【摘要】：《鹿特丹規(guī)則》設(shè)計了一套合法實(shí)施無單放貨的解決方案。比較各國及國際公約的相關(guān)規(guī)定，這套規(guī)則是最具針對性的，較系統(tǒng)，較完備的，具有很強(qiáng)的借鑒意義。但是，鹿特丹式無單放貨法律規(guī)制顛覆了憑單放貨這一基本原則。這不符合國際立法趨勢。對此，本文持批判繼承的態(tài)度。 經(jīng)濟(jì)利益的驅(qū)動是無單放貨現(xiàn)象產(chǎn)生且屢禁不止的根本原因。無單放貨是把雙刃劍，法律規(guī)制無單放貨不應(yīng)格殺勿論，搞一刀切，仍應(yīng)堅持憑單放貨基本原則地位，對于既能提高交易效率又能保障交易安全的無單放貨行為應(yīng)予以肯定。無單放貨的法律規(guī)制必須確保效率與安全的有效協(xié)調(diào)，這是構(gòu)建無單放貨法律規(guī)制的指導(dǎo)思想。 我國無單放貨法律規(guī)制應(yīng)采取并存模式。在該模式下，本文分別提出了在傳統(tǒng)紙質(zhì)單證下及電子提單機(jī)制下修改我國《海商法》及無單放貨司法解釋的具體建議。立法框架方面，本文參考了《鹿特丹規(guī)則》確立的“運(yùn)輸單證”與“電子運(yùn)輸記錄”并存的二元體系。具體制度設(shè)置方面，，本文借鑒了《鹿特丹規(guī)則》、英國法及《國際海事委員會電子提單規(guī)則》的相關(guān)規(guī)定。
[Abstract]:Rotterdam rules designed a set of legal implementation of the solution for the delivery of goods without bills. Compared with the relevant provisions of various countries and international conventions, this set of rules is the most targeted, more systematic, more complete, has very strong reference significance. However, Rotterdam-type non-documentary delivery of goods legal regulation overturned the basic principle of delivery of goods by voucher. This is not in line with international legislative trends. To this, this text holds the attitude of critical inheritance. The driving force of economic benefit is the root cause of no-bill delivery phenomenon and repeated proscription. No bill delivery is a double-edged sword, the legal regulation of no bill delivery should not be shot to kill, to carry out a one-size-fits-all approach, should still adhere to the basic principle status of delivery of goods on the basis of documents, and should be affirmed for the undocumented delivery behavior, which can both improve the transaction efficiency and ensure the transaction safety. The effective coordination between efficiency and safety must be ensured in the legal regulation of the delivery of goods without bill, which is the guiding ideology of constructing the legal regulation of the delivery of goods without bill of lading. In our country, the legal regulation of delivery of goods without bill should adopt the coexistence mode. Under this model, this paper puts forward some specific suggestions on the revision of China's Maritime Law and judicial interpretation under the traditional paper documents and the electronic bill of lading mechanism. In terms of legislative framework, this paper refers to the binary system of "transport document" and "electronic transport record" established by the Rotterdam rules. In terms of system setting, this paper draws lessons from the Rotterdam rules, English Law and the rules of Electronic Bills of Lading of the International Maritime Committee.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：黑龍江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D996.19;D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 胡正良;海運(yùn)提單項(xiàng)下的提貨權(quán)與承運(yùn)人無單放貨責(zé)任的認(rèn)定[J];大連海事大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2003年02期

2 郭瑜;論提單債權(quán)關(guān)系[J];中外法學(xué);1999年02期

3 許俊強(qiáng);無單放貨的法律適用[J];中國海商法年刊;2004年00期

4 司玉琢;初北平;;論無單放貨引起提單物權(quán)性的爭論[J];中國海商法年刊;2005年00期

5 胡正良;;論無單放貨損害賠償?shù)呢?zé)任主體[J];中國海商法年刊;2005年00期

本文編號：2199302