挪威、英国、中国海上保险法若干问题的比较研究

发布时间：2018-04-26 09:03

本文选题：因果关系 + 告知义务　；参考：《上海海事大学》2005年硕士论文

【摘要】：自1997年1月1日起,《1996年挪威海上保险法》(Norwegian Marine Insurance Plan of 1996)将取代《1964年挪威海上保险法》而存在。如同英国海上保险协会条款一样,挪威海上保险法在过去的130年间,不仅在挪威海上保险方面发挥作用,对于其他的斯坎德纳维亚国家,特别是芬兰和瑞典两国的海上保险条款起到了深远的意义和重要的影响。《1996年挪威海上保险法》深刻反映了航运工业的发展和航运市场的变化,她的许多内容具有很高的前瞻性和可操作性,代表了海上保险立法的发展趋势。考虑到挪威与我国同属大陆法系国家,在我国修订《海商法》之际,对具有如此前瞻性又属同一法系国家的海上保险法进行研究就显得十分重要。笔者在本文选择了《1996年挪威海上保险法》第一部分的三个具体问题进行探讨,他们是:海上保险法中的因果关系、告知义务和风险变更。考虑到这三个问题影响整个海上保险法,争议却一直非常大,各国立法相异甚远,至今又没有出台海上保险法方面的国际公约,因此,笔者认为有必要结合最新的挪威海上保险法,并通过与英国和中国海上保险法的比较来探讨。第一章海上保险法中的因果关系:因果关系是保险法中一个非常重要的问题,它是确定保险人赔偿责任的关键。笔者在本章从挪威海上保险法下因果关系的历史发展说起,谈论了《1996年挪威海上保险法》下因果关系适用的时间点,以及非常有特色的分摊机制。通过与英国海上保险法下近因原则的比较研究,笔者发现分摊机制提供了一种折衷的选择,非常合理,代表了因果关系的发展趋势。虽然分摊机制备受推崇,但由于分摊的不确定性,使得绝大多数国家不敢写入立法。然而,《1996年挪威海上保险法》通过特殊的立法技巧在很大程度上弥补了分摊机制的不足,是值得称道的地方。我国的保险法以及海上保险法中都没有明确规定因果关系,因此,笔者提出我国海上保险法应当通过立法形式明确因果关系,在适当的时候可以考虑借鉴挪威海上保险法下的分摊机制。第二章告知义务:告知义务在各国保险法中都有规定,在英美普通法中,它构成最大诚信原则的一个重要部分;在大陆法系下,多数国家并未在保险法中确立最大诚信原则,告知义务作为一个独立部分存在。然而,两大法系关于告知义务的本质内涵是大致相同的。笔者在本章,首先介绍《1996年挪威海上保险法》关于告知义务的一般内容,然后着重谈论了履行告知义务的判断标准,履行主体的主观态度以及违反告知义务的种类和制裁措施。通过与英国海上保险法以及我
[Abstract]:From January 1, 1997, the Norwegian Marine Insurance Plan of 1996 will replace the Norwegian Marine Insurance Act 1964. Like the British Marine Insurance Association clause, Norwegian marine insurance law has not only played a role in Norwegian marine insurance for the past 130 years, but also for other Scandinavia countries. In particular, the marine insurance clauses of Finland and Sweden have played a profound and important role. The Norwegian Marine Insurance Act 1996 deeply reflects the development of the shipping industry and the changes in the shipping market. Many of its contents are highly forward-looking and operable, representing the development trend of marine insurance legislation. Considering that Norway and our country belong to the same civil law system, it is very important to study the marine insurance law with such foresight and belonging to the same legal system at the time of revision of Maritime Code in our country. In this paper, the author chooses three specific problems in the first part of the Norwegian Marine Insurance Act 1996. They are the causality, the obligation to inform and the change of risk in the law of marine insurance. Considering that these three issues affect the whole maritime insurance law, the controversy has been very great, the legislation of various countries is very different, and there has been no international convention on marine insurance law, so far, The author thinks that it is necessary to combine the latest Norwegian marine insurance law with the comparison with the British and Chinese maritime insurance laws. The first chapter is the causality in the law of marine insurance: causality is a very important issue in the law of insurance, which is the key to determine the liability of the insurer. In this chapter, the author begins with the historical development of causality under the Norwegian Marine Insurance Law, and discusses the applicable time points of causality under the Norwegian Marine Insurance Act of 1996, and the very special allocation mechanism. Through a comparative study with the principle of proximal cause under the British Marine Insurance Law, the author finds that the allocation mechanism provides a compromise option, which is very reasonable and represents the development trend of causality. Although the allocation mechanism is highly regarded, most countries are afraid to write legislation because of the uncertainty of allocation. However, the Norwegian Marine Insurance Act, 1996, which, to a large extent, makes up for the inadequacy of the apportionment mechanism through special legislative techniques, is a laudable place. The law of insurance in our country and the law of marine insurance have not clearly stipulated causality, therefore, the author suggests that the law of marine insurance in our country should clarify the causality by way of legislation. In due course, consideration may be given to drawing on the apportionment mechanism under the Norwegian Maritime Insurance Act. Chapter II obligation of notification: the obligation of notification is stipulated in the insurance laws of all countries. In common law, it forms an important part of the principle of maximum good faith. Under the civil law system, most countries do not establish the principle of maximum good faith in the insurance law. The obligation to inform exists as a separate part. However, the essential connotation of the obligation of communication in the two legal systems is roughly the same. In this chapter, the author first introduces the general content of the obligation of notification in the Norwegian Maritime Insurance Act 1996, and then focuses on the judgment standard of fulfilling the obligation of notification, the subjective attitude of the subject, the types of breach of the obligation of notification and the sanctions. Through the British Maritime Insurance Act and I
【学位授予单位】：上海海事大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2005
【分类号】：D912.28

【引证文献】