【摘要】：現(xiàn)行海上貨物運(yùn)輸領(lǐng)域的國(guó)際公約(海牙規(guī)則、海牙—威斯比規(guī)則和漢堡規(guī)則)很不統(tǒng)一,在一些重大問(wèn)題上彼此之間存在沖突且留有空白。這種情況給國(guó)際貨物運(yùn)輸?shù)捻樌M(jìn)行帶來(lái)了困難。鑒于此,1996年聯(lián)合國(guó)貿(mào)法會(huì)邀請(qǐng)國(guó)際海商法協(xié)會(huì)(CMI)重新審查國(guó)際海上貨物運(yùn)輸法律制度,擬起草一個(gè)統(tǒng)一的能夠被上述三規(guī)則接受的公約。CMI于2001年向貿(mào)法會(huì)提交了公約框架草案。貿(mào)法會(huì)在收到CMI提交的框架草案后,成立了“運(yùn)輸法工作組”,對(duì)公約草案的文本進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步的審議。草案的第11章是關(guān)于控制權(quán)的規(guī)定。這是海上運(yùn)輸法律第一次引入控制權(quán)的概念。 論文首先闡述了控制權(quán)的概念以及引入這一概念時(shí),各國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)貨物買賣法中有關(guān)“中途停運(yùn)權(quán)、不安抗辯權(quán)”的規(guī)定對(duì)運(yùn)輸法草案的影響;論文的第二部分,詳細(xì)地論述了控制權(quán)的權(quán)利義務(wù)主體、行使的條件、行使的方式、行使的期間、法律效果、控制權(quán)的性質(zhì)、轉(zhuǎn)讓和法律適用等問(wèn)題,并對(duì)草案相關(guān)規(guī)定背后的立法意圖和可能存在的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行深入分析;第三部分,闡明運(yùn)輸法草案關(guān)于控制權(quán)的規(guī)定是對(duì)國(guó)際貨物運(yùn)輸法律的發(fā)展,同時(shí),也會(huì)對(duì)我國(guó)相關(guān)立法產(chǎn)生重要影響。 文章的第二部分是本文的主體。由于UNCI了RAL運(yùn)輸法草案之前的有關(guān)國(guó)際公約沒有關(guān)于控制權(quán)問(wèn)題的規(guī)定,類似的規(guī)定如“中途停運(yùn)權(quán)”等是在各國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)的貨物買賣法中加以規(guī)定的,它是賣方在買方違約時(shí)行使的一種救濟(jì)權(quán)。當(dāng)在運(yùn)輸法律關(guān)系中引入“控制權(quán)”這一救濟(jì)權(quán)時(shí),依照控制權(quán)的定義和對(duì)控制權(quán)的規(guī)定,控制權(quán)的性質(zhì)是否可被大陸法現(xiàn)行民法理論體系中的民事權(quán)利的性質(zhì)涵蓋?本文認(rèn)為,從草案為控制權(quán)規(guī)定的內(nèi)涵看,它不是支配權(quán)、抗辯權(quán)或形成權(quán)�？刂茩�(quán)屬于請(qǐng)求權(quán),但難以將其歸入現(xiàn)有民法體系下任何一類請(qǐng)求權(quán)之中。在草案中,控制權(quán)是由法律規(guī)定而產(chǎn)生的一項(xiàng)權(quán)利,它是一項(xiàng)法定的請(qǐng)求權(quán)。其產(chǎn)生的基礎(chǔ)是買賣合同中的買賣關(guān)系,其行使的對(duì)象是運(yùn)輸合同關(guān)系中的承運(yùn)人。因此,控制權(quán)不是在同一種法律關(guān)系下產(chǎn)生和行使的請(qǐng)求權(quán)。本文認(rèn)為,這是控制權(quán)作為一種請(qǐng)求權(quán)不同于現(xiàn)行民法理論中各民事權(quán)利性質(zhì)的關(guān)鍵所在。只有對(duì)控制權(quán)的這種特殊性質(zhì)有一個(gè)準(zhǔn)確地認(rèn)識(shí),才能夠正確的理解運(yùn)輸法草案對(duì)于控制權(quán)各個(gè)方面的制度設(shè)計(jì)。本文認(rèn)為,如果運(yùn)輸法草案公約生效,大陸法系傳統(tǒng)民法理論中有關(guān)民事權(quán)利的理論將會(huì)被突破。
[Abstract]:The current international conventions in the field of carriage of goods by sea (the Hague rules, the Hague-Visby rules and the Hamburg rules) are very inconsistent, and there are conflicts and gaps between them on some important issues. This situation brings difficulties to the smooth international transport of goods. In view of this, in 1996, the United Nations Trade Law Commission invited the International Maritime Law Association (CMI) to re-examine the legal regime for the international carriage of goods by sea and to draft a uniform convention that could be accepted by the three rules mentioned above. The draft framework of the convention was submitted to the Commission in 2001. After receiving the draft framework submitted by CMI, the Trade Law Commission established a working Group on Transport Law to further consider the text of the draft convention. Chapter 11 of the draft deals with control rights. This is the first time the law of maritime transport introduced the concept of control. Firstly, the paper expounds the concept of control and the influence of the provisions of the domestic law on the right of stoppage and the right of restless defense to the draft transport law when it is introduced into the domestic law of sale of goods. The rights and obligations of the right of control, the conditions of its exercise, the mode of its exercise, the legal effect, the nature of the right of control, the transfer and the application of the law are discussed in detail. The legislative intent and possible problems behind the relevant provisions of the draft are analyzed in depth. The third part clarifies that the provisions of the draft Transport Law on the right of control are the development of the law on the international carriage of goods, at the same time, Also can produce the important influence to our country related legislation. The second part of the article is the main body of this paper. Since the relevant international conventions prior to UNCI's draft RAL Transport Law have no provisions on the right of control, similar provisions such as "right of stoppage" are provided for in the domestic laws of various countries on the sale of goods. It is a right of remedy exercised by the seller in case of breach of contract by the buyer. When the right of "right of control" is introduced into the legal relationship of transport, according to the definition of the right of control and the regulation of the right of control, can the nature of the right of control be covered by the nature of civil rights in the current theoretical system of civil law? This paper holds that the draft is not the right of domination, defense or formation from the point of view of the connotation of the regulation of the right of control. The right of control belongs to the right of claim, but it is difficult to be classified into any kind of right of claim under the existing civil law system. In the draft, the right of control is a right created by law, and it is a statutory right of claim. The basis of its production is the sale and purchase relationship in the contract of sale, and the object of its exercise is the carrier in the contract of carriage. Therefore, the right of control is not the right of claim arising and exercising under the same legal relationship. This paper holds that this is the key to the nature of the right of control as a right of claim, which is different from the civil rights in the current theory of civil law. Only if we have an accurate understanding of the special nature of the right of control, can we correctly understand the system design of the draft law of transport for all aspects of the right of control. This paper holds that if the draft convention on transport law comes into effect, the theory of civil rights in the traditional civil law theory of civil law system will be broken through.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2005
【分類號(hào)】：D996

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 吳瓊;論海上貨物運(yùn)輸中的貨物控制權(quán)[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

2 王中領(lǐng);論海運(yùn)中途停運(yùn)權(quán)[D];上海海事大學(xué);2006年

3 王凱;論海運(yùn)中途停運(yùn)權(quán)[D];大連海事大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：2188748