|
|
|
| Application of Conflict of Law Rules for Tort in China: From the Perspective of the First Shipboard-tort Case Wherein the Damage Was Sustained on a Cruise Sailing in International Waters |
| Jin Pengnian, Tao Yang |
| Guanghua Law School, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310008, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Yang Shuying v. Carnival PLC is the first Chinese case wherein the physical damage was sustained on the board of a cruise sailing in international waters. Although the judgement of this case is acclaimed as an outstanding work in the judicial system, errors can still be found within its reasoning on choice-of-law issues. It is submitted that these errors eventually led the court to the conclusion that Article 44 of Law of the Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations of PRC (LALFCR), namely the general provision for the applicable law on tortious liabilities, is no longer capable of suggesting the applicable law for cases containing intricate facts. Consequently, the court abandoned LALFCR Article 44 and decided that the doctrine of the most significant relationship (the MSR doctrine) shall be the general rule in such cases. In order to prevent the judiciary from arbitrarily deciding on an “intricate case” and discretionarily applying the MSR doctrine, it is an important step to clear all these obstacles on the way to the application of LALFCR Article 44. That is, supporting rules shall be added and relevant trail techniques concerning the application of Article 44 shall be specified.First, the infringing act in Yang Shuying v. Carnival PLC does not accord with any special form of tort. Therefore, the general provision for the applicable law on tortious liabilities, namely LALFCR Article 44, shall be applied. This Article provides that the laws at the place of tort shall apply to liabilities for tort, but if the parties have a mutual habitual residence, the laws at the mutual habitual residence shall apply. Meanwhile, if the parties choose the applicable laws by agreement after any tort event takes place, the agreement shall prevail.Second, in Yang Shuying v. Carnival PLC, the court omitted to refer to the existing rule which stipulates the way of ascertaining the habitual residence of a legal person. This renders the finding on the habitual residence of the defendant company a defective one and makes the subsequent analysis on locus delicti completely groundless. It is submitted that it can be understandable that the court made such an omission, considering that the legislation itself does not actually provide a clear instruction for the determination of the habitual residence of a legal person, especially in situations where the legal persons involved are transnational companies. It is proposed that the definition of “habitual residence” suggested by Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) and relevant legislative practices in the European Union are two important references for the draft of supporting interpretations. It is also proposed that in the cases involving cruise companies, the places where home ports are situated shall be the focus when formulating these supporting rules.Third, with regard to the concurrence of locus delicti, the court in Yang Shuying v. Carnival PLC failed to determine a single locus delicti among several places of tort that appeared in this case. There is a lack of essential techniques concerning the application of the territorial rule when the court was trying to apply LALFCR Article 44. As a result, the court decided that LALFCR Article 44 is beyond any accommodation to the newly arisen cases containing intricate facts. It is worth noting that in China the concurrence of locus delicti are more likely to accord with “chain structure” and it is proposed that a two-tier filtering rule consisting of both “rule of presumption” and “rule of exclusions” shall hereto be applied as the guideline and rationale when dealing with the concurrence of locus delicti of this pattern.Last, it is the role of the MSR doctrine under Chinese legislation that shall be reiterated. In Yang Shuying v. Carnival PLC, the court abandoned LALFCR Article 44 on the excuse that this provision provides insufficient clues to the applicable law. Instead the court chose to turn to the MSR doctrine, a method providing even less guidance on the choice-of-law problems, and tried to make it the general rule in similar cases. As a common practice, a choice-of-law rule for torts usually includes the MSR doctrine in its exceptional clause together with a high threshold of triggering. In comparison to this, China is even more prudent about the role of the MSR doctrine under its legislation: the MSR doctrine can be invoked only in circumstances where no alternative rules can be found. Courts shall never expand their powers to discretionarily make references to the MSR doctrine in the case where alternative rules are available.
|
|
Received: 31 March 2022
|
|
|
|
1 孙思琪、郑睿： 《邮轮旅客人身损害责任纠纷四题——评中国邮轮旅客公海人身侵权第一案》，《大连海事大学学报（社会科学版）》2020年第2期，第1-12页。
2 张璜： 《跨国公司跨境迁移的法律适用问题》，《现代法学》2016年第6期，第165-175页。
3 邢钢： 《涉外公司法律适用的司法实践考察与法理分析》，《法学论坛》2019年第3期，第101-110页。
4 袁健洋： 《“商人”本质要素：主观意义营业——兼论商主体制度的法律建构》，见王保树主编： 《中国商法年刊》（2015年），北京：法律出版社，2015年，第446-452页。
5 Zhang M.， “Habitual residence v. domicile： a challenge facing American conflicts of laws，” Maine Law Review， Vol. 70， No. 2 （2018）， pp. 161-198.
6 He Q.， “Reconstruction of lex personalis in China，” International and Comparative Law Quarterly， Vol. 62， No. 1 （2013）， pp. 137-158.
7 Dicey A. V.， Morris J. H. C. & Collins L.， Dicey， Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws， London： Sweet & Maxwell， 2012.
8 Tzakas D. L.， “Civil antitrust liability in the international context： from Empagran to the Rome Ⅱ Regulation，” DAJV Newsletter， Vol. 37， No. 1 （2012）， pp. 19-27.
9 Goncalves A.， “The application of the Rome Ⅱ Regulation on the internet torts，” Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology， Vol. 7， No. 1 （2013）， pp. 35-48.
10 杜新丽： 《从住所、国籍到经常居所地——我国属人法立法变革研究》，《政法论坛》2011年第3期，第28-34页。
11 金彭年： 《侵权行为法律适用的新发展及中国的理论实践》，《法学研究》1993年第3期，第80-85页。
12 李双元、欧福永： 《国际私法》，北京：北京大学出版社，2018年。
13 金彭年： 《国际私法上侵权行为的法律适用》，《法学研究》1998年第3期，第132-140页。
14 徐房茹： 《涉外邮轮旅客人身损害赔偿案件法律适用分析——中美比较法视角》，见巢志雄主编： 《中山大学青年法律评论》第5卷，北京：法律出版社，2020年，第280-298页。
15 Sooksripaisarnkit P. & Lee D. Y.， “Identifying choice of law in the context of maritime torts，” University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal， Vol. 26， No. 2 （2014）， pp. 185-268.
16 秦瑞亭： 《冲突法的理论与实务》，北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社， 2007年。
17 Jurcys P.， “Applicable law to intellectual property infringements in Japan： alternative lex loci protectionis principle，” International Review of Law， Computers & Technology， Vol. 24， No. 2 （2010）， pp. 193-203.
18 林强： 《涉外侵权法律选择中的“侵权行为地”界定——从侵权一般冲突规则的解释切入》，《现代法学》2018年第4期，第161-175页。
19 孙森焱： 《民法债编总论》（上册），［出版者不详］，2013年。
20 向在胜： 《日本国际私法现代化的最新进展——从〈法例〉到〈法律适用通则法〉》，《时代法学》2009年第1期，第112-118页。
21 Ahern J. & Binchy W.， The Rome I Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-contractual Obligations， Leiden： Martinus Nijhoff Publishers， 2009.
22 Hoffheimer M. H.， Examples & Explanations for Conflict of Laws， New York： Wolters Kluwer， 2019.
23 Lehmann M.， “Where does economic loss occur，” Journal of Private International Law， Vol. 7， No. 3 （2011）， pp. 527-550.
24 谢振衔、郭灿： 《外籍邮轮人身损害赔偿责任纠纷的法律适用》，《人民司法》2019年第5期，第79-83页。
25 赵相林、杜新丽： 《国际民商事关系法律适用法立法原理》，北京：人民法院出版社，2006年。
26 黄进： 《中国涉外民事关系法律适用法的制定与完善》，《政法论坛》2011年第3期，第3-12页。
27 肖永平： 《中国国际私法立法的里程碑》，《法学论坛》2011年第2期，第44-48页。
28 Peari S.， The Foundation of Choice of Law ： Choice and Equality， New York： Oxford University Press， 2018.
29 谢忱： 《我国涉外邮轮侵权纠纷法律适用研究》，《山东警察学院学报》2018年第3期，第39-50页。
30 Czigler T. D. & Takacs I.， “The quest to find a law applicable to contracts in the European Union—a summary of fragmented provisions，” Global Jurist， Vol. 12， No. 2 （2012）， pp. 1-44.
31 Erceg B. C. & Vasilj A.， “Current affairs in passengers rights protection in the European Union，” EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series， Vol. 2， No. 2 （2018）， pp. 216-234.
32 张丽珍： 《我国最密切联系原则兜底适用的文本特质与实践展开》，《河南财经政法大学学报》2020年第5期，第71-83页。 |
|
|
|
2023, Vol. 53 
