海盗赎金支付的法律分析

发布时间：2018-06-22 11:49

本文选题：海盗赎金 + 共同海损　；参考：《湘潭大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：2008以来,索马里海域频频发生的海盗劫持商船事件引起了国际社会的广泛关注,尽管国际社会在联合国安理会系列决议的指导下纷纷采取措施打击索马里海盗,但收效甚微。仍不时有商船被海盗劫持,而支付赎金目前似乎已经成为了解救被困船货及船员的唯一办法。对于海盗赎金支付这一行为的法律性质,主要航运国家,如英国、美国的成文及判例法一般认为向索马里海盗支付赎金是合法的。海盗赎金支付导致的损失可以分为船货赎金损失和船员赎金损失。船货赎金支付所导致的损失,尽管相当一部分学者认为可以认定为共同海损,但事实上这部分损失只是基于共同利益而支付,而基于共同利益支付的共同海损费用属于列明费用,而海盗赎金不属其中,也就不符合《安特卫普规则》以及各国海商法的规定。相比较而言,可以将海盗赎金支付所导致的损失认定为海难救助费用或施救费用,这样做不仅符合当前的国际、国内立法规定,而且也方便理算和事后的分摊。船员赎金损失,在雇主未履行安全义务,如未能保证船舶在整个航程中均处于适航状态,导致船舶无法抵御海盗袭击的话,应由雇主承担过错责任。同时,根据《海员遣返公约》以及人权法的相关规定,基于解救船员而支付的海盗赎金也可以视为船员遣返费用,因此应当由雇主承担。必要时,船旗国以及船员国籍国也应当承担适当的补充支付责任,以充分维护船员利益,并且事后可以向船员雇主追偿这部分损失。目前,中国在海盗赎金支付问题上并没有明确的立法规定,也没有出现相关的案例,但是,中国法院目前似乎倾向于对支付海盗赎金采取一种不干涉的态度。海盗问题在可以预见的未来将会是一个长期困扰国际航运的国际难题,对于海盗赎金支付的问题,中国应当秉着“以人为本”的理念,首先用尽外交、军事等传统方式,积极营救被困中国船员,必要时可以通过支付赎金的方式来解救被海盗劫持的中国船舶和船员,切实维护我国船员的生命安全。
[Abstract]:Since 2008, the frequent incidents of pirate hijacking in the Somali sea have aroused wide attention from the international community. Although the international community has taken measures to combat Somali pirates under the guidance of the UN Security Council resolutions, there is little effect. There are still some merchant ships hijacked from time to time, and the payment of ransom seems to have become a present. The only way to save the trapped cargo and the crew.
As for the legal nature of the pirate ransom payment, the main shipping countries, such as the British and the United States, generally believe that the payment of ransom to Somali pirates is legal. The losses caused by the ransom payment can be divided into the loss of the ransom of the ship and the loss of the ransom of the crew. The loss caused by the payment of the ransom of the ship is equal, although the loss is equal to the loss. Some scholars believe that it can be considered as a general average, but in fact, the loss is only based on common interests, and the cost of common average payment based on common interests belongs to the specified cost, and the pirate ransom is not one of them, and it does not conform to the provisions of the Antwerp rules and the provisions of the maritime law of various countries. The loss of the ransom payment is identified as the salvage fee or the rescue cost, which not only accords with the current international, domestic legislation, but also facilitates the calculation and apportionment. The loss of the ransom of the crew, the failure of the employer to fulfill the safety obligations, such as failure to ensure that the ship is in the seaworthiness state throughout the course of the ship, and causes the ship to not. At the same time, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention on repatriation of seafarers and the relevant provisions of human rights law, the pirate ransom paid on the basis of the rescue crew can also be considered to be the repatriation of the crew, so the employer should bear it. If necessary, the flag state and the state of nationality of the crew should also undertake appropriate supplements. In order to fully safeguard the interests of the crew, and to recover this part of the loss to the crew, there are no clear legislative provisions and no relevant cases on the pirate ransom payment, but the Chinese courts now seem to be inclined to take a non interference attitude towards the ransom payment. Pirates The problem in the foreseeable future will be an international problem that perplex international shipping for a long time. For the problem of the pirate ransom payment, China should uphold the concept of "people-oriented" and first use the traditional ways of diplomacy and military to save the trapped Chinese crew, and save the pirates by paying the ransom when necessary. Hijacked Chinese ships and crew effectively safeguard the safety of our crew.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D996.19;D997.9

【引证文献】