海事赔偿责任限制制度研究

发布时间：2018-03-01 05:01

本文关键词： 海事赔偿请求责任限制权利主体责任限制程序责任限制基金　出处：《西南政法大学》2012年博士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：海事赔偿责任限制制度是海商法中的一种特殊赔偿制度，为了鼓励航运业而设立，为大多数航运国家和国际社会所广泛接受。但是近代以来，该制度的公平性和合理性却不断遭受诘问和质疑，反对者们认为中世纪创设海事赔偿责任限制的社会经济背景早已不复存在，该制度现今已没有必要。事实上，尽管航海、造船技术的发展在一定程度上降低了航运风险，有效的海上保险制度有利于行业风险的分散，但这些都不足以否定海事赔偿责任限制制度在航运业所能够发挥的重要作用。该制度的存续能够较好地平衡各方当事人利益，维护航运市场以及相关产业的稳健运营，但应当根据社会发展的需要不断作出修改和完善。本文通过海事赔偿责任限制制度国际层面的分析和探讨，进行完善我国海事赔偿责任限制制度构建的一些思考。全文除导言与结论外，共分作六章进行论述：第一章为海事赔偿责任限制制度的基本理论。首先介绍了海事赔偿责任限制的概念、性质、形式、特征等概况。海事赔偿责任限制制度有着悠久的历史，现存船舶所有人享有责任限制权利的最早记载便是11世纪的《阿马尔菲表》。该制度以鼓励航运业的国家海事政策为宗旨，体现了公平原则，是罗马法中特有产制度和损害投偿制度的继承和发展。海事赔偿责任限制立法历经了习惯法、成文法和现代法三个阶段，在最后一个阶段中由国际组织先后制定了三部有关责任限制的国际公约，以协调和统一各国立法作为今后的长期发展方向。责任限制制度允许从业者所承担的风险得到限制，，从而使其所承担的责任也得到限制，这便是海商法中的公平。经济效率的提高和最佳风险分摊体制的利用应当是责任限制立法的最新指导目标。第二章为海事赔偿责任限制的权利主体。海事赔偿责任限制制度以船舶作为赖以存在的基础和中心，责任限制国际公约和各国国内法都对适用船舶进行了规定。海事赔偿责任限制的权利主体最初只限于船舶所有人，随着航海业的发展，权利主体逐渐由船舶所有人发展为包括船舶所有人、船舶经营人、租船人、救助人、保险人以及对发生海事损害的行为负有责任的人员如船长、船员和其他受雇人在内的众多主体，《1976年海事赔偿责任限制公约》全面地赋予上述主体责任限制的权利。英国法的规定与公约基本一致，只是在一些特别法中也规定了责任限制。美国《船舶所有人责任限制法》1985年法案将责任限制主体范围扩大到包括船舶管理人、经营人、定期承租人、航次承租人、救助人和保险人，与《1976年公约》的规定基本相同。我国的责任限制主体规定基本与《1976年公约》保持一致，只是未将船舶管理人纳入责任主体范畴，而无船承运人依据我国法律规定不能享受责任限制。第三章为海事赔偿责任限制权利丧失。海事赔偿责任限制权利需要符合一定条件时才能够成立，责任限制国际公约和各国立法均对此予以明确规定。明确何为法律规定的船舶所有人乃解决责任限制权利条件的首要任务，目前大多数责任限制公约缔约国都通过“本人的代表人”（alter ego）这一由英国首先确立的概念来确定船舶所有人。责任限制权利丧失的条件从“实际过错或知情”发展到“故意或者明知可能造成这一损失而轻率地采取作为或不作为”，从主观上使权利丧失条件的界定更加严格，从而进一步保护责任人的利益。举证责任也从“谁主张，谁举证”转变为由受害人证明主张责任限制的当事方有丧失责任限制权利的行为，否则责任限制权利自动适用。英国作为1924年、1957年和1976年三部责任限制公约以及《1974年雅典公约》的积极倡导者，而享受责任限制权利的条件正是公约的核心所在，因而其国内法在责任限制权利丧失方面与国际公约的态度是高度一致的。美国1851年《责任限制法》最初规定船东只要没有私谋或不知情就能享受责任限制权利。然而责任限制在美国是一项政策性很强的制度，最终众多针对1851年立法已过时的批判带来了1985年法案，采纳了《1976年公约》关于责任限制权利丧失的规定。我国《海商法》有关责任限制权利丧失的表述也与公约一致，但在我国的司法实践中，对该表述的理解还存有偏差。第四章为海事赔偿请求的范围。海事赔偿责任限制制度并不适用于所有的海事请求，责任限制主体只能对法律规定的赔偿请求主张责任限制。责任限制国际公约和各国相关立法均都分别对限制性海事请求和非限制性海事请求予以明确规定，公约逐渐扩大限制性海事请求范围，《1976年公约》不论赔偿请求责任产生基础为何，均允许责任人援引责任限制权利，加大对责任人的保护力度。公约各缔约国都分别规定了限制性海事请求和非限制性海事请求，但对限制性海事请求作出的保留规定有所不同。美国法比较特别，没有对限制性海事请求和非限制性海事请求分别罗列，具体索赔项目的性质将根据不同的法律来确定。我国《海商法》的海事赔偿请求范围也参照了《1976年公约》，只是对于公约的其中两项限制性海事请求排除适用后未对其性质进行明确规定，导致了实践和理论中的争议。最高人民法院的司法解释明确将这两项索赔排除于限制性海事请求之外。第五章为海事赔偿责任限额。责任限额是责任人对一次事故引起的所有限制性海事请求的最高赔偿额。金额制以船舶吨位为准计算责任限额。此外，责任限额的计算还遵循一次事故一个限额的“事故制度”；对于双方相互索赔的请求额实行“先冲抵，后限制”的原则，只对冲抵后的差额适用责任限制；人命优先保护原则。公约的责任限额逐渐提高，加强了对受害人的保护。英国的责任限额规定与《1976年公约》及其《1996年议定书》一致，只是在公约允许保留的项目上还进行了特别规定。美国的《船舶所有人责任限制法》采用的是船价制和金额制并用的方式，责任限额须同时满足船价与运费总额以及对于人身伤亡以每吨420美元计算所得数额。我国《海商法》的责任限额规定参照《1976年公约》而制定，但只适用于国际航行的船舶，对于300吨以下和国内沿海运输船舶以及沿海旅客运输分别适用交通部的相关规定。第六章为海事赔偿责任限制的程序。责任人实体法上的责任限制抗辩权要通过责任限制程序来行使。责任人有两种援引责任限制的方式，在海事索赔诉讼中作为抗辩提出，以及在事故发生后由责任人主动向法院提起海事赔偿责任限制确认之诉的方式。在海事实践中，海事请求人和责任人都会择地行诉以求获得最有利于自己的判决，因为责任限制程序问题适用的是法院地法。英美法系和大陆法系分别发展了“法院不便原则”和“最先受理原则”以解决择地行诉导致的管辖权冲突问题。责任限制基金设立程序具有相对的独立性，并不是责任人主张责任限制权利程序的前提条件或必需程序，两者之间不具备必然的因果关系。一旦设立了责任限制基金，已经向基金提出索赔的任何人不能再就该项赔偿请求对责任人任何其他财产行使权利。我国《海事诉讼特别程序法》未能建立一套完整的海事赔偿责任限制程序规则，只规定了设立责任限制基金的程序和债权登记与受偿程序，应当从责任限制的申请、申请的审查与受理、责任限制权利确认、责任限制基金的设立与公告、债权登记以及受偿程序几个方面进行全面完善。
[Abstract]:The system of limitation of liability for maritime claims is a kind of special compensation system in maritime law, set up to encourage the shipping industry, widely accepted by most shipping countries and the international community. But in modern times, the system of fairness and rationality has been subjected to questioning and questioning, the protesters that the medieval creation of limitation of liability for maritime claims the social and economic background has long ceased to exist, the current system is not necessary. In fact, while sailing, the development of the shipbuilding technology reduces the risk of shipping to a certain extent, effective maritime insurance system is beneficial to disperse the risk, but these are not enough to deny the important role of limitation of liability for maritime claims system can play in shipping the existence of industry. This system can better balance the interests of the parties, and maintain the stable operation of the shipping market and related industries, but it should be according to the society. The need for exhibitions is constantly changing and improving. Based on the analysis and discussion of maritime liability limitation system at the international level, this paper will improve our maritime liability limitation system. Besides the introduction and conclusion, the paper is divided into six chapters.
The first chapter is the basic theory of limitation of liability for maritime claims system. First introduced the concept of limitation of liability for maritime claims of the nature, form, characteristics of the system of limitation of liability for maritime claims. There is a long history, the existing ship owner enjoys the right of limitation of liability for the earliest record is eleventh Century "sheet". The system of Amalfi to encourage the shipping industry to national maritime policy for the purpose, embodies the principle of fairness, is unique to the inheritance and development of production system and damage compensation system of the investment in the Rome law. The legislation of limitation of liability for maritime claims after the customary law, the three stages of law and modern law, in the last stage by international organizations have established three the limitation of liability of the International Convention on the harmonization and unification of legislation as a long-term development direction in the future. The risk of the system of limitation of liability shall be limited to allow practitioners, and so on. Its responsibilities are also limited, which is fairness in maritime law. The improvement of economic efficiency and the best risk sharing system should be the latest guiding goal of liability limitation legislation.
The second chapter is the subject of the right of limitation of liability for maritime claims. The limitation of liability for maritime claims to the ship as the foundation and the center for the existence, limitation of liability of international conventions and national laws are the rules of the applicable ships. The first subject of the right of limitation of liability for maritime claims only to the owner of the ship, with the development of shipping industry, the subject of right gradually by the shipowner for including ship owners, charterers, ship operators, rescue, insurance and personnel responsible for the accident damage behavior such as captain, crew and other servants, many subjects, <1976 years of limitation of liability for maritime claims to give the Convention > subject of the right of liability limitation. English laws with the Convention are basically the same, just also stipulate the limitation of liability in some special law. The "limitation of liabilities of a shipowner on 1985 The bill will be expanded to include the subject of limitation of liability of ship managers, operators, regular lessee, the lessee and the relief voyage, the insurer, and the provisions of <1976 Convention "is basically the same. The subject of limitation of liability provisions in China is consistent with the <1976 Convention", is not only the ship manager into responsibility the main category, and NVOCC in accordance with China's laws and regulations can not enjoy the limitation of liability.
The third chapter is the limitation of liability for maritime claims. The right of limitation of liability for maritime claims rights need to meet certain conditions can be established, the limitation of the liability of the international conventions and national legislation are to be clearly defined. Clear what is the primary task of the ship law of all people is to solve the right of limitation of liability conditions, most of all the parties to the Convention on limitation of liability through the "representative of my" (alter ego) which was first established by the British concept to determine the owner of the ship. The limitation of liability for loss of rights from "actual fault or informed" to "intentionally or knowingly may cause the loss of recklessly and act or omission", from the subjective to define the right conditions are more stringent, thus further responsibility to protect the interests of the people. The burden of proof from the "who advocates, who the burden of proof into a proof of the victim The limitation of the liability of the parties that have lost the right to limit liability act, or the right of limitation of liability applies automatically. Britain as of 1924, 1957 and 1976 three of the Convention on the limitation of liability and <1974 Athens Convention "actively advocate, and enjoy the right of limitation of liability conditions is the core of the Convention, domestic law is highly the same in the right of limitation of liability for loss and the International Convention on the attitude of the United States in 1851." the limitation of liability law > the original provisions of the owner as long as there is no privity or knowledge will be able to enjoy the right of limitation of liability. However, the limitation of liability in the United States is a very strong policy system, eventually many criticizes the outdated legislation in 1851 brought in 1985 act, adopted the <1976 Convention "limitation of liability for the loss of rights provisions in China Maritime Law >. < the right of limitation of liability for loss of expression in accordance with But in the judicial practice of our country, there is still a deviation in the understanding of the expression.
The fourth chapter is about the scope of maritime claims. The limitation of liability for maritime claims is not applicable to all maritime claim, the subject of limitation of liability provisions of the law can only claim the limitation of liability claims. The limitation of the liability of international conventions and national legislation were on the restrictive and non restrictive maritime claims of maritime claims shall be clearly defined, the Convention gradually expand the restriction of maritime claims, <1976 convention > claim responsibility regardless of why the base, are allowed to invoke the right of limitation of liability responsibility, strengthen the protection of responsibility. States parties to the Convention are the provisions of the restrictive and non restrictive maritime maritime claim, but retain provisions on restrictive maritime the request is different. The method is rather special, not on the restrictive and non restrictive maritime maritime claims are listed, the specific project claim According to the different nature of the law to determine China's Maritime Law >. < the maritime claims range referring to <1976 convention >, just two of the Convention for limiting maritime exclusion after not on its properties explicitly, leads to the practice and theory of judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's court dispute. This will clear the two claims excluded from the restriction of maritime claims.
The fifth chapter is the maritime limitation of liability. The liability limit is the maximum compensation limit of liability of all accident of maritime claim. The amount of tonnage is calculated with the limitation of liability. In addition, the calculation of the limits of liability also follow an accident a limit "accident" system; for the requested amount of both sides each claim the first offset limit "principle, limit of liability applicable to hedge against the difference after the principle; give priority to the protection of human life. The conventionscontinuously increased the limits, strengthen the protection of victims. The limitation of liability rules and the British <1976 Convention and <1996 protocol > >, just the convention allows to keep the project on a special provisions. The United States" ship the limitation of liability of owners of law is used in ship price system and the amount of business and by the way, the liability limit shall meet the ship price and freight And for the total casualties at $420 a tonne calculated amount. The limitation of liability provisions in China Maritime Law > < <1976 > reference Convention and to develop, but only apply to ships on international voyages, the relevant provisions of less than 300 tons and the domestic coastal transport vessels and coastal passenger transport respectively for the Ministry of communications.
The sixth chapter is the limitation of liability for maritime claims procedures. Responsible for the substantive law on the limitation of the liability of defense right through the procedure of limitation of liability to exercise responsibility. Two people have quoted the limitation of liability, the maritime claims it as a defence, and after the accident filed by the person responsible for limitation of liability for maritime claims confirmation take the initiative to court. In the maritime practice, the maritime claimant and the responsible person will choose action in order to get the most in favor of their own judgment, because the procedure of limitation of liability for the law of the court. The common law and civil law were the development of a "inconvenient court principle" and "the first to accept the principle of" to solve the problem of choice for conflict of jurisdiction litigation caused. Limitation of liability fund program has relative independence, is not a prerequisite of responsibility people advocated limiting procedural responsibility or will Necessary procedures have no causal relationship between the two. Once the establishment of limitation fund has been put forward, anyone can't claim that the claim of responsibility of any other property rights to the fund. China's "Maritime Procedure Law" to establish a complete procedure of limitation of liability for maritime claims rules. Only the provisions of the constitution of limitation fund and debt repayment program and registration, should from the limitation of liability for review and acceptance, the right of limitation of liability for confirmation, establishment and announcement of the limitation fund, credit registration and repayment program aspects of a comprehensive improvement.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D996.19

【参考文献】