交通部


交通战备储备器材管理办法
1992年1月23日，交通部

第一条 为贯彻平战结合、军民两用的原则，充分发挥战备器材的经济效益和社会效益，并确保战备器材构件数量齐全，质量完好，调运方便，以备急需，特制定本办法。
第二条 交通战备储备器材系交通部代国家储备的战备物资，包括：战备钢桥及专用工具、索具、浮箱、承压舟、捆绑加固器材，以及用交通战备储备资金建造的一切机具、器材。由交通部负责分别储放在各省、自治区、直辖市交通主管部门和交通部直属及双重领导有关单位（以下简称代部储放主管单位）。
第三条 代部储放主管单位必须加强对战备储备器材管理和租赁工作的领导，落实管理人员的编制；建立、健全各项管理、租赁制度；关心管理人员的工作、学习和生活；支持和督促各级管理人员履行职责。
第四条 战备储备器材的日常管理和租赁业务，由代部储放主管单位的战备部门或指定的业务部门负责，应选派业务上熟悉、责任心强、可靠的专职或兼职工作人员从事战备储备器材的管理、租赁工作。所有负责管理、租赁的工作人员都应努力学习技术、业务，熟悉全部器材及构件的名称、用途、拼装架设程序、保管技术和租赁业务；不断提高工作能力、业务水平和管理水平；认真执行和遵守战备器材管理、租赁的有关规定。
第五条 战备器材储放地点的选择，应根据重点交通保障目标（桥梁、渡口、码头）的分布情况合理布局、统筹安排。要求储放在交通运输方便，易于迅速装卸的地方。严禁将存放点布置在低洼、崩塌、泥石流和易被洪水冲刷的危险地带。
第六条 战备器材的储放地，可分室内和露天两种。凡较长时间储放的，必须在室内仓库保管；临时堆放不超过三个月者，允许在室外露天储放。无论室内室外均要求地面平整，构件堆放整齐、牢固、安全，不准将各种构件混杂堆放或与其它物资一同堆放。仓库应保持清洁、通风良好，室内地面上应放置高度不低于30厘米（室外不低于50厘米）的垫木，防止屋顶漏雨。露天临时堆放的战备器材，应注意排水，遮盖好防雨防晒布，防止水浸、雨淋、受潮生锈。存放木质桥面板的仓库，还应防止木材变质腐烂。
第七条 战备器材入库时，管理人员应认真清点验收，分类编号，建立构件帐簿、卡片（注明构件名称、规格、数量、材质、生产厂家）；对小型易丢构件（如销子、保险插销、横梁夹具、联板、各种螺拴和扳手等）应分类装箱保管，并要求箱面标志明显，注名内装构件的名称、规格、数量。
第八条 对储放的战备器材应定期进行清点，定期保养，一般三年保养一次，做到构件完好无损、帐物相符；保养时要认真检查构件的各个部位有无损伤、变形、油漆脱落、锈蚀等情况，并按要求进行养护。
第九条 凡能用于平时生产建设的交通战备储备器材，都可实行租赁。代部储放主管单位应积极开展租赁工作。一次租赁的时间，一般不超过一年，如因工作未完，需继续租用者，租用单位应与代部储放主管单位签定延期合同。代部储放主管单位应严格控制战备钢桥的租出量，库存保有量必须保持在本单位储备总量的三分之一以上，以应急需。如抢险救灾需要，动用量超过三分之二时，可专项报批。其它战备储备器材，租赁数量不受限制。
第十条 未经交通部批准，任何单位、部门无权调动、使用、租赁、报废、处理代部储放的战备器材。
因战备演练或抢险救灾需使用时，必须事先报经交通部批准。因情况紧急，来不及报批时，各代部储放主管单位战备部门可代部先批准使用，事后必须补办审批手续。
办理租赁时，代部储放主管单位应事先向交通部提出租赁申请报告，说明使用单位、租用器材名称、规格、数量、用途及租期。经部批准后，代部储放主管单位按本办法的有关规定与租用单位签订租用合同，明确双方的责任与义务，合同副本由代部储放主管单位报部备案。如使用单位确实急需，来不及报部审批，可先用电话向交通部战备办公室报告，经同意后，代部储放主管单位可与使用单位先签订租用合同，然后补办审批手续。
第十一条 对批准动用和租赁的战备器材，用后应及时拆除归库，不得以任何借口拖延。入库前，代部储放主管单位必须组织管理人员逐件检查、清点，检查构件是否丢失、损坏、变形和锈蚀等情况，并由保管单位负责进行一次保养，养护费用由使用单位承担。
第十二条 战备储备器材的租赁费用由租金、保养费和押金三部分组成。战备钢桥、桥面板和特种工具的租金，按附表一计算；承压舟、浮箱、型钢等器材的租金，按附表二计算。租赁期一律按日历月为计算单位，不满一月按一月计算。出租给本系统以外的单位可根据本租金向上浮动10％～30％。
第十三条 租赁合同一俟签订，租用单位应一次交清全部租金、保养费和押金（租金的50％）后，方可动用战备储备器材。租用结束归库时，构件无丢失损坏的，押金应全部退还租用单位。
第十四条 代部储放主管单位，应在每年一月十五日前，将上一年度租金收入结算表（见附表三）报交通部财会司，抄报交通部战备办公室。同时将该年度租金收入的40％一次上缴交通部财会司（开户银行：工商银行北京分行营业部，银行帐号881314—25），作为战备储备器材开发研制、更新的补贴资金。年度租金收入的60％留给代部储放主管单位，作为战备储备器材管理费用的补贴资金。各代部储放主管单位应根据这一原则，专款专用，制定具体的使用范围和办法。
第十五条 代部储放主管单位应将租赁费用收支情况列入本单位的财会帐目，接受审计部门的监督检查。
第十六条 代部储放主管单位应严格执行年度报表制度，必须在每年一月十五日前，将上一年度战备储备器材的库存和使用情况（见附表四）报交通部战备办公室。
第十七条 战备储备器材的日常维修、养护、管理等费用，仍按国务院、中央军委交通战备领导小组、国家计委、财政部联合颁发的《交通战备资金管理暂行规定》和《交通战备物资储备暂行规定》办理。战备物资仓库的建设费用，应列入本地区、本部门基建投资中解决。
第十八条 凡因战备演练、战时交通保障和抢险救灾使用造成的战备器材构件损坏、丢失、严重变形等现象，代部储放主管单位必须及时更换补齐，所需费用分别在维护管理费、支前费和抢险救灾工程费中开支。凡因租用造成的损坏、丢失，一律由租用单位照价赔偿。
丢失、损坏构件由代部储放主管单位负责在交通部指定的生产厂家订货，代购手续费由代部储放主管单位与租用单位自行协商解决。必须保证构件质量。
第十九条 租用单位必须爱护租用的战备器材，定期保养，正确使用。按合同规定的租期按时归还。如因工程需要延长租用期限，应在合同期满前两个月办理继续租用手续。逾期不还，除按规定交纳租金外，还应按租金的50％加收罚金。
第二十条 如遇紧急情况（抢险救灾、军事行动）需要动用已出租的战备器材时，代部储放主管单位有权解除租赁合同，并要求租用单位限期归还。租用单位应及时交回所租用的战备器材，不得借合同期未满为由进行拖延。租金按实际日期结算，代部储放主管单位不承担由此造成的任何经济损失。
第二十一条 各代部储放主管单位制定的储备器材租赁办法与本办法有抵触时，应按本办法执行。
第二十二条 本办法自一九九二年二月一日起执行，交通部一九八二年发布的《战备钢桥储备管理暂行规定》和一九八七年发布的《交通战备储备器材租赁管理试行办法》同时废止。
附表一
战备钢桥、特种工具各构件租金表
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
序 | 名 称| 单 价 | 租 金 ‖ 序 | 名 称 | 单 价 |租 金
号 | |（元／件）|元／件．月‖ 号 | |（元／件） |元／件．月
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
1 |桁 架 |1350 |14．10‖ 21|撑架螺栓组 | 12．00|0．10
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
2 |加强弦杆 | 420 | 4．40‖ 22|斜撑螺栓组 | 12．00|0．10
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
3 | 横梁 |1290 |13．50‖ 23|护木螺栓组 | 14．00|0．20
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
4 |横梁夹具 | 53 | 0．60‖ 24| 木桥面板 | 20．00|0．60
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
5 |有扣纵梁 | 535 | 5．60‖ 25| 护轮木 | 20．00|0．60
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
6 |无扣纵梁 | 525 | 5．50‖ 26| 摇 滚 |706．25|7．40
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
7 |有扣搭板 | 700 | 7．30‖ 27| 平 滚 |435．35|4．50
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
8 |无扣搭板 | 690 | 7．20‖ 28|摇滚样盘 |137．50|1．40
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
9 |阴头端柱 | 622 | 6．50‖ 29|平滚样盘 |110．00|1．20
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
10|阳头端柱 | 526 | 5．50‖ 30|阳头斜面弦杆|337．50|3．50
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
11| 斜撑 | 79 | 0．80‖ 31|阴头斜面弦杆|106．25|1．10
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
12| 支撑架 | 115 | 1．20‖ 32| 弦杆接头 |108．75|1．10
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
13| 联板 | 43 | 0．50‖ 33| 千斤顶 | 65．00|0．70
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
14| 抗风拉杆| 254 | 2．70‖ 34| 座架 | 74．00|0．80
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
15| 桥座 | 242 | 2．50‖ 35| 阴头垫铁 | 27．50|0．30
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
16| 座板 | 925 | 9．60‖ 36| 托梁 |106．20|1．10
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
17| 搭板支座| 253 | 2．60‖ 37|55呆扳手 | 23．75|0．30
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
18| 桁架销子| 32 | 0．40‖ 38|46呆扳手 | 13．75|0．20
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
19|弦杆螺栓组| 24 | 0．30‖ 39|32呆扳手 | 11．00|0．10
----|----------|----------|----------‖------|------------|------------|----------
20|桁架螺栓组|28．50| 0．30‖ | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
注：1．木质桥面板、护轮木按3年折旧完计算，其余按8年折旧完计算。
2．丢失、损坏、变形的赔偿费按单价计算，并应增加5％的运杂费。
附表二
承压舟、浮箱、型钢租金表
----------------------------------------------
名 称 |单| 单 价 |月租金| 备 注
|位| （元） |（元）|
----------|--|----------|------|----------
承压舟 |艘|60000|500|
（双体）| | | |
----------|--|----------|------|----------
浮 箱 |节|12000|100|
----------|--|----------|------|----------
型 钢 | | | |自行规定
----------|--|----------|------|----------
捆绑加固器|套| 2500| |自行规定
----------------------------------------------
附表三
--------年战备器材租金收入结算表
------------------------------------------------------------
| 租 用 器 材| 本年收取租金（元） |
租用单位|----------------|----------------------|备 注
|名称|数量|时间|合计|上缴交通部|自留|
--------|----|----|----|----|----------|----|--------
| | | | | | |
--------|----|----|----|----|----------|----|--------
| | | | | | |
--------|--------------------------------------------------
总 计|
------------------------------------------------------------
填报说明：
本表由代部储放主管单位财会部门填报，于每年一月十五日前将上一年度的结算表报交通部财会司，抄部战备办公室。
名称：指器材或构件的名称。
数量：钢桥为××延米××套。
----------------------------------------------------------------------
填报日期： 代部储放主管单位（盖章）
附表四
表 号：交业计1表
制表机关：交通部战备办公室
批准机关：交通部
批准文号：交计发〔1992〕57号
--------年代部储备交通战备器材情况年报
填报单位：
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 名 称 | 规 格 | 单 | 数 | 技术状况 | 储放单位 | 储放地点 | 使用情况 |
| | | 位 | 量 | | | | |
|------------|------------|----------|----------|--------------|--------------|--------------|----------------|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 填报说明： |
| 名 称：指战备器材名称，如：“321”钢桥、英制“贝雷”桥、特种工具、吊装工索具、浮箱、承压舟、捆绑器材……。|
| 规 格：钢桥为××米×排×层加强型、其它器材为××吨级。 |
| 单 位：套、件、只、个。 |
| 数 量：钢桥为×延米××套。 |
| 技术状况：优、良、中、差，是否缺件，短缺数量。 |
| 储放单位：直接保管单位。 |
| 存放地点：×县×处、或××线××公里处。 |
| 使用情况：该年度动用、租用时间。 |
| 本表格由代部储放主管单位填报，如：×省交通厅。器材指该省代交通部储备的所有战备器材。统计截止日期为每年度 |
|十二月三十一日，上报时间为次年一月十五日前。 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
单位负责人： 填报人： 截止日期 年 月 日


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