【摘要】：自羅馬法以來，合同相對性原則或債的相對性原則一直為兩大法系所確認(rèn)，成為合同制度的奠基石，在債法或合同法中具有重要的地位。在海商法這樣一個特殊的領(lǐng)域中，嚴(yán)格遵守合同相對性原則卻給航運實踐帶來了很多不便，在訴權(quán)、責(zé)任限制等方面都體現(xiàn)出不和諧之音，因此需要突破該原則以促進(jìn)航運業(yè)的發(fā)展。但是，對海上貨物運輸合同相對性的突破應(yīng)該有一個限度，不能因為實踐需要而任意突破，動搖合同相對性這一合同法的根本原則在海上貨物運輸合同中的基礎(chǔ)地位。 筆者從四個部分來論述合同相對性原則在海上貨物運輸合同中突破的情況。第一章從民法基本理論角度闡述了合同相對性原則在海上貨物運輸合同中突破的理論基礎(chǔ)。第二章以英美國家相關(guān)判例和立法發(fā)展為線索，就收貨人、提單持有人對承運人訴權(quán)問題的歷史演變予以詳細(xì)敘述，肯定了該項突破對航運業(yè)發(fā)展帶來的積極影響。第三章結(jié)合我國法院近年來的不同判決，針對FOB合同下的賣方是否對承運人享有合同權(quán)利進(jìn)行了充分探討，并提出立法建議；最后，筆者采用分類對比的方法，對于承運人的受雇人或代理人的法律地位，特別是獨立合同人是否可納入實際承運人范圍從而享受承運人的責(zé)任限制，從平衡各方當(dāng)事人利益角度，提出了自己的觀點。 對海上貨物運輸合同相對性原則的堅持或突破，，實際上是兩種制度價值的選擇，即對不同交易當(dāng)事人利益的保護(hù)傾向。筆者認(rèn)為，在堅持合同相對性這一基本原則的前提下，可以根據(jù)航運實踐的特殊性對合同相對性予以適當(dāng)突破，但這種突破是一種有限度的突破，其基本理念是法律的穩(wěn)定性，同時兼顧各方利益，實現(xiàn)法律的正義性。
[Abstract]:Since Roman law, the principle of relativity of contract or the principle of relativity of debt has been recognized by the two legal systems, and has become the cornerstone of the contract system, which plays an important role in the law of debt or contract law. In such a special field of maritime law, strict adherence to the principle of relativity of contract has brought a lot of inconvenience to shipping practice. Therefore, it is necessary to break through this principle in order to promote the development of shipping industry. However, there should be a limit to the breakthrough of the relativity of the contract for the carriage of goods by sea. We should not make any breakthrough on the basis of practice, and shake the fundamental position of the relativity of contract in the contract law of carriage of goods by sea. The author discusses the breach of the principle of relativity of contract in the contract of carriage of goods by sea from four parts. The first chapter expounds the theoretical basis of the breach of the principle of relativity of contract in the contract of carriage of goods by sea from the angle of the basic theory of civil law. The second chapter takes the development of relevant cases and legislation in Anglo-American countries as the clue, narrates in detail the historical evolution of the carrier's right of action by consignee and bill of lading holder, and affirms the positive influence of this breakthrough on the development of shipping industry. The third chapter combines with the different judgments of our courts in recent years, aiming at whether the seller under FOB contract has the contractual right to the carrier or not, and puts forward some legislative suggestions. Finally, the author adopts the method of classification and comparison. As to the legal status of the carrier's servant or agent, especially whether the independent contractor can be brought into the scope of the actual carrier to enjoy the limitation of the carrier's liability, the author puts forward his own view from the angle of balancing the interests of the parties. To insist or break through the relativity principle of the contract of carriage of goods by sea is actually the choice of two system values, that is, the tendency to protect the interests of the parties involved in different transactions. The author believes that under the premise of adhering to the basic principle of relativity of contract, the relativity of contract can be properly broken through according to the particularity of shipping practice, but this breakthrough is a limited breakthrough, the basic idea of which is the stability of law. At the same time, the interests of all parties should be taken into account to realize the justice of the law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2006
【分類號】：D922.294;D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 陳晶瑩;海上貨物運輸合同涉他性的法律研究[J];社會科學(xué);2002年09期

2 梁慧星;從近代民法到現(xiàn)代民法——二十世紀(jì)民法回顧[J];中外法學(xué);1997年02期

3 王利明;統(tǒng)一合同法制訂中的若干疑難問題探討（上）[J];政法論壇;1996年04期

本文編號：2123670