國際海運(yùn)承運(yùn)人在多因致?lián)p下的賠償責(zé)任研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-03-29 11:52
【摘要】： 多因致?lián)p時(shí)賠償責(zé)任承擔(dān)規(guī)則關(guān)涉海上貨物運(yùn)輸合同主體的切身利益,調(diào)整國際海上貨物運(yùn)輸?shù)闹匾s,如《漢堡規(guī)則》《鹿特丹規(guī)則》等以及《法國海商法》《挪威海商法》《美國海上貨物運(yùn)輸法》《中華人民共和國海商法》等各國國內(nèi)法都對此給予了充分重視和密切關(guān)注。 多因致?lián)p下的賠償責(zé)任,雖須仍尊重一因致?lián)p下的賠償責(zé)任承擔(dān)規(guī)則,但處理起來顯非1+1=2或1-1=0那么簡單。由于多因的“因”的復(fù)雜性以及相關(guān)利益平衡的需要,確定多因致?lián)p下的賠償責(zé)任是比較棘手的。這也是為何在國際范圍內(nèi)對此問題的解決存在三種立法例以及21世紀(jì)之初維也納會(huì)議秘書長報(bào)告Possible future work on transport law將多因致?lián)p下的賠償責(zé)任列為“承運(yùn)人責(zé)任”中未解決的3個(gè)問題之首的重要原因。 但國內(nèi)外海商法學(xué)界對此問題尚未展開系統(tǒng)的深入的研究,國際公約及各國國內(nèi)法的相關(guān)規(guī)定也瑕瑜互見,由此便導(dǎo)致了國內(nèi)外相關(guān)司法裁判出現(xiàn)諸多的沖突與矛盾,而2009年底通過的旨在“構(gòu)建統(tǒng)一的嶄新的責(zé)任體系”的《鹿特丹規(guī)則》對此問題更是語焉不詳。顯然,這種情況對國際社會(huì)一直追求的創(chuàng)建順暢而高效的海運(yùn)業(yè)是十分不利的。 國際海運(yùn)承運(yùn)人在多因致?lián)p下的賠償責(zé)任是一項(xiàng)系統(tǒng)工程,因此,必須運(yùn)用系統(tǒng)論的研究方法和充分掌握其所遵循的立法例、考量要素、舉證責(zé)任分配規(guī)則等,才能作出正確的判斷。 運(yùn)用比較法、文獻(xiàn)法、案例分析法等,圍繞題設(shè)進(jìn)行剖析,深究考量要素之本旨,并分析和比較在《海牙規(guī)則》《漢堡規(guī)則》《鹿特丹規(guī)則》及中國《海商法》下未履行適航義務(wù)、管貨義務(wù)、直航義務(wù)與不負(fù)責(zé)事項(xiàng)共致貨損時(shí)國際海運(yùn)承運(yùn)人賠償責(zé)任的承擔(dān),以便為統(tǒng)一裁判思路和完善中國《海商法》提供借鑒。 論文由引言、正文和結(jié)論組成。 引言介紹了論文的主要研究范圍及相關(guān)研究狀況。 正文包括三個(gè)部分。 第1章“多因致貨損時(shí)賠償責(zé)任承擔(dān)的立法例”。歸納相關(guān)立法例,對《鹿特丹規(guī)則》拋棄《漢堡規(guī)則》“瓦里斯庫拉原則”和COGSA 1999(草案)“平均分?jǐn)倱p失原則”而采“嚴(yán)格區(qū)分責(zé)任原則”原因進(jìn)行分析,指出其實(shí)為“三個(gè)推定”的必然結(jié)果,平衡船貨雙方利益的特殊需要,積極追求公平價(jià)值目標(biāo)的深刻反映。 第2章“多因致貨損時(shí)確定賠償責(zé)任承擔(dān)須考量的要素”。重新審視貨損、歸責(zé)原則、不負(fù)責(zé)事項(xiàng)、首要義務(wù)、舉證責(zé)任等核心要素的內(nèi)涵,為具體分析多因致貨損時(shí)賠償責(zé)任的承擔(dān)奠定基礎(chǔ)。 第3章至第6章是對多因致貨損時(shí)承運(yùn)人賠償責(zé)任承擔(dān)的具體考量。在梳理《海牙規(guī)則》《漢堡規(guī)則》《鹿特丹規(guī)則》和中國《海商法》下貨損賠償責(zé)任確定路徑的基礎(chǔ)上,結(jié)合各自立法例、核心要素,考量各自的賠償責(zé)任承擔(dān),并對完善中國《海商法》相關(guān)內(nèi)容提出立法建議。 結(jié)論歸納了論文的要點(diǎn)。
[Abstract]:The rules relating to the vital interests of the subject of the contract for the carriage of goods by sea and the adjustment of the important conventions governing the international carriage of goods by sea, For example, Hamburg rules, Rotterdam rules, Norwegian Maritime Code, U.S. Maritime Transport Law, Maritime Law of the people's Republic of China, and other domestic laws have attached great importance to this issue and paid close attention to it. Although the liability for multi-cause damage must still respect the rules of liability under one cause of damage, it is not so simple to deal with it as 11-1-2 or 1-1-0. Due to the complexity of multi-cause "and the need of balance of related interests, it is difficult to determine the liability of multi-cause damage. That is why there are three legislative examples of international solutions to this problem, and the report of the Secretary-General of the Vienna Conference at the beginning of the twenty-first century, Possible future work on transport law, does not include liability for multiple damages as "carrier's liability". The main reason for solving the first of the three problems. However, the domestic and foreign maritime law scholars have not carried out a systematic and in-depth study on this issue, and the relevant provisions of international conventions and domestic laws have also met with each other, which has led to many conflicts and contradictions in the relevant judicial decisions at home and abroad. The Rotterdam rules, adopted at the end of 2009, aimed at "building a unified and brand-new system of responsibility", are even more vague on this issue. Clearly, this situation has been pursued by the international community to create a smooth and efficient maritime transport industry. The liability of international maritime carrier under the condition of multi-cause damage is a systematic engineering. Therefore, it is necessary to use the research method of system theory and fully grasp the legislative examples it follows, consider the elements, and distribute the burden of proof, and so on. In order to make the right judgment. Using comparative law, literature method, case analysis method, etc., to analyze and consider the essence of the elements, and to analyze and compare the non-compliance of seaworthiness obligations under the Hague rules, the Hamburg rules, the Rotterdam rules, and the Maritime Law of China, The liability of the international maritime carrier in the event of joint damage caused by the obligation of managing goods, the direct shipping obligation and the non-responsible matters, in order to provide a reference for the unification of the thinking of adjudication and the perfection of the Maritime Law of China. The thesis is composed of introduction, text and conclusion. The introduction introduces the main research scope and related research status. The text consists of three parts. Chapter 1 "legislation on liability for damages caused by multiple causes". Summing up relevant legislative examples and analyzing the reasons for the adoption of the "strict distinction of liability" principle in the Rotterdam rules, abandoning the Hamburg rules and the COGSA 1999 (draft) principle of average allocation of losses, It points out that it is the inevitable result of the "three presumptions", balancing the special needs of the interests of both shipping and cargo parties, and actively pursuing the profound reflection of the goal of fair value. Chapter 2 "factors to be considered in determining liability for multiple causes of damage to goods". Re-examining the connotation of the core elements, such as loss of goods, imputation principle, non-responsibility, primary obligation, burden of proof, etc., will lay the foundation for the specific analysis of the liability for compensation for multi-cause damage caused by goods. Chapters 3 to 6 consider the carrier's liability in the event of multiple damages. On the basis of combing the path of determining liability for cargo damage under the Hague rules, the Hamburg rules, and the Maritime Code of China, considering their respective legislative examples and core elements, and considering their respective liability commitments, And put forward the legislative suggestion to perfect the related content of China Maritime Law. Conclusion the main points of the paper are summarized.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D996.1
本文編號：2449518
[Abstract]:The rules relating to the vital interests of the subject of the contract for the carriage of goods by sea and the adjustment of the important conventions governing the international carriage of goods by sea, For example, Hamburg rules, Rotterdam rules, Norwegian Maritime Code, U.S. Maritime Transport Law, Maritime Law of the people's Republic of China, and other domestic laws have attached great importance to this issue and paid close attention to it. Although the liability for multi-cause damage must still respect the rules of liability under one cause of damage, it is not so simple to deal with it as 11-1-2 or 1-1-0. Due to the complexity of multi-cause "and the need of balance of related interests, it is difficult to determine the liability of multi-cause damage. That is why there are three legislative examples of international solutions to this problem, and the report of the Secretary-General of the Vienna Conference at the beginning of the twenty-first century, Possible future work on transport law, does not include liability for multiple damages as "carrier's liability". The main reason for solving the first of the three problems. However, the domestic and foreign maritime law scholars have not carried out a systematic and in-depth study on this issue, and the relevant provisions of international conventions and domestic laws have also met with each other, which has led to many conflicts and contradictions in the relevant judicial decisions at home and abroad. The Rotterdam rules, adopted at the end of 2009, aimed at "building a unified and brand-new system of responsibility", are even more vague on this issue. Clearly, this situation has been pursued by the international community to create a smooth and efficient maritime transport industry. The liability of international maritime carrier under the condition of multi-cause damage is a systematic engineering. Therefore, it is necessary to use the research method of system theory and fully grasp the legislative examples it follows, consider the elements, and distribute the burden of proof, and so on. In order to make the right judgment. Using comparative law, literature method, case analysis method, etc., to analyze and consider the essence of the elements, and to analyze and compare the non-compliance of seaworthiness obligations under the Hague rules, the Hamburg rules, the Rotterdam rules, and the Maritime Law of China, The liability of the international maritime carrier in the event of joint damage caused by the obligation of managing goods, the direct shipping obligation and the non-responsible matters, in order to provide a reference for the unification of the thinking of adjudication and the perfection of the Maritime Law of China. The thesis is composed of introduction, text and conclusion. The introduction introduces the main research scope and related research status. The text consists of three parts. Chapter 1 "legislation on liability for damages caused by multiple causes". Summing up relevant legislative examples and analyzing the reasons for the adoption of the "strict distinction of liability" principle in the Rotterdam rules, abandoning the Hamburg rules and the COGSA 1999 (draft) principle of average allocation of losses, It points out that it is the inevitable result of the "three presumptions", balancing the special needs of the interests of both shipping and cargo parties, and actively pursuing the profound reflection of the goal of fair value. Chapter 2 "factors to be considered in determining liability for multiple causes of damage to goods". Re-examining the connotation of the core elements, such as loss of goods, imputation principle, non-responsibility, primary obligation, burden of proof, etc., will lay the foundation for the specific analysis of the liability for compensation for multi-cause damage caused by goods. Chapters 3 to 6 consider the carrier's liability in the event of multiple damages. On the basis of combing the path of determining liability for cargo damage under the Hague rules, the Hamburg rules, and the Maritime Code of China, considering their respective legislative examples and core elements, and considering their respective liability commitments, And put forward the legislative suggestion to perfect the related content of China Maritime Law. Conclusion the main points of the paper are summarized.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D996.1
【引證文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 王威;《鹿特丹規(guī)則》下海運(yùn)履約方法律制度研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2011年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條
1 石佩文;《鹿特丹規(guī)則》下承運(yùn)人責(zé)任基礎(chǔ)問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2011年
2 李靜;《鹿特丹規(guī)則》下海運(yùn)履約方法律地位研究[D];中國海洋大學(xué);2011年
3 戴韜;國際海上貨物運(yùn)輸承運(yùn)人責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2011年
，本文編號：2449518
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/sflw/2449518.html
最近更新
教材專著
