国务院关于加强内河乡镇运输船舶安全管理的通知
作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-07-07 09:35:42 浏览:8197
来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载
国务院关于加强内河乡镇运输船舶安全管理的通知
国务院关于加强内河乡镇运输船舶安全管理的通知
最近一个时期，全国内河的乡镇运输船舶（即乡镇中企业事业单位、个体、合伙、承包
经营户的运输船舶）不断发生重大沉船事故，给人民生命财产带来严重损失，影响了社会安
定。造成事故的原因是多方面的，有的是乡镇运输船舶无合格船舶、船员证照，严重超载，
违章操作；有的因为管理机构和管理工作不落实，特别是县、乡（镇）人民政府水上安全管
理责任不明确，使一些地区处于失管失控状况。内河乡镇运输船舶的安全管理是一项社会性
强、涉及面广的工作，必须在各级人民政府统一领导下，组织有关部门进行综合治理，才能
扭转事故多发的被动局面。为此，特作如下通知：
一、各地人民政府要按照《中华人民共和国内河交通安全管理条例》的有关规定，组织
有关部门对本地区的渡口和乡镇运输船舶进行一次全面的整顿和检查，凡不符合规定的，一
律不准从事客货运输。
二、各地人民政府要在整顿和检查的基础上，根据本地区内河乡镇运输船舶的安全情况，
制定出相应的管理措施，进一步明确县、乡（镇）人民政府的管理责任和权限，并由乡（镇）
人民政府在辖区内设立水上安全管理机构或管理人员，负责组织实施水上交通安全法规和进
行安全检查。今后，凡因管理不善造成重大事故的，要追究有关领导和管理人员的责任。
三、长江干线、珠江、黑龙江的安全监督管理，由交通部设置的港航监督机构统一负责。
其他内河水域的安全监督管理，由省、自治区、直辖市交通厅（局）内设置的港航监督机构
负责。
各省、自治区、直辖市港航监督部门的管理经费，在船舶港务费中支付；县以下水上安
全管理部门的经费，按国家经委、交通部、财政部等八个部门《关于加强乡镇运输船舶安全
监督管理的通知》〔（８７）交水监字１５６号〕的规定支付。
四、乡镇运输船舶不得载运易燃、易爆、有毒、有害等危险物品。任何单位和个人不得
擅自租用或委托乡镇运输船舶运输危险物品。少数地区因交通原因需要由乡镇运输船舶承运
危险物品的，须按国家有关危险物品管理和运输的规定办理；承运危险物品的船舶在每次运
输之前，须向当地水上安全监督部门申请“危险物品准运证”，并采取安全可靠措施。擅自运
输危险物品的，要分别追究承运人和托运人的责任，造成严重后果的要依法惩处。
五、除公安、工商部门依法执行公务和查处违法犯罪行为的以外，对乡镇运输船舶的检
查和罚款，由交通主管部门按照国家统一规定执行，其他单位不得擅自拦截船舶进行检查、
收费和罚款。特殊情况，须经省、自治区、直辖市交通主管部门批准。
六、水库、公园、风景区水域中的乡镇游览船舶，由水库、公园、风景区所在地人民政
府指定的管理单位按照港航监督部门的要求负责管理，并接受当地港航监督部门的监督检查。
凡管理混乱、安全责任制不落实、不按定额载客的，港航监督部门有权责令其停航整顿。
下载地址: 点击此处下载
Reviews on the principle of effective nationality
孙倩
I. Introduction
In a world of ever-increasing transnational interaction, the importance of individual protection during the processes concurrently increases. Nationality is the principal link between individuals and states but also is the bridge connecting individuals with international law. It is just through the linkage of nationality can a person enjoy diplomatic protection by his parent state. But due to double nationality, there are lots of difficulties to effective diplomatic protection of individuals. The principle of effective nationality was formed through the judicial practice of international court of justice. What is the meaning of the principle of effective nationality? Is it a perfect theory in the face of diplomatic protection of dual national? In this article, the author will introduce the concept of this principle and give her opinions on it.
II: The concept of principle of effective nationality
Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a certain state. Nationality is of critical importance to individuals, especially with regard to individuals abroad or their property. Firstly, it is the main link between individual and a state. It is evidence that one can be protected by his parent state.
Secondly, to some extent, individuals are not the subjects of international law, so they cannot directly enjoy the rights and undertake responsibilities coming from international law. It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy benefits from international law.
In principle, nationality as a term of local or municipal law is usually determined by the law of particular state. Each state has discretion of determining who is and who is not, to be considered its nationals. However, there is no generally binding rules concerning acquisition and loss of nationality, and as the laws of different states differ in many points relating to this matter, so it is beyond surprising that an individual may process more than one nationality as easily as none at all. But whether each granted nationality owned by these dual nationals has international effects is in doubt. In another word, the determination by each state of the grant of its own nationality is not necessarily to be accepted internationally without question. Especially, when a dual national seeks diplomatic protection in some third state, that state is not answerable to both of states of his nationality but only one of them. In this situation, the third state is entitled to judge which nationality should be recognized.
As stated in Art1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, while it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals, such law must be recognized by other states only “in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principle of law generally recognized with regard to nationality”. In the “Nottebohm” case, the International Court of Justice regard nationality as: ‘a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as a result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the state conferring nationality than with that of any other state’ That is what is called the real and effective nationality. Deriving from the court’s opinion, the principle of effective nationality came into being. The essential parts of effective and real nationality are that which accorded with the facts, which based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the states whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his families, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc. According to this principle, no state is under obligation to recognize a nationality granted not meeting the requirements of it. In the Nottebohm case, International Court of Justice first enunciated this principle and denied Liechtenstein the right to protect Nottebohm.
III． Nottebohm case and reviews on the principle of effective nationality
In the Nottebohm case, involving Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the former sought restitution and compensation on behalf of Nottebohm for the latter’s actions allegedly in violation of international law.
Nottebohm, a German national resident in Guatemala, had large business interest there and in Germany. He also had a brother in Liechtenstein, whom he occasionally visited. While still a German national, Nottebohm applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein on October 9, 1939, shortly after the German invasion of Poland. Relieved of the three-year residence requirements, Nottebohm paid his fees and taxes to Liechtenstein and became a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein by taking an oath of allegiance on October 20,1939, thereby forfeiting his German nationality under the nationality law of Liechtenstein. He returned to Liechtenstein early in 1949 on a Liechtenstein passport to resume his business activities. At his request, the Guatemalan ministry of External Affairs changed the Nottebohm entry in its Register of Aliens from “German” to “Liechtenstein” national. Shortly afterward a state of war came into existence between the USA and Germany and between Guatemala and Germany. Arrested in Guatemala in 1943, Nottebohm has deported to the USA, where he was interned as an enemy alien until 1946. Upon his release, Nottebohm applied for readmission to Guatemala but was refused; therefore, he took up residence in Liechtenstein. Meanwhile, the Guatemalan government, after classifying him as an enemy alien, expropriated his extensive properties without compensation.
Liechtenstein instituted proceedings against Guatemala in International Court of Justice, asking the court to declare that Guatemala had violated international law “in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property”. The court rejected the Liechtenstein claim by a vote of 11 to 3, declaring that Nottebohm’s naturalization could not be accorded international recognition because there was no sufficient “bond of attachment” between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein.
The Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen and the loss of Nottebohm could not be remedied. The application of the “genuine link” theory, borrowed from the very different context of dual nationality problems, has the unfortunate effect of depriving an individual of a hearing on the merits and the protection by a state willing to espouse his claim in the transnational arena. The net effect is an immense loss of protection of human rights for individuals. Such a decision runs counter to contemporary community expectations emphasizing the increased protection of human rights for individuals. If the right of protection is abolished, it becomes impossible to consider the merits of certain claims alleging a violation of the rules of international law. If no other state is in a position to exercise diplomatic protection, as in the present case, claims put forward on behalf of an individual, whose nationality is disputed or held to be inoperative on the international level and who enjoys no other nationality, would have to be abandoned. The protection of the individual which is so precarious under the international law would be weakened even further and the author consider that this would be contrary to the basic principle embodied in Article15 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. As a matter of human rights, every person should be free to change his nationality. Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that ‘everyone has the right to a nationality’ (Art.15 (1)).The right to a nationality can be interpreted as a positive formulation of the duty to avoid statelessness. The duty to avoid statelessness is laid down in various international instruments, in particular in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The term statelessness refers to the “de iure stateless persons” rather than “de-facto stateless persons”. If it is a free choice and if this nationality is to be a benefit rather than a burden to the individual, it should follow that he has the right to renounce one nationality on acquiring a new one. Furthermore, refusal to exercise protection is not accordance with the frequent attempts made at the present time to prevent the increase in the number of cases of stateless persons and provide protection against acts violating the fundamental human rights recognized by international law as a minimum standard, without distinction as to nationality, religion or race. It is unfortunately not the case. While the Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen, the Flegenheimer case involved the denial of protection to a national by birth, when and where will the principle of effective nationality be used? This is a question that needs to be thought over. From the standpoint of human rights protection, the application of this principle should be strictly limited.
VI. Conclusion
Nationality is within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, which settles, by its own legislation, the rules relating to the acquisition of its nationality. It is sometimes asserted that there must be a genuine and effective link between an individual and a state in order to establish a nationality which must be accepted by other states. It is doubtful, however, whether the genuine and effective link requirement, used by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm-Case in order to deny Liechtenstein’s claim to exercise protection, can be considered as a relevant element for international recognition of nationality or as a requirement of a valid naturalization under public international law. It is frequently argued that in the absence of any recognized criteria the attribution of nationality must be considered as arbitrary and that there must be some kind of a personal and territorial link. The rule, however, although maintained in state practice, has been gradually diminished in its importance due to one exception, which concerning the raising of claims in case of human rights protection, especially to dual nationals who suffers injury in the third state and cannot be protected by his origin nationality state.
References
1, Bauer, O. (2001, first published in 1907). The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2, ICJRep , 1995, P4, atP23
3, SIR ROBERT JENNINGS & SIR ARTHUR WATTS Oppenheim’s International Law, Longman Group UK LIMITED AND Mrs.Tomokohudso, 1992
国家安全生产监督管理总局
安委办函〔2006〕61号
关于印发《苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制协调会议纪要》的通知
上海市、江苏省、浙江省安全生产监督管理局、公安厅（局）、交通厅（局）：
2006年9月28日，国务院安全生产委员会办公室在上海市召开了苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制协调会议。现将会议纪要印发给你们，请认真组织落实。
二00六年十月十一日
苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制协调会议纪要
为巩固危险化学品道路运输专项整治成果，强化危险化学品道路运输日常监管工作，2005年以来，上海市、江苏省、浙江省有关部门积极推动建立区域联动监管机制。为及早形成区域联动监管机制，进一步加大联合执法力度，保障苏浙沪区域危险化学品道路运输安全，国务院安全生产委员会办公室于2006年9月28日，在上海市召开了苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制协调会。参加会议的有上海市、江苏省、浙江省安全监管、公安、交通部门负责危险化学品道路运输安全监管工作的分管负责人和业务处处长，交通部公路司及天泰雷兹科技（北京）有限公司派员参加了会议。国务院安委会办公室副主任、国家安全监管总局副局长孙华山同志出席了会议并作重要讲话。
孙华山副局长在讲话中指出，这次会议标志着苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制的正式建立和启动，这是贯彻落实“安全第一、预防为主、综合治理”方针的新举措，对于促进企业发展、政府监管、社会和谐必将起到重要作用。建立跨区域的联控机制，从危险化学品道路运输的特点和实际出发，适应了地区经济快速发展的需要，把防范事故风险的关口前移，解决各部门监管、协调方面存在的条块分割、相互衔接不够紧密的问题。联控机制建立、创新了危险化学品道路运输安全监控方式、监管手段，各部门分工明确，落实责任，协作配合，沿途省市做到“基本信息共享、动态监控通报、联合执法同步、查处意见反馈”，以确保省际之间危险化学品运输的安全。
会上，江苏、浙江、上海两省一市的安委会办公室通报了2005年以来落实《苏浙沪建立区域联动强化危险化学品道路运输安全监管专题研讨会会议纪要》的工作情况及存在的问题；对进一步做好危险化学品道路运输安全监管和建立省际联控机制，进行了认真的分析和研究；商议、签订了《苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制协议》，并讨论了《推进建立苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制工作时间表》。天泰雷兹科技（北京）有限公司介绍了“危险化学品汽车运输安全监控系统”应用情况。通过建立苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制，从管理和技术两个层面来实现信息共享和相互通报、协查制度，设立危险化学品道路运输车辆省际间通行的专用通道口，依法查处违法违规危险化学品运输行为，及时处置和消除事故隐患，提高危险化学品道路运输安全监管水平，实现苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全状况的根本好转。同时，为构建全国统一多级监控平台网络创造条件。
会议议定如下事项：
一、通过建立信息互动、联合执法、动态跟踪等工作机制，依法查处危险化学品运输违法违规行为，努力提升区域内危险化学品道路运输的安全可控度。在总结经验、逐步完善的基础上，将危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制向周边地区扩展。
二、依托信息网络技术，实施信息资源共享和相互通报制度；经省（市）人民政府批准设立并公布危险化学品道路运输车辆省际间公路检查站和通行的进出专用道口；重点对运输液氯、液氨、液化石油气和剧毒溶剂的罐车依法实施监督检查。
三、落实危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制，要抓好以下几项工作：
（一）消除源头隐患，遏制事故苗头。苏浙沪安全生产监管部门应当责成危险化学品生产、储存企业把住源头，建立危险化学品发货登记制度。禁止向无《危险品道路运输证》，驾驶员、押运员无从业资格证的车辆发货；禁止超载、超限发货；禁止向无《剧毒化学品公路运输通行证》车辆发送剧毒品。
苏浙沪交通主管部门应当责成相关运输单位采取措施，对承运液氯、液氨、液化石油气和剧毒溶剂罐车安装GPS车载终端，并建立监控平台。
（二）实施资源共享，开展信息通报。实施信息资源共享。苏浙沪交通部门会同公安部门依托各自已有的网站，及时更新具备危险化学品运输资质的单位名单、车辆牌照号码等信息，确保可供对方实时查询和验证的信息有效性。
凡被查实非法运输、超载、超限及在禁运时段内运输危险化学品的行为，事发地有关部门在依法查处的同时，应及时向运输车辆所属省市和启运地的相关职能部门通报。各职能部门按照法律赋予的职责依法追究供货单位、托运人的连带责任。
（三）设置检查道口，把好进出关口。为了减少和预防危险化学品道路运输事故，规范运输行为，依法查处违法违规车辆，苏浙沪公安部门对危险化学品道路运输车辆进出江苏、浙江、上海的地面、高速公路道口实行监督检查，及时消除事故隐患，并向山东、安徽、江西、福建等周边省通报。
苏浙沪公安部门应会同交通部门在准许或禁止危险化学品道路运输车辆进出的主要道路和道口设置相关标志、标识。
苏浙沪公安、交通部门依法对道路运输液氯、液氨、液化石油气和剧毒溶剂罐车的交通违法行为进行查处。必要时，二省一市公安部门可以在重要时段和重点路段组织有关部门，开展联合的集中检查。
（四）严格安全检查、依法监督查处。坚持首查责任制和先处置、后处罚的原则。各职能部门按照各自职责，对被扣留车辆，视车辆实际状况、所载物品危险程度，采取押送或驳运等方式，到指定地点或目的地处理。
对被扣留的液氯、液氨、液化石油气和剧毒溶剂罐车车辆，应依法予以处罚。如果存在无法减载或驳运的情况，应采取监督承运企业进行护送或押送的方法，到事发地最近的发货地（目的地）或指定地点处置。
建立协查制度。对二省一市涉及两地或两地以上的、且本地又难以处理的违法违规运输行为，应由事发地的公安、交通、安全监管部门根据各自的职责，协助相关省市的对应的职能部门进行处置；必要时,由事发地的安委会办公室协调处置。
四、苏浙沪二省一市安全监管、公安、交通部门要加大联合执法力度，提高防范、应对化学品道路运输事故的能力。要建立地区间联席会议制度，定期通报和研究危险化学品道路运输安全监管的新情况和新问题，采取切实有效的措施，及时加以解决。要认真总结经验，不断完善危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制，把联控机制建立好、维护好、发展好。
附件：参加会议人员名单
孙倩
I. Introduction
In a world of ever-increasing transnational interaction, the importance of individual protection during the processes concurrently increases. Nationality is the principal link between individuals and states but also is the bridge connecting individuals with international law. It is just through the linkage of nationality can a person enjoy diplomatic protection by his parent state. But due to double nationality, there are lots of difficulties to effective diplomatic protection of individuals. The principle of effective nationality was formed through the judicial practice of international court of justice. What is the meaning of the principle of effective nationality? Is it a perfect theory in the face of diplomatic protection of dual national? In this article, the author will introduce the concept of this principle and give her opinions on it.
II: The concept of principle of effective nationality
Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a certain state. Nationality is of critical importance to individuals, especially with regard to individuals abroad or their property. Firstly, it is the main link between individual and a state. It is evidence that one can be protected by his parent state.
Secondly, to some extent, individuals are not the subjects of international law, so they cannot directly enjoy the rights and undertake responsibilities coming from international law. It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy benefits from international law.
In principle, nationality as a term of local or municipal law is usually determined by the law of particular state. Each state has discretion of determining who is and who is not, to be considered its nationals. However, there is no generally binding rules concerning acquisition and loss of nationality, and as the laws of different states differ in many points relating to this matter, so it is beyond surprising that an individual may process more than one nationality as easily as none at all. But whether each granted nationality owned by these dual nationals has international effects is in doubt. In another word, the determination by each state of the grant of its own nationality is not necessarily to be accepted internationally without question. Especially, when a dual national seeks diplomatic protection in some third state, that state is not answerable to both of states of his nationality but only one of them. In this situation, the third state is entitled to judge which nationality should be recognized.
As stated in Art1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, while it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals, such law must be recognized by other states only “in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principle of law generally recognized with regard to nationality”. In the “Nottebohm” case, the International Court of Justice regard nationality as: ‘a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as a result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the state conferring nationality than with that of any other state’ That is what is called the real and effective nationality. Deriving from the court’s opinion, the principle of effective nationality came into being. The essential parts of effective and real nationality are that which accorded with the facts, which based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the states whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his families, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc. According to this principle, no state is under obligation to recognize a nationality granted not meeting the requirements of it. In the Nottebohm case, International Court of Justice first enunciated this principle and denied Liechtenstein the right to protect Nottebohm.
III． Nottebohm case and reviews on the principle of effective nationality
In the Nottebohm case, involving Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the former sought restitution and compensation on behalf of Nottebohm for the latter’s actions allegedly in violation of international law.
Nottebohm, a German national resident in Guatemala, had large business interest there and in Germany. He also had a brother in Liechtenstein, whom he occasionally visited. While still a German national, Nottebohm applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein on October 9, 1939, shortly after the German invasion of Poland. Relieved of the three-year residence requirements, Nottebohm paid his fees and taxes to Liechtenstein and became a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein by taking an oath of allegiance on October 20,1939, thereby forfeiting his German nationality under the nationality law of Liechtenstein. He returned to Liechtenstein early in 1949 on a Liechtenstein passport to resume his business activities. At his request, the Guatemalan ministry of External Affairs changed the Nottebohm entry in its Register of Aliens from “German” to “Liechtenstein” national. Shortly afterward a state of war came into existence between the USA and Germany and between Guatemala and Germany. Arrested in Guatemala in 1943, Nottebohm has deported to the USA, where he was interned as an enemy alien until 1946. Upon his release, Nottebohm applied for readmission to Guatemala but was refused; therefore, he took up residence in Liechtenstein. Meanwhile, the Guatemalan government, after classifying him as an enemy alien, expropriated his extensive properties without compensation.
Liechtenstein instituted proceedings against Guatemala in International Court of Justice, asking the court to declare that Guatemala had violated international law “in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property”. The court rejected the Liechtenstein claim by a vote of 11 to 3, declaring that Nottebohm’s naturalization could not be accorded international recognition because there was no sufficient “bond of attachment” between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein.
The Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen and the loss of Nottebohm could not be remedied. The application of the “genuine link” theory, borrowed from the very different context of dual nationality problems, has the unfortunate effect of depriving an individual of a hearing on the merits and the protection by a state willing to espouse his claim in the transnational arena. The net effect is an immense loss of protection of human rights for individuals. Such a decision runs counter to contemporary community expectations emphasizing the increased protection of human rights for individuals. If the right of protection is abolished, it becomes impossible to consider the merits of certain claims alleging a violation of the rules of international law. If no other state is in a position to exercise diplomatic protection, as in the present case, claims put forward on behalf of an individual, whose nationality is disputed or held to be inoperative on the international level and who enjoys no other nationality, would have to be abandoned. The protection of the individual which is so precarious under the international law would be weakened even further and the author consider that this would be contrary to the basic principle embodied in Article15 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. As a matter of human rights, every person should be free to change his nationality. Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that ‘everyone has the right to a nationality’ (Art.15 (1)).The right to a nationality can be interpreted as a positive formulation of the duty to avoid statelessness. The duty to avoid statelessness is laid down in various international instruments, in particular in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The term statelessness refers to the “de iure stateless persons” rather than “de-facto stateless persons”. If it is a free choice and if this nationality is to be a benefit rather than a burden to the individual, it should follow that he has the right to renounce one nationality on acquiring a new one. Furthermore, refusal to exercise protection is not accordance with the frequent attempts made at the present time to prevent the increase in the number of cases of stateless persons and provide protection against acts violating the fundamental human rights recognized by international law as a minimum standard, without distinction as to nationality, religion or race. It is unfortunately not the case. While the Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen, the Flegenheimer case involved the denial of protection to a national by birth, when and where will the principle of effective nationality be used? This is a question that needs to be thought over. From the standpoint of human rights protection, the application of this principle should be strictly limited.
VI. Conclusion
Nationality is within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, which settles, by its own legislation, the rules relating to the acquisition of its nationality. It is sometimes asserted that there must be a genuine and effective link between an individual and a state in order to establish a nationality which must be accepted by other states. It is doubtful, however, whether the genuine and effective link requirement, used by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm-Case in order to deny Liechtenstein’s claim to exercise protection, can be considered as a relevant element for international recognition of nationality or as a requirement of a valid naturalization under public international law. It is frequently argued that in the absence of any recognized criteria the attribution of nationality must be considered as arbitrary and that there must be some kind of a personal and territorial link. The rule, however, although maintained in state practice, has been gradually diminished in its importance due to one exception, which concerning the raising of claims in case of human rights protection, especially to dual nationals who suffers injury in the third state and cannot be protected by his origin nationality state.
References
1, Bauer, O. (2001, first published in 1907). The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2, ICJRep , 1995, P4, atP23
3, SIR ROBERT JENNINGS & SIR ARTHUR WATTS Oppenheim’s International Law, Longman Group UK LIMITED AND Mrs.Tomokohudso, 1992
关于印发《苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制协调会议纪要》的通知
安委办函〔2006〕61号
关于印发《苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制协调会议纪要》的通知
上海市、江苏省、浙江省安全生产监督管理局、公安厅（局）、交通厅（局）：
2006年9月28日，国务院安全生产委员会办公室在上海市召开了苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制协调会议。现将会议纪要印发给你们，请认真组织落实。
二00六年十月十一日
苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制协调会议纪要
为巩固危险化学品道路运输专项整治成果，强化危险化学品道路运输日常监管工作，2005年以来，上海市、江苏省、浙江省有关部门积极推动建立区域联动监管机制。为及早形成区域联动监管机制，进一步加大联合执法力度，保障苏浙沪区域危险化学品道路运输安全，国务院安全生产委员会办公室于2006年9月28日，在上海市召开了苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制协调会。参加会议的有上海市、江苏省、浙江省安全监管、公安、交通部门负责危险化学品道路运输安全监管工作的分管负责人和业务处处长，交通部公路司及天泰雷兹科技（北京）有限公司派员参加了会议。国务院安委会办公室副主任、国家安全监管总局副局长孙华山同志出席了会议并作重要讲话。
孙华山副局长在讲话中指出，这次会议标志着苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制的正式建立和启动，这是贯彻落实“安全第一、预防为主、综合治理”方针的新举措，对于促进企业发展、政府监管、社会和谐必将起到重要作用。建立跨区域的联控机制，从危险化学品道路运输的特点和实际出发，适应了地区经济快速发展的需要，把防范事故风险的关口前移，解决各部门监管、协调方面存在的条块分割、相互衔接不够紧密的问题。联控机制建立、创新了危险化学品道路运输安全监控方式、监管手段，各部门分工明确，落实责任，协作配合，沿途省市做到“基本信息共享、动态监控通报、联合执法同步、查处意见反馈”，以确保省际之间危险化学品运输的安全。
会上，江苏、浙江、上海两省一市的安委会办公室通报了2005年以来落实《苏浙沪建立区域联动强化危险化学品道路运输安全监管专题研讨会会议纪要》的工作情况及存在的问题；对进一步做好危险化学品道路运输安全监管和建立省际联控机制，进行了认真的分析和研究；商议、签订了《苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制协议》，并讨论了《推进建立苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制工作时间表》。天泰雷兹科技（北京）有限公司介绍了“危险化学品汽车运输安全监控系统”应用情况。通过建立苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制，从管理和技术两个层面来实现信息共享和相互通报、协查制度，设立危险化学品道路运输车辆省际间通行的专用通道口，依法查处违法违规危险化学品运输行为，及时处置和消除事故隐患，提高危险化学品道路运输安全监管水平，实现苏浙沪危险化学品道路运输安全状况的根本好转。同时，为构建全国统一多级监控平台网络创造条件。
会议议定如下事项：
一、通过建立信息互动、联合执法、动态跟踪等工作机制，依法查处危险化学品运输违法违规行为，努力提升区域内危险化学品道路运输的安全可控度。在总结经验、逐步完善的基础上，将危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制向周边地区扩展。
二、依托信息网络技术，实施信息资源共享和相互通报制度；经省（市）人民政府批准设立并公布危险化学品道路运输车辆省际间公路检查站和通行的进出专用道口；重点对运输液氯、液氨、液化石油气和剧毒溶剂的罐车依法实施监督检查。
三、落实危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制，要抓好以下几项工作：
（一）消除源头隐患，遏制事故苗头。苏浙沪安全生产监管部门应当责成危险化学品生产、储存企业把住源头，建立危险化学品发货登记制度。禁止向无《危险品道路运输证》，驾驶员、押运员无从业资格证的车辆发货；禁止超载、超限发货；禁止向无《剧毒化学品公路运输通行证》车辆发送剧毒品。
苏浙沪交通主管部门应当责成相关运输单位采取措施，对承运液氯、液氨、液化石油气和剧毒溶剂罐车安装GPS车载终端，并建立监控平台。
（二）实施资源共享，开展信息通报。实施信息资源共享。苏浙沪交通部门会同公安部门依托各自已有的网站，及时更新具备危险化学品运输资质的单位名单、车辆牌照号码等信息，确保可供对方实时查询和验证的信息有效性。
凡被查实非法运输、超载、超限及在禁运时段内运输危险化学品的行为，事发地有关部门在依法查处的同时，应及时向运输车辆所属省市和启运地的相关职能部门通报。各职能部门按照法律赋予的职责依法追究供货单位、托运人的连带责任。
（三）设置检查道口，把好进出关口。为了减少和预防危险化学品道路运输事故，规范运输行为，依法查处违法违规车辆，苏浙沪公安部门对危险化学品道路运输车辆进出江苏、浙江、上海的地面、高速公路道口实行监督检查，及时消除事故隐患，并向山东、安徽、江西、福建等周边省通报。
苏浙沪公安部门应会同交通部门在准许或禁止危险化学品道路运输车辆进出的主要道路和道口设置相关标志、标识。
苏浙沪公安、交通部门依法对道路运输液氯、液氨、液化石油气和剧毒溶剂罐车的交通违法行为进行查处。必要时，二省一市公安部门可以在重要时段和重点路段组织有关部门，开展联合的集中检查。
（四）严格安全检查、依法监督查处。坚持首查责任制和先处置、后处罚的原则。各职能部门按照各自职责，对被扣留车辆，视车辆实际状况、所载物品危险程度，采取押送或驳运等方式，到指定地点或目的地处理。
对被扣留的液氯、液氨、液化石油气和剧毒溶剂罐车车辆，应依法予以处罚。如果存在无法减载或驳运的情况，应采取监督承运企业进行护送或押送的方法，到事发地最近的发货地（目的地）或指定地点处置。
建立协查制度。对二省一市涉及两地或两地以上的、且本地又难以处理的违法违规运输行为，应由事发地的公安、交通、安全监管部门根据各自的职责，协助相关省市的对应的职能部门进行处置；必要时,由事发地的安委会办公室协调处置。
四、苏浙沪二省一市安全监管、公安、交通部门要加大联合执法力度，提高防范、应对化学品道路运输事故的能力。要建立地区间联席会议制度，定期通报和研究危险化学品道路运输安全监管的新情况和新问题，采取切实有效的措施，及时加以解决。要认真总结经验，不断完善危险化学品道路运输安全监管联控机制，把联控机制建立好、维护好、发展好。
附件：参加会议人员名单
