| The collision of the ship leads to the oil leakage of the ship and thus causes oil pollution damage,which often involves a relatively complex legal relationship and involves more subjects.The academic community and judicial practice are often confused about the responsibility for non-oil-leaking vessel.The Supreme People’s Court’s retrial decision on the M.V CMA CGM Florida round case made the debate more heated.In the accident of oil pollution damage caused by oil spill from ship collision,there are two legal relationships which are independent of each other,namely,the legal relationship of compensation for ship collision damage and the legal relationship of compensation for ship oil pollution damage,and in this context they are connected,and there is a causal relationship between the tort of non-oil spill ship and the fact of oil pollution damage,and the non-oil spill ship should be responsible for the fact of oil pollution damage.However,both international conventions and domestic laws lack clear provisions on the way to assume liability for non-oil spill ships.By reviewing the four actual judgments on non-oil spill ships in the past and the different academic views represented behind them,it can be seen that: there is a deviation in understanding between different views on the subject of liability under international conventions for oil pollution damage,and it also involves the application of international conventions and our domestic law.There is no essential difference between the Bunker and the CLC in terms of dealing with the rights and obligations of oil pollution aggrieved parties and oil pollution injured parties,except for the different subject scope of ship owners and the absence of independent limits and secondary fund compensation.According to these two conventions,the only person responsible for oil pollution damage is the owner of the oil spill vessel,and the principle of strict liability applies,with "Who Spills Who pays" being the basic principle of oil pollution damage compensation.In the case of ship collision and oil spill,China’s domestic law cannot be directly applied to determine the liability of non-oil spill ships to the injured party of pollution,and the oil pollution victim can only seek compensation from the oil spill ship in accordance with the provisions of the Convention when claiming compensation for oil pollution damage,but the domestic law can provide a basis for the oil spill ship to recover internally from the non-oil spill ship after compensating the injured party.Combining the existing problems and the analysis of this thesis,the current favorable time for the revision of the Maritime Law,insisting on the provisions of Article 252 of the draft Maritime Law is a more ideal solution,and at the same time,we should continue to insist on improving China’s ship oil pollution damage compensation fund system,and consider continuing to raise the limit of maritime liability on the basis of the draft revision of the Maritime Law for examination,so as to dispel the concern that the victims cannot be compensated by solving the problem of actual performance. |
