英美法下“適航義務(wù)”界定之實(shí)證研究——從絕對(duì)適航到過(guò)錯(cuò)原則
本文關(guān)鍵詞: 絕對(duì)責(zé)任 謹(jǐn)慎處理 公共利益 過(guò)錯(cuò)原則 實(shí)證分析 出處:《中國(guó)海商法研究》2016年02期 論文類型:期刊論文
【摘要】:早期的英國(guó)法院對(duì)適航義務(wù)的認(rèn)定采絕對(duì)責(zé)任,法院判例主要集中在船舶本身適航與適貨這兩個(gè)方面。到了19世紀(jì)末,隨著契約自由理念的泛濫,提單的免責(zé)事項(xiàng)甚至包括船舶不適航的情形。但是,隨著《哈特法》與《海牙規(guī)則》的出臺(tái),"謹(jǐn)慎處理"的義務(wù)取代了絕對(duì)責(zé)任成為界定適航的新標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。從表面上看似乎減輕了承運(yùn)人的適航義務(wù),但通過(guò)實(shí)證分析可知,在適航認(rèn)定這一層面,謹(jǐn)慎處理的要求基本等同于絕對(duì)義務(wù),只不過(guò)是將之前的判例成文法化而已。1978年《漢堡規(guī)則》推出過(guò)錯(cuò)推定原則,進(jìn)而拋棄"適航"這一專用術(shù)語(yǔ)。隨著船舶建造技術(shù)的進(jìn)步、管理規(guī)范的完善,適航義務(wù)被賦予了新的內(nèi)涵,相關(guān)判決越來(lái)越體現(xiàn)公共利益,對(duì)適航義務(wù)的認(rèn)定也越來(lái)越接近民法意義上的過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任,這預(yù)示著船東的適航義務(wù)將進(jìn)一步加重。不僅僅局限于對(duì)法律文本的解讀,而是注重從歷史、從實(shí)證的角度對(duì)英美法系國(guó)家不同時(shí)期的判例進(jìn)行比對(duì)分析。
[Abstract]:The early British courts adopted absolute responsibility for the determination of seaworthiness obligations, the court jurisprudence mainly focused on the ship itself seaworthiness and cargo these two aspects. By the end of 19th century, with the spread of the concept of freedom of contract. The disclaimer of bill of lading even includes the case that the ship is not seaworthy. However, with the introduction of the Hart Act and the Hague rules. The obligation of "caution" has replaced absolute responsibility as a new standard to define seaworthiness. On the surface, it seems to lighten the carrier's seaworthiness obligations, but through empirical analysis, it can be seen that the seaworthiness is recognized at this level. The requirement to be cautious is essentially equivalent to an absolute obligation, but merely to codify the previous jurisprudence. In 1978, the Hamburg rules introduced the presumption of fault principle. Then abandon the term "seaworthiness". With the progress of shipbuilding technology and the improvement of management norms, seaworthiness obligation has been given new connotation, and the relevant judgments increasingly reflect the public interest. The identification of seaworthiness obligations is closer to the civil law sense of fault liability, which indicates that the airworthiness obligations of shipowners will be further aggravated. It is not only limited to the interpretation of legal texts, but also pays attention to history. From the perspective of empirical analysis of the Anglo-American legal system countries in different periods of jurisprudence.
【作者單位】: 上海海事大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【分類號(hào)】:D996.19
【正文快照】: 一、早期的承運(yùn)人絕對(duì)責(zé)任 20世紀(jì)之前,海上貨運(yùn)領(lǐng)域的成文法中有關(guān)適航義務(wù)的規(guī)定處于一片空白,英國(guó)法官們只能集中智慧,通過(guò)案例的堆砌,不斷總結(jié)前任法官的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和教訓(xùn)來(lái)界定適航義務(wù),最終得出的結(jié)論是:承運(yùn)人應(yīng)承擔(dān)絕對(duì)的適航義務(wù)。需要注意的是,英國(guó)法下關(guān)于承運(yùn)人適航義
【相似文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 姚燕濱;;謹(jǐn)慎處理孩子“偷竊”[J];啟蒙(3-7歲);2009年12期
2 譚宇生;;國(guó)際海底勘探開發(fā)的國(guó)家義務(wù)與責(zé)任——以“謹(jǐn)慎處理”義務(wù)為核心[J];太平洋學(xué)報(bào);2013年09期
3 楊樹明;郭東;;事實(shí)與法律之間——論船舶適航義務(wù)的涵義及判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];法學(xué)雜志;2006年05期
4 譚宇生;;國(guó)際海底區(qū)域內(nèi)活動(dòng)的“謹(jǐn)慎處理”義務(wù)[J];中國(guó)海商法研究;2013年02期
5 劉蜀永;英國(guó)對(duì)香港的政策與中國(guó)的態(tài)度(1948—1952年)[J];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué);1995年02期
6 林大鵬;試論船舶“開航當(dāng)時(shí)”的法律認(rèn)定[J];航海技術(shù);2001年06期
7 林大鵬;試論船舶“開航當(dāng)時(shí)”的法律認(rèn)定[J];世界海運(yùn);2002年04期
8 陳菁;高峻;;試述孫中山對(duì)農(nóng)業(yè)、農(nóng)村、農(nóng)民問(wèn)題的思考[J];廣州社會(huì)主義學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年04期
9 陳詠梅;吳曼嘉;;美國(guó)FTA中的環(huán)境條款范式論析[J];國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)刊;2013年01期
10 張金水;從船舶所處狀態(tài)的變化界定“開航當(dāng)時(shí)”[J];水運(yùn)管理;2002年09期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 王偉明;ISM規(guī)則若干法律問(wèn)題研討[D];上海海運(yùn)學(xué)院;2002年
,本文編號(hào):1448122
本文鏈接:http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/1448122.html