Force Majeure and Ship Owner’s Liability 1 April 2012 Yoshida & Partners  Attorney-at-Law Tetsuro Nakamura The Great East Japan Earthquake of March 11, 2011 caused many marine casualties. Unlike the Great Hanshin Earthquake, the Great East Japan Earthquake was followed by Tsunami, by which many ships went aground, stranded, sank or missed, or collided with the other ships/shore facilities. Many of those cases were already settled, often by the reason 'force majeure', but there still remain pending cases. We hope they will be completed in a smooth and fair manner. 1. What is 'force majeure'? This article aims to review 'force majeure' and its relation with the ship owner's liability in this opportunity. There must be no opposition against saying that the Great East Japan Earthquake or the Hanshin Earthquake is an unprecedented natural phenomenon. However, we could not say at instant, "the ship owner shall not be liable to the Earthquake and thus to its result because it is force majeure ". In a particular case where the ship owner's liability is an issue, 'force majeure' means an event or effect that can be neither anticipated nor controlled [1] . Even if an event itself cannot be anticipated or controlled, it cannot be called as 'force majeure' if its effect or loss/damage could be foreseen and avoided. If an event or effect could be foreseen or avoidable, there would in general be fault and based on such fault, the ship owner would be liable to loss/damage caused by such fault. In these terms, 'force majeure' and 'fault' is two side of the same coin. Thus, whether any event or effect should be 'force majeure' will depend on whether such event or effect could be foreseen or resisted in a particular circumstance of the case and whether one should assume duty of care to foresee or control such event or effect. 2. Proof of 'force majeure' vs. 'fault' On the stage of actual legal action or claim, the claimant (plaintiff) asserts the fault on the side of the shi