《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》责任机制对勘与简评

《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》责任机制对勘与简评

任雁冰，15902025918

北京大成（广州）律师事务所

摘要

《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》责任机制向来以专业、复杂闻名，且争论不息，以致其本义晦涩难明。因其均属国际条约，故应适用《1969维也纳条约法公约》解释之。

本文将据此对勘并简评《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》责任机制。

（一）责任场景：《1992油污公约》适用于油轮泄露或排放货油或其燃油造成的污染事故；《2001燃油公约》适用于除《1992油污公约》所述油轮之外海船泄露或排放其燃油造成的污染事故；二者为互补关系，不存在重叠。

（二）责任主体：《1992油污公约》中“船东”仅指登记的或实际的船舶所有人，为单一主体；《2001燃油公约》中“船东”包括登记的或实际的船舶所有人、光船承租人、船舶管理人和经营人，为复多主体。

（三）归责原则：《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》均为漏油船船东严格责任制，但《1992油污公约》因船东为单一主体故需排除船东利益方之责任，否则船东严格责任将会被绕开；而《2001燃油公约》因船东为复多主体故需明确其内部为连带责任以便操作；二者立法旨趣虽有不同但均以限定船东严格责任制为导向。

（四）定责法律关系：《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》均规定了向漏油船船东索赔之排他性法律依据，但此问题有三处留白：（1）该规定没有指出受害方是否有权向漏油船船东之外第三方索赔；如可，适用何种法律？（2）该规定没有指出谁向漏油船船东索赔，受害方还是第三方？（3）受害方根据《1992油污公约》或《2001燃油公约》之外法律规定向漏油船船东之外第三方索赔的，是否还有权根据《1992油污公约》或《2001燃油公约》下严格责任制要求漏油船船东承担全部赔偿责任，或者说其权利是否受到一定限制？

（五）受害方向船东利益方或第三方索赔和受偿后权利转让：按《1992油污公约》和《2001燃油公约》，受害方向船东利益方或第三方索赔的，在受偿后应将相应权利转让给船东利益方或第三方行使。

（六）责任承担后之追偿：《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》基本相同，但《2001燃油公约》明确此追偿权独立于公约，另行适用相关法律。至于此种追偿权之正当性，则根源于严格责任制，为其应有之义。

（七）免责和减责情形：《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》完全一致，盖此为严格责任制下免责和减责事由之通例。

（八）责任限制：《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》均规定了漏油船责任限制，但二者限额不同。

（九）责任增补与双层赔偿：《2001燃油公约》下除漏油船严格责任及其责任限制外不存在责任增补与双层赔偿；但《1992油污公约》中船东责任之上另有《1992基金公约》及《2003补充基金议定书》规定了货油方补充承担的油污责任，构成了双层赔偿机制，以确保受害方获得全部赔偿。

总之，在责任机制问题上，《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》虽然原则上均为严格责任制，相关规定不免存在一定偶合；但更多是互有差异，总体上属于两套不同体系，应分别进行全盘把握，分清脉络，不宜张冠李戴，混淆错乱。

陈梁教授和袁伟明律师对本文有宝贵贡献，在此致谢。

关键词：《1992油污公约》  《2001燃油公约》  责任机制

《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》责任机制问题向来以专业、复杂闻名，且争论不息，以致其本义晦涩难明。因其均属国际条约，故应适用《1969维也纳条约法公约》解释之。

按《1969维也纳条约法公约》第三十一条，“条约应依其用语按其上下文并参照条约之目的及宗旨所具有之通常意义，善意解释之”，此处“上下文”包括条约之弁言、附件及“全体当事国间因缔结条约所订与条约有关之任何协定”等。

本文将据此对勘《1992油污公约》和《2001燃油公约》责任机制，包括：（1）责任场景；（2）责任主体；（3）归责原则；（4）免责和减责情形；（5）定责法律关系；（6）责任限制；（7）责任承担后之追偿；（8）责任增补与双层赔偿等，并对相关问题进行系统简评，作为进一步探讨之基础。

一、责任场景：《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》适用的船舶类型及油类污染事故。

（一）《1992油污公约》适用于油轮泄露或排放货油或其燃油造成的污染事故。

按《1992油污公约》第1条第1项，简而言之“船舶”是指油轮，具体是指“any sea-going vessel and seaborne craft of any type whatsoever constructed or adapted for the carriage of oil in bulk as cargo, provided that a ship capable of carrying oil and other cargoes shall be regarded as a ship only when it is actually carrying oil in bulk as cargo and during any voyage following such carriage unless it is proved that it has no residues of such carriage of oil in bulk aboard”。

按《1992油污公约》第1条第5项，“油类”指上述油轮所载货油或其燃油。

（二）《2001燃油公约》适用于除《1992油污公约》所述油轮之外海船泄露或排放其燃油造成的污染事故。

按《2001燃油公约》第四条“除外”规定，本公约不适用于《1992油污公约》范围内的油污损害。

另按《2001燃油公约》第1条第1项和第5项，“船舶”是指任何海船，“燃油”是指该船运转或推进所需燃油。

简评：结合这两方面规定可知，《2001燃油公约》与《1992油污公约》在适用范围上不存在任何重叠，而是互补关系，即《2001燃油公约》适用于《1992油污公约》所述油轮之外的海船泄露或排放其燃油引起的油污事故。

二、责任主体：《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》定义的船东范围。

（一）《1992油污公约》定义的船东范围

按《1992油污公约》第一条第3项，“船东”是指登记的船舶所有人或者实际所有人（若无登记的船舶所有人）。

（二）《2001燃油公约》定义的船东范围

按《2001燃油公约》第一条第3项和第4项，“船东”包括登记的船舶所有人或实际的船舶所有人（若无登记的船舶所有人）、光船承租人、船舶管理人和经营人。

简评：在责任主体方面，《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》对“船东”定义了不同范围。具体来说，《1992油污公约》中“船东”为单一主体，即登记的或实际的船舶所有人；而《2001燃油公约》中“船东”为复多主体，除登记的或实际的船舶所有人外，还包括光船承租人、船舶管理人和经营人。

三、归责原则：《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》下漏油船船东严格责任制

（一）《1992油污公约》下漏油船船东严格责任制

按《1992油污公约》第三条第1款：“Except as provided in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article, the owner of a ship at the time of an incident, or, where the incident consists of a series of occurrences, at the time of the first such occurrence, shall be liable for any pollution damagecaused by the ship as a result of the incident”。

另按《1992油污公约》第三条第4款：“Subject to paragraph 5 of this Article, no claim for compensation for pollution damage under this Convention or otherwise may be made against: (a) the servants or agents of the owner or the members of the crew; (b) the pilot or any other person who, without being a member of the crew, performs services for the ship; (c) any charterer (how so ever described, including a bareboat charterer), manager or operator of the ship; (d) any person performing salvage operations with the consent of the owner or on the instruction of a competent public authority; (e) any person taking preventive measures; (f) all servants or agents of persons mentioned in subparagraphs (c), (d) and (e), unless the damage resulted from their personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result.”

简评：《1992油污公约》通过第三条第1款和第4款从正反两个方面确立了漏油船之船东严格责任制。其中第1款从正面规定漏油船船东严格责任，第4款从反面排除船东利益方的责任，弥补了《1992油污公约》对船东之定义仅限于登记的或实际的船舶所有人而引起的潜在缺漏，关闭了绕过船东而借道船东利益方打开船东风险敞口的后门，强化了漏油船船东严格责任制。

（二）《2001燃油公约》下漏油船船东严格责任制

按《2001燃油公约》第三条第1款，“Except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4, the shipowner at the time of an incident shall be liable for pollution damage caused by any bunker oil on board or originating from the ship, provided that, if an incident consists of a series of occurrences having the same origin, the liability shall attach to the shipowner at the time of the first of such occurrences”。

另按《2001燃油公约》第三条第2款，“When more than one person is liable in accordance with paragraph 1, their liability shall be joint and severe”。

简评：考虑到《2001燃油公约》中船东定义之复多性，该公约第三条第1款在对漏油船船东严格责任制作出规定后，又通过第2款对船东之中复多主体之间的连带责任进行了规定，使此严格责任制臻于精密。这与《1992油污公约》中船东定义之单一性及反向限制责任主体分属不同旨趣，但其最终导向均为根据不同情形以相应的不同方式限定船东严格责任制。

另须指出，所谓“严格责任制”只是一种理论术语，而非具有法律约束力之规定。结合本文两份公约，此处严格责任系指《1992油污公约》中“liable for any pollution damagecaused by the ship”和《2001燃油公约》中“liable for pollution damage caused by any bunker oil on board or originating from the ship”。这两串短语并不简单，蕴含了两层含义，一是其归责原由仅以船舶造成油污之客观事实为要件，而不以主观过错为要件，采“caused by”标准；二是其归责范围为任何油污损失，而非部分油污损失，采“any damage”标准。因此，忽视其中任何一层含义都是对严格责任制理解不全面的表现，而任何一层含义都不像其表面看起来如此简单，而可据之作出更深入推导。

四、定责法律关系：《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》下向漏油船船东索赔之排他性法律依据。

（一）《1992油污公约》下向漏油船船东索赔的排他性法律依据

按《1992油污公约》第三条第4款，“No claim for compensation for pollution damage may be made against the owner otherwise than in accordance with this Convention.”

（二）《2001燃油公约》下向漏油船船东索赔的排他性法律依据

按《2001燃油公约》第三条第5款，“No claim for compensation for pollution damage shall be made against the shipowner otherwise than in accordance with this Convention.”

简评：在向漏油船船东索赔问题上，《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》基本一致，均规定了排他性法律依据，使这两部公约在此问题上优先于缔约国相关国内法。值得注意的是，上述规定有三处留白：

1、该规定没有指出受害方是否有权向漏油船船东之外第三方索赔；如可，适用何种法律？

2、该规定没有指出谁向漏油船船东索赔，受害方还是第三方？具体来说，若受害方向漏油船船东之外第三方索赔，该第三方是否有权代位受害方向漏油船船东索赔？

3、进一步，受害方根据《1992油污公约》或《2001燃油公约》之外法律规定向漏油船船东之外第三方索赔的，是否还有权根据《1992油污公约》或《2001燃油公约》下严格责任制要求漏油船船东承担全部赔偿责任，或者说这是否会导致受害方丧失根据《1992油污公约》或《2001燃油公约》向漏油船之船东索赔全部损失之权利，至少导致此权利受到限制？

图片

五、受害方向船东利益方和第三方索赔和受偿后权利转让：《1992油污公约》和《2001燃油公约》中受害方权利转让。

（一）《1992油污公约》中受害方权利转让

按《1992油污公约》，受害方向船东利益方或第三方索赔的，在受偿后应将相应权利转让给船东利益方或第三方行使。

首先，关于漏油船船东及其利益方在责任限制基金分配前向受害方预付赔款问题，按《1992油污公约》第五条第5款，“If before the fund is distributed the owner or any of his servants or agents or any person providing him insurance or other financial security has as a result of the incident in question, paid compensation for pollution damage, such person shall, up to the amount he has paid, acquire by subrogation the rights which the person so compensated would have enjoyed under this Convention.”

其次，关于第三方在责任限制基金分配前向受害方预付赔款问题，按《1992油污公约》第五条第6款，“The right of subrogation provided for in paragraph 5 of this Article may also be exercised by a person other than those mentioned therein in respect of any amount of compensation for pollution damage which he may have paid but only to the extent that such subrogation is permitted under the applicable national law. ”按此规定，在一国国内法允许范围内，若受害方向漏油船之外第三方索赔，则其索赔范围内之权利将转移给该第三方行使。

最后，关于船东及第三方在限制基金分配后向受害方待付赔款问题，按《1992油污公约》第五条第7款，“Where the owner or any other person establishes that he may be compelled to pay at a later date in whole or in part any such amount of compensation, with regard to which such person would have enjoyed a right of subrogation under paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Article, had the compensation been paid before the fund was distributed, the court or other competent authority of the State where the fund has been constituted may order that a sufficient sum shall be provisionally set aside to enable such person at such late date to enforce his claim against the fund.”按此规定，若受害方在漏油船责任限制基金之外另行向漏油船及第三方索赔，则该项索赔仍应从漏油船责任限制基金中拨付，漏油船责任以其责任限制基金为限。

（二）《2001燃油公约》中受害方权利转让

《2001燃油公约》本身并无与《1992油污公约》第五条第5款至第7款类似规定，但《2001燃油公约》第六条“责任限制”提到的《1976海事赔偿责任限制公约》之第12条第2款至第4款为同等规定。

简评：《1992油污公约》和《2001燃油公约》提到的船东利益方和第三方向受害方赔偿后代位行使相关权利之规定，至少有五方面暗示：

1、虽然《1992油污公约》规定不得根据该公约要求船东利益方承担油污赔偿责任，但受害方仍可根据其他法律规定要求船东利益方承担此责任，只不过受害方在受偿后应将相应权利转让给船东利益方行使；

2、《1992油污公约》没有规定船东及其利益方之外第三方是否应承担油污责任，受害方可根据其他法律规定要求该第三方承担此责任；同样，在相关国内法允许情况下受害方受偿后也应将相关权利转让给第三方向漏油船船东行使。

3、漏油船船东仅以《1992油污公约》规定的责任限额为限承担油污赔偿责任，不因受害方选择不同索赔路径而受影响。

4、受害方不得重复索赔，在从船东利益方或第三方受偿后，相应权利应自动转让。

5、船东利益方或第三方在《1992油污公约》或《2001燃油公约》之外向受害方赔偿后，有权在赔偿范围内代位受害方行使相关权利获取救济。

进一步，按《2001燃油公约》前言中“Recognizing the importance of establishing strict liability for all forms of oil pollution which is linked to an appropriate limitation of the level of that liability”，严格责任制与适当责任限制相关联。换言之，若受害方准备享受严格责任制之便利，就应受到适当责任限制之制约。或者说，受害方不得既享有漏油船严格责任制便利，又不受漏油船责任限制制约，导致漏油船船东既承担严格责任，又不得享受责任限制。为保证漏油船在实效上享受责任限制，若受害方选择向漏油船船东之外第三方索赔的，在其从第三方获偿后，也应在获偿范围内将相应权利转让给第三方向漏油船行使。换言之，若第三方（包括船舶碰撞中有过失但没有漏油船舶一方）在自身过失比例范围内向受害方支付了油污损害赔偿，则该第三方有权在其赔偿范围内取得代位受害方向漏油方追偿之权利或者与漏油方向第三方追偿权相互冲抵，第三方从漏油方获赔权利则相应扣减，从而实现漏油方、第三方及受害方权利义务平衡。

最后，《1992油污公约》和《2001燃油公约》为受害方提供了一条索赔和受偿“捷径”，供受害方选用。若受害方偏离这条“捷径”而选择向第三方索赔和受偿，从公平角度看，其从第三方受偿后对相应索赔已无权利可言，理应将相关权利转让给第三方，不得向漏油船重复索赔，而应由该第三方向漏油船主张相应权利。此受害方权利转让机制一方面降低了受害方索赔便捷度，另一方面使得受害方不得不当得利，得不偿失，客观上对受害方偏离《1992油污公约》和《2001燃油公约》具有抑制作用，从另一个角度强化了而非架空了《1992油污公约》和《2001燃油公约》设置的漏油船严格责任制。

须指出，按《1992油污公约》和《2001燃油公约》，受害方从漏油船船东利益方受偿后权利转让未附条件，但受害方从其他第三方受偿后权利转让则以相关国内法允许为条件。至于何为“国内法允许”、采用何种标准认定“国内法允许”，有待进一步探讨。

六、责任承担后之追偿：《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》下漏油船船东向第三方追偿之权利。

（一）《1992油污公约》下漏油船船东向第三方追偿之权利

按《1992油污公约》第三条第5款，“Nothing in this Convention shall prejudice any right of recourse of the owner against third parties.”

（二）《2001燃油公约》下漏油船船东向第三方追偿之权利

按《2001燃油公约》第三条第6款，“Nothing in this Convention shall prejudice any right of recourse of the shipowner which exists independently of this Convention.”

简评：在漏油船船东向第三方追偿问题上，《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》基本相同，但《2001燃油公约》明确此追偿权独立于公约，另行适用相关法律。至于此种追偿权之正当性，则根源于严格责任制。所谓严格责任制，除不以过错作为归责原由外，还有一层含义在于不论行为人是否有过错、不论其过失比例大小均应对全部损失承担责任。申言之，严格责任制对应损失不是任何比例的部分损失，而是全部损失，包括第三方（如船舶碰撞中有过失但未漏油船舶一方等）过失比例所造成的部分损失，这正是《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》赋予漏油船向第三方追偿的正当性所在，也是严格责任制应有之义。

七、免责和减责情形：《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》中漏油船船东免责和减责情形。

（一）《1992油污公约》中漏油船船东免责和减责情形

按《1992油污公约》第三条第2款：“No liability for pollution damage shall attach to the owner if he proves that the damage: (a) resulted from an act of war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or a natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible character, or (b) was wholly caused by an act or omission done with intent to cause damage by a third party, or (c) was wholly caused by the negligence or other wrongful act of any Government or other authority responsible for the maintenance of lights or other navigational aids in the exercise of that function.”

按《1992油污公约》第三条第3款：“If the owner proves that the pollution damage resulted wholly or partially either from an act or omission done with intent to cause damage by the person who suffered the damage or from the negligence of that person, the owner may be exonerated wholly or partially from his liability to such person.”

（二）《2001燃油公约》中漏油船船东免责和减责情形

按《2001燃油公约》第三条第3款：“No liability for pollution damage shall attach to the shipowner if the shipowner proves that: (a) the damage resulted from an act of war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or a natural phenomenon of an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible charterer; or (b) the damage was wholly caused by an act or omission done with the intent to cause damage by a third party; or (c) the damage was wholly caused by the negligence or other wrongful act of any Government or other authority responsible for the maintenance of lights or other navigational aids in the exercise of that function.”

按《2001燃油公约》第三条第4款：“If the shipowner proves that the pollution damage resulted wholly or partially either from an act or omission done with intent to cause damage by the person who suffered the damage or from the negligence of that person, the shipowner may be exonerated wholly or partially from liability to such person.”

简评：在漏油船船东免责和减责事由上，《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》完全一致，盖此为严格责任制下免责和减责事由之通例。

八、责任限制：《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》下漏油船船东责任限制。

（一）《1992油污公约》下漏油船船东责任限制

按《1992油污公约》第五条第1款，船东有权限制本公约下之责任，每次事故总限额计算如下（略）。

（二）《2001燃油公约》下漏油船船东责任限制。

按《2001燃油公约》第六条“责任限制”，“Nothing in this Convention shall affect the right of the shipowner and the person or persons providing insurance or other financial security to limit liability under any applicable national or international regime, such as the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, as amended.”

简评：《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》基于不同责任场景和不同主体等为不同油污损害赔偿责任设置了不同责任限制水平。

九、责任增补与双层赔偿：《1992油污公约》中船东责任之上《1992基金公约》及《2003补充基金议定书》下货油方补充承担的油污责任。

首先指出，《2001燃油公约》下只有漏油船严格责任及其责任限制单层责任，并无其他增补责任和双层赔偿。

回到《1992油污公约》，在此公约规定的漏油船严格责任及其责任限制之上，还有货油方根据《1992基金公约》及《2003补充基金议定书》补充承担的油污责任，从而形成双层赔偿制度，以确保受害方获得全部赔偿。

按《1992基金公约》前言，“Considering However that this regime dose not afford full compensation for victims of oil pollution damage in all cases while it imposes an additional financial burden on shipowners, Considering Further that the economic consequences of oil pollution damage resulting from the escape or discharge of oil carried in bulk at sea by ships should not exclusively be borne by the shipping industry but should in part be borne by the oil cargo interests, Convinced of the need to elaborate a compensation and indemnification system supplementary to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage with a view to ensuring that full compensation will be available to victims of oil pollution incidents and that the shipowners are at the same time given relief in respect of the additional financial burden imposed on them by the said convention”。

另按《2003补充基金议定书》前言，“The Contracting States to The Present Protocol, Bearing in Mind the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (hereinafter “the 1992 Liability Convention”), Having Considered the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (hereinafter “the 1992 Fund Convention”), Affirming the importance of maintaining the viability of the international oil pollution liability and compensation system, Noting that the maximum compensation afforded by the 1992 Fund Convention might be insufficient to meet compensation needs in certain circumstances in some Contracting States to that Convention, Recognizing that a number of Contracting States to the 1992 Liability and 1992 Fund Conventions consider it necessary as a matter of urgency to make available additional funds for compensation through the creation of a supplementary scheme to which States may accede if they so wish, Believing that the supplementary scheme should seek to ensure that victims of oil pollution damage are compensated in full for their loss or damage and should also alleviate the difficulties faced by victims in cases where there is a risk that the amount of compensation available under the 1992 Liability and 1992 Fund Conventions will be insufficient to pay established claims in full and that as a consequence the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, 1992, has decided provisionally that it will pay only a proportion of any established claim”。

简评：如《1992基金公约》及《2003补充基金议定书》前言所述，大型油轮承运货油一旦发生事故容易造成严重油污事故，引起巨额索赔。这种风险单独由航运业承担不堪重负，且在海上运输过程中泄露或排放之油类多为货油，故由货油方对超出漏油船责任限制的油污索赔承担一定补充责任具有正当性。在此双层赔偿机制下，《1992油污公约》设定的漏油船严格责任制及油污赔偿责任限制系航运业为油污损害承担责任的风险敞口，而超过部分则由货油方以基金和补充基金的方式承担，以保障受害方获得全部赔偿。

总之，在责任机制问题上，《1992油污公约》与《2001燃油公约》虽然原则上均为严格责任制，相关规定不免存在一定偶合，如免责和减责情形、定责法律关系、受害方权利转让等；但更多是互有差异，包括责任场景、责任主体、归责原则、责任限制、责任承担后之追偿、是否存在双层赔偿机制等重要问题，总体上属于两套不同体系，应分别进行全盘把握，分清脉络，不宜张冠李戴，混淆错乱。         

任5，于广州

2022年2月14日