【作者】 徐洪霖；

【导师】 赵鹿军；

【作者基本信息】 大连海事大学 ， 国际法学， 2008， 硕士

【摘要】 因船舶碰撞造成海洋环境油污损害时,发生碰撞的各船之间如何对油污损害承担责任,在我国司法实践中认识不一,主要有三种做法:一是漏油船舶先子赔偿原则,二是连带责任赔偿原则,三是按碰撞过失比例赔偿原则。本文针对三种观点分别列章进行评述。第1章对漏油船先予赔偿观点的评述。主要通过学习1969年CLC公约的发展,其中对责任主体、归责原则、连带责任的规定,理解“漏油船先予赔偿”原则是CLC公约经过多方辩证,做出的正确选择,但由于法律本身的局限性,漏油船先予赔偿原则也有不完善之处。第2章是对按“碰撞过失比例”原则的评述。通过对碰撞法律关系和油污法律关系的比较,得出二者分别适用不同的归责原则,有各自不同的法律体系,实践中必须加以区分。通过对碰撞船舶适用法律的分析,对油污赔偿范围与碰撞赔偿范围的对比,理解二者之间的差别。第3章是对“连带责任观点”的评述。主要通过对因果关系和共同侵权理论的研究,得出两船碰撞对产生的油污不能负连带责任。第4章针对碰撞的各船之间如何对油污损害承担责任问题进行论述。分析非漏油船赔偿范围、责任限制问题等。最后,笔者总结本文观点,并对我国法律不完善之处提出建议更多还原

【Abstract】 When the ocean environment is damaged by oil pollution attributing to collisions of ships, there occurs a puzzle that how to bear the liabilities of oil pollution damages between(or among) the crashing ships. There don’t have a uniform cognition in judicature practices of our country. Mostly, there are three kinds of way: the first one is the principle of ship leading oil compensate in advance; the second one is the principle of bearing the liability jointly and severally; the third one is the principle of undertaking the liability according to their proportion of lapse between (among) the collisions. The three ways are discussed separately in this article.The chapter one are commontations on the principle of ship leading oil compensate in advance. We understand that this way is a correct choice mostly by studying the evolution of International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969 and the regulations of liable body, principle of liability and bearing the liabilities jointly and severally. Therefore, this principle have its shortages result in the law localization.The chapter two are commontations on the principle of bearing the liability jointly and severally. Via comparing the jural relation between the collision and the oil pollution damage, we can make a conclusion that they are different in principle of liability, and they have different legal system respectively, so we must differentiate them in practice. Further, the author comprehend their diatinctions by comparing the scope of compensations between oil pollution damage and collision.The chapter three are commontations on the principle of undertaking the liability according to their proportion of lapse between(among) the collisions. Mostly by learning the theory of causaity relation and join tort, the author conclude that the two ships are not liable within the scope of liability of oil pollution damage arising from collisions jointly and severally.The chapter four are discussions on the puzzle that how to bear the liabilities of oil pollution damage between(among) the crashing ships. Then the author analyses the compensation scope and limitation of liability of the non-oiltanker.Finally, the author summaries viewpoints of the article, and make suggestions to our country’s maritime law.更多还原