论海事赔偿请求限制性与非限制性之识别

发布时间：2018-06-25 04:03

本文选题：海事赔偿请求 + 责任限制　；参考：《环球法律评论》2017年04期

【摘要】：我国《海商法》第十一章借鉴吸收1976年《海事索赔责任限制公约》,规定了海事赔偿责任限制制度。从整体把握国内法和国际条约的解释规则出发,通过分析相关海事司法解释和典型案例所体现的法律解释方法可见,尽管不排除在未来司法实践中采用其他法律解释方法的可能,但为保障海事法律适用的稳定性、可预期性和国际趋同性,海事赔偿请求限制性与非限制性的认定应当坚持以立法者目的解释和文义解释为主,并进行合乎逻辑的论证说理。鉴于该公约第2条第1款规定的限制性海事赔偿请求a、c项与d、e项在文义上存在重叠,认定有关海事赔偿请求的限制性与非限制性更应重视考察立法目的。我国现阶段可进一步确立两项规则:第一,1976年《海事索赔责任限制公约》与我国《海商法》对相关公共利益的保护具有有限性和层次性,司法实践还强调法律关系的相对性,并非凡是涉及公共利益的海事赔偿请求均为非限制性。第二,某项海事赔偿请求若在文义上可归于《海商法》所保留的该公约第2条第1款d、e项的范围,尽管也可归于该条款a、c项的范围,仍应认定为非限制性海事赔偿请求;若在文义上不能归于第2条第1款d、e项,而可纳入该条款a、c项的范围,则应认定为限制性海事赔偿请求。
[Abstract]:Chapter 11 of the Maritime Law of China draws on the 1976 Convention on limitation of liability for Maritime claims and provides the system of limitation of liability for maritime claims. Starting from the overall understanding of the rules of interpretation of domestic laws and international treaties, and through the analysis of the relevant maritime judicial interpretations and the legal interpretation methods embodied in typical cases, it can be seen that, While not excluding the possibility of other legal interpretations in future judicial practice, in order to ensure the stability of the application of maritime law, predictability and international convergence are required, The determination of limitation and non-restriction of maritime claims should be based on the interpretation of legislator's purpose and the interpretation of literary meaning, and should be justified by logical argumentation. In view of the overlap between subparagraph (a) (c) and subparagraph (dae) of restrictive maritime claims under article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, it is concluded that more attention should be paid to the purpose of legislation in relation to the restrictive and unrestrictive claims of maritime claims. At the present stage, two rules can be further established in China: first, the Convention on limitation of liability for Maritime claims of 1976 and the Maritime Law of China are limited and hierarchical in the protection of relevant public interests. Judicial practice also emphasizes the relativity of legal relations. Not all maritime claims involving the public interest are unrestricted. Secondly, a claim for maritime claims which, in its meaning, falls within the scope of article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (e), of the Convention retained by the Code of Maritime Law, although also falling within the scope of subparagraph (a) (c) of that article, shall be considered as a non-restrictive claim for maritime claims; If article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph DU (e), is not legitimately attributable and may be covered by subparagraph (a) (c) of that article, it shall be considered a restrictive claim for maritime claims.
【作者单位】：武汉大学法学院;
【分类号】：D922.294

【参考文献】