臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

國際海上貨物運送公約制定之主要目的為規範運送契約當事人間的義務、責任及權利，並以平衡運送契約之當事人（運送人與託運人）之權益為依歸。然而，國際公約多著重運送人相關責任與義務之規範，如海牙規則、海牙威士比規則、漢堡規則及國際多式聯運公約，相對而言，對於託運人之規範甚少。
隨著全球運輸科技的發展與國際貿易型態的改變，現行國際公約已漸漸地無法完全適用於現今之航貿狀況，因而有了2008年「全部或部分海上國際貨物運送契約公約」（簡稱鹿特丹規則）的出現。鹿特丹規則除了有許多創新之規定外，更加著重於託運人之規範，將託運人之相關規定獨立於一章節，其中包括八條條文，不僅保留了現行國際公約對於託運人義務與責任之規定，更進一步做詳盡且明確地規範，同時也新增了部分託運人之規定。
本研究以託運人之義務與責任相關規範為探討之主題，詳述國際海上貨物運送公約（包括海牙及海牙威士比規則、漢堡規則、國際多式聯運公約及鹿特丹規則）與我國海商法對於託運人之相關規定，比較並分析鹿特丹規則與現行國際公約，以及比對新問世的鹿特丹規則與我國海商法之差異後，進而探討鹿特丹規則他日生效後對於託運人之潛在影響。我國海商法制定時多參考海牙及海牙威士比規則而訂定，雖然鹿特丹規則尚未生效，但對於整體國際海上貨物運送仍有探討之必要，故本文也針對託運人之部分規範，提出相關看法與建議，希望能為立法單位與學術機構日後於修正海商法時，提供相關建言以及有意義的評析做為相關參考資訊。

The main purpose of International Conventions of Maritime Transport is to regulate related obligations, liabilities and rights between parties in contracts of carriage, and to balance such legal relationships among carrier, shipper, and related parties. However, previous international treaties primarily focus on the obligations and liabilities of the carrier, with minor or very limited regulations on the obligations and liabilities of the shipper.
Owing to the globalized development among transportation technology and the fast-paced change in international trade, current international treaties appear to be obsolete and may not be able to fit in all practices relating to international carriage of goods by sea. Therefore, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (also known as “the Rotterdam Rules”) was enacted in 2008. The Rotterdam Rules not only contains many innovative regulations, but also pays great attention to the obligations and liabilities on the shipper’s end. It pioneers in combining rules pertinent to the shipper into one independent chapter consists of eight articles, and these regulations carry on the core concepts from previous international conventions and further improve those notions in detail. In addition, the Rotterdam Rules also creates new terminologies and thorough guidelines in regulating legal rights and obligations of the shipper.
This thesis targets on the obligations and liabilities of shipper, introduces related regulations stipulated in various International Conventions of Maritime Transport (namely Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules, Hamburg Rules, United Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, and Rotterdam Rules), and further compare and contrast with rules from the ROC Maritime Law. By laying out the differences among previous international treaties and those in the Rotterdam Rules, and correlating with the comparison results from the Rotterdam Rules and the ROC Maritime Law, this research deepens into analyses on potential influences to and from the shipper’s end once the Rotterdam Rules comes into force. Lastly, this thesis wishes to conclude by providing opinions and suggestions for authorizes on future modifications of the ROC Maritime Law.

謝辭 I
摘要 II
ABSTRACT III
目次 IV
圖次 VII
表次 VIII
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
1.3 研究方法 3
1.4 研究範圍 4
1.4.1 1924年海牙規則及1968年海牙威士比規則 4
1.4.2 1978年漢堡規則 5
1.4.3 1980年聯合國國際貨物多式聯運公約 5
1.4.4 2009年鹿特丹規則 6
1.4.5我國海商法 7
1.5 研究限制 7
1.6 研究架構 9
1.7 研究流程 10
第二章 國際公約對於託運人義務及責任之規範 11
2.1託運人之定義 12
2.2託運人之義務 14
2.2.1託運人支付運費之義務 14
2.2.2託運人交付欲運送貨物之義務 16
2.2.3託運人提供載貨證券所需資訊之義務 17
2.3託運人對於危險貨物之特別規定 21
2.3.1普通法下危險貨物之定義 21
2.3.2各國際公約下託運人對危險貨物之相關責任與義務 24
2.3.3小結 28
2.4託運人之責任 29
2.4.1託運人責任之一般規範 29
2.4.2託運人責任體制 31
2.5綜合評析 33
第三章 我國海商法對於託運人義務及責任之規範 35
3.1託運人之定義 35
3.2託運人之義務 39
3.2.1託運人支付運費之義務 39
3.2.2託運人交付欲運送貨物之義務 42
3.2.3託運人提供載貨證券所需資訊之義務 43
3.3託運人對於危險貨物之特別規定 44
3.3.1危險貨物之定義 44
3.3.2託運人對危險貨物之相關義務與責任 45
3.3.3小結 48
3.4託運人之責任 49
3.4.1託運人責任之一般規範 49
3.4.2託運人責任體制 49
3.5綜合評析 50
第四章 鹿特丹規則對託運人義務及責任之規範 55
4.1鹿特丹規則對於託運人義務及責任規範之相關條款 55
4.1.1 託運人之定義 56
4.1.2 託運人之義務 57
4.1.3 危險貨物之特別規定 66
4.1.4 託運人之責任 69
4.1.5 其他與託運人相關之規定 71
4.2鹿特丹規則與現行公約之比較 74
4.2.1 託運人之定義 74
4.2.2 託運人之義務 74
4.2.3 危險貨物之特別規定 76
4.2.4 託運人之責任 78
4.2.5 其他與託運人相關之規定 80
4.2.6 小結 80
4.3鹿特丹規則與我國海商法之比較 83
4.3.1 託運人之定義 83
4.3.2 託運人之義務 83
4.3.3 危險貨物之特別規定 85
4.3.4 託運人之責任 86
4.3.5 其他與託運人相關之規定 87
4.3.6 小結 88
4.4綜合評析 90
第五章 結論與建議 91
5.1 結論 91
5.1.1 託運人之定義 91
5.1.2 託運人之義務 91
5.1.3 危險貨物之特別規定 92
5.1.4 託運人之責任 92
5.1.5 其他與託運人相關之規定 93
5.2 建議 94
參考文獻 96

一、期刊論文
1.方凱弘、劉祖彰、鍾政棋（2011），「海上貨物運送人責任國際公約立法模式之分析」，航運季刊，第20卷，第2期，頁21-44。
2.馬得懿（2008），「託運人的衍生性：由單一到多元嬗變」，中國海商法年刊，第18卷，頁109-125。
3.梁宇賢（1992），「海上貨物託運人責任之比較研究」，中興法學，第33期，頁149-187。
4.Bonassies, P. and Scapel, C. (2006), “Droit Maritime”, LGDJ, no.1040.
5.Fujita, T. (2010), “Shipper’s Obligations and Liabilities under the Rotterdam Rules”, GCOESOFTLAW, 2010-3.
6.Girvin, S (1996), “Shipper’s liability for the carriage of dangerous cargoes by sea”, LMCLQ 487, pp. 487-502.
7.Guzm#westeur034#n, J. V. (2010), “The Rotterdam Rules: Shipper’s Obligations and Liability”, CMI YEARBOOK 2010, pp. 156-162.
8.Hooper, C. D. (2009), Obligations of the shipper to the carrier under the Rotterdam Rules (Chapter 7), Unif. L. Rev: 885, pp. 885-892.
9.Schelin, J. (2013), “Shipper’s obligations under the Rotterdam Rules ─ A fundamental change of view?”, Axel Ax: son Johnson Institute of Maritime and Transport Law, Stockholm University.

二、書籍
1.王肖卿（2012），運輸單證與運送責任─鹿特丹規則的影響，臺北：保險事業發展中心。
2.李太正、王海南、法治斌、陳連順、黃源盛、顏厥安（2010），法學入門，第十一版，臺北：元照出版。
3.林群弼（2003），海商法論，臺北：三民出版。
4.邱啟舜（2007），國際海運危險品章程，臺北：傑舜船舶安全管理顧問股份有限公司。
5.柯澤東（2010），海商法：新世紀幾何觀海商法學，二版，臺北：元照出版。
6.康復明（2012），海上貨物規範研究─鹿特丹規則與貨物控制權，臺北：文笙書局。
7.張新平（2010），海商法，臺北：五南圖書。
8.張新平、王孝通（2007），海商法，二版，臺北：五南圖書。
9.曾俊鵬（2010），國際貨櫃運輸實務，第三版，臺北：華泰文化事業股份有限公司。
10.曾國雄、張志清（2009），海商法，臺北：航貿文化。
11.曾國雄、張志清、鍾政棋（2008），載貨證券理論與實務，臺北：航貿文化。
12.黃裕凱（2014），海商法修正建議，臺北：航貿文化。
13.黃裕凱（2014），鹿特丹規則，臺北：航貿文化。
14.葉至誠（2009），社會科學概論，臺北：楊智文化。
15.劉宗榮（1996），海商法，臺北：三民書局。
16.劉清景（2000），海商法逐條整理，新北市：學知出版。
17.鄭玉波（2005），民法概要，臺北：東大出版。
18.鄭玉波（2009），法學緒論，第十八版，臺北：三民書局。
19.鄭肇芳（2011），航運法治建設與海商法律研究，大陸：上海人民出版社。
20.賴來錕（2002），最新海商法論，臺北：神州圖書出版。
21.鍾政棋（2012），圖解航業經營概論，第一版，基隆：作者自版。
22.Astle, W. E. (1981), The Hamburg Rules ─ An appreciation of the cause and effect of the amendments to the Hague Rules and the Hague – Visby Rules, London: Fairplay Publications.
23.Baatz, Y., Debattista, C., Lorenzon, F., Serdy, A., Staniland, H.,and Tsimplis, M. N. (2009), The Rotterdam Rules: A Practical Annotation, London: Informa Law from Routledge.
24.Baugnen, S. (2009), Shipping Law, 4th Ed., London; New York: Routledge.
25.Carr, I. (2010), International Trade Law, USA; Canada: Routledge-Cavendish.
26.Girvin, S. (2011), Carriage of Goods by Sea, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.G#westeur061#ner-#westeur023#zbek, M. D. (2008), The Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Sea, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
28.G#westeur029#NER-#westeur023#ZBEK, M. D. (2011), The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly Or Partly by Sea: An Appraisal of the“Rotterdam Rules”, Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
29.L#westeur061#ddeke, C. F., Johnson, A. (1995), THE HAMBURG RULES - FROM HAGUE TO HAMBURG VIA VISBY, 7 ed., London; New York: LLOYD'S OF LONDON PRESS.
30.Mocatta A. A., Mustill, M. J. and Boyd S. C. (1984), Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading, 19th ed., London: Sweet &; Maxwell, 1984.
31.Richardson, J. (1998), A GUIDE TO THE HAGUE AND HAGUE-VISBY RULES, 4th ed., London; Hong Kong: LLOYD'S OF LONDON PRESS LTD.
32.Singh, L. (2012), The Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea, United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Professional.
33.Thomas, D.R. (2010), The carriage of goods by sea under the Rotterdam rules, London: Lloyd's List.
34.von Ziegler, A., Schelin, J.,and Zunarelli, S. (2010), The Rotterdam Rules 2008: Commentary to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, p. 152.
35.Wilson, J. F. (2004), CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA, England: Pearson Education Limited, 5th ed., pp.34-35.

三、研討會
1.羅俊瑋（2013），論託運人之義務與責任 ─ 以鹿特丹規則就危險貨物之規定為中心，國際海商法學術研討會：國際海上貨物運送法的變革與趨勢─鹿特丹規則之探索，國立臺灣海洋大學海洋法律研究所，基隆市。

四、學位論文
1.伍安泰（2006），「海上貨物運送人強制責任期間之研究」，國立臺灣海洋大學航運管理所碩士學位論文。
2.何德超（2003），「兩岸海商法貨物運送法制與理論之比較與研究」，國立東華大學財經法律研究所碩士論文。
3.吳幸樺（2010），「鹿特丹規則對海上貨物運送人責任之影響」，國立臺灣海洋大學航運管理所碩士學位論文。
4.李桂枝（1986），「聯合國國際貨物多式聯運公約之研究」，國立臺灣海洋學院海洋研究所碩士論文。
5.林妲欣（2012），「由鹿特丹規則探討我國海商法貨物運送規範修正之建議」，國立臺灣海洋大學航運管理所碩士學位論文。

五、聯合國相關文件
1.Berlingieri, F. (2009), “A Comparative Analysis of the Hague-Visby Rules, the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules”, General Assembly of the Association Mondiale de Dispacheurs (AMD), 5-6 November 2009, Marrakesh.
2.General Assembly of the United Nations (2009), Sixty-third session, 2 February 2009 (A/RES/63/122).
3.UNCTAD SECRETARIAT (1991), “The Economic and commercial implications of the entry into force of the Hamburg Rules and the Multimodal Transport Convention: report”, New York.
4.UNCITRAL (2000), “Transport law: possible future work - Report of the Secretary-General”, Thirty-third session, 12 June-7 July 2000, New York (A/CN.9/476).
5.UNCITRAL (2001), “Possible future work on transport law - Report of the Secretary-General”, Thirty-fourth session, 25 June-13 July 2001, Vienna (A/CN.9/497).
6.UNCITRAL (2002), Report of Working Group III (Transport Law) on the work of its Ninth session, 15-26 April 2002, New York (A/CN.9/510).
7.UNCITRAL (2002), Report of Working Group III (Transport Law) on the work of its Ninth session, 15-26 April 2002, New York (A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.21).
8.UNCITRAL (2004), Report of Working Group III (Transport Law) on the work of its Thirteenth session, 3-14 May 2004, New York (A/CN.9/552).
9.UNCITRAL (2004), Report of Working Group III (Transport Law) on the work of its Fourteenth session, 29 November-10 December 2004, Vienna (A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.39).
10.UNCITRAL (2005), Report of Working Group III (Transport Law) on the work of its Sixteenth session, 28 November-9 December 2005, Vienna (A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.55).
11.UNCITRAL (2005), Report of Working Group III (Transport Law) on the work of its Sixteenth session, 28 November-9 December 2005, Vienna (A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.56).
12.UNCITRAL (2006), Report of Working Group III (Transport Law) on the work of its Sixteenth session, 28 November-9 December 2005, Vienna (A/CN.9/591).
13.UNCITRAL (2006), Report of Working Group III (Transport Law) on the work of its Seventeenth session, 3-13 April 2006, New York (A/CN.9/594).
14.UNCITRAL (2006), Report of Working Group III (Transport Law) on the work of its Seventeenth session, 3-13 April 2006, New York (A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.64)
15.UNCITRAL (2007), Report of Working Group III (Transport Law) on the work of its Nineteenth session, 16-27 April 2007, New York (A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.81).

六、國內外法院判決
1.73年度臺上字第4153號
2.90年海商上更（二）字第1號
3.(1865) 6 El. &; Bl. 470.
4.[1950] 1 KB240.
5.Grill v. General Iron Screw Colliery Co Ltd. (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 476.
6.Smith v. Shepherd. (1795), 101 E. R.
7.The Giannis N. K., [1998] AC 605.

七、網際網路
1.European Shippers’ Council, “The Rotterdam Rules seen by the ESC” , from http://www.europeanshippers.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/pr%C3%A9sentation-RR-pour-MTC-juin-2013.pdf. (retrieved June 6, 2014)
2.European Shippers’ Council, “View of the European Shippers’ Council on the Convention on Contracts for the International Carrying of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea also known as the ‘Rotterdam Rules’ ”, from http://www.europeanshippers.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/rotterdam_rules_esc_position_paper_march0911.pdf. (retrieved June 6, 2014)
3.http://howtoexportimport.com/Difference-between-Exporter-Shipper-and-Consignor-190.aspx (retrieved: 2014/6/12).
4.http://www.europeanshippers.eu/shippers/what-is-a-shipper/.(retrieved: 2014/6/3).
5.http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-consignor.htm (retrieved: 2014/6/12).
6.UNITED NATIONS INFORMATION SERVICE (UNIS) VIENNA , http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2014/unisl196.html (retrieved June 10, 2014).