Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
OIL POLLUTION LIABILITY OF COLLIDING VESSELS IN CHINA
“3.24” oil pollution
There has long existed a hot debate as to whether the owners of both the vessels at joint fault in a collision should be directly liable for the pollution arising from the oil discharge of only one of them as a result of the collision. In the “3.24” oil pollution cases, the Guangzhou Maritime Court of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has held that only the owner of vessels discharging oil should be directly liable for oil pollution damage.
The issues
On 24 March 1999, two ships collided due to their joint fault at the entrance to the Pearl River in the South China Sea. One ship’s hull broke and much oil spilled therefrom, causing pollution damage to the marine environment. The sufferers therefrom brought suits for compensation against the owners of both ships. There were two opinions on how to deal with such cases. One held, where both ships in fault collided and caused oil pollution, they committed a joint tort, so that the owners or operators of both ships should be liable jointly and severally for oil pollution damage. The other view was that the doctrine of no-fault liability should apply to environmental pollution cases, and that the doctrine of liability for wrongs should no longer be applied to investigate and fix liability on the owners of the ship discharging oil. Pursuant to the special laws governing oil pollution, the court should adjudicate that only the owners of the ship leaking oil, rather than the owners of the other ship not leaking oil, undertake liability for oil pollution damage.
The divergence of these two views focused attention on whether the doctrine of no-fault liability, applicable to the tort of environmental pollution, should exclude the doctrine of liability for wrongs from applying therein. There also exist different views as to the position and function of the doctrine of no-fault liability among the systems of tort liability within Chinese law.
The application of the doctrine of no-fault liability to environmental pollution cases
It is a general rule in the domestic law of many countries and relevant international Conventions that the doctrine of no-fault liability is applicable to environmental pollution cases. Article 124 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of PRC, Art. 41 of the Environment Protection Law of PRC, Art. 92 of the Marine Environment Protection Law of PRC and Art. 3 of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (“CLC 1969”) have all established the doctrine of no-fault liability. The General Principles of Civil Law of PRC, Art. 106(3) provides that civil liability shall still be borne, even in the absence of fault, if the law so stipulates. On the wording alone, it seems that the absence of fault is a prerequisite for applying the doctrine of no-fault liability. However, other special laws concerning environmental protection do not take fault as one of requirements constituting a tort of environmental pollution, thus demonstrating the true meaning of the no-fault liability doctrine: that the doer of
LLOYD’S MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL LAW QUARTERLY
20