作者：大海法

【导读按语】

中国海事司法实践中有一个持续争议近40年的问题——污染受害人是否有权直接向船舶碰撞中非漏油船索赔污染损失，可谓是中国海事法律界中的“哥德巴赫猜想”。最高人民法院于2019年9月20日、11月8日就“达飞佛罗里达”轮碰撞漏油污染四案分别作出（2018）最高法民再368号、369号与367号、370号民事判决，认定：燃油公约仅规定漏油船的污染赔偿责任，并不涉及非漏油碰撞船的责任，非漏油碰撞船的责任承担问题应当依据国内法确定，故漏油船所有人作为污染者依据燃油公约规定的无过错责任原则对污染损害承担全部赔偿责任，非漏油的碰撞船舶所有人依据国内法关于过错责任原则的规定按照其过错比例承担责任（两船对污染受害人承担不真正连带责任）。上述370号案、368号案分别被最高人民法院评为“2019年度人民法院环境资源类典型案例”和“2019年全国海事审判典型案例”。但是，问题还似乎没完，有人仍坚持认为CLC和燃油公约体系下油污受害人不能直接向非漏油碰撞船舶所有人索赔，而只能向漏油船舶所有人索赔。经查阅三本英美海事法律专著，其著者基本一致持与上述判决基本相同意见：第一，CLC和燃油公约均不涉及非漏油碰撞船舶的责任问题；第二，公约体制并不限制油污受害人向碰撞漏油船方面主体以外的其他责任主体索赔；第三，油污受害人可以依据其他法律规定（国内法）向非漏油碰撞船舶索赔，其中一个著者还特别指出如果适用英国法，污染受害人可以向碰撞任何一方提出全额索赔。问题出现是客观的，但成因也许是主观的，与我们的学习态度、研究方法、思维方式紧密相关。该类争论是否需要在中国海事司法界延续下去，推荐同仁研读以下三本专著也许有助于评判，也可能有望终结这个海事“哥德巴赫猜想”。

【导读正文】

有关船舶污染责任与赔偿问题最著名的著作是Shipping and the Environment（2009年，第二版），此外，船舶碰撞经典专著Marsden and Gault on Collisions at Sea（2021年，第15版）中有关于污染责任的专章，2013年出版的论文合集Pollution at Sea也集合了西方主流学者的新近观点。以下是三本著作关于非漏油船责任承担问题的摘录及翻译：

英国学者Colin De La Rue和美国学者Charles B Anderson在该书第17章的“非漏油碰撞船舶”（Non-spilling colliding ship）部分中认为（第669-670页）：

The international compensation regimes channel liability to the owner of the ship from which an escape of oil or other polluting substance occurs, and they do not provide a basis for claims against non-spilling vessels involved in collisions which result in pollution……However, these regimes contain nothing to prevent claims being brought against colliding vessels on some other basis of liability. Although the international regimes contain in some cases so-called channelling provisions, which exclude the liability of certain parties other than the owner of the spilling ship, the owners of colliding ships are not among those whose liability is excluded in this way.

The owners of colliding ships may therefore incur liability to pay damages for pollution independently of the compensation regimes, normally on the basis of liability in tort for negligence causing or contributing to the collision.

Although in practice the owners of colliding ships normally incur liability by way of recourse to the owners of the spilling ship, after the latter have paid claims under statutory compensation regimes, there are nonetheless various situations in which third parties who suffer pollution damage may have reasons for pursuing claims directly against the colliding ship. These include those where the statutory regimes do not apply; or where claims against the spilling ship exceed the owner’s liability limit and no other sources of compensation are available; or where the owner of the spilling ship is financially incapable of fulfilling his obligations; or where a claim against the owner of the spilling ship is barred by a statutory time limit which is shorter than that applicable to a claim against the colliding ship.

Most importantly, the legal rights against the colliding ship of the parties who suffered the pollution damage may need to be considered in cases where a recourse action is brought against it by a compensation body subrogated to their rights.

       【参考译文】

国际赔偿制度归责于泄漏油类或其它污染物质的船舶所有人，其本身没有可供向造成污染的非漏油船进行索赔的依据……但是，这些制度没有任何条款限制污染受害方依据其它责任基础向（非漏油）碰撞船索赔。尽管国际赔偿制度包含在一定情况下适用的归责条款，排除了漏油船以外的一些主体的责任，但（非漏油）碰撞船不在其列。

因此，（非漏油）碰撞船的所有人可以独立于公约体系赔付污染损害，其责任基础通常是因过失导致碰撞而承担的侵权责任。

尽管实践中通常是漏油船根据法定赔偿制度支付赔偿款后，再向非漏油船提起追偿而使其承担责任，但很多情况下遭受污染损害的第三方仍可以直接向（非漏油）碰撞船提出索赔，这种情况通常是由于法定赔偿制度不适用、向漏油船索赔的金额超过其责任限制、不能通过其他方式得到赔偿，以及向漏油船的索赔时效比向非漏油船索赔时效短。

最重要的是，在取得代位权的赔偿机构向（非漏油）碰撞船提起追偿诉讼时，污染受害人向（非漏油）碰撞船索赔的法定权利可能需要考虑。

此外，该书论及英国法下对非漏油船责任认定问题的观点对了解普通法下的连带责任也具参考价值（第673页）：

In the UK and other common law jurisdictions the general principle developed that joint tortfeasors were jointly and severally liable for loss or damage to third parties, so that each could be sued for the full amount (subject to deduction of any amount actually recovered from the other). This obviated the need for the claimant to prove the degree of fault of either defendant, and left the ultimate apportionment of the loss to be resolved between them in the context of a recourse claim by the paying party for contribution.

This principle was altered in admiralty actions governed by the Collision Convention and subject to its rule of apportionment by degree of fault. However, in respect of claims outside the scope of this rule it remains the governing principle in the UK that claims against joint tortfeasors may be brought on a joint and several basis. Accordingly, if English law is applied to claim by a third party for pollution damage, the claim may be pursued for the full amount against the owners of each ship.

【参考译文】

英国和其他普通法国家，通常是由共同侵权人就第三方的损失承担共同连带责任，因此第三方可以向每个侵权人提出全额索赔（扣除已从另一侵权人获得的赔偿额）。这免除了原告证明每个被告过错程度的责任，并将最终的损失分摊留到侵权人之间的追偿诉讼中。

这种规则在适用碰撞公约的海事诉讼中有所变化，并适用过错比例的分摊原则。然而，公约范围之外的索赔仍然适用英国原有的责任原则，即以连带责任向共同侵权人提出索赔。因此，如果遭受污染损害的第三方提出的索赔适用英国法，那么可以向任何一艘船的所有人都提出全额索赔。

二、Pollution at Sea (Informa, 2013)

英国学者Colin De La Rue在Pollution at Sea一书中的观点为（第14页）：

In common with CLC, the Bunkers Convention provides that no claim for pollution damage may be made against the shipowner other than in accordance with the convention; and it does not impose liability on parties other than those within the definition of “shipowner”, and the insurer of the registered owner. However it does not contain any provisions excluding liability independently of the convention which other parties may incur.

This is in contrast with the position under CLC 92, which contains so-called “channelling” provisions stipulating that claims for pollution damage from tankers cannot be brought (under the Convention or otherwise) against various parties including the servants or agents of the owner; any charterer, manager or operator of the ship; or anyone performing salvage operation……The absence of channelling provisions in the Bunkers convention therefore leaves open the possibility of claims being pursued independently of the convention against parties other than the shipowner. In states where LLMC is in force their liability may by subject to limitation under that convention, and to aggregation with that of the shipowner for limitation purpose. However, if rights of limitation are governed by a national regime other than LLMC, and no similar provisions apply, the overall exposure of the shipowner and other parties may be relatively onerous.

【参考译文】

与CLC一致，燃油公约规定，不得向船舶所有人提出与公约不相符的污染损害索赔要求。除“船舶所有人”定义范围内的各方以及油污保险人之外，公约没有规定其他责任主体。但是，公约也不包含任何排除其他方独立于公约之外承担责任的规定。

与CLC92的立场进行比较，CLC包含“归责条款”，规定对油轮污染损害的索赔不得（在公约或其它法律规定下）向包括船舶所有人的雇员、代理人，任何承租人、管理人、经营人，或是任何进行救助作业的人提出。。。。。。由于燃油公约中缺失“归责条款”，为独立于公约而向船舶所有人以外的主体提起索赔留出了空间。在LLMC生效的国家，可就索赔总额享受公约下责任限额。然而，如果限制责任的权利由国内法调整而不是LLMC调整，也没有类似规定可适用，船舶所有人和其他方的总体责任可能会相对较重。

此外，英国学者Andrew Tettenborn在该书中的观点为（第220页脚注113）：

Though note the reference to “the ship”: i.e. the ship from which the pollution physically came. There is no ban on direct action by pollution victims against owners, charterers or managers of, or anyone else connected with, another ship responsible for (say) a collision causing the first ship to shed her oil cargo or bunkers (as happened in The Esso Bernicia [1989] A.C. 643, Note 22 above)

【参考译文】

虽然公约中“该船”指的是物理上释放污染物的船舶，没有任何条款禁止污染受害者直接向另一艘对碰撞负有责任的船舶的所有人、承租人、管理人及其他相关方提起诉讼（如The Esso Bernicia [1989] A.C. 643，上文脚注22）

三、Marsden and Gault on Collisions at Sea (Sweet & Maxwell, 15th edition, 2021)

英国学者John Kimbell 和Andrew Tettenborn在该书第九章“污染责任”（Pollution Liabilities）中写到（第370页，9-014）：

If the pollution incident is covered by the CLC but an owner is specifically exempted, the claimant cannot recover against him on any of the basis. Nor can be bypass the scheme of owner’s liability by pursuing any of the defendants mentioned in art.III.4 (though he can pursue claims against persons other than the owner or those parties under non-CLC provisions: for example, the owner, master and crew of a vessel which collides with a tanker, the owners of a tug whose negligence causes the spill, the vessel’s builder, or the manufacture of any components whose failure caused the spill).

【参考译文】

如果污染事故适用CLC公约，但是所有人被免除责任，索赔人不能基于任何理由再向该所有人索赔，也不能通过起诉第３条第４款规定的任何被告绕开该制度（然而，他可以对所有人以外的其他人，或非公约规定的那些人提起索赔，例如与油轮碰撞的另一船的所有人、船长和船员，因过失引起溢油的拖轮所有人，船舶的建造人，或是因零部件失灵而导致溢油的零部件制造商）。