《海商法》修订视角下船舶碰撞中非漏油船责任认定重构
Liability Attribution Reconstruction for Non-Oil-Leaking Vessels in Collision Incidents from the Perspective of the Maritime Code Amendment
摘要: 在船舶碰撞造成油污损害的情况下,海商法领域的争议焦点是非漏油船的责任认定,不同国际条约的适用、国际条约与国内法的适用、特别法律与程序法的适用也存在一定矛盾。以碰撞油污事故中非漏油船的责任性质、归责原则和责任形态为切入点,以“达飞佛罗里达”轮、“闽燃供2”轮等典型案例为切入点,从责任主体界定、因果关系认定、国际公约国内化衔接等方面,对现行制度的结构性缺陷进行系统分析。结合海商法修订进程,通过比较美国OPA90法案和欧盟油污责任指令的成熟经验,提出构建“以严责为本、错责为辅”的二元归责框架。明确非漏油船的“部分不真正连带责任”形态,完善国际公约与国内法的冲突解决机制,为《海商法》修订提供兼具理论创新性与实践可行性的制度方案。
Abstract: In cases of oil pollution damage caused by ship collisions, the focus of disputes in the field of maritime law lies in the liability determination of non-oil-leaking ships. There are also certain contradictions in the application of different international treaties, the application between international treaties and domestic laws, as well as the application between special laws and procedural laws. Taking the liability nature, imputation principles and liability forms of non-oil-leaking ships in collision-induced oil pollution accidents as the starting points, and drawing on typical cases such as the CMA CGM Florida and the Min Ran Gong 2, this paper conducts a systematic analysis of the structural defects of the current system from the aspects of liability subject definition, causation identification, and the connection between the domestication of international conventions and domestic law. In combination with the revision process of the Maritime Code, by comparing the mature experience of the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) and the European Union’s Oil Pollution Liability Directive, this paper proposes the construction of a dual imputation framework featuring “primacy of strict liability supplemented by fault liability”. It clarifies the form of “partial unreal joint and several liability” of non-oil-leaking ships and improves the conflict resolution mechanism between international conventions and domestic laws, thereby providing an institutional proposal with both theoretical innovation and practical feasibility for the revision of the Maritime Code.
参考文献
|
[1]
|
司玉琢, 吴煦. “谁漏油谁赔偿原则”的历史考证及其在碰撞事故中的运用[J]. 中国海商法研究, 2022, 33(1): 3-14.
|
|
[2]
|
岳明辉. 船舶碰撞致油污损害中非漏油船责任承担问题[J]. 世界海运, 2023, 46(6): 45-49.
|
|
[3]
|
余晓汉. 船舶碰撞漏油事故中非漏油船舶的所有人过错归责相关问题辨析——“达飞佛罗里达”轮油污案再审判决内外的思考[J]. 国际法研究, 2023(2): 58-77.
|
|
[4]
|
沈军. 船舶油污损害基金申请追加为申请执行人问题——中国船舶油污损害理赔事务中心申请追加申请执行人案[J]. 航海, 2023(4): 11-15.
|
|
[5]
|
黄华华, 郑敬枝. 从海事管理层面分析我国船舶油污损害赔偿基金制度[J]. 交通企业管理, 2024, 39(1): 28-30.
|
|
[6]
|
高妍. 国际海事条约在我国司法实践中的适用——以船舶油污损害赔偿案为例[J]. 水运管理, 2023, 45(6): 10-13.
|
|
[7]
|
张文广. 《海商法》三十年回顾与展望[J]. 中国远洋海运, 2023(7): 74-76.
|
|
[8]
|
廖兵兵, 李涛. 《1992年设立国际油污损害赔偿基金国际公约》适用全国可行性研究[J]. 交通节能与环保, 2022, 18(5): 31-34.
|