船舶碰撞责任的承担主体——中美海商法的比较研究

Liable parties in a ship collision——comparison between Chinese and U.S. maritime law

1910年《统一船舶碰撞若干法律规定的国际公约》关于"过失船舶承担船舶碰撞责任"的规定在世界绝大多数航运国家都得到了贯彻,中国也不例外。但中国并不承认"对物诉讼",因此在中国法律体系下,"船舶"本身显然不能成为责任主体。如何具体确定船舶碰撞的责任主体,《中华人民共和国海商法》并没有给出答案,因此这个问题有赖于司法解释的澄清。2008年4月颁布的《最高人民法院关于审理船舶碰撞纠纷案件若干问题的规定》,第一次对船舶碰撞的责任主体作出明确规定。但该规定关于碰撞责任主体的规定并没有从根本上解决问题,理论界和实务界对该司法解释关于碰撞责任主体的规定的讨论一直没有停止。针对上述碰撞规定中的相应条文,就以"光租登记"作为光船承租人承担碰撞责任与否的判定标尺是否可取、船舶碰撞的责任主体是否应限定为船舶所有人和光船承租人这两个问题进行讨论,并从比较法的角度对中美海商法的船舶碰撞责任主体制度进行比较研究,分析中国关于船舶碰撞责任主体规定的不足,指出美国海商法下的多重可诉主体、直诉保险人制度等值得借鉴。

The regulation of 1910 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with Respect to Collisions between Vessels regarding ＂the negligent ship will be liable for the ship collision＂ has been implemented by the majority of shipping countries in the world, including China. But China does not admit ＂action in rein＂, so ＂ship＂ itself cannot be held liable as the tortfeasor for the tortuous act arising from a collision. Maritime Code of the People＇s Republic of China has not given a clear answer on how to determine who is the liable party in a collision, thus leaving this question to judicial interpretation to clarify and integrate. Provisions of the Supreme People＇s Court on Some Issues About the Trial of the Case of Ship collision Disputes was promulgated in April 2008, which for the first time explicitly states the liable parties for the collision. However, the interpretation has not perfectly addressed this responsibility question, and from the moment the interpretation was issued, ＂whom to blame in a collision accident＂ regulation has been controversial and discussions from theoretical and practical perspectives never end. This article discusses two questions against the Supreme Court interpretation . first, whether to determine demise charterer＇s liability solely based on the charter registration is advisable＇ second, whether the scope of the liable parties should be restricted to ship-owner and demise charterer. The article also does a comparative study on the liable parties between Chinese and U.S. maritime regimes ; points out the disadvantages of Chinese regulations on this issue, while states the implications of U. S. regime of different liable parties and direct action against the defendant＇s underwriters on Chinese law and practice.