当法律需要实现的目标是对公共利益的维护时,强制性规则是必要的,但当法律试图调整承托双方之间的利益公平时,就产生了强制性是否需要和进行干预程度的问题。强制性规则虽然对国际海上班轮货物运输合同责任的公平性分配、保护货方利益发挥了重要的作用,但其整体效果仍有待进一步研究。强制性规则的缺陷集中体现在责任的固定上,这会削弱效率价值的发挥,而是否取消强制性干预主要是由船货双方谈判势力的平等性所决定的。目前的航运事实未能证明承运人继续和长期拥有这种优势的谈判地位,承托双方谈判势力趋向平等,从而为契约自由提供了基础。基于国际班轮运输的部分长期合作性合同中承托双方谈判势力趋向平等,《鹿特丹规则》中制定了批量合同,回归契约自由原则,以构建一个整体上有实效的,但应受到一种最低限度的航运安全、公共利益与公序良俗限制的航运秩序。这代表了当今国际海上班轮货物运输合同中强制性的干预程度、强制性规则与任意性规则平衡发展的趋势。 Mandatory rules are necessary when the law is to achieve the goal of preserving the public interest. However, when the law tries to adjust the fairness of interests between the two parties, there arises the issue of the necessity and degree of coercion. Although the mandatory rules play an important role in the fair distribution of contractual liability for international liner shipping and the interests of the shipping companies, the overall effect remains to be further studied. The defects of mandatory rules are embodied in the fixed responsibility, which will weaken the efficiency of the value of the play, and whether the abolition of mandatory intervention is mainly determined by the equality of bargaining power between the two sides. The fact that the current shipping has failed to prove the carrier’s continued and long-term bargaining position with such advantages and the two sides negotiating forces toward equality will provide the basis for freedom of contract. Part of the long-term contractual cooperation based on international liner shipping is that the negotiating forces of both parties tend to be equal. The Rotterdam Rules set out a batch contract and return to the principle of freedom of contract so as to build a generally effective but subject to a minimum The safety of shipping, public interest and public order pollute the shipping order. This represents the current degree of international inter-vessel contract of carriage of goods in the level of mandatory intervention, mandatory rules and arbitrariness the trend of balanced development.