过失与共同海损成立及分摊的关系研究

发布时间：2018-02-22 11:46

本文关键词： 过失共同海损成立共同海损分摊沿海内河货物运输航海过失免责　出处：《大连海事大学》2010年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】： 共同海损制度是海商法中一种古老而特有的制度。尽管共同海损的成立与理算,不考虑引起共同海损行为危险的来源和性质,但共同海损分摊的实现无疑会受到它们的影响,尤其是承运人的过失。但对于这种过失的范围以及存在何种影响,观点不一。本文结合英美两国及我国的观念和司法实践,深入探讨《约克——安特卫普规则》规则D及我国《海商法》第197条的内涵,研究过失与共同海损成立及分摊的关系；分析我国《海商法》第十章规定的共同海损制度是否适用于沿海内河货物运输；研究《全程或部分国际货物运输合同公约》取消“航海过失免责”后,对共同海损制度下船货双方法律地位产生的影响。并得出以下结论： 1.共同海损成立与分摊是两个独立的问题,过失不影响共同海损的成立与理算。如果由于某一方过失导致共同海损的发生,则过失方不能要求非过失方进行共同海损分摊,且非过失方因此而遭受的损失,可以向过失方要求赔偿。 2.无论承运人的过失是否可以根据法律或合同予以免责,只要该过失使得共同海损行为成为必要,承运人就无权要求货方参与分摊。但是当共同海损是由船方依法可免责的过失引起的情况下,若承托双方在运输合同中订有“杰森条款”或类似条款,则承运人的分摊权利可以得到法律的认可和保护。 3.《约克——安特卫普规则》的规则D及我国《海商法》第197条的规定确认了承运人是否存在过失并不影响共同海损的成立和理算,但后者同样也不妨碍无辜货方根据准据法和运输合同就该过失所可能享有的索赔和抗辩权利。这同样也意味着“先分摊,后追偿”的观点只不过是一种误解,在如何实现分摊和追偿方面应依案件的具体情况而定,规则D并没有为当事各方预设固定的操作模式。 4.《海商法》规定的共同海损制度同样适用于国内的沿海内河货物运输。 5.《全程或部分国际货物运输合同公约》取消了航海过失免责。这会导致共同海损案件大大减少。依我国国情而言,国际海上货物运输仍然应该保留航海过失免责制度；而沿海内河货物运输则应该继续舍弃航海过失免责制度。
[Abstract]:General average system is an ancient and unique system in maritime law. Although the establishment and adjustment of general average does not take into account the source and nature of the risk of general average behavior, the realization of general average allocation will undoubtedly be affected by them. Especially the fault of the carrier. However, there are different views on the scope and influence of the fault. This paper combines the concepts and judicial practice of the United States and the United States and our country. The connotation of Rule D of the York Antwerp Rule and Article 197 of the Maritime Code of China are discussed, and the relationship between fault and the establishment and allocation of general average is studied. This paper analyzes whether the general average system stipulated in Chapter 10th of the Maritime Law of China is applicable to the carriage of goods in coastal inland waters, and studies whether the Convention on contracts for the whole or part of the International Carriage of goods eliminates the exemption from maritime negligence. The impact on the legal status of both parties under the general average regime. The following conclusions are drawn:. 1. The establishment and apportionment of general average are two separate issues, and negligence does not affect the establishment and adjustment of general average. If the fault of one of the parties results in the occurrence of the general average, the negligent party may not require the non-negligent party to apportion the general average. The non-negligent party may claim compensation from the negligent party for any losses suffered as a result. 2. Whether or not the fault of the carrier is exempt by law or by contract, provided that the fault makes the conduct of general average necessary, The carrier is not entitled to ask the cargo to participate in the apportionment. However, where the general average is caused by a fault which is legally exempt from liability on the part of the ship, if the parties have a "Jason clause" or similar clause in the contract of carriage, The carrier's right to share can be recognized and protected by law. 3. Rule D of the York Antwerp Code and the provisions of Article 197 of the Maritime Code of China confirm that the fault of the carrier does not affect the establishment and adjustment of general average, But the latter is equally without prejudice to the right of innocent parties to claim and defend that fault under applicable law and the contract of carriage... it also means that the idea of "sharing first, then recovering" is nothing more than a misunderstanding. Rules D do not presuppose a fixed mode of operation for the parties, depending on the circumstances of the case as to how to achieve apportionment and recovery. 4. The system of general average under the Maritime Law also applies to the domestic carriage of goods by inland waterways. 5. the Convention on contracts for the International Carriage of goods wholly or partly cancels the exemption from maritime negligence. This will result in a great decrease in general average cases. According to the national conditions of our country, the international carriage of goods by sea should still retain the system of exemption from maritime negligence; But the coastal inland river cargo transportation should continue to abandon the navigation fault exemption system.
【学位授予单位】：大连海事大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D922.294

【参考文献】