本文選題：無單放貨　切入點：提單　出處：《西南政法大學》2009年碩士論文

【摘要】： 國際貿(mào)易的發(fā)展依賴于國際運輸?shù)陌l(fā)展,海上貨物運輸由于其運輸量大,覆蓋范圍廣,費用相對便宜,占據(jù)了國際運輸業(yè)的主導地位。而提單作為海上運輸中最主要的單證發(fā)展到今天已經(jīng)成為國際貿(mào)易買賣、運輸、結(jié)算等過程必不可少的工具。但是由于種種原因,出現(xiàn)了大量的承運人在目的港無單放貨的現(xiàn)象,根據(jù)相關(guān)的國際公約、慣例及國內(nèi)法規(guī),海上貨物運輸必須實行憑單交貨,以確保貨物的實際安全。但是,到目前為止國際上并未形成一個統(tǒng)一的實體公約來規(guī)范或者解決無單放貨及其訴訟情況。 我們作為WTO的成員國,在國際貿(mào)易中扮演重要角色,海上貨物運輸也尤顯重要,隨著無單放貨現(xiàn)象的日益增加,由此產(chǎn)生的糾紛給貿(mào)易雙方當事人帶來了不可磨滅的影響。而我國《海商法》以及《海事訴訟特別程序法》的相關(guān)規(guī)定很不完善,甚至對于有些問題的解決呈現(xiàn)空白的狀態(tài),導致司法界、學術(shù)界對無單放貨及訴訟問題的爭議綿綿不休,長此以往不利于我國進行法制化建設(shè)。 根據(jù)以上對無單放貨相關(guān)問題的現(xiàn)狀分析,在借鑒前人經(jīng)驗的基礎(chǔ)上,筆者撰寫本文僅作拋磚引玉之用,務(wù)求在通過筆者后文的分析,可以給司法實踐或者立法理論上帶來一點啟示,在一定程度上更好的解決無單放貨的訴訟問題,本文共分五個部分來進行相關(guān)論述。 本文第一部分著重論述無單放貨的相關(guān)問題,首先介紹了憑單放貨的含義及其重要性作為鋪墊對比論述無單放貨。其次筆者對無單放貨的含義、原因、表現(xiàn)形式及法律性質(zhì)展開了逐一論述,筆者把論述重心放在了無單放貨的法律性質(zhì)上,這是因為,無單放貨涉及的當事人關(guān)系眾多,法律關(guān)系復雜,把握無單放貨的法律性質(zhì)對于解決無單放貨訴訟問題有著決定性的意義。借鑒前人的思路和觀點,筆者認為可把無單放貨行為分別定性為侵權(quán)行為,違約行為,及兩者責任競合的行為,以上三種定性筆者看來都有一定的道理,但是不能一概而論的把無單放貨行為劃分為某一類性質(zhì)的行為,而應(yīng)該根據(jù)案件不同的情況認定其為不同性質(zhì)的行為,詳見下文分析。 本文第二部分著重論述了無單放貨案件管轄權(quán)的相關(guān)問題,首先介紹了無單放貨中管轄權(quán)確定之原則,指明了在無單放貨司法實踐中具體確定管轄權(quán)時要考慮的因素。其次本部分介紹了在無單放貨案件中的幾種常見的管轄類型及協(xié)議管轄時當事人約定的提單管轄權(quán)條款的效力,筆者認為在適用中國法下,我國是承認提單管轄權(quán)條款的效力的除非該條款有意規(guī)避了一方應(yīng)承擔的責任。 本文第三部分著重論述了無單放貨的訴權(quán)主體,無單放貨由于其發(fā)生時涉及的責任主體復雜,所以本文在本部分先從無單放貨當事人各方關(guān)系分析入手,理清各方當事人關(guān)系后便于確定權(quán)利人的訴權(quán)問題。同時,從相關(guān)資料顯示,153個無單放貨案件中承運人無單放貨的比例達到62.96%,本文僅就其中最常見的承運人無單放貨時權(quán)利人的訴權(quán)進行討論。在責任者識別部分,由于本文第四部分將會涉及相關(guān)論述,所以便不再做過多的贅述,僅對定期租船和航次租船這一類比較特殊的現(xiàn)象進行必要的論述。 本文第四部分著重論述了無單放貨訴因選擇及法律適用問題,訴因的選擇是當事人行使訴權(quán)的表現(xiàn),無單放貨訴因選擇更是關(guān)系到訴訟成敗的關(guān)鍵,在實踐中,有些法院禁止當事人選擇訴因或者置當事人選擇的訴因而不顧,究其原因是因為當事人自行選擇訴因容易導致訴累。而減少訴累的最好辦法,筆者認為是在允許當事人選擇訴因的情況下,如果出現(xiàn)訴因錯誤則應(yīng)允許當事人變更其訴訟請求修正其訴因。其次,筆者認為由于無單放貨通常具有很強的涉外性質(zhì),且不同的國家和地區(qū)對這方面糾紛解決的法律規(guī)定不盡相同,法律適用問題成為了案件審理和判決的前提,所以在此有必要論述其法律適用問題。 本文第五部分著重論述了無單放貨的舉證責任及訴訟時效,對于舉證責任而言筆者認為,原告必須承擔證明其為合法的提單持有人的責任,以及因此行為而受到的經(jīng)濟損失,而對于無單放貨的事實證明責任可以由法院根據(jù)整個案件的具體情況進行公平,誠信的分配。對于訴訟時效而言筆者認為,可以從選擇不同訴因時所適用的時效是否相同,以及選擇不同訴訟對象所適用的時效是否相同這兩個方面入手進行討論。在討論訴訟時效的起算點時,考慮到無單放貨案件的特殊性,筆者認為應(yīng)以《海商法》第257條所規(guī)定的時間為起算點,具體分析詳見下文。
[Abstract]:The development of the international trade development depends on the international carriage of goods by sea transport, due to its large transport capacity, wide coverage, the cost is relatively cheap, occupy the dominant position in the international transport and maritime transport. The bill of lading as the main document development today has become an international trade, transportation, settlement and other essential process tool. But due to various reasons, there are a lot of delivery of goods without the carrier at the port of destination, according to the relevant international conventions, conventions and domestic laws and regulations, carriage of goods by sea shall deliver goods, to ensure the actual safety of goods. However, so far the world has not formed a unified entity convention to regulate or solve the goods without bill of lading and lawsuit.
We as a member of WTO, play an important role in international trade, maritime transport of goods is particularly important, with the delivery of goods without the phenomenon of increasing, resulting in disputes brought indelible influence to trade both parties. China Maritime Law > and < < maritime special procedure law > related litigation the provisions are not perfect, even for solving some problems of blank state, leading to the judicial circles, the academic circles and the delivery of goods without litigation dispute so much, if things go on like this is not conducive to China's legal construction.
Based on the above analysis of the delivery of goods without issues related to the current situation, on the basis of predecessors' experience, this thesis only tries to break the ice, so in the analysis by the author, can give judicial or legislative theory can bring some enlightenment to solve the problem of litigation, better in the extent of delivery of goods without bill of lading and this paper is divided into five parts.
The first part of this paper focuses on issues related to non delivery of goods, first introduced the meaning and importance of the delivery of goods as a way of delivery of goods without contrast. Secondly the author of the delivery of goods without meaning, reasons, forms and legal nature carried out one by one in the paper, the author discusses the focus on the legal nature of delivery of goods without bill of lading and this is because the relationship between the parties involved in the delivery of goods without many complex legal relationship, grasp the legal nature of delivery of goods without to have a decisive significance to solve the problem of delivery of goods without litigation. Based on the previous ideas and views, I believe that the delivery of goods without the behavior qualitative tort, breach of contract, and the concurrence of Liability Act, more than three kinds of qualitative the author seems to have some truth, but can not be generalized to the delivery of goods without a certain type of behavior into the behavior, and should According to the different cases of the case, it should be identified as a different nature of the behavior, as detailed below.
The second part focuses on the related issues of delivery of goods without the jurisdiction of the case, first introduces the principle of delivery of goods without in jurisdiction, specified in the delivery of goods without the judicial practice in the specific jurisdiction to determine the factors to be taken into account. The second part introduces several common types and effectiveness of the jurisdiction agreement in the delivery of goods without the case in the jurisdiction stipulated by the parties to the jurisdiction clause of bill of lading, the author thinks that in the application of China method, China is to recognise the effectiveness of the bill of lading jurisdiction clause unlessthese provisions circumvent the party should bear the responsibility.
The third part focuses on the delivery of goods without the subject of the right, the delivery of goods without as the main responsibility to the occurrence of complex, so this paper in this part of the first delivery of goods from the parties relationship analysis, clarify the relationship between the parties after to confirm the right of rights. At the same time, according to the relevant information from the carrier, no delivery 153 goods delivery of goods without case ratio reached 62.96%, the only one of the most common carrier of delivery of goods without the right of action is discussed. The responsibility recognition part, due to the fourth part of this article will be involved in the related discussion, so they no longer do too much to say, only necessary discussion on time charter and this voyage charter a special phenomenon.
The fourth part focuses on the delivery of goods without complaint due to selection and application of the law, the cause of action is the choice of the parties to exercise performance, delivery of goods without the cause of action choice is the key to the success of litigation, in practice, some courts prohibit parties choose the cause of action or the parties choose v. thus ignoring the the reason is because the parties choose the cause of action is easy to cause the lawsuit. The best way to reduce litigation, the author thinks that in allowing the parties to select the cause of action, if there is wrong action by the parties should be allowed to change his claim to amend its cause. Secondly, the author believes that due to the delivery of goods without usually with foreign nature is very strong, and different countries and regions of the law to solve this dispute is not the same, the applicable law has become the premise of trial and judgment, so in the will It is necessary to discuss the question of the application of its law.
The fifth part focuses on the burden of proof and the limitation of action for the delivery of goods without the burden of proof, the author believes that the plaintiff must bear the lawful holder of the bill of lading of burden of proof, and therefore acts subject to economic losses, and for the delivery of goods without proving responsibility by the court according to the specific circumstances of the case a fair, honest distribution. For the limitation of action for the aging can choose different from the application of the cause is the same, and choose a different procedure for limitation object is same of these two aspects are discussed. In the discussion of the starting point of the limitation of action, considering the particularity of the delivery of goods without the case and I think that we should use the "maritime law > 257th of the time required for the starting point, detailed analysis see below.

【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2009
【分類號】：D997.3

【引證文獻】

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前1條

1 李行;無單放貨法律問題的研究[D];南昌大學;2011年

，

本文編號：1653735