedied without delay. With respect to both the immediate cause of this potential defect - the absence of legal definitions for key terms - and its underlying cause - the failure to consider and address inland water transport that is closely connected with maritime transport - the author proposes that inland water transport be divided into two categories. The first category consists of inland water transport that is closely connected with maritime transport (that is, inland water transport that is non-traditional or not inland water transport in the true sense). The second category consists of traditional or genuine inland water transport (that is, inland water transport that is not closely connected with maritime transport). The first category should be brought within the scope of application of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision). Given that the Law has only recently entered into force, amendment of the statutory text itself would not be advisable. In the author’s view, the optimal corrective approach is the adoption of legal interpretations (which possess the same legal force as legislation) and judicial interpretations (which are binding upon courts in adjudication). Specific proposals are set out below.
First, categorization and definition. The Ministry of Transport, together with the Supreme People’s Court, should convene experts in shipping and law to conduct a comprehensive study combining theory and practice. Such experts should propose the classification of inland water transport into two categories - namely, inland water transport that is closely connected with maritime transport and traditional or genuine inland water transport - and should further provide recommendations concerning the legal definitions of key terms appearing in Articles 2 and 105 of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision), including “maritime transport,” “sea-river”, “river-sea”, “direct transport”,and “by sea route”.
Second, legal interpretation. Drawing upon the opinions and recommendations of the aforementioned experts, the Ministry of Transport should request the State Council, pursuant to Article 49(1) of the Legislation Law (2023 Revision), to submit a request for legal interpretation to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. The Standing Committee should then adopt and promulgate a legal interpretation pursuant to Article 48(2)(1) of that Law. Such interpretation should clarify the specific meanings of the key terms discussed above and bring within the scope of the Maritime Law (2025 Revision) - particularly Chapter V concerning contracts for the carriage of passengers by sea - those forms of inland water carriage that are closely connected with carriage of passengers by sea.
Third, judicial interpretation. To ensure that any legal interpretation adopted by the Standing Committee is effectively implemented in judicial practice, the Supreme People’s Court may, pursuant to the Provisions on Strengthening Judicial Interpretation Work, formulate and promulgate relevant judicial interpretations, such as Provisions Concerning the Adjudication of Inland Water Transport Disputes or Provisions Concerning the Application of the Maritime Law of the People’s Republic of China. Such judicial interpretations should specifically define the nature, characteristics, and scope of inland water transport that is closely connected with maritime transport, and should further provide concrete guidance regarding the interpretation and application of the key terms discussed above in judicial proceedings.
The Maritime Law (2025 Revision) successfully harmonizes the legal regimes governing domestic and international carriage of passengers by sea, an achievement worthy of international recognition. However, the Law omits that part of inland water carriage which is closely connected with carriage of passengers by sea. As a result, Article 2 contains a potential defect: it fails to define clearly the scope of the Law’s application to carriage of passengers by sea. This is a matter of some regret. The author sincerely hopes that the relevant authorities will re-examine, from a forward-looking perspective, the integrated and indivisible nature of China’s waterborne transport system. In light of the practical needs of both commercial practice and judicial adjudication, the potential defect in Article 2 should be remedied, uncertainty concerning the applicability of law should be eliminated, and the legitimate expectations of passenger carriers, passengers, and other relevant market participants, as well as consistency in judicial decision-making, should be protected to the greatest extent possible. Such efforts would constitute an important step toward achieving greater uniformity in the application of law throughout the waterborne transport sector.
YANG Xiaoke, LIN Jiang
Hisun & Co
June 22, 2026
沪公网安备 31011502019944号