船舶碰撞管辖权对损害赔偿的影响
摘要
本文是在比较、分析的基础上，探讨了由于管辖权的变化，对船舶碰撞的损害赔偿所带来的影响。
航运事业的发展，并没有减低碰撞问题的重要性。当赔偿的责任确定和具体的赔偿计算方法可以在各国的立法及国际公约中逐渐形成共识并相对稳定之后，经常产生争议的焦点就是管辖权的确定。在各国的司法实践和公约（《1952年船舶碰撞中民事管辖权方面若干规定的国际公约》）的条款中，一般根据几种方法来确定管辖权：被告住所或营业所在地的法院；碰撞发生地的沿岸国的法院；扣船地的法院；与碰撞案件有联系国的法院。简单地判断几种方法孰优孰劣，既没有什么实际意义，也不可能。各法院会依据本国的相关规定和碰撞案件的实际情况选择行使或拒绝行使管辖权。现今“择地行诉”之风盛行，因此扣船地法院通常行使管辖权。
当事人之所以希望选择不同的法院行使管辖权，就是为了获得不同的赔偿效果。实际上，管辖权对损害赔偿的结果影响是非常重要的。一般情况下，最明显的莫过于海事赔偿责任限制制度的不同。在国际公约方面，并存着两个具有广泛影响的公约，即1957年公约和1976年公约，其所规定的限制金额差别较大；在实际做法方面，又有美国等国家的船价加运费制度。适用不同的海事赔偿责任限制，船舶所有人（及其他按规定可请求责任限制的有关人）可以要求不同的责任限制，如果发生的碰撞事故损失巨大，责任限制的规定将使船舶所有人的经济赔偿固定在一定范围之内，并由于责任限制的不同而带来经济利益的明显差异.
另一个因素就是单位责任限额，既没有统一的规则，又牵涉到本国货币的转换问题，由此而产生的所规定的限制千差万别，难以确定。海事赔偿责任限制和单位责任限制的关系是这样的，当船舶所有人或承租人作为承运人，对所载货物发生不能免责的碰撞原因造成其灭失或损坏时，单位责任限制可以起作用，限制后的货物索赔额加上碰撞产生的其他损害赔偿责任超过了该船总的责任限制，这时海事赔偿责任限制又可以起作用。
人身伤亡的赔偿方法，各国的规定也不尽相同。在我国，需要引起重视的是关于精神损害的赔偿，虽然我国政府和相关规定已经承认了精神损害的观点，但制订具体的赔偿办法和合理的赔偿金额仍显得相对滞后。
扣船地法院行使管辖权的方便性和可操作性，使得通过这种方式确定管辖权的做法变得普遍起来。但是，各国对扣船的法律规定是有区别的，在准备扣船并提起诉讼之前，对当地扣船法律的了解是必不可少的。
管辖权的不同，对损害赔偿的影响还有很多方面。如诉讼时效的差别，胜诉的机会，法庭办案人员的素质，援引不可抗力的规定以及政治因素的作用，都会产生截然不同的赔偿结果。
本文在着重论述以上几个方面的基础上，揭示了管辖权在船舶碰撞的损害赔偿中的重要地位，分析了具体的差别所在，希望为我国在今后完善相关立法和保障国家和船舶及我国公民的经济利益方面提供一些参考，为我国海运事业的发展和与繁荣做出贡献。
在本论文的撰写过程中，作者得到了导师严启明老师的悉心指导，严老师严谨的治学态度和实事求是的研究精神也使作者受益匪浅，在此深表感谢。
On the basis of comparison and analysis, the dissertation has studied the difference in claims for damages because of the alternation of jurisdiction.
The impact of collision at sea will not be reduced though the navigation has reached an outstanding development. Unlike the liability and calculation of claims, the jurisdiction will often be difficult to settle down. According to the international practice and conventions, there will be several ways to decide which court shall have the jurisdiction over the collision cases. The court shall be the one where the defendant has his residence or business; or the one where the collision happened; or the one where the ship has been arrested; or the one that has other relationship with the collision. It will be meaningless and impossible to say which court is more suitable. For the sake of forum shopping, the court where the ship has been arrested will be often adopted as the one that has the jurisdiction.
The purpose of choosing court is that there exist different regulations on claims. The most common reason is that the difference in limitation of liability. Some countries apply the 1957 LIMITATION CONVENTION while others apply the 1976 LIMITATION CONVENTION. In addition, the United States applies a totally different limitation system in which the ship owner's liability is limited as no more than the value of the ship adding the freight. Obviously, different jurisdiction will bring different limitation that can protect the ship owner.
There is not a single standard in the regulation of package limitation and the transference of money. When a collision take place, which have done damages to the cargo, the ship owner can ask for package limitation, and ask for limitation of liability if the amount of package limitation adding other claims more than the limitation of liability.
Claims for loss of life or personal injury differs from country to country. InChina, the compensation of spiritual loss shall be put more emphasis on in the future.
The law of arresting of ship, the timing of an action, the chance to win, the background of the court staff, the introduction of force majeure, and some political factors will also do effect to the result of an collision case.
By showing the significant contrast in the respect mentioned above, the dissertation reveals the importance of the jurisdiction in collisions at sea and hope to make some useful suggestions to protect our Chinese ships and citizens that may be involved in collision cases.
航运事业的发展，并没有减低碰撞问题的重要性。当赔偿的责任确定和具体的赔偿计算方法可以在各国的立法及国际公约中逐渐形成共识并相对稳定之后，经常产生争议的焦点就是管辖权的确定。在各国的司法实践和公约（《1952年船舶碰撞中民事管辖权方面若干规定的国际公约》）的条款中，一般根据几种方法来确定管辖权：被告住所或营业所在地的法院；碰撞发生地的沿岸国的法院；扣船地的法院；与碰撞案件有联系国的法院。简单地判断几种方法孰优孰劣，既没有什么实际意义，也不可能。各法院会依据本国的相关规定和碰撞案件的实际情况选择行使或拒绝行使管辖权。现今“择地行诉”之风盛行，因此扣船地法院通常行使管辖权。
当事人之所以希望选择不同的法院行使管辖权，就是为了获得不同的赔偿效果。实际上，管辖权对损害赔偿的结果影响是非常重要的。一般情况下，最明显的莫过于海事赔偿责任限制制度的不同。在国际公约方面，并存着两个具有广泛影响的公约，即1957年公约和1976年公约，其所规定的限制金额差别较大；在实际做法方面，又有美国等国家的船价加运费制度。适用不同的海事赔偿责任限制，船舶所有人（及其他按规定可请求责任限制的有关人）可以要求不同的责任限制，如果发生的碰撞事故损失巨大，责任限制的规定将使船舶所有人的经济赔偿固定在一定范围之内，并由于责任限制的不同而带来经济利益的明显差异.
另一个因素就是单位责任限额，既没有统一的规则，又牵涉到本国货币的转换问题，由此而产生的所规定的限制千差万别，难以确定。海事赔偿责任限制和单位责任限制的关系是这样的，当船舶所有人或承租人作为承运人，对所载货物发生不能免责的碰撞原因造成其灭失或损坏时，单位责任限制可以起作用，限制后的货物索赔额加上碰撞产生的其他损害赔偿责任超过了该船总的责任限制，这时海事赔偿责任限制又可以起作用。
人身伤亡的赔偿方法，各国的规定也不尽相同。在我国，需要引起重视的是关于精神损害的赔偿，虽然我国政府和相关规定已经承认了精神损害的观点，但
扣船地法院行使管辖权的方便性和可操作性，使得通过这种方式确定管辖权的做法变得普遍起来。但是，各国对扣船的法律规定是有区别的，在准备扣船并提起诉讼之前，对当地扣船法律的了解是必不可少的。
管辖权的不同，对损害赔偿的影响还有很多方面。如诉讼时效的差别，胜诉的机会，法庭办案人员的素质，援引不可抗力的规定以及政治因素的作用，都会产生截然不同的赔偿结果。
本文在着重论述以上几个方面的基础上，揭示了管辖权在船舶碰撞的损害赔偿中的重要地位，分析了具体的差别所在，希望为我国在今后完善相关立法和保障国家和船舶及我国公民的经济利益方面提供一些参考，为我国海运事业的发展和与繁荣做出贡献。
在本论文的撰写过程中，作者得到了导师严启明老师的悉心指导，严老师严谨的治学态度和实事求是的研究精神也使作者受益匪浅，在此深表感谢。
On the basis of comparison and analysis, the dissertation has studied the difference in claims for damages because of the alternation of jurisdiction.
The impact of collision at sea will not be reduced though the navigation has reached an outstanding development. Unlike the liability and calculation of claims, the jurisdiction will often be difficult to settle down. According to the international practice and conventions, there will be several ways to decide which court shall have the jurisdiction over the collision cases. The court shall be the one where the defendant has his residence or business; or the one where the collision happened; or the one where the ship has been arrested; or the one that has other relationship with the collision. It will be meaningless and impossible to say which court is more suitable. For the sake of forum shopping, the court where the ship has been arrested will be often adopted as the one that has the jurisdiction.
The purpose of choosing court is that there exist different regulations on claims. The most common reason is that the difference in limitation of liability. Some countries apply the 1957 LIMITATION CONVENTION while others apply the 1976 LIMITATION CONVENTION. In addition, the United States applies a totally different limitation system in which the ship owner's liability is limited as no more than the value of the ship adding the freight. Obviously, different jurisdiction will bring different limitation that can protect the ship owner.
There is not a single standard in the regulation of package limitation and the transference of money. When a collision take place, which have done damages to the cargo, the ship owner can ask for package limitation, and ask for limitation of liability if the amount of package limitation adding other claims more than the limitation of liability.
Claims for loss of life or personal injury differs from country to country. In
The law of arresting of ship, the timing of an action, the chance to win, the background of the court staff, the introduction of force majeure, and some political factors will also do effect to the result of an collision case.
By showing the significant contrast in the respect mentioned above, the dissertation reveals the importance of the jurisdiction in collisions at sea and hope to make some useful suggestions to protect our Chinese ships and citizens that may be involved in collision cases.
引文
1 Christopher Hill, Maritime Law, LLP, 1998, 5th edition, p245
2 Simon Gault, Marsden on Collision at Sea, Sweet & Maxwell, 1998, 12th edition, p8
3 Nicholas J. Healy & Joseph C Sweeney, The Law of Marine Collision, Cornell Maritime Press, 1998, 1st edition, p9
4 司玉琢，《船舶碰撞法》，大连海事大学出版社，1995，第二版，P6
5 尤多维希，《船舶海事的分析和预防》，海洋出版社，P127
6 郑玉波，《海商法》，三民书局，P90
7 Simon Gault, Marsden on Collision at Sea, Sweet & Maxwell, 1998, 12th edition,P8
8 周鲠生，《国际法》，商务印书馆，1983，P321
9 Adrim Briggs, The Staying of Actions on the Ground of Forum Non-convenience in England Today, Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law,1984, p231
10 (1985)1 Lloyd's Rep.291
11(1951)1 Lloyd's Rep.425
12 (1980) 2 Lloyd's Rep. 229
13 Simon Gault, Marsden on Collision at Sea, Sweet & Maxwell, 1998, 12th edition, P38,39
14 (1984)2 Lloyd's Rep.432
15 (1989) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 319
16 Black's Law , P999
17 Law of Torts, London, Butterworths,P539
18 Law of Torts, London, Butterworths,P540
19 Steven Goldman , Non-pecuniary Damages, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 1980, 10vol, P58
2 Simon Gault, Marsden on Collision at Sea, Sweet & Maxwell, 1998, 12th edition, p8
3 Nicholas J. Healy & Joseph C Sweeney, The Law of Marine Collision, Cornell Maritime Press, 1998, 1st edition, p9
4 司玉琢，《船舶碰撞法》，大连海事大学出版社，1995，第二版，P6
5 尤多维希，《船舶海事的分析和预防》，海洋出版社，P127
6 郑玉波，《海商法》，三民书局，P90
7 Simon Gault, Marsden on Collision at Sea, Sweet & Maxwell, 1998, 12th edition,P8
8 周鲠生，《国际法》，商务印书馆，1983，P321
9 Adrim Briggs, The Staying of Actions on the Ground of Forum Non-convenience in England Today, Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law,1984, p231
10 (1985)1 Lloyd's Rep.291
11(1951)1 Lloyd's Rep.425
12 (1980) 2 Lloyd's Rep. 229
13 Simon Gault, Marsden on Collision at Sea, Sweet & Maxwell, 1998, 12th edition, P38,39
14 (1984)2 Lloyd's Rep.432
15 (1989) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 319
16 Black's Law , P999
17 Law of Torts, London, Butterworths,P539
18 Law of Torts, London, Butterworths,P540
19 Steven Goldman , Non-pecuniary Damages, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 1980, 10vol, P58