海上货物运输实际承运人概念和责任辨析
摘要
《海商法》效仿《汉堡规则》的有关条款，引进了实际承运人概念，从而解决了对货物进行实际运输者的权利、义务和责任问题，为货方就货物灭失和损坏进行索赔增加了一条救济途径。但该法中的有关实际承运人的法律规范立法技术欠周，存在着缺陷和漏洞，为学习和掌握该法律规范带来了困难，也为在司法实践中正确识别实际承运人和追究其法律责任增加了难度。本文通过对实际承运人这一制度的渊源的考察，探究了该制度得以建立的原因及立法本意，然后用法律阐释的原则和方法，对该法就实际承运人定义和责任所做的规范进行了剖析。
本文认为，对实际承运人定义中的“委托”、“从事货物运输”等词语，应进行扩张解释，以扩大实际承运人的范围；对第四章第二节中的“责任”一词，应根据其在法律条款中的地位，分别取义务、权利、豁免、责任之意，以使实际承运人既承担承运人的义务与责任，也享受承运人的权利与豁免；对于未就实际承运人与承运人承担连带责任的范围做出规定的法律漏洞，应以目的性限缩解释进行补充。将与货损发生区段无关的实际承运人排除在责任人之外，仅让实际履行该区段运输的实际承运人与承运人承担连带责任。
The Chinese Maritime Code (CMC hereafter) models upon the Hamburg Rules to the effect that the concept of actual carrier is introduced so that the right, obligation and liability of the person performing the actual carriage of goods can be resolved and the cargo interests are granted an additional remedial means for loss of or damage to cargo. However, the relevant provisions of CMC in this respect exist deficiency and loophole. In this connection, the difficulties will arise in correctly understanding the relevant provisions as well as properly identifying the actual carrier and ascertaining the legal liability thereof.
In this thesis, the origin of the legal regime of actual carrier is examined, and the legislative reason and intention of this regime are probed. And then, relevant provisions in respect of the concept and liability of actual carrier are expounded and interpreted.
In the opinion of this author, where the relevant provisions of CMC are applied, the law should be interpreted and supplemented in the light of the real legislative intention. The tenns such as "entrust" and "performance of carriage of goods" shall be interpreted in broad sense with a view to enlarging the scope of actual carrier. The term of "liability" in Section 2, Chapter 4 of CMC should be respectively interpreted as obligation, right, exemption and liability by reference to its positions in different legal provisions so that the actual carrier shall undertake obligation and liability of the carrier as well as can enjoy right and exemption of the carrier. The deficiency resulting from the
lack of provision of the scopes of several and joint liability between actual carrier and carrier should be resolved considering the purposive interpretation in narrow sense. That is to say, the actual carrier who has no relation with the section where cargo damages occur should be excluded from the liable persons, and the joint and several liability should only be borne by the actual carrier actually performing the section where the cargo damages occur and the carrier.
本文认为，对实际承运人定义中的“委托”、“从事货物运输”等词语，应进行扩张解释，以扩大实际承运人的范围；对第四章第二节中的“责任”一词，应根据其在法律条款中的地位，分别取义务、权利、豁免、责任之意，以使实际承运人既承担承运人的义务与责任，也享受承运人的权利与豁免；对于未就实际承运人与承运人承担连带责任的范围做出规定的法律漏洞，应以目的性限缩解释进行补充。将与货损发生区段无关的实际承运人排除在责任人之外，仅让实际履行该区段运输的实际承运人与承运人承担连带责任。
The Chinese Maritime Code (CMC hereafter) models upon the Hamburg Rules to the effect that the concept of actual carrier is introduced so that the right, obligation and liability of the person performing the actual carriage of goods can be resolved and the cargo interests are granted an additional remedial means for loss of or damage to cargo. However, the relevant provisions of CMC in this respect exist deficiency and loophole. In this connection, the difficulties will arise in correctly understanding the relevant provisions as well as properly identifying the actual carrier and ascertaining the legal liability thereof.
In this thesis, the origin of the legal regime of actual carrier is examined, and the legislative reason and intention of this regime are probed. And then, relevant provisions in respect of the concept and liability of actual carrier are expounded and interpreted.
In the opinion of this author, where the relevant provisions of CMC are applied, the law should be interpreted and supplemented in the light of the real legislative intention. The tenns such as "entrust" and "performance of carriage of goods" shall be interpreted in broad sense with a view to enlarging the scope of actual carrier. The term of "liability" in Section 2, Chapter 4 of CMC should be respectively interpreted as obligation, right, exemption and liability by reference to its positions in different legal provisions so that the actual carrier shall undertake obligation and liability of the carrier as well as can enjoy right and exemption of the carrier. The deficiency resulting from the
lack of provision of the scopes of several and joint liability between actual carrier and carrier should be resolved considering the purposive interpretation in narrow sense. That is to say, the actual carrier who has no relation with the section where cargo damages occur should be excluded from the liable persons, and the joint and several liability should only be borne by the actual carrier actually performing the section where the cargo damages occur and the carrier.
引文
[1]王泽鉴《民法学说与判例研究》第一册，
[2]史尚宽《债法各论》中国政法大学出版社
[3]梁慧星《民法解释学》中国政法大学出版社
[4]杨仁寿著《法学力法论》，中国政法大学出版社
[5]司玉琢主编《新编海商法》，大连海事大学出版社
[6]司玉琢《论实际承运人的责任》，载《中国海商法通讯》总第56期
[7]樱井玲二著《<汉堡规则>的成立与解释》，对外贸易出版社
[8]杨良宜《国际商务游戏规则——英国合约法》，中国政法大学出版社，
[9]韩立新《国际海上货物运输中实际承运人及其责任的认定》
[10]翁子明《实际承运人和实际托运人的法定性》，<中国海事审判年刊>1999年
[11]王利明 杨立新《侵权行为法》，法律出版社
[12]王立明《论合同的相对性》，<中国法学>1996年第4期
[13]王利明《侵权行为法归责原则研究》，中国政法大学出版社
[14]江平主编《中华人民共和国合同法精解》，中国政法大学出版社
[15][1974]l Lloyd's rep. John F. Wilson,《Carriage of Goods by Sea》
[16]郭瑜《论海上货物运输中的实际承运人制度》，载《法制与社会发展》2000年第3期
[2]史尚宽《债法各论》中国政法大学出版社
[3]梁慧星《民法解释学》中国政法大学出版社
[4]杨仁寿著《法学力法论》，中国政法大学出版社
[5]司玉琢主编《新编海商法》，大连海事大学出版社
[6]司玉琢《论实际承运人的责任》，载《中国海商法通讯》总第56期
[7]樱井玲二著《<汉堡规则>的成立与解释》，对外贸易出版社
[8]杨良宜《国际商务游戏规则——英国合约法》，中国政法大学出版社，
[9]韩立新《国际海上货物运输中实际承运人及其责任的认定》
[10]翁子明《实际承运人和实际托运人的法定性》，<中国海事审判年刊>1999年
[11]王利明 杨立新《侵权行为法》，法律出版社
[12]王立明《论合同的相对性》，<中国法学>1996年第4期
[13]王利明《侵权行为法归责原则研究》，中国政法大学出版社
[14]江平主编《中华人民共和国合同法精解》，中国政法大学出版社
[15][1974]l Lloyd's rep. John F. Wilson,《Carriage of Goods by Sea》
[16]郭瑜《论海上货物运输中的实际承运人制度》，载《法制与社会发展》2000年第3期