论核损害民事赔偿唯一责任原则

发布时间：2018-06-15 05:02

本文选题：核损害 + 唯一责任原则　；参考：《山东大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：日本福岛核事故发生的五年后,有许多国家又重新启动了民用核工业的投资活动,人们在发展利用核能的同时,也不得不面对民用核设施有可能带来的核威胁,核事故一旦发生,谁来承担核损害的民事赔偿责任便成为了需要解决的问题。在民用核工业的发展之初,美国作为主要的技术输出国,为了保护本国的供应商,极力主张其他国家的运营商对核设施引发的核损害承担一切损害赔偿责任。其他主体无论是否具有过错,都不用承担核损害的民事赔偿责任,这就是后来在国际公约体系和各国立法中确立下来的唯一责任原则(又称责任集中原则)。唯一责任原则是核损害民事赔偿制度的基本原则之一,在核工业的发展之处起到了很重要的作用,解决了民间资本投入核工业可能面临巨额赔偿的风险担忧,并极大促进了民用核技术的跨国交流。所有的法律制度并不是完美无缺的,唯一责任原则违背传统的侵权法原则,另外,唯一责任原则是商业利益博弈的结果在法律中的体现,从本质上来讲唯一责任原则违背公平公正的基本要求,其合理性和可持续性有待审视。印度在2010年新颁布的《核损害民事责任法案》中明确规定了运营商对供应商的追索权,印度的这一立法举措引起了西方国家的批评,可谓是对西方国家主导的核损害赔偿责任秩序发起的一项挑战。文献综述以及比较研究是本文主要的研究方法。文章的第一部分,通过文献综述的方法阐释了核损害民事赔偿唯一责任原则的内涵,解释唯一责任原则适用的理由。随着保险业和金融工具的发展,运营商的风险可以通过经营者集中和其他金融工具来分散,单一法院管辖原则和核损害赔偿委员会也给受害人带来了诉讼便利,因此,现在来看,减轻受害者的诉累和降低保险费用的理由太过牵强。第二部分,通过文献综述,查明国际公约和各国国内法最新的立法进展,加上比较分析,可看出唯一责任原则的法律地位正面临挑战。第三部分,通过在传统的侵权法原则、核事故的处理以及核技术的进化三个方面对唯一责任原则进行重新审视,唯一责任原则的可持续性被质疑。另外,探索了赋予供应商产品责任的可行性和必要性,对制度设计进行了初探,国际公约和各国立法应扩大运营商的追索权,并为暴露在可能面对核损害赔偿风险之下的供应商构建经济生存的保护机制。第四部分分析了《核安全法》草案,草案和现有的法律还需进一步协调,并对我国将来制定的《原子能法》提出了一些立法构想,希望能够引入供应商的产品责任。
[Abstract]:Five years after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, many countries have restarted investment activities in the civilian nuclear industry. While developing the use of nuclear energy, people have to face the potential nuclear threat posed by civilian nuclear facilities. Once a nuclear accident occurs, who will bear the civil liability for nuclear damage has become a problem to be solved. At the beginning of the development of civil nuclear industry, the United States as the main technology exporter, in order to protect its suppliers, strongly advocated that operators in other countries bear all damage liability for nuclear damage caused by nuclear facilities. No matter whether or not other subjects are at fault, they do not have to bear civil liability for nuclear damage. This is the only principle of liability (also known as the principle of centralization of liability) established later in the international convention system and in the legislation of various countries. The principle of sole liability is one of the basic principles of the civil compensation system for nuclear damage. It has played an important role in the development of the nuclear industry, and has solved the risk that private capital input into the nuclear industry may face the risk of huge compensation. And greatly promoted the civilian nuclear technology cross-border exchange. All legal systems are not perfect. The principle of sole liability violates the traditional principle of tort law. In addition, the only principle of responsibility is the embodiment of the result of the game of commercial interests in the law. In essence, the principle of sole responsibility violates the basic requirements of fairness and justice, and its rationality and sustainability need to be examined. India's new Nuclear damage Civil liability Act of 2010, which explicitly sets out carriers' recourse to suppliers, has drawn criticism from Western countries. It is a challenge to the western-led order of liability for nuclear damage. Literature review and comparative study are the main research methods in this paper. The first part of the article explains the connotation of the principle of sole liability for civil compensation for nuclear damage and explains the reasons why the principle of sole liability is applicable through the method of literature review. With the development of the insurance industry and financial instruments, operators' risks can be dispersed through concentration of operators and other financial instruments, and the principle of single court jurisdiction and the Nuclear damage compensation Commission also provide litigation facilities for victims. For now, the reasons for reducing victim burden and insurance costs are too far-fetched. The second part, through the literature review, finds out the latest legislative progress of international conventions and domestic laws of various countries, together with comparative analysis, we can see that the legal status of the principle of sole responsibility is facing a challenge. The third part, through the traditional tort law principle, the nuclear accident treatment and the nuclear technology evolution three aspects carries on the re-examination to the sole responsibility principle, the sole responsibility principle sustainability is questioned. In addition, it explores the feasibility and necessity of endowing the supplier with product responsibility, and probes into the system design. International conventions and national legislation should expand the operator's right of recourse. The protection mechanism of economic survival is constructed for suppliers exposed to the risk of nuclear damage compensation. The fourth part analyzes the draft of the Nuclear Safety Law, which needs to be further coordinated with the existing laws, and puts forward some legislative ideas on the Atomic Energy Law to be formulated by our country, hoping to introduce the product liability of the suppliers.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】