La présente étude examine les causes de déchéance du droit à limitation de responsabilité du transporteur maritime de marchandises. En règle générale, les plafonds d’indemnisation fixés par les conventions internationales écartent la réparation intégrale du préjudice causé par le transporteur maritime de marchandises. Cependant, il est également prévu un certain nombre de causes de déchéance de ce droit à limitation, pour lesquelles les conditions d’application diffèrent d’une convention internationale à l’autre (Règles de La Haye, Règles de La Haye-Visby, Règles de Hambourg et Règles de Rotterdam). Parallèlement, les tribunaux nationaux, par le recours à des notions propres de leurs systèmes juridiques, modifient l’étendue des causes de déchéance de ce droit. En somme, la déchéance du droit à limitation de responsabilité variera selon la convention internationale appliquée et selon la juridiction compétente. Ce qui, en définitive, porte atteinte à la structuration rationnelle du régime de responsabilité du transporteur maritime dans sa globalité et à l’objectif d’uniformisation poursuivi jusqu’ici. / This study examines the institutions capable to deprive the sea carriers from the benefit of limitation of liability. In general, the package limitation provisions settled by international maritime conventions reject the full compensation of damages caused by the shipowning companies. However, this rule can be mitigated. Some specific conducts can bar the carrier from the benefit of limitation of liability. The conventions on international transport of goods (the Hague Rules, the Hague-Visby Rules, the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules) have set out differently the conditions required to deprive the carrier of the right to limit responsibility. Concurrently, national courts, through the use of specific concepts, have modified the scope of the right of such limitation. In sum, the conducts barring limitation of liability will vary according to the International Convention applied and according to the relevant competent court. This, ultimately, undermines the rational organization of the maritime liability system and adversely affects the objective of uniformity in this matter.

La présente étude examine les causes de déchéance du droit à limitation de responsabilité du transporteur maritime de marchandises. En règle générale, les plafonds d’indemnisation fixés par les conventions internationales écartent la réparation intégrale du préjudice causé par le transporteur maritime de marchandises. Cependant, il est également prévu un certain nombre de causes de déchéance de ce droit à limitation, pour lesquelles les conditions d’application diffèrent d’une convention internationale à l’autre (Règles de La Haye, Règles de La Haye-Visby, Règles de Hambourg et Règles de Rotterdam). Parallèlement, les tribunaux nationaux, par le recours à des notions propres de leurs systèmes juridiques, modifient l’étendue des causes de déchéance de ce droit. En somme, la déchéance du droit à limitation de responsabilité variera selon la convention internationale appliquée et selon la juridiction compétente. Ce qui, en définitive, porte atteinte à la structuration rationnelle du régime de responsabilité du transporteur maritime dans sa globalité et à l’objectif d’uniformisation poursuivi jusqu’ici. / This study examines the institutions capable to deprive the sea carriers from the benefit of limitation of liability. In general, the package limitation provisions settled by international maritime conventions reject the full compensation of damages caused by the shipowning companies. However, this rule can be mitigated. Some specific conducts can bar the carrier from the benefit of limitation of liability. The conventions on international transport of goods (the Hague Rules, the Hague-Visby Rules, the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules) have set out differently the conditions required to deprive the carrier of the right to limit responsibility. Concurrently, national courts, through the use of specific concepts, have modified the scope of the right of such limitation. In sum, the conducts barring limitation of liability will vary according to the International Convention applied and according to the relevant competent court. This, ultimately, undermines the rational organization of the maritime liability system and adversely affects the objective of uniformity in this matter.

This study is an examination of how English courts have approached, or are likely to approach - and therefore, the effectiveness of - attempts by the parties to oil and gas contracts to allocate risks arising from the activities which form the subject matter of their respective contracts inter se. The study utilises petroleum industry standard form offshore drilling contracts in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America as the context for this analysis, and examines the risks associated with drilling and other incidental operations, in the light of catastrophic events such as the Macondo disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and the Montara disaster in the Timor Sea. Drawing from the Economic Theory of Law espoused by Richard Posner, which correlates market behaviour, resource allocation and the legal system, and so conceptualises risk from a cost and utility perspective, the study will show that it is actually the economic consequences of the occurrence of an event that are being allocated, and that the entire notion of risk allocation is a determination of how the economic cost of the occurrence of the particular consequence will be borne by the parties to the contract. The study will conclude with a comparative analysis of risk allocation in the different model contracts, and an opinion on the success/effectiveness of the model contracts, as tools used by parties for risk allocation inter se, in response to the challenges created by legislative and judicial intervention. Justification for this opinion will be given, with reference to relevant case law and statutes in the different jurisdictions. Recommendations will be made on how the risk allocation structure can be improved, either by reference to other approaches the parties could adopt, or by clarifying ambiguities in the current approach (where applicable), and proposing a balance in the instances in which, from the study's perspective, the allocation formula is skewed, either due to the imbalance of power between the parties or by the interference of external forces such as the courts and legislature.

No description available.

No description available.

A cláusula de limitação de responsabilidade é a estipulação pela qual as partes de um contrato decidem estabelecer um limite ao efeito indenizatório da responsabilidade, seja por meio da escolhe de um valor máximo, seja por meio da alteração das regras supletivas do regime legal. No Brasil, essa cláusula não possui previsão legal específica, porém, em razão de sua frequência na prática, faz-se necessário o estabelecimento de critérios para a determinação da extensão e dos limites que devem ser observados para que sejam válidas e produzam os efeitos buscados pelos contraentes. Este trabalho exclui da análise os contratos de adesão e os contratos firmados no âmbito das relações de consumo. Também, não se analisa a cláusula de afastamento integral da responsabilidade (a chamada cláusula de exoneração da responsabilidade). A fim de determinar tais critérios, partiu-se dos limites impostos à autonomia privada em geral – ordem pública e normas cogentes – e dos critérios citados pela doutrina e pela jurisprudência, específicos à cláusula limitativa, quais sejam, o dolo, a culpa grave e o inadimplemento da obrigação principal. Assim, com o objetivo de tornar cada mais clara a incidência de cada uma dessas balizas e, em especial, afastando-se a invalidade/ineficácia automática da cláusula em casos de inadimplemento da obrigação principal, buscou-se delinear como a cláusula interage com a regulação contratual de interesses e com a apuração do montante indenizatório, por meio da análise da composição da indenização. / The limitation of liability clause is the stipulation by which the parties to a contract decide to establish a limit to the indemnifying effect of liability, either by choosing a maximum amount or by changing the rules of the legal regime. In Brazil, this clause does not have specific legal provisions, but because of its frequency in practice, it is necessary to establish the criteria for determining the extent and limits that should be observed for it to be valid and produce the effects sought by the parties. This study excludes from the analysis the adhesion contracts and the contracts signed in the scope of consumer relationships. Neither the exclusion of liability clause is analyzed. In order to determine such criteria, this dissertation starts from the limits imposed on party autonomy in general – public order and cogent norms - and proceeds to the criteria mentioned by doctrine and case law, specific to the limitation clause, namely, willful misconduct and the default of the fundamental term. Thus, to clarify the incidence of each of these limits and, in particular, to remove the automatic invalidity/ineffectiveness of the clause in cases of default of the fundamental term of a contract, this work delineates how the clause interacts with the contractual regulation of interests and with the determination of the indemnity amount, through the analysis of the composition of the indemnification.

C’est au navire que le droit maritime doit son particularisme, plus précisément au fait qu’il s’expose au risque de mer. On comprend dès lors que les évolutions des règles applicables au bien soient susceptibles d’avoir un impact sur la matière. Ainsi le particularisme du droit maritime ne manquera pas de s’étioler, à mesure que celui du navire se trouvera affecté. Or, le navire est susceptible de connaître plusieurs états qui vont de celui de navire à celui d’épave, en passant par les états de navire abandonné et de navire à démanteler, chacun de ces états du navire faisant intervenir un ensemble de règles juridiques qui lui est applicable. Ce sont les différents statuts du navire. Ils ont connu ces dernières années des évolutions notables de leurs régimes juridiques respectifs, dont le sens et l’influence sur le particularisme du droit maritime sont étudiés dans cette thèse.En effet si la volonté du législateur d’enfermer le navire dans une définition depuis l’entrée en vigueur du code des transports semble manifester une volonté de banaliser l’engin de transport et partant d’atténuer son particularisme, l’intégration des préoccupations et exigences environnementales aux règles gouvernant sa fin révèle, quant à elle, une nécessaire adaptation de la matière. Cette thèse se propose de montrer comment les évolutions du régime juridique des différents états du navire fragilisent davantage le particularisme du droit maritime, ou ce qu’il en reste. L’étude réalisée tend ainsi à démontrer comment le droit maritime qui s’est historiquement construit autour de la nécessité de protéger le navire contre le risque de mer par la mise en mouvement de règles originales se définit désormais de plus en plus comme un droit destiné à protéger la mer contre le navire. Ce mouvement se traduit par une certaine forme d’amarrage progressif du droit maritime au droit terrestre. / It is to the ship that the maritime law owes its particularism, more precisely to the fact that it exposes itself to the risk of sea. One understands then that the evolutions of the rules applicable to the good are likely to have an impact on the subject. Thus the peculiarity of the maritime law would fade if ship peculiarity is affected.However, the ship is likely to know several States that go from that of ship to that of wreck, through the States of abandoned ship and ship to dismantle, each of these States of the ship involving a set of legal rules that it is applicable. These are the different statutes of the ship. In recent years, they have undergone significant changes in their respective legal régimes, whose meaning and influence on the peculiarity of maritime law are studied in this thesis.Indeed, if the will of the legislator to enclose the ship in a definition since the entry into force of the transport code seems to manifest a desire to trivialize the transport vehicle and thereby mitigate its particularism, the integration of concerns and environmental requirements to the rules governing its end reveal, for its part, a necessary adaptation of the subject. This thesis proposes to show how the evolutions of the legal regime of the different statutes of the ship weaken further the particularism of maritime law, or what remains of it. The study carried out thus tends to demonstrate how maritime law, which has historically been built around the need to protect the ship against the risk of the sea by setting in motion original rules, is now more and more defined as a right destined to protect the sea against the ship. This movement is reflected in some form of progressive docking of maritime law to land law.

La situation actuelle des règles relatives à la responsabilité civile de l'entrepreneur pour les dommages environnementaux provoqués par l’exploitation offshore d’hydrocarbure et le transport de ce produit par des navires pétroliers, démontre que le législateur a été de plus en plus concerné par la question de la santé environnementale. Cependant, il y a beaucoup de lacunes dans les lois nationales qui peuvent entraîner une incertitude juridique considérable pour l'entrepreneur et en même temps, ne pas fournir une protection adéquate à l'environnement et à l’homme. L’étude comparée des systèmes juridiques démontre qu’il est extrêmement important que les pays qui sont exposés aux périls des marées noires, notamment ceux qui exploitent des hydrocarbures dans la mer, disposent d’un fonds spécial d’indemnisation pour garantir et faciliter la restauration de l’environnement et le payement des indemnisations aux victimes. Outre la protection de l’environnement et des droits des citoyens, le fonds offre aussi la possibilité d’application des cas exceptés et de la limitation de responsabilité. Le fonds serait utilisé pour couvrir les préjudices au-delà de la limite de responsabilité de l’entrepreneur ou dans les cas où la responsabilité de celui-ci est écartée par un cas excepté. / The current situation of the rules governing the liability of the entrepreneur for environmental damage caused by offshore oil exploration and by the transportation of this product by oil tankers, shows that the legislator is more concerned with environmental health issues. However, there are many gaps in national legislations that can lead to considerable legal uncertainty for the responsible parties. While, at the same time it does not provide adequate protection for the environment and to human beings. The comparative study of legals systems shows the importance that countries that are exposed to the dangers of oil spills, especially those exploiting oil in the sea, to have a special indemnisation fund to guarantee and facilitate environmental restoration and payment of compensation to victims. Besides protecting the environment and citizens' rights, the fund also offers the possibility of applying the defenses of liability and limitation of liability. The funds would be used to cover the losses beyond the limit of liability of the responsible partie or when the responsibility for the accident is ruled out by a liability defense cause.

No description available.

Depuis le sinistre du pétrolier Torrey Canyon, l'OMI a élaboré les Conventions CLC, SNPD et hydrocarbure. Celles-ci ont mis en place les régimes d'indemnisation des dommages par pollution causés par les navires. Les victimes de la pollution peuvent agir en responsabilité contre le propriétaire du navire ou directement contre l'assureur du propriétaire du navire pour les dommages par pollution (y compris les frais de nettoyage). Selon ces conventions internationales, le propriétaire du navire est en droit de limiter sa responsabilité dont l'indemnité est calculée en fonction du tonnage du navire en cause. De plus, le fonds FIPOL, créé par la convention portant création du fonds FIPOL, prend le relais de la convention CLC lorsque l'indemnité dépasse la limitation de responsabilité prévue par cette dernière convention. Mais est-ce que ces conventions prévoient une indemnisation suffisante pour les dommages par pollution ? Et existe-t-il des conflits entre les conventions internationales ? Il est vrai que la plupart des pollutions marines de faible ampleur sont suffisamment indemnisées. Mais tel n'est pas le cas pour les pollutions majeures. De plus, les conventions CLC, SNPD et hydrocarbures de soute n'ont pas prévu des champs d'application identiques. C'est ainsi que ces conventions internationales sont susceptibles d'être en conflit dans le cas où la pollution est causée par les substances polluantes transportées par le navire et les hydrocarbures de soute du navire en cause. La présente thèse a pour objet de présenter les régimes internationaux de responsabilité civile du propriétaire du navire en matière de pollution marine et essaie de proposer une solution pour résoudre les conflits entre les conventions internationales / Since the Torrey Canyon oil spill, the International Maritime Organization began drafting three international conventions (CLC, HNS and bunker oil conventions) to establish civil liability for compensation for ship-source pollution damages. Claims for compensation for pollution damages (including clean-up costs) may be brought against the owner of ships which caused the damages or directly against the owner's insurer. The ship-owner is normally entitled to limit his liability to an amount which is linked to the tonnage of his ship. Furthermore, the IOPC funds which was set up in 1992 under the IOPC convention 1992 is able to compensate the victims when compensation under the CLC 1992 is not available or not adequate. But do these international regimes work well ? And are there conflicts between the International conventions ? Certainly, the most of loss resulting from oil spills from sea can be compensated by the CLC/ IOPC system. But the compensation under CLC/IOPC is not able to be enough for the major pollution events. If the CLC, HNS and bunker oil Conventions don't set up the same scopes, these International Conventions might be in conflict in case of transportation of dangerous goods or hazardous goods by sea, because the spill of the bunker oil and the hazardous goods would cause a major marine pollution. This paper gives an overview of international liability and compensation regime, and tries to give a proposal to resolve the conflicts between the international conventions