發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-04-04 17:50

【摘要】： 海運(yùn)承運(yùn)人留置權(quán),是其根據(jù)租約或提單合同主張索賠的一種擔(dān)保。該等留置權(quán)可以通過(guò)法律的明文規(guī)定以及合同當(dāng)事人間的明示約定而獲得。在我國(guó)《民法通則》、《合同法》、《擔(dān)保法》及其《解釋》、《海商法》、《國(guó)內(nèi)水路運(yùn)輸規(guī)則》以及新近頒布的《物權(quán)法》均有關(guān)于留置權(quán)的法律規(guī)定,但這些法律規(guī)定不盡完善,亦不甚明確。其中,對(duì)于海運(yùn)承運(yùn)人留置權(quán)的規(guī)定在具體的司法實(shí)踐中也存在頗多問(wèn)題,無(wú)法發(fā)揮其應(yīng)然作用。 鑒于上述現(xiàn)狀,筆者試圖通過(guò)對(duì)其他國(guó)家留置權(quán)制度的研習(xí),特別是通過(guò)對(duì)英國(guó)法下相關(guān)制度的探究,來(lái)為理解和完善我國(guó)的海運(yùn)承運(yùn)人留置權(quán)制度提供現(xiàn)實(shí)的依據(jù)。繼而,筆者通過(guò)對(duì)英國(guó)法下普通法留置權(quán)和約定留置權(quán)的探討,特別是針對(duì)貨物和轉(zhuǎn)租運(yùn)費(fèi)的約定留置權(quán)的分析發(fā)現(xiàn),在英國(guó)法下,承運(yùn)人為了保障其應(yīng)收款項(xiàng),對(duì)于提單項(xiàng)下的貨物以及轉(zhuǎn)租運(yùn)費(fèi)擁有相當(dāng)廣泛的留置權(quán)。海運(yùn)承運(yùn)人可以頗為方便地通過(guò)合同條款創(chuàng)設(shè)留置權(quán),只要提單不存在與主張留置權(quán)不一致的規(guī)定,則提單持有人對(duì)于費(fèi)用的支付是否應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)個(gè)人責(zé)任便在所不論。這種以約定方式形成的留置權(quán),其效力在英國(guó)法院所做出的判例中得到了普遍的承認(rèn)。 同時(shí),筆者也考慮到我國(guó)系采成文法立法例的國(guó)家,判例在我國(guó)并不具有法律淵源的效力。因此,筆者試通過(guò)對(duì)于同樣采成文法立法例的大陸法系國(guó)家相關(guān)制度的研究和借鑒。通過(guò)分析比較大陸法系各國(guó)通過(guò)具有其各自特色的立法模式,筆者發(fā)現(xiàn),在大陸法系采行“民商分立”立法例的國(guó)家,普遍引入了優(yōu)先權(quán)制度,即,由留置權(quán)制度與優(yōu)先權(quán)制度所共同構(gòu)成的體系來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)海運(yùn)承運(yùn)人留置權(quán)制度的功能。 通過(guò)上述比較分析,筆者由此獲得啟示,進(jìn)而認(rèn)為我國(guó)《海商法》第87條之規(guī)定有不盡合理之處,并以海上運(yùn)輸之特點(diǎn)及承運(yùn)人和收貨人的利益平衡為重點(diǎn),論述了承運(yùn)人對(duì)船載貨物行使留置權(quán)不應(yīng)以貨物所有權(quán)歸屬債權(quán)人為條件。在借鑒英國(guó)法下海運(yùn)承運(yùn)人留置權(quán)制度的前提之下,進(jìn)一步考慮通過(guò)對(duì)我國(guó)優(yōu)先權(quán)制度的建立和完善,來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)于海運(yùn)承運(yùn)人相關(guān)權(quán)益的保障。
[Abstract]:Maritime carrier lien is a kind of guarantee that it claims under lease or bill of lading contract. Such lien may be obtained by express provisions of the law and express agreement between the parties to the contract. In China, the General principles of Civil Law, the contract Law, the Law of guarantee and its interpretation, the Maritime Law, the domestic rules of Water Transport and the recently promulgated Law on property all have legal provisions on lien. But these laws are not perfect or clear. Among them, there are many problems in the specific judicial practice of maritime carrier lien, which can not play its due role. In view of the above-mentioned situation, the author tries to provide a realistic basis for understanding and perfecting the lien system of sea carrier in China by studying the lien system of other countries, especially the relevant system under British law. Then, through the discussion of the common law lien and the agreed lien under British law, especially the analysis of the agreed lien on the freight of goods and subleases, the author finds that under British law, the carrier in order to protect its receivables, There is a wide range of lien for the goods and sublease freight under the offer item. Maritime carrier can create lien by contract terms quite conveniently, so long as the bill of lading is not inconsistent with the claim of lien, whether the bill of lading holder should bear personal liability for the payment of expenses or not is regardless of whether the bill of lading is not inconsistent with the claim of lien. The validity of this kind of lien formed by agreement has been generally recognized in the jurisprudence of British courts. At the same time, the author also considers that the case law has no legal origin in our country. Therefore, the author tries to study and draw lessons from the relevant systems of civil law countries which adopt the same legislative examples of written law. Through the analysis and comparison of the countries in the civil law system through their respective legislative models, the author finds that the priority system is generally introduced in the countries that adopt the "separation of civil and commercial legislation" in the civil law system. The system consists of lien system and priority system to realize the function of maritime carrier lien system. Through the above-mentioned comparative analysis, the author gets inspiration from this, and then believes that the provisions of Article 87 of China Maritime Law are unreasonable, and focus on the characteristics of maritime transport and the balance of interests between the carrier and the consignee. This paper discusses that the carrier should not exercise lien on the cargo on board on the condition that the owner of the goods belongs to the creditor. On the premise of drawing lessons from the lien system of maritime carrier under British law, we should further consider establishing and perfecting the priority system of our country to realize the protection of the related rights and interests of maritime carrier.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類號(hào)】：D922.294;D996.19

【共引文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 姚亞瓊;甘治琦;;物權(quán)法草案的中國(guó)化分析——論不動(dòng)產(chǎn)登記部門難以統(tǒng)一的社會(huì)根源及其社會(huì)危害性[J];阿壩師范高等專科學(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2006年04期

2 胡開忠;;試論完善我國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)質(zhì)權(quán)制度的若干途徑[J];安徽大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2002年02期

3 徐衛(wèi);;羅馬遺產(chǎn)信托及其法學(xué)思考與啟示[J];安徽大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2005年01期

4 劉光華;;論跨國(guó)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)關(guān)系的多元化法律調(diào)控機(jī)制——關(guān)于中國(guó)溫州煙具協(xié)會(huì)應(yīng)對(duì)歐盟CR法案和歐盟打火機(jī)反傾銷案的經(jīng)驗(yàn)實(shí)證研究[J];安徽大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2006年01期

5 王曉林;;提單延遲問(wèn)題的解決途徑新探[J];安徽大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2006年02期

6 胡玉浪;;勞動(dòng)報(bào)酬優(yōu)先權(quán)研究[J];安徽大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2008年02期

7 劉國(guó)慶;;關(guān)于刑訴中法官調(diào)查權(quán)若干問(wèn)題研究[J];安徽大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2010年01期

8 雷安軍;;美國(guó)司法審查制度的合法性問(wèn)題初探[J];安徽大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2011年01期

9 王曉林;論合同承運(yùn)人與實(shí)際承運(yùn)人的海上貨物留置權(quán)[J];安徽大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2000年04期

10 汪傳才,凌艷傳;論締約過(guò)程中的告知制度[J];安徽大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2002年03期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 張黎明;楊國(guó)章;;從法秩序利益看檢察權(quán)的正當(dāng)性[A];第五屆國(guó)家高級(jí)檢察官論壇論文集[C];2009年

2 劉廣南;于光;;完善專利權(quán)質(zhì)押制度推進(jìn)專利權(quán)質(zhì)押融資[A];專利法研究（2010）[C];2011年

3 康紀(jì)田;;論效率與公平在初次分配中的兩度統(tǒng)一——以對(duì)物權(quán)法學(xué)的研究為切入口[A];2009年度（第七屆）中國(guó)法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)論壇論文集[C];2009年

4 李勝蘭;于鳳瑞;;農(nóng)民財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)收入的土地財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)新探——權(quán)利束的法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)觀點(diǎn)[A];2011年（第九屆）“中國(guó)法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)論壇”論文集[C];2011年

5 楊立新;王軼;王竹;王天凡;趙可;;中國(guó)民法學(xué)三十年(1978—2008)[A];中國(guó)法學(xué)三十年（1978-2008）[C];2008年

6 歐陽(yáng)國(guó)華;付殿洪;張磊;黃天明;;基于“超額遞減賠償制度”的消費(fèi)者小額權(quán)益保護(hù)[A];2005中國(guó)制度經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)年會(huì)精選論文（第二部分）[C];2005年

7 賈愛玲;馬嬋娟;周紅占;;水權(quán)之界定[A];水資源可持續(xù)利用與水生態(tài)環(huán)境保護(hù)的法律問(wèn)題研究——2008年全國(guó)環(huán)境資源法學(xué)研討會(huì)（年會(huì)）論文集[C];2008年

8 姜雙林;王寶臻;;對(duì)水權(quán)性質(zhì)和特征的幾點(diǎn)思考[A];水資源可持續(xù)利用與水生態(tài)環(huán)境保護(hù)的法律問(wèn)題研究——2008年全國(guó)環(huán)境資源法學(xué)研討會(huì)（年會(huì)）論文集[C];2008年

9 裴麗萍;;水資源用益物權(quán)立法解讀[A];水資源可持續(xù)利用與水生態(tài)環(huán)境保護(hù)的法律問(wèn)題研究——2008年全國(guó)環(huán)境資源法學(xué)研討會(huì)（年會(huì)）論文集[C];2008年

10 高飛龍;王s，

本文編號(hào)：2454032