海运货损索赔举证责任比较研究

发布时间：2018-07-06 08:25

本文选题：行为责任 + 结果责任　；参考：《上海海运学院》2001年硕士论文

【摘要】： 海商法作为民法的特别法，在民法中有关举证责任的基本原则，举证责任中举证责任的分配、举证责任的免除、举证责任的倒置、举证责任中的推定以及举证责任中的证明标准等等在海商法中均有所体现。另一方面，海商法作为民法的特别法，海事实体法中的责任基础、归责原则、免责事项、以及航运实务的特点决定了海运货损索赔举证责任又有着区别于一般民事举证责任的特殊性。有鉴于此，本论文对海运货损索赔举证责任的研究是建立在对一般民事举证责任分析的基础上，结合海商法特点，重点对《海牙规则》、《海牙／威斯比规则》、《汉堡规则》、美国1999年海上货物运输法草案以及我国《合同法》、《海商法》对海运货损索赔举证责任的规定做了具体的比较和分析。本论文共分为四个部分。第一部分论文首先对民事举证责任的双重含义即行为责任和结果责任、本质属性、研究意义等基本问题做了论述。进而通过引用两个著名判例分析了举证责任在具体诉讼中的体现及两者之间的关系，笔者认为在整个举证责任中，结果责任应为举证责任本质特征之所在，行为责任只是结果责任在具体诉讼中的“投影”。论文的第二部分，首先是对举证责任分配之法哲学思考。提出举证责任分配应尽量实现以下几个价值目标：即实现实体法的宗旨、使裁判最大限度地贴近事实、程序公正及程序效益等价值目标。在此基础上，比较分析了大陆法系和英美法系国家举证责任分配各学说，提出我国应采“法律要件分类说”为主，以实质标准为补充的举证责任分配原则，这一举证责任分配原则应当作为法院在审理案件时在缺乏实体法举证责任规则规定的情况下，在对诉讼当事人举证责任进行分配时应当遵循的总“指挥棒”；同样应作为我国海运货损索赔举证责任分配之一般原则。论文第三部分、第四部分则重点对海运货损索赔举证责任进行了阐述。在海运货损索赔诉讼中，海上货物索赔举证责任贯穿了诉讼的整个过程，依海运货损索赔诉讼司法实践，索赔方与承运人须要加以举证的实体要件事实主要存在以下几个方面：(1)在承运人照管期间的灭失或短量；(2)货损货差原因；(3)船舶一适航举证：N）免责举证；u）管货举证：u）其他要件事实如承运人单位责任限制等方面的举证。因此对论述结构、体例的安排也是以海运货损索赔举证顺序为主线，就索赔方与承运人在具体诉讼中需要加以举证的以上几个方面的实体要件事实，始终围绕着“谁来举证？何时举证？举证什么？”这几个问题，对各个举证环节问题逐一作了详细论述。第三部分首先是对在海商法方面，对国际航运最具影响的国际公约《海牙规则凡《海牙／威斯比规则》及《汉堡规则》下举证责任问题的分析，比较了《规则》对各项实体事实的条文规定的异同，并通过各国判例的比较，进一步分析各国司法实践中在适用各个国际公约对案件进行审理时所采的态度之异同。另一方面，在各国对规则要求进行修改的呼声中，美国已推出了1999年海上货物运输法草案，美国作为世界上经济一大强国，这部法律的出台肯定会对我国海商领域产生重大的影响，在该草案中在举证责任方面做了许多有别于现有国际公约的规定，，因此在本论文中对美国99COGSA的相关规定也做了具体评析。第四部分，在对国际公约及各国司法实践关于货损索赔举证责任问题作了对比分析后，笔者将重点放在了我国法律体系下货损索赔举证责任问题的考察。在我国，针对目前的立法现状，对海运货损索赔举证责任做出规定的主要集中在《海商法》第四章及《合同法｝｝第17章货运合同中，因此笔者主要是对这两部法律的相关规定做了分析，通过分析，笔者认为在《合同法》下由于其实行严格责任原则决定了其举证责任问题简单、明了，但这样的规定对承运人而言未免太过苛刻，并不利于我国航运事业之发展，而我国《海商法》第四章对举证责任的规定并不清楚明了，其主要存在以下三个方面的不足：（）对证明责任的分配规定不清；Q）海上货物索赔的举证顺序不清；u）法律条文所规定的法律构成要件不具有可证明性，法律条文的措辞不够准确。在论文中针对这些不足，对各项实体事实之举证加以论述之时，笔者提出了修改意见，在海商法正在准备修改之时具一定的实践意义。在论文的研究方法上，主要是运用了比较研究方法和判例分析方法。
[Abstract]:As a special law of civil law, maritime law is the basic principle of the burden of proof in civil law, the distribution of the burden of proof in the burden of proof, the exemption of the burden of proof, the inversion of the burden of proof, the presumption in the burden of proof and the standard of proof in the burden of proof. On the other hand, the maritime law is the special civil law. The liability basis of the maritime entity law, the principle of imputation, the disclaimer, and the characteristics of the shipping practice determine the particularity of the burden of proof in maritime cargo damage claim, which is different from the general civil burden of proof. On the basis of the characteristics of the maritime law, the provisions of the Hague rules, the Hague / William rules, the Hamburg Rules, the draft of the sea freight transport law of the United States in 1999, the contract law of the United States and the maritime law of China on the burden of proof for the claim of marine cargo damage are specifically compared and analyzed.
This paper is divided into four parts.
The first part of the paper first discusses the dual meaning of the civil burden of proof, namely, the responsibility of behavior and the responsibility of result, the essential attribute and the significance of the research. Then, the author analyzes the embodiment of the burden of proof in the specific litigation and the relationship between the two by citing two famous cases. The author believes that the result responsibility is the responsibility of the whole burden of proof. Responsibility should be the essence of the burden of proof, and the duty of action is only the projection of the result liability in the specific litigation.
The second part of the paper is the philosophical thinking of the distribution of the burden of proof. It is suggested that the allocation of burden of proof should be achieved as far as possible: the purpose of the real real body method, to make the referee close to the facts, procedural justice and procedural benefits. On this basis, the continental law system and the Anglo American law are compared and analyzed. The principle of distribution of the burden of proof should be supplemented by the substantive standard, and the principle of distribution of the burden of proof should be the burden of proof to the litigants in the case of the absence of the rules of the burden of proof in the case of the lack of substantive law. The general "baton" that should be followed when distributing the goods should also be used as a general principle for the allocation of the burden of proof in China's maritime claims.
In the third part of the paper, the fourth part focuses on the burden of proof of maritime cargo damage claim. In the claim litigation of marine cargo damage claim, the burden of proof of maritime cargo claim runs through the whole process of litigation. According to the judicial practice of maritime cargo damage claim litigation, the substantial facts that the claimants and the carrier are required to prove are the following. Several aspects: (1) loss or short amount during the period of carrier's care; (2) cause of cargo loss; (3) ship
One
Proof of airworthiness: N) exemption from proof; U) proof of cargo: U) other elements, such as carrier's liability.
The proof of structure and style is also the order of proof in maritime claims.
As the main line, the entities mentioned above should be cited in the specific litigation of the claimant and the carrier.
The facts always surround "who will give evidence, when to give evidence and what to quote?"
The problem of the link of proof is discussed in detail.
The third part is first of all, on the maritime law, the most influential international convention on international shipping, the Hague regulations.
The analysis of the burden of proof under the Hague / visa rules and Hamburg Rules is compared with the regulations.
It further analyzes the similarities and differences between the provisions of the substantive facts and the precedents of various jurisprudence.
The similarities and differences of the attitudes adopted in the judicial practice of various international conventions in judicial practice.
In 1999, the United States has launched the carriage of goods by sea.
The draft law, the United States as the world's largest economic power, the introduction of this law will certainly be China's maritime business.
In the draft, there are many differences in the burden of proof, which are different from the existing international conventions.
Therefore, in this thesis, the relevant provisions of the US 99COGSA are also analyzed.
The fourth part is about the International Convention and the judicial practice of various countries.
After the analysis, the author will focus on the investigation of the burden of proof on the claim for loss of goods under our legal system.
In view of the current legislative status, China mainly stipulates the burden of proof for maritime claims.
The fourth chapter of the commercial law and the seventeenth chapter of the contract law are the freight contracts, so the author mainly deals with the two laws.
Through analysis, the author thinks that under the contract law, strict liability is imposed.
The principle determines that the burden of proof is simple and clear, but such regulations are too harsh for the carrier.
Engraving is not conducive to the development of China's shipping industry, and the fourth chapter of China's maritime law stipulates the burden of proof.
It is not clear that there are mainly three deficiencies: () the distribution of burden of proof is not regulated.
Qing; Q) the sequence of claims for claims for maritime goods is unclear; U) the legal elements stipulated in the legal provisions are not.
It is provable and the wording of the legal provisions is not accurate enough. In the paper, in view of these shortcomings, the various entities are discussed.
When the evidence was discussed, the author put forward some amendments, when the maritime law was being prepared for revision.
A certain practical significance.
In the research methods of the thesis, the comparative study method and precedent analysis method are used.
【学位授予单位】：上海海运学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2001
【分类号】：D996.19

【共引文献】