摘要
中文摘要 我國為海島型國家，國際進出口貿易繁盛。國際貿易運送貨物係以海上運送為其最大宗之運送方式，因海上環境相當複雜，為鼓勵人們從事冒險之活動，故賦予運送人責任限制與免責事由，航海過失免責條款即為重要之免責事項，為海上運送人責任得主張之重要抗辯事由，並與海商法發展及海運業興盛有密不可分之關係。航海過失免責之存續與否，則與現時航海技術演進之程度息息相關。因 海上風險變化難測，運送人無法獨自承擔，為使船貨雙方之風險合理分擔，故航海過失免責條款為船貨雙方利益之平衡點之一。而航海過失免責條款之所以係重大議題，在於其為運送人計算運送成本、海上保險費率與承保範圍之擬定、共同海損與船舶碰撞責任等危險分擔機制之基礎。因現今航運技術、科技之發展相較於航海免責條款訂立之初，已不可同日而語，倘運送人仍持此抗辯事由之存在，將受到強烈批判之聲音。有鑑於現行海牙規則、海牙威士比規則等國際公約，暨各國國內海商法制均偏重保障海上運送人之權益，致現行海上運送之法律關係，運送人與貨主之利益未盡平衡，就此各方爭論已持續良久。2008年聯合國鹿特丹規則之制定過程，對於應如何平衡船貨雙方利益，為與會者首要處理之主軸。職是，本論文將從英國普通法之運送人絕對責任為起點加以開展，嗣後至美國哈特法案規定航海過失免責條款，經海牙規則納入，繼漢堡規則將之廢棄，鹿特丹規則亦採廢棄立場。廢棄航海過失免責條款，可否達成船、貨雙方利益趨於平衡之目標，實有研討之必要。本論文就此加以討論，並對於我國海商法如何因應鹿特丹規則之生效，提出建議。 運送人主張航海過失免責條款抗辯時，其應證明自身已盡堪航能力之義務，可知航海過失免責條款與堪航能力，兩者有相當牽連關係。而海上運送人之首要義務，即為提供具堪航能力之船舶以運送貨物。英國普通法雖就提供具堪航能力船舶為運送人之絕對義務，然經美國哈特法案、海牙規則將其改為相對性之責任，即運送人對船舶堪航能力為盡謹慎處理之責任，而適用期間為發航前或發航時。漢堡規則對堪航能力之適用期間，則擴展為運送人應對貨物之全程運送期間負堪航能力之責任，且新近制定之鹿特丹規則亦同。以往適航僅就船舶、人員與載貨處所加以討論。因海上人命安全公約之規定，船舶堪航能力之履行內容亦有更明確之注意義務，文件之堪航能力亦應加注意及論述。準此，本論文針對堪航能力之相關議題綜合國際公約，英國普通法及我國法與相關實務案例加以研析，並討論其與航海過失免責條款之關聯。 關鍵字 : 航海過失免責、適航性、哈特法案、海牙規則、漢堡規則、鹿特丹規 則
並列摘要
Abstract Being an island country, Taiwan’s international trading and import/export activities are very prosperous. Marine transportation is the most prevalent shipping method for international trading. Due to the complexity of maritime environment, carriers were endowed with limitation of liability and disclaimers to encourage people to engage in adventure activities. Exemption clause of nautical fault is an important disclaimer of liability, which is the important plea the sea carriers may argue, and is inseparable from the development of maritime Law and the prosperity of marine transportation industry. The existence of nautical fault exemption is closely related to the evolution of maritime technology. Maritime risks are changeful and unpredictable, which makes it impossible for carriers to bear the risks alone. To reasonably share the risks between the shippers and the carriers, exemption clause of nautical fault is one of the equilibrium points of the benefits of both parties. Nautical fault exemption is the basis for calculating transportation cost, establishing marine insurance rate and insurance coverage, and risk sharing mechanism of general average and liability of ships collision, which is one of the reasons making it such a major issue. Current maritime technologies and scientific development are quite different from the time when nautical fault exemption clause was established. If carriers still persist in this plea, strong criticism shall rise. In view of the fact that current Hague Convention, Hague-Visby Rule, and domestic maritime laws and regulations all bias towards the protection of the rights and interests of sea carriers, the legal relationship of marine transportation about the benefits of carriers and shippers is not entirely balanced. This has been a dispute of both parties. During the development of Rotterdam Rules 2008 by UN, the balancing of benefits of shippers and carriers has been a focus of the participants. Therefore, this thesis starts with the strict liability of carriers in English common law, and discusses the exemption clause of nautical fault specified in United States Hart Act and the adoption by Hague Convention. Following the abolition of nautical fault exemption in Hamburg Rule, Rotterdam Rules also took same position. Whether the abolition of nautical fault exemption clause can bring balance to the benefits of both parties is worth discussion. The thesis discusses this point and proposes suggestions about our domestic maritime law in responding to Rotterdam Rules. When carriers plead for nautical fault exemption clause, the liability to demonstrate the fulfillment of seaworthiness obligation lies on carriers. It can be seen that there is implicated relationship between nautical fault exemption clause and seaworthiness. The primary obligation of sea carriers is to provide vessels which are seaworthy for shipping cargos. Although English common law stipulated that providing seaworthy vessels was the strict liability of sea carriers, it has been changed to relative liability by Hart Law and Hague Rules in that the obligation of carriers about seaworthiness of vessels applied to the time before and at departure. The applicable period of seaworthiness was extended to the entire journey of cargo shipping in Hamburg Rules. The newly established Rotterdam Rules also adopted the same view. In the past, seaworthiness was discussed only in respect of vessels, personnel, and premises for cargos carriage. Due to the requirement of International Convention of Safety of Life at Sea, the obligation for implementation of seaworthiness of vessels is clearly defined. The documents about seaworthiness also require attention and discussion. Therefore, this thesis investigates the topics related to seaworthiness and summarizes general international conventions, English common law, domestic law and practical cases to discuss the relationship with nautical fault exemption clause. Key word : Nautical Fault Exemption、Seaworthy、Harter Act、Hague Rules、Hamburg Rules、Rotterdam Rules