摘要
随着化学工业的快速发展，每年危险货物海上运输的数量呈上升趋势，危险货物运输一直以来是关系到海上财产及人命安全的重大问题，并且一旦发生危险事故，不仅承托双方的利益会遭受损失，更有可能造成同船其他货物托运人及海域的污染受害人等第三方的经济损失。因此，各国国内法及相关海上运输国际公约都对危险货物的运输做出了较之普通货物运输的特殊规定，赋予了承托双方针对危货性质的特殊权利义务及归责原则。
我国海商法中，对危险货物并没有明确的定义，虽然明文规定了承托双方的权利义务，然而在实践中，一些规定却使得船货利益不对等，造成了承托双方利益风险的不公平分配。另外，对于危货造成的第三方损失，我国《海商法》中却没有规定，造成第三方求偿困难的局面。
第一部分首先概括性的分析了危险货物海上运输的现状，并通过案例分析指出危货海运现存的立法疏忽，其后参考英国海商法，对危险货物的定义做出了分析和界定，从狭义说和广义说两个层面入手，最后本文支持广义说的观点，认为危险货物不应当只局限于内在具有危险的化学性或物理性的货物，还应当包括本身性质无害，在航程中遇到特殊环境或条件却引发事故的货物。
第二部分对危险货物海上运输的相关立法状况进行梳理，分为国际公约、外国国内法、中国国内法三个层面，对重要的国际公约--《国际海上危险货物运输规则》的发展、法律渊源及适用实施进行分析，并对其他海运国际公约的有关危险货物的条款进行概括。在外国法和中国法下，分别对英美两国及中国国内法的危险货物海上运输立法发展及相关条款进行概括性的表述。
第三部分详细分析承托双方的各项义务，并探究履行各项义务的标准。通过承托双方权利义务的对比分析，研究得出在某些规定下，存在船货利益不对等的问题，包括：1. 由于《海商法》中的免责条款和保险条款排出了承运人和保险人对因货物包装不当及标识不清造成损失的赔偿责任，而托运人不享受任何免责条款及责任限制，一旦给船方造成巨额损失，可能面临破产的危险；2. 在托运人的通知义务下，对现实中提单上经常出现的“不知条款”及“锈蚀条款”进行效力分析，得出“不知条款”存在有效而“锈蚀条款”无法律效力的结论；3. 当托运人将包装及标识标记义务委托给第三方，而该第三方未完全履行义务造成承运人损失时，追偿程序过为繁琐，并且不利于保护托运人的利益；4.《海商法》第 68 条，虽规定了承运人享有危货的处置权，却规定的过为宽泛，会造成托运人的损失。
第四部分通过分析海上运输国际公约和英国海商法案例，研究承托双方的归责原则，托运人对危货的义务应当承担严格责任，然而在承运人同时存在过错的情况下，承托双方应当根据过错比例分摊损失。我国海商法下，承运人承担不完全过失责任，并且本文建议，参照英国法将“适航义务”规定为承运人的首要义务，即若承运人违反适航义务，将无权主张免责条款。
第五部分在第三、四部分的基础上，通过分析立法背景及现实操作的需要，首先阐明如此立法的原因和意义，再对上文分析出的船货不对等问题，对平衡船货利益提出如下立法建议：1. 对于危货定义不明，建议我国海商法使用列举的方式，举例列明危货的种类，并且随后规定一个概括性的表述，将广义上的危险货物也纳入其中；2. 当托运人将危货义务委托给第三人，而因第三人的过错造成承运人损失时，建议由第三人和托运人一同对承运人承担连带责任。3. 限制承运人危险货物的处置权，建议规定若一个合格谨慎的承运人在同等条件下，具有合理的专业能力同时保全船舶和危货时，承运人不得销毁危货，承运人滥用危货处置权的，应当给托运人赔偿损失。4. 参考 IMDG Code规定的包装方式，在我国海商法下对妥善包装给出明确的标准。5. 为托运人针对危货产生的法律责任，提供责任限制保护。
最后一部分对危货运输给第三方造成损失时提出立法建议，无论是同船货物的其他托运人还是海域污染的受害人，在我国海商法下没有一个专门的章节对其进行保护，因此建议我国加入《国际海上运输有毒有害物质污染损害责任赔偿条约》，要求船舶所有人承担强制责任险，并且为第三方受害方提供双层赔偿机制，建议我国尽快调整国内法与赔偿机制，做到与公约的有效衔接。
关键词：危险货物海上运输；船货利益不对等；托运人权利义务；承运人权利义务；第三方损失赔偿
Abstract
With the fast development of chemical industry, dangerous goods areincreasingly carried by sea every year. The carriage of dangerous goods by sea hasbeen a significant problem related to security of property and life at sea for a longtime. Once dangerous accidents incur, not only the carrier and the shipper wouldsuffer loss, but also may cause the third party to suffer economic loss, e.g. othershippers who have cargo on board or victims of marine pollution. Therefore,compared with ordinary goods, domestic laws of several states and the relevantmaritime international conventions provide specific provisions concerning thecarriage of dangerous goods by sea and regulate special rights, duties and thedoctrine of liability fixation for the shipper and the carrier.China Maritime Law does not provide dangerous goods a clear conception.
Although it stipulates rights and duties of shippers and carriers in explicit terms,these terms might cause the imbalance between ship interests and cargo interests inpractice. Otherwise, our Maritime Law does not expressly stipulate the third party'sloss caused by the carriage of dangerous goods by sea. As a result, it is so difficultfor the third party to recover its loss from the shipper and the carrier according toChina Maritime Law.
The Chapter One generally analyses the current situation of the carriage ofdangerous goods by sea and points out legal loopholes by discussing the relevantcases. Then referring to the UK Maritime Law, examine and determine the conceptof 'dangerous goods' on the base of the narrow sense and the broad sense. Thisdissertation supports the opinion of broad sense and considers that the definition of'dangerous goods' is not appropriate to be confined to the goods with inherentdangerous chemical or physical nature, but should also include the goods that areintrinsic safe but cause accidents when it meets a special environment or conditionduring the sea voyage.
The Chapter Two describes the relevant legislation situation concerning thecarriage of dangerous goods by sea based on the three aspects, namely theinternational conventions, foreign domestic laws and China domestic laws, andanalyses the development, legal resource and application of the importantinternational convention--- International Maritime Dangerous Goods （IMDG Code）。
Generally describe the provisions on dangerous goods in other marine internationalconventions. Under foreign domestic laws and China domestic laws, this chapterwill generally introduce the development of legislation and the relevant rules of UK,USA and P.R.C respectively.
The Chapter Three detailed analyses all sorts of duties of the shipper and thecarrier, and examines the standards of completely performing these duties. It pointsout the problems concerning the imbalance between ship interests and cargo interestsunder certain rules by comparing the shippers' rights and duties and the carriers'rights and duties. 1. Since the exemption clause and the insurance clause of MaritimeLaw exempt the indemnity liability of the carrier and the insurer in terms of the losscaused by improper package or unclear mark of goods and the shipper is not allowedto be protected by the exemption clause and the limitation of liability. Therefore,once dangerous goods cause large loss suffered by the carrier due to the shipper'sfault, the shipper might have to confront with bankruptcy. 2. By analyzing the legaleffect of 'the Unknown Clause' and 'the Rust Clause' that are often stated by the billof lading under the notice liability of the shipper, it could be argued that theUnknown Clause is valid but the Rust Clause is invalid. 3. Where the shippertransfers its duties of package or mark to the third party, if the carrier suffers loss dueto the third party's improper completion of such duties, the recovery procedure is socomplicated and not good for the shippers' interests. 4. Although Article 68 ofMaritime Law provides that the carrier enjoys the right of disposal, the right is toobroad and general, which would result in the carrier's economic loss.
The Chapter Four analyzes the doctrine of liability fixation with regard to theshipper's duties and the carrier's duties through examining the relevant maritimeinternational conventions and the marine cases under the UK law. The shipper isstrictly liable for the carriage of dangerous goods. Where the loss is also caused bythe carriers' fault or negligence, the two parties shall jointly bear the loss based onthe proportion of their fault or negligence. Under China Maritime Law, the carrierbears incomplete fault liability. It could be suggested that the Maritime Law couldstipulate the obligation of seaworthiness of the carrier as 'the overriding obligation'referring to the UK law, meaning that in case the carrier breaches the obligation ofseaworthiness, it would not be allowed to claim the exemption clause.
The Chapter Five clarifies the reasons and sense of such litigation throughanalyzing the litigation background and the needs of practical operation. Then itmakes legislation suggestions concerning the imbalance between ship interests andcargo interests based on the Chapter Three and the Chapter Four. 1. In terms of theunclear definition of dangerous goods, it can be suggested that the Maritime Lawcould clearly list the classification of dangerous goods and then make a generalexpression to include the dangerous goods in broad sense. 2. Where the shippertransfers the duties of package or mark to the third party and the carrier suffers lossdue to the third party's fault or negligence, it could be proposed that the shipper andthe third party are jointly liable for the carrier's loss. 3. To limit the right of disposalof the carrier, the Maritime Law could provide that if a qualified, reasonable andprudent carrier has the competence to save and keep the vessel and the dangerousgoods at the same time under the same circumstances, the carrier is not entitled toperform the right of disposal. Otherwise where the carrier abuses the right ofdisposal and causes the shipper's loss, the carrier shall be liable for the shipper's loss.
4. Referring to the package methods in the IMDG Code, the Maritime Law shouldprovide a clear standard for 'proper package'. 5. The Maritime law is suggested toprovide the limitation of liability for the shipper in terms of the duties arising fromthe carriage of dangerous goods by sea.
The last chapter provides legislative suggestions in respect of the situation ofthe third party suffering loss caused by the carriage of dangerous goods by sea.
There is no specific chapter under the Maritime Law to protect the third party'sinterests no matter whether they are shippers who have goods on board the samevessel or victims of marine pollution. Therefore, it could be suggested that Chinashould join the HNS Convention and require the shipowner to provide thecompulsory liability insurance and the double layers compensation system for thethird party. Otherwise, the domestic law and compensation system should beadjusted as soon as possible to be consistent with the HNS Convention.
Key Words : the carriage of dangerous goods by sea;the imbalancebetween ship interests and cargo interests;the rights and duties ofthe shipper;the rights and duties of the carrier;compensation forthe third party's loss
目 录
导 言
一、危险货物海上运输的现状概述
（一）危险货物海上运输的现状透析
（二）危险货物的界定
1.狭义说
2.广义说
3.本文观点
二、危险货物海上运输的相关立法状况
（一）国际公约层面
1. 国际海上危险货物运输规则（IMDG Code）
2.《海牙规则》和《海牙维斯比规则》下危险货物运输的规定
3.《汉堡规则》下危险货物运输的规定
4.《鹿特丹规则》下危险货物运输的规定
（二）外国法层面
1.英国的立法现状
2. 美国的立法现状
（三）中国立法层面
三、船货利益的不对等分析
（一）危险货物托运人及承运人的界定
（二）提供合同约定的危险货物
（三）对危险货物进行分类、妥善包装及标识标记的义务
（四）提交相关单证及通知承运人
1.提单中的“不知条款”
2.提单中的“锈蚀条款”
（五）谨慎处理使船舶适航及妥善照管货物
四、承托双方责任制度分析
（一）托运人的责任基础
（二）承运人的责任基础
五、平衡船货双方利益的立法建议
（一）明确界定“危险货物”
（二）托运人与第三方的连带责任
（三）限制承运人危险货物的处置权
（四）详尽规定妥善包装的标准
（五）对托运人运输危货的义务规定责任限制
六、危险有害物质运输对第三方造成损失的 立法建议
（一）HNS 公约赔偿的损失
（二）船舶所有人的严格责任及抗辩权
（三）船舶所有人的强制责任险
（四）HNS 基金
（五）HNS 公约对我国的影响
结 语
参考文献
致 谢
