發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-02-26 12:47

【摘要】：貨物控制權(quán)本來是國(guó)際貿(mào)易法上的規(guī)定,在《鹿特丹規(guī)則》之前簽訂的國(guó)際海上貨物運(yùn)輸?shù)墓s中,包括《漢堡規(guī)則》、《海牙—維斯比規(guī)則》以及《國(guó)際貨物多式聯(lián)運(yùn)公約》中,并沒有關(guān)于貨物控制權(quán)的規(guī)定。而《鹿特丹規(guī)則》則首次以專章的形式明確完整地規(guī)定了貨物控制權(quán)制度,第一次在有關(guān)海上貨物運(yùn)輸?shù)膰?guó)際公約中引入貨物控制權(quán)及控制方的概念。這是對(duì)國(guó)際海上貨物運(yùn)輸法律制度的重大完善,其意義是成功的實(shí)現(xiàn)了海上運(yùn)輸法律制度與貨物貿(mào)易法律制度之間的斜街,雖然《鹿特丹規(guī)則》下的貨物控制權(quán)依然存在著許多實(shí)際性的操作問題,但是明確規(guī)定該權(quán)利還是具有很多積極意義的,例如形成海上運(yùn)輸法律制度與國(guó)際貿(mào)易法律制度的橋梁,加強(qiáng)了賣方的救濟(jì)權(quán)利的保護(hù),適應(yīng)了國(guó)際貿(mào)易和海運(yùn)方式的變革等等。 本文將從《鹿特丹規(guī)則》中關(guān)于貨物控制權(quán)的概念、法律性質(zhì)入手,將貨物控制權(quán)和英美法系中的中途停運(yùn)權(quán)進(jìn)行比較,并且概括了《鹿特丹規(guī)則》規(guī)定貨物控制權(quán)的意義等等；緊接著,本文討論了《鹿特丹規(guī)則》中貨物控制權(quán)的主體和內(nèi)容以及《鹿特丹規(guī)則》的行使和限制。 最后一部分,是關(guān)于我國(guó)相關(guān)法律的分析,我國(guó)并沒有專門的貨物控制權(quán)制度,只有在《合同法》第308條有類似于貨物控制權(quán)制度的規(guī)定,但是該規(guī)定過于簡(jiǎn)陋,可操作性不高,筆者從立法和司法兩個(gè)角度進(jìn)行分析,認(rèn)為我國(guó)應(yīng)該借鑒《鹿特丹規(guī)則》中的相關(guān)規(guī)定,引進(jìn)貨物控制權(quán)制度。
[Abstract]:Control of goods, which was originally provided for in international trade law and included in the Convention on the International Carriage of goods by Sea, concluded prior to the Rotterdam rules, including the Hamburg rules, There is no provision for control of goods in the Hague-Visby rules and the International Convention on Multimodal Transport of goods. The Rotterdam rules, for the first time, clearly and completely prescribe the system of control of goods in the form of a special chapter. For the first time, the concept of control of goods and the controlling party are introduced into the international convention on the carriage of goods by sea. This is a major improvement of the legal system of the international carriage of goods by sea, and its significance is to successfully realize the oblique street between the legal regime of maritime carriage and the legal regime of trade in goods. Although there are still many practical operational problems with the control of goods under the Rotterdam rules, it is still very positive to specify this right, For example, the formation of a bridge between the legal system of maritime transport and the legal regime of international trade strengthens the protection of the seller's relief rights and adapts to the changes of international trade and maritime transport methods, and so on. Starting with the concept and legal nature of the right of control of goods in the Rotterdam rules, this paper compares the right of control of goods to the right of stoppage in the Anglo-American law system. And summed up the Rotterdam rules of control of the meaning of goods, and so on; Then, this paper discusses the subject and content of the control right of goods in Rotterdam rules, and the exercise and restriction of Rotterdam rules. The last part is about the analysis of the relevant laws of our country, China does not have a special system of control of goods, only in Article 308 of the contract Law there is a regulation similar to the system of control of goods, but this provision is too simple. The author analyzes it from the angle of legislation and judicature, and points out that China should draw lessons from the relevant provisions of Rotterdam rules and introduce the system of control of goods.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D996.19;D923.6;D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 張曉蓮;;對(duì)貨物控制權(quán)制度的思考[J];法學(xué)與實(shí)踐;2010年03期

2 王麗;趙偉麗;;FOB條件下托運(yùn)人的認(rèn)定[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年30期

3 祁長(zhǎng)生;;FOB貿(mào)易術(shù)語(yǔ)下賣方如何規(guī)避風(fēng)險(xiǎn)[J];黑龍江對(duì)外經(jīng)貿(mào);2006年03期

4 劉昕;海運(yùn)貨物控制權(quán)問題研究——兼評(píng)UNCITRAL運(yùn)輸法草案第11章的規(guī)定[J];江蘇社會(huì)科學(xué);2004年02期

5 費(fèi)宏達(dá);;《鹿特丹規(guī)則》視野下FOB條件下賣方之貨物控制權(quán)[J];遼寧行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：2430783