国际多式联运经营人责任制度协调的研究
发布时间：2019-02-13 20:43
【摘要】：一直以来，单一运输方式在国际货物运输领域占据主导地位，与之相适应，单一运输方式的国际公约在国际货物运输法中也占据主导地位。但是，随着集装箱运输的兴起和长足发展，门到门运输需求的进一步加大，各单一运输方式国际公约的不足或软肋日益显现。在目前盛行的国际多式联运领域网状责任制下，多式联运经营人责任承担方式的不确定性和不可预见性问题一直困扰着实务界和法律界。非定域货损和发生于多个运输区段的货损问题也一直没有很好的解决途径。货方利益和多式联运经营人的利益没有得到很好的平衡。法律制度层面的滞后，在一定程度上将有碍于多式联运事业的发展。而且，国际上尚缺乏一个有效规制国际多式联运的生效的公约，国际上对统一多式联运领域立法的呼声越来越大。然而机械地统一各单一运输方式国际公约中的责任制度似乎不太可行。当《鹿特丹规则》终于千呼万唤始出来，，其采用了一种更为含蓄、迂回的方式来协调各个既存的公约之间的关系，不失为明智之举。 本文试图通过对比各个主要单一运输方式国际公约的承运人责任制度和《国际多式联运公约》的承运人责任制度，来探讨这些公约之间是否存在统一的可能。试图通过案例来说明这些既存公约之间可能存在的冲突。当然，每一个单一运输方式公约诞生的背景不一样，其涉及的运输方式也各有特点，统一之路似乎很漫长。当统一似乎在当下难以实现时，本文试图通过分析新出台的《鹿特丹规则》中对条约冲突的应对，分析其中的利弊，看其是否能实现各个既存的单一运输方式国际公约之间的协调，以实现另一种意义上的统一。 第一章主要介绍了国际多式联运的起源、概念、特点；多式联运经营人的法律地位；多式联运单证系统的组成、种类及其单证的流转过程。 第二章主要介绍了当下国际多式联运的法律框架，分析了网状责任制和统一责任制各自的特点。并通过表格的形式对比了网状责任制、统一责任制和经修改的统一责任制。还分析了网状责任制度的缺陷。 第三章着重对比了各个主要单一运输方式国际公约在责任期间、责任基础、责任限制等方面的规定，以探求这些制度本身是否存在统一的可能性；并用案例的形式分析了这些公约之间存在的潜在冲突，以说明协调公约之间关系的现实性和紧迫性。 第四章以《鹿特丹规则》为蓝本，详细解读了其中第二十六条和第八十二条，分析了《鹿特丹规则》在应对公约冲突，协调新规则与既存公约关系中的巧妙之处。同时也指出了《鹿特丹规则》存在的一些小瑕疵，提出了一些不成熟的建议。期待《鹿特丹规则》在国际多式联运的统一大业上添上浓墨重彩的一笔。
[Abstract]:The single mode of transport has been playing a dominant role in the field of international transport of goods. In accordance with it, the international convention of single mode of transport also occupies a dominant position in the field of international transport of goods. However, with the rise and rapid development of container transportation, the demand for door-to-door transportation is further increased, and the weakness or weakness of each single mode of transport international conventions is becoming increasingly apparent. Under the prevailing network responsibility system in the field of international multimodal transport, the uncertainty and unpredictability of the liability assumption of multimodal transport operators have been puzzling the practical and legal circles. There is also no good way to solve the problem of non-local damage and damage occurring in multiple transportation sections. The interests of the consignor and the multimodal transport operator are not well balanced. The lag of legal system will hinder the development of multimodal transport to some extent. Moreover, there is still a lack of an effective convention to regulate the effectiveness of international multimodal transport, and there are more and more calls for the unification of international legislation in the field of multimodal transport. However, mechanically unifying the liability regime in international conventions on single modes of transport does not seem feasible. When the Rotterdam rules finally came out shyly, it was wise to reconcile the existing conventions in a more implicit, circuitous way. This paper attempts to compare the carrier liability regimes of the major international conventions on single mode of transport with those of the International Convention on Multimodal Transport to explore whether there is a possibility of unification among these conventions. This paper attempts to illustrate the possible conflicts between these existing conventions through case studies. Of course, each single mode of transport convention came into being in a different context, involving different modes of transport, and the road to unification seems to be long. When unification seems to be difficult to achieve at the moment, this paper attempts to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the new Rotterdam rules by analyzing the responses to treaty conflicts. To see if it can achieve the existing single mode of transport between the international conventions, in order to achieve another sense of unity. The first chapter mainly introduces the origin, concept and characteristics of international multimodal transport; the legal status of multimodal transport operators; the composition, types and circulation process of multimodal transport document system. The second chapter mainly introduces the current international multimodal transport legal framework and analyzes the characteristics of the network responsibility system and the unified responsibility system. The network responsibility system, the unified responsibility system and the revised unified responsibility system are compared in the form of tables. The defects of network liability system are also analyzed. The third chapter focuses on the comparison of the main single mode of transport international conventions in the period of responsibility, the basis of responsibility, liability limitation and so on, in order to explore whether there is a unified possibility of these systems; The potential conflicts between these conventions are analyzed in the form of cases to illustrate the reality and urgency of harmonizing the relations between conventions. In Chapter 4, the Rotterdam rules are taken as the model, and articles 26 and 82 are interpreted in detail, and the cleverness of the Rotterdam rules in dealing with the conflict of conventions and coordinating the relationship between the new rules and the existing conventions is analyzed. At the same time, it also points out some minor defects in Rotterdam Rule, and puts forward some immature suggestions. Looking forward to the Rotterdam rules in the United cause of international multimodal transport to add a strong color.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D996
本文编号：2421864
[Abstract]:The single mode of transport has been playing a dominant role in the field of international transport of goods. In accordance with it, the international convention of single mode of transport also occupies a dominant position in the field of international transport of goods. However, with the rise and rapid development of container transportation, the demand for door-to-door transportation is further increased, and the weakness or weakness of each single mode of transport international conventions is becoming increasingly apparent. Under the prevailing network responsibility system in the field of international multimodal transport, the uncertainty and unpredictability of the liability assumption of multimodal transport operators have been puzzling the practical and legal circles. There is also no good way to solve the problem of non-local damage and damage occurring in multiple transportation sections. The interests of the consignor and the multimodal transport operator are not well balanced. The lag of legal system will hinder the development of multimodal transport to some extent. Moreover, there is still a lack of an effective convention to regulate the effectiveness of international multimodal transport, and there are more and more calls for the unification of international legislation in the field of multimodal transport. However, mechanically unifying the liability regime in international conventions on single modes of transport does not seem feasible. When the Rotterdam rules finally came out shyly, it was wise to reconcile the existing conventions in a more implicit, circuitous way. This paper attempts to compare the carrier liability regimes of the major international conventions on single mode of transport with those of the International Convention on Multimodal Transport to explore whether there is a possibility of unification among these conventions. This paper attempts to illustrate the possible conflicts between these existing conventions through case studies. Of course, each single mode of transport convention came into being in a different context, involving different modes of transport, and the road to unification seems to be long. When unification seems to be difficult to achieve at the moment, this paper attempts to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the new Rotterdam rules by analyzing the responses to treaty conflicts. To see if it can achieve the existing single mode of transport between the international conventions, in order to achieve another sense of unity. The first chapter mainly introduces the origin, concept and characteristics of international multimodal transport; the legal status of multimodal transport operators; the composition, types and circulation process of multimodal transport document system. The second chapter mainly introduces the current international multimodal transport legal framework and analyzes the characteristics of the network responsibility system and the unified responsibility system. The network responsibility system, the unified responsibility system and the revised unified responsibility system are compared in the form of tables. The defects of network liability system are also analyzed. The third chapter focuses on the comparison of the main single mode of transport international conventions in the period of responsibility, the basis of responsibility, liability limitation and so on, in order to explore whether there is a unified possibility of these systems; The potential conflicts between these conventions are analyzed in the form of cases to illustrate the reality and urgency of harmonizing the relations between conventions. In Chapter 4, the Rotterdam rules are taken as the model, and articles 26 and 82 are interpreted in detail, and the cleverness of the Rotterdam rules in dealing with the conflict of conventions and coordinating the relationship between the new rules and the existing conventions is analyzed. At the same time, it also points out some minor defects in Rotterdam Rule, and puts forward some immature suggestions. Looking forward to the Rotterdam rules in the United cause of international multimodal transport to add a strong color.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D996
【引证文献】
相关硕士学位论文 前1条
1 季歆;《鹿特丹规则》下多式联运经营人的责任制度研究[D];华东政法大学;2013年
本文编号：2421864
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/guojifa/2421864.html
