【摘要】：人們?cè)诶么暗纫亻_(kāi)展海上經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)時(shí),受到海洋特殊環(huán)境因素的制約與限制,傳統(tǒng)貿(mào)易法律與習(xí)慣難以滿足國(guó)家與航運(yùn)貿(mào)易參與方的客觀需求。于是以船舶為核心的海上人類(lèi)活動(dòng)相關(guān)法律關(guān)系漸由商人習(xí)慣調(diào)整,后經(jīng)梳理與發(fā)展成為如今的海商法律體系。為呼應(yīng)涉海法律關(guān)系要求的特殊性,海商法律體系下不乏突破傳統(tǒng)民事法律體系基本原則的獨(dú)特制度,海事賠償責(zé)任限制即是其中之一。其創(chuàng)制初衷在于鼓勵(lì)具有較高參與風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的海上冒險(xiǎn)活動(dòng),從而謀求一國(guó)政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)的更為長(zhǎng)久穩(wěn)定的發(fā)展。至今,此制度目標(biāo)仍具備相當(dāng)?shù)默F(xiàn)實(shí)意義。然,海商法制度設(shè)計(jì)上的獨(dú)特性同時(shí)在一定程度上預(yù)示著與一般民事法律制度不相兼容的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),此種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)亦在海事海商司法與研究中得以印證,海事賠償責(zé)任限制與連帶責(zé)任的適用沖突即是一范例。本文擬從連帶責(zé)任、海事賠償責(zé)任限制權(quán)利的基本要素入手,在不同情境下建立數(shù)種模型,結(jié)合實(shí)際案例與法律規(guī)定,剖析兩種法律制度適用中的沖突原因與影響因素。綜合介紹國(guó)內(nèi)外立法及學(xué)說(shuō)提出的沖突協(xié)調(diào)方案,并對(duì)由相關(guān)方案關(guān)注的核心問(wèn)題進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步的分析,旨在總結(jié)得出適于我國(guó)立法與司法現(xiàn)況的方案,為海事審判實(shí)務(wù)提供有益的理論參考。本文除引言和結(jié)論外,共包括四部分。第一部分,為明確研究對(duì)象,分別對(duì)連帶責(zé)任及海事賠償責(zé)任限制的概念進(jìn)行了界定,同時(shí)對(duì)其法律性質(zhì)、制度價(jià)值及法律適用規(guī)則進(jìn)行了初步介紹。簡(jiǎn)要概括了我國(guó)海商法體系下連帶責(zé)任適用的具體情形,結(jié)合海事賠償責(zé)任限制適用在海事海商案件中適用的高頻性,突出本文的研究與實(shí)踐價(jià)值。第二部分,以連帶責(zé)任方是否共享同一海事賠償責(zé)任限額為界,通過(guò)建立模型群的方法,分別探討二者沖突的原因與具體的沖突表現(xiàn),并引入"先沖抵,后限制"規(guī)則對(duì)沖突特殊影響的分析。第三部分,從比較法的視角,考察了世界主要國(guó)家對(duì)類(lèi)似問(wèn)題的解決方案及理論基礎(chǔ),綜合評(píng)述各方案在協(xié)調(diào)沖突中的兼容性,總結(jié)認(rèn)為應(yīng)在自主協(xié)調(diào)方案與連帶責(zé)任總額自始限縮方案中選擇。第四部分,在海事賠償責(zé)任限制效力范圍、連帶責(zé)任總額確定規(guī)則及配套訴訟模式三個(gè)議題下,對(duì)作為我國(guó)現(xiàn)階段協(xié)調(diào)題述沖突的適用方案,亦是我國(guó)學(xué)界普遍推崇的連帶責(zé)任總額自始限縮方案與自主協(xié)調(diào)方案進(jìn)行全方面的比較,從理論與實(shí)務(wù)兩個(gè)層面論證了自主協(xié)調(diào)方案的當(dāng)然性與實(shí)用性。
[Abstract]:When people make use of ship and other factors to carry out marine economic activities, they are restricted and restricted by the special environmental factors of the sea, and the traditional trade laws and customs are difficult to meet the objective needs of countries and shipping trade participants. As a result, the related legal relationship of human activities on the sea gradually adjusted by merchants' habits, and then became the legal system of maritime commerce by combing and developing. In order to respond to the particularity of the legal relationship concerning the sea, there is no shortage of the unique system under the maritime commercial legal system to break through the basic principles of the traditional civil legal system, and the limitation of the liability for maritime claims is one of them. Its original intention is to encourage the risk of high risk of marine adventure, so as to seek a country's political, economic and more long-term and stable development. Up to now, this system goal still has quite realistic significance. However, the uniqueness of the design of maritime law system at the same time to some extent foreshadow the risk of incompatibility with the general civil legal system, and this kind of risk can also be confirmed in the judicial and research of maritime merchants. The conflict between the limitation of maritime liability and the application of joint liability is an example. This paper starts with the basic elements of joint and several liability, limits the right of maritime claims liability, establishes several models in different situations, and analyzes the conflict causes and influencing factors in the application of the two legal systems in combination with actual cases and legal provisions. A comprehensive introduction of domestic and foreign legislation and doctrine of conflict coordination program, and further analysis of the core issues concerned by the relevant programs, in order to summarize the appropriate legislation and judicial situation in China, To provide a useful theoretical reference for maritime trial practice. In addition to the introduction and conclusions, this paper consists of four parts. In the first part, the concepts of joint and several liability and limitation of maritime liability are defined, and the legal nature, system value and applicable rules of law are introduced. This paper briefly summarizes the concrete situation of the application of joint and several liability under the maritime law system of our country, and emphasizes the research and practice value of this article by combining the high frequency of applying the limitation of maritime claim liability in maritime commercial cases. The second part, taking whether the joint and several liability parties share the same limitation of maritime claim liability, through the method of establishing the model group, discusses the causes and the concrete conflict performance of the two conflicts, and introduces the "first offset". The analysis of the special effect of the post-restriction rule on the conflict. The third part, from the perspective of comparative law, examines the solutions and theoretical basis of similar problems in major countries in the world, and comprehensively comments on the compatibility of various schemes in the conflict of coordination. It is concluded that the autonomous coordination scheme and the total amount of joint and several liability reduction scheme should be selected. The fourth part, in the maritime claim liability limitation validity scope, the joint and several liability total determination rule and the supporting lawsuit pattern three topics, to our country present stage coordinates the topic conflict application plan, It is also the comparison between the total amount of joint and several liability reduction scheme and the independent coordination scheme, which is generally respected by the academic circles in our country, and demonstrates the naturalness and practicability of the autonomous coordination scheme from the two aspects of theory and practice.
【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】：2016
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.294

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 崔巖;;淺析海事賠償責(zé)任限制權(quán)利的喪失[J];中國(guó)水運(yùn)(學(xué)術(shù)版);2006年10期

2 邵琦;;關(guān)于海事賠償責(zé)任限制制度若干問(wèn)題的思考——海事賠償責(zé)任限制和海事賠償責(zé)任限制基金[J];中國(guó)海商法年刊;2010年04期

3 陳曉鋮;;我國(guó)貨物海事賠償責(zé)任限制程序問(wèn)題探討[J];市場(chǎng)論壇;2011年02期

4 司玉琢;;海事賠償責(zé)任限制優(yōu)先適用原則研究——兼論海事賠償責(zé)任限制權(quán)利之屬性[J];環(huán)球法律評(píng)論;2011年03期

5 李偉;關(guān)正義;;論海事賠償責(zé)任限制訴訟的理論基礎(chǔ)及立法邏輯建構(gòu)[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)輯刊;2012年04期

6 楊寶英;;論海事賠償責(zé)任限制是否構(gòu)成獨(dú)立的訴[J];法制與社會(huì);2012年31期

7 陳海波;1976年海事賠償責(zé)任限制公約議定書(shū)獲通過(guò)[J];中國(guó)海商法年刊;1996年00期

8 劉曉雯;論海事賠償責(zé)任限制權(quán)利的喪失[J];山東對(duì)外經(jīng)貿(mào);2000年05期

9 徐飛;論海事賠償責(zé)任限制程序與產(chǎn)生海事賠償責(zé)任限制的海事請(qǐng)求程序間的關(guān)系[J];中國(guó)海商法年刊;2001年00期

10 許秀珠,何麗新;論海事賠償責(zé)任限制制度與受害人利益的保護(hù)問(wèn)題[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年03期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前8條

1 黃麗俊;;加入《1976年海事賠償責(zé)任限制公約》對(duì)我國(guó)航運(yùn)業(yè)和海事影響的評(píng)估[A];中國(guó)航�？萍純�(yōu)秀論文集[C];2009年

2 高良臣;;海事賠償責(zé)任限制的主體探究[A];中國(guó)律師2005年海商法研討會(huì)論文集[C];2005年

3 徐洪霖;王建蘭;;海事賠償責(zé)任限制基金程序面臨的困境和解決[A];《中國(guó)海洋法學(xué)評(píng)論》2007年卷第1期[C];2007年

4 王淑梅;;海事賠償責(zé)任限制若干熱點(diǎn)問(wèn)題探討[A];中國(guó)律師2005年海商法研討會(huì)論文集[C];2005年

5 龍玉蘭;;逾期未設(shè)立賠償責(zé)任限制基金的法律后果[A];中國(guó)律師2005年海商法研討會(huì)論文集[C];2005年

6 陳群;黃曉莉;;海事賠償責(zé)任限制案件中的管轄權(quán)問(wèn)題[A];第二屆廣東海事高級(jí)論壇論文集[C];2008年

7 龍玉蘭;;設(shè)立海事賠償責(zé)任限制基金程序不審理實(shí)體存在的問(wèn)題[A];中國(guó)律師2005年海商法研討會(huì)論文集[C];2005年

8 張崇武;;多式聯(lián)運(yùn)經(jīng)營(yíng)人海事賠償責(zé)任限制制度淺析[A];中國(guó)律師2004年海商法研討會(huì)暨中華全國(guó)律師協(xié)會(huì)海商海事專(zhuān)業(yè)委員會(huì)年會(huì)論文集[C];2004年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 胡后波;當(dāng)前對(duì)海事賠償責(zé)任限制問(wèn)題理解存在誤區(qū)[N];中國(guó)水運(yùn)報(bào);2007年

2 胡后波;海事賠償責(zé)任限制案件審判實(shí)踐存在誤區(qū)[N];中國(guó)交通報(bào);2007年

3 張慧鵬邋通訊員 李琳 劉曉哲;最高法院組織研討海事賠償責(zé)任限制法律問(wèn)題[N];人民法院報(bào);2007年

4 廈門(mén)海事法院 張希舟;海上承運(yùn)人違規(guī)配載危險(xiǎn)品造成船沉貨損無(wú)權(quán)享受海事賠償責(zé)任限制[N];人民法院報(bào);2007年

5 記者 劉嵐;規(guī)范海事賠償責(zé)任限制糾紛案件審理[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

6 寧波海事法院 吳勇奇;連帶賠償責(zé)任與海事賠償責(zé)任限制的思考[N];人民法院報(bào);2009年

7 北京昌明律師事務(wù)所 蔣五四;關(guān)于海事賠償責(zé)任限制[N];國(guó)際經(jīng)貿(mào)消息;2001年

8 徐曾滄;由“佛山8號(hào)”輪案 談海事賠償責(zé)任限制原則[N];中國(guó)交通報(bào);2003年

9 張希舟;海上承運(yùn)人無(wú)權(quán)享受海事賠償責(zé)任限制[N];人民法院報(bào);2007年

10 周q，

本文編號(hào)：2234490