【摘要】：一直以來，單一運(yùn)輸方式在國際貨物運(yùn)輸領(lǐng)域占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位，與之相適應(yīng)，單一運(yùn)輸方式的國際公約在國際貨物運(yùn)輸法中也占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位。但是，隨著集裝箱運(yùn)輸?shù)呐d起和長足發(fā)展，門到門運(yùn)輸需求的進(jìn)一步加大，各單一運(yùn)輸方式國際公約的不足或軟肋日益顯現(xiàn)。在目前盛行的國際多式聯(lián)運(yùn)領(lǐng)域網(wǎng)狀責(zé)任制下，多式聯(lián)運(yùn)經(jīng)營人責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式的不確定性和不可預(yù)見性問題一直困擾著實(shí)務(wù)界和法律界。非定域貨損和發(fā)生于多個(gè)運(yùn)輸區(qū)段的貨損問題也一直沒有很好的解決途徑。貨方利益和多式聯(lián)運(yùn)經(jīng)營人的利益沒有得到很好的平衡。法律制度層面的滯后，在一定程度上將有礙于多式聯(lián)運(yùn)事業(yè)的發(fā)展。而且，國際上尚缺乏一個(gè)有效規(guī)制國際多式聯(lián)運(yùn)的生效的公約，國際上對(duì)統(tǒng)一多式聯(lián)運(yùn)領(lǐng)域立法的呼聲越來越大。然而機(jī)械地統(tǒng)一各單一運(yùn)輸方式國際公約中的責(zé)任制度似乎不太可行。當(dāng)《鹿特丹規(guī)則》終于千呼萬喚始出來，，其采用了一種更為含蓄、迂回的方式來協(xié)調(diào)各個(gè)既存的公約之間的關(guān)系，不失為明智之舉。 本文試圖通過對(duì)比各個(gè)主要單一運(yùn)輸方式國際公約的承運(yùn)人責(zé)任制度和《國際多式聯(lián)運(yùn)公約》的承運(yùn)人責(zé)任制度，來探討這些公約之間是否存在統(tǒng)一的可能。試圖通過案例來說明這些既存公約之間可能存在的沖突。當(dāng)然，每一個(gè)單一運(yùn)輸方式公約誕生的背景不一樣，其涉及的運(yùn)輸方式也各有特點(diǎn)，統(tǒng)一之路似乎很漫長。當(dāng)統(tǒng)一似乎在當(dāng)下難以實(shí)現(xiàn)時(shí)，本文試圖通過分析新出臺(tái)的《鹿特丹規(guī)則》中對(duì)條約沖突的應(yīng)對(duì)，分析其中的利弊，看其是否能實(shí)現(xiàn)各個(gè)既存的單一運(yùn)輸方式國際公約之間的協(xié)調(diào)，以實(shí)現(xiàn)另一種意義上的統(tǒng)一。 第一章主要介紹了國際多式聯(lián)運(yùn)的起源、概念、特點(diǎn)；多式聯(lián)運(yùn)經(jīng)營人的法律地位；多式聯(lián)運(yùn)單證系統(tǒng)的組成、種類及其單證的流轉(zhuǎn)過程。 第二章主要介紹了當(dāng)下國際多式聯(lián)運(yùn)的法律框架，分析了網(wǎng)狀責(zé)任制和統(tǒng)一責(zé)任制各自的特點(diǎn)。并通過表格的形式對(duì)比了網(wǎng)狀責(zé)任制、統(tǒng)一責(zé)任制和經(jīng)修改的統(tǒng)一責(zé)任制。還分析了網(wǎng)狀責(zé)任制度的缺陷。 第三章著重對(duì)比了各個(gè)主要單一運(yùn)輸方式國際公約在責(zé)任期間、責(zé)任基礎(chǔ)、責(zé)任限制等方面的規(guī)定，以探求這些制度本身是否存在統(tǒng)一的可能性；并用案例的形式分析了這些公約之間存在的潛在沖突，以說明協(xié)調(diào)公約之間關(guān)系的現(xiàn)實(shí)性和緊迫性。 第四章以《鹿特丹規(guī)則》為藍(lán)本，詳細(xì)解讀了其中第二十六條和第八十二條，分析了《鹿特丹規(guī)則》在應(yīng)對(duì)公約沖突，協(xié)調(diào)新規(guī)則與既存公約關(guān)系中的巧妙之處。同時(shí)也指出了《鹿特丹規(guī)則》存在的一些小瑕疵，提出了一些不成熟的建議。期待《鹿特丹規(guī)則》在國際多式聯(lián)運(yùn)的統(tǒng)一大業(yè)上添上濃墨重彩的一筆。
[Abstract]:The single mode of transport has been playing a dominant role in the field of international transport of goods. In accordance with it, the international convention of single mode of transport also occupies a dominant position in the field of international transport of goods. However, with the rise and rapid development of container transportation, the demand for door-to-door transportation is further increased, and the weakness or weakness of each single mode of transport international conventions is becoming increasingly apparent. Under the prevailing network responsibility system in the field of international multimodal transport, the uncertainty and unpredictability of the liability assumption of multimodal transport operators have been puzzling the practical and legal circles. There is also no good way to solve the problem of non-local damage and damage occurring in multiple transportation sections. The interests of the consignor and the multimodal transport operator are not well balanced. The lag of legal system will hinder the development of multimodal transport to some extent. Moreover, there is still a lack of an effective convention to regulate the effectiveness of international multimodal transport, and there are more and more calls for the unification of international legislation in the field of multimodal transport. However, mechanically unifying the liability regime in international conventions on single modes of transport does not seem feasible. When the Rotterdam rules finally came out shyly, it was wise to reconcile the existing conventions in a more implicit, circuitous way. This paper attempts to compare the carrier liability regimes of the major international conventions on single mode of transport with those of the International Convention on Multimodal Transport to explore whether there is a possibility of unification among these conventions. This paper attempts to illustrate the possible conflicts between these existing conventions through case studies. Of course, each single mode of transport convention came into being in a different context, involving different modes of transport, and the road to unification seems to be long. When unification seems to be difficult to achieve at the moment, this paper attempts to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the new Rotterdam rules by analyzing the responses to treaty conflicts. To see if it can achieve the existing single mode of transport between the international conventions, in order to achieve another sense of unity. The first chapter mainly introduces the origin, concept and characteristics of international multimodal transport; the legal status of multimodal transport operators; the composition, types and circulation process of multimodal transport document system. The second chapter mainly introduces the current international multimodal transport legal framework and analyzes the characteristics of the network responsibility system and the unified responsibility system. The network responsibility system, the unified responsibility system and the revised unified responsibility system are compared in the form of tables. The defects of network liability system are also analyzed. The third chapter focuses on the comparison of the main single mode of transport international conventions in the period of responsibility, the basis of responsibility, liability limitation and so on, in order to explore whether there is a unified possibility of these systems; The potential conflicts between these conventions are analyzed in the form of cases to illustrate the reality and urgency of harmonizing the relations between conventions. In Chapter 4, the Rotterdam rules are taken as the model, and articles 26 and 82 are interpreted in detail, and the cleverness of the Rotterdam rules in dealing with the conflict of conventions and coordinating the relationship between the new rules and the existing conventions is analyzed. At the same time, it also points out some minor defects in Rotterdam Rule, and puts forward some immature suggestions. Looking forward to the Rotterdam rules in the United cause of international multimodal transport to add a strong color.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D996

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 季歆;《鹿特丹規(guī)則》下多式聯(lián)運(yùn)經(jīng)營人的責(zé)任制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2013年

本文編號(hào)：2421864