就得主張船舶所有人責任限制之權利主體, 我國海商法第21 條第2項相較於1976 年國際公約第1 條內容，疏漏未列入的有：「傭船人」、「救助人」、「船舶所有人或救助人應為其行為負責之人」及「責任保險人」。海商法第 21 條第1 項就得主張責任限制項目之規定，於立法理由中似宜賦予1976 年公約母法地位。並考慮增訂「運送遲延損害索償」及「基於求償權或補償請求權」之索償為責任限制項目; 而就「港埠工程、港灣及水道與輔助航海設備等毀損索償」，可另為「優先於其他物損索償受償」之規定；同時，將「沉船或落海之打撈移除所生之債務」自責任限制項目中刪除。就不適用船舶所有人責任限制之索償，海商法第22 條第1 項之規定，宜擴增第2 款履行輔助人的範圍及其請求權基礎，並擴大第3 款「救助報酬」之範圍；同時，就特殊損害索償之規定（「第4 款至第6 款」），宜有配套規定。不適用「船舶所有人責任限制」之索償，海商法第22 條第1 項第1款宜獨立規定；並將「過失」修正為「重大過失」，同時以「應負責任之人」取代「船舶所有人」，並明定船舶所有人「本人」之範圍。就船舶所有人責任限額之計算，我國宜捨棄船價主義，全面改採1976 年國際公約模式之金額主義，並特別立法保障旅客傷亡索償，同時獨立規定非在船「救助人」之責任限額。

Compare to Article 1 of 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for
Maritime Claims (1976 Convention), Article 21, paragraph 2 of the R.O.C.
Maritime Act lacks to include certain persons, namely, charterer, salvor, any person for whose act the shipowner or salvor is responsible or insurer of liability for claim, who are entitled to file the Shipowner limit liability claim.The legitimate propose of the Article 21, paragraph 1 of the R.O.C.Maritime Act seems to provide similar rule of claims subject to limitation pursuant to Article 2 of the 1976 Convention. This article suggest that the R.O.C. Maritime Act include two limitation of liability claims into the amendment, which are “claims in respect of loss resulting from delay in the carriage by sea” and “claims if brought by way of recourse or for indemnity under a contract or otherwise”, at the same time, remove the “claims in respect of the raising or removal of a ship which is sunk or it’s cargo” from the limitation of liability list. However, regarding to “claims in respect of damage to harbor works,basins and waterways and aids to navigation”, it suggested that the above claims changes to a preferential right of compensation.On the other hand, regarding to “claims excepted from shipowener limitation” under the Article 22 of the R.O.C. Maritime Act, it suggest the following amendments: first, it should increase the scope and basis right of the
“servant” under Article 22(2) and enlarged the range of “pay for salvage” under Article 22(3); second, it should be creating further rules for claims for special damage under Article 22(4) to (6). Third, the “claims for obligations arising out of an intentional act or negligence of the shipowner” under Article 22(1) should separate from the above article. At the same time it suggest the Act changed the term “negligence” into “gross negligence”, used the term “a person liable”rather than “shipowner”, and clearly identified the scope of principle of
shipowner.Finally, this article suggests that the calculation of the limits of liability of the shipowner should apply the amount calculated model of 1976 Convention rather than ship price model, also provides “claims for loss life or personal injury to passengers of a ship” in the Act, and shall be calculated the limits of
liability for any salvor not operating from any ship.