發(fā)布時間：2018-03-27 11:55

  本文選題：船舶優(yōu)先權　切入點：海事請求　出處：《北京工商大學》2006年碩士論文

【摘要】： 本文是對海商法理論與實務的研究,對船舶優(yōu)先權法律問題作了論述。 船舶優(yōu)先權是海商法園地的一朵奇芭,是船舶物權中爭議最多的領域,始終令人產生興趣。就我國而言,對船舶優(yōu)先權制度進行比較研究者尚屬少見,船舶優(yōu)先權的性質、特征、標的、項目、行使等理論和實務問題需要予以明確和澄清。本文對船舶優(yōu)先權的研究,不再局限于我國立法和學理的范疇,不再局限于對基礎理論的研究,而是深入比較分析各國海商法和國際公約關于船舶優(yōu)先權的規(guī)定,以之為標尺反思我國《海商法》相關條款,力爭指出其中問題,提出完善建議。 本文主要采取比較分析的研究方法,包括各國立法合理性的比較、學者觀點的比較、各方利益輕重的比較等。 第一部分,船舶優(yōu)先權一般問題比較研究。第一章首先從研究船舶優(yōu)先權的歷史演進入手,接著分析了船舶優(yōu)先權的特征,并區(qū)分兩大法系考察船舶優(yōu)先權的性質,最后指出我國《海商法》中的船舶優(yōu)先權是特殊的擔保物權。 第二部分,船舶優(yōu)先權具體制度比較研究。該部分分為三章,分別研究船舶優(yōu)先權的標的、項目、行使。第二章討論船舶優(yōu)先權的標的,在立法比較和學理研究的基礎上,提出應根據各國實踐確定標的范圍,并對標的進行了逐項分析。第三章討論船舶優(yōu)先權的項目,首先進行了立法比較,在對項目進行逐項分析的基礎上,分別研究了不同項目和同一項目之間的受償順序。第四章討論船舶優(yōu)先權的行使,在立法比較的基礎上,總結出行使程序的四種模式,提出行使期間為特殊的除斥期間,比較了行使船舶優(yōu)先權和行使海事請求的區(qū)別,指出行使船舶優(yōu)先權并非債權人保全債權的最佳模式。 第三部分,完善我國《海商法》船舶優(yōu)先權的建議。第五章首先分析了修改我國海商法船舶優(yōu)先權的必要性,指出我國相關立法過于超前。接著以第一和第二部分的研究為基礎,提出修改建議:擴大我國船舶優(yōu)先權的標的范圍、重新界定我國船舶優(yōu)先權的項目、船舶優(yōu)先權應當通過法院扣押產生優(yōu)先權的船舶或在有關程序中進行債權登記來行使,船舶優(yōu)先權的行使期間,不得中止或中斷,但法律不允許扣留或扣押船舶的期間不得計算在內。自船舶優(yōu)先權產生之日起一年不行使,則船舶優(yōu)先權消滅。 海商法研究具有極強的實踐性,囿于筆者學識和閱歷所限,深感許多問題的理論及實踐難度,因此本文難免有不足和稚嫩之處。
[Abstract]:This paper studies the theory and practice of maritime law and discusses the legal problems of maritime liens. Maritime lien is one of the most controversial fields in maritime law field. It is always interesting. In our country, it is rare to compare the maritime lien system, and the nature of maritime lien. The research on maritime liens in this paper is no longer confined to the scope of legislation and theory of our country, and is no longer confined to the study of basic theory. It is to compare and analyze the maritime law and the provisions of international convention on maritime lien, to reflect on the relevant articles of Maritime Law of our country, to point out the problems, and to put forward some suggestions to improve the maritime lien. This article mainly adopts the comparative analysis research method, including the comparison of the legislation rationality of various countries, the comparison of scholars' views, the comparison of the interests of all parties and so on. The first chapter begins with the historical evolution of maritime liens, then analyzes the characteristics of maritime liens, and distinguishes the nature of maritime liens between the two legal systems. Finally, it points out that maritime lien is a special security interest in Maritime Law of China. The second part, the comparative study of the specific system of maritime lien, which is divided into three chapters, respectively, studies the subject matter, items and exercise of maritime lien. Chapter two discusses the subject matter of maritime lien, on the basis of legislative comparison and theoretical research. It is proposed that the scope of the subject matter should be determined according to the practice of various countries, and the subject-matter should be analysed item by item. Chapter three discusses the items of maritime liens. First, the legislative comparison is made, and on the basis of the item-by-item analysis of the items, Chapter four discusses the exercise of maritime liens. On the basis of comparison of legislation, four modes of exercise procedure are summarized, and it is proposed that the period of exercise is a special period of exclusion. This paper compares the difference between the exercise of maritime lien and the exercise of maritime claims, and points out that the exercise of maritime lien is not the best mode for creditors to preserve their claims. The fifth chapter analyzes the necessity of modifying maritime law maritime lien. The author points out that the relevant legislation of our country is too advanced. Then, based on the research in the first and second parts, the author puts forward some suggestions: to expand the scope of the subject matter of maritime liens in China, and to redefine the items of maritime liens in China. The maritime lien shall be exercised through the arrest by the court of the ship producing the lien or the registration of claims in the relevant proceedings, and shall not be suspended or interrupted during the exercise of the maritime lien, However, the period during which the detention or arrest of a ship is not permitted by law shall not be taken into account. A maritime lien shall be extinguished if it is not exercised for one year from the date of the generation of the maritime lien. The study of maritime law is very practical, limited by the author's knowledge and experience, and deeply feels the theoretical and practical difficulties of many problems. Therefore, this paper is inevitably deficient and immature.
【學位授予單位】：北京工商大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2006
【分類號】：D922.294

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前4條

1 許俊強;船舶留置權若干法律問題研究[J];中國海商法年刊;1999年00期

2 李海;船舶優(yōu)先權與其所擔保的海事請求的被請求人[J];中國海商法年刊;2000年00期

3 屈廣清,周后春;論船舶優(yōu)先權的法律適用[J];中國海商法年刊;2002年00期

4 宋偉莉;船舶優(yōu)先權糾紛案評析[J];中國海商法年刊;2004年00期

，

本文編號：1671415