第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
第一章 緒論
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機
聯合國全程或部分海上國際貨物運送契約公約（UN Convention on the Contracts of International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea），自1996 年開 始草擬，歷經大小數十次會議，迄2008 年 12 月 11 日於聯合國第 63 屆大會第 67 次會議於紐約審議通過，並於 2009 年 9 月 23 日在荷蘭鹿特丹開放簽署，公 約定名為鹿特丹規則，雖有若干歐盟國家及加拿大之公開杯葛，簽字儀式上已有 剛果、丹麥、法國、加彭、迦納、希臘、幾內亞、荷蘭、奈及利亞、挪威、波蘭、
塞內加爾、西班牙、瑞士、多哥及美國等16 國簽字，此後於紐約聯合國總部簽 字的又有亞美尼亞、喀麥隆、馬達加西加及尼日共和國等4 個國家，迄至 2011 年7 月 21 日瑞典簽字加入成為第 24 個簽約國，已滿足公約要求之 20 個簽署國 家數，以上包含開發中國家、已開發國家，涵括國際主要貿易國及海運大國。公 約將於第20 份批准書、接受書、核准書或加入書交存之日起一年期滿後的下一 個月第一日生效1。
現行之海上貨物運送公約，包括海牙規則、海牙威士比規則及漢堡規則，限 於公約定位及其訂定之年代，皆未涵蓋貨櫃戶對戶運送，對貨櫃運送之規範有所 欠缺。就非海運公約而言，鑑於貨櫃運送往往採用多式運送模式，現行之公路、
鐵路、航空方面之國際公約也從某些方面對貨櫃運送進行規範，但前開各公約之 適用範圍及賠償制度各異，相互矛盾衝突之處亦屢見不鮮，實不利於貨櫃運送法 律適用之穩定性，不免對貨櫃運送之發展造成障礙。故各國對多式運送國際統一 性之要求，愈為迫切，此即為訂定鹿特丹規則之主要目標之一。
1 鹿特丹規則第 94 條規定：「本公約於第二十份批准書、接受書、核准書或者加入書交存之
日起一年期滿後的下一個月第一日生效。」（This Convention enters into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of one year after the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.）。本文以下所述鹿特丹規則條文係採聯合國之官方 中文翻譯本，但以我國素來所採之用字用語表達，俾能清楚流暢論述。
‧
定。（“Contract of carriage” means a contract in which a carrier, against the payment of freight, undertakes to carry goods from one place to another. The contract shall provide for carriage by sea and may provide for carriage by other modes of transport in addition to the sea carriage.）3 鹿特丹規則第 82 條規定：「本公約之規定概不影響在本公約生效時已生效之規範運送人 船的貨物運送。（Nothing in this Convention affects the application of any of the following
international conventions in force at the time this Convention enters into force, including any future amendment to such conventions, that regulate the liability of the carrier for loss of or damage to the goods:
(a) Any convention governing the carriage of goods by air to the extent that such convention according to its provisions applies to any part of the contract of carriage;
(b) Any convention governing the carriage of goods by road to the extent that such convention according to its provisions applies to the carriage of goods that remain loaded on a road cargo vehicle carried on board a ship;
(c) Any convention governing the carriage of goods by rail to the extent that such convention according to its provisions applies to carriage of goods by sea as a supplement to the carriage by rail; or
(d) Any convention governing the carriage of goods by inland waterways to the extent that such convention according to its provisions applies to a carriage of goods without trans-shipment both by inland waterways and sea.）
‧
約相對性原則（privity of contract）。海運履行輔助人一方面承擔鹿特丹規則中運 送人之義務及賠償責任，另一方面則同時享有運送人之抗辯及賠償責任限制。從 完全在港區範圍內之服務時方為海運履行輔助人。」（Maritime performing party” means a performing party to the extent that it performs or undertakes to perform any of the carrier’s obligations during the period between the arrival of the goods at the port of loading of a ship and their departure from the port of discharge of a ship. An inland carrier is a maritime performing party only if it performs or undertakes to perform its services exclusively within a port area.）。5 鹿特丹規則第 19 條第 1 項規定：「符合下列條件者，海運履行輔助人必須承擔本公約對
運送人規定之義務及賠償責任，且有權享有本公約對運送人規定之抗辯及賠償責任限制：(a)海 運履行輔助人在一締約國為運送而收受或交付貨物，或在一締約國某一港口履行與貨物有關之各 種活動；並且(b)造成滅失、毀損或遲延交付之事件發生於：(i)貨物到達裝載港至貨物離開卸載 港之期間內；(ii)貨物在海運履行輔助人掌管期間內；或(iii)海運履行輔助人參與履行運送契約所 記載時間內之活動。（A maritime performing party is subject to the obligations and liabilities imposed on the carrier under this Convention and is entitled to the carrier’s defences and limits of liability as provided for in this Convention if: (a) The maritime performing party received the goods for carriage in a Contracting State, or delivered them in a Contracting State, or performed its activities with respect to the goods in a port in a Contracting State; and (b) The occurrence that caused the loss, damage or delay took place: (i) during the period between the arrival of the goods at the port of loading of the ship and their departure from the port of discharge from the ship; (ii) while the maritime performing party had custody of the goods; or (iii) at any other time to the extent that it was participating in the performance of any of the activities contemplated by the contract of carriage.）」
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
際趨勢，亦為與國際海運實務接軌，我國海商法相關章節之因應修正勢屬必然，
例如：鹿特丹規則中海運履行輔助人之意涵及實際適用範圍為何？其責任內涵及 抗辯事由有何具體規範？其與運送人間如何分擔賠償責任？鹿特丹規則中海運 履行輔助人相關規定有何利弊得失？與我國海商法之相關規定有何異同？有無 足供我國未來修法參考之方向？等問題，誠值研究。上述爭議，不但足以影響實 務執法之解釋、判斷，有定位及釐清之必要，而且彼此之間往往相互牽連，體系 上不容割裂。本文擬分析、評估有關文獻及實務見解，特別是以鹿特丹規則為主 題之文獻資料為研究基礎，期能對於海運履行輔助人制度有進一步的瞭解，並提 供我國海商法修正之參考。