跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.95.131.146) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/29 00:59
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:蔡宛蒨
研究生(外文):Tsai, Wan-Chien
論文名稱:我國貨櫃集散站營運人貨損責任之分析
論文名稱(外文):An Analysis on the Cargo Claims Liability of Operators of Container Freight Stations in Taiwan
指導教授:鍾政棋鍾政棋引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chung, Cheng-Chi
口試委員:包嘉源于惠蓉曾文瑞
口試委員(外文):Bao, Jya-YuanYu, Hui-LungTseng, Wen-Jui
口試日期:2016-06-29
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣海洋大學
系所名稱:航運管理學系
學門:運輸服務學門
學類:運輸管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2016
畢業學年度:104
語文別:中文
論文頁數:76
中文關鍵詞:貨櫃運輸貨損責任貨櫃集散站運送終站營運人
外文關鍵詞:Container transportationCargo claims liabilityContainer freight stationsOperators of transport terminals
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:167
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:14
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
於貨櫃運輸服務中,貨櫃集散站經營業係提供零星散貨併裝成整櫃裝船,以及整櫃卸載後拆櫃之場所。近年來貨櫃承運貨價提高,但櫃場作業費並未改變,使業者面臨貨損賠償責任加重。由於我國港口腹地不足,須於港區外設立內陸貨櫃集散站。我國對港口與內陸的貨櫃集散站,主管機關相同,且同為國際貿易貨物運送之重要節點,卻適用不同法規,致內陸貨櫃集散站業者須承擔較大營運風險。有鑑於此,將針對歷年來國際海事公約對貨櫃集散站經營之規範進行探討與分析。本文研究主要發現如下:

1.各國際海運公約主要規範對象為運送人及實際運送人,其責任期間隨國際貿易型態改變與貨櫃化運輸之發展,從早期「鈎至鈎」演進至「收受至交付」為其責任期間。對於得主張抗辯及責任限制運送人之履行輔助人所指對象有所不同,於漢堡規則後將履行輔助人之適用範圍設定其行為應在執行職務範圍內,或係履行或承諾履行在運送契約下運送人所需負擔之任何義務。由此可知,各公約逐漸擴大履行輔助人之適用對象,並明確規範其適用條件,然目前對於商港區域範圍外之履行輔助人是否亦可援用,並未明文。

2.有關運送終站營運人法律地位與責任,目前各國司法實務並未一致,且國際公約規定不一。1991年「聯合國國際貿易運送終站營運人責任公約」係規範貨物於運送終站營運人管理期間,發生滅失、毀損或交付遲延責任問題,對協助履行運送行為的獨立契約人及其履行輔助人,制定完善的責任體制。可供航港當局檢視貨櫃集散站經營業貨損賠償之現行法規與實務作業,俾能與國際公約之規範接軌,達至國際貿易運送之貨暢其流。

3.近年來BIMCO有關喜馬拉雅條款之修訂條文公告,已漸將履行輔助人適用之範圍擴大,以符合時宜。以國際貿易實務觀之,海上貨物運送契約常以英國法為準據法,且英國於1999年通過有關第三人契約權利之法案,制定明確之法理基礎,賦予雙方簽訂之契約中第三受益人得享有契約規範之特定利益,其亦補強喜馬拉雅條款法理於運送契約之正當性,使運送人之履行輔助人在特定條件下,即能主張抗辯及責任限制法益。此明文之規範,對於協助履行運送契約之履行輔助人,實為一大保障。

In the international container shipping industry, container terminal operators accommodate container freight stations (CFSs) to consolidate and unconsolidate cargoes. However, the value of the cargo has been raised while the terminal handling charge has remained at the same rate; therefore, the container terminal operators need to deal with heavy liability of the cargo claims in recent years. Due to the lack of hinterland space within the port areas in Taiwan, container terminal operators established inland CFSs beyond the port areas. In Taiwan, there are two types of CFSs (in port and in inland) that belong to the same competent authority and both are the spot of the cargo transportation in international trade but apply to different regulations. It makes the inland CFSs confront much more operating risks. This study highlights the operation management and cargo claims in container freight stations by comparing different provisions among several international conventions. The result of this study shows that:

1.The international conventions in shipping regulate the liabilities of the carrier and the actual carrier. As the patterns of the international trade change with the development of container transportation, the period of responsibility in these conventions has changed from “tackle to tackle” to “receive to delivery”. Among these conventions, there are differences in the scope of application about the performance assistant who is entitled to avail himself of the defences and limits of liability which the carrier/actual carrier is entitled to invoke. Particularly, the Hamburg Rule and the Rotterdam Rule are expressly extended to “if he proves that he acted within the scope of his employment” and “performs or undertakes to perform any of the carrier’s obligations under a contract of carriage” to be specified. Owing to these modifications, the scope of application has become widen and the terms have been more detailed. However, there is no provision that expresses about the performance of inland assistant who provides service out of the port area.

2.The “United Nations convention on the liability of operators of transport terminals in international trade (referred to herein also as UNOTT)” which based upon a draft prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) was adapted in 1991. The Convention establishes a uniform legal regime governing the liability of an operator of a transport terminal (referred to herein also as “OTT”) for loss of or damage to goods and for delay in delivery. It supports a completed liability regulations not only to the terminal operators but also to their servants, agents and independent contractors. The results provide the competent authority to view the current laws and regulations, with the aim of enhancing internationalization and improving the flow of goods in the global trade.

3.Reference to the circulars which mention about the revised Himalaya Clause for Bills of Lading and other contracts from BIMCO, the scope of application is extended to meet the trend of the international trade. On the view of the practice in the international trade, the contracts of carriage of goods by sea are usually complied with English Law. Where the Bill of Lading is subjected to English Law, third parties such as stevedores is now given statutory protection by The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 which is very similar to that from the Himalaya Clause. This statute provides that a third party may “in his own right” enforce a term of a contract in which the contract expressly provides that he may do so. This provision ensures that the person who provides the service with the purpose of performing any of the carrier’s obligations under a contract of carriage will have the right to enforce the contractual terms by third parties.

謝誌 I
摘要 II
Abstract III
目錄 V
表目錄 VII
圖目錄 VIII

第一章 緒論 1
1.1研究背景與動機 1
1.2研究問題與目的 2
1.3研究內容與方法 3
1.4研究架構與流程 4

第二章 文獻回顧與評析 7
2.1貨櫃集散站經營相關文獻分析 7
2.2喜馬拉雅條款責任限制之分析 8
2.3港埠裝卸人法律地位之分析 11
2.4國際規範相關文獻分析 13
2.5綜合評析 16

第三章 我國貨櫃集散站現況分析 17
3.1我國貨櫃集散站之經營型態 17
3.2我國貨櫃集散站之營運現況 18
3.3我國貨櫃集散站之現行規範 20
3.4本章小結 24

第四章 國際海運公約對貨櫃集散站貨損責任之規範 25
4.1 1924年海牙規則 25
4.2 1968年海牙威斯比規則 26
4.3 1978年漢堡規則 27
4.4 1980年聯合國國際多式聯運公約 28
4.5 2009年鹿特丹規則 29
4.6本章小結 32

第五章 聯合國國際貿易運送終站營運人責任公約之規範 34
5.1運送終站營運人責任公約立法背景 34
5.2貨損賠償責任主要條款分析 35
5.2.1定義 35
5.2.2適用範圍 38
5.2.3責任期間 39
5.2.4賠償責任依據 40
5.2.5責任限額 42
5.2.6對非契約索賠之適用 45
5.2.7賠償責任限制權利之喪失 46
5.2.8滅失、毀損或遲延之通知 47
5.2.9訴訟時效 49
5.3本章小結 51

第六章 結論與建議 52
6.1結論 52
6.2建議 53

參考文獻 54

附錄1 1991年聯合國國際貿易運送終站營運人責任公約(英文版) 57
附錄2 1991年聯合國國際貿易運送終站營運人責任公約(簡體中文版) 67
附錄3 我國貨櫃集散站經營業名冊 75

1.于惠蓉(2013),「鹿特丹規則海運履行輔助人定義及責任之探討」,東海大學法學研究,第41期,頁159-211。
2.王御風(2016),波瀾壯闊:台灣貨櫃運輸史,天下文化,臺灣。
3.司玉琢、韓立新(2009),鹿特丹規則研究,大連海事大學出版社。
4.巫俊蔚(2007),「我國航空貨運集散站經營業貨損賠償責任之研究」,國立高雄海洋科技大學航運管理研究所碩士論文。
5.李政欣(2004),「我國港埠物流法律相關問題之研究」,國立臺灣海洋大學海洋法律研究所碩士論文。
6.林宗德(1992),「運送終站營業人責任法制之研究」,國立臺灣海洋大學海洋法律研究所碩士論文。
7.林福港(1999),「港埠裝卸作業問題與其法律責任之研究」,國立臺灣海洋大學航運管理研究所碩士論文。
8.祁文中(2015),「由國際航運趨勢談我國航港發展」,國立臺灣海洋大學航運管理講座專題報告簡報資料,2015年9月16日。
9.施智謀(1986),海商法專題研究,第三版,臺北:政大法律研究所。
10.柯澤東(2000),海商法修訂新論,元照出版公司,臺北市。
11.柯澤東(2001),最新海商法貨物運送責任篇,二版,元照出版公司,臺北市。
12.張廷柱(1992),最新民法概要,新文豐出版,臺北市。
13.張新平(2010),海商法,四版,五南圖書,臺北市。
14.陳契宏(2006),「我國貨櫃集散站經營業責任制度之研究」,長榮大學經營管理研究所碩士論文。
15.曾國雄、徐當仁(1993),海商法(上):港埠裝卸人之法律地位之探討,作者自版,臺北市。
16.曾國雄、鍾政棋(1997),載貨證券理論與實務,環球書局,臺北市。
17.黃裕凱(2004),論「喜馬拉雅條款」及「次契約條款」(上),輔仁法學,第27期,頁193-270。
18.楊仁壽(1990),漢堡規則,三民書局,臺北市。
19.楊仁壽(2000),最新海商法論,三版,三民書局,臺北市。
20.楊仁壽(2012),「海運履約人的賠償責任」,航貿週刊,第42期,頁55-57。
21.劉宗榮(1991),論多式聯運經營人責任制度及其影響,三民書局,臺北市。
22.謝文豐(2003),「我國國際港埠裝卸人貨損責任之探討」,國立臺灣海洋大學海洋法律研究所碩士論文。
23.鍾政棋(2014),圖解航業經營概論,作者自版,臺北市。
24.鍾政棋、于惠蓉、鄭莉穎(2013),「鹿特丹規則對海上貨物運送交付遲延責任及貨損理賠之分析」,運輸學刊,第42卷第2期,頁151-170。
25.鍾政棋、曾文瑞、程法彰、黃凱臨(2012),「貨損單位責任限制及其於鹿特丹規則之分析」,運輸學刊,第24卷第2期,頁167-198。
26.蘇冠儒(2009),「我國貨櫃集散站經營業貨損賠償責任及其責任保險之研究」,長榮大學經營管理研究所碩士論文。
27.Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers (2010), Legal Principles in Shipping Business 2010/2011, Witherby Seamanship International Ltd., United Kingdom.
28.Sturley, M. F. (2009), “The Impact of the Rotterdam Rules in the United States”, Texas International Law Journal, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 427-455.
29.Tetley, W. (2002), International Maritime and Admiralty Law, Cowansville, Éditions Y. Blais.
30.Tetley, W. (2008), Marine Cargo Claims, 4th Ed., Éditions Y. Blais.
31.Tomotaka Fujita (2009), “The Comprehensive Coverage of the New Convention: Performing Parties and the Multimodal Implications”, Texas International Law Journal, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 349-373.
32.海商人黃裕凱博士教研網站,http://merchantmarine.financelaw.fju.edu.tw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24&Ite, Retrieved on Jun. 13, 2016.
33.財政部關務署高雄關(2015),http://kaohsiung.customs.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=39775&ctNode=13302,擷取日期:2015年10月1日。
34.財政部關務署基隆關(2015),http://keelung.customs.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=33636&CtNode=13418,擷取日期:2015年10月1日。
35.財政部關務署臺中關(2015),http://taichung.customs.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=19862&ctNode=15800,擷取日期:2015年10月1日。
36.Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), Revised Himalaya Clause for Bills of Lading and other Contracts No. 6, September 2010, https://www.bimco.org/, Retrieved on Jun. 11, 2016.
37.The Britannia Steam Ship Insurance Association Limited, Circular (To all Members, Revised Himalaya Clause for bills of lading and other contracts),http://www.britanniapandi.com/assets/Uploads/documents/Revised-Himalaya-Clause-for-bills-of-lading-and-other-contracts-Nov-2014-v2.pdf, Retrieved on Jun. 11, 2016.
38.The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Department of Justice (2015), Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Ordinance – An Introduction, http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/rightsofThirdParties.html, Retrieved on May 26, 2016.
39.United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, United Nations Convention on the Liability of Operators of Transport Terminals in International Trade (Vienna, 1991), http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/transport_goods/1991Convention_operators.html, Retrieved on Jan. 27, 2016.

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top