本文關(guān)鍵詞： 扣押船舶 海事請(qǐng)求保全 海事訴訟特別程序法 民事執(zhí)行法　出處：《大連海事大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：中韓兩國(guó)自1992年建立正式外交關(guān)系以來,在政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化等多多方面的交流日益活躍,尤其是國(guó)際貿(mào)易和海上貨物運(yùn)輸更為頻繁。但是海事、海商糾紛的也不斷發(fā)生,扣押船舶的情況也屢屢發(fā)生。 本來船舶屬于動(dòng)產(chǎn),但因其特殊性在法律上很多情況下被視為不動(dòng)產(chǎn)來處理,因而可以相應(yīng)地適用債權(quán)保全措施�？垩捍笆菫榻鉀Q海事糾紛而采取的最典型的海事債權(quán)保全手段。 扣押船舶是指法院根據(jù)海事請(qǐng)求人的申請(qǐng),為保障其海事請(qǐng)求的實(shí)現(xiàn),對(duì)特定當(dāng)事船舶或被請(qǐng)求人所有的船舶采取的扣押強(qiáng)制措施。 中國(guó)已經(jīng)認(rèn)定海事訴訟的特殊性和專門性制定了《海事訴訟特別程序法》,特別該法引入了《1999年扣船公約》的大部分內(nèi)容,而且海事法院具有專屬管轄權(quán)。而韓國(guó)的假扣押制度是根據(jù)《民事執(zhí)行法》,由一般法院執(zhí)行假扣押船舶,沒加入《1999年扣船公約》。 因而,雖然中韓兩國(guó)屬于大陸法系國(guó)家,但是在扣押船舶關(guān)聯(lián)的立法體制、管轄法院、扣押船舶的范圍和程序以及其效果等方面存在不同的特點(diǎn)。而且,現(xiàn)行扣押船舶制度上存在幾個(gè)問題。 本論文將運(yùn)用比較研究的方法,對(duì)于中韓兩國(guó)的扣押船舶方面的基本法規(guī)包括扣押船舶關(guān)聯(lián)國(guó)際公約,從扣押船舶的條件,程序,效果以及制度等方面進(jìn)行比較分析,并提出兩國(guó)扣押船舶制度的完善方案。具體來說,筆者主張：第一,隨著海運(yùn)企業(yè)的大型化以及海運(yùn)環(huán)境的變化,應(yīng)當(dāng)撤銷《商法》第744條的規(guī)定；第二,引入《1999年扣船公約》的內(nèi)容,盡管債權(quán)屬于船舶優(yōu)先權(quán),為債權(quán)保全應(yīng)該允許扣押船舶；第三,為了完善扣押船舶制度,應(yīng)該通過立法制定《海事訴訟法》,并設(shè)立“海事法院”。
[Abstract]:Since the establishment of formal diplomatic relations in 1992, China and South Korea have become increasingly active in political, economic, cultural and other exchanges, especially in international trade and maritime cargo transport more frequently. But maritime. Maritime disputes also continued to occur, the arrest of ships also occurred repeatedly. Originally the ship belongs to movable property, but because of its particularity, it is treated as immovable property under many legal circumstances. Therefore, the preservation measures of claims can be applied accordingly. The arrest of ships is the most typical means to preserve maritime claims in order to solve maritime disputes. Arrest of a ship means that the court, on the basis of the application of the maritime claimant, takes compulsory measures of arrest on a particular vessel or the ship owned by the claimant in order to guarantee the realization of its maritime claim. China has established the Special procedure Law for Maritime Litigation, which introduces most of the contents of the Convention on arrest of ships of 1999. Moreover, the maritime court has exclusive jurisdiction, and Korea's false arrest system is based on the Civil Enforcement Law, the ordinary courts enforce the false arrest of a ship, not a party to the Convention on arrest of ships of 1999. Therefore, although China and South Korea belong to the civil law countries, there are different characteristics in the legislative system of ship arrest, the jurisdiction of the court, the scope and procedure of arrest and its effect. There are several problems in the current arrest system. This paper will use the method of comparative study, for China and South Korea, the basic laws and regulations on arrest of ships, including the international convention on the arrest of ships, from the conditions of arrest of ships, procedures. The effect and the system are compared and analyzed, and put forward the perfect scheme of the arrest system of the two countries. Specifically, the author argues that: first, along with the large-scale shipping enterprises and the changes of marine environment. The provisions of Article 744 of the Commercial Law shall be repealed; Secondly, the content of the Convention on arrest of ships of 1999 is introduced, although the creditor's rights belong to the maritime lien, the arrest of the ship should be allowed for the preservation of claims. Third, in order to perfect the arrest system, we should legislate the Maritime procedure Law and set up the Maritime Court.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1;D931.26

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 張江艷;;《海事訴訟特別程序法》的實(shí)施現(xiàn)狀及其完善[J];海大法律評(píng)論;2006年00期

2 呂鳴;;論現(xiàn)代扣船制度中的不方便管轄原則[J];海大法律評(píng)論;2008年00期

3 王建新;;海事法官裁判能力探究[J];海大法律評(píng)論;2008年00期

4 高偉;建立以保全海事請(qǐng)求為目的的我國(guó)船舶扣押制度[J];中國(guó)海商法年刊;1995年00期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 王艷梅;民事訴訟保全制度研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2002年

2 姜慧章;中英船舶扣押制度比較研究[D];上海海運(yùn)學(xué)院;2002年

3 戚丹華;扣船制度中若干法律問題研究[D];上海海事大學(xué);2004年

4 劉德君;論船舶扣押的實(shí)質(zhì)要件及錯(cuò)誤扣船的民事責(zé)任[D];上海海事大學(xué);2005年

5 陳瓏瓏;我國(guó)海事請(qǐng)求保全制度研究[D];上海海事大學(xué);2005年

6 崔勝雄;中韓扣押船舶制度比較研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2006年

7 于萍;英美海事對(duì)物訴訟中的船舶扣押制度研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2006年

8 王曉暉;全球視野下的扣船制度與中國(guó)扣船制度解讀[D];上海海事大學(xué);2006年

9 高源;船舶扣押制度中可扣押的船舶范圍問題研究[D];上海海事大學(xué);2007年

10 楊軼;我國(guó)海事請(qǐng)求保全法律制度的理論與實(shí)踐[D];大連海事大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：1492735