我的国际法案例PPT

在墨西哥湾溢油诉讼中，三家石油企业提出了在《清洁水法案》和《油污染法案》下关于他们的责 任分配的即决判决的交叉动议。美国也提出了关于部分解决判决的交叉动议。
Holdings: The District Court, Carl Barbier, J., held that: 1 Oil Pollution Act's (OPA) limits of liability applied to oil discharged from both an offshore facility, and appurtenances 2 owners of offshore facility from which oil discharged into subsurface of Gulf of Mexico were liable for civil penalties under Clean Water Act (CWA); owner or operator of mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) was not primarily liable under the CWA unless it was an “operator” of the offshore facility within meaning of CWA or a “person in charge” of the offshore facility. Motions granted in part and denied in part.
Sept. 4, 2014United States District Court,E.D.Louisiana.
Bacnkground：United States, states of Louisiana and Alabama, and numerous private individuals and business brought action against leaseholder of deepwater oil drilling site, owner and operator of Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, cementing and mudlogging services contractor, and manufacturer of rig's blowout preventer, alleging violations of Clean Water Act and Oil Pollution Act in relation to blowout at rig, which caused rig to capsize and significant oil discharge into Gulf of Mexico. Operator impleaded other parties whom it alleged to be partially or wholly liable. Court adopted multi-phased approach to case, and, after granting government's partial summary judgment motion, 844 F.Supp.2d 746, as to whether Oil Pollution Act's liability limits applied, court conducted “Incident Phase” trial with respect to certain claims.
墨西哥湾溢油污 染案审判流程
LOREM IPSUM DOLOR
审判流程图
Feb. 22, 2012. United States District Court,E.D.Louisiana.
01
Background: In suit arising from an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, three companies in oil industry filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment regarding their liability to United States under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). United states filed cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
美国溢油责任信托基金 OSLTF（oil spill liability trust fund）
• 产生： • 从20世纪50年代开始，国际社会重视海洋生态环境
• 1954年在英国伦敦召开了第一次国际防治海洋油污会议，会议通 过了《防止海洋油污国际公约》(The International Convention for the Prevention of an Pollution of the Sea by Oil,1954)
01
美国司法部，路易斯安那州和阿拉巴马州以及大量的私人和企业提出了针对深水钻井区的 承租人，所有者，操作者，固井及录井服务的提供者和防泄漏装置的制造商提出了诉讼， 指控侵犯《清洁水法案》和《油污染法案》导致油污泄漏进入墨西哥湾。法院针对案件采 取多阶段审理，承认了部分政府的即决判决动议。至于《油污法案》的限制条件是否被采 纳，法院对于相应的主张执行了“事件阶段”审判。
• 油污责任信赖基金由美国国会设立于1986年，1990年美国时任 总统老布什签署命令，《石油污染法》生效，基金资金也正式获 得许可使用权 • 基金主要由两部分组成，包括紧急基金(The Emergency Fund)和 常设基金(The Principal Fund)。
美国溢油责任信托基金 OSLTF（oil spill liability trust fund）
supreme court
溢油责任信托基 金 OSLTF（oil spill liability trust fund）
针对墨西哥湾溢油案产生的信托基金
• 2010年6月16日，美国总统奥巴马与英国石油公司(BP)首席执行 官唐熙华及董事长思文凯在白宫举行了会谈。这是继4月20日泄 漏事件爆发后，美国总统第一次与英国石油高管面对面。经过谈 判，英国石油公司与奥巴马政府达成一项初步协议，同意建立一 只基金来支付与墨西哥湾原油泄露事件相关的索赔请求，该基金 总额为200亿美元。
• 同时期国际社会也在努力建立应对海洋溢油事故的国际机制。 • 与设立赔偿基金有关的公约有两个 • 《国际油污损害赔偿民事责 任公约》及其1992年修正案(《国际 油污民事责任公约》)， • 《设立油污损害赔偿国际基金国际公约》
美国溢油责任信托基金 OSLTF（oil spill liability trust fund）
Biblioteka Baidu
02
02
intermediate court
intermediate court
intermediate court
The court having been polled at the request of one of its members, and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor (Fed. R.App. P. 35 and 5th Cir. R. 35), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. Judge Clement, joined by Judges Jolly, Jones, Owen, Elrod, and Southwick, dissents from the court's denial of rehearing en banc, and her dissent is attached. In the en banc poll, 6 judges voted in favor of rehearing (Judges Jolly, Jones, Clement, Owen, Elrod and Southwick) and 7 judges voted against rehearing (Chief Judge Stewart and Judges Davis, Dennis, Prado, Haynes, Graves, and Costa).
溢油责任信托基金(OSLTF)在事件中的作用
• 工作、服务和因溢油而购买原材料的采购成本；
• 反映各机构降低溢油影响的活动成本；
• 联邦机构临时雇佣的处理溢油事件的人员成本；
• 监管和评估的成本；
• 交通设备成本；
• 交通成本； • 开辟新领域而产生的办公室设备、资本和维护成本； • 清理相关的材料、设备和供应成本； • 海洋运输成本和材料； • 支付给溢油事故现场全职工作员工超时工作的薪水。
美国溢油责任信托基金 OSLTF（oil spill liability trust fund）
• 责任人抗辩：
• 下列事由可以作为责任人的抗辩理由： (1)不可抗力(2)战争行为 (3) 独立第三方行为或疏忽导致，如果责任人可以举证证明其已 经尽到足够的注意义 务并且采取了相应的预防措施(4)责任人及 时通报事故并在随后的清污活动中 提供合作。 责任人责任限制 也存在例外，包括严重疏忽的行为，故意的不当行为，或者 违反 联邦安全施工规定而造成泄漏的行为。“