本文選題：港口經(jīng)營人　切入點：責(zé)任限制　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著現(xiàn)代海運業(yè)的發(fā)展，港口經(jīng)營人作為港口這一海陸中轉(zhuǎn)終端的經(jīng)營管理者，逐漸成為獨立的法律主體，在海運業(yè)尤其是國際海運業(yè)中扮演著重要角色。而在這樣的過程中也出現(xiàn)了一系列的法律問題，其中較為突出的便是港口經(jīng)營人能否享有類似承運人的責(zé)任限制。這個問題在相當(dāng)長的時間內(nèi)主要表現(xiàn)為港口經(jīng)營人在承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任時，試圖通過援引喜馬拉雅條款來享受承運人的責(zé)任限制權(quán)利，這樣的做法在海商法學(xué)界引起了廣泛爭議和討論，在國內(nèi)外的司法實踐中也出現(xiàn)了不同觀點的判決。 本文試圖站在港口經(jīng)營人與承運人比較的角度，通過對港口經(jīng)營人責(zé)任限制問題的若干要素進行分析，來論證港口經(jīng)營人是否應(yīng)當(dāng)享有或享有怎樣的責(zé)任限制。 本文共分為七章： 第一章：對相關(guān)概念進行明晰，主要是界定港口經(jīng)營人的定義。 第二章：對港口經(jīng)營人責(zé)任限制問題的文獻及國內(nèi)研究狀況做了概要介紹，，并介紹該問題相關(guān)的國際公約及國內(nèi)立法沿革。 第三章：論證港口經(jīng)營人責(zé)任限制立法的必要性，認為有必要賦予港口經(jīng)營人責(zé)任限制之權(quán)利。 第四章：分析對港口經(jīng)營人責(zé)任限制問題進行法律規(guī)制的兩種方式，即與承運人實行相同的責(zé)任限制（簡稱“統(tǒng)一責(zé)任限制”）以及實行區(qū)別于承運人的獨立責(zé)任限制（簡稱“獨立責(zé)任限制”），并對典型國家的相關(guān)立法狀況做了介紹。 第五章：從與承運人比較的角度，分析港口經(jīng)營人責(zé)任限制立法中應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮的若干因素，包括：港口經(jīng)營人的風(fēng)險特征、經(jīng)濟分析和立法成本三個方面。 第六章：對實行統(tǒng)一責(zé)任限制和實行獨立責(zé)任限制的利弊分別做了分析，筆者認為，通過喜馬拉雅條款的擴大適用實行統(tǒng)一責(zé)任限制不易適應(yīng)我國的法律環(huán)境，在合理性上也有欠缺；通過采用大海運概念調(diào)整港口經(jīng)營人責(zé)任限制牽涉問題過多，成本過大，筆者并不贊同；而實行獨立責(zé)任限制較符合港口經(jīng)營人的風(fēng)險和經(jīng)濟特征，能夠與我國現(xiàn)有的航運法律相融合，立法成本也相對可控，筆者認為比較可取。 第七章：對本文的觀點做了總結(jié)，并在此基礎(chǔ)上提出了立法建議。
[Abstract]:With the development of modern shipping industry, the port operator, as the management manager of the port, the terminal of land and sea, has gradually become an independent legal subject. Plays an important role in the shipping industry, especially in the international shipping industry. In this process, a series of legal problems have arisen. The more prominent problem is whether the port operator can enjoy the limitation of liability similar to that of the carrier, which is mainly manifested in the fact that the port operator is assuming liability for compensation for a long time. The attempt to enjoy the carrier's limitation of liability by invoking the Himalayan clause has caused extensive controversy and discussion in the field of maritime law, and has also led to different opinions in judicial practice at home and abroad. From the point of view of comparing the port operator with the carrier, this paper attempts to analyze some elements of the limitation of the liability of the port operator to demonstrate whether or not the port operator should enjoy or enjoy the liability limitation. This paper is divided into seven chapters:. Chapter one: the definition of port operator is defined. Chapter two introduces the literature and domestic research on the limitation of the liability of port operators, and introduces the relevant international conventions and the history of domestic legislation. The third chapter demonstrates the necessity of the legislation of the limitation of the liability of the port operator, and considers that it is necessary to grant the right to the limitation of the liability of the port operator. Chapter four: analyze the two ways to regulate the limitation of the liability of the port operator. That is, the same limitation of liability as the carrier ("uniform limitation of liability") and the limitation of independent liability different from the carrier ("limitation of independent liability"), and the introduction of the relevant legislation of typical countries. Chapter five: from the point of view of comparing with the carrier, this paper analyzes several factors that should be considered in the legislation of limitation of liability of port operators, including: risk characteristics of port operators, economic analysis and legislative costs. Chapter six: the author analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of implementing unified liability limitation and independent liability limitation respectively. The author thinks that it is not easy to adapt to the legal environment of our country through the extension of Himalayan clause. By adopting the concept of large sea transportation to adjust the limitation of port operator's liability, the author does not agree with the problem that the limitation of port operator's liability is too much and the cost is too large. The implementation of independent liability restriction is more in line with the risk and economic characteristics of the port operator. The author thinks that the legislation cost is relatively controllable because it can be integrated with the existing shipping laws in our country. Chapter 7: summarize the viewpoint of this paper, and put forward the legislative suggestion on this basis.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D996.19;D922.294

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 馬丹;;港口經(jīng)營人海事賠償責(zé)任限制研究[J];港口經(jīng)濟;2008年11期

2 李錫鶴;兩大法系代理之法理根據(jù)比較[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2004年05期

3 司玉琢;;中國海商法下港口經(jīng)營人的法律地位[J];昆明理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2007年05期

4 傅廷中;;論港口經(jīng)營人在國際貿(mào)易運輸中的法律地位[J];清華法學(xué);2008年05期

5 黃建設(shè);論港口經(jīng)營人責(zé)任限制[J];天津航海;2000年02期

6 金秋;白杰;;影響港口經(jīng)營人法律地位的因素研究[J];延邊大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2011年02期

7 張輝;;港口經(jīng)營人責(zé)任限制問題再探討[J];中國海商法年刊;2007年00期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 鄭層林;《港口法》的港口經(jīng)營人民事法律責(zé)任研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2000年

2 姜海云;港口與航運上市公司財務(wù)分析[D];大連海事大學(xué);2006年

3 婁天驕;關(guān)于喜馬拉雅條款及其效力問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2009年

4 張軍廷;海事賠償責(zé)任限制實體性問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2009年

5 侯佳潔;港口經(jīng)營人責(zé)任限制問題研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2009年

6 李妍;海事賠償責(zé)任限制制度若干問題研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2010年

本文編號：1691099