危險(xiǎn)貨物海運(yùn)的立法疏忽探究,海事海商法論文

危險(xiǎn)貨物海運(yùn)的立法疏忽探究,海事海商法論文本篇論文目錄導(dǎo)航：【題目】危險(xiǎn)貨物海運(yùn)的立法疏忽探究【導(dǎo)言】【第一章】【第二章】【3.1-3.3】【3.43.5】【第四章】【第五章】【第六章】【結(jié)束語(yǔ)/以下為參考文獻(xiàn)】?jī)?nèi)容摘要隨著化學(xué)工業(yè)的快速發(fā)展，每年危險(xiǎn)貨物海上運(yùn)輸?shù)臄?shù)量呈上升趨勢(shì)，危險(xiǎn)貨物運(yùn)輸一直以來(lái)是關(guān)系到海上財(cái)產(chǎn)及人命安全的重大問(wèn)題，并且一旦發(fā)生危險(xiǎn)事故，不僅承托雙方的利益會(huì)遭受損失，更有可能造成同船其他貨物托運(yùn)人及海域的污染受害人等第三方的經(jīng)濟(jì)損失。因而，各國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)法及相關(guān)海上運(yùn)輸國(guó)際公約都對(duì)危險(xiǎn)貨物的運(yùn)輸做出了較之普通貨物運(yùn)輸?shù)奶厥庖?guī)定，賦予了承托雙方針對(duì)危貨性質(zhì)的特殊權(quán)利義務(wù)及歸責(zé)原則。我們國(guó)家海商法中，對(duì)危險(xiǎn)貨物并沒(méi)有明確的定義，固然明文規(guī)定了承托雙方的權(quán)利義務(wù)，然而在實(shí)踐中，一些規(guī)定卻使得船貨利益不對(duì)等，造成了承托雙方利益風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的不公平分配。另外，對(duì)于危貨造成的第三方損失，我們國(guó)家(海商法〕中卻沒(méi)有規(guī)定，造成第三方求償困難的局面。第一部分首先概括性的分析了危險(xiǎn)貨物海上運(yùn)輸?shù)默F(xiàn)在狀況，并通過(guò)案例分析指出危貨海運(yùn)現(xiàn)存的立法疏忽，其后參考英國(guó)海商法，對(duì)危險(xiǎn)貨物的定義做出了分析和界定，從狹義講和廣義講兩個(gè)層面入手，最后本文支持廣義講的觀點(diǎn)，以為危險(xiǎn)貨物不應(yīng)當(dāng)只局限于內(nèi)在具有危險(xiǎn)的化學(xué)性或物理性的貨物，還應(yīng)當(dāng)包括本身性質(zhì)無(wú)害，在航程中碰到特殊環(huán)境或條件卻引發(fā)事故的貨物。第二部分對(duì)危險(xiǎn)貨物海上運(yùn)輸?shù)南嚓P(guān)立法狀況進(jìn)行梳理，分為國(guó)際公約、外國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)法、中國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)法三個(gè)層面，對(duì)重要的國(guó)際公約--(國(guó)際海上危險(xiǎn)貨物運(yùn)輸規(guī)則〕的發(fā)展、法律淵源及適用施行進(jìn)行分析，并對(duì)其他海運(yùn)國(guó)際公約的有關(guān)危險(xiǎn)貨物的條款進(jìn)行概括。在外國(guó)法和中國(guó)法下，分別對(duì)英美兩國(guó)及中國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)法的危險(xiǎn)貨物海上運(yùn)輸立法發(fā)展及相關(guān)條款進(jìn)行概括性的表述。第三部分具體分析承托雙方的各項(xiàng)義務(wù)，并探究履行各項(xiàng)義務(wù)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。通過(guò)承托雙方權(quán)利義務(wù)的比照分析，研究得出在某些規(guī)定下，存在船貨利益不對(duì)等的問(wèn)題，包括：1.由于(海商法〕中的免責(zé)條款和保險(xiǎn)條款排出了承運(yùn)人和保險(xiǎn)人對(duì)因貨物包裝不當(dāng)及標(biāo)識(shí)不清造成損失的賠償責(zé)任，而托運(yùn)人不享受任何免責(zé)條款及責(zé)任限制，一旦給船方造成巨額損失，可能面臨破產(chǎn)的危險(xiǎn)；2.在托運(yùn)人的通知義務(wù)下，對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)中提單上經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)的不知條款及銹蝕條款進(jìn)行效力分析，得出不知條款存在有效而銹蝕條款無(wú)法律效力的結(jié)論；3.當(dāng)托運(yùn)人將包裝及標(biāo)識(shí)標(biāo)記義務(wù)委托給第三方，而該第三方未完全履行義務(wù)造成承運(yùn)人損失時(shí)，追償程序過(guò)為繁瑣，并且不利于保衛(wèi)托運(yùn)人的利益；4.(海商法〕第68條，雖規(guī)定了承運(yùn)人享有危貨的處置權(quán)，卻規(guī)定的過(guò)為廣泛，會(huì)造成托運(yùn)人的損失。第四部分通過(guò)分析海上運(yùn)輸國(guó)際公約和英國(guó)海商法案例，研究承托雙方的歸責(zé)原則，托運(yùn)人對(duì)危貨的義務(wù)應(yīng)當(dāng)承當(dāng)嚴(yán)格責(zé)任，然而在承運(yùn)人同時(shí)存在過(guò)錯(cuò)的情況下，承托雙方應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)過(guò)錯(cuò)比例分?jǐn)倱p失。我們國(guó)家海商法下，承運(yùn)人承當(dāng)不完全過(guò)失責(zé)任，并且本文建議，參照英國(guó)法將適航義務(wù)規(guī)定為承運(yùn)人的首要義務(wù)，即若承運(yùn)人違背適航義務(wù)，將無(wú)權(quán)主張免責(zé)條款。第五部分在第三、四部分的基礎(chǔ)上，通過(guò)分析立法背景及現(xiàn)實(shí)操作的需要，首先說(shuō)明如此立法的原因和意義，再對(duì)上文分析出的船貨不對(duì)等問(wèn)題，對(duì)平衡船貨利益提出如下立法建議：1.對(duì)于危貨定義不明，建議我們國(guó)家海商法使用列舉的方式，舉例列明危貨的種類，并且隨后規(guī)定一個(gè)概括性的表述，將廣義上的危險(xiǎn)貨物也納入華而不實(shí)；2.當(dāng)托運(yùn)人將危貨義務(wù)委托給第三人，而因第三人的過(guò)錯(cuò)造成承運(yùn)人損失時(shí)，建議由第三人和托運(yùn)人一同對(duì)承運(yùn)人承當(dāng)連帶責(zé)任。3.限制承運(yùn)人危險(xiǎn)貨物的處置權(quán)，建議規(guī)定若一個(gè)合格慎重的承運(yùn)人在同等條件下，具有合理的專業(yè)能力同時(shí)保全船舶和危貨時(shí)，承運(yùn)人不得銷毀危貨，承運(yùn)人濫用危貨處置權(quán)的，應(yīng)當(dāng)給托運(yùn)人賠償損失。4.參考IMDGCode規(guī)定的包裝方式，在我們國(guó)家海商法下對(duì)妥善包裝給出明確的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。5.為托運(yùn)人針對(duì)危貨產(chǎn)生的法律責(zé)任，提供責(zé)任限制保衛(wèi)。最后一部分對(duì)危貨運(yùn)輸給第三方造成損失時(shí)提出立法建議，無(wú)論是同船貨物的其他托運(yùn)人還是海域污染的受害人，在我們國(guó)家海商法下沒(méi)有一個(gè)專門的章節(jié)對(duì)其進(jìn)行保衛(wèi)，因而建議我們國(guó)家參加(國(guó)際海上運(yùn)輸有毒有害物質(zhì)污染損害責(zé)任賠償條約〕，要求船舶所有人承當(dāng)強(qiáng)迫責(zé)任險(xiǎn)，并且為第三方受害方提供雙層賠償機(jī)制，建議我們國(guó)家盡快調(diào)整國(guó)內(nèi)法與賠償機(jī)制，做到與公約的有效銜接。本文關(guān)鍵詞語(yǔ)：危險(xiǎn)貨物海上運(yùn)輸；船貨利益不對(duì)等；托運(yùn)人權(quán)利義務(wù)；承運(yùn)人權(quán)利義務(wù)；第三方損失賠償AbstractWiththefastdevelopmentofchemicalindustry,dangerousgoodsareincreasinglycarriedbyseaeveryyear.Thecarriageofdangerousgoodsbyseahasbeenasignificantproblemrelatedtosecurityofpropertyandlifeatseaforalongtime.Oncedangerousaccidentsincur,notonlythecarrierandtheshipperwouldsufferloss,butalsomaycausethethirdpartytosuffereconomicloss,e.g.othershipperswhohavecargoonboardorvictimsofmarinepollution.Therefore,comparedwithordinarygoods,domesticlawsofseveralstatesandtherelevantmaritimeinternationalconventionsprovidespecificprovisionsconcerningthecarriageofdangerousgoodsbyseaandregulatespecialrights,dutiesandthedoctrineofliabilityfixationfortheshipperandthecarrier.ChinaMaritimeLawdoesnotprovidedangerousgoodsaclearconception.Althoughitstipulatesrightsanddutiesofshippersandcarriersinexplicitterms,thesetermsmightcausetheimbalancebetweenshipinterestsandcargointerestsinpractice.Otherwise,ourMaritimeLawdoesnotexpresslystipulatethethirdpartyslosscausedbythecarriageofdangerousgoodsbysea.Asaresult,itissodifficultforthethirdpartytorecoveritslossfromtheshipperandthecarrieraccordingtoChinaMaritimeLaw.TheChapterOnegenerallyanalysesthecurrentsituationofthecarriageofdangerousgoodsbyseaandpointsoutlegalloopholesbydiscussingtherelevantcases.ThenreferringtotheUKMaritimeLaw,examineanddeterminetheconceptofdangerousgoodsonthebaseofthenarrowsenseandthebroadsense.Thisdissertationsupportstheopinionofbroadsenseandconsidersthatthedefinitionofdangerousgoodsisnotappropriatetobeconfinedtothegoodswithinherentdangerouschemicalorphysicalnature,butshouldalsoincludethegoodsthatareintrinsicsafebutcauseaccidentswhenitmeetsaspecialenvironmentorconditionduringtheseavoyage.TheChapterTwodescribestherelevantlegislationsituationconcerningthecarriageofdangerousgoodsbyseabasedonthethreeaspects,namelytheinternationalconventions,foreigndomesticlawsandChinadomesticlaws,andanalysesthedevelopment,legalresourceandapplicationoftheimportantinternationalconvention---InternationalMaritimeDangerousGoods〔IMDGCode〕。Generallydescribetheprovisionsondangerousgoodsinothermarineinternationalconventions.UnderforeigndomesticlawsandChinadomesticlaws,thischapterwillgenerallyintroducethedevelopmentoflegislationandtherelevantrulesofUK,USAandP.R.Crespectively.TheChapterThreedetailedanalysesallsortsofdutiesoftheshipperandthecarrier,andexaminesthestandardsofcompletelyperformingtheseduties.Itpointsouttheproblemsconcerningtheimbalancebetweenshipinterestsandcargointerestsundercertainrulesbycomparingtheshippersrightsanddutiesandthecarriersrightsandduties.1.SincetheexemptionclauseandtheinsuranceclauseofMaritimeLawexempttheindemnityliabilityofthecarrierandtheinsurerintermsofthelosscausedbyimproperpackageorunclearmarkofgoodsandtheshipperisnotallowedtobeprotectedbytheexemptionclauseandthelimitationofliability.Therefore,oncedangerousgoodscauselargelosssufferedbythecarrierduetotheshippersfault,theshippermighthavetoconfrontwithbankruptcy.2.ByanalyzingthelegaleffectoftheUnknownClauseandtheRustClausethatareoftenstatedbythebillofladingunderthenoticeliabilityoftheshipper,itcouldbearguedthattheUnknownClauseisvalidbuttheRustClauseisinvalid.3.Wheretheshippertransfersitsdutiesofpackageormarktothethirdparty,ifthecarriersufferslossduetothethirdpartysimpropercompletionofsuchduties,therecoveryprocedureissocomplicatedandnotgoodfortheshippersinterests.4.AlthoughArticle68ofMaritimeLawprovidesthatthecarrierenjoystherightofdisposal,therightistoobroadandgeneral,whichwouldresultinthecarrierseconomicloss.TheChapterFouranalyzesthedoctrineofliabilityfixationwithregardtotheshippersdutiesandthecarriersdutiesthroughexaminingtherelevantmaritimeinternationalconventionsandthemarinecasesundertheUKlaw.Theshipperisstrictlyliableforthecarriageofdangerousgoods.Wherethelossisalsocausedbythecarriersfaultornegligence,thetwopartiesshalljointlybearthelossbasedontheproportionoftheirfaultornegligence.UnderChinaMaritimeLaw,thecarrierbearsincompletefaultliability.ItcouldbesuggestedthattheMaritimeLawcouldstipulatetheobligationofseaworthinessofthecarrierastheoverridingobligationreferringtotheUKlaw,meaningthatincasethecarrierbreachestheobligationofseaworthiness,itwouldnotbeallowedtoclaimtheexemptionclause.TheChapterFiveclarifiesthereasonsandsenseofsuchlitigationthroughanalyzingthelitigationbackgroundandtheneedsofpracticaloperation.ThenitmakeslegislationsuggestionsconcerningtheimbalancebetweenshipinterestsandcargointerestsbasedontheChapterThreeandtheChapterFour.1.Intermsoftheuncleardefinitionofdangerousgoods,itcanbesuggestedthattheMaritimeLawcouldclearlylisttheclassificationofdangerousgoodsandthenmakeageneralexpressiontoincludethedangerousgoodsinbroadsense.2.Wheretheshippertransfersthedutiesofpackageormarktothethirdpartyandthecarriersufferslossduetothethirdpartysfaultornegligence,itcouldbeproposedthattheshipperandthethirdpartyarejointlyliableforthecarriersloss.3.Tolimittherightofdisposalofthecarrier,theMaritimeLawcouldprovidethatifaqualified,reasonableandprudentcarrierhasthecompetencetosaveandkeepthevesselandthedangerousgoodsatthesametimeunderthesamecircumstances,thecarrierisnotentitledtoperformtherightofdisposal.Otherwisewherethecarrierabusestherightofdisposalandcausestheshippersloss,thecarriershallbeliablefortheshippersloss.4.ReferringtothepackagemethodsintheIMDGCode,theMaritimeLawshouldprovideaclearstandardforproperpackage.5.TheMaritimelawissuggestedtoprovidethelimitationofliabilityfortheshipperintermsofthedutiesarisingfromthecarriageofdangerousgoodsbysea.Thelastchapterprovideslegislativesuggestionsinrespectofthesituationofthethirdpartysufferinglosscausedbythecarriageofdangerousgoodsbysea.ThereisnospecificchapterundertheMaritimeLawtoprotectthethirdpartysinterestsnomatterwhethertheyareshipperswhohavegoodsonboardthesamevesselorvictimsofmarinepollution.Therefore,itcouldbesuggestedthatChinashouldjointheHNSConventionandrequiretheshipownertoprovidethecompulsoryliabilityinsuranceandthedoublelayerscompensationsystemforthethirdparty.Otherwise,thedomesticlawandco