跨界损害损失分担基本理论问题研究
|
摘要
第二次世界大战以后,科学技术的飞速发展满足了人们不断增长的需求的同时,也给人类带来了无法化解的灾难。石油污染和核泄漏引发的跨界损害给受害者造成的损失和灾难无法用语言描述。在巨大的跨界损害灾难面前,受害者不仅面临巨大的生命、健康和财产损失,就连他们赖以生存的自然和人文社会环境也遭到极大的破坏,甚至毁灭。长期以来,跨界损害的受害者很难得到及时和充分的赔偿。但受害者没有义务承担这种祸从天降的灾难。国际社会已经开始关注到这个问题,并在一些领域中建立了有利于保证对受害者进行及时和充分赔偿的跨界损害损失分担的规则。但这类规则还没有在国际法相关领域中广泛应用,有关规则和制度也还需要进一步完善。
本文在对跨界损害的概念、分类和后果进行细致的梳理以后,从跨界损害损失分担的概念、特征和性质入手,对跨界损害损失分担的基本理论问题进行研究。本文研究的问题包括:跨界损害损失分担的概念及其历史沿革、跨界损害损失分担的法律原则以及跨界损害损失分担的主体模式。论文由导言、正文和结论三部分组成。在写作过程中,我在文献研究的基础上,综合运用法理分析、比较分析、案例分析、历史分析、定性分析、以及跨学科分析等方法,力求高质量地完成该篇论文。
导言部分简要介绍了跨界损害损失分担制度产生的法理基础和伦理基础、论文选题的目的和意义、当前的研究状况、论文的基础思路以及论文的创新点。
跨界损害损失分担源于但又不同于跨界损害责任,它是对跨界损害责任的延伸和发展。其法理基础不是为了对民事责任人行使矫正正义,而是为了实现分配正义。跨界损害损失分担正是基于这样的伦理基础,在不背离污染者付费原则的前提下,把对受害者的赔偿作为起点,逆向设计多重损失分担者的赔偿责任和赔偿义务。不仅由民事责任人承担民事责任,而且,有关受益者或潜在污染者、以及特定情况下的起源国也分担跨界损害的损失,实现对受害者及时和充分的赔偿。
正文第一章是跨界损害损失分担的概念及其历史沿革。在第一节“跨界损害的概念、种类和客体内容”中,首先明确了本文所研究的跨界损害的范围与国际法委员会在讨论该议题时的范围是一致的。跨界损害是指在一国领土上或在其管辖或控制下的地方所从事的危险活动在另一国领土上或在该另一国管辖或控制下的其他地方所造成的人身、财产或环境损害。论文在从跨界损害的致害行为和结果两个方面对跨界损害的特征进行分析以后,接着对跨界损害按照不同的标准进行分类,并指出在不同跨界损害的情况下,应考虑适用适当的风险控制和损失分担机制。在按客体的分类中,指出目前对公域环境保护问题上的种种不足和障碍。
第二节“跨界损害损失分担的概念、特征、性质和意义”中,从对“损失”、“分担”、“损失分担”等含义的剖析,层层递进,分析推导出“跨界损害损失分担”的概念。跨界损害损失分担是为了对受害者进行及时和充分的赔偿,由导致跨界损害的致害活动的经营者或其民事责任人、受益者或潜在污染者、以及特定情况下的起源国等多重主体,按照一定的归责原则和责任序位,对跨界损害的受害者分担赔偿义务的法律机制。跨界损害损失分担不仅是一个概念,更是一个机制,这个机制既包括国际法层面的,也包括国内法层面的;既包括实体法的内容,也包括程序法的内容。在具体的跨界损害案件中,还会涉及国家对外国法院的判决或仲裁机构裁决的承认和执行等司法协助问题,甚至涉及对证据的搜集及认定问题。
跨界损害损失分担制度的出现和不断完善有其历史的必然性。它是在人类社会不断进步,国际法不断发展、国际社会越来越关注跨界损害受害者包括环境权在内的基本人权的过程中逐步建立起来的。跨界损害损失分担制度的形成标志着新的公平正义理念的出现和普遍认同。这种新的公平正义理念,就是不仅要实现利益分配的正义,也要实现损失分担的正义。因此,在跨界损害的情况下,不能只强调污染者付费,不能以强调致害者的民事责任来追求所谓的矫正正义,因为这种正义可能对受害者没有任何裨益。
第三节在沿着国际法委员会对于国家的跨界损害责任及损失分担的研究和审议的脉络进行历史回顾和分析以后,结合有关国际司法实践、现有国际条约和国际环境软法文件,阐述了跨界损害责任的立法概况以及跨界损害损失分担的国际法现状。在当代国际法的跨界损害责任领域,跨界损害损失分担已经在核损害和海上油污损害责任制度中建立起来,但是还没有普及到包括外空损害等有关跨界损害责任制度中。因此,跨界损害损失分担制度的发展在不同的责任领域中并不平衡。
第二章是跨界损害损失分担的法律原则。本章分三节论述了跨界损害的受害者获得及时和充分赔偿的原则、污染者付费原则、以及起源国承担补充保证责任的原则。
在论述跨界损害的受害者获得及时和充分赔偿原则的过程中,首先界定了跨界损害的受害者是“由于一国在其领土上或在其管辖或控制下进行的危险活动在该国以外的另一国领土上或在不属于任何国家管辖的其他地方受到人身、财产或环境损害的人,包括自然人、法人、国家和国际组织”。跨界损害的受害者和国内侵权法中的受害者一样,也是一个历史的概念,它是随着人类社会对某些权利观念的变化、对某些权利的放弃和不断承认新的权利的过程中变化和发展的。
保证对受害者“及时和充分”的赔偿。“及时”是指时间上的“即时性”,这种时间上的即时性是指受害者为了恢复正常的生产和生活,而应当获得尽可能快的赔偿。“充分”是指对赔偿的质和量的要求,“充分赔偿”的含义就是对受害者的赔偿不仅要达到数量的要求,还要达到质量的标准。到目前为止,还没有国际文件对“及时和充分赔偿”的标准进行明确的规定,但有些国际文件对“及时和充分的赔偿”提出了最低的限度。最常用的表述就是使受害者恢复到“如果损害没有发生”之前的状态。
受害者获得及时和充分赔偿的原则必须基于严格责任原则。跨界损害损失分担在引入严格责任的基础上,又辅以连带责任、限额责任、保险或其它财务保证作为保障,使受害者真正获得及时和充分的赔偿。受害者获得及时和充分赔偿的原则已经得到了国际环境文件的肯定和支持。除有关核损害的国际条约以外,有关跨界损害民事责任的国际条约大都把受害者获得及时和充分赔偿的原则作为它们订立条约的目的明确规定在序言或第一条中。保证这一原则目标实现的跨界损害损失分担制度虽然已经在一些领域中得以确立、发展和完善,但作为一个普遍性的制度整体,它仍然是一个动态的发展、变化和完善的过程。
在“污染者付费原则”一节中,首先论述了污染者付费原则的法律内涵,是指造成环境损害的污染者有责任支付赔偿并承担弥补损害的费用。污染者应负的费用包括预防环境污染的费用、停止污染行为和防止污染继续或扩大以及尽速通知的义务、清除污染、恢复环境的费用以及负损害赔偿的费用。跨界损害损失分担没有从污染者付费原则入手,而是以一种逆向思维的方式,从对受害者及时和充分的赔偿入手,逆向设计对受害者的赔偿。但这种逆向设计的制度并不背离污染者付费原则,只不过这里的“费”不是污染者所造成的全部损失。跨界损害损失分担的制度设计并不要求污染者承担所有损失,因为那将对受害者造成实际上的受偿不能,所以只让污染者负担其应当负担且又负担得起的费用。
第三节是“起源国承担补充保证责任的原则”。在这一部分中,首先界定了起源国的概念、责任类型和责任特点。起源国可以具体表述为在其领土上或在其管辖或控制下进行危险活动而引起跨界损害的原因行为的发生国、或危险活动的管辖国或控制国。起源国的责任类型或者是首位全部责任,或者是次位补充责任。首位全部责任最具代表性的就是在外空活动损害中发射国的责任,这种责任通常情况下都不是自己责任,而是一种替代责任。起源国的次位补充责任是指在跨界损害的民事责任人或有关受益人不能履行或不能全部履行赔偿义务的情况下,由起源国对受害人直接承担赔偿义务的形态。起源国不管承担首位全部责任还是次位补充责任,其责任性质和特点都同时包含有补充性和担保性。
起源国责任补充性的法理与国际法基础主要包括三个方面:第一,跨界损害的原因行为是国际法不禁止的非国家行为。第二,污染者付费原则。第三,受益者分担损失。国家环境主权和不损害国外环境权益原则是起源国责任保证性的国际法基础。国家环境主权与不损害国外环境权益原则是国际环境法的基本原则,在性质上属于国际环境法中的强行规范。在国际环境事务中,既要维护国家的环境主权,又不能损害国外环境和相关权益,这是国家环境资源主权与不损害国外环境权益原则的根本要求,也是国际环境法的过程目标和最终目的。
第三章“跨界损害损失分担的主体模式”分为四节。在第一节中论述了分担跨界损害损失多重主体的范围及分担模式,首先结合民法学及侵权法学的有关内容提出并论述了单重主体责任制度和多重主体损失分担制度的概念。多重主体损失分担制度是指在某些侵权领域,法律规定由不同层级的多重义务人分担不同的赔偿义务,每个层级的赔偿义务人只在一定的限额内承担有限责任。分担跨界损害损失的主体包括受害者、民事责任人、受益人及特定情形下的起源国。在这一节中还结合条约和有关的国际实践,论述了跨界损害责任主体从由单重主体承担责任向由多重主体分担损失的变化和发展过程。
多重主体分担跨界损害损失应该说始于跨界核损害责任条约,但是由于跨界海上油污损害事件发生的频率更高,所以,国际社会对油污损害的损失分担给予了更多的关注。因而,在海上油污损害责任领域中,损失分担的制度更加完善,主要体现在以1969年《国际油污损害民事责任公约》及其议定书和1971年《建立国际油污赔偿基金公约》及其议定书中。现在,油污损害和核损害责任制度是多重主体分担跨界损害损失的两个最完善的制度领域,但两者都有各自的特点,代表着目前分担跨界损害损失分担制度的两种模式。其中,跨界油污损害的损失分担模式是通过1969年《油污损害民事责任公约》体系和1971年《建立国际油污赔偿基金公约》双重条约体系建立的,民事责任人的赔偿责任和补充赔偿人的次位赔偿义务规定在不同的条约中。跨界核损害的损失分担是通过单一条约体系建立的,即民事责任人的赔偿责任和补充赔偿人的次位赔偿义务是规定在同一个条约中。这两种模式不仅在立法方式上不同,起源国在分担损失时的地位和作用也不相同。跨界核损害的损失分担者主要是起源国,即有关公约中所指的“装置国”,而海上油污损害的损失分担者主要是相关受益人,即由石油进口商建立的基金分担损失。
本章的第二、三节分别论述了民事责任人和次位损失分担者各自分担跨界损害损失的范围、免责、限额责任、保险保证等内容。最后一节则专门论述了起源国在分担跨界损害损失中的义务。按照国际法,起源国作为在其领土上或在其管辖或控制下进行危险活动的国家,首先应当履行预防原则所要求的一般义务,并从国内法层面上保证有完善的法律机制保证受害者可以获得及时和充分的赔偿。其次,在跨界损害发生或可能发生的紧急情况下,起源国应当履行通知和磋商、采取预防措施及紧急援助的义务。另外,有些国际条约已经明确地赋予了国家作为民事赔偿义务人,承担民事赔偿责任以外的补充赔偿义务。再有,即使在有些情况下,国家既不是民事责任人,也不是赔偿义务人,但国家却承担了赔偿受害者损失的义务,这种义务实际就是国家的国际赔偿责任,尽管在实践中国家常以所谓的“负责任”或“人道援助”的面目出现。
结论部分在总结了全篇文章的主要观点外,进一步指出,跨界损害损失分担制度仍然处于发展和完善过程之中。国家和国际社会都还有许多工作要做。由于国家的国际赔偿责任是国家的一般义务,其义务的确定往往涉及许多不确定的因素。而国家的民事赔偿义务确是具体的、确定的,受害者可以通过民事法律程序实现获得赔偿的权利。因此,为了保证跨界损害的受害者获得及时和充分的赔偿,完善跨界损害损失分担,国家和国际社会都应当致力于研究、制定、完善国家承担民事赔偿义务的有关规范。
After the World War II, the rapid development of science and technology having satisfying the mankind’s growing demand, some unpredicted and irresolvable disasters come into being. Damage and loss brought to victims by transboundary oil pollution and nuclear leakage cannot be described in words. In face of the huge cross-border disasters, the victims not only have to face great loss of life or personal injury, loss of, or damage to, property, including property which forms part of the cultural heritage but also loss or damage by impairment, even destruction of the natural and social environment where they live. It is very difficult for the victims of transboundary damage to get prompt and adequate compensation for a long time. However, the victims may not be liable for the disasters caused by other people hazardous activities for their own profit. The international community has started to pay more attention to this scope of international law, and established some principles and rules to ensure prompt and adequate compensation for the victims of transboundary damage in some areas. Such principles and rules haven't been used widely in the concerning parts of international law and they also needs to be further improved.
In this dissertation, after discuss the concept of transboundary damage, its classifications and consequences, I will study the basic theoretical fields on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities after indicating the concepts, characteristics, and nature of allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm. This paper will discuss: the concept and its historical evolution of allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary harm; legal principles on allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm; subject systems of allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm. The whole dissertation is composed of the Introduction, the Main Body and the Conclusion. The Main Body of the dissertation constitutes 3 Chapters. On the basis of materials research and study, this dissertation strives to complete a high-quality dissertation by synthetically applying legal analysis, comparative analysis, case analysis, historical analysis, qualitative analysis, and interdisciplinary analysis methods.
In the introduction, I will briefly introduce and analyze the legal and ethical foundation of allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary harm, the purpose of significance of the selection of the topic, the current study on this topic, the basic train of thoughts,and the innovation points of the dissertation.
The allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary harm stems from but is different from the liability system of transboundary harm. It is the extension and development of the liability system of transboundary harm. Its legal basis is not to exercise correct justice but to ensure the distribution justice. It is necessary for a healthy and ordered society to have a fair system of distribution interests and an equitable system of loss allocation. Based on this ethical foundation, the allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary harm doesn’t deviate from the“polluters pay principle”, taking the prompt and adequate compensation to victims as the starting point, reversely design the multiple subjects to allocate the liability for damage and compensatory obligation. Not only the operator of the hazardous activities shall bear civil liability, but also the relevant beneficiaries or potential polluter, even under the particular circumstances, the original state shall share the loss caused by transboundary damage, to ensure the prompt and adequate compensation to the victims.
Chapter one discusses the concept and its historical evolution of allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary harm. At the beginning of the first section, the research scope of this dissertation is defined as same as that of the topic about“allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm”which the International Law Commission have discussed for many years. Transboundary damage means damage caused to persons, property or the environment in the territory or in other places under the jurisdiction or control of a State other than the State of origin. Then I will analyze the characteristics from the hazardous activities and the results of transboundary damage for further discuss the allocation system of loss multiple subjects for different hierarchies later. Due to the different subjects’mode of different allocation system of loss arising out of transbiundary harm, the different classifications of transboundary damage based on different standard should be applicable different principles and rules under the consideration of proper risk control and loss allocation mechanism. After the classification based on different objects, I indicate the various deficiencies and obstacles for protection of the common environment.
In the section two, this dissertation analyzes and deduces the definition of allocation of loss in the case of transboundary damage, tier upon tier, from the study of the meaning of "loss", "allocation", " allocation of loss ".“Allocation of loss in the case of transboundary damage”refers that the“according to certain imputation principle and the different hierarchies for liability for cross-border damage operators or their civil partners, beneficiaries or potential polluters, even under some certain situations, the state of origin of the hazardous activities should allocate any loss of the transboundary damage, in order to ensure the victims to get prompt and adequate compensation”. The“allocation of loss in the case of transboundary damage”is not just a concept, but a mechanisms that includes both international law and national law, both substantive law and procedural law. In specific cross-border damage cases, it will also involve recognition and enforcement of decisions by foreign courts or awards of arbitration, or even involves judicial assistance to collect evidence, and so on.
It is historically inevitable for the allocation system of loss in case of transboundary damage to emergence and to be improved and perfected. It has been gradually established with the progress of the human society, the continuous development of international law, and the more and more attention to the victims of transboundary damage. The emergence of the allocation system of loss in case of transboundary damage marks the formation of the new concept of justice and universal recognition in the whole international community. The new justice idea needs the justice both on distribution of interests and allocation of loss. It will be no help for the victims if we only emphasize polluter’s liability in case of transboundary damage.
In the third section, this dissertation expounds the profile and the status quo of law-making on liability system in the case of transboundary damage in international law by burying myself in the International Law Commission's materials concerning to this topic, reviewing and studying the relevant international judicial practice and existing international treaties and international environment soft law documents. In the contemporary international law, the allocation system of loss in case of transboundary damage has been established in the fields of liability systems for nuclear leakage and marine oil pollution. However, it should be popularized to other relevant field, such as liability system of outer space damage. Therefore, it is not a balanced development in different liability system for transboundary damage.
Chapter two discusses the legal principles of allocation system of loss in case of transboundary damage. It is composed by three sections: The principle of victims of transboundary damage to get prompt and adequate compensation; the polluter pays principle; and the principle of state of origin to pay the supplementary damage and ensure the victims to get prompt and adequate compensation.
The victims of transboundary damage means any natural or legal person or state or international organization in the territory of another state or in other areas which is not belong to any jurisdiction that suffers damage caused to persons, property or the environment in the territory or in other places under the jurisdiction or control of a State other than the State of origin. The“victims of transboundary damage”is also a historical concept because it has been changed and developed with the changing of view about some certain rights during that some certain rights are given up and other new rights are gradually developed and accepted.
In respect to ensuring prompt and adequate compensation to victims of transboundary damage, "prompt" refers to the nature of real time. This is, to ensure the victims obtain the necessary compensation as soon as possible to restore their normal life. "Adequate" refers to the quantity and quality of compensation. Up to now, no international instrument hasn’t defined the concrete standards of the "prompt and adequate compensation", but some international document provides the minimum limit related to the "prompt and adequate compensation "which is commonly used as "if damage had not happened".
The principle of victims to obtain prompt and adequate compensation must be based on strict liability. If no strict liability is applied, the compensation to the victims will be uncertainty, the state of origin will not the intended to conduct activities with sufficient risk assessment or“due diligence”, causing the risk of harmful consequences. Also, the burden of collect evidences causes the victims be unable to get prompt and adequate compensation in the case of transboundary damage. On the basis of application of the strict liability, the joint liability, liability limitation, insurance or other financial security as guarantee make the victims really get prompt and adequate compensation. The principle of victims to get prompt and adequate compensation as an important legal principle in the field of allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage has already recognized and accepted by international environment soft law documents and most international treaties concerning civil liability and responsibility for transboundary damage. In addition to the international treaties related to civil liability for nuclear damage, the concerned international treaties explicitly put the principle of prompt and adequate compensation in the preamble or the first article in the treaties. However, it is still a process of dynamic development, change and improvement although it has been accepted in some fields of liability system of transboundary damage.
The "polluter pays principle" section firstly defines its legal connotation which refers that the polluter-pays principle first appears in 1972 in an OECD document on guiding principles for environmental policies which basically means that polluters should pay for the environmental damage they cause and that the government should not subsidize pollution. The allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage having not starting from the“principle of polluters pay”other than, in reverse thinking ways, designs how to ensure the victims to obtain“prompt and adequate compensation”. This reversely designed system does not deviate from the“polluters pay principle”but some adjust with it. The allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage require polluters bear the“affordable”part of loss other than all the loss for the victims.
Taking the“polluter pays principle”as an important principle of the allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage has its extremely vital significance. Economically, the“polluter pays principle”promotes efficiency; legally, it promotes justice; it promotes harmonization of international environmental policies; it defines how to allocate costs in the case of transboundary damage. The“polluter pays principle”can promote operators, and state of origin to behave more responsible for their activities, better play in preventing environmental damage, avoid or reduce cross-border damage, and to ensure prompt and adequate compensation to victims of transboundary damage.
The third section is about the principle of state of origin to pay the supplementary damage and ensure the victims to get prompt and adequate compensation.“State of origin”means the State in the territory or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of which the hazardous activity is carried out. "In the territory" refers within the territorial limits of a state.“Under the jurisdiction or control”means that, (a) In relation to a coastal State, as extending to maritime areas insofar as the legal regime of any such area vested jurisdiction in that State in respect of any matter; (b) In relation to a State of registry, or flag State, of any ship, aircraft or space object, as extending to the ships, aircraft and space objects of that State while exercising a right of continuous passage or overflight through the maritime territory or airspace of any other State; (c) In relation to the use or enjoyment of any area beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as extending to any matter in respect of which a right was exercised or an interest asserted, appointed in the“first report on prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities”by Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, Special Rapporteur. There are two classifications for the state of origin in the case of transboundary arising out of hazardous activities: the primacy entire responsibility and the secondary supplementary liability. The most representative of primacy entire responsibility is the liability and responsibility of launching states for damage from outer space activities. The secondary supplementary liability refers to the limit liability defined in some certain international treaties as a fund to pay the victims. The responsibility or the liability of the state of origin has the nature of supplement and guarantee.
There are some aspects for legal foundation of the nature of supplement and guarantee of the responsibility or the liability of the state of origin. Firstly, the activities causing tranboundary damage are not international wrongful acts. Secondly, the“polluters pay principle”is one reason for the state of origin to bear a part of compensation. Thirdly, beneficiaries should allocate some loss for their own interests. The principle of state environmental sovereignty without harm to foreign environmental rights is the international law basis of the nature of guarantee of the responsibility or liability of state of origin. States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. This principle belongs to jus cogens in international law.
The chapter 3, "the subject’s model of the allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage”is divided into four sections. The first section discusses the scope and models of the subjects of allocation of loss in the transboundary damage. This section defines the concepts of single level subjects and multiple levels subjects based on study the theory concerned with subjects in civil law and tort law. The system of multiple level subjects is that the subjects of different levels are only liable for limited compensation to victims according to legal regulations or compensatory obligations defined in treaties or agreements. The subjects of allocation of loss in the case of transboundary damage include victims, operators, beneficiaries and state of origin under some specific circumstances. Because of the scope of this study, I will not talk more about victims’obligations. This section analyzes the evolution of the system of multiple level subjects to allocate the loss in the case of transboundary damage. At the beginning of the Trail Smelter case, on February 28, 1931, the International Joint Commission found and determined that:”All past damages and all damages up to and including the first day of January 1932, is the sum of $350,000.…Upon the complaint of any persons claiming to have suffered damage by the operations of the company after the first of January, 1932, it is recommended by the Commission that in the event of any such claim not being adjusted by the company within a reasonable time, the government of the United States and Canada shall determine the amount of such damage, if any, and the amount so fixed shall be paid by the company forthwith.”This is the prototype of allocation of loss in the case of transboundary damage.
The allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage by multiple levels subjects started from international treaties related to nuclear damage. However, the allocation system of loss in the case of marine oil pollution is the more perfect that in the field of nuclear leakage. The series international documents including the“International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969”and its later amended protocols, and the“International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1971”and its later amended protocols. Now, the allocation systems of loss in the case of oil pollution and nuclear leakage are the two representatives with their own respective characteristics. The most two differences between the two systems are as follows: The first is the way of law-making as the allocation system of loss in the case of marine oil pollution based on two sets of international treaties but in one treaty for nuclear leakage. The second is the function of state of origin. In the allocation system of loss in the case of marine oil pollution, the state of origin is not the subject to allocate loss as the same as that in the field of nuclear leakage.
The second and the third sections separately elaborates the details about operators and other secondary subjects to share the loss in the case of transboundary damage, including the conditions, limitations,exceptions, insurance, and other guarantees. The last section specially discusses the rules and regulations concerning the allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary. According to international law, state of origin should ensure activities in its territory or under its jurisdiction or control do not harm foreign rights. Each state of origin should take all necessary measures to ensure that prompt and adequate compensation is available for victims of transboundary damage. Secondly, upon the occurrence of transboundary damage, the State of origin shall promptly notify all States affected or likely to be affected of the incident and the possible effects of the transboundary damage; the State of origin shall ensure that appropriate response measures are taken and should, for this purpose, rely upon the best available scientific data and technology; the State of origin, as appropriate, should also consult with and seek the cooperation of all States affected or likely to be affected to mitigate the effects of damage and if possible eliminate them; the States concerned should, where appropriate, seek the assistance of competent international organizations and other States on mutually acceptable terms and conditions. In addition, according to some international treaties, state of origin is liable for supplementary compensatory obligation even if the state of origin is neither the operator nor the secondary subject. This is the international liability of state of origin although they are taken as acts of "responsible state" or appear as“humanitarian aid”.
Having summarized the main points of the text, the conclusion further points out that the allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage is still in the process of development and improvement. National and international community still needs to do more work on it. It is national general obligation for a state of origin to have“responsibility of state”for transboundary damage, but often involveing many uncertain factors. However, the civil compensation obligation of state of origin is more specific, determined by international treaties, by which the victims can obtain compensation easily. Therefore, in order to improve the allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage, national and international community should be dedicated to the study and develop international law on determined compensatory obligation of state of origin to ensure the victims of transboundary damage to obtain“prompt and adequate compensation”.
本文在对跨界损害的概念、分类和后果进行细致的梳理以后,从跨界损害损失分担的概念、特征和性质入手,对跨界损害损失分担的基本理论问题进行研究。本文研究的问题包括:跨界损害损失分担的概念及其历史沿革、跨界损害损失分担的法律原则以及跨界损害损失分担的主体模式。论文由导言、正文和结论三部分组成。在写作过程中,我在文献研究的基础上,综合运用法理分析、比较分析、案例分析、历史分析、定性分析、以及跨学科分析等方法,力求高质量地完成该篇论文。
导言部分简要介绍了跨界损害损失分担制度产生的法理基础和伦理基础、论文选题的目的和意义、当前的研究状况、论文的基础思路以及论文的创新点。
跨界损害损失分担源于但又不同于跨界损害责任,它是对跨界损害责任的延伸和发展。其法理基础不是为了对民事责任人行使矫正正义,而是为了实现分配正义。跨界损害损失分担正是基于这样的伦理基础,在不背离污染者付费原则的前提下,把对受害者的赔偿作为起点,逆向设计多重损失分担者的赔偿责任和赔偿义务。不仅由民事责任人承担民事责任,而且,有关受益者或潜在污染者、以及特定情况下的起源国也分担跨界损害的损失,实现对受害者及时和充分的赔偿。
正文第一章是跨界损害损失分担的概念及其历史沿革。在第一节“跨界损害的概念、种类和客体内容”中,首先明确了本文所研究的跨界损害的范围与国际法委员会在讨论该议题时的范围是一致的。跨界损害是指在一国领土上或在其管辖或控制下的地方所从事的危险活动在另一国领土上或在该另一国管辖或控制下的其他地方所造成的人身、财产或环境损害。论文在从跨界损害的致害行为和结果两个方面对跨界损害的特征进行分析以后,接着对跨界损害按照不同的标准进行分类,并指出在不同跨界损害的情况下,应考虑适用适当的风险控制和损失分担机制。在按客体的分类中,指出目前对公域环境保护问题上的种种不足和障碍。
第二节“跨界损害损失分担的概念、特征、性质和意义”中,从对“损失”、“分担”、“损失分担”等含义的剖析,层层递进,分析推导出“跨界损害损失分担”的概念。跨界损害损失分担是为了对受害者进行及时和充分的赔偿,由导致跨界损害的致害活动的经营者或其民事责任人、受益者或潜在污染者、以及特定情况下的起源国等多重主体,按照一定的归责原则和责任序位,对跨界损害的受害者分担赔偿义务的法律机制。跨界损害损失分担不仅是一个概念,更是一个机制,这个机制既包括国际法层面的,也包括国内法层面的;既包括实体法的内容,也包括程序法的内容。在具体的跨界损害案件中,还会涉及国家对外国法院的判决或仲裁机构裁决的承认和执行等司法协助问题,甚至涉及对证据的搜集及认定问题。
跨界损害损失分担制度的出现和不断完善有其历史的必然性。它是在人类社会不断进步,国际法不断发展、国际社会越来越关注跨界损害受害者包括环境权在内的基本人权的过程中逐步建立起来的。跨界损害损失分担制度的形成标志着新的公平正义理念的出现和普遍认同。这种新的公平正义理念,就是不仅要实现利益分配的正义,也要实现损失分担的正义。因此,在跨界损害的情况下,不能只强调污染者付费,不能以强调致害者的民事责任来追求所谓的矫正正义,因为这种正义可能对受害者没有任何裨益。
第三节在沿着国际法委员会对于国家的跨界损害责任及损失分担的研究和审议的脉络进行历史回顾和分析以后,结合有关国际司法实践、现有国际条约和国际环境软法文件,阐述了跨界损害责任的立法概况以及跨界损害损失分担的国际法现状。在当代国际法的跨界损害责任领域,跨界损害损失分担已经在核损害和海上油污损害责任制度中建立起来,但是还没有普及到包括外空损害等有关跨界损害责任制度中。因此,跨界损害损失分担制度的发展在不同的责任领域中并不平衡。
第二章是跨界损害损失分担的法律原则。本章分三节论述了跨界损害的受害者获得及时和充分赔偿的原则、污染者付费原则、以及起源国承担补充保证责任的原则。
在论述跨界损害的受害者获得及时和充分赔偿原则的过程中,首先界定了跨界损害的受害者是“由于一国在其领土上或在其管辖或控制下进行的危险活动在该国以外的另一国领土上或在不属于任何国家管辖的其他地方受到人身、财产或环境损害的人,包括自然人、法人、国家和国际组织”。跨界损害的受害者和国内侵权法中的受害者一样,也是一个历史的概念,它是随着人类社会对某些权利观念的变化、对某些权利的放弃和不断承认新的权利的过程中变化和发展的。
保证对受害者“及时和充分”的赔偿。“及时”是指时间上的“即时性”,这种时间上的即时性是指受害者为了恢复正常的生产和生活,而应当获得尽可能快的赔偿。“充分”是指对赔偿的质和量的要求,“充分赔偿”的含义就是对受害者的赔偿不仅要达到数量的要求,还要达到质量的标准。到目前为止,还没有国际文件对“及时和充分赔偿”的标准进行明确的规定,但有些国际文件对“及时和充分的赔偿”提出了最低的限度。最常用的表述就是使受害者恢复到“如果损害没有发生”之前的状态。
受害者获得及时和充分赔偿的原则必须基于严格责任原则。跨界损害损失分担在引入严格责任的基础上,又辅以连带责任、限额责任、保险或其它财务保证作为保障,使受害者真正获得及时和充分的赔偿。受害者获得及时和充分赔偿的原则已经得到了国际环境文件的肯定和支持。除有关核损害的国际条约以外,有关跨界损害民事责任的国际条约大都把受害者获得及时和充分赔偿的原则作为它们订立条约的目的明确规定在序言或第一条中。保证这一原则目标实现的跨界损害损失分担制度虽然已经在一些领域中得以确立、发展和完善,但作为一个普遍性的制度整体,它仍然是一个动态的发展、变化和完善的过程。
在“污染者付费原则”一节中,首先论述了污染者付费原则的法律内涵,是指造成环境损害的污染者有责任支付赔偿并承担弥补损害的费用。污染者应负的费用包括预防环境污染的费用、停止污染行为和防止污染继续或扩大以及尽速通知的义务、清除污染、恢复环境的费用以及负损害赔偿的费用。跨界损害损失分担没有从污染者付费原则入手,而是以一种逆向思维的方式,从对受害者及时和充分的赔偿入手,逆向设计对受害者的赔偿。但这种逆向设计的制度并不背离污染者付费原则,只不过这里的“费”不是污染者所造成的全部损失。跨界损害损失分担的制度设计并不要求污染者承担所有损失,因为那将对受害者造成实际上的受偿不能,所以只让污染者负担其应当负担且又负担得起的费用。
第三节是“起源国承担补充保证责任的原则”。在这一部分中,首先界定了起源国的概念、责任类型和责任特点。起源国可以具体表述为在其领土上或在其管辖或控制下进行危险活动而引起跨界损害的原因行为的发生国、或危险活动的管辖国或控制国。起源国的责任类型或者是首位全部责任,或者是次位补充责任。首位全部责任最具代表性的就是在外空活动损害中发射国的责任,这种责任通常情况下都不是自己责任,而是一种替代责任。起源国的次位补充责任是指在跨界损害的民事责任人或有关受益人不能履行或不能全部履行赔偿义务的情况下,由起源国对受害人直接承担赔偿义务的形态。起源国不管承担首位全部责任还是次位补充责任,其责任性质和特点都同时包含有补充性和担保性。
起源国责任补充性的法理与国际法基础主要包括三个方面:第一,跨界损害的原因行为是国际法不禁止的非国家行为。第二,污染者付费原则。第三,受益者分担损失。国家环境主权和不损害国外环境权益原则是起源国责任保证性的国际法基础。国家环境主权与不损害国外环境权益原则是国际环境法的基本原则,在性质上属于国际环境法中的强行规范。在国际环境事务中,既要维护国家的环境主权,又不能损害国外环境和相关权益,这是国家环境资源主权与不损害国外环境权益原则的根本要求,也是国际环境法的过程目标和最终目的。
第三章“跨界损害损失分担的主体模式”分为四节。在第一节中论述了分担跨界损害损失多重主体的范围及分担模式,首先结合民法学及侵权法学的有关内容提出并论述了单重主体责任制度和多重主体损失分担制度的概念。多重主体损失分担制度是指在某些侵权领域,法律规定由不同层级的多重义务人分担不同的赔偿义务,每个层级的赔偿义务人只在一定的限额内承担有限责任。分担跨界损害损失的主体包括受害者、民事责任人、受益人及特定情形下的起源国。在这一节中还结合条约和有关的国际实践,论述了跨界损害责任主体从由单重主体承担责任向由多重主体分担损失的变化和发展过程。
多重主体分担跨界损害损失应该说始于跨界核损害责任条约,但是由于跨界海上油污损害事件发生的频率更高,所以,国际社会对油污损害的损失分担给予了更多的关注。因而,在海上油污损害责任领域中,损失分担的制度更加完善,主要体现在以1969年《国际油污损害民事责任公约》及其议定书和1971年《建立国际油污赔偿基金公约》及其议定书中。现在,油污损害和核损害责任制度是多重主体分担跨界损害损失的两个最完善的制度领域,但两者都有各自的特点,代表着目前分担跨界损害损失分担制度的两种模式。其中,跨界油污损害的损失分担模式是通过1969年《油污损害民事责任公约》体系和1971年《建立国际油污赔偿基金公约》双重条约体系建立的,民事责任人的赔偿责任和补充赔偿人的次位赔偿义务规定在不同的条约中。跨界核损害的损失分担是通过单一条约体系建立的,即民事责任人的赔偿责任和补充赔偿人的次位赔偿义务是规定在同一个条约中。这两种模式不仅在立法方式上不同,起源国在分担损失时的地位和作用也不相同。跨界核损害的损失分担者主要是起源国,即有关公约中所指的“装置国”,而海上油污损害的损失分担者主要是相关受益人,即由石油进口商建立的基金分担损失。
本章的第二、三节分别论述了民事责任人和次位损失分担者各自分担跨界损害损失的范围、免责、限额责任、保险保证等内容。最后一节则专门论述了起源国在分担跨界损害损失中的义务。按照国际法,起源国作为在其领土上或在其管辖或控制下进行危险活动的国家,首先应当履行预防原则所要求的一般义务,并从国内法层面上保证有完善的法律机制保证受害者可以获得及时和充分的赔偿。其次,在跨界损害发生或可能发生的紧急情况下,起源国应当履行通知和磋商、采取预防措施及紧急援助的义务。另外,有些国际条约已经明确地赋予了国家作为民事赔偿义务人,承担民事赔偿责任以外的补充赔偿义务。再有,即使在有些情况下,国家既不是民事责任人,也不是赔偿义务人,但国家却承担了赔偿受害者损失的义务,这种义务实际就是国家的国际赔偿责任,尽管在实践中国家常以所谓的“负责任”或“人道援助”的面目出现。
结论部分在总结了全篇文章的主要观点外,进一步指出,跨界损害损失分担制度仍然处于发展和完善过程之中。国家和国际社会都还有许多工作要做。由于国家的国际赔偿责任是国家的一般义务,其义务的确定往往涉及许多不确定的因素。而国家的民事赔偿义务确是具体的、确定的,受害者可以通过民事法律程序实现获得赔偿的权利。因此,为了保证跨界损害的受害者获得及时和充分的赔偿,完善跨界损害损失分担,国家和国际社会都应当致力于研究、制定、完善国家承担民事赔偿义务的有关规范。
After the World War II, the rapid development of science and technology having satisfying the mankind’s growing demand, some unpredicted and irresolvable disasters come into being. Damage and loss brought to victims by transboundary oil pollution and nuclear leakage cannot be described in words. In face of the huge cross-border disasters, the victims not only have to face great loss of life or personal injury, loss of, or damage to, property, including property which forms part of the cultural heritage but also loss or damage by impairment, even destruction of the natural and social environment where they live. It is very difficult for the victims of transboundary damage to get prompt and adequate compensation for a long time. However, the victims may not be liable for the disasters caused by other people hazardous activities for their own profit. The international community has started to pay more attention to this scope of international law, and established some principles and rules to ensure prompt and adequate compensation for the victims of transboundary damage in some areas. Such principles and rules haven't been used widely in the concerning parts of international law and they also needs to be further improved.
In this dissertation, after discuss the concept of transboundary damage, its classifications and consequences, I will study the basic theoretical fields on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities after indicating the concepts, characteristics, and nature of allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm. This paper will discuss: the concept and its historical evolution of allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary harm; legal principles on allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm; subject systems of allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm. The whole dissertation is composed of the Introduction, the Main Body and the Conclusion. The Main Body of the dissertation constitutes 3 Chapters. On the basis of materials research and study, this dissertation strives to complete a high-quality dissertation by synthetically applying legal analysis, comparative analysis, case analysis, historical analysis, qualitative analysis, and interdisciplinary analysis methods.
In the introduction, I will briefly introduce and analyze the legal and ethical foundation of allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary harm, the purpose of significance of the selection of the topic, the current study on this topic, the basic train of thoughts,and the innovation points of the dissertation.
The allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary harm stems from but is different from the liability system of transboundary harm. It is the extension and development of the liability system of transboundary harm. Its legal basis is not to exercise correct justice but to ensure the distribution justice. It is necessary for a healthy and ordered society to have a fair system of distribution interests and an equitable system of loss allocation. Based on this ethical foundation, the allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary harm doesn’t deviate from the“polluters pay principle”, taking the prompt and adequate compensation to victims as the starting point, reversely design the multiple subjects to allocate the liability for damage and compensatory obligation. Not only the operator of the hazardous activities shall bear civil liability, but also the relevant beneficiaries or potential polluter, even under the particular circumstances, the original state shall share the loss caused by transboundary damage, to ensure the prompt and adequate compensation to the victims.
Chapter one discusses the concept and its historical evolution of allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary harm. At the beginning of the first section, the research scope of this dissertation is defined as same as that of the topic about“allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm”which the International Law Commission have discussed for many years. Transboundary damage means damage caused to persons, property or the environment in the territory or in other places under the jurisdiction or control of a State other than the State of origin. Then I will analyze the characteristics from the hazardous activities and the results of transboundary damage for further discuss the allocation system of loss multiple subjects for different hierarchies later. Due to the different subjects’mode of different allocation system of loss arising out of transbiundary harm, the different classifications of transboundary damage based on different standard should be applicable different principles and rules under the consideration of proper risk control and loss allocation mechanism. After the classification based on different objects, I indicate the various deficiencies and obstacles for protection of the common environment.
In the section two, this dissertation analyzes and deduces the definition of allocation of loss in the case of transboundary damage, tier upon tier, from the study of the meaning of "loss", "allocation", " allocation of loss ".“Allocation of loss in the case of transboundary damage”refers that the“according to certain imputation principle and the different hierarchies for liability for cross-border damage operators or their civil partners, beneficiaries or potential polluters, even under some certain situations, the state of origin of the hazardous activities should allocate any loss of the transboundary damage, in order to ensure the victims to get prompt and adequate compensation”. The“allocation of loss in the case of transboundary damage”is not just a concept, but a mechanisms that includes both international law and national law, both substantive law and procedural law. In specific cross-border damage cases, it will also involve recognition and enforcement of decisions by foreign courts or awards of arbitration, or even involves judicial assistance to collect evidence, and so on.
It is historically inevitable for the allocation system of loss in case of transboundary damage to emergence and to be improved and perfected. It has been gradually established with the progress of the human society, the continuous development of international law, and the more and more attention to the victims of transboundary damage. The emergence of the allocation system of loss in case of transboundary damage marks the formation of the new concept of justice and universal recognition in the whole international community. The new justice idea needs the justice both on distribution of interests and allocation of loss. It will be no help for the victims if we only emphasize polluter’s liability in case of transboundary damage.
In the third section, this dissertation expounds the profile and the status quo of law-making on liability system in the case of transboundary damage in international law by burying myself in the International Law Commission's materials concerning to this topic, reviewing and studying the relevant international judicial practice and existing international treaties and international environment soft law documents. In the contemporary international law, the allocation system of loss in case of transboundary damage has been established in the fields of liability systems for nuclear leakage and marine oil pollution. However, it should be popularized to other relevant field, such as liability system of outer space damage. Therefore, it is not a balanced development in different liability system for transboundary damage.
Chapter two discusses the legal principles of allocation system of loss in case of transboundary damage. It is composed by three sections: The principle of victims of transboundary damage to get prompt and adequate compensation; the polluter pays principle; and the principle of state of origin to pay the supplementary damage and ensure the victims to get prompt and adequate compensation.
The victims of transboundary damage means any natural or legal person or state or international organization in the territory of another state or in other areas which is not belong to any jurisdiction that suffers damage caused to persons, property or the environment in the territory or in other places under the jurisdiction or control of a State other than the State of origin. The“victims of transboundary damage”is also a historical concept because it has been changed and developed with the changing of view about some certain rights during that some certain rights are given up and other new rights are gradually developed and accepted.
In respect to ensuring prompt and adequate compensation to victims of transboundary damage, "prompt" refers to the nature of real time. This is, to ensure the victims obtain the necessary compensation as soon as possible to restore their normal life. "Adequate" refers to the quantity and quality of compensation. Up to now, no international instrument hasn’t defined the concrete standards of the "prompt and adequate compensation", but some international document provides the minimum limit related to the "prompt and adequate compensation "which is commonly used as "if damage had not happened".
The principle of victims to obtain prompt and adequate compensation must be based on strict liability. If no strict liability is applied, the compensation to the victims will be uncertainty, the state of origin will not the intended to conduct activities with sufficient risk assessment or“due diligence”, causing the risk of harmful consequences. Also, the burden of collect evidences causes the victims be unable to get prompt and adequate compensation in the case of transboundary damage. On the basis of application of the strict liability, the joint liability, liability limitation, insurance or other financial security as guarantee make the victims really get prompt and adequate compensation. The principle of victims to get prompt and adequate compensation as an important legal principle in the field of allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage has already recognized and accepted by international environment soft law documents and most international treaties concerning civil liability and responsibility for transboundary damage. In addition to the international treaties related to civil liability for nuclear damage, the concerned international treaties explicitly put the principle of prompt and adequate compensation in the preamble or the first article in the treaties. However, it is still a process of dynamic development, change and improvement although it has been accepted in some fields of liability system of transboundary damage.
The "polluter pays principle" section firstly defines its legal connotation which refers that the polluter-pays principle first appears in 1972 in an OECD document on guiding principles for environmental policies which basically means that polluters should pay for the environmental damage they cause and that the government should not subsidize pollution. The allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage having not starting from the“principle of polluters pay”other than, in reverse thinking ways, designs how to ensure the victims to obtain“prompt and adequate compensation”. This reversely designed system does not deviate from the“polluters pay principle”but some adjust with it. The allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage require polluters bear the“affordable”part of loss other than all the loss for the victims.
Taking the“polluter pays principle”as an important principle of the allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage has its extremely vital significance. Economically, the“polluter pays principle”promotes efficiency; legally, it promotes justice; it promotes harmonization of international environmental policies; it defines how to allocate costs in the case of transboundary damage. The“polluter pays principle”can promote operators, and state of origin to behave more responsible for their activities, better play in preventing environmental damage, avoid or reduce cross-border damage, and to ensure prompt and adequate compensation to victims of transboundary damage.
The third section is about the principle of state of origin to pay the supplementary damage and ensure the victims to get prompt and adequate compensation.“State of origin”means the State in the territory or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of which the hazardous activity is carried out. "In the territory" refers within the territorial limits of a state.“Under the jurisdiction or control”means that, (a) In relation to a coastal State, as extending to maritime areas insofar as the legal regime of any such area vested jurisdiction in that State in respect of any matter; (b) In relation to a State of registry, or flag State, of any ship, aircraft or space object, as extending to the ships, aircraft and space objects of that State while exercising a right of continuous passage or overflight through the maritime territory or airspace of any other State; (c) In relation to the use or enjoyment of any area beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as extending to any matter in respect of which a right was exercised or an interest asserted, appointed in the“first report on prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities”by Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, Special Rapporteur. There are two classifications for the state of origin in the case of transboundary arising out of hazardous activities: the primacy entire responsibility and the secondary supplementary liability. The most representative of primacy entire responsibility is the liability and responsibility of launching states for damage from outer space activities. The secondary supplementary liability refers to the limit liability defined in some certain international treaties as a fund to pay the victims. The responsibility or the liability of the state of origin has the nature of supplement and guarantee.
There are some aspects for legal foundation of the nature of supplement and guarantee of the responsibility or the liability of the state of origin. Firstly, the activities causing tranboundary damage are not international wrongful acts. Secondly, the“polluters pay principle”is one reason for the state of origin to bear a part of compensation. Thirdly, beneficiaries should allocate some loss for their own interests. The principle of state environmental sovereignty without harm to foreign environmental rights is the international law basis of the nature of guarantee of the responsibility or liability of state of origin. States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. This principle belongs to jus cogens in international law.
The chapter 3, "the subject’s model of the allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage”is divided into four sections. The first section discusses the scope and models of the subjects of allocation of loss in the transboundary damage. This section defines the concepts of single level subjects and multiple levels subjects based on study the theory concerned with subjects in civil law and tort law. The system of multiple level subjects is that the subjects of different levels are only liable for limited compensation to victims according to legal regulations or compensatory obligations defined in treaties or agreements. The subjects of allocation of loss in the case of transboundary damage include victims, operators, beneficiaries and state of origin under some specific circumstances. Because of the scope of this study, I will not talk more about victims’obligations. This section analyzes the evolution of the system of multiple level subjects to allocate the loss in the case of transboundary damage. At the beginning of the Trail Smelter case, on February 28, 1931, the International Joint Commission found and determined that:”All past damages and all damages up to and including the first day of January 1932, is the sum of $350,000.…Upon the complaint of any persons claiming to have suffered damage by the operations of the company after the first of January, 1932, it is recommended by the Commission that in the event of any such claim not being adjusted by the company within a reasonable time, the government of the United States and Canada shall determine the amount of such damage, if any, and the amount so fixed shall be paid by the company forthwith.”This is the prototype of allocation of loss in the case of transboundary damage.
The allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage by multiple levels subjects started from international treaties related to nuclear damage. However, the allocation system of loss in the case of marine oil pollution is the more perfect that in the field of nuclear leakage. The series international documents including the“International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969”and its later amended protocols, and the“International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1971”and its later amended protocols. Now, the allocation systems of loss in the case of oil pollution and nuclear leakage are the two representatives with their own respective characteristics. The most two differences between the two systems are as follows: The first is the way of law-making as the allocation system of loss in the case of marine oil pollution based on two sets of international treaties but in one treaty for nuclear leakage. The second is the function of state of origin. In the allocation system of loss in the case of marine oil pollution, the state of origin is not the subject to allocate loss as the same as that in the field of nuclear leakage.
The second and the third sections separately elaborates the details about operators and other secondary subjects to share the loss in the case of transboundary damage, including the conditions, limitations,exceptions, insurance, and other guarantees. The last section specially discusses the rules and regulations concerning the allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary. According to international law, state of origin should ensure activities in its territory or under its jurisdiction or control do not harm foreign rights. Each state of origin should take all necessary measures to ensure that prompt and adequate compensation is available for victims of transboundary damage. Secondly, upon the occurrence of transboundary damage, the State of origin shall promptly notify all States affected or likely to be affected of the incident and the possible effects of the transboundary damage; the State of origin shall ensure that appropriate response measures are taken and should, for this purpose, rely upon the best available scientific data and technology; the State of origin, as appropriate, should also consult with and seek the cooperation of all States affected or likely to be affected to mitigate the effects of damage and if possible eliminate them; the States concerned should, where appropriate, seek the assistance of competent international organizations and other States on mutually acceptable terms and conditions. In addition, according to some international treaties, state of origin is liable for supplementary compensatory obligation even if the state of origin is neither the operator nor the secondary subject. This is the international liability of state of origin although they are taken as acts of "responsible state" or appear as“humanitarian aid”.
Having summarized the main points of the text, the conclusion further points out that the allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage is still in the process of development and improvement. National and international community still needs to do more work on it. It is national general obligation for a state of origin to have“responsibility of state”for transboundary damage, but often involveing many uncertain factors. However, the civil compensation obligation of state of origin is more specific, determined by international treaties, by which the victims can obtain compensation easily. Therefore, in order to improve the allocation system of loss in the case of transboundary damage, national and international community should be dedicated to the study and develop international law on determined compensatory obligation of state of origin to ensure the victims of transboundary damage to obtain“prompt and adequate compensation”.
引文
1张民安、梅伟著:侵权法,中山大学出版社,2008年10月第3版,第56-57页。
2周忠海,“论危险活动所致跨界损害的国际赔偿责任”,《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2007年第5期,第77页。
5周忠海,论危险活动所致跨界损害的国际赔偿责任,《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2007年第5期,第70页。
26 A/CN.4/510,第9页。
27林灿铃:《国际法上的跨界损害之国际责任》,华文出版社,2000年8月,第1版,第50页。
28 Xue Hanqin: Transboundary Damage in International Law, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 4.
29联合国国际法委员会第58届会议工作报告;联合国大会第61届会议补编第10号(A /61 /10)。参见网址:http://www.un.org/law/ilc/。
30万霞:跨界损害责任制度的新发展,《当代法学》,2008年1月,第1期,第120-126页。
32 Xue Hanqin: Transboundary Damage in International Law, Cambridge, 2003, p. 11.
41哥伦比亚河发源于加拿大,经美国华盛顿州流入太平洋。
42陈致中:《国际法案例》,法律出版社,1998年版,第275页。
43 Xue Hanqin: Transboundary Damage in International Law, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 11-13.
44 1997年《非航行利用国际水道法国际公约》第12条和13条。
45 Xue Hanqin: Transboundary Damage in International Law, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 14-15.
57江伟钰、陈方林主编:《资源环境法词典》,中国法制出版社,2006年6月版,第191、398、634页。
58吕忠梅:《环境法学》,法律出版社2004年版,第167页。
59陈慈阳:《环境法总论》,中国政法大学出版社,2003年版,第328页。
60对环境侵权的讨论一般也放在民事责任部分。参见金瑞林、汪劲:《20世纪环境法学研究评述》,北京大学出版社,2003年版,第271页等。
63曹明德:《环境侵权法》,法律出版社,2000年版,第18-20页。
64崔建远:《准物权研究》,法律出版社,2003年版,第24-26页。
69国际法院对在被占领巴勒斯坦领土修建隔离墙的法律后果发表的咨询意见。见于网址:http://www.un.org/chinese/peace/palestine/backgrounds/documents/AES10273.pdf.
70 AIPAD is abbreviation of Association of International Photography Art Dealers. AIPAD国际影展是非常重要的国际摄影展之一。
71朱国勇:“那些丑孩子”,《意林》,2009年第22期,第7页。
97 1945年《联合国宪章》第55条。
98法蒂玛—佐赫拉·克森蒂尼:《人权、环境与发展》。也参见《环境法与可持续发展》,中国环境科学出版社,1996年6月,第85页。
99张民安、梅伟著:《侵权法》,中山大学出版社,2008年10月第3版,第21-24页。
128林灿铃著:《国际法上的跨界损害之国家责任责任》,华文出版社,2008年8月,第1版,第38页。
129联大第51届会议第10号(A/51/10),《国际法委员会第48届会议工作报告》,第208页。
130 1996年国际法委员会《关于国际法不禁止行为所产生的损害性后果的国际责任条款草案》第3条。A/CN.4/L.533 and Add.1,International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited byinternational law. Report of the Working Group,p.101;联大第51届会议第10号(A/51/10),《国际法委员会第48届会议工作报告》,第211页。
131 1996年国际法委员会《关于国际法不禁止行为所产生的损害性后果的国际责任条款草案》第4条评注;联大第51届会议第10号(A/51/10),《国际法委员会第48届会议工作报告》,第215页。
132然而,美国极力反对该条款草案。参见A/CN.4/481,即1997年国际法委员会《关于国际法不加禁止的行为所产生的损害性后果的国际责任》各国政府提出的评论和意见。
133万霞:跨界损害责任制度的新发展,《当代法学》,2008年1月,第1期,第121页。
134 1996年国际法委员会《关于国际法不加禁止的行为所产生的损害性后果的国际责任的条款草案》第1条(a)。
135同上,第二章。
136同上,第三章。
137同上,的一般评注;联大第51届会议第10号(A/51/10)《,国际法委员会第48届会议工作报告》,第200-201页。
184万霞:跨界损害责任制度的新发展,《当代法学》,2008年1月,第1期,第121-122页。
185《元照英美法词典English-Chinese Dictionary of Anglo-American Law》,法律出版社,2003年5月第1版,第1402页。
194“抹不平的创伤-印度博帕尔毒气泄漏惨案20周年祭”, 2004年12月4日。见于网址:http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2004-12/04/content_2293203.htm(2010年12月5日访问)。
195“Chernobyl Accident”. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html.
210杨娟:民法中合理信赖原则及救济之探讨,辽宁教育行政学院学报,2009年2月,第2期,第69页。
211汪全胜:论立法的可操作性评估,山西大学学报,2009年7月,第32卷第4期,第104页。
212张民安、梅伟著:侵权法,中山大学出版社,2008年10月第3版,第46页。
221 Joni S. Charme, TRANSNATIONAL INJURY AND ULTRA-HAZARDOUS ACTIVITY: AN EMERGING NORM OF INTERNATIONAL STRICT LIABILITY. 4 J.L. & TECH. 75.
264 74/436/Euratom.
265 74/436/Euratom,第3段。
266 The United States Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act of 1980.
267 SEC. 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980; 42 U.S.C. 9607;蔡守秋:“环境民事责任体制”网址http://www.chinalawedu.com/news/2004_6/21/1649414913.htm。
268 1991年《德国环境责任法》第1条。
269 1989年《中华人民共和国环境保护法》第41条。
278 1992年《危险废物越境转移及其处置所造成损害的责任和赔偿问题议定书》第4条1款。
327 1999年《危险废物越境转移及其处置所造成损害的责任和赔偿问题议定书》第3条。
328 1992年《保护东北大西洋环境公约》第2(1)(b)条
329 1992年《跨界水道和国际湖泊保护与利用公约》第2(5)2条。
330 1992年《工业事故跨界影响公约》序言。
349杨立新著:《侵权责任法》,高等教育出版社,2010年8月第1版,第282页。
352王利明著:《侵权责任法研究》上卷,中国人民大学出版社,2010年7月第1版,第47页。
360 Paul Wapner,Reorienting State Sovereignty:Right and Responsibilities in the Environmental Age,in Karen T.The Greening of Sovereignty in World Politics,The MIT Press 1998,P.277.
361“特雷尔冶炼厂案”1941年的仲裁裁决。陈致中:《国际法案例》,法律出版社,1998年版,第276页。
362陈致中编著:《国际法案例》,法律出版社1998年版,第275-276页。克驻联合国大使安巴里谴责安理会的这一决定是“非法”的,是违犯了联合国宪章。但是他表示伊拉克将遵守这一决议。见于网址:http://www.people.com.cn/GB/historic/0520/6331.html.
381 Marie-Louise Larsson, The Law of Environmental Damage: Liability and Reparation ( Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 401.
382 http://www.antarctica.gov.au/antarctic-law-and-treaty/the-madrid-protocol/annex-vi-liability-arising-from-environmental-emergencies.
385 A/CN.4/531,第13段。
386同上,第44段。
387 1982年《联合国海洋法公约》第199条。
388马俊驹、余延满著:《民法原理》,法律出版社个,2004年1月第2版,第62页。
389 D.50.17.203(Pomponius libro octavo ad Quintum Mucium).转引自王竹著:《侵权责任分担论——侵权损害赔偿责任数人分担的一般理论》,中国人民大学出版社,2009年12月第1版,第2页。
1.周忠海著:《国际海洋法》,中国政法大学出版社,1987年版。
2.周忠海等著:《国际法述评》,法律出版社,2001年版。
3.周忠海主编:《和平、正义与法》,中国国际广播出版社,1993年版。
4.周忠海著:《周忠海国际法论文集》,北京出版社,2006年版。
5.林灿铃著:《国际法上的跨界损害之国家责任》,华文出版社,2000年版。
6.林灿铃著:《国际环境法》,人民出版社,2004年版。
7.林灿铃著:《国际环境法的产生和发展》,人民法院出版社,2006年版。
8.王铁崖著:《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社,1998年版。
9.贺其治著:《国家责任法及案例浅析》,法律出版社,2003年11月第1版。
10.王曦编著:《国际环境法》,法律出版社,2005年版。
11.王曦主编:《国际环境法资料选编》,民主与建设出版社,1999年版。
12.王曦主编:《国际环境法与比较环境法评论》第1卷,法律出版社,2002年版。
13.蔡守秋主编:《欧盟环境政策法律研究》,武汉大学出版社,2002年版。
14.蔡守秋、常纪文主编:《国际环境法学》,法律出版社,2004年版。
15.朱建庚著:《风险预防原则与海洋环境保护》,人民法院出版社,2006年版。
16.陈致中著:《国际法案例》,法律出版社,1998年版。
17.吕忠梅著:《环境法学》,法律出版社,2004年版。
18.陈慈阳著:《环境法总论》,中国政法大学出版社,2003年版。
19.曾世雄著:《损害赔偿法原理》,中国政法大学出版社,2001年版。
20.曹明德著:《环境侵权法》,法律出版社,2000年版。
21.王明远著:《环境侵权救济法律制度》,中国法制出版社,2001年版。
22.王灿发、于文轩著:《生物安全国际法导论》,中国政法大学出版社,2006年版。
23.汪劲主编:《环境正义:丧钟为谁而鸣-美国联邦法院环境诉讼法典判例选》,北京大学出版社,2006年版。
24.金瑞林、汪劲著:《20世纪环境法学研究评述》,北京大学出版社,2003年版。
24.徐国平著:《船舶油污损害赔偿法律制度研究》,北京大学出版社,2006年版。
26.蔡先凤著:《核损害民事责任研究》,原子能出版社,2005年版。
27.欧共体官方出版局编,苏明忠译:《欧洲联盟条约》,国际文化出版公司,1999年版。
28.李爱年、韩广等著:《人类社会的可持续发展与国际环境法》,法律出版社,2005年版。
29.肖主安、冯建中编著:《走向绿色的欧洲:欧盟环境保护制度》,江西高校出版社,2006年版。
30.那力编著:《国际环境法》,科学出版社,2005年版。
31.张文彬著:《论私法对国际法的影响》,法律出版社,2001年版。
32.江平著:《民法学》,中国政法大学出版社,2000年版。
33.梁慧星著:《民法总论》,2001年版。
34.杨立新著:《侵权责任法》,高等教育出版社,2010年版。
35.王利明著,《侵权责任法研究》上卷,中国人民大学出版社,2010年版。
36.马俊驹、余延满著:《民法原理》,法律出版社,2004年版。
37.张民安、梅伟著:《侵权法》,中山大学出版社,2008年版。
38.王竹著:《侵权责任分担论---侵权损害赔偿责任数人分担的一般理论》,中国人民大学出版社,2009年版
39.胡艳香著:《侵权法中严格责任地位研究》,经济科学出版社,2008年版。
40.江伟钰、陈方林主编:《资源环境法词典》,中国法制出版社,2006年版。
41.乔世明著:《环境损害与法律责任》,中国经济出版社1999年版。
42.国家环境保护总局国际合作司、国家环境保护总局政策研究中心编:《联合国环境与可持续发展系列大会重要文件选编》,中国环境科学出版社,2004年版。
1.詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法》第9版,第一卷第一分册,中国大百科全书出版社,1995年版。
2.詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》第9版,第一卷第二分册,中国大百科全书出版社,1998年版。
3.伊恩·布朗利著,曾令良等译:《国际公法原理》,法律出版社,2003年版。
4.魏智通著,吴越、毛晓飞译:《国际法》,法律出版社,2002年版。
5.斯塔克著、赵维田译:《国际法导论》,法律出版社,1984年版。
6.柳炳华著,朴国哲译:《国际法》(上、下册),中国政法大学出版社,1997年版。
7.菲德罗斯著、李浩培译:《国际法》,商务印书馆,1981年版。
8.亚历山大·基斯著,张若思译:《国际环境法》,法律出版社,2000年版。
9.联合国海洋污染科学问题专家组著,尹卫平等译,:《海洋环境容量:预防海洋污染的方法》,海洋出版社, 1997年。
10.联合国环境规划署编,刘毅等译:《全球环境展望3:过去、现在和未来》,中国环境科学出版社,2002年版。
11.岩佐茂著,韩立新等译:《环境的思想》,中央编译出版社1997年版。
12.菲利普?沙别科夫著,周律等译:《滚滚绿色浪潮:美国环境保护运动》,中国环境科学出版社,1997年版。
13.世界自然保护同盟、联合国环境规划署、世界野生生物基金会合编,国家环境保护局外事办公室译:《保护地球──可持续生存战略》,中国环境科学出版社,1992年版。
14.原田尚彦著,于敏译:《环境法》,法律出版社,1999年版。
15.魏伊丝著,汪劲等译:《公平地对待未来人类:国际法、共同遗产与世代公平》,法律出版社,2000年版。
16. [美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
17. [美]保罗·R.伯特尼、罗伯特·N.史蒂文斯主编:《环境保护的公共政策》,上海三联书店,2004年版。
18.福格尔等合编:《联邦德国环境保护手册(上、下)》,中国环境科学出版社。
19.[美]乔治·恩德利等著:《中国和欧盟环境法的比较》,上海交通大学出版社,1999年版。
20.马骧聪译:《俄罗斯联邦环境保护法和土地法典》,中国法制出版社,2003年版。
1.周忠海:“论危险活动所致跨界损害的国际赔偿责任”,《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2007年第5期。
2.周忠海,谭黎华:“论贸易的环境措施”,《理论与实践》,2001年第5期。
3.林灿铃:“论国际法不加禁止行为所产生的损害性后果的国家责任”,《比较法研究》,2000年第3期;
4.林灿铃,“工业事故跨界影响的国际法分析”,《比较法研究》,2007年第1期。
5.蔡守秋、海燕:“也谈对环境的损害———欧盟《预防和补救环境损害的环境责任指令》的启示”,《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2005年第3期。
6.江伟钰:“论跨国自然资源及环境破坏的国家责任和国际赔偿责任确定”,《甘肃政法学院学报》,2003年第4期。
7.丁丽柏、陈燕萍:“论国际法不加禁止行为国际责任制度”,载《云南大学学报法学版》,2005年第3期。
8.丁丽柏、龙柯宇:“从松花江水污染事件检视跨界污染损害责任制度”,《云南大学学报法学版》,2006年第5期。
9.张新宝:“美国有害物体侵权行为介评”,《外国法译评》,1994年第1期。
10.王曦:“论国际法未加禁止之行为引起的有害后果之国际责任”《社会科学》,2006年第4期。
11.周晓林:“合法活动造成域外损害的国家责任”,《中国法学》,1988年第5期。
12.何卫东:“跨界海洋环境损害国家责任资金机制探讨”,《政治与法律》,2002年第2期。
13.万霞:跨界损害责任制度的新发展,《当代法学》,2008年第1期。
14.王艳玲:跨界海洋环境损害的国家责任问题探讨,《河北法学》,2008年第6期。
15.付翠英,张翠芳:论私营企业外空商业活动跨界侵权之责任主体,北京航空航天大学学报(社会科学版),2010年5月第3期。
16.刘翠,刘卫先:《国际油污损害民事责任公约》和《设立国际油污损害赔偿基金公约》体系下环境损害赔偿的局限性分析---生态保护的视角,海洋开发与管理,2010年1月第1期。
17.戚学龙:论跨界船舶油污损害的国家责任,《法制与社会》,2007年6月第6期。
18.汪全胜:论立法的可操作性评估,山西大学学报,2009年7月第4期。
19.杨代雄:一般侵权行为的无过错损失分担责任---对“无过错即无责任”的质疑及对“公平责任原则”的改造,华东政法大学学报,2010年第3期。
20.杨娟:民法中合理信赖原则及救济之探讨,辽宁教育行政学院学报,2009年2月第2期。
21.王竹:侵权责任分担论(评议人:杨立新)《法学家》,2009年第5期。
22.黄龙:民事补充责任研究,《广西警官高等专科学校学报》2007年第4期。
23.杨文杰:替代责任说质疑,《法制与社会》,2008年第11期。
24.张民安:替代责任的比较研究,《甘肃政法学院学报》,2009年9月第106期。
1. Xue Hanqin, Transboundary Damage in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
2. Gotthard Gauci, Oil Pollution at Sea: Civil Liability and Compensation for Damage, John Wiley &Sons Ltd, 1997.
3. Colin Delarue & Charles B.Anderson, Shipping and the Envionment Law andPractice, LLP. 1998.
4. Lucas Bergkamp, Liability and Environment: Private and Public Law Aspects of Civil Liability for Environmental Harm in an International Context, Kluwer Law International, 2001.
5. Edward H.P.Brans, Liability for Damage to Public Natural Resources, Kluwer Law International, 2001.
6. Mark Wilde, Civil Liability for Environmental Damage, Kluwer Law International, 2002.
7. Nick Lockett, Environmental Liability Insurance, Cameron May Ltd, 1996.
8. Xia Chen, Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, Kluwer Law International, 2001.
9. IMCO,Office Records of the Conference on the Establishment of an International Compensation Fund for Oil Pollution Damage,1971,1978.
10. Edith Brown Weiss ,International environmental law and policy ... CITIC Publishing House,2003.
11.Philippe Sands and Paolo Galizzi,Documents in international environmental law,Cambridge University Press, 2004.
12.Fred L.Morrison and Rudiger Wolfrum. International, regional and national environmental law ,Kluwer Law International.
13 . Sands, Philippe, Principles of international environmental law, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
14.DiMento, Joseph F.C. The global environment and international law ,University of Texas Press, 2003.
15.Nanda, Ved P. International environmental law for the 21st century,Transnational Publishers, 2003.
16. Lavanya, Rajamani, Differential treatment in international environmental law,Oxford Unvi.Pr. 2005.
17.John S. Applegate, Environmental risk, Ashgate, Dartmouth, 2004.
18.Guruswamy, Lakshman D.Thomson International environmental law in a nutshell , West,2003.
19.Rebecca M. Bratspies and Russell A. Miller edited: Transboundary Harm in International Law Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
20.Wu Chao,Pollution from the Carriage of Oil by Sea: Liability and Compensation,Kluwer Law International,1996.
21. Brown Weiss, McCaffrey, Magraw and Tarlock, International Environmental Law and Policy, Wolters Kluwer, 2007.
22. Michael Faure and Song Ying, China and International Environmental Liability Legal Remedies for Transboundary Pollution, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2008.
1. Sara A. Goldberg (1995)’Lender Liability under CERCLA: Shaping a New Legal Rule’.
2. The Environmental Bankers Association (EBA)(2002)’Your Financial Institution and the Environment’.
3. Joseph C.Sweeney, Limitation of Shipowner Liability: Its American Roots and Some Problems Particular to Collision, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol.32, No.2, 2001.
4. Donald c. Greenman, Limitation of Liability Unlimited, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol.32, No.2, 2001.
5. Charles B. Anderson, Colin de la Rue, Liability of Charterers and Cargo Owners for Pollution from Ships, Tulane Maritime Law Journal, Vol.26,2001.
6. Dennis J.Stone, the Limitation of Liability Act: Time to Abandon Ship? Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol.32, No.2, 2001.
7. Timothy Semenoro, To be an”Incident”or not an“Incident”, That is the Question Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990:Gatlin Oil Co. v. United States Revisited, Tulane Maritime Law Journal, Vol.24,2000.
8. Lawrence I. Kiern, Liability, Compensation, and Financial Responsibility under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990: A Review of the First Decade, Tulane Maritime Law Journal, Vol.24, 2000.
9. Mans Jacobsson and Norbert Trotz, The Definition of Pollution Damage in the 1984 Protocols to the 1969 Civil Liability Convention and the 1971 Fund Convention, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol.17, No.4, 1986.
10. Aline F. M. De Biever, Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, JMIC, Vol.17, No.1, 1986.
11. Joni S. Charme, TRANSNATIONAL INJURY AND ULTRA-HAZARDOUSACTIVITY: AN EMERGING NORM OF INTERNATIONAL STRICT LIABILITY. 4 J.L. & TECH. 75.
12. Eric Thomas Larson,“WHY ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY REGIMES IN THE UNITED STATES, THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, AND JAPAN HAVE GROWN SYNONYMOUS WITH THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE”Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, March, 2005.
13. ALEXANDRE KISS , STATE RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE,winter 2006, 35 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 67.
14. Guo Hongyan, Discussion on Principles of Loss Allocation of Transboundary Harm,China Legal Science, 2010.
1. www.un.org/
2. www.un.org/Depts/treaty
3. www.icj-cij.org/
4. www.ili.org/
5. www.itlos.org/
6. http://www.nuclearclaimstribunal.com/
7. http://www.antarctica.gov.au/
8. http://www.un.org/law/ilc/
9. http://www.ospar.com
10.http://www.zhb.gov.cn
11.http://www.unep.org
12.http://www.imo.org
13.http://www.pca-cpa.org/
14.http://www.iaea.org/
15.http://www.gpa.unep.org/
16.http://europa.eu/abc/treaties/
17.http://www.oecd
18.http://vip.chinalawinfo.com
2周忠海,“论危险活动所致跨界损害的国际赔偿责任”,《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2007年第5期,第77页。
5周忠海,论危险活动所致跨界损害的国际赔偿责任,《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2007年第5期,第70页。
26 A/CN.4/510,第9页。
27林灿铃:《国际法上的跨界损害之国际责任》,华文出版社,2000年8月,第1版,第50页。
28 Xue Hanqin: Transboundary Damage in International Law, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 4.
29联合国国际法委员会第58届会议工作报告;联合国大会第61届会议补编第10号(A /61 /10)。参见网址:http://www.un.org/law/ilc/。
30万霞:跨界损害责任制度的新发展,《当代法学》,2008年1月,第1期,第120-126页。
32 Xue Hanqin: Transboundary Damage in International Law, Cambridge, 2003, p. 11.
41哥伦比亚河发源于加拿大,经美国华盛顿州流入太平洋。
42陈致中:《国际法案例》,法律出版社,1998年版,第275页。
43 Xue Hanqin: Transboundary Damage in International Law, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 11-13.
44 1997年《非航行利用国际水道法国际公约》第12条和13条。
45 Xue Hanqin: Transboundary Damage in International Law, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 14-15.
57江伟钰、陈方林主编:《资源环境法词典》,中国法制出版社,2006年6月版,第191、398、634页。
58吕忠梅:《环境法学》,法律出版社2004年版,第167页。
59陈慈阳:《环境法总论》,中国政法大学出版社,2003年版,第328页。
60对环境侵权的讨论一般也放在民事责任部分。参见金瑞林、汪劲:《20世纪环境法学研究评述》,北京大学出版社,2003年版,第271页等。
63曹明德:《环境侵权法》,法律出版社,2000年版,第18-20页。
64崔建远:《准物权研究》,法律出版社,2003年版,第24-26页。
69国际法院对在被占领巴勒斯坦领土修建隔离墙的法律后果发表的咨询意见。见于网址:http://www.un.org/chinese/peace/palestine/backgrounds/documents/AES10273.pdf.
70 AIPAD is abbreviation of Association of International Photography Art Dealers. AIPAD国际影展是非常重要的国际摄影展之一。
71朱国勇:“那些丑孩子”,《意林》,2009年第22期,第7页。
97 1945年《联合国宪章》第55条。
98法蒂玛—佐赫拉·克森蒂尼:《人权、环境与发展》。也参见《环境法与可持续发展》,中国环境科学出版社,1996年6月,第85页。
99张民安、梅伟著:《侵权法》,中山大学出版社,2008年10月第3版,第21-24页。
128林灿铃著:《国际法上的跨界损害之国家责任责任》,华文出版社,2008年8月,第1版,第38页。
129联大第51届会议第10号(A/51/10),《国际法委员会第48届会议工作报告》,第208页。
130 1996年国际法委员会《关于国际法不禁止行为所产生的损害性后果的国际责任条款草案》第3条。A/CN.4/L.533 and Add.1,International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited byinternational law. Report of the Working Group,p.101;联大第51届会议第10号(A/51/10),《国际法委员会第48届会议工作报告》,第211页。
131 1996年国际法委员会《关于国际法不禁止行为所产生的损害性后果的国际责任条款草案》第4条评注;联大第51届会议第10号(A/51/10),《国际法委员会第48届会议工作报告》,第215页。
132然而,美国极力反对该条款草案。参见A/CN.4/481,即1997年国际法委员会《关于国际法不加禁止的行为所产生的损害性后果的国际责任》各国政府提出的评论和意见。
133万霞:跨界损害责任制度的新发展,《当代法学》,2008年1月,第1期,第121页。
134 1996年国际法委员会《关于国际法不加禁止的行为所产生的损害性后果的国际责任的条款草案》第1条(a)。
135同上,第二章。
136同上,第三章。
137同上,的一般评注;联大第51届会议第10号(A/51/10)《,国际法委员会第48届会议工作报告》,第200-201页。
184万霞:跨界损害责任制度的新发展,《当代法学》,2008年1月,第1期,第121-122页。
185《元照英美法词典English-Chinese Dictionary of Anglo-American Law》,法律出版社,2003年5月第1版,第1402页。
194“抹不平的创伤-印度博帕尔毒气泄漏惨案20周年祭”, 2004年12月4日。见于网址:http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2004-12/04/content_2293203.htm(2010年12月5日访问)。
195“Chernobyl Accident”. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html.
210杨娟:民法中合理信赖原则及救济之探讨,辽宁教育行政学院学报,2009年2月,第2期,第69页。
211汪全胜:论立法的可操作性评估,山西大学学报,2009年7月,第32卷第4期,第104页。
212张民安、梅伟著:侵权法,中山大学出版社,2008年10月第3版,第46页。
221 Joni S. Charme, TRANSNATIONAL INJURY AND ULTRA-HAZARDOUS ACTIVITY: AN EMERGING NORM OF INTERNATIONAL STRICT LIABILITY. 4 J.L. & TECH. 75.
264 74/436/Euratom.
265 74/436/Euratom,第3段。
266 The United States Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act of 1980.
267 SEC. 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980; 42 U.S.C. 9607;蔡守秋:“环境民事责任体制”网址http://www.chinalawedu.com/news/2004_6/21/1649414913.htm。
268 1991年《德国环境责任法》第1条。
269 1989年《中华人民共和国环境保护法》第41条。
278 1992年《危险废物越境转移及其处置所造成损害的责任和赔偿问题议定书》第4条1款。
327 1999年《危险废物越境转移及其处置所造成损害的责任和赔偿问题议定书》第3条。
328 1992年《保护东北大西洋环境公约》第2(1)(b)条
329 1992年《跨界水道和国际湖泊保护与利用公约》第2(5)2条。
330 1992年《工业事故跨界影响公约》序言。
349杨立新著:《侵权责任法》,高等教育出版社,2010年8月第1版,第282页。
352王利明著:《侵权责任法研究》上卷,中国人民大学出版社,2010年7月第1版,第47页。
360 Paul Wapner,Reorienting State Sovereignty:Right and Responsibilities in the Environmental Age,in Karen T.The Greening of Sovereignty in World Politics,The MIT Press 1998,P.277.
361“特雷尔冶炼厂案”1941年的仲裁裁决。陈致中:《国际法案例》,法律出版社,1998年版,第276页。
362陈致中编著:《国际法案例》,法律出版社1998年版,第275-276页。克驻联合国大使安巴里谴责安理会的这一决定是“非法”的,是违犯了联合国宪章。但是他表示伊拉克将遵守这一决议。见于网址:http://www.people.com.cn/GB/historic/0520/6331.html.
381 Marie-Louise Larsson, The Law of Environmental Damage: Liability and Reparation ( Kluwer Law International, 1999), p. 401.
382 http://www.antarctica.gov.au/antarctic-law-and-treaty/the-madrid-protocol/annex-vi-liability-arising-from-environmental-emergencies.
385 A/CN.4/531,第13段。
386同上,第44段。
387 1982年《联合国海洋法公约》第199条。
388马俊驹、余延满著:《民法原理》,法律出版社个,2004年1月第2版,第62页。
389 D.50.17.203(Pomponius libro octavo ad Quintum Mucium).转引自王竹著:《侵权责任分担论——侵权损害赔偿责任数人分担的一般理论》,中国人民大学出版社,2009年12月第1版,第2页。
1.周忠海著:《国际海洋法》,中国政法大学出版社,1987年版。
2.周忠海等著:《国际法述评》,法律出版社,2001年版。
3.周忠海主编:《和平、正义与法》,中国国际广播出版社,1993年版。
4.周忠海著:《周忠海国际法论文集》,北京出版社,2006年版。
5.林灿铃著:《国际法上的跨界损害之国家责任》,华文出版社,2000年版。
6.林灿铃著:《国际环境法》,人民出版社,2004年版。
7.林灿铃著:《国际环境法的产生和发展》,人民法院出版社,2006年版。
8.王铁崖著:《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社,1998年版。
9.贺其治著:《国家责任法及案例浅析》,法律出版社,2003年11月第1版。
10.王曦编著:《国际环境法》,法律出版社,2005年版。
11.王曦主编:《国际环境法资料选编》,民主与建设出版社,1999年版。
12.王曦主编:《国际环境法与比较环境法评论》第1卷,法律出版社,2002年版。
13.蔡守秋主编:《欧盟环境政策法律研究》,武汉大学出版社,2002年版。
14.蔡守秋、常纪文主编:《国际环境法学》,法律出版社,2004年版。
15.朱建庚著:《风险预防原则与海洋环境保护》,人民法院出版社,2006年版。
16.陈致中著:《国际法案例》,法律出版社,1998年版。
17.吕忠梅著:《环境法学》,法律出版社,2004年版。
18.陈慈阳著:《环境法总论》,中国政法大学出版社,2003年版。
19.曾世雄著:《损害赔偿法原理》,中国政法大学出版社,2001年版。
20.曹明德著:《环境侵权法》,法律出版社,2000年版。
21.王明远著:《环境侵权救济法律制度》,中国法制出版社,2001年版。
22.王灿发、于文轩著:《生物安全国际法导论》,中国政法大学出版社,2006年版。
23.汪劲主编:《环境正义:丧钟为谁而鸣-美国联邦法院环境诉讼法典判例选》,北京大学出版社,2006年版。
24.金瑞林、汪劲著:《20世纪环境法学研究评述》,北京大学出版社,2003年版。
24.徐国平著:《船舶油污损害赔偿法律制度研究》,北京大学出版社,2006年版。
26.蔡先凤著:《核损害民事责任研究》,原子能出版社,2005年版。
27.欧共体官方出版局编,苏明忠译:《欧洲联盟条约》,国际文化出版公司,1999年版。
28.李爱年、韩广等著:《人类社会的可持续发展与国际环境法》,法律出版社,2005年版。
29.肖主安、冯建中编著:《走向绿色的欧洲:欧盟环境保护制度》,江西高校出版社,2006年版。
30.那力编著:《国际环境法》,科学出版社,2005年版。
31.张文彬著:《论私法对国际法的影响》,法律出版社,2001年版。
32.江平著:《民法学》,中国政法大学出版社,2000年版。
33.梁慧星著:《民法总论》,2001年版。
34.杨立新著:《侵权责任法》,高等教育出版社,2010年版。
35.王利明著,《侵权责任法研究》上卷,中国人民大学出版社,2010年版。
36.马俊驹、余延满著:《民法原理》,法律出版社,2004年版。
37.张民安、梅伟著:《侵权法》,中山大学出版社,2008年版。
38.王竹著:《侵权责任分担论---侵权损害赔偿责任数人分担的一般理论》,中国人民大学出版社,2009年版
39.胡艳香著:《侵权法中严格责任地位研究》,经济科学出版社,2008年版。
40.江伟钰、陈方林主编:《资源环境法词典》,中国法制出版社,2006年版。
41.乔世明著:《环境损害与法律责任》,中国经济出版社1999年版。
42.国家环境保护总局国际合作司、国家环境保护总局政策研究中心编:《联合国环境与可持续发展系列大会重要文件选编》,中国环境科学出版社,2004年版。
1.詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法》第9版,第一卷第一分册,中国大百科全书出版社,1995年版。
2.詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》第9版,第一卷第二分册,中国大百科全书出版社,1998年版。
3.伊恩·布朗利著,曾令良等译:《国际公法原理》,法律出版社,2003年版。
4.魏智通著,吴越、毛晓飞译:《国际法》,法律出版社,2002年版。
5.斯塔克著、赵维田译:《国际法导论》,法律出版社,1984年版。
6.柳炳华著,朴国哲译:《国际法》(上、下册),中国政法大学出版社,1997年版。
7.菲德罗斯著、李浩培译:《国际法》,商务印书馆,1981年版。
8.亚历山大·基斯著,张若思译:《国际环境法》,法律出版社,2000年版。
9.联合国海洋污染科学问题专家组著,尹卫平等译,:《海洋环境容量:预防海洋污染的方法》,海洋出版社, 1997年。
10.联合国环境规划署编,刘毅等译:《全球环境展望3:过去、现在和未来》,中国环境科学出版社,2002年版。
11.岩佐茂著,韩立新等译:《环境的思想》,中央编译出版社1997年版。
12.菲利普?沙别科夫著,周律等译:《滚滚绿色浪潮:美国环境保护运动》,中国环境科学出版社,1997年版。
13.世界自然保护同盟、联合国环境规划署、世界野生生物基金会合编,国家环境保护局外事办公室译:《保护地球──可持续生存战略》,中国环境科学出版社,1992年版。
14.原田尚彦著,于敏译:《环境法》,法律出版社,1999年版。
15.魏伊丝著,汪劲等译:《公平地对待未来人类:国际法、共同遗产与世代公平》,法律出版社,2000年版。
16. [美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
17. [美]保罗·R.伯特尼、罗伯特·N.史蒂文斯主编:《环境保护的公共政策》,上海三联书店,2004年版。
18.福格尔等合编:《联邦德国环境保护手册(上、下)》,中国环境科学出版社。
19.[美]乔治·恩德利等著:《中国和欧盟环境法的比较》,上海交通大学出版社,1999年版。
20.马骧聪译:《俄罗斯联邦环境保护法和土地法典》,中国法制出版社,2003年版。
1.周忠海:“论危险活动所致跨界损害的国际赔偿责任”,《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2007年第5期。
2.周忠海,谭黎华:“论贸易的环境措施”,《理论与实践》,2001年第5期。
3.林灿铃:“论国际法不加禁止行为所产生的损害性后果的国家责任”,《比较法研究》,2000年第3期;
4.林灿铃,“工业事故跨界影响的国际法分析”,《比较法研究》,2007年第1期。
5.蔡守秋、海燕:“也谈对环境的损害———欧盟《预防和补救环境损害的环境责任指令》的启示”,《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2005年第3期。
6.江伟钰:“论跨国自然资源及环境破坏的国家责任和国际赔偿责任确定”,《甘肃政法学院学报》,2003年第4期。
7.丁丽柏、陈燕萍:“论国际法不加禁止行为国际责任制度”,载《云南大学学报法学版》,2005年第3期。
8.丁丽柏、龙柯宇:“从松花江水污染事件检视跨界污染损害责任制度”,《云南大学学报法学版》,2006年第5期。
9.张新宝:“美国有害物体侵权行为介评”,《外国法译评》,1994年第1期。
10.王曦:“论国际法未加禁止之行为引起的有害后果之国际责任”《社会科学》,2006年第4期。
11.周晓林:“合法活动造成域外损害的国家责任”,《中国法学》,1988年第5期。
12.何卫东:“跨界海洋环境损害国家责任资金机制探讨”,《政治与法律》,2002年第2期。
13.万霞:跨界损害责任制度的新发展,《当代法学》,2008年第1期。
14.王艳玲:跨界海洋环境损害的国家责任问题探讨,《河北法学》,2008年第6期。
15.付翠英,张翠芳:论私营企业外空商业活动跨界侵权之责任主体,北京航空航天大学学报(社会科学版),2010年5月第3期。
16.刘翠,刘卫先:《国际油污损害民事责任公约》和《设立国际油污损害赔偿基金公约》体系下环境损害赔偿的局限性分析---生态保护的视角,海洋开发与管理,2010年1月第1期。
17.戚学龙:论跨界船舶油污损害的国家责任,《法制与社会》,2007年6月第6期。
18.汪全胜:论立法的可操作性评估,山西大学学报,2009年7月第4期。
19.杨代雄:一般侵权行为的无过错损失分担责任---对“无过错即无责任”的质疑及对“公平责任原则”的改造,华东政法大学学报,2010年第3期。
20.杨娟:民法中合理信赖原则及救济之探讨,辽宁教育行政学院学报,2009年2月第2期。
21.王竹:侵权责任分担论(评议人:杨立新)《法学家》,2009年第5期。
22.黄龙:民事补充责任研究,《广西警官高等专科学校学报》2007年第4期。
23.杨文杰:替代责任说质疑,《法制与社会》,2008年第11期。
24.张民安:替代责任的比较研究,《甘肃政法学院学报》,2009年9月第106期。
1. Xue Hanqin, Transboundary Damage in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
2. Gotthard Gauci, Oil Pollution at Sea: Civil Liability and Compensation for Damage, John Wiley &Sons Ltd, 1997.
3. Colin Delarue & Charles B.Anderson, Shipping and the Envionment Law andPractice, LLP. 1998.
4. Lucas Bergkamp, Liability and Environment: Private and Public Law Aspects of Civil Liability for Environmental Harm in an International Context, Kluwer Law International, 2001.
5. Edward H.P.Brans, Liability for Damage to Public Natural Resources, Kluwer Law International, 2001.
6. Mark Wilde, Civil Liability for Environmental Damage, Kluwer Law International, 2002.
7. Nick Lockett, Environmental Liability Insurance, Cameron May Ltd, 1996.
8. Xia Chen, Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, Kluwer Law International, 2001.
9. IMCO,Office Records of the Conference on the Establishment of an International Compensation Fund for Oil Pollution Damage,1971,1978.
10. Edith Brown Weiss ,International environmental law and policy ... CITIC Publishing House,2003.
11.Philippe Sands and Paolo Galizzi,Documents in international environmental law,Cambridge University Press, 2004.
12.Fred L.Morrison and Rudiger Wolfrum. International, regional and national environmental law ,Kluwer Law International.
13 . Sands, Philippe, Principles of international environmental law, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
14.DiMento, Joseph F.C. The global environment and international law ,University of Texas Press, 2003.
15.Nanda, Ved P. International environmental law for the 21st century,Transnational Publishers, 2003.
16. Lavanya, Rajamani, Differential treatment in international environmental law,Oxford Unvi.Pr. 2005.
17.John S. Applegate, Environmental risk, Ashgate, Dartmouth, 2004.
18.Guruswamy, Lakshman D.Thomson International environmental law in a nutshell , West,2003.
19.Rebecca M. Bratspies and Russell A. Miller edited: Transboundary Harm in International Law Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
20.Wu Chao,Pollution from the Carriage of Oil by Sea: Liability and Compensation,Kluwer Law International,1996.
21. Brown Weiss, McCaffrey, Magraw and Tarlock, International Environmental Law and Policy, Wolters Kluwer, 2007.
22. Michael Faure and Song Ying, China and International Environmental Liability Legal Remedies for Transboundary Pollution, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2008.
1. Sara A. Goldberg (1995)’Lender Liability under CERCLA: Shaping a New Legal Rule’.
2. The Environmental Bankers Association (EBA)(2002)’Your Financial Institution and the Environment’.
3. Joseph C.Sweeney, Limitation of Shipowner Liability: Its American Roots and Some Problems Particular to Collision, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol.32, No.2, 2001.
4. Donald c. Greenman, Limitation of Liability Unlimited, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol.32, No.2, 2001.
5. Charles B. Anderson, Colin de la Rue, Liability of Charterers and Cargo Owners for Pollution from Ships, Tulane Maritime Law Journal, Vol.26,2001.
6. Dennis J.Stone, the Limitation of Liability Act: Time to Abandon Ship? Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol.32, No.2, 2001.
7. Timothy Semenoro, To be an”Incident”or not an“Incident”, That is the Question Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990:Gatlin Oil Co. v. United States Revisited, Tulane Maritime Law Journal, Vol.24,2000.
8. Lawrence I. Kiern, Liability, Compensation, and Financial Responsibility under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990: A Review of the First Decade, Tulane Maritime Law Journal, Vol.24, 2000.
9. Mans Jacobsson and Norbert Trotz, The Definition of Pollution Damage in the 1984 Protocols to the 1969 Civil Liability Convention and the 1971 Fund Convention, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Vol.17, No.4, 1986.
10. Aline F. M. De Biever, Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, JMIC, Vol.17, No.1, 1986.
11. Joni S. Charme, TRANSNATIONAL INJURY AND ULTRA-HAZARDOUSACTIVITY: AN EMERGING NORM OF INTERNATIONAL STRICT LIABILITY. 4 J.L. & TECH. 75.
12. Eric Thomas Larson,“WHY ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY REGIMES IN THE UNITED STATES, THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, AND JAPAN HAVE GROWN SYNONYMOUS WITH THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE”Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, March, 2005.
13. ALEXANDRE KISS , STATE RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE,winter 2006, 35 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 67.
14. Guo Hongyan, Discussion on Principles of Loss Allocation of Transboundary Harm,China Legal Science, 2010.
1. www.un.org/
2. www.un.org/Depts/treaty
3. www.icj-cij.org/
4. www.ili.org/
5. www.itlos.org/
6. http://www.nuclearclaimstribunal.com/
7. http://www.antarctica.gov.au/
8. http://www.un.org/law/ilc/
9. http://www.ospar.com
10.http://www.zhb.gov.cn
11.http://www.unep.org
12.http://www.imo.org
13.http://www.pca-cpa.org/
14.http://www.iaea.org/
15.http://www.gpa.unep.org/
16.http://europa.eu/abc/treaties/
17.http://www.oecd
18.http://vip.chinalawinfo.com