Search

his chapter analyses the European and Chinese legal regimes dealing with marine oil pollution compensation from a comparative and economic perspective. Historically, EU countries have always been playing an active role in promoting higher standards of compensation as they were often victims of major oil spills. The legal regime in EU countries in compensating marine oil pollution victims is mainly in line with the international conventions, which is based on strict liability with an upper limit on the amount of compensation, plus a compulsory financial guarantee, and a compensation fund. Whereas in China, the compensation regime is only implementing the first layer of the international (and thus EU) regime, which is strict liability, limitation of liability, compulsory insurance. As for the compensation fund, China did not join the international fund as the EU countries do, but it has adopted a domestic fund. The efficiencies and effectiveness of these two regimes are thus analysed in this chapter through the use of economic analysis of law.

The traditional bill of lading is integral to the carriage of goods by sea. It serves as a receipt for goods taken by the carrier, is evidence of the carriage contract, and is a document of title functioning as a negotiable instrument. The corresponding instrument in railway transport is a consignment note, which serves as a receipt and is evidence of the contract but is not a title document and, like the sea waybill, is not a negotiable instrument. However, this may be changing in China. Since the first route of the China-Europe Railway Express (CERE), YuXinOu, started operations on 19 March 2011, along with the development of the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013, the CERE has been growing rapidly. Consequently, the traditional nature of the consignment note on the CERE route is facing challenges. There are expectations of it serving as a document of title and, similar to the maritime bill of lading, acquiring a transferability function. The first judgment of a Chinese court on a dispute involving a railway bill of lading was delivered on 30 June 2020. It was held in that decision that a railway bill of lading could be regarded as a valid document of title with the attendant function of transferability. Notably, however, no express legislation has thus far been adopted; nor has any judicial interpretation been given that specifies its legal nature, even if market demand and policy considerations are in favour of this decision. Accordingly, whether there is sufficient legal foundation to confirm that a railway bill of lading can serve as a negotiable document of title remains uncertain. This article attempts to address these crucial issues., Tradicionalna teretnica sastavni je dio prijevoza stvari morem. Ona služi kao potvrda da je prijevoznik preuzeo robu za prijevoz te je dokaz ugovora o prijevozu i prenosivi vrijednosni papir. Odgovarajuća prijevozna isprava u željezničkom prometu je teretni list koji služi kao potvrda i dokaz je ugovora, ali nije vrijednosni papir i nije prenosiv za razliku od teretnice u pomorskom prijevozu. Međutim, to bi se u Kini moglo promijeniti. Otkako je prva ruta China – Europe Railway Express (CERE), YuXinOu, počela s radom 19. ožujka 2011. godine, zajedno s razvojem inicijative »Jedan pojas, jedan put« 2013. godine, CERE je brzo rastao. U tom smislu, tradicionalna priroda teretnog lista na CERE ruti suočava se s izazovima. Postoje očekivanja kako će početi služiti kao vrijednosni papir i, slično kao pomorska teretnica, poprimiti funkciju prenosivosti. Prva takva presuda kineskog suda u sporu, koji uključuje željeznički teretni list, donesena je 30. lipnja 2020. godine. U toj odluci utvrđeno je kako se željeznički teretni list može smatrati valjanim vrijednosnim papirom s pratećom funkcijom prenosivosti. Primjetno je, međutim, da do sada u tom smislu nije usvojen nikakav izričit propis, niti postoji bilo kakvo sudsko tumačenje koje bi preciziralo njegovu pravnu prirodu, premda potražnja na tržištu i politička razmatranja idu u prilog ovoj odluci. U skladu s tim, ostaje neizvjesno postoji li dovoljna pravna osnova za potvrđivanje stava da željeznički teretni list služi kao prenosivi vrijednosni papir. U ovom radu autorica nastoji riješiti predmetna ključna pitanja.