本文選題：港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人　切入點(diǎn)：海運(yùn)履約方　出處：《大連海事大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：在目前法律制度下,我國(guó)港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人的法律地位處于十分不明確的境地。港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人作為海上貨物運(yùn)輸環(huán)節(jié)中重要的一部分,港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人的法律地位并沒有上升到立法的層面予以解決,《海商法》及其他國(guó)內(nèi)現(xiàn)行法律都沒有賦予其對(duì)承運(yùn)人規(guī)定的有關(guān)抗辯理由和責(zé)任限制的權(quán)利。在司法實(shí)踐中,常將港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人賦予“實(shí)際承運(yùn)人”,“承運(yùn)人受雇人”,“獨(dú)立締約人”,“履行輔助人”等身份,從而援引《海商法》的規(guī)定來享受屬于承運(yùn)人的抗辯權(quán)和賠償責(zé)任限制權(quán)利。以上說法各執(zhí)一詞,都有極大說服力,但所針對(duì)的都是司法實(shí)踐中的具體問題的解決,在實(shí)體法上港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人的法律地位仍然身份不明�！堵固氐ひ�(guī)則》在貨物運(yùn)輸法律中首次引入了“海運(yùn)履約方”制度,在運(yùn)輸法律中確立了包括“港口海運(yùn)履約方”在內(nèi)的各海運(yùn)履約方的法律制度和法律責(zé)任。 隨著《鹿特丹規(guī)則》的誕生,“海運(yùn)履約方”作為《鹿特丹規(guī)則》新創(chuàng)設(shè)的責(zé)任主體,在《鹿特丹規(guī)則》中海運(yùn)履約方的相關(guān)規(guī)定形成了一套完整的制度,包括主體、權(quán)利、義務(wù)、責(zé)任、訴訟等,將港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人劃分入“海運(yùn)履約方”的范疇,明確規(guī)定享受和承運(yùn)人一樣的抗辯和責(zé)任限制權(quán)利,為港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人問題的解決提供了新的契機(jī),將海運(yùn)履約方納入貨方直接的索賠對(duì)象可以緩解承運(yùn)人與履約方之間相互追索的問題,避免審判資源的浪費(fèi)。 但《鹿特丹規(guī)則》下的港口履約方并不完全等同我國(guó)《港口法》意義上的港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人,本文從我國(guó)現(xiàn)行法律下的港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人的含義和范圍入手,對(duì)現(xiàn)行法律及《鹿特丹規(guī)則》下的港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人的責(zé)任限制賠償問題進(jìn)行分析。本文共分三部分： 第一章從理論和司法實(shí)踐上兩個(gè)方面,分析我國(guó)現(xiàn)行法律下港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人責(zé)任限制問題的現(xiàn)狀。 第二章闡述在現(xiàn)行《海商法》下,港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人責(zé)任限制問題所面對(duì)的困境,將港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人根據(jù)其在不同法律關(guān)系中的表現(xiàn)分別定義法律地位,并探索在現(xiàn)有法律體系下港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人責(zé)任限制問題的解決之道并提出自己的看法。 第三章展望《鹿特丹規(guī)則》下海運(yùn)履約方制度的引入對(duì)港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人在海上貨物運(yùn)輸中的法律關(guān)系所產(chǎn)生的影響,區(qū)別海運(yùn)履約方和港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人之間的關(guān)系,并討論海運(yùn)履約方制度下的港口經(jīng)營(yíng)人的責(zé)任限制問題。
[Abstract]:Under the current legal system, the legal status of the port operator in our country is very uncertain. The port operator is an important part of the maritime cargo transportation. The legal status of the port operator has not been raised to the level of legislation, the Maritime Law and other domestic existing laws have not given them the right of defense and limitation of liability stipulated by the carrier. The port operator is often assigned the status of "actual carrier", "carrier servant", "independent contracting party", "performance assistant", etc. Thus invoking the provisions of the Maritime Law to enjoy the rights of defense and limitation of liability belonging to the carrier. The above statements are very persuasive, but they are aimed at the solution of specific problems in judicial practice. The legal status of the port operator remains unknown in substantive law. The Rotterdam rules introduced for the first time the "maritime performing party" system in the law of the carriage of goods, The legal system and liability of each maritime performing party, including port maritime performing party, has been established in the transport law. With the birth of the Rotterdam rules, the "maritime performing party", as the newly created subject of liability in the Rotterdam rules, forms a complete system, including the subject, the right, the relevant provisions of the maritime performing party in the "Rotterdam rules". Obligation, liability, litigation and so on, dividing the port operator into the category of "maritime performing party", clearly stipulating the right of defense and limitation of liability as that of the carrier, which provides a new opportunity for solving the problem of port operator. It can alleviate the problem of mutual recourse between the carrier and the performing party and avoid the waste of trial resources. However, the port performing party under the Rotterdam rules is not exactly equal to the port operator in the sense of port law of our country. This paper starts with the meaning and scope of the port operator under the current law of our country. This paper analyzes the liability limitation compensation of port operators under the current law and Rotterdam rules. This paper is divided into three parts:. The first chapter analyzes the current situation of the limitation of the liability of the port operator under the current law of our country from the two aspects of theory and judicial practice. The second chapter expounds the plight of the limitation of the liability of the port operator under the current Maritime Law, and defines the legal status of the port operator according to his performance in different legal relations. It also explores the solutions to the limitation of the liability of port operators under the existing legal system and puts forward its own views. Chapter III looks forward to the impact of the introduction of the maritime performing party system under the Rotterdam rules on the legal relationship of the port operator in the carriage of goods by sea, and distinguishes the relationship between the maritime performing party and the port operator. The limitation of the liability of the port operator under the maritime performing party system is also discussed.
【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】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳t，

本文編號(hào)：1683826