發(fā)布時間：2018-06-22 11:49

  本文選題：海盜贖金 + 共同海損��； 參考：《湘潭大學》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：2008以來,索馬里海域頻頻發(fā)生的海盜劫持商船事件引起了國際社會的廣泛關注,盡管國際社會在聯(lián)合國安理會系列決議的指導下紛紛采取措施打擊索馬里海盜,但收效甚微。仍不時有商船被海盜劫持,而支付贖金目前似乎已經(jīng)成為了解救被困船貨及船員的唯一辦法。 對于海盜贖金支付這一行為的法律性質(zhì),主要航運國家,如英國、美國的成文及判例法一般認為向索馬里海盜支付贖金是合法的。海盜贖金支付導致的損失可以分為船貨贖金損失和船員贖金損失。船貨贖金支付所導致的損失,盡管相當一部分學者認為可以認定為共同海損,但事實上這部分損失只是基于共同利益而支付,而基于共同利益支付的共同海損費用屬于列明費用,而海盜贖金不屬其中,也就不符合《安特衛(wèi)普規(guī)則》以及各國海商法的規(guī)定。相比較而言,可以將海盜贖金支付所導致的損失認定為海難救助費用或施救費用,這樣做不僅符合當前的國際、國內(nèi)立法規(guī)定,而且也方便理算和事后的分攤。船員贖金損失,在雇主未履行安全義務,如未能保證船舶在整個航程中均處于適航狀態(tài),導致船舶無法抵御海盜襲擊的話,應由雇主承擔過錯責任。同時,根據(jù)《海員遣返公約》以及人權法的相關規(guī)定,基于解救船員而支付的海盜贖金也可以視為船員遣返費用,因此應當由雇主承擔。必要時,船旗國以及船員國籍國也應當承擔適當?shù)难a充支付責任,以充分維護船員利益,并且事后可以向船員雇主追償這部分損失。目前,中國在海盜贖金支付問題上并沒有明確的立法規(guī)定,也沒有出現(xiàn)相關的案例,但是,中國法院目前似乎傾向于對支付海盜贖金采取一種不干涉的態(tài)度。海盜問題在可以預見的未來將會是一個長期困擾國際航運的國際難題,對于海盜贖金支付的問題,中國應當秉著“以人為本”的理念,首先用盡外交、軍事等傳統(tǒng)方式,積極營救被困中國船員,必要時可以通過支付贖金的方式來解救被海盜劫持的中國船舶和船員,切實維護我國船員的生命安全。
[Abstract]:Since 2008, the frequent incidents of pirate hijacking in the Somali sea have aroused wide attention from the international community. Although the international community has taken measures to combat Somali pirates under the guidance of the UN Security Council resolutions, there is little effect. There are still some merchant ships hijacked from time to time, and the payment of ransom seems to have become a present. The only way to save the trapped cargo and the crew.
As for the legal nature of the pirate ransom payment, the main shipping countries, such as the British and the United States, generally believe that the payment of ransom to Somali pirates is legal. The losses caused by the ransom payment can be divided into the loss of the ransom of the ship and the loss of the ransom of the crew. The loss caused by the payment of the ransom of the ship is equal, although the loss is equal to the loss. Some scholars believe that it can be considered as a general average, but in fact, the loss is only based on common interests, and the cost of common average payment based on common interests belongs to the specified cost, and the pirate ransom is not one of them, and it does not conform to the provisions of the Antwerp rules and the provisions of the maritime law of various countries. The loss of the ransom payment is identified as the salvage fee or the rescue cost, which not only accords with the current international, domestic legislation, but also facilitates the calculation and apportionment. The loss of the ransom of the crew, the failure of the employer to fulfill the safety obligations, such as failure to ensure that the ship is in the seaworthiness state throughout the course of the ship, and causes the ship to not. At the same time, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention on repatriation of seafarers and the relevant provisions of human rights law, the pirate ransom paid on the basis of the rescue crew can also be considered to be the repatriation of the crew, so the employer should bear it. If necessary, the flag state and the state of nationality of the crew should also undertake appropriate supplements. In order to fully safeguard the interests of the crew, and to recover this part of the loss to the crew, there are no clear legislative provisions and no relevant cases on the pirate ransom payment, but the Chinese courts now seem to be inclined to take a non interference attitude towards the ransom payment. Pirates The problem in the foreseeable future will be an international problem that perplex international shipping for a long time. For the problem of the pirate ransom payment, China should uphold the concept of "people-oriented" and first use the traditional ways of diplomacy and military to save the trapped Chinese crew, and save the pirates by paying the ransom when necessary. Hijacked Chinese ships and crew effectively safeguard the safety of our crew.
【學位授予單位】：湘潭大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.19;D997.9

【引證文獻】

相關碩士學位論文 前2條

1 方閣;海上保險中海盜風險法律問題研究[D];大連海事大學;2012年

2 應敏;索馬里海盜贖金性質(zhì)辨析及保險賠付研究[D];華東政法大學;2012年

，

本文編號：2052739