From Divergence to Convergence: Developing a Common Legal Regime for Maritime Cargo Claims in the GCC

Maritime cargo claims in the Gulf Cooperation Council arise within a tightly knit shipping environment, yet they are decided under six national legal systems. This article examines the fragmentation and harmonisation of cargo claims law in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar. Using doctrinal, functional comparative and normative approaches, it compares domestic maritime legislation with the Hague, Hague-Visby, Hamburg and Rotterdam Rules, with English and Singaporean case law as an interpretive reference. The analysis covers carrier obligations, burden of proof, defences, limitation, contractual clauses, notice and time bars, evidence, arbitration and enforcement. The study concludes that fragmentation is not mainly caused by differences in substantive liability rules. All six systems share a common liability structure: custody-based responsibility, seaworthiness and cargo care, staged burden-shifting, conditional limitation and the priority of mandatory law over contractual freedom. Divergence arises chiefly from statutory drafting, the period of responsibility, evidentiary and expert practice, translation, judicial interpretation, limited publication of judgments and enforcement. Harmonisation is therefore asymmetrical: the language of liability has converged, but outcomes have not. International conventions are essential but insufficient, and functional convergence already exists through arbitration, marine insurers, Protection and Indemnity Clubs and claims professionals, although public law does not organise it. The article proposes structured functional convergence, realised through a modular Model Gulf Cooperation Council Maritime Cargo Claims Law that harmonises substantive principles, judicial reasoning, procedural expectations, private ordering and regional review while preserving national legal autonomy.