关于船舶碰撞的若干问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-22 03:06

本文选题：船舶碰撞 + 间接碰撞　；参考：《中国政法大学》2007年硕士论文

【摘要】： 现今世界上许多的贸易往来都需要海洋运输来完成，随着海上事业的蓬勃发展，海上侵权行为也越来越多样化。船舶碰撞就是一种发生在海上的侵权行为，它会在当事人之间引发损害与赔偿的法律关系，所以如何确定碰撞责任方及过失程度对于船舶碰撞纠纷及损害赔偿问题的解决起着至关重要的作用。传统的船舶碰撞概念已延续一百多年。随着海上事业的发展及海上侵权行为的多样化，船舶碰撞概念已不再局限于原有的传统概念，传统的船舶碰撞概念已不能科学地反映船舶碰撞的客观现实。笔者在本文中专门论述了，从传统的船舶碰撞概念发展到船舶碰撞的新概念的改变与革新，对两者不同的法律含义和构成要件都进行了详细的论述。虽然国际公约及各国海商法都对船舶碰撞的概念及构成要件作出了相关的规定，但是在实践应用中却纷争不断，我国海商法学界的学者和司法工作人员对船舶碰撞概念及其购成要件也同样持有不同的理论观点，这些不同的争议观点在海事实务中造成对同一事实的不同认定，这种现象使得我国《海商法》及其相关法律法规很难达到权威性和统一性。本篇文章所探析的除了上述所提到的争议外，重点探讨的是船舶碰撞的概念范围及其保险责任范围。这也是在海事实务中，出现争议最多、辨析难度最大的一类问题。此类争议的焦点主要集中在我国《海商法》第一百六十五条和第一百零七条的规定，“船舶碰撞”概念中是否包含“间接碰撞”，即海上保险合同船舶保险单中“船舶碰撞”是否包括“间接碰撞”这一问题。本篇文章客观、公正的转述了关于这类争议的争议双方的基本论点，并列举出各国及我国国内的有关案例作为辅助论证。同时笔者根据我国《海商法》的规定，结合最高人民法院的司法解释和各类相关国际公约的规定，在了解争议双方的观点后，通过对各种海事法律法规、国际公约的认真学习，以及参考各国法院的判决及各国学者的学术论点，以较为详细的论证阐明了笔者的立场，即笔者浅显的认为，“间接碰撞”并不当然属于“船舶碰撞”的范畴之内，即便在有关法律法规的指引下，对“间接碰撞”发生的安全财产损害，比照“直接碰撞”的相关规定进行赔付，也并不意味着“船舶碰撞”当然包含“间接碰撞”，这只是对一种安全财产损害的赔偿义务而已。本篇文章同时也针对“船舶碰撞”事故中的“取证”和“法律适用”环节出现的争议现象作了相对简单扼要的论述。主要论及了以上两个环节在海事实务中的一些笔者了解到的弊端，，并列举出相关的案例，同时笔者也通过总结学者和法院判决的观点提出了一些浅显的相应的改善方法。
[Abstract]:Nowadays, many trade exchanges in the world need to be completed by sea transportation. With the vigorous development of maritime business, maritime tort is becoming more and more diversified. Ship collision is a kind of tort that occurs at sea. It will lead to the legal relationship of damage and compensation between the parties. Therefore, how to determine the party responsible for collision and the degree of negligence plays an important role in solving the problem of collision dispute and damage compensation. The traditional concept of ship collision has lasted for more than one hundred years. With the development of marine business and diversification of maritime tort, the concept of ship collision is no longer confined to the original traditional concept, the traditional concept of ship collision can no longer scientifically reflect the objective reality of ship collision. In this paper, the author specially discusses the change and innovation from the traditional concept of ship collision to the new concept of ship collision, and discusses in detail the different legal meanings and constitutive requirements of the two concepts. Although the international conventions and the maritime laws of various countries have made the relevant provisions on the concept and the constituent elements of ship collision, but in the practice of application, there are many disputes. Scholars and judicial staff in the field of maritime law of our country also hold different theoretical views on the concept of ship collision and its purchase requirements. These different controversial views result in different cognizance of the same fact in maritime practice. This phenomenon makes it difficult to achieve authority and unity in Maritime Law and its related laws and regulations. In addition to the disputes mentioned above, this paper focuses on the scope of the concept of ship collision and the scope of its insurance liability. This is also the most controversial and difficult problem in maritime practice. The focus of such disputes is mainly on the provisions of articles 165 and 107 of the Maritime Law of China, whether the concept of "ship collision" includes "indirect collision". Whether "ship collision" includes "indirect collision" in marine insurance contract. This article objectively and impartially reports the basic arguments of both parties to this kind of dispute, and points out the relevant cases of each country and our country as auxiliary argumentation. At the same time, according to the provisions of China's Maritime Law, combining with the judicial interpretation of the Supreme people's Court and the provisions of various relevant international conventions, after understanding the views of both parties to the dispute, the author carefully studied various maritime laws and regulations and international conventions. As well as referring to the judgments of the courts of various countries and the academic arguments of the scholars of various countries, the author expounds the author's position in more detail, that is, the author simply thinks that "indirect collision" does not of course belong to the category of "ship collision". Even under the guidance of the relevant laws and regulations, the payment of damages to safety property caused by "indirect collision" in accordance with the relevant provisions of "direct collision" does not mean that "ship collision" certainly includes "indirect collision". This is only an obligation to compensate for damage to a kind of safe property. At the same time, this paper also makes a relatively brief discussion on the controversial phenomena of "obtaining evidence" and "the application of law" in "ship collision" accidents. This paper mainly discusses the malpractice of the above two links in maritime practice, and lists some related cases. At the same time, the author also puts forward some simple improvement methods by summing up the viewpoints of scholars and court judgments.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：D996.19;D922.294

【引证文献】