According to UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), maritime transport carries more than 80% of the volume of international trade in goods. Global seaborne trade grew by 2.2% in 2024, is expected to expand by only 0.5% in 2025, and is projected to grow at an average annual rate of around 2% between 2026 and 2030. Against this backdrop, managing legal and contractual risk in international shipping remains increasingly important for companies engaged in cross-border trade.
Against this backdrop, developing clear legal frameworks for issues arising from international trade and the maritime transport of goods is becoming increasingly important for companies worldwide. International trade and maritime law remain highly specialized fields, governed by regulatory complexities that may not be apparent to those outside the profession.
Alina Butrim, a researcher and expert in international maritime and transport law and included on the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Reserve List of Arbitrators, has conducted a series of studies on the legal risks associated with international trade and maritime shipping. The series examines where potential issues can arise at different stages of a transaction and which of these risks can be addressed at the contract-drafting stage.
Retention of title: when a safeguard can work against the seller
Retaining title to goods until the buyer has paid for them may seem like a straightforward way to protect the seller. If the buyer fails to pay, the seller can, in addition to pursuing a legal claim, potentially resell the goods to another buyer. In international trade, however, the situation is rarely that simple. The very purpose of a retention-of-title arrangement is to allow the goods to begin their journey to the buyer before ownership passes. By the time the seller decides to resell them, the goods may therefore be in any number of locations, including under the control of the buyer or its agents. They may already have been commingled with goods belonging to other parties, not just the buyer. They may be held in a third-party warehouse, which could seek payment from the owner if the buyer has failed to pay storage charges. The goods could even end up aboard a sanctioned vessel, turning their recovery into a complex process involving government authorities. These are scenarios businesses would rather not contemplate, but careful planning at the contract-drafting stage can make the seller’s potential risks more manageable and less costly.
Mismatched Incoterms: risks and practical solutions
In her study on mismatched Incoterms, Alina Butrim highlights that using different Incoterms across purchase and sale contracts can create gaps in obligations, customs responsibilities and the point at which risk passes between parties. Traders often purchase cargo under one Incoterms basis and sell it under another. Although reliance on Incoterms can be so strong, other contractual provisions governing equally important matters, such as force majeure or time limits for bringing claims, may receive insufficient attention, and the total result can be poor. It is also easy to overlook that different Incoterms basis may impose different obligations before public authorities (especially customs) and provide for different times when risk passes from one party to another. If these differences are not properly addressed, a situation may arise in which the seller has already fulfilled its obligations, but the cargo is lost before the risk has passed to the trader’s customer.
What lawyers should check in a charterparty
Maritime law is undoubtedly a highly specialized field. Yet it is not an area reserved for a limited number of experts, but a sphere of law with its own principles, rules and established logic. For lawyers who do not specialize in maritime law, a charterparty can appear daunting. Nevertheless, understanding its terms is both possible and essential, as the potential losses can be substantial and seemingly minor details may become pitfalls that a shipowner could seek to exploit in the event of a dispute.
Sanctions are not force majeure
In a separate study, Butrim notes that sanctions do not automatically constitute force majeure, as the outcome depends on the governing law, contractual wording and specific circumstances.
Here, Alina Butrim examines an issue that many companies would rather not consider: what happens if, at some point during negotiations, a company decides to withdraw and not proceed with the transaction? It is often assumed that, until a contract has been signed, either party is free to walk away. In practice, however, the issue is more complex. The parties’ relationship does not exist in a legal vacuum before they sign a contract containing a governing law clause. Rules vary significantly across jurisdictions, ranging from virtually no protection in some cases to substantial legal remedies in others. Although withdrawing from negotiations at a late stage is relatively uncommon, it is practical to know for any company what potential legal risks they need to take into account when making such decisions.
General average: what protections are available to cargo owners?
The final study in the series examines the options available to cargo owners when a shipowner declares a general average. In her study on general average, Alina Butrim notes that cargo owners may, in certain circumstances, have grounds to challenge a shipowner’s declaration or conduct, depending on the governing law, contractual terms and facts of the case.
Beyond statutory provisions
In her research series, Alina Butrim analyzed the laws and case law of different jurisdictions, as well as the application of Incoterms (International Commercial Terms), a set of rules developed by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). A key feature of Ms. Butrim’s research is its focus not on individual legal provisions in isolation, but on how they operate in practice. “The same cargo may simultaneously be subject to a sales contract, carriage arrangements, insurance, banking documentation and customs requirements. If something goes wrong, all of these mechanisms come into play at the same time,” Ms. Butrim explains. She emphasizes that the broader goal of her research was to determine how market participants acting in good faith can take timely steps to protect their interests.
From theory to practice
Butrim’s research has begun appearing on i-law, a UK-based specialist legal platform serving professional and academic audiences.
Reviewers noted that Butrim’s research series occupies a distinct practical niche in the existing literature, bridging analysis with the way these issues are addressed by practitioners.
“This is important to me because the series was conceived as research whose findings should benefit practitioners,” Butrim says.
She plans to continue exploring specialized issues arising from disputes in maritime law and international trading. The first six studies are intended to mark the beginning of a longer-term research examining how risks arise for parties involved in international trade and maritime transportation, and what mechanisms can be used to mitigate them.