GLOTRANS VIETNAM CELEBRATES VIETNAMESE ENTREPRENEUR’S DAY – OCTOBER 13

From January 1, 2025, the FuelEU Maritime regulation officially takes effect, requiring ships to reduce their “well-to-wake” greenhouse gas intensity by 2% compared to the 2020 baseline, with targets rising progressively until 2050. As a result, “green” costs—including scarce alternative fuels, compliance fees, verification expenses, and carbon-related surcharges—are now clearly reflected in the invoices issued by carriers and shippers. FuelEU does not mandate the use of any specific fuel. Instead, it allows operators to choose the optimal combination of solutions—such as blended biofuels, LNG/bio-LNG, wind-assisted propulsion, or operational optimization—as long as the required emission intensity is achieved. In practice, on major European trade lanes, many carriers have already begun introducing separate “Green Compliance Surcharges” rather than incorporating all environmental costs into traditional bunker surcharges.

Outside the United States, global demand for Chinese products is hitting new highs. Despite being a major target of U.S. tariffs, China has strengthened its trade relationships across Africa, Southeast Asia, and Europe in 2025. While China cements its role as a global export leader, the U.S. is increasingly shifting its focus toward self-reliance.

The “China +1” strategy, once seen as a temporary plan to diversify production outside of China, has now evolved into a long-term restructuring of global supply chains. Increasingly

Company T (Plaintiff – the Insured) entered into an insurance contract with Company B (Defendant – the Insurer). After the insured event occurred, the Insurer alleged that the Insured had violated its obligation to prevent and mitigate losses. The Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged that such an obligation exists but concluded that the Insured did not breach it.

Under the insurance contract, the premium was to be paid in three installments, and in all three, the insured party was late in payment. When a dispute arose, the insurer (Defendant) argued that the insurance contract had terminated before the insured event occurred due to the late premium payment and therefore refused to make an insurance payout. However, the Arbitral Tribunal held a contrary view.

Company Q (Plaintiff – the Insured) and Company B (Defendant – the Insurer) entered into an insurance contract. After an insured event occurred, the parties could not agree on the value of the loss and therefore conducted an assessment. The unilateral assessment conducted by the Insurer was not accepted, while the independent assessment was only partially recognized.