2. 因此，如先前所述，国际货运代理协会联合会反对如此扩大范围，认为这样会在必要的运输单证和适用的赔偿责任规则方面造成混乱。特别是，据认为，对于公路和（或）铁路和（或）航空运输，客户预期的是传统的赔偿责任，在这些情况下便不宜适用海上赔偿责任。例如，若合同是从斯堪的纳维亚北部经由公路和（或）铁路运输到意大利南部，中途包括海上短途轮渡到德国，或者合同是从波兰沿西伯利亚铁路运输到海参崴，再由海路运至日本，那么适用所设想的公约似乎不合逻辑。
2. This explains why FIATA, as has been earlier stated, opposes such expansion, which it believes would lead to confusion with respect to the required transport document, and applicable liability rules. In particular, it is thought to be inappropriate to apply a maritime liability to cases where customers expect the traditional liability for road and/or rail and/or air transport. For example, in the case of a contract for transport from northern Scandinavia to southern Italy by road and/or rail combined with a short sea transit by ferry to Germany, or, for a transport from Poland to Japan by the Trans Siberian railway to Vladivostok with a sea carriage from there to Japan, it would not seem logical to apply the contemplated convention.