GLASS, D.A., CMR and Successive Carriage – Strictly No Recourse?– Case Commentary on the Court of Appeal judgement in Rosewood Trucking Ltd v. Brian Balaam, [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 11.

DE WIT, R., Limitation of actions under CMR, Review of Dutch, Belgian and French case law 2000-2005 , Nederlands Tijdschrift voor HandelsRecht (NTHR), 2006-2, p. 50-56.

DELEBECQUE, P., La convention CMR, les transports superposés et multimodaux [The CMR Convention, piggyback and multimodal transport], Uniform Law Review, 2006, p. 569.

Collectif, Les 50 ans de la CMR “avenir et perspectives” [50 years of CMR ‘future and perspectives’], RDU 2006 – 3

CZAPSKI, W., Interprétation et application de la CMR [Interpretation and application of CMR], Bulletin des transports et de la logistique, 2006, pp. 457 – 459

CZAPSKI, W., Application et interprétation de la convention CMR à la lumière du droit internationa l[Application and interpretation of the CMR Convention in the light of international law], RDU 2006, 525.

CLARKE, M.A., National judges facing gaps in the CMR : British case-law , RDU 2006, 633

CLARKE, M. A., Road Transport.” Case commentary on Datec Electronic Holdings Ltd v United Parcels Service Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1418; [2006] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 350; [2005] 11 WLUK 770 (CA (Civ Div)), Rosewood Trucking Ltd v Balaam [2005] EWCA Civ 1461; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 429; [2005] 11 WLUK 170 (CA (Civ Div)), Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc v MK Digital FZE (Cyprus) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1408 (Comm); [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 679; [2005] 6 WLUK 440 (QBD (Comm)), [2006] Journal of Business Law 429.

CLARKE, M.A., Interpretation of the CMRUniform Law Review 2016, p. 574-576, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor HandelsRecht (NTHR) 2006-2, p. 32-39

CLARINGBOULD, M.H., The Digital Waybill and the Digital Pen – A Success Story from the Netherlands, Revue du Droit Uniforme, 2006, 667-672.