국제유류오염손해배상제도의 타당성에 대한 비판적 검토 = A Critical Study on the Adequacy of International Regime of Oil Pollution Damage

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

1969 CLC(1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage) and 1971 FC(1971 International Convention on Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage) were established to regulate oil pollution damage by a tanker since the ‘Torry Canyon 1967’ accident. The regime of CLC and FC has regulated oil pollution damage from thenceforth successfully. But the major oil pollution accidents such as ‘Erika 1999’ and ‘Prestige 2000’ have raised questions from a perspective of adequate compensation for and prevention of oil pollution damage. To answer the questions, the two Protocols (‘2000 Protocol’ and ‘2003 Protocol’) have been adapted for increasing liability limits and establishing the Fund for supplementing shortages respectively.
Despite all the changes to the compensation regime for oil pollution damage through the years, some principles have remained essentially unchanged since its establishment. The unchanged vital principles are strict liability, channeling of liability, limitation of liability and compulsory insurance and Some of them have been criticized especially by the countries in EU.
The goal of this article is to critically examine to the extent that the main features of current CLC and FC match with the aim or function of liability law, inter alia from a perspective of adequate compensation for and prevention of oil pollution damage. This article argues that channeling of liability and limitation of liability conflict with the aim and function of liability rule in that they deter from providing adequate compensation to a victim and encouraging optimal incentives to prevent the accident risk. Although there are some problems as seen the above, it is not desirable to consider the adequacy of CLC and FC regime only on the legal-theoretical grounds, but also it needs to consider the practical demands of related parties. Therefore this paper proposes some devices to harmonize the practical demands of industries with the aim of liability law.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이승우, "해양유류오염손해배상ㆍ보상제도" 한국환경법학회 30 (30): 163-188, 2008
• 2 송상현, "해상법원론" 박영사 2005
• 3 목진용, "최근의 국제유류오염손해 보상제도 개편 동향" 1211 : 2006
• 4 이은영, "채권각론" 박영사 2008
• 5 신옥주, "유조선 에리카(Erika)호 사고와 EU의 대응에 관한 고찰" 법학연구소 24 (24): 257-274, 2008
• 6 김인현, "유류오염손해배상보장체제의 변화-해운계의 법률적 이슈(4)" 2006
• 7 최종현, "유류오염손해배상보장법의 개정방향" 한국해법학회 28 (28): 113-136, 2006
• 8 윤효영, "유류오염 손해배상책임에 관한 연구-그 성립과 범위를 중심으로-" 고려대학교 2002
• 9 윤용석, "위험책임의 입법론적 과제" 4 (4): 1998
• 10 김창준, "운송인의 책임제한 배제사유" 한국해법학회 29 (29): 7-35, 2007
• 11 오수근, "운송인의 손해배상책임제한에 관한 역사적 고찰" 5 (5): 1993
• 12 김인현, "선박운항과 관련한 책임주체확정에 대한 연구-해상기업을 중심으로-" 고려대학교대학원 1998
• 13 채이식, "상법강의(하)" 박영사 1996
• 14 정찬형, "상법강의(하)" 박영사 2005
• 15 정동윤, "상법(하)" 박영사 2003
• 16 김준호, "민법강의" 법문사 2008
• 17 박동진, "損害賠償法의 指導原理와 機能" 한국비교사법학회 11 (11): 291-322, 2004
• 18 Staring,Graydon S, "The Roots and False Aspersions of Shipowner's Limitation of Limitation" 39 : 315-, 2008
• 19 Faure, Michael G, "The International Regimes for the Compensation of Oil-Pollution Damage: Are they Effective?" 12 (12): 2003
• 20 Jacobson,Mans, "The International Liability and Compensation Regime for Oil Pollution From Ships-International Solutions for a Global Problem" 32 : 1-, 2007
• 21 Farue, Michael G, "Liability for Oil Pollution: Recent Developments" 12 (12): 2004
• 22 Billah, Muhammad Masum, "Economic Analysis of Limitation of Shipowner' Liability" 19 : 297-, 2006
• 23 Farue, Michael G, "Economic Analysis of Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage" 37 : 179-, 2006
• 24 Nesterowicz,Malgorzata Anna, "An Economic Analysis of compensation for oil pollution damage: recent developments in respect of international oil pollution compensation fund" 37 : 559-, 2006
• 25 목진용, "2003 보충기금협약 가입 및 유류오염손해보상체제 개편논의에 대한 대응방안" 한국해양수산개발원 2005