The Hague Rules are so called because work on them began at a meeting of the International Law Association at The Hague in the Netherlands in 1921. They were eventually adopted by a diplomatic convention in Brussels in 1924, so they are also called the Brussels Convention, although they are normally called the Hague Rules. They represent the first effective internationally agreed control of bill of lading terms. Before the adoption of the Hague Rules many shipowners did not assume any liability. Some shipowners apparently excluded virtually all or most of their liability. This exclusion clause was valid which excluded all liability of the shipowners for all events including their negligence. The shipowner's sole fundamental responsibility for the seaworthiness and care of the cargo has not been excluded, unless clearly indicated. The philosophy behind such minimal responsibility was that maritime transit at that time was a dangerous adventure (usually in the era of wooden ships). A person who took part in it assumed that the carrier would do its best, so it is fair to excuse it for the particularly maritime aspects and not for the custodian ones of the responsibilities assumed. The transition from wooden ships to metal ships gave transporters a stronger position than before. This allowed them to take on some responsibilities, but the practice was not uniform. The nature and extent of liability varied based on the negotiation between the carrier and shipper and also based on the terms of the bill of lading issued by the carrier. The Hague Rules were the first attempt to bring this practice into a regulatory framework. It was argued that the Hague Rules brought uniformity into the bill of lading. The main argument was made then in the fa... halfway through the document... of the international operation. For this reason, Member States should issue rules for shipments leaving their ports. Any dispute over such shipment brought in the State party will follow the Rules, but when the dispute is filed in the State non-party, that State need not follow the Rules unless there is a Paramount clause in the bill of lading stating that the Rules will apply. But the problem arises when the fundamental clause is omitted from the bill of lading for shipping out of a Convention country and there is a choice of law clause for a jurisdiction. By means of this choice of law clause, the application of the rules can be avoided entirely or for a particular trip. Therefore the absence of the capital clause causes the rules to be circumvented. The result is that the international functioning of the rules, at least in many countries, has been to some extent torpedoed.