中美船舶油污损害赔偿制度比较研究

发布时间：2018-02-13 00:02

本文关键词： 损害赔偿归责原则责任主体责任保险基金制度　出处：《西南政法大学》2011年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：我国是一个拥有广阔海域的国家,近年来经济的发展,使我国对石油的需求越来越大。据有关数据表明,截止2010年12月我国原油的进口量,较去年同期增长了17.5%。1同时,我国石油的进口百分之九十是依靠船舶运输。大量石油的进口,不可避免的给我国带来了海上石油污染的威胁。然而现行立法没有专门船舶油污损害赔偿方面的民事责任立法,其中的一些相关规定也都散见在不同法律法规中,比如《民法通则》,《环境保护法》,《防污条例》等等。面对这些问题,我国非常有必要建立起自己的船舶油污损害赔偿制度。美国《1990年油污法》应该是一个成功的范例,它在油污防治以及赔偿的各个方面都规定得十分完善。虽然它是美国国内法,但是我国同样可以借鉴其制度优势之处应用于我国制度之建设。本文试从美国《1990年油污法》与中国油污损害赔偿相关规定的比较入手,分析比较两国规定的不同,再辅以国际法规则的经验借鉴,旨在对我国船舶油污损害赔偿制度的建设提供一些有益的参考。本文一共分为五个部分。第一部分主要介绍了中美两国现有船舶油污损害赔偿制度,指出美国最重要治理油污的法律是OPA1990。该法律与美国自19世纪以来制定的一系列油污规则共同治理着美国海上船舶油污污染。同时通过对中国油污规则的背景介绍,说明中国现阶段在这一领域大体还是实行双轨制。第二部分是归责原则和免责条件的问题。首先论述现阶段各国普遍适用的船舶油污归责原则,指出该原则背离了传统的船舶油污归责原则—船东保护主义。然后通过两国相关规定的比较,分析,指出虽然两国都是适用严格的归责原则,但是该原则在两国的严格程度并不相同,美国归责原则的严格程度要重于我国。而这种程度的差异正是通过免责条件的不同反映出来的。第三部分主要论述的是责任主体、保险和直接诉讼问题。同样通过比较分析,我们可以得出这样的结论:就责任主体而言,美国所规定的责任主体范围最大,国际条约次之,而我国国内的相关规定不够明晰,缺乏现实操作性;责任保险和直接诉讼制度在两国都有规定,只是在细节上有一些不同之处,但这些细节的不同会引起截然不同的后果,这同样值得我们思考。第四部分是关于基金制度的问题。通过对基金制度的研究,对国内和涉外两个层面的情况进行总结。我国现阶段在涉外基金制度方面依旧是空白状态,同时,与美国信托基金相比,我国国内基金制度在基金来源,机构组织等方面多有不足,进而指出我们应该学习美国信托基金中重视对溢油威胁事故应急反应的立法宗旨。第五部分主要论述我国船舶油污损害赔偿制度的完善。通过前面几部分的研究,笔者总结出现阶段完善我国船舶油污制度要从术语的规范、更加严苛的免责条件、责任主体和直接诉讼制度的完善等方面入手,同时还应建立起本国国内层面的基金制度。笔者就国内基金制度提出了自己一些看法,例如经过长期发展以后基金的性质应该定义为信托基金,需对《船舶油污损害赔偿基金征收和使用管理办法》中的一些规定进行修正等。
[Abstract]:China is a country with a vast area of the country, economic development in recent years, China's demand for oil is increasing. According to the relevant data show that as of December 2010, China's crude oil import volume, compared with the same period last year increased by 17.5%.1 at the same time, China's oil imports of ninety percent is to rely on a lot of oil shipping. Import, inevitably bring to our country the threat of oil pollution. However, the existing legislation does not have specific legislation on civil liability for oil pollution damage compensation, and some of the relevant provisions are scattered in different laws and regulations, such as the "general principles of civil law > > < < Law of environmental protection, and so on. In the face of these Regulations on anti fouling the problem that our country is very necessary to establish the system of compensation for oil pollution damage from ships of their own.
The United States <1990 oil law "should be a successful example, it in oil pollution prevention and compensation are all quite perfect. Although it is the domestic law of the United States, but China can also learn from the advantages of this system for the building of our system. This paper tries to compare with the relevant provisions of compensation from the United States <1990 oil pollution damage and Chinese law, analysis and comparison of the different provisions of the two countries, then the rules with experience of international law, aimed at building a system of compensation for oil pollution damage in China provide some useful reference. This paper is divided into five parts.
The first part mainly introduces the existing system of compensation for ship oil pollution damage Sino US, pointed out that the most important controlling oil law is a series of rules of the oil OPA1990. law and the United States since nineteenth Century to develop a common management of marine oil pollution pollution in the United States. At the same time through the China oil rule of background, that Chinese at this stage in this field is still of double track system.
The second part is the liability principle and the exemption conditions. Firstly, oil pollution generally applicable at this stage the imputation principle, the principle that deviates from the traditional imputation principle of ship pollution - the owner of protectionism. Then through the comparison between relevant provisions, analysis, pointed out that although the two countries are applicable imputation principle strictly, but the principle of the strict between the two countries is not the same, the strict degree of imputation principle to in our country. And the differences of the degree is through the exemption conditions of different reflected.
The third part mainly discusses the subject of liability, insurance and direct action. Also through the comparative analysis, we can conclude that it is the responsibility of the subject, the scope of the main responsibility of the United States by the provisions of the international treaty, the second, while the related regulations in our country will not clear, lack of practical operability; liability insurance and the direct lawsuit system in the two countries have provided, but the details have some differences, but these details will be quite different from the different consequences, which is worth our consideration.
The fourth part is about the problem of fund. Through the research on the fund system, the two domestic and foreign aspects of the summary. At the present stage of our country in the foreign fund system is still blank, at the same time, compared with the United States Trust Fund, China fund system in terms of source of funds, organization etc. many deficiencies, and pointed out that we should learn from the United States Trust Fund attaches importance to the legislative purpose of emergency response of oil spill accident threat.
The fifth part mainly discusses the improvement of the system of compensation for oil pollution damage in China. Through the above research, the author summed up the stage of perfecting the system of ship oil pollution from the terminology standard, exemption conditions more stringent, perfect aspects and the main responsibility system of direct action to start, should also establish our own domestic level the fund system. The domestic fund system put forward their own views, for example, after a prolonged development fund should be defined as the trust fund for "ship oil pollution compensation fund levy and the amendment by some of the provisions of the measures on the administration of.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D922.68;D971.2

【引证文献】