Cross-border cases involving admiralty and bankruptcy law are troublesome because of the fundamentally different natures of the policy objectives of these two private avenues. The current declining shipping market shows the urgent need to address these issues at both a theoretical and practical level. The basic problem considered in this dissertation is what should happen when a ship owner files an insolvency proceeding in one country, while at the same time facing an in rem action against its vessel in another country? In other words, should the in rem action arising in one country be stayed or dismissed because of the existence of insolvency proceedings in another country? This dissertation also discusses the relevant issues regarding the determination of the “center of main interest” of an offshore shipping company and the scope of a debtor’s assets. The author uses a comparative law analysis, selecting four leading shipping countries—Australia, the U.K., the U.S., and Singapore—and examining their approaches to the treatment of maritime claimants. The author also proposes a solution to help eliminate the ambiguity occurred in maritime cross-border insolvency cases under the UNCITRAL Model Law regime, with an eye to enhancing the development of the shipping industry.
