“Across the Atlantic, in 1946, Lord Justice Scott said in the ‘Tolten’: The language of Lord Watson there echoes many previous judicial opinions that British maritime law derives originally, and continues to get inspiration from the general law of the sea prevailing amongst maritime nations; e.g., of Lord Mansfield who in 1759 said in Luke v. Lyde (1759) 2 Burr. 882, 887 “the maritime” law is not the law of a particular country, but the general “law of nations,” meaning that admiralty judges should still look for inspiration to the parent source.
This recognition of the immanent international character of maritime law (albeit ultimately municipal) is important to remember. It is too often ignored. Naturally, a degree of national diversity is to be expected – it is in the order of things one might say. However, if maritime law disintegrates into a multitude of conflicting commercial laws no one who regularly engages in international commerce will ultimately gain. In the end such fragmentation increases costs of transactions, mistrust and uncertainty, and increase the need for lengthy and costly negotiation of international agreements.”
The second inclination: that of courts to offer into the allurement to keep a case 's piece inside of the picked neighbourhood purview, neglects to pay adequate admiration to the significance of the proficient manner of worldwide business. The New York Convention and the Model Law manage a standout amongst the most essential parts of global