九色蝌蚪自拍_相泽南av日韩在线_亚洲欧美视频在线观看_蜜臀88av_国产性一乱一性一伧一色_久热精品视频在线

作者：大海法

【導讀按語】

中國海事司法實踐中有一個持續爭議近40年的問題——污染受害人是否有權直接向船舶碰撞中非漏油船索賠污染損失，可謂是中國海事法律界中的“哥德巴赫猜想”。最高人民法院于2019年9月20日、11月8日就“達飛佛羅里達”輪碰撞漏油污染四案分別作出（2018）最高法民再368號、369號與367號、370號民事判決，認定：燃油公約僅規定漏油船的污染賠償責任，并不涉及非漏油碰撞船的責任，非漏油碰撞船的責任承擔問題應當依據國內法確定，故漏油船所有人作為污染者依據燃油公約規定的無過錯責任原則對污染損害承擔全部賠償責任，非漏油的碰撞船舶所有人依據國內法關于過錯責任原則的規定按照其過錯比例承擔責任（兩船對污染受害人承擔不真正連帶責任）。上述370號案、368號案分別被最高人民法院評為“2019年度人民法院環境資源類典型案例”和“2019年全國海事審判典型案例”。但是，問題還似乎沒完，有人仍堅持認為CLC和燃油公約體系下油污受害人不能直接向非漏油碰撞船舶所有人索賠，而只能向漏油船舶所有人索賠。經查閱三本英美海事法律專著，其著者基本一致持與上述判決基本相同意見：第一，CLC和燃油公約均不涉及非漏油碰撞船舶的責任問題；第二，公約體制并不限制油污受害人向碰撞漏油船方面主體以外的其他責任主體索賠；第三，油污受害人可以依據其他法律規定（國內法）向非漏油碰撞船舶索賠，其中一個著者還特別指出如果適用英國法，污染受害人可以向碰撞任何一方提出全額索賠。問題出現是客觀的，但成因也許是主觀的，與我們的學習態度、研究方法、思維方式緊密相關。該類爭論是否需要在中國海事司法界延續下去，推薦同仁研讀以下三本專著也許有助于評判，也可能有望終結這個海事“哥德巴赫猜想”。

【導讀正文】

有關船舶污染責任與賠償問題最著名的著作是Shipping and the Environment（2009年，第二版），此外，船舶碰撞經典專著Marsden and Gault on Collisions at Sea（2021年，第15版）中有關于污染責任的專章，2013年出版的論文合集Pollution at Sea也集合了西方主流學者的新近觀點。以下是三本著作關于非漏油船責任承擔問題的摘錄及翻譯：

英國學者Colin De La Rue和美國學者Charles B Anderson在該書第17章的“非漏油碰撞船舶”（Non-spilling colliding ship）部分中認為（第669-670頁）：

The international compensation regimes channel liability to the owner of the ship from which an escape of oil or other polluting substance occurs, and they do not provide a basis for claims against non-spilling vessels involved in collisions which result in pollution……However, these regimes contain nothing to prevent claims being brought against colliding vessels on some other basis of liability. Although the international regimes contain in some cases so-called channelling provisions, which exclude the liability of certain parties other than the owner of the spilling ship, the owners of colliding ships are not among those whose liability is excluded in this way.

The owners of colliding ships may therefore incur liability to pay damages for pollution independently of the compensation regimes, normally on the basis of liability in tort for negligence causing or contributing to the collision.

Although in practice the owners of colliding ships normally incur liability by way of recourse to the owners of the spilling ship, after the latter have paid claims under statutory compensation regimes, there are nonetheless various situations in which third parties who suffer pollution damage may have reasons for pursuing claims directly against the colliding ship. These include those where the statutory regimes do not apply; or where claims against the spilling ship exceed the owner’s liability limit and no other sources of compensation are available; or where the owner of the spilling ship is financially incapable of fulfilling his obligations; or where a claim against the owner of the spilling ship is barred by a statutory time limit which is shorter than that applicable to a claim against the colliding ship.

Most importantly, the legal rights against the colliding ship of the parties who suffered the pollution damage may need to be considered in cases where a recourse action is brought against it by a compensation body subrogated to their rights.

       【參考譯文】

國際賠償制度歸責于泄漏油類或其它污染物質的船舶所有人，其本身沒有可供向造成污染的非漏油船進行索賠的依據……但是，這些制度沒有任何條款限制污染受害方依據其它責任基礎向（非漏油）碰撞船索賠。盡管國際賠償制度包含在一定情況下適用的歸責條款，排除了漏油船以外的一些主體的責任，但（非漏油）碰撞船不在其列。

因此，（非漏油）碰撞船的所有人可以獨立于公約體系賠付污染損害，其責任基礎通常是因過失導致碰撞而承擔的侵權責任。

盡管實踐中通常是漏油船根據法定賠償制度支付賠償款后，再向非漏油船提起追償而使其承擔責任，但很多情況下遭受污染損害的第三方仍可以直接向（非漏油）碰撞船提出索賠，這種情況通常是由于法定賠償制度不適用、向漏油船索賠的金額超過其責任限制、不能通過其他方式得到賠償，以及向漏油船的索賠時效比向非漏油船索賠時效短。

最重要的是，在取得代位權的賠償機構向（非漏油）碰撞船提起追償訴訟時，污染受害人向（非漏油）碰撞船索賠的法定權利可能需要考慮。

此外，該書論及英國法下對非漏油船責任認定問題的觀點對了解普通法下的連帶責任也具參考價值（第673頁）：

In the UK and other common law jurisdictions the general principle developed that joint tortfeasors were jointly and severally liable for loss or damage to third parties, so that each could be sued for the full amount (subject to deduction of any amount actually recovered from the other). This obviated the need for the claimant to prove the degree of fault of either defendant, and left the ultimate apportionment of the loss to be resolved between them in the context of a recourse claim by the paying party for contribution.

This principle was altered in admiralty actions governed by the Collision Convention and subject to its rule of apportionment by degree of fault. However, in respect of claims outside the scope of this rule it remains the governing principle in the UK that claims against joint tortfeasors may be brought on a joint and several basis. Accordingly, if English law is applied to claim by a third party for pollution damage, the claim may be pursued for the full amount against the owners of each ship.

【參考譯文】

英國和其他普通法國家，通常是由共同侵權人就第三方的損失承擔共同連帶責任，因此第三方可以向每個侵權人提出全額索賠（扣除已從另一侵權人獲得的賠償額）。這免除了原告證明每個被告過錯程度的責任，并將最終的損失分攤留到侵權人之間的追償訴訟中。

這種規則在適用碰撞公約的海事訴訟中有所變化，并適用過錯比例的分攤原則。然而，公約范圍之外的索賠仍然適用英國原有的責任原則，即以連帶責任向共同侵權人提出索賠。因此，如果遭受污染損害的第三方提出的索賠適用英國法，那么可以向任何一艘船的所有人都提出全額索賠。

二、Pollution at Sea (Informa, 2013)

英國學者Colin De La Rue在Pollution at Sea一書中的觀點為（第14頁）：

In common with CLC, the Bunkers Convention provides that no claim for pollution damage may be made against the shipowner other than in accordance with the convention; and it does not impose liability on parties other than those within the definition of “shipowner”, and the insurer of the registered owner. However it does not contain any provisions excluding liability independently of the convention which other parties may incur.

This is in contrast with the position under CLC 92, which contains so-called “channelling” provisions stipulating that claims for pollution damage from tankers cannot be brought (under the Convention or otherwise) against various parties including the servants or agents of the owner; any charterer, manager or operator of the ship; or anyone performing salvage operation……The absence of channelling provisions in the Bunkers convention therefore leaves open the possibility of claims being pursued independently of the convention against parties other than the shipowner. In states where LLMC is in force their liability may by subject to limitation under that convention, and to aggregation with that of the shipowner for limitation purpose. However, if rights of limitation are governed by a national regime other than LLMC, and no similar provisions apply, the overall exposure of the shipowner and other parties may be relatively onerous.

【參考譯文】

與CLC一致，燃油公約規定，不得向船舶所有人提出與公約不相符的污染損害索賠要求。除“船舶所有人”定義范圍內的各方以及油污保險人之外，公約沒有規定其他責任主體。但是，公約也不包含任何排除其他方獨立于公約之外承擔責任的規定。

與CLC92的立場進行比較，CLC包含“歸責條款”，規定對油輪污染損害的索賠不得（在公約或其它法律規定下）向包括船舶所有人的雇員、代理人，任何承租人、管理人、經營人，或是任何進行救助作業的人提出。。。。。。由于燃油公約中缺失“歸責條款”，為獨立于公約而向船舶所有人以外的主體提起索賠留出了空間。在LLMC生效的國家，可就索賠總額享受公約下責任限額。然而，如果限制責任的權利由國內法調整而不是LLMC調整，也沒有類似規定可適用，船舶所有人和其他方的總體責任可能會相對較重。

此外，英國學者Andrew Tettenborn在該書中的觀點為（第220頁腳注113）：

Though note the reference to “the ship”: i.e. the ship from which the pollution physically came. There is no ban on direct action by pollution victims against owners, charterers or managers of, or anyone else connected with, another ship responsible for (say) a collision causing the first ship to shed her oil cargo or bunkers (as happened in The Esso Bernicia [1989] A.C. 643, Note 22 above)

【參考譯文】

雖然公約中“該船”指的是物理上釋放污染物的船舶，沒有任何條款禁止污染受害者直接向另一艘對碰撞負有責任的船舶的所有人、承租人、管理人及其他相關方提起訴訟（如The Esso Bernicia [1989] A.C. 643，上文腳注22）

三、Marsden and Gault on Collisions at Sea (Sweet & Maxwell, 15th edition, 2021)

英國學者John Kimbell 和Andrew Tettenborn在該書第九章“污染責任”（Pollution Liabilities）中寫到（第370頁，9-014）：

If the pollution incident is covered by the CLC but an owner is specifically exempted, the claimant cannot recover against him on any of the basis. Nor can be bypass the scheme of owner’s liability by pursuing any of the defendants mentioned in art.III.4 (though he can pursue claims against persons other than the owner or those parties under non-CLC provisions: for example, the owner, master and crew of a vessel which collides with a tanker, the owners of a tug whose negligence causes the spill, the vessel’s builder, or the manufacture of any components whose failure caused the spill).

【參考譯文】

如果污染事故適用CLC公約，但是所有人被免除責任，索賠人不能基于任何理由再向該所有人索賠，也不能通過起訴第３條第４款規定的任何被告繞開該制度（然而，他可以對所有人以外的其他人，或非公約規定的那些人提起索賠，例如與油輪碰撞的另一船的所有人、船長和船員，因過失引起溢油的拖輪所有人，船舶的建造人，或是因零部件失靈而導致溢油的零部件制造商）。