在国内法视野下，国家实践通常针对损害赔偿做出限制性规定，特别是在涉及到那些尽管对当代文明起到举足轻重的作用，但极有可能造成损害的活动，以及损害发生虽然具有偶然性但更具毁灭性的事项。例如涉及到核材料的使用。限制损害赔偿的条文被精心设计以期实现如下两个目的：（1）保护产业免受无限制的责任，以及避免对其造成财政瘫痪，阻碍其未来持续性发展；（2）确保因潜在危险的活动遭受伤害的一方获得合理公正的赔偿。
《美国油污染法案》规定了责任限额。然而，根据第2704（c）（1）项，若事故由下列情形导致，事故责任方丧失责任限制。具体情形包括：
“（1）重大过失或恶意行为；
（2）违反联邦安全、构造或操作规则”
在《油污法案》第2704（c）(2)条项下，若责任方在其“未能或拒绝”履行如下事项时，不得享受其责任限制：
“（1）在责任方知道或应当知道事故发生时，根据法律规定及时报告事故；
（2）在清除活动中，根据负责人的要求向其提供合理的协作与帮助；
（3）没有充足的理由，履行根据本法案第1321条第（c）款或第（e）款，或者根据《公海干预法案》发布的命令”
根据《油污法案》第2714条（a）款规定的赔偿限制也可能在第2714条（c）款规定的情形下失效。后者规定了责任方的雇员或其独立承包人为责任方提供服务时实施了有意识的不当行为或者违反了安全规则的情况。
美国《环境保护赔偿责任法》于第9607（c）(1)项包含了对责任限制的规定。该款同时认可，如果责任方在没有充足理由的情况下，未能在总统下达命令时，合理的做出清除或补救措施，将对其征收惩罚性损害赔偿金。惩罚性赔偿金额至少等于并且不超过由于未能采取合理行动而导致的费用。同时根据《油污法案》的规定，如果被告未能与官员进行良好的合作或提供协助，则丧失赔偿限制权。
1990年德国ELA第15条也规定了对责任的限制。
（a）条约实践
《1969年国际油污损害民事赔偿责任公约1992年议定书》（以下简称1992CLC）规定了对责任的限制。由于之前1969年CLC规定的限制额被认为过低，其1984年议定书提高了石油污染损害赔偿最高额，以吸引一些国家特别是美国加入该协定。1984年议定书第6条修改了1969年CLC第5条第2款，规定如下：
“根据本公约，如果有证据证明污染损害是由责任方以造成该损害为意图的个人行为或疏忽所致，或者在明知该损害可能发生时草率行事，则船舶所有人不得享有责任限制。”
然而，1989年3月，瓦尔迪兹号在阿拉斯加州威廉王子湾航行时造成的事故引起了巨大的公众反响。这导致美国国会做出了拒绝加入1984年议定书，同时颁布了1990年石油污染法案。法案规定的责任限额远高于1984年协定，并且较之之前的协定，规定了在更多情形下不得限制责任，例如在存在重大过失、有意识的不当行为和违反适用的联邦法规等情形。1984年议定书自始未生效，并且其规定的限制情形也未曾被1992年CLC所采纳。 《海上运输危险和有毒物质损害责任和赔偿国际公约》（以下简称HNS）和《公路、铁路和内河航运船舶运输危险货物损坏民事责任公约》（以下简称CRTD）均对责任做出限制。根据HNS，若损害是由责任人个人行为或疏忽造成则其无权主张责任限制。责任人所为行为或疏忽应当具有造成损害的意图，或者在明知该损害可能发生的情况下依然草率行事。根据CRTD，在第10条项下，“有证据证明损害是由责任方的雇员或代理人有意图造成损害后果而所为的个人行为或疏忽，或者在明知该损害可能发生时草率行事，则责任限制不再适用。同时还应证明，其行为是在其雇佣活动范围内从事的。”
HNS第9条第3款和第13条要求船舶所有人设立等同于责任限额的基金并且实施强制保险。CRTD第13条同时要求运输公司强制保险，保险金额等同于责任最大额。第14条规定，每个缔约国都应当设置至少一个合适的机构来分配或批准可证明运输公司拥有有效保险的证书。
巴塞尔公约基于严格责任和过错原则建立了责任制度。保险和其它金融担保承担强制性的严格责任。任何个人由于其未服从巴塞尔公约的执行条款或者由于其错误的、鲁莽的、疏忽的行为或疏忽而造成或促成损害的，将承担过错责任。
2003基辅协议也基于严格责任和过错责任规定责任。金融限制适用于严格责任而非后者。
根据勘探和开采海床矿物资源造成的油污损害民事赔偿责任公约第六条的规定，船舶操作者的责任也受到限制。根据第4条，如果有证据证明污染损害是由操作者自身的行为或懈怠造成，或者明知污染损害会发生仍故意为之时，操作者不能对责任进行限制。两个因素移除责任限制时纳入考量：（a）操作者的行为或懈怠，（b）明知污染损害会发生。因此根据本条约，操作者的疏忽不会移除对责任的限制。
译者单位：对外经济贸易大学法学院。感谢译者授权本网发表！
附原文：
Survey of liability regimes relevant to the topic of international liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (international liability in case of loss from transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities)
International Law Commission Fifty-sixth session
Geneva, 3 May-4 June and 5 July-6 August 2004
As in domestic law, State practice has provided for limitations on compensation, particularly in connection with activities which, although important to present-day civilization, can be injurious, as well as with activities capable of causing accidental but devastating injuries, such as those involving the use of nuclear materials. The provisions on limitation of compensation have been carefully designed to fulfill two objectives: (a) to protect industries from an unlimited liability that would paralyze them financially and discourage their future development; and (b) to ensure reasonable and fair compensation for those who suffer injuries as a result of those potentially dangerous activities.
The United States OPA provides for limitation of liability. However, limitation cannot be invoked if, under section 2704 (c) (1), the incident was proximately caused by:
“(A) The gross negligence or willful misconduct of, or
(B) The violation of an applicable Federal safety, construction or operating regulation.
Under section 2704 (c) (2) of OPA, the responsible party is not entitled to limit its liability if it “fails or refuses”:
“(A) To report the incident as required by law and the responsible party knows or has reason to know of the incident;
(B) To provide all reasonable cooperation and assistance requested by a responsible official in connection with removal activities; or
(C) Without sufficient cause, to comply with an order issued under subsection (c) or (e) of section 1321 of this title or the Intervention on the High Seas Act. ”
The limitation of liability provided under section 2714 (a) of OPA may also be lost in accordance with section 2714 (c) by the willful misconduct or violation of a safety regulation by an employee of the responsible party or by an independent contractor performing services for the responsible party.
The United States CERCLA contains, in section 9607 (c) (1), provisions on limitation of liability. The subsection also authorizes the imposition of punitive damages if a liable person fails without sufficient cause properly to provide removal or remedial action upon order of the President in an amount at least equal to and not more than three times the amount of costs incurred as a result of the failure to take proper action. As in OPA, the right to limit liability is lost if the defendant fails to cooperate or provide assistance to public officials.
(a) Treaty practice
The 1992 CLC provides for limitation of liability. Since the amount of limitation in the earlier 1969 CLC was viewed as too low, it was amended by the 1984 Protocol to increase the maximum amount of compensation available in case of oil pollution and was intended to attract some States in particular the United States to join the Protocol. Article 6 of the 1984 Protocol amended paragraph 2 of article V of the 1969 CLC by providing that:
“The owner shall not be entitled to limit his liability under this Convention if it is proved that the pollution damage resulted from his personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result.”
However, in March 1989, when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, there was a strong public reaction. This led to a decision by the United States Congress to reject the Protocol and to enact the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which introduced limits on liability substantially higher than the 1984 Protocol and provided unlimited liability in more circumstances than the earlier instrument, such as in situations of gross negligence, willful misconduct and violations of applicable federal regulations. The 1984 Protocol never entered into force and the limits situation was not improved by the 1992 CLC.
Both HNS and CRTD contain limits on liability. In the case of the HNS, the owner shall not be entitled to limit liability if it is proved that the damage resulted from the personal act or omission of the owner. Such act or omission should be with the intent to cause damage, or recklessly and with the knowledge that such damage would probably result. With CRTD, limitation of liability is not applicable if, under article 10 of the Convention, “it is proved that the damage resulted from his personal act or omission or an act or omission of his servants or agents, committed with the intent to cause such damage or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result, provided that, in the case of such act or omission of a servant or agent, it is also proved that he was acting within the scope of his employment.”
Article 9, paragraph 3, and article 13 of HNS require the owner to constitute a fund for the total sum representing the limit of liability and to carry compulsory insurance. Article 13 of CRTD also requires compulsory insurance from the carrier which should be equivalent to the maximum amount of liability. Article 14 provides that every State party shall designate one or several competent authorities to issue or approve certificates attesting that the carrier has valid insurance.
The Basel Protocol establishes liability based on a strict liability regime and on fault. Insurance and other financial guarantees are compulsory in respect of the former. Fault liability is imputed to any person who caused or contributed to damage by his lack of compliance with the implementation provisions of the Basel Convention or by his wrongful, intentional, reckless or negligent acts or omissions.
The 2003 Kiev Protocol also establishes liability on the basis of strict liability and fault liability. Financial limits apply to the former and not to the latter.
The liability of the operator is also limited under article 6 of the Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage resulting from Exploration for and Exploitation of Seabed Mineral Resources. Under paragraph 4, the operator will not be entitled to limit his liability if it is proved that the pollution damage occurred as a result of an act or omission of the operator himself, done deliberately with actual knowledge that pollution damage will result. Two elements are thus required to remove the limitation on liability: (a) an act or omission of the operator, and (b) actual knowledge that pollution damage will result. Hence the negligence of the operator does not, under this Convention, remove the limitation on liability.
