{"id":122320,"date":"2026-01-06T12:39:04","date_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:39:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=122320"},"modified":"2026-01-09T11:40:38","modified_gmt":"2026-01-09T11:40:38","slug":"japan-shipping","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/japan-shipping\/","title":{"rendered":"Japan: Shipping"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-122320","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-shipping","jurisdictions-japan"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">City-Yuwa Partners<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2020\/04\/Type-B_CY_Square.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">City-Yuwa Partners<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2020\/04\/Type-B_CY_Square.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Shipping laws and regulations applicable in Japan<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What system of port state control applies in your jurisdiction? What are their powers?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Japan\u2019s Port State Control (PSC) is conducted under the framework of the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Tokyo MOU) by the Port State Control Officers (PSCOs)\u2014Maritime Technical Specialists and Foreign Ship Inspectors\u2014who belong to the Regional Transport Bureaus of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism and are appointed pursuant to the Act for Establishment of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism and the Regional Transport Bureau Organization Rules and the Regulations for the Organizational Structure of the Regional Land Transportation Bureaus. Acting under applicable international conventions, including the <em>International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships<\/em> (MARPOL), the <em>International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers<\/em> (STCW), and the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC), as well as their domestic implementing legislation such as the Ship Safety Act, the Act on Prevention of Marine Pollution and Maritime Disaster, the Seafarers Act, and the Act on Ships\u2019 Officers and Small Vessel Operators, the powers of PSCOs include: (i) conducting document review and onboard inspections, including operational tests of equipment and systems, to oversee the adequacy of navigational safety, crew working and living conditions, and marine pollution prevention; (ii) where serious deficiencies or non-conformities are identified, ordering corrective measures, imposing detention (prohibition of departure) until rectification, and notifying the flag State and the recognised organisation (RO); and (iii) in accordance with Tokyo MOU procedures, recommending refusal of access in cases of repeat non-compliance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any applicable international conventions covering wreck removal or pollution? If not what laws apply?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Japan is a party to the 2001 <em>International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage<\/em> (Bunker Convention\u201d) and the 2007 <em>Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks<\/em> (Nairobi Convention). For domestic implementation, the revised Act on Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (amending the former Act on Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage) entered into force on 1 October 2020 applies.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the limit on sulphur content of fuel oil used in your territorial waters? Is there a MARPOL Emission Control Area in force?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>At present, the waters surrounding Japan are not designated as Emission Control Areas (ECAs) under MARPOL Annex VI. Accordingly, in these waters, including Japan\u2019s territorial seas, the MARPOL Annex VI global sulphur cap of 0.50% m\/m has applied since 1 January 2020. Compliance may be achieved either by using fuel oil with a sulphur content not exceeding 0.50% m\/m (mass by mass) or by using equivalent measures such as exhaust gas cleaning systems commonly known as scrubbers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any applicable international conventions covering collision and salvage? If not what laws apply?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Collision: Japan is a party to the 1910 <em>Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with Respect to Collisions between Vessels<\/em>, but its provisions were not directly incorporated into domestic law. Japan later implemented collision-avoidance rules by adopting the 1889 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea through the Act on Preventing Collisions at Sea, then ratified the 1972 <em>Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea<\/em> (COLREGs) and comprehensively revised Act on Preventing Collisions at Sea (Act No. 62 of 1977, as amended) has been in force.<\/p>\n<p>Salvage: Japan is a party to the 1910 I<em>nternational Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Assistance and Salvage at Sea<\/em> and has enacted the Marine Salvage Act (Act No. 99 of 1910) as the domestic legislation. Japan is not a party to the 1989 International Convention on Salvage, accordingly, the 1910 Convention applies as a treaty where its conditions are met. Separately, Japan is a party to the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is your country party to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims? If not, is there equivalent domestic legislation that applies? Who can rely on such limitation of liability provisions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Japan is a party to the 1976 <em>Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims<\/em> (1976 LLMC), and the Protocol of 1996 amending 1976 LLMC (1996 LLMC) entered into force in Japan on 1 August 2006.<\/p>\n<p>The Act on Limitation of Shipowner Liability is a domestic implementation of the 1996 LLMC. Under the Act, the \u201cshipowner\u201d (the owner, lessee, or charterer of a ship; or the member with unlimited liability of a corporation that is the owner, lessee, or charterer of a ship), the \u201csalvor\u201d (a person rendering services in direct connection with salvage operations), and \u201cservant or equivalent person\u201d (the servant of a shipowner or salvor, or any other such person for whose actions the shipowner or salvor is responsible) may limit their liability under certain conditions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">If cargo arrives delayed, lost or damaged, what can the receiver do to secure their claim? Is your country party to the 1952 Arrest Convention? If your country has ratified the 1999 Convention, will that be applied, or does that depend upon the 1999 Convention coming into force? If your country does not apply any Convention, (and\/or if your country allows ships to be detained other than by formal arrest) what rules apply to permit the detention of a ship, and what limits are there on the right to arrest or detain (for example, must there be a \u201cmaritime claim\u201d, and, if so, how is that defined)? Is it possible to arrest in order to obtain security for a claim to be pursued in another jurisdiction or in arbitration?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Unless the carrier can prove that it did not neglect due care, it is liable for compensation for damage caused by delayed delivery of the goods. The Commercial Code, which is Japan&#8217;s general maritime law, does not provide for maritime lien covering cargo claims in general, and it is common for the consignee to secure its rights through insurance or other means.<\/p>\n<p>Japan is not a signatory to the 1999 <em>International Convention on the Arrest of Ships.<\/em> Instead, the arrest of a ship is governed by the Civil Execution Act and the Civil Provisional Remedies Act. Provisional seizure under the Civil Provisional Remedies Act allows a claim to be secured in the principal action. Under the Civil Execution Act, an order for the delivery of the ship&#8217;s certificate of nationality is obtained before filing a petition for execution against the ship. The seized ship is then put up for compulsory auction and the creditor receives payment from the sale proceeds. In most cases, provisional seizure of a ship and its subsequent arrest for compulsory auction are carried out by a court execution officer seizing the ship&#8217;s certificate of nationality and ordering its submission to the court. This prevents the debtor from disposing of or moving the ship and aims to achieve final compulsory execution. However, the execution and provisional seizure of a ship&#8217;s certificate of nationality cannot be carried out against a ship at sea (except one at anchor).<\/p>\n<p>Regarding the arrest of a ship to secure a claim in litigation or arbitration proceedings in another jurisdiction, a lower court precedent has been found in an individual case in which the jurisdiction of a provisional seizure order against a ship in Japan was recognised to secure a future judgment in a foreign court as follows:<\/p>\n<p>(i) Although the Japanese court&#8217;s jurisdiction may be excluded as a result of an agreement between the parties, if the object of the provisional seizure is located in Japan and there is a possibility that it may be executed in the future based on the judgment of a foreign court, the Japanese court has jurisdiction over the provisional seizure order case.<\/p>\n<p>(ii) Regarding the enforceability of a judgment that will be rendered in the future by a foreign court, if the requirements of Article 200, Items 1 and 4 of the former Code of Civil Procedure will be met at the provisional injunction order stage, the judgment&#8217;s enforceability can be affirmed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">For an arrest, are there any special or notable procedural requirements, such as the provision of a PDF or original power of attorney to authorise you to act?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Civil Procedure stipulate that documents submitted to the court, such as powers of attorney, which require a signature or seal, can be submitted if measures are taken to clarify the name or title, for example by using an electronic signature in accordance with the Electronic Signature Law. However, as there have recently been major changes to the relevant authorities&#8217; legal framework and practices for the digitisation of civil court procedures, please check the latest applicable rules and practices at the time of submission.<\/p>\n<p>Please note that Japanese courts only accept documents in Japanese. When submitting documents written in a foreign language, including English, for use as evidence, it is necessary to attach a translation of the part of the document for which examination by the court is requested.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What maritime liens \/ maritime privileges are recognised in your jurisdiction? Is recognition a matter for the law of the forum, the law of the place where the obligation was incurred, the law of the flag of the vessel, or another system of law?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The following maritime liens are recognised in Japan under the Commercial Code, the Act on Limitation of Shipowner Liability and the Act on Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage.<\/p>\n<p>(a) Article 842 of the Commercial Code.<\/p>\n<p>A person who has the following claims shall have a maritime lien on the ship and its appurtenances.<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Claims for damages arising from death or injury of a person directly related to the operation of the ship<\/li>\n<li>Claims relating to salvage charges or claims based on the sharing of general average expenses that are the responsibility of the ship<\/li>\n<li>Claims relating to various taxes, pilotage fees or towage fees incurred in relation to the ship&#8217;s entry into port, use of port facilities or other aspects of the ship&#8217;s voyage<\/li>\n<li>Claims relating to expenses necessary for the continuation of the voyage<\/li>\n<li>Claims of the master and other crew members arising from employment contracts<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>(b) Article 95, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Limitation of Shipowner Liability<\/p>\n<p>A creditor who is entitled to the limitation of liability against a shipowner or other obligor has a maritime lien on the ship and its appurtenances involved in the accident.<\/p>\n<p>(c) Article 55, Paragraph 1 of Act on Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage<\/p>\n<p>A creditor in relation to tanker oil pollution compensation has a maritime lien on the ship and its equipment involved in the accident in relation to the limited claim.<\/p>\n<p>In Japan, the prevailing view is that the creation of a maritime lien is based on the cumulative application of the law of the flag state and the law of the secured claim, and that the effect of a maritime lien is governed by the law of the flag state, but there are also many court decisions that have reached a different conclusion.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is it a requirement that the owner or demise charterer of the vessel be liable in personam? Or can a vessel be arrested in respect of debts incurred by, say, a charterer who has bought but not paid for bunkers or other necessaries?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Japan does not recognise actions <em>in rem.<\/em> Ship arrests are carried out through provisional attachment. If the claim is secured by a maritime lien under Article 842 of the Commercial Code or by a ship mortgage, an arrest can be made even if the registered owner is not personally liable. In the absence of such security, arresting a vessel as property generally requires the debtor to be the shipowner.<\/p>\n<p>As for unpaid bunkers and other necessities, claims may fall within \u201cexpenses necessary for the continuation of the voyage\u201d as set out in Article 842. According to Paragraph 1(4) of the Commercial Code, expenditure is only attributable to the owner (including through the master acting within authority) if it is incurred by the owner. However, if bunkers were supplied solely on the account of a time charterer, Japanese courts generally do not recognise a maritime lien over the vessel and an arrest on that basis would not be permitted.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are sister ship or associated ship arrests possible?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Where the debtor is the registered owner of multiple vessels, it is permissible under Japanese law to arrest another vessel owned by the same debtor in order to secure a maritime claim, even when the underlying claim pertains to a different vessel. This reflects the availability of sister-ship arrest through provisional attachment.<\/p>\n<p>By contrast, Japanese law accords significant weight to the formal registered ownership of a vessel and to the separate legal personality of each corporate entity. Principles such as beneficial ownership or group-enterprise liability are not recognised. Consequently, associated-ship arrest is not permitted, and a vessel owned by another company within the same corporate group\u2014whether a parent, subsidiary or affiliate\u2014cannot be arrested, save for the exceptional and narrowly construed circumstances in which the corporate veil may legitimately be pierced.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does the arresting party need to put up counter-security as the price of an arrest? In what circumstances will the arrestor be liable for damages if the arrest is set aside?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>When a vessel is arrested through provisional attachment, Japanese courts customarily require the arresting party to provide counter-security\u2014typically a cash deposit or a bank guarantee\u2014in an amount set at the court\u2019s discretion, taking into account factors such as the size of the claim, the nature of the dispute, the supporting evidence, and potential prejudice to the debtor. In practice, the amount is often fixed as a percentage of the claim, commonly around 10 to 30 per cent, although this varies. The existence of a maritime lien or ship mortgage does not relieve the applicant of the obligation to furnish such security when seeking provisional relief.<\/p>\n<p>Japanese law also recognises liability for wrongful arrest. Damages arise only where the arresting party acted with intent or negligence, and in the context of a wrongful provisional attachment, negligence is ordinarily presumed absent special circumstances. That presumption may be rebutted if the arresting party demonstrates that it acted on reasonable grounds.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How can an owner secure the release of the vessel? For example, is a Club LOU acceptable security for the claim?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>A ship can be released in exchange for substitute security. Typically, the court will determine the form and amount of the security, which usually equates to the value of the claim plus accrued interest and anticipated costs. In practice, a cash deposit is the standard form of security accepted by the court. Depending on the court\u2019s practice and the circumstances, bank guarantees or insurance certificates may be accepted, but their use is limited. Japanese courts generally do not accept a P&amp;I Club letter of undertaking (LOU) as a substitute for a court deposit. However, ships are commonly released on a voluntary basis against a P&amp;I Club LOU if the claimant agrees, with the claimant withdrawing the application or agreeing to stay the enforcement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Describe the procedure for the judicial sale of arrested ships. What is the priority ranking of claims?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The judicial sale of arrested ships is carried out in accordance with the following procedures.<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Filing a petition for auction and prepayment of costs<\/li>\n<li>Execution of the seizure of the ship&#8217;s nationality certificate, etc. by order of commencement of a compulsory auction<\/li>\n<li>Appointment of a custodian and custody and management of the ship<\/li>\n<li>Investigation of the current situation, valuation and implementation of the sale as preparation for the sale<\/li>\n<li>Demand for distribution<\/li>\n<li>Implementation of the date of the auction and decision to permit the sale<\/li>\n<li>Payment of the price and dividend procedures<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>There are cases where the law of the flag state is applied for the order of priority of dividends, and cases where the law of the court district is applied, but in cases where the law of the court district is applied, the order of priority is:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Firstly: Maritime liens arising in relation to the ship in order of Article 842, Items 1 to 5 of the Commercial Code, followed by maritime liens under Article 95, Paragraph 1 of the Shipowner&#8217;s Liability Limitation Act and Article 55, Paragraph 1 of the Oil Pollution Act;<\/li>\n<li>Secondly: Registered ship mortgages;<\/li>\n<li>Thirdly: General statutory lien holders who have made a demand for distribution; and<\/li>\n<li>Fourthly: General unsecured creditors.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Who is liable under a bill of lading? How is \u201cthe carrier\u201d identified? Or is that not a relevant question?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>According to the Commercial Code and the Act on the International Carriage of Goods by Sea, it is the &#8216;carrier&#8217; who certifies receipt or shipment of goods, promising to deliver them in exchange at the designated location.<\/p>\n<p>The Commercial Code states that the name of the \u2018carrier\u2019 must be included in the bill of lading. However, in practice, the bill of lading form does not have a field for the carrier&#8217;s name, and the carrier is identified by the information in the signature field and the bill of lading&#8217;s heading.<\/p>\n<p>Regarding bills of lading issued for goods transported by a time-chartered ship, the Supreme Court of Japan held that the party responsible for carriage should be determined based on the bill of lading&#8217;s description, concluding that the ship&#8217;s owner, not the time charterer, should be held responsible as the carrier.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is the proper law of the bill of lading relevant? If so, how is it determined?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The proper law of a bill of lading matters because, in practice, it reflects the governing law of the contract of carriage underlying the bill of lading and incorporated into it. According to Article 7 of the Act on General Rules for Application of Laws of Japan, the choice of law made by the parties \u2014 whether expressly stated or implied from the terms and circumstances \u2014 will be respected. Accordingly, if the bill of lading contains a governing law clause, it will generally be applied.<\/p>\n<p>If no valid choice has been made, Article 8 of the Act applies the law of the country most closely connected with the contract. The focus of this inquiry is usually the party responsible for the main performance and their principal place of business; in carriage contracts, this is typically the carrier. However, if the circumstances reveal a closer connection to a different law, that law may apply. Factors such as the place of issue of the bill, the ports of loading and discharge, and the parties\u2019 principal places of business are considered when assessing the closest connection.<\/p>\n<p>Regardless of the governing law, overriding mandatory rules and internationally mandatory provisions may apply.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are jurisdiction clauses recognised and enforced?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In the Chisadane-go case (Supreme Court, 28 November 1975, Minshu, Vol. 29, No. 10, p. 1554), the Court recognised the validity of international jurisdiction clauses, holding that:<\/p>\n<p>(i) An agreement on international jurisdiction does not have to be in writing and signed by both parties; it is sufficient if the agreement is based on a document prepared by one party \u2014 such as a bill of lading \u2014 that expressly designates the courts of a particular country.<\/p>\n<p>(ii) An agreement that excludes Japanese jurisdiction and designates a foreign court as the court of first instance is, in principle, valid, provided the matter is not subject to Japan\u2019s exclusive jurisdiction, and provided the designated foreign court has jurisdiction under its own law. The agreement does not need to be valid under that foreign law, nor is reciprocity required for the recognition and enforcement of judgments between Japan and that country.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the attitude of your courts to the incorporation of a charterparty, specifically: is an arbitration clause in the charter given effect in the bill of lading context?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In a case where the shipper brought a lawsuit against the carrier in a Japanese court for indemnification for damage to cargo, the court found that the dispute should be resolved through arbitration, because the bill of lading contained a clause stating \u201call the terms, conditions and exceptions contained in the charter are hereby incorporated\u201d, and recognised the incorporation of the arbitration clause in the charter party into the bill of lading, denying Japanese jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<p>However, it is also argued that it is necessary to include in the bill of lading itself an important agreement on the court of jurisdiction or arbitration venue that enables the holder to seek legal redress, because it is to be expected that a third party unrelated to the shipper will become the holder of the bill of lading and acquire the right to demand delivery of the goods from the carrier.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is your country party to any of the international conventions concerning bills of lading (the Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules etc)? If so, which one, and how has it been adopted \u2013 by ratification, accession, or in some other manner? If not, how are such issues covered in your legal system?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Japan is a contracting state to the Hague-Visby Rules (the 1924 <em>International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading<\/em> as amended by the 1968 Protocol), which are given effect domestically by the Act on the International Carriage of Goods by Sea. The Act sets the minimum obligations and responsibilities of the carrier and the maximum extent of its rights and exemptions, and operates as mandatory law that invalidates any agreement contrary to the statutory provisions to the detriment of a shipper, consignee, or holder of a bill of lading. Japan is not a party to the Hamburg Rules (the 1978 <em>United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea<\/em>) or the Rotterdam Rules (the 2008 <em>United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea<\/em>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is your country party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards? If not, what rules apply? What are the available grounds to resist enforcement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Japan is a party to the 1958 <em>New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign arbitral awards<\/em>. As a result, recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are, in principle, governed by the Convention. Japan has adopted the reciprocity reservations. Where the Convention does not apply, recognition and enforcement are governed by the Arbitration Act of Japan and recognition an arbitration award may be refused in the following cases:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>the arbitration agreement is not valid due to the limited capacity of a party;<\/li>\n<li>the arbitration agreement is not valid on grounds other than the limited capacity of a party pursuant to the laws and regulations designated by the agreement of the parties as those which should be applied to the arbitration agreement (if said designation has not been made, the laws and regulations of the country to which the place of arbitration belongs);<\/li>\n<li>the party did not receive the notice required under the laws and regulations of the country to which the place of arbitration belongs (if the parties have reached an agreement on the matters concerning the provisions unrelated to public order in such laws and regulations, said agreement) in the procedure of appointing arbitrators or in the arbitration procedure;<\/li>\n<li>the party was unable to defense in the arbitration procedure;<\/li>\n<li>the arbitral award contains a decision on matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement or of a petition in the arbitration procedure;<\/li>\n<li>the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal or the arbitration procedure is in violation of the laws and regulations of the country to which the place of arbitration belongs (if the parties have reached an agreement on the matters concerning the provisions unrelated to public order in said laws and regulations, said agreement);<\/li>\n<li>according to the laws and regulations of the country to which the place of arbitration belongs (if the laws and regulations applied to the arbitration procedure are laws and regulations of a country other than the country to which the place of arbitration belongs, said other country) the arbitral award is not final and binding, or the arbitral award has been set aside or its effect has been suspended by a judicial body of that country;<\/li>\n<li>the petition filed in the arbitration procedure is concerned with a dispute which may not be subject to an arbitration agreement pursuant to the provisions of Japanese laws and regulations; or<\/li>\n<li>the content of the arbitral award is contrary to public policy in Japan.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Please summarise the relevant time limits for commencing suit in your jurisdiction (e.g. claims in contract or in tort, personal injury and other passenger claims, cargo claims, salvage and collision claims, product liability claims).<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p><strong>General Claim (Civil Code and Product Liability)<\/strong><\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong><span class=\"TextRun SCXW112717860 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW112717860 BCX8\">Type of claim<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW112717860 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong><span class=\"TextRun SCXW75852318 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW75852318 BCX8\">Period<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW75852318 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong><span class=\"TextRun SCXW263953238 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW263953238 BCX8\">Commencement<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW263953238 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>General contractual claims<\/td>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW86854510 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW86854510 BCX8\">5 years (10 years)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW86854510 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td>When the creditor knew the claim was exercisable (or when it became exercisable)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW50952454 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW50952454 BCX8\">Tort (general)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW50952454 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW189137955 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW189137955 BCX8\">3 years (20 years)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW189137955 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW201974537 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW201974537 BCX8\">When the victim knew the damage and the identity of the tortfeasor (or the time of the tortious act)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW201974537 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW180208179 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW180208179 BCX8\">Tort (death or personal injury)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW180208179 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW230744353 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW230744353 BCX8\">5 years (20 years)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW230744353 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW170556598 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW170556598 BCX8\">When the victim knew the damage and the identity of the tortfeasor (or the time of the tortious act)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW170556598 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW224833660 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW224833660 BCX8\">Product liability<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW224833660 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW138996972 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW138996972 BCX8\">3 years (10 years)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW138996972 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW149163193 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW149163193 BCX8\">When the victim knew the damage and the liable manufacturer (or the time of delivery of the product)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW149163193 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><span class=\"TextRun SCXW32310204 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW32310204 BCX8\" data-ccp-parastyle=\"heading 3\">Maritime<\/span><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW32310204 BCX8\" data-ccp-parastyle=\"heading 3\"> Claim<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW32310204 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;134245418&quot;:true,&quot;134245529&quot;:true,&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559738&quot;:200,&quot;335559739&quot;:0,&quot;335559740&quot;:360}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Type of claim<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong><span class=\"TextRun SCXW171662755 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW171662755 BCX8\">Period<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW171662755 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Commencement<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW227183466 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW227183466 BCX8\">Collision (property damage)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW227183466 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW235019623 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW235019623 BCX8\">2 years<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW235019623 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td>The time of the collision (tortious act)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW213447469 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW213447469 BCX8\">Carrier\u2019s liability for loss, damage, or delay (cargo)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW213447469 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW14569966 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW14569966 BCX8\">1 year<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW14569966 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td>The day the goods were delivered or ought to have been delivered<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Carrier\u2019s claims against shipper\/consignee (e.g., freight)<\/td>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW14569966 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW14569966 BCX8\">1 year<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW14569966 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td>When the carrier became entitled to exercise the claim<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW77512398 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW77512398 BCX8\">Passenger carriage claims<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW77512398 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW32609019 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW32609019 BCX8\">2 years<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW32609019 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td>The date of death, injury, or delay, as applicable<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW131835835 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW131835835 BCX8\">Salvage <\/span><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW131835835 BCX8\">remuneration<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW131835835 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td>2 years<\/td>\n<td>Completion of the salvage operations<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW242412182 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW242412182 BCX8\">General average contribution<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW242412182 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW14569966 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW14569966 BCX8\">1 year<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW14569966 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Completion of the general average calculation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Maritime lien (duration)<\/td>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW14569966 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW14569966 BCX8\">1 year<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW14569966 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td>When the lien arises<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Claims against tanker owner for oil pollution<\/td>\n<td><span class=\"TextRun SCXW135552695 BCX8\" lang=\"EN-GB\" xml:lang=\"EN-GB\" data-contrast=\"auto\"><span class=\"NormalTextRun SCXW135552695 BCX8\">3 years (6 years)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"EOP SCXW135552695 BCX8\" data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;335551550&quot;:2,&quot;335551620&quot;:2}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Date the damage occurred (and in any event 6 years from the first causative incident)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does your system of law recognize force majeure, or grant relief from undue hardship?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Japanese law does not define force majeure as a statutory concept. However, where non-performance is not attributable to the obligor, the obligor is not liable in damages under Article 415 of the Civil Code. The focus is not on foreseeability at the time of contracting but on whether the non-performance is attributable to the obligor. Issues of impossibility and counter-performance in bilateral contracts are addressed under the general principles of the Civil Code and the parties\u2019 contractual allocation of risk. Parties include a force majeure clause that identifies qualifying events, procedures, and consequences, and sets out the treatment of notice, suspension of performance, extensions of time, and termination.<\/p>\n<p>Similarly, Japanese law does not define undue hardship as a statutory concept. Under the principle of good faith, Japanese law may, under the doctrine of change of circumstances, exceptionally allow modification or termination of a contract where, after formation, a significant and unforeseeable change in circumstances not attributable to the parties renders adherence to the original terms grossly inequitable. The courts apply it strictly, and the Supreme Court has rejected its application in notable cases. Accordingly, parties commonly include hardship clauses to provide clear and predictable relief and procedures.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">5621<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/122320","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122320"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}