本文選題：代履行 + 強(qiáng)制清除殘骸�。� 參考：《大連海事大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：在我國(guó),當(dāng)殘骸對(duì)航行安全和海洋環(huán)境造成現(xiàn)實(shí)的或者潛在的危害時(shí),現(xiàn)有的法律、法規(guī)、規(guī)章并不能有效的解決由此產(chǎn)生的強(qiáng)制清除殘骸法律問題,甚至缺乏法律依據(jù),造成法院判決結(jié)果的混亂等問題。要厘清強(qiáng)制清除殘骸的相關(guān)法律問題,先要明確強(qiáng)制清除殘骸的法律屬性,故本文研究思路為:首先對(duì)殘骸、強(qiáng)制清除的概念進(jìn)行界定;然后對(duì)強(qiáng)制清除殘骸的法律屬性進(jìn)行分析;最后,論述確定強(qiáng)制清除殘骸法律屬性解決了哪些實(shí)踐分歧。理論界對(duì)強(qiáng)制清除殘骸的法律屬性具有代表性的觀點(diǎn)可總結(jié)為以下幾種類型:行政強(qiáng)制措施說、行政代履行與即時(shí)執(zhí)行說、行政命令說、行政命令和行政強(qiáng)制措施說、行政強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行和行政強(qiáng)制措施說、物權(quán)請(qǐng)求權(quán)說。但是,基于行政行為理論而非私法的物權(quán)請(qǐng)求權(quán)角度分析,本文認(rèn)為強(qiáng)制清除殘骸的法律屬性為行政命令與行政代履行。當(dāng)殘骸對(duì)航行安全或者海洋環(huán)境造成現(xiàn)實(shí)的或者潛在的危害時(shí),海事行政機(jī)關(guān)責(zé)令清除責(zé)任人在限定時(shí)間內(nèi)必須對(duì)殘骸進(jìn)行清除屬于行政命令;在限定時(shí)間內(nèi),清除責(zé)任人不履行行政命令,或者緊急情況下,來不及先行做出行政命令時(shí),海事行政機(jī)關(guān)委托第三方清除殘骸,均屬于行政強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行的代履行。確定強(qiáng)制清除殘骸法律屬性能夠解決實(shí)踐中產(chǎn)生的法律問題。第一,強(qiáng)制清除殘骸費(fèi)用的法律屬性為行政代履行費(fèi)用,兼具備公、私雙重屬性。第二,強(qiáng)制清除殘骸主體包括船舶所有人、船舶經(jīng)營(yíng)人(包括光船承租人),但是,排除期租承租人、航次承租人、過失第三方、貨物所有人、責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)人。第三,強(qiáng)制清除殘骸的執(zhí)行程序分為一般代履行程序和即時(shí)代履行程序。第四,海事行政機(jī)關(guān)與清除責(zé)任人間是行政法律關(guān)系,海事行政機(jī)關(guān)與清除機(jī)構(gòu)間是民事合同關(guān)系,清除機(jī)構(gòu)與清除責(zé)任人不存在直接的法律關(guān)系。第五,強(qiáng)制清除殘骸的當(dāng)事人享有不同的訴權(quán),當(dāng)不同的當(dāng)事人提起訴訟時(shí),適用不同的訴訟程序操作規(guī)則。
[Abstract]:In our country, when the wreckage causes real or potential harm to navigation safety and marine environment, the existing laws, regulations and rules can not effectively solve the legal problems arising from the forced removal of debris, or even lack of legal basis. Cause confusion of the court's decision, etc. In order to clarify the legal issues related to the forced removal of debris, we must first clarify the legal attributes of the forced removal of wreckage, so the research ideas of this paper are as follows: firstly, define the concept of wreckage and forced removal; Then it analyzes the legal attributes of the forced removal of wreckage, and finally, discusses which practical differences have been resolved by determining the legal attributes of the forced removal of wreckage. The representative views of the theorists on the legal attributes of the forced removal of debris can be summarized as follows: the theory of administrative coercive measures, the theory of administrative agency performance and immediate execution, the theory of executive orders and administrative coercive measures, The theory of administrative enforcement and administrative coercive measures, the right of claim of real right. However, based on the theory of administrative act and not private law, the author thinks that the legal attribute of forced removal of wreckage is executive order and administrative performance. When the wreckage causes real or potential harm to the safety of navigation or the marine environment, the maritime administrative organ shall order the person responsible for the removal of the wreckage to carry out the removal of the wreckage within a limited period of time. When the responsible person fails to perform the administrative order or in case of an emergency it is too late to make an administrative order in advance the maritime administrative organ entrusts a third party to remove the wreckage all of which belong to the administrative compulsory execution. Determining the legal attributes of forced removal of debris can solve the legal problems that arise in practice. First, the legal attribute of the cost of forced removal of debris is the administrative performance fee, as well as the dual attributes of public and private. Secondly, the subject of forced removal of wreckage includes the shipowner, the ship operator (including the bareboat charterer), but the exclusion charterer, voyage charterer, negligent third party, cargo owner, liability insurer. Thirdly, the enforcement procedure of forced removal of debris is divided into general acting procedure and era performing procedure. Fourth, the relationship between the maritime administrative organ and the person responsible for clearance is an administrative legal relationship, and the relationship between the maritime administrative organ and the clearance agency is a civil contract relationship, and there is no direct legal relationship between the clearance agency and the person responsible for the removal. Fifth, the parties who force the removal of wreckage have different rights of action, and different rules of procedure shall be applied when different parties initiate proceedings.
【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】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D922.294

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 清風(fēng);;少一點(diǎn)“行政命令” 多一點(diǎn)“集體協(xié)商”[J];工友;2001年01期

2 ;行政命令不能違法[J];農(nóng)技服務(wù);2004年08期

3 李文成;行政命令不能違法[J];四川農(nóng)業(yè)科技;2005年09期

4 郭慶珠;;《公務(wù)員法》“違法命令不執(zhí)行”條款的制度缺失與改進(jìn)思考[J];行政論壇;2006年03期

5 陳發(fā)德;劉玉英;;捐款要講民主[J];兵團(tuán)工運(yùn);2008年07期

6 楊士林;;臺(tái)灣地區(qū)行政命令的違法審查機(jī)制[J];臺(tái)灣研究集刊;2009年01期

7 楊士林;;試論臺(tái)灣地區(qū)行政命令違法的審查[J];法學(xué)論壇;2009年04期

8 董志武;;海峽兩岸行政命令合法性審查之比較[J];集美大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年04期

9 陳泉生;我國(guó)行政命令初探[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1991年03期

10 �！喩�;戴世吉;;前蘇聯(lián)行政命令體制危機(jī)的原因及其矛盾[J];中共中央黨校學(xué)報(bào);1992年12期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 李燕;;管理需要以人為本[A];全國(guó)護(hù)理行政管理學(xué)術(shù)交流暨專題講座會(huì)議論文匯編[C];2003年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 本報(bào)記者 王麗麗;行政命令扶不起慈善事業(yè)[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

2 郭海洋 博士;美國(guó)是如何進(jìn)行環(huán)保執(zhí)法的（完）[N];中國(guó)環(huán)境報(bào);2001年

3 唐筱敏 朱貽軍;行政命令遭遇民意反對(duì)時(shí),怎么辦[N];江陰日?qǐng)?bào);2006年

4 王立新;行政命令“捆綁銷售”不合時(shí)宜[N];中國(guó)改革報(bào);2006年

5 宗緒斌 邵珠岱;淺談漁業(yè)行政執(zhí)法中的行政命令行為[N];中國(guó)漁業(yè)報(bào);2006年

6 張鳴;交通擁堵不能由行政命令來解決[N];紅河日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

7 姜青芳;對(duì)“責(zé)令停止違法行為”的探討[N];中國(guó)海洋報(bào);2013年

8 ;行政命令違反勞動(dòng)法惹官司[N];工人日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

9 本報(bào)評(píng)論員 魏英杰;“投票拆遷”值得關(guān)注[N];杭州日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

10 劉以賓;讓行政命令真正代表人民利益[N];廠長(zhǎng)經(jīng)理日?qǐng)?bào);2001年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 宋一民;強(qiáng)制清除殘骸法律屬性研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2017年

2 張愛萍;論行政命令[D];山東大學(xué);2008年

3 李正威;行政命令法律問題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2009年

4 黃炫;試論規(guī)劃執(zhí)法中的責(zé)令改正[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2030141