【作者】 陈敬根；

【导师】 关正义；

【作者基本信息】 大连海事大学 ， 国际法学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 多因致损时赔偿责任承担规则关涉海上货物运输合同主体的切身利益,调整国际海上货物运输的重要公约,如《汉堡规则》《鹿特丹规则》等以及《法国海商法》《挪威海商法》《美国海上货物运输法》《中华人民共和国海商法》等各国国内法都对此给予了充分重视和密切关注。多因致损下的赔偿责任,虽须仍尊重一因致损下的赔偿责任承担规则,但处理起来显非1+1=2或1-1=0那么简单。由于多因的“因”的复杂性以及相关利益平衡的需要,确定多因致损下的赔偿责任是比较棘手的。这也是为何在国际范围内对此问题的解决存在三种立法例以及21世纪之初维也纳会议秘书长报告Possible future work on transport law将多因致损下的赔偿责任列为“承运人责任”中未解决的3个问题之首的重要原因。但国内外海商法学界对此问题尚未展开系统的深入的研究,国际公约及各国国内法的相关规定也瑕瑜互见,由此便导致了国内外相关司法裁判出现诸多的冲突与矛盾,而2009年底通过的旨在“构建统一的崭新的责任体系”的《鹿特丹规则》对此问题更是语焉不详。显然,这种情况对国际社会一直追求的创建顺畅而高效的海运业是十分不利的。国际海运承运人在多因致损下的赔偿责任是一项系统工程,因此,必须运用系统论的研究方法和充分掌握其所遵循的立法例、考量要素、举证责任分配规则等,才能作出正确的判断。运用比较法、文献法、案例分析法等,围绕题设进行剖析,深究考量要素之本旨,并分析和比较在《海牙规则》《汉堡规则》《鹿特丹规则》及中国《海商法》下未履行适航义务、管货义务、直航义务与不负责事项共致货损时国际海运承运人赔偿责任的承担,以便为统一裁判思路和完善中国《海商法》提供借鉴。论文由引言、正文和结论组成。引言介绍了论文的主要研究范围及相关研究状况。正文包括三个部分。第1章“多因致货损时赔偿责任承担的立法例”。归纳相关立法例,对《鹿特丹规则》抛弃《汉堡规则》“瓦里斯库拉原则”和COGSA 1999(草案)“平均分摊损失原则”而采“严格区分责任原则”原因进行分析,指出其实为“三个推定”的必然结果,平衡船货双方利益的特殊需要,积极追求公平价值目标的深刻反映。第2章“多因致货损时确定赔偿责任承担须考量的要素”。重新审视货损、归责原则、不负责事项、首要义务、举证责任等核心要素的内涵,为具体分析多因致货损时赔偿责任的承担奠定基础。第3章至第6章是对多因致货损时承运人赔偿责任承担的具体考量。在梳理《海牙规则》《汉堡规则》《鹿特丹规则》和中国《海商法》下货损赔偿责任确定路径的基础上,结合各自立法例、核心要素,考量各自的赔偿责任承担,并对完善中国《海商法》相关内容提出立法建议。结论归纳了论文的要点。更多还原

【Abstract】 The liability rules for cargo damage caused by mixed reasons concern the immediate interests of the parties to the contract of the carriage of goods by sea and attract full attention of international conventions such as Rotterdam rules as well as domestic laws. The liability rules for cargo damage caused by mixed reasons are of a systematic project and can only be set after the full awareness of various enactments, judging elements and the rules for allocation.Centering on the topic, the paper, by comparative analysis, literature review and case study, probes into the judging elements and analyzed the sharing of liabiity for cargo damage caused mixedly by the improper performing of those obligations such as seaworthiness, care for cargo, or direct sailing and the factors not liable for under Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules, Rotterdam Rules and the Maritime Codeof of the People’s Republic of China respectively.The paper consists of introduction, main text and conclusion remarks.The introduction gives a brief introduction of the research scope and the literature on the topic so far.Chapter 1 "The enactment of liability rules for cargo damage caused by mixed reasons ".Summarize the relevant enactments, analyze the reasons why Rotterdam Rules abandoned the "Vallescura principle" of Hamburg Rules and " average loss sharing principle" of US COGSA 1999 whereas adopted the "strict principle of distinction", and points out that it is the inevitable result of "the three presumptions", the special need for the balance of interests between the carrier and the shipper, and the deep reflection of the active pursuit of the fairness value.Chapter 2 "the judging elements for determining the liability for cargo damage caused by mixed reasons ".To re-examine the contents of cargo damage, liability rules, factors not liable, the primary obligation, the burden of proof and other core elements, so as to lay the foundation for determining the liability for cargo damage caused by mixed reasons. Chapter 3 to Chapter 6 is the detailed analysis of the determining the liabity for cargo damage caused by mixed reasons. Based on the reviewing of the various paths for determining the liability for cargo damage caused by mixed reasons under Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules, Rotterdam Rules, and Maritime Code of the People’s Republic of China and combining the enactments as well as the core elements, examine the liability rules respectively.The conclusions remarks summarize the main points of the paper.更多还原