유조선에 의한 유류오염손해에 대한 국제배상제도 -미국 유류오염법과의 비교를 중심으로-

Since the ‘Torry Canyon’ accident 1967, international conventions have been established under the auspices of IMO(International Maritime Organism), in order to prevent ships from polluting the marine environment and to compensate oil pollution damage. Especially with regard to oil pollution by tankers, 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage(1969 CLC) and 1971 International Convention on Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage(1971 FC) and the respective 1992 Protocols thereof(1992 CLC․FC) came into effect. The above regime of CLC․FC has regulated oil pollution damage from thenceforth successfully. But the major oil pollution accidents such as ‘Erika 1999’ and ‘Prestige 2000’ have raised questions about the CLC․FC regime. To answer the questions, the two Protocols (‘2000 Protocol’ and ‘2003 Supplementary Fund’) have been adapted for increasing liability limits and establishing the Fund for supplementing shortages. Despite all the changes through the years, some principles of the CLC․FC regime have remained essentially unchanged since its establishment. These are strict liability, channeling of liability, limitation of liability and compulsory insurance and Some of them have been criticized especially by the countries in EU. On the other hand United States of America did not ratify the above CLC․FC regime, but enacted their own legislation, namely ‘Oil Pollution Act’(OPA). It is considered more upgraded legislation than the international regime in light of virtually imposing an unlimited liability on responsible party, recognizing the compensation for the non use value of natural resources. In this article I compare CLC․FC regime with OPA and try to propose an approach for revising the international compensation regime.