{"id":3588,"date":"2005-04-05T08:54:49","date_gmt":"2005-04-05T07:54:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3588"},"modified":"2016-06-20T08:55:23","modified_gmt":"2016-06-20T07:55:23","slug":"award-1108","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2005\/04\/05\/award-1108\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1108"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award N\u00b0 1108 \u2013 (second degree) Collision. <\/strong>A collision occurred in an entrance channel to a port between an incoming ro-rocarrier and an outgoing coaster. Both ships violated the same rules of the International Regulations for Avoiding Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) but the arbitral. Tribunal found that the ro-ro carrier bears a more important share of responsibility (55% against 45% for the coaster) because of her failure to properly carry out the ultimate evasive action to avoid the collision. \u00ab Da mihi factum, dabo tibi jus \u00bb.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award N\u00b0 1108 \u2013 (second degree) Collision. A collision occurred in an entrance channel to a port between an incoming ro-rocarrier and an outgoing coaster. Both ships violated the same rules of the International Regulations for Avoiding Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) but the arbitral. Tribunal found that the ro-ro carrier bears a more important share<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3588","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3588","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3588"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3588\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3589,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3588\/revisions\/3589"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3588"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3588"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3588"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}