国际船级社责任制度的发展趋势及我国对策之研究
|
摘要
近一个世纪以来，船级社的功能日趋完善，地位也日渐重要，成为海运业一个不可缺少的重要角色。随着业务范围的扩展，船级社同时也面临着越来越多的诉讼，受到了法律责任的巨大威胁。但是，船级社责任及相关问题并没有得到足够的重视，理论研究也欠深入。国内外有关船级社责任的相关立法发展缓慢，仍然存在诸多空白。
本文在研究了船级社的法律地位及其参与的法律关系之后，主要以英国、美国及法国的相关法律规定及案例为基础，介绍了国际上船级社责任制度的现状，对其发趋势及我国相应对策作了探讨，希望能够对我国的相关立法的补充和完善有所助益。
For the recent century, classification society, which has become an essential part of the marine industry with the increasing position, is threatened by the gigantic legal liability on account of the more and more litigation confronted as the result of the enlargement of its operation. While, not enough emphasis has been placed on the liability issues of the classification society, neither was the relevant theoretical research.
The thesis, after explores the legal status and the relationship participated by the classification society, introduces the present international condition of the liability system of the classification society on the basis of the cases and the relevant legal provisions mainly provided in French, United States, as well as England. At the end, the developing trend of the liability system and the corresponding countermeasures of our state have been discussed, with the purpose to supplement the relevant legislation of our country.
本文在研究了船级社的法律地位及其参与的法律关系之后，主要以英国、美国及法国的相关法律规定及案例为基础，介绍了国际上船级社责任制度的现状，对其发趋势及我国相应对策作了探讨，希望能够对我国的相关立法的补充和完善有所助益。
For the recent century, classification society, which has become an essential part of the marine industry with the increasing position, is threatened by the gigantic legal liability on account of the more and more litigation confronted as the result of the enlargement of its operation. While, not enough emphasis has been placed on the liability issues of the classification society, neither was the relevant theoretical research.
The thesis, after explores the legal status and the relationship participated by the classification society, introduces the present international condition of the liability system of the classification society on the basis of the cases and the relevant legal provisions mainly provided in French, United States, as well as England. At the end, the developing trend of the liability system and the corresponding countermeasures of our state have been discussed, with the purpose to supplement the relevant legislation of our country.
引文
[1]Lloyd's List Maritme Asia, April 1999 P20
[2]国办发[1998]67号
[3]交人劳发[1999]400号
[4]杨良宜 林源民《船舶买卖法律与实务》，1995年版，人民交通出版社，p7
[5]杨良宜 林源民《船舶买卖法律与实务》，1995年版，人民交通出版社，P15
[6]海运情报97年第7期
[7]罗豪才《行政法学》1996年版，中国政法大学出版社，P18
[8]王利明《侵权行为法归责原则研究》1996年版，中国政法大学出版社，P18
[9]一元论：一种是坚持单一的过错归责理论，在过错归责原则中包括其他的归责原则；另一种是以危险归责代替过错归责，主张危险一元归责。二元论：以过失责任和危险责任为归责原则，或以过失责任和无过失责任作为归责原则。三元论：近代学者将侵权行为法的归责原理分为三大类：故意责任、过失责任和危险责任。
[10]梁彗星《民法论》、王利明《侵权行为法归责原则研究》，1996年版，中国政法大学出版社P173
[11]吴焕宁《海商法学》1990年版，法律出版社，P87
[12]司玉琢 吴兆麟《船舶碰撞法》1995年版，大连海事大学出版社，P27
[13]王利明《侵权行为法归责原则研究》1996年版，中国政法大学出版社，P170
[14]1995年11月22日的第95／57／EC号决议
[15]the thirty-second Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana, 17 April 1991
[16]江平主编《合同法精解》1999年版，中国政法大学出版社，P101
[17]Tunis Supreme Court, 10 April 1961
[18]Liability of the Classification Society, Edited by Jonathan Lux Lloyd's of London Press Ltd
[19]Ryan Stevedoring Co v. Pan-Atlantic Corp. 1956
[20]Great American Insurance Co v. Bureau Veritas, 1972
[22]In Re oil Spill by the Amoco Cadiz 1986, AMC 1945, 1951-54
[23]Southern District Court of New York
[24]Gulf Tampa Drydock Co v. Germanischer lloyd, US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 20 June, 1981
[25]Supreme Court of Appeals, 15 May 1923
[26]Avranches Court, 12 Jan, 1982, Caen Appeal Court, 12 Jan, 1983, and Cour de cassation, Criminal Court, 8 Oct,1985
[27]the Negus Mowinckel v. New York Bermudez Co, 2 May, 1923, District Court, S.D. New York
[28]13 Dec, 1963 by the House of Lords
[29]1962 Lloyd's Report P538
[30]decision of the Appeal Court in Rouen, Gazette du Palais 26, 261972, P7
[31]Mariola Marine Corporation v. Lloyds Register of Shipping, [1990] Lloyd's Rep.547
[32]Restatement(Second) of Tort
[33]Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association Ltd v. Bureau Veritas, 1973, AMC 2184
[34]Continental Insurance Co v. Daewoo Shipbuilding & heavy Machinery Ltd, Daewoo Shipbuilding and American Bureau of Shipping, USDJ New York, 10 July 1988
[35]Douai Appeal Court, 6 July 1978, DMF 1981, P153
[36]Brussels Convention of 17 December 1971
[37]Strasbourg Commercial Court, 6 February 1963, ef supra at note 49
[38]王利明《侵权行为法归责原则研究》1996年版，中国政法大学出版社，P326
[39]国家赔偿责任是指国家对于国家机关及其工作人员执行职务、行使公共权力损害公民、法人和其他组织的法定权利与合法利益所应承担的赔偿责任。根据《国家赔偿法》，其范围包括行政赔偿与刑事赔偿二个部分。行政赔偿指行政机关及其工作人员在行使职权时，侵犯人身、财产权造成损害而给予的赔偿。刑事赔偿指行使国家侦察、检察、审判、监狱管理职权的机关在刑事诉讼中，侵犯当事人人身权、财产权造成损害而给予的赔偿。其中，对侵犯财产权的行政赔偿主要包括以下几个方面：(1)违法实施罚款、吊销许可证和执照、责令停产停业、没收财产等行政处罚的，(2)违法对财产采取查封、扣押、冻结等行政强制措施的，(3)违反国家规定征收财物、摊派费用的，(4)造成财产损害的其他违法行为。
[2]国办发[1998]67号
[3]交人劳发[1999]400号
[4]杨良宜 林源民《船舶买卖法律与实务》，1995年版，人民交通出版社，p7
[5]杨良宜 林源民《船舶买卖法律与实务》，1995年版，人民交通出版社，P15
[6]海运情报97年第7期
[7]罗豪才《行政法学》1996年版，中国政法大学出版社，P18
[8]王利明《侵权行为法归责原则研究》1996年版，中国政法大学出版社，P18
[9]一元论：一种是坚持单一的过错归责理论，在过错归责原则中包括其他的归责原则；另一种是以危险归责代替过错归责，主张危险一元归责。二元论：以过失责任和危险责任为归责原则，或以过失责任和无过失责任作为归责原则。三元论：近代学者将侵权行为法的归责原理分为三大类：故意责任、过失责任和危险责任。
[10]梁彗星《民法论》、王利明《侵权行为法归责原则研究》，1996年版，中国政法大学出版社P173
[11]吴焕宁《海商法学》1990年版，法律出版社，P87
[12]司玉琢 吴兆麟《船舶碰撞法》1995年版，大连海事大学出版社，P27
[13]王利明《侵权行为法归责原则研究》1996年版，中国政法大学出版社，P170
[14]1995年11月22日的第95／57／EC号决议
[15]the thirty-second Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana, 17 April 1991
[16]江平主编《合同法精解》1999年版，中国政法大学出版社，P101
[17]Tunis Supreme Court, 10 April 1961
[18]Liability of the Classification Society, Edited by Jonathan Lux Lloyd's of London Press Ltd
[19]Ryan Stevedoring Co v. Pan-Atlantic Corp. 1956
[20]Great American Insurance Co v. Bureau Veritas, 1972
[22]In Re oil Spill by the Amoco Cadiz 1986, AMC 1945, 1951-54
[23]Southern District Court of New York
[24]Gulf Tampa Drydock Co v. Germanischer lloyd, US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 20 June, 1981
[25]Supreme Court of Appeals, 15 May 1923
[26]Avranches Court, 12 Jan, 1982, Caen Appeal Court, 12 Jan, 1983, and Cour de cassation, Criminal Court, 8 Oct,1985
[27]the Negus Mowinckel v. New York Bermudez Co, 2 May, 1923, District Court, S.D. New York
[28]13 Dec, 1963 by the House of Lords
[29]1962 Lloyd's Report P538
[30]decision of the Appeal Court in Rouen, Gazette du Palais 26, 261972, P7
[31]Mariola Marine Corporation v. Lloyds Register of Shipping, [1990] Lloyd's Rep.547
[32]Restatement(Second) of Tort
[33]Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association Ltd v. Bureau Veritas, 1973, AMC 2184
[34]Continental Insurance Co v. Daewoo Shipbuilding & heavy Machinery Ltd, Daewoo Shipbuilding and American Bureau of Shipping, USDJ New York, 10 July 1988
[35]Douai Appeal Court, 6 July 1978, DMF 1981, P153
[36]Brussels Convention of 17 December 1971
[37]Strasbourg Commercial Court, 6 February 1963, ef supra at note 49
[38]王利明《侵权行为法归责原则研究》1996年版，中国政法大学出版社，P326
[39]国家赔偿责任是指国家对于国家机关及其工作人员执行职务、行使公共权力损害公民、法人和其他组织的法定权利与合法利益所应承担的赔偿责任。根据《国家赔偿法》，其范围包括行政赔偿与刑事赔偿二个部分。行政赔偿指行政机关及其工作人员在行使职权时，侵犯人身、财产权造成损害而给予的赔偿。刑事赔偿指行使国家侦察、检察、审判、监狱管理职权的机关在刑事诉讼中，侵犯当事人人身权、财产权造成损害而给予的赔偿。其中，对侵犯财产权的行政赔偿主要包括以下几个方面：(1)违法实施罚款、吊销许可证和执照、责令停产停业、没收财产等行政处罚的，(2)违法对财产采取查封、扣押、冻结等行政强制措施的，(3)违反国家规定征收财物、摊派费用的，(4)造成财产损害的其他违法行为。