本文關(guān)鍵詞： 海上保險(xiǎn)人 抗辯權(quán) 抗辯事由　出處：《大連海事大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：海上保險(xiǎn)業(yè)的健康發(fā)展離不開法律對(duì)合同雙方權(quán)利的有效制衡,雖然海商法和保險(xiǎn)法已經(jīng)對(duì)海上保險(xiǎn)合同做出了相關(guān)規(guī)定,但許多涉及雙方權(quán)利義務(wù)的規(guī)定過于籠統(tǒng),無法對(duì)雙方權(quán)利進(jìn)行切實(shí)保障,所以在此有必要對(duì)海上保險(xiǎn)的保險(xiǎn)人的抗辯權(quán)的內(nèi)容進(jìn)行討論,明確海上保險(xiǎn)人抗辯權(quán)的內(nèi)容和權(quán)利人行使權(quán)利的方式,從而明確雙方的權(quán)利義務(wù)界限。抗辯權(quán)淵源于大陸法系,英美法系中并沒有相對(duì)于抗辯權(quán)的準(zhǔn)確概念,文章的主要寫作目的在于從海上保險(xiǎn)法中抽象出海上保險(xiǎn)人抗辯權(quán)這一概念,結(jié)合大陸法系相關(guān)背景完善這一概念的相關(guān)理論框架。針對(duì)實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)原告訴狀中陳述了本來應(yīng)該由被告提出的抗辯這種自食惡果的做法是否應(yīng)視為原告的訴的不當(dāng),而不予受理,或者被駁回的情況,本文從權(quán)利效力的角度進(jìn)行分析,明確事實(shí)抗辯與權(quán)利抗辯的區(qū)分依據(jù)。對(duì)抗辯權(quán)這一主觀權(quán)利進(jìn)行討論研究,區(qū)別于實(shí)踐中容易混淆的抗辯事由,對(duì)海上保險(xiǎn)人的抗辯事由分類,明確法官的審理范圍,從而解決立法和司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)海上保險(xiǎn)人抗辯權(quán)這一概念模糊不清所帶來的問題。 本文第一部分對(duì)相關(guān)法律中抗辯,抗辯權(quán)和抗辯制度的相關(guān)概念淵源進(jìn)行探討,總結(jié)歸納相關(guān)概念的聯(lián)系及區(qū)別,提出海上保險(xiǎn)人抗辯權(quán)的涵蓋范圍。文章第二部分對(duì)海上保險(xiǎn)人的抗辯權(quán)進(jìn)行討論,歸納出從程序法到實(shí)體法過渡過程中,抗辯含義的變化,區(qū)分出權(quán)利阻礙抗辯與權(quán)利阻卻抗辯,并對(duì)海上保險(xiǎn)法下的保險(xiǎn)人的抗辯作出區(qū)分,同時(shí)結(jié)合程序意義上抗辯權(quán)使用原則與方法并展開討論。文章第三部分海上保險(xiǎn)法領(lǐng)域保險(xiǎn)人所具有的抗辯中歸納出保險(xiǎn)人的權(quán)利阻礙抗辯。文章第四部分展開論述了海上保險(xiǎn)法領(lǐng)域保險(xiǎn)人所具有的抗辯中歸納出保險(xiǎn)人權(quán)利阻卻抗辯。文章第五部分將《保險(xiǎn)法》中不可抗辯條款的相關(guān)內(nèi)容抽象出不可抗辯原則作為海上保險(xiǎn)人抗辯權(quán)理論框架一部分展開討論,值得注意的是這里不可抗辯原則與英國法下禁反言原則并不相同,但具有相通之處,在我國法律環(huán)境下體現(xiàn)出不同含義。 本文從理論層面指導(dǎo)海上保險(xiǎn)人行使抗辯權(quán),填補(bǔ)我國海上保險(xiǎn)法在抗辯權(quán)這一大陸法系概念下理論上的空白,使我國訴訟法與海上保險(xiǎn)實(shí)體法更好銜接。
[Abstract]:The healthy development of the marine insurance industry can not be separated from the effective checks and balances of the rights of the parties to the contract. Although the maritime law and the insurance law have already made relevant provisions on the marine insurance contract, many of the provisions concerning the rights and obligations of both parties are too general. It is necessary to discuss the content of the right of defense of the insurer of marine insurance, to clarify the content of the right of defense of the insurer and the way in which the right holder exercises the right. In order to clarify the boundary of rights and obligations of both parties, the right of defense originates from the civil law system, and there is no accurate concept of the right of defense relative to the right of defense in the common law system. The main purpose of this paper is to abstract the concept of the right of defense from the marine insurance law. To perfect the relevant theoretical framework of this concept in connection with the relevant background of the civil law system. In view of the fact that the plaintiff's pleadings in practice state whether the plea which should have been put forward by the defendant should be regarded as improper in the plaintiff's action, However, in the case of inadmissibility or rejection, this paper analyzes from the point of view of the validity of the right, clarifies the basis of the distinction between the defense of fact and the defense of the right, and discusses and studies the right of defense as a subjective right. In order to solve the problem caused by the ambiguity of the concept of defense right of marine insurer in legislation and judicial practice, it is different from the confusing defense reason in practice, classifying the defense subject matter of marine insurer, and clarifying the scope of judge's trial, so as to solve the problem caused by the ambiguity of the concept of defense right of marine insurer in legislation and judicial practice. The first part of this paper discusses the related concepts of defense, defense right and defense system in relevant laws, and summarizes the relationship and difference of related concepts. The second part discusses the defense right of marine insurer, and concludes the change of defense meaning in the transition from procedural law to substantive law. Differentiating between the defense of obstruction of rights and the defence of obstruction of rights, and making a distinction between the defences of insurers under the law of marine insurance, At the same time, combining the principles and methods of using the right of defense in the sense of procedure, the article discusses. The third part of the article summarizes the defense of the insurer in the field of marine insurance law. Part 4th of the article begins with the analysis of the defense of the insurer's right of obstruction. This paper discusses the defense of the insurer in the field of marine insurance law. Part 5th abstracts the relevant contents of the non-defensible clause in the insurance law as the principle of non-defense at sea. Part of the theoretical framework of the insurer's right of defense is discussed. It is worth noting that the principle of indefensible here is not the same as the principle of estoppel under English law, but it has some similarities and embodies different meanings in the legal environment of our country. This paper instructs the marine insurer to exercise the right of defense from the theoretical level, fills in the blank in theory of the maritime insurance law of our country under the concept of the civil law system, and makes the procedural law of our country and the substantive law of marine insurance better connected.
【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】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D922.294;D922.284

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 汪鵬南，，劉津民;論海上保險(xiǎn)人的提前解約權(quán)[J];大連海事大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);1995年01期

2 王琦;船東保賠保險(xiǎn)性質(zhì)淺析[J];上海保險(xiǎn);2001年03期

3 郭麗軍;;析船舶保險(xiǎn)中的默示保證[J];上海保險(xiǎn);2006年05期

4 汪鵬南;論保賠保險(xiǎn)合同的法律性質(zhì)[J];中國海商法年刊;2000年00期

5 聶玉中;海上保險(xiǎn)法de告知義務(wù)[J];中國水運(yùn);2004年08期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 鐘淑健;民事抗辯權(quán)及其基本規(guī)則研究[D];山東大學(xué);2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 楊俊;論船舶保險(xiǎn)人若干賠償責(zé)任之抗辯[D];中國海洋大學(xué);2011年

2 張辰;海上貨物運(yùn)輸保險(xiǎn)人免責(zé)事項(xiàng)若干法律問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2007年

3 李海初;海上船舶保險(xiǎn)人對(duì)若干承保危險(xiǎn)責(zé)任抗辯研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2007年

本文編號(hào)：1520061