About the Author |
|
v | |
|
|
xix | |
|
|
xxiii | |
|
|
1 | (18) |
|
|
1 | (5) |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
5 Special Terms in Maritime Law |
|
|
9 | (4) |
|
5.1 Parties Involved in Shipping |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
5.2 Charterparty and Bill of Lading |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
|
11 | (2) |
|
6 Main Players at International Legislative Level |
|
|
13 | (3) |
|
6.1 The IMO and Its Legal Committee |
|
|
13 | (2) |
|
|
15 | (1) |
|
6.3 Industry Organizations |
|
|
15 | (1) |
|
|
16 | (3) |
|
Chapter 2 Legal Framework for Vessel Source Marine Pollution |
|
|
19 | (34) |
|
1 Overview of the Legal Framework |
|
|
19 | (4) |
|
|
19 | (2) |
|
1.2 Historical Development |
|
|
21 | (2) |
|
|
23 | (12) |
|
|
23 | (1) |
|
2.2 Flag State Jurisdiction |
|
|
23 | (1) |
|
2.2.1 Prescriptive Jurisdiction |
|
|
23 | (1) |
|
2.2.2 Enforcement Jurisdiction |
|
|
24 | (1) |
|
2.2.3 Flag of Convenience |
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
2.3 Coastal State Jurisdiction |
|
|
26 | (1) |
|
|
26 | (1) |
|
2.3.2 Internal Waters and Ports |
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
|
28 | (1) |
|
|
29 | (1) |
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
2.4 Port State Jurisdiction |
|
|
31 | (1) |
|
|
31 | (2) |
|
|
33 | (1) |
|
|
33 | (1) |
|
|
34 | (1) |
|
3 Legal Regimes Concerning Prevention and Response |
|
|
35 | (3) |
|
|
35 | (1) |
|
|
36 | (1) |
|
|
36 | (1) |
|
|
37 | (1) |
|
4 Legal Regime on Civil Liability and Compensation |
|
|
38 | (1) |
|
|
38 | (1) |
|
|
38 | (1) |
|
|
39 | (1) |
|
5 Legal Regime Concerning Criminal Liability |
|
|
39 | (7) |
|
|
39 | (1) |
|
|
40 | (1) |
|
|
40 | (1) |
|
5.2.2 Community Law on Criminal Liability for Marine Oil Pollution |
|
|
41 | (3) |
|
5.2.3 Directive 2005/35/EC v. MARPOL Annex I |
|
|
44 | (1) |
|
|
45 | (1) |
|
|
46 | (5) |
|
6.1 Role of Regional Initiatives |
|
|
46 | (1) |
|
|
46 | (1) |
|
6.2.1 Overview of the EU Approach |
|
|
46 | (3) |
|
6.2.2 Examples of EU Measures and Its Impact on the International Regime |
|
|
49 | (1) |
|
|
50 | (1) |
|
|
51 | (2) |
|
Chapter 3 Introduction of the International Regime |
|
|
53 | (78) |
|
|
53 | (8) |
|
1.1 Torrey Canyon Incident |
|
|
53 | (2) |
|
|
55 | (1) |
|
|
55 | (2) |
|
1.2.2 Influence of TOVALOP |
|
|
57 | (1) |
|
|
58 | (1) |
|
|
58 | (1) |
|
|
58 | (1) |
|
1.4.2 Influence of CRISTAL |
|
|
59 | (1) |
|
|
59 | (1) |
|
|
60 | (1) |
|
2 The Civil Liability Convention 1969 |
|
|
61 | (37) |
|
|
61 | (1) |
|
|
61 | (1) |
|
2.1.2 Preparatory Work by CMI |
|
|
61 | (1) |
|
2.1.3 Convening of the Conference |
|
|
62 | (1) |
|
2.2 Principle of Strict Liability |
|
|
63 | (1) |
|
|
63 | (1) |
|
2.2.2 Main Arguments for Different Schemes |
|
|
63 | (1) |
|
2.2.2.1 Strict Liability on the Cargo |
|
|
63 | (3) |
|
2.2.2.2 Strict Liability on the Ship |
|
|
66 | (2) |
|
2.2.2.3 Fault Liability on the Shipowner |
|
|
68 | (1) |
|
|
69 | (1) |
|
2.2.3 Decision on Strict Liability of the Shipowner |
|
|
69 | (1) |
|
|
69 | (1) |
|
2.2.3.2 Second Round Vote |
|
|
70 | (1) |
|
|
71 | (1) |
|
2.2.4 Compromise Decision |
|
|
72 | (1) |
|
|
73 | (2) |
|
2.3 The Principle of Limitation of Liability |
|
|
75 | (1) |
|
2.3.1 Limitation of Liability in Maritime Law |
|
|
75 | (2) |
|
2.3.2 The Debate on the Limitation of Liability at the 1969 Conference |
|
|
77 | (1) |
|
2.3.2.1 General Debate on the Principle of Limitation of Liability |
|
|
77 | (2) |
|
2.3.2.2 The Amount of Limitation of Liability |
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
|
80 | (2) |
|
2.4 Principle of Channelling of Liability |
|
|
82 | (1) |
|
2.4.1 Channelling in the Nuclear Industry |
|
|
82 | (1) |
|
2.4.2 Channelling in Case of Oil Pollution |
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
2.4.2.2 Debate at the 1969 Conference |
|
|
84 | (3) |
|
|
87 | (1) |
|
2.5 Principle of Compulsory Insurance |
|
|
88 | (1) |
|
2.5.1 General Debate on the Necessity of Compulsory Insurance |
|
|
88 | (4) |
|
2.5.2 The Direct Action against the Insurer |
|
|
92 | (1) |
|
2.5.3 Minimum Tonnage Requirement for Tankers to Take Insurance Cover |
|
|
93 | (1) |
|
|
94 | (1) |
|
|
95 | (1) |
|
|
96 | (2) |
|
|
98 | (27) |
|
|
98 | (1) |
|
3.2 Scope of Compensation |
|
|
98 | (1) |
|
3.2.1 Geographical Scope of Application |
|
|
99 | (1) |
|
3.2.2 Preventive Measures |
|
|
100 | (1) |
|
3.3 When the Fund Intervenes |
|
|
101 | (2) |
|
3.4 Exoneration of the Fund |
|
|
103 | (1) |
|
3.4.1 General Debates on the Exemptions of the Fund |
|
|
103 | (1) |
|
3.4.2 Act of War, Natural Phenomenon an Unidentified Source of Pollution |
|
|
104 | (1) |
|
|
104 | (1) |
|
3.4.2.2 Natural Phenomenon |
|
|
105 | (1) |
|
3.4.2.3 Unidentified Source of Pollution |
|
|
106 | (2) |
|
3.4.2.4 Government's Fault or Negligence |
|
|
108 | (1) |
|
3.5 Amount of Compensation |
|
|
108 | (1) |
|
3.5.1 Discussion on Compensation Amount and Amendment Procedure |
|
|
108 | (3) |
|
|
111 | (1) |
|
3.6 Relief of the Shipowner |
|
|
112 | (1) |
|
3.6.1 Relief as a Principle |
|
|
112 | (2) |
|
3.6.2 Relief Conditional on Safety Standards |
|
|
114 | (2) |
|
|
116 | (2) |
|
|
118 | (1) |
|
|
119 | (1) |
|
3.8 Contribution to the Fund |
|
|
120 | (1) |
|
3.8.1 Debate on the Minimum Amount and Calculation of Contribution |
|
|
120 | (2) |
|
|
122 | (1) |
|
|
123 | (2) |
|
4 Comparison between the Voluntary and International Regime |
|
|
125 | (2) |
|
|
125 | (1) |
|
4.2 CRISTAL v. Fund Convention 1971 |
|
|
126 | (1) |
|
|
126 | (1) |
|
|
127 | (4) |
|
Chapter 4 Evolution of the International Regime |
|
|
131 | (58) |
|
|
131 | (1) |
|
|
132 | (33) |
|
2.1 Main Reasons for Revision and Critiques |
|
|
132 | (1) |
|
2.1.1 Historical Background |
|
|
132 | (2) |
|
2.1.2 Amoco Cadiz Incident |
|
|
134 | (2) |
|
2.2 Increased Compensation |
|
|
136 | (1) |
|
2.2.1 General Arguments for Increasing Compensation |
|
|
136 | (1) |
|
|
137 | (1) |
|
2.2.2.1 Increase of the Amount |
|
|
137 | (3) |
|
|
140 | (2) |
|
2.2.3 Amendment Procedure |
|
|
142 | (3) |
|
2.2.4 Loss of Limitation Right |
|
|
145 | (1) |
|
|
145 | (1) |
|
|
146 | (1) |
|
|
146 | (1) |
|
2.3 Channelling of Liability |
|
|
147 | (1) |
|
2.3.1 Amoco Cadiz Judgment |
|
|
147 | (1) |
|
2.3.2 Revision of Channelling |
|
|
148 | (3) |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
2.4 Extension of Scope of Application |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
2.4.1 Incident and Preventive Measures |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
2.4.1.2 Special Treatment for Preventive Measures |
|
|
153 | (1) |
|
|
154 | (1) |
|
2.4.2 Definition of Pollution Damage |
|
|
154 | (1) |
|
2.4.2.1 Debate on the New Definition |
|
|
154 | (4) |
|
2.4.2.2 Assessment of the New Definition |
|
|
158 | (1) |
|
2.5 Relief to the Shipowner (Roll-Back or Indemnification Function) |
|
|
159 | (1) |
|
2.5.1 Deletion of the Fund's Secondary Function |
|
|
159 | (1) |
|
|
160 | (1) |
|
|
161 | (1) |
|
2.6 Influence of the 1984 Protocols |
|
|
162 | (1) |
|
2.7 Failures of the 1984 Protocols |
|
|
163 | (2) |
|
|
165 | (3) |
|
3.1 Adoption of the 1992 Conventions |
|
|
165 | (3) |
|
|
168 | (1) |
|
4 Disappearance of the Voluntary Agreements |
|
|
168 | (2) |
|
4.1 Interaction with the International Conventions |
|
|
168 | (1) |
|
|
168 | (1) |
|
4.1.2 Amendments of the Voluntary Agreements |
|
|
169 | (1) |
|
4.2 Disappearance of TOVALOP and CRISTAL |
|
|
170 | (1) |
|
5 Winding Up of the 1971 Fund |
|
|
170 | (3) |
|
5.1 1969/1971 Regime v. 1992 Regime |
|
|
170 | (1) |
|
5.2 Current Situation of the Two CLC |
|
|
171 | (1) |
|
5.3 Winding Up of the 1971 Fund |
|
|
171 | (2) |
|
|
173 | (3) |
|
7 2003 Supplementary Fund Protocol and Further Study |
|
|
176 | (9) |
|
|
176 | (1) |
|
|
176 | (1) |
|
7.1.1.1 Limitation of Liability |
|
|
176 | (2) |
|
7.1.1.2 Definition of Pollution Damage |
|
|
178 | (1) |
|
7.1.1.3 Responsibilities and Liabilities |
|
|
178 | (1) |
|
7.1.1.4 Prestige Incident and EU Activism |
|
|
178 | (1) |
|
7.2 IMO Reaction and the Adoption of the 2003 Supplementary Fund |
|
|
179 | (1) |
|
7.2.1 Adoption of the 2003 Supplementary Fund Protocol |
|
|
179 | (1) |
|
|
180 | (1) |
|
7.2.3 Evaluation of the Supplementary Fund |
|
|
181 | (1) |
|
7.3 Industry Reaction: STOPIA and TOPIA |
|
|
182 | (3) |
|
|
185 | (4) |
|
Chapter 5 US Regime on Civil Liability for Marine Oil Pollution |
|
|
189 | (36) |
|
|
189 | (2) |
|
2 Legislative History of US Laws on Oil Pollution |
|
|
191 | (16) |
|
|
191 | (1) |
|
2.1.1 The Oil Pollution Act 1924 |
|
|
191 | (1) |
|
2.1.2 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 |
|
|
191 | (1) |
|
2.1.3 The Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 |
|
|
191 | (1) |
|
2.2 Torrey Canyon: Mid-1970s |
|
|
192 | (1) |
|
2.2.1 Actions of the US Government |
|
|
192 | (1) |
|
2.2.2 Domestic Legislative Actions: Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 |
|
|
193 | (2) |
|
2.2.3 Actions at International Level |
|
|
195 | (2) |
|
2.3 Mid-1970s: Prior to Exxon Valdez (1989) |
|
|
197 | (1) |
|
2.3.1 Legislative History |
|
|
197 | (1) |
|
2.3.2 Major Domestic Legislations |
|
|
198 | (2) |
|
2.3.3 Activity at the 1984 Diplomatic Conference |
|
|
200 | (1) |
|
|
201 | (1) |
|
2.4.1 Exxon Valdez Incident |
|
|
201 | (1) |
|
2.4.2 Reaction of the US Congress |
|
|
202 | (1) |
|
|
202 | (1) |
|
2.4.3.1 Ratification of 1984 Protocols |
|
|
202 | (2) |
|
2.4.3.2 Preemption of State Laws |
|
|
204 | (1) |
|
2.4.4 Reaching Agreement and Adoption of OPA |
|
|
205 | (1) |
|
2.5 Evaluation of the Legal History |
|
|
205 | (2) |
|
|
207 | (13) |
|
|
207 | (1) |
|
3.1.1 Responsible Parties |
|
|
207 | (1) |
|
|
208 | (1) |
|
3.1.3 Exoneration from Liability |
|
|
209 | (1) |
|
|
209 | (1) |
|
3.2 Scope of Damages Covered |
|
|
210 | (1) |
|
3.3 Limitation of Liability |
|
|
210 | (1) |
|
|
210 | (1) |
|
3.3.1.1 Amount of Limitation |
|
|
210 | (1) |
|
3.3.1.2 Loss of Limitation Right |
|
|
211 | (1) |
|
|
212 | (1) |
|
3.4 Financial Responsibility |
|
|
213 | (1) |
|
3.4.1 General Requirement |
|
|
213 | (1) |
|
3.4.2 Implications for the Industry |
|
|
213 | (1) |
|
3.5 The Oil Pollution Liability Trust Fund |
|
|
214 | (1) |
|
3.5.1 Establishment of the OSLTF |
|
|
214 | (1) |
|
3.5.2 Coverage of the OSLTF |
|
|
214 | (1) |
|
3.5.3 Financing of the OSLTF |
|
|
215 | (2) |
|
3.5.4 Amount of the OSLTF |
|
|
217 | (1) |
|
|
217 | (1) |
|
|
218 | (2) |
|
|
220 | (3) |
|
4.1 Post-OPA Developments |
|
|
220 | (1) |
|
|
220 | (1) |
|
4.3 Increase of Liability Limits |
|
|
221 | (1) |
|
|
222 | (1) |
|
|
223 | (2) |
|
Chapter 6 Chinese Marine Oil Pollution Compensation Regime |
|
|
225 | (22) |
|
|
225 | (2) |
|
2 Relevant Legislation in China |
|
|
227 | (10) |
|
|
227 | (1) |
|
|
227 | (1) |
|
2.1.2 Marine Environmental Protection Law |
|
|
227 | (2) |
|
2.1.3 China Maritime Code |
|
|
229 | (3) |
|
2.1.4 General Principles of the Civil Law |
|
|
232 | (1) |
|
|
232 | (2) |
|
|
234 | (1) |
|
2.2 International Conventions Ratified by China |
|
|
235 | (1) |
|
|
235 | (1) |
|
|
235 | (1) |
|
2.2.3 Application of International Conventions in China |
|
|
235 | (2) |
|
|
237 | (1) |
|
|
237 | (6) |
|
3.1 Conflicts of Law in China |
|
|
237 | (3) |
|
|
240 | (1) |
|
3.3 Limitation of Liability |
|
|
241 | (1) |
|
3.4 No Compensation Fund in China |
|
|
241 | (1) |
|
|
242 | (1) |
|
4 Research Carried Out by the Chinese Government |
|
|
243 | (2) |
|
4.1 Research on the Chinese Compensation Mechanism |
|
|
243 | (2) |
|
4.2 Collection and Management of the Domestic Fund |
|
|
245 | (1) |
|
|
245 | (2) |
|
Chapter 7 Comparative Analysis |
|
|
247 | (52) |
|
|
247 | (1) |
|
|
248 | (11) |
|
|
248 | (1) |
|
|
248 | (1) |
|
2.2.1 Definition of Liable Parties |
|
|
248 | (3) |
|
2.2.2 Channelling in the CLC |
|
|
251 | (2) |
|
2.3 Different Positions of Some Major Players |
|
|
253 | (1) |
|
|
253 | (1) |
|
2.3.2 Servants or Agents of the Owner |
|
|
253 | (1) |
|
|
253 | (1) |
|
|
253 | (1) |
|
2.3.5 Time Charterer and Voyage Charterer |
|
|
254 | (1) |
|
2.3.6 Manager and Operator |
|
|
255 | (1) |
|
|
256 | (1) |
|
2.4 Comparative Negligence |
|
|
257 | (1) |
|
2.5 Defences to Liability |
|
|
257 | (1) |
|
|
258 | (1) |
|
3 Limitation of Liability |
|
|
259 | (7) |
|
|
259 | (1) |
|
3.2 Loss of the Limitation Right |
|
|
259 | (1) |
|
|
259 | (2) |
|
|
261 | (1) |
|
|
262 | (1) |
|
3.4 Debate on Limitation of Liability in Maritime Law |
|
|
263 | (1) |
|
3.4.1 Legal Justifications |
|
|
263 | (1) |
|
|
264 | (1) |
|
3.4.3 Further Exploration |
|
|
265 | (1) |
|
|
266 | (15) |
|
|
266 | (1) |
|
|
266 | (2) |
|
|
268 | (1) |
|
|
268 | (2) |
|
|
270 | (1) |
|
4.2.1 Comparison between CLC and OPA Definitions |
|
|
270 | (1) |
|
|
271 | (1) |
|
|
272 | (1) |
|
4.3.1 International Regime |
|
|
272 | (2) |
|
|
274 | (1) |
|
4.3.3 Comparative Analysis |
|
|
275 | (1) |
|
|
275 | (1) |
|
|
275 | (3) |
|
4.4.2 Natural Resource Damage Defined in OPA |
|
|
278 | (1) |
|
4.4.3 Comparative Analysis |
|
|
278 | (3) |
|
|
281 | (1) |
|
|
281 | (2) |
|
5.1 General Requirement of Compulsory Insurance |
|
|
281 | (1) |
|
5.2 Forms of Financial Guarantee |
|
|
282 | (1) |
|
|
282 | (1) |
|
|
283 | (1) |
|
|
283 | (7) |
|
6.1 Change from 1971 Fund to 1992 Fund |
|
|
283 | (1) |
|
6.1.1 Deletion of Roll-Back Function |
|
|
283 | (1) |
|
6.1.2 Contribution to the Fund |
|
|
284 | (1) |
|
6.1.3 Influence of the Change |
|
|
285 | (1) |
|
6.2 Amount of Compensation |
|
|
285 | (1) |
|
|
285 | (1) |
|
|
286 | (1) |
|
|
286 | (1) |
|
|
286 | (1) |
|
|
287 | (1) |
|
6.4 Financing of the fund |
|
|
287 | (1) |
|
|
287 | (1) |
|
|
288 | (1) |
|
6.5 Operation of the Fund (As First Resort or Only Residual) |
|
|
288 | (1) |
|
|
288 | (1) |
|
|
289 | (1) |
|
|
290 | (9) |
|
Chapter 8 Economic Analysis |
|
|
299 | (52) |
|
|
299 | (1) |
|
|
300 | (2) |
|
|
300 | (1) |
|
2.2 Prohibitive Transaction Costs |
|
|
301 | (1) |
|
2.2.1 Concept of Transaction Costs |
|
|
301 | (1) |
|
2.2.2 Relevance to the Coase Theorem |
|
|
302 | (1) |
|
3 Economic Analysis of the Liability System |
|
|
302 | (9) |
|
3.1 Economic Theory of the Liability System |
|
|
302 | (1) |
|
|
302 | (2) |
|
|
304 | (1) |
|
3.1.3 Unilateral v. Bilateral Accident |
|
|
305 | (1) |
|
3.1.3.1 Unilateral Accident |
|
|
305 | (1) |
|
3.1.3.2 Bilateral Accident |
|
|
306 | (2) |
|
3.1.4 Test for Strict Liability |
|
|
308 | (1) |
|
3.1.5 Legal Justification for Strict Liability: Improving the Situation of the Victim? |
|
|
308 | (1) |
|
3.2 Application to the Marine Oil Pollution Compensation Regime |
|
|
309 | (1) |
|
3.2.1 Theoretical Framework |
|
|
309 | (1) |
|
3.2.2 Analysis of the CLC |
|
|
309 | (1) |
|
|
310 | (1) |
|
|
310 | (1) |
|
4 Economic Analysis of Financial Caps |
|
|
311 | (12) |
|
4.1 Theoretical Framework |
|
|
311 | (1) |
|
|
311 | (1) |
|
|
312 | (1) |
|
4.1.2.1 Unilateral Accident |
|
|
312 | (1) |
|
4.1.2.2 Bilateral Accident |
|
|
313 | (1) |
|
4.2 Application to Oil Pollution |
|
|
314 | (1) |
|
4.2.1 Analysis of Financial Caps |
|
|
314 | (1) |
|
4.2.1.1 Under-compensation |
|
|
314 | (1) |
|
|
315 | (1) |
|
|
316 | (1) |
|
4.2.2 Analysis of Unlimited Liability |
|
|
317 | (2) |
|
4.2.3 Financial Caps in the CLC |
|
|
319 | (3) |
|
4.2.4 Analysis of the US Regime |
|
|
322 | (1) |
|
4.2.5 Analysis of Chinese Law |
|
|
323 | (1) |
|
5 Economic Analysis of Channelling |
|
|
323 | (10) |
|
5.1 Theoretical Framework |
|
|
323 | (1) |
|
|
323 | (2) |
|
5.1.2 Joint and Several Liability |
|
|
325 | (1) |
|
5.2 Application to Oil Pollution |
|
|
326 | (1) |
|
5.2.1 Analysis of the Channelling in the CLC and Chinese Law |
|
|
326 | (3) |
|
|
329 | (1) |
|
|
330 | (1) |
|
|
330 | (1) |
|
5.4.2 Application of Oil Pollution Compensation Regime |
|
|
331 | (2) |
|
6 Economic Analysis of the Compulsory Insurance |
|
|
333 | (5) |
|
6.1 Economic Theory of Insurance |
|
|
333 | (1) |
|
6.1.1 General Principles and the Insurance Capacity |
|
|
333 | (1) |
|
6.1.2 Problems with Insurance |
|
|
333 | (1) |
|
|
333 | (1) |
|
6.1.2.2 Adverse Selection |
|
|
334 | (1) |
|
6.2 Application to Oil Pollution |
|
|
335 | (1) |
|
6.2.1 Theoretical Framework |
|
|
335 | (1) |
|
6.2.2 Application to the Marine Oil Pollution Regime |
|
|
336 | (1) |
|
6.2.3 Economic Analysis of P&I Clubs |
|
|
337 | (1) |
|
7 Economic Analysis of Compensation Fund |
|
|
338 | (5) |
|
7.1 Theoretical Framework |
|
|
338 | (2) |
|
7.2 Application to Oil Pollution |
|
|
340 | (1) |
|
|
340 | (2) |
|
|
342 | (1) |
|
|
343 | (1) |
|
7.3 Suggestions from Literature |
|
|
343 | (1) |
|
8 Economic Analysis of Regulation |
|
|
343 | (5) |
|
8.1 Economic Theory on Regulation |
|
|
343 | (3) |
|
8.2 Application to Oil Pollution |
|
|
346 | (2) |
|
|
348 | (3) |
|
Chapter 9 Law and Practice: Marine Pollution in Motion |
|
|
351 | (16) |
|
|
351 | (1) |
|
2 The US Regime on Offshore Oil Spill |
|
|
352 | (9) |
|
2.1 Deepwater Horizon Incident |
|
|
352 | (1) |
|
2.2 The US Legal Regime on Offshore Facility Liability |
|
|
352 | (1) |
|
|
352 | (1) |
|
|
353 | (1) |
|
2.2.3 Financial Responsibility |
|
|
353 | (1) |
|
|
354 | (1) |
|
2.3 Comparison between Vessel Source and Offshore Facility Regimes |
|
|
354 | (1) |
|
2.4 Economic Analysis of Offshore Facility Liability Regime |
|
|
355 | (1) |
|
2.4.1 Economic Analysis of the Strict Liability |
|
|
355 | (1) |
|
2.4.2 Economic Analysis of Limited Liability |
|
|
356 | (1) |
|
2.4.3 Economic Analysis of Financial Guarantee |
|
|
357 | (1) |
|
2.4.4 Economic Analysis of Compensation Fund |
|
|
358 | (1) |
|
|
359 | (2) |
|
|
361 | (6) |
|
Chapter 10 Conclusions and Policy Recommendations |
|
|
367 | (16) |
|
|
367 | (4) |
|
1.1 `Shifts' in the Development |
|
|
367 | (2) |
|
1.2 Historical Reasons for `Shifts' |
|
|
369 | (1) |
|
1.3 Observations from Legal History |
|
|
370 | (1) |
|
|
371 | (2) |
|
|
373 | (3) |
|
3.1 Analysis of the International, the US and the Chinese Regime |
|
|
373 | (1) |
|
3.2 Economic Rationale for the Historical Development |
|
|
374 | (1) |
|
3.3 Regulation v. Liability |
|
|
374 | (1) |
|
|
375 | (1) |
|
|
376 | (3) |
|
4.1 Normative Conclusions |
|
|
376 | (1) |
|
|
376 | (1) |
|
|
377 | (1) |
|
|
378 | (1) |
|
5 Concluding Remarks and Outlook |
|
|
379 | (4) |
Table of Cases |
|
383 | (2) |
Table of Legislations |
|
385 | (4) |
Bibliography |
|
389 | (14) |
Index |
|
403 | |