危险货物海运的立法疏忽探究,海事海商法论文

危险货物海运的立法疏忽探究,海事海商法论文本篇论文目录导航：【题目】危险货物海运的立法疏忽探究【导言】【第一章】【第二章】【3.1-3.3】【3.43.5】【第四章】【第五章】【第六章】【结束语/以下为参考文献】内容摘要随着化学工业的快速发展，每年危险货物海上运输的数量呈上升趋势，危险货物运输一直以来是关系到海上财产及人命安全的重大问题，并且一旦发生危险事故，不仅承托双方的利益会遭受损失，更有可能造成同船其他货物托运人及海域的污染受害人等第三方的经济损失。因而，各国国内法及相关海上运输国际公约都对危险货物的运输做出了较之普通货物运输的特殊规定，赋予了承托双方针对危货性质的特殊权利义务及归责原则。我们国家海商法中，对危险货物并没有明确的定义，固然明文规定了承托双方的权利义务，然而在实践中，一些规定却使得船货利益不对等，造成了承托双方利益风险的不公平分配。另外，对于危货造成的第三方损失，我们国家(海商法〕中却没有规定，造成第三方求偿困难的局面。第一部分首先概括性的分析了危险货物海上运输的现在状况，并通过案例分析指出危货海运现存的立法疏忽，其后参考英国海商法，对危险货物的定义做出了分析和界定，从狭义讲和广义讲两个层面入手，最后本文支持广义讲的观点，以为危险货物不应当只局限于内在具有危险的化学性或物理性的货物，还应当包括本身性质无害，在航程中碰到特殊环境或条件却引发事故的货物。第二部分对危险货物海上运输的相关立法状况进行梳理，分为国际公约、外国国内法、中国国内法三个层面，对重要的国际公约--(国际海上危险货物运输规则〕的发展、法律渊源及适用施行进行分析，并对其他海运国际公约的有关危险货物的条款进行概括。在外国法和中国法下，分别对英美两国及中国国内法的危险货物海上运输立法发展及相关条款进行概括性的表述。第三部分具体分析承托双方的各项义务，并探究履行各项义务的标准。通过承托双方权利义务的比照分析，研究得出在某些规定下，存在船货利益不对等的问题，包括：1.由于(海商法〕中的免责条款和保险条款排出了承运人和保险人对因货物包装不当及标识不清造成损失的赔偿责任，而托运人不享受任何免责条款及责任限制，一旦给船方造成巨额损失，可能面临破产的危险；2.在托运人的通知义务下，对现实中提单上经常出现的不知条款及锈蚀条款进行效力分析，得出不知条款存在有效而锈蚀条款无法律效力的结论；3.当托运人将包装及标识标记义务委托给第三方，而该第三方未完全履行义务造成承运人损失时，追偿程序过为繁琐，并且不利于保卫托运人的利益；4.(海商法〕第68条，虽规定了承运人享有危货的处置权，却规定的过为广泛，会造成托运人的损失。第四部分通过分析海上运输国际公约和英国海商法案例，研究承托双方的归责原则，托运人对危货的义务应当承当严格责任，然而在承运人同时存在过错的情况下，承托双方应当根据过错比例分摊损失。我们国家海商法下，承运人承当不完全过失责任，并且本文建议，参照英国法将适航义务规定为承运人的首要义务，即若承运人违背适航义务，将无权主张免责条款。第五部分在第三、四部分的基础上，通过分析立法背景及现实操作的需要，首先说明如此立法的原因和意义，再对上文分析出的船货不对等问题，对平衡船货利益提出如下立法建议：1.对于危货定义不明，建议我们国家海商法使用列举的方式，举例列明危货的种类，并且随后规定一个概括性的表述，将广义上的危险货物也纳入华而不实；2.当托运人将危货义务委托给第三人，而因第三人的过错造成承运人损失时，建议由第三人和托运人一同对承运人承当连带责任。3.限制承运人危险货物的处置权，建议规定若一个合格慎重的承运人在同等条件下，具有合理的专业能力同时保全船舶和危货时，承运人不得销毁危货，承运人滥用危货处置权的，应当给托运人赔偿损失。4.参考IMDGCode规定的包装方式，在我们国家海商法下对妥善包装给出明确的标准。5.为托运人针对危货产生的法律责任，提供责任限制保卫。最后一部分对危货运输给第三方造成损失时提出立法建议，无论是同船货物的其他托运人还是海域污染的受害人，在我们国家海商法下没有一个专门的章节对其进行保卫，因而建议我们国家参加(国际海上运输有毒有害物质污染损害责任赔偿条约〕，要求船舶所有人承当强迫责任险，并且为第三方受害方提供双层赔偿机制，建议我们国家尽快调整国内法与赔偿机制，做到与公约的有效衔接。本文关键词语：危险货物海上运输；船货利益不对等；托运人权利义务；承运人权利义务；第三方损失赔偿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