生态救济视域下中国船舶碰撞致油污损害的责任研究
Liability for Ship-Collision Oil Pollution in China: An Ecological Remediation Perspective
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
在互有过失船舶碰撞致第三人油污损害中，以非漏油方的环境侵权责 任为焦点，其责任认定需厘清三个层面：责任主体地位、责任形态与责 任限制. 从中国《船舶油污损害赔偿纠纷案件若干问题的规定》第4条规 定的漏油方承担全部责任，推出“不漏油不赔偿”系一种逻辑谬误；《1992 年油污公约》对非漏油方责任的有意回避亦不构成对其责任的排除，非 漏油方应对油污受害人承担直接责任. 在责任形态上，完全连带责任所依 赖的共同侵权要件在此情形中难以成立；中国《海商法》第169条仅适用 于船舶碰撞导致的直接财产损失，不宜延伸适用于油污损害，应依据中 国《民法典》及相关环境侵权司法解释，认定非漏油方在其过错范围内 承担有限连带责任. 关于责任限制，因非漏油方与油污受害人之间的法律 关系不属于《1992年油污公约》调整范围，其仍可依据中国《海商法》 主张一般海事赔偿责任限制，不受该法第208条第2项排除适用的约束.
Abstract
In cases of oil pollution damage to third parties caused by ship collisions involving mutual fault, with the environmental tort liability of the non-leaking party as the focus, the determination of liability requires clarification across three dimensions: the liable party, the form of responsibility, and the right to limit liability. It is a logical fallacy to draw the conclusion that “no leakage, no compensation” based on Article 4 of China’s “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases of Disputes over Compensation for Vessel-induced Oil Pollution Damage”, which stipulates that the party responsible for oil leakage shall bear full responsibility. The 1992 CLC deliberately avoids rather than excludes the liability of the non-leaking party, which should bear direct liability to the victims. Regarding the form of responsibility, the prerequisites for joint tortfeasorship required for full joint and several liability are difficult to establish in this scenario. Furthermore, Article 169 of the China’s Maritime Law only governs direct losses from the collision itself and does not apply to oil pollution damage. Therefore, based on the China’s Civil Code and relevant environmental judicial interpretations, the non-leaking party should be held liable for limited joint and several liability within the scope of its fault. Concerning limitation of liability, since the relationship between the non-leaking party and the oil spill victim falls outside the scope of the CLC, the non-leaking party can still invoke the general limitation of liability under the China’s Maritime Law, and this right is not excluded by Article 208(2).