One of the great realizations of CMR lies in the fact that it provides uniform rules for contracts for carriage of goods by road. This doesn't mean however that the Convention unified the entire field of road transport logistics, as the scope of application of CMR is restricted by 10 conditions. Despite the great importance of the demarcation of the scope of application, the Convention doesn't provide any guidance as to the interpretation of these conditions. Albeit VCLT requires a treaty autonomous interpretation of the Convention, with this, the Convention gives a wide discretionary margin to individual judges. As a result, judges tend to take into account national law rules to decide upon the applicability and even turn to desirability arguments. With ongoing evolutions in logistics this discretionary margin can even further increase. Literature on VCLT permits an evolutionary evolution of Conventions, in so far the Convention itself implicitly or explicitly permits such interpretation. VCLT itself doesn't give any guidelines of such evolutionary interpretation. With this, individual judges first need to decide whether the Convention was intended to allow for an evolutionary interpretation and later they need to decide what such interpretation would mean for the applicability of the Convention. Unless a new mechanism to safeguard the uniform interpretation of article 1 can be developed, the uniformity brought by CMR is thus at risk to disappear in the future due to the absence of a uniform determination of the scope of application in national case law.

中文翻译：

---

国家法官作为 CMR 公约的守门人

CMR 的伟大实现之一在于它为公路货物运输合同提供了统一的规则。然而，这并不意味着公约统一了整个道路运输物流领域，因为 CMR 的适用范围受到 10 个条件的限制。尽管划分适用范围非常重要，但公约并未就这些条件的解释提供任何指导。尽管 VCLT 要求对公约进行条约自主解释，因此，公约为个别法官提供了广泛的自由裁量权。因此，法官倾向于考虑国家法律规则来决定适用性，甚至转向合意性论点。随着物流的不断发展，这种可自由支配的利润率甚至可以进一步增加。关于 VCLT 的文献允许公约的进化演变，到目前为止，公约本身隐含或明确地允许这种解释。VCLT 本身并没有给出这种进化解释的任何指导方针。有了这个，个别法官首先需要决定公约是否旨在允许进化解释，然后他们需要决定这种解释对公约的适用性意味着什么。除非能够建立新的机制来保障第一条的统一解释，否则由于国家判例法中没有统一确定适用范围，CMR带来的统一性在未来有消失的风险。到目前为止，公约本身默示或明确允许这种解释。VCLT 本身并没有给出这种进化解释的任何指导方针。有了这个，个别法官首先需要决定公约是否旨在允许进化解释，然后他们需要决定这种解释对公约的适用性意味着什么。除非能够建立新的机制来保障第一条的统一解释，否则由于国家判例法中没有统一确定适用范围，CMR带来的统一性在未来有消失的风险。到目前为止，公约本身默示或明确允许这种解释。VCLT 本身并没有给出这种进化解释的任何指导方针。有了这个，个别法官首先需要决定公约是否旨在允许进化解释，然后他们需要决定这种解释对公约的适用性意味着什么。除非能够建立新的机制来保障第一条的统一解释，否则由于国家判例法中没有统一确定适用范围，CMR带来的统一性在未来有消失的风险。个别法官首先需要决定《公约》是否意在允许渐进式解释，然后他们需要决定这种解释对《公约》的适用性意味着什么。除非能够建立新的机制来保障第一条的统一解释，否则由于国家判例法中没有统一确定适用范围，CMR带来的统一性在未来有消失的风险。个别法官首先需要决定《公约》是否意在允许渐进式解释，然后他们需要决定这种解释对《公约》的适用性意味着什么。除非能够建立新的机制来保障第一条的统一解释，否则由于国家判例法中没有统一确定适用范围，CMR带来的统一性在未来有消失的风险。