海上貨物運送人強制責任期間之研究

A Study on Compulsory Period of Responsibility of Sea Cargo Carrier

系所名稱：海洋法律研究所 學位別：碩士 畢業學年：95年 指導教授：柯澤東 本論文係探討我國海商法1999年修正後，海商法第63條及第76條之修正及增訂對海上運送人強制責任期間之影響。目前實務上由於貨櫃運送及多式聯運之使用，運送人往往在遠離港區之內陸收受及交付貨物。考量到實務現況，1999年美國海上貨物運送法草案及2005年聯合國貿易法委員會運送法公約草案均以海上運送法之規定為基礎，將適用範圍延伸至運送人收受至交付貨物時止之全部期間。2004年美國最高法院Norfolk Southern Ry v. James N Kirby案之判決，採取「概念性方法」，使內陸火車出軌貨損事件，亦能主張喜馬拉雅條款之保護。以上公約草案及Kirby案之判決雖非決定性，但可預知未來新公約法制將引起多式聯運及其他海運部分問題之激盪衝擊。本文首先說明強制責任期間之內涵，介紹各主要國際公約及各國立法例之規定，次對我國海商法修正沿革及相關規定，論述學者見解及整理法院判決實務，最後提出修法建議。

The purpose of this thesis is to discuss the effect on the compulsory period of responsibility of sea cargo carrier in amending the Article 63 and Article 76 of new Taiwanese Maritime law in 1999. Nowadays, regarding the practice of containerized transport and multimodal transport are often used by carriers, the carriers often receive and delivery the goods far away from the sea ports. Acknowledging the practice, an approach has been taken by U.S. Senate COGSA ’99 and UNCITRAL Draft Convention on Carriage of Goods 2005, using sea carriage as a base-line for extending to the period from a place at which the goods are taken in charge by the carrier to a place designated for delivery. Norfolk Southern Ry v. James N Kirby is one decision by the Supreme Court of the United States about the train wreck, The Supreme Court had taken “conceptual approach” that allowing inland carrier to claim protection under the Himalaya clauses. Although the draft convention and the Kirby decision mentioned above are not decisive, the new legal regime will affect to the multimodal transport and sea carriage. The paper discusses the concept of the compulsory period of responsibility, and then to introduce the international conventions and legal regime of the major nations; and then to further discuss the judicial decisions and the opinion of the scholars, and finally discuss the stipulation and defective of our Maritime Law.