CMI海上货物运输法建议稿承运人责任制度评述

发布时间：2018-05-31 03:14

本文选题：CMI海上货物运输法建议稿 + 定义　；参考：《上海海运学院》2002年硕士论文

【摘要】： 自1907年以来，CMI就一直致力于海上货物运输法承运人责任制度的国际统一，并于1924年制定了海牙规则，开创了承运人责任制度统一的先河，随着1968年修订海牙规则维斯比议定书的通过，统一的程度有所降低。汉堡规则引进了完全不同于海牙规则和维斯比规则的责任制度，它的生效致使分裂的进程进一步加快。另外有一些国家游离于公约之外，形成自己的承运人责任制度。在这种情况下，，以“促进海事法各领域的统一”为宗旨的CMI决定起草一个新的国际公约，以期重新达到承运人责任制度的国际统一。本文拟对CMI起草的海上货物运输法建议稿中与承运人责任相关的制度，以比较研究的方法作一探讨，以探究其规定的内涵，把握当今海上货物运输法的国际统一趋势。本文共分四章第一章介绍了CMI制定海上货物运输法的背景。第一节从国际公约和国外立法两个方面分析了海上货物运输法的不统一现状及所带来的问题，并分析了当今海上货物运输法的发展特点。第二节介绍了国际社会和CMI对统一海上货物运输法的不同观点和不同方案。第三节简要回顾了CMI为海上货物运输法的国际统一所做的努力。第二章是对建议稿中承运人及相关定义的分析。第一节分析了两个最重要的责任主体：承运人和履约人。建议稿将承运人明确规定为订立运输合同的人，并对承运人的确认作了更加全面的论述。履约人的范围相比汉堡规则的实际承运人有所扩大，但比美国COGSA1999的履约承运人有所缩小。履约人的规定将“喜马拉雅条款”从法律上固定下来。第二节介绍了与承运人责任相关的定义。包括运输合同、电子商务、运输单证以及托运人等。建议稿将运输合同扩展至多式联运，并规定了有限制的网状责任制。对运输单证的分类规定值得我国海商法学习。第三章分析了承运人的责任制度，是本文的核心。第一节介绍了承运人的适航义务，建议稿应当将适航期间扩展到航程之中。第二节讨论了承运人的责任期间问题。与多式联运的规定相一致，建议稿将承运人的责任期间扩展至接收货物到交付货物，但在两种情况下可以排除适用。第三节重点探讨了承运人的责任基础。首先分析了废除航海过失免责对航运经济、碰撞索赔以及共同海损等可能带来的影响。其次介绍了建议稿采取的类似于汉堡规则的过失责任制，但在免责事项上，对承运人实行无过失推定。如果继续保留驾驶过失免责，该过失免责应当在一般免责事项之外独立规定。第四节分析了迟延交付责任。建议稿应当借鉴汉堡规则关于迟延交付的规定，并扩大迟延交付的赔偿数额。第五节和第六节分别探讨了承运人的责任限制权利和绕航制度。建议稿应当明确规定“承运人的受雇人、代理人丧失责任限制的，承运人并不因此丧失责任限制的权利”。关于绕航，建议稿将其视为一般违约行为，结束了根本违约的说法。第四章对建议稿从总体上作了简要分析。认为：建议稿的规定过于复杂；建议稿应当以海牙—维斯比规则为基础；建议稿是妥协的产物。
[Abstract]:Since 1907, CMI has been committed to the international unification of the carrier liability system of the maritime cargo transport law, and established the Hague rules in 1924, which pioneered the unification of the carrier's responsibility system. With the adoption of the amendment of the Hague rule Weiss in 1968, the degree of unity has been reduced. The Hamburg Rules have been completely different. The system of responsibility for the rules of the Hague and the Weiss ratio has led to the further acceleration of the process of division. In addition, some countries are free from the Convention to form their own carrier liability system. In this case, CMI, with the purpose of "promoting the unification of the various fields of maritime law", decides to draft a new international convention with a view to it. The international unification of the carrier's responsibility system is re reached. This article is intended to discuss the system related to the carrier's responsibility in the draft of the maritime transport law drafted by CMI, to explore the connotation of its provisions and to grasp the international trend of the current maritime transport law.
This article is divided into four chapters
The first chapter introduces the background of CMI formulation of maritime cargo transport law. The first section analyzes the current situation and problems of the maritime cargo transport law from two aspects of international conventions and foreign legislation, and analyzes the development characteristics of the maritime freight transport law. The second section introduces the international society and the unified maritime transport of goods by the international community. The third section briefly reviews the efforts made by CMI in the international unification of the law of carriage of goods by sea.
The second chapter is the analysis of the carrier and related definitions in the proposed draft. The first section analyses the two most important subjects of responsibility: the carrier and the performing person. The proposed draft clearly stipulates the carrier as the person who has concluded the contract of transport, and makes a more comprehensive discussion of the carrier's confirmation. People have expanded, but smaller than the COGSA1999 carrier in the United States. The performance of the Himalaya clause is legally fixed. The second section introduces definitions related to the liability of the carrier, including the transport contract, electronic commerce, transport documents and shippers. The proposed draft will extend the contract of transportation to multimodal transport. It also stipulates a restricted network responsibility system. The classification of transport documents is worthy of our maritime law study.
The third chapter analyzes the carrier's responsibility system, which is the core of this article. The first section introduces the carrier's airworthiness obligation, the proposed draft should extend the seaworthiness period to the voyage. The second section discusses the carrier's period of responsibility. It is consistent with the regulations of multimodal transport, and the proposed draft extends the carrier's period of responsibility to the goods received. To deliver goods, but in the two circumstances can be excluded from the application. The third section focuses on the carrier's responsibility basis. First, it analyzes the possible effects of abolishing the exemption of maritime negligence on the shipping economy, collision claims and common average. Secondly, it introduces the negligent liability system similar to the Hamburg rules adopted by the proposed draft, but it is exempt. In the case of liability, the carrier is not presumed to be negligent. If the liability for driving negligence continues to be retained, the exemption of the negligence should be independent of the general exemption. The fourth section analyses the liability for delay in delivery. The proposed draft should draw on the provisions of the Hamburg Rules for delay in delivery and enlarge the amount of compensation for delay in delivery. Fifth and sixth. The section discusses the carrier's right to limit the liability and the system of navigation. The proposed draft should clearly specify that "the carrier's hired person, the agent has lost the limit of responsibility, the carrier does not lose the right to limit the liability". On the wind, the proposed draft will be regarded as a general breach of contract, and the fundamental breach of contract is concluded.
The fourth chapter makes a brief analysis of the proposed manuscript in general. The proposed draft is too complicated; the proposed draft should be based on the Hague Weiss ratio rule; the proposed draft is the product of compromise.
【学位授予单位】：上海海运学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2002
【分类号】：D996.19

【引证文献】