本文關(guān)鍵詞： 告知義務(wù)主體 被保險(xiǎn)人 投保人 保險(xiǎn)經(jīng)紀(jì)人　出處：《大連海事大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：本文以《海商法》與《保險(xiǎn)法》中告知義務(wù)主體之規(guī)范差異為切入點(diǎn),力求通過(guò)解釋論的方法對(duì)我國(guó)法下的海上保險(xiǎn)告知義務(wù)主體作出貫穿式的梳理和分析,從而達(dá)到彌合特別法與一般法銜接不暢之目的。在此基礎(chǔ)之上,立足對(duì)海上保險(xiǎn)告知義務(wù)主體范圍新的界分,通過(guò)立法論的方法對(duì)海上保險(xiǎn)告知義務(wù)主體的完善提出新的建議。引言部分概述了本文的選題背景以及研究方法。第一章探討海上保險(xiǎn)告知義務(wù)主體規(guī)范差異的理論成因。首先以兩法的文本差異為切入,從立法技術(shù)的層面比較兩法的差異對(duì)告知義務(wù)主體造成的影響；其次,以兩法的法律淵源為重點(diǎn),從比較分析的角度探究中英告知義務(wù)主體構(gòu)建的制度背景差異。第二章明確被保險(xiǎn)人與投保人作為告知義務(wù)主體的法律地位及法理基礎(chǔ)。首先,通過(guò)對(duì)我國(guó)保險(xiǎn)主體模式的研究,得出我國(guó)所采的“三分法”模式不僅引發(fā)被保險(xiǎn)人“合同當(dāng)事人”之爭(zhēng),亦影響告知義務(wù)履行主體之確定；其次,通過(guò)當(dāng)下理論的梳理以及實(shí)踐做法的辨析,得出被保險(xiǎn)人宜定義為合同當(dāng)事人并納入告知義務(wù)主體。第三章闡明保險(xiǎn)經(jīng)紀(jì)人在我國(guó)法下之法律地位并對(duì)其作為告知義務(wù)主體之適格性作出分析。首先在比較法視野之下探明中英保險(xiǎn)經(jīng)紀(jì)制度各自的操作模式以及發(fā)展現(xiàn)狀；其次,以此為基礎(chǔ),對(duì)我國(guó)海上保險(xiǎn)經(jīng)紀(jì)人的法律地位進(jìn)行辨析定義從而論證其作為獨(dú)立告知義務(wù)人之適格性。第四章通過(guò)對(duì)《北歐海上保險(xiǎn)計(jì)劃》以及《2015年英國(guó)保險(xiǎn)法》的研究和借鑒,對(duì)我國(guó)海上保險(xiǎn)告知義務(wù)主體的構(gòu)建提出若干建議：首先,對(duì)于我國(guó)當(dāng)下的單一主體告知模式,可借鑒《北歐海上保險(xiǎn)計(jì)劃》多元化模式進(jìn)行完善；其次,借鑒《2015英國(guó)保險(xiǎn)法》,明確我國(guó)被保險(xiǎn)人以及投保人告知義務(wù)內(nèi)容所涉相關(guān)主體,并對(duì)保險(xiǎn)經(jīng)紀(jì)人的獨(dú)立告知義務(wù)模式予以確定。
[Abstract]:Based on the normative differences between the maritime law and the insurance law, this paper tries to analyze the subject of the disclosure obligation of marine insurance under the law of our country through the method of explanation theory. In order to achieve the purpose of bridging the special law and general law, on this basis, based on the marine insurance obligations to inform the main scope of a new boundary. A new suggestion is put forward to improve the subject of the obligation to inform in marine insurance through the method of legislation. The introduction summarizes the background and research methods of this thesis. Chapter 1 discusses the differences in the norms of the subject of the obligation of disclosure in marine insurance. Theoretical causes. First of all, the text difference between the two methods as the starting point. Comparing the difference between the two laws on the subject of informing obligation from the aspect of legislative technology; Secondly, focus on the legal origin of the two laws. From the perspective of comparative analysis, this paper explores the differences in the institutional background of the construction of the subject of the obligation of disclosure between China and the United Kingdom. The second chapter clarifies the legal status and legal basis of the insured and the insured as the subject of the obligation to inform. First of all. Through the study of the insurance subject model in our country, it is concluded that the "three-point law" mode adopted in our country not only leads to the contention of the insured "parties to the contract", but also affects the determination of the subject of the performance of the obligation to inform. Secondly, through the current theory of combing and practice of discrimination. It is concluded that the insured should be defined as the party to the contract and brought into the subject of obligation of notification. Chapter three clarifies the legal status of the insurance broker under the law of our country and analyzes its suitability as the subject of the obligation of notification. From the perspective of France, the author tries to find out the operation mode and the present situation of the insurance brokerage system in China and the United Kingdom. Secondly, based on this. The definition of the legal status of China's marine insurance broker is analyzed to demonstrate its suitability as an independent notifier. Chapter 4th adopts the Nordic Marine Insurance Scheme and the British Insurance Act of 2015. Study and use for reference. This paper puts forward some suggestions on the construction of the subject of the obligation to inform marine insurance in China: firstly, we can use the "Nordic Marine Insurance Plan" for reference to perfect the mode of informing the single subject in our country at present; Secondly, referring to the British Insurance Law of 2015, this paper clarifies the relevant subjects involved in the content of the insurant's and the insured's obligation to inform, and determines the mode of the insurance broker's independent informing obligation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D922.284

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 夏元軍;;論保險(xiǎn)法上解除權(quán)與民法上撤銷權(quán)之競(jìng)合[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2010年02期

2 王金玉;;海上保險(xiǎn)合同無(wú)限告知義務(wù)的價(jià)值分析[J];法學(xué)雜志;2009年11期

3 溫世揚(yáng),黃軍;論保險(xiǎn)法上的告知義務(wù)[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2002年02期

4 宋美嫻;;英國(guó)有關(guān)海上保險(xiǎn)法的最新修改議案及對(duì)中國(guó)的借鑒[J];中國(guó)海商法研究;2012年01期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 徐凱橋;保險(xiǎn)法投保人如實(shí)告知義務(wù)規(guī)則研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1446419