淺析我國法律項下的海上貨物留置權(quán)
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-21 09:38
【摘要】：海上貨物留置權(quán)淵源于各國際公約與國際慣例,在英美法系中系對承運人權(quán)利的一種救濟,并非完全隸屬于留置權(quán)之概念。但在我國法律項下,留置權(quán)屬于物權(quán)法下之概念,故具有物權(quán)屬性,海上貨物留置權(quán)既歸屬于留置權(quán)亦應(yīng)當(dāng)適用物權(quán)之相關(guān)理論。然而鑒于海上貨物運輸活動往往涉及多方當(dāng)事人且運輸合同尤其是國際運輸合同更涉及多國法律甚至國際公約、國際慣例,因此在具體司法實踐中,如果將海上貨物留置權(quán)完全按照普通留置權(quán)來解釋、來適用,則勢必有其局限與不妥之處。本文結(jié)合國內(nèi)外的立法與學(xué)說,試指出海上貨物留置權(quán)較普通留置權(quán)的不同之處,及海上貨物留置權(quán)在我國應(yīng)當(dāng)如何理解,并對我國目前海商法對海上貨物留置權(quán)適用中的不足提出改進意見。除了引言和結(jié)語外,本論文分為兩個部分。本文第一章首先引述各國立法,對留置權(quán)的起源及概念加以闡述并簡要分析,因留置權(quán)的起源影響到后續(xù)各國法律發(fā)展對留置權(quán)立法的不同傾向,各國對留置權(quán)性質(zhì)系債權(quán)抑或物權(quán)所持觀點各有不同:以法國、德國為代表的國家將留置權(quán)視為債權(quán)的一種延伸;而以瑞士、日本、我國臺灣為代表的國家則將留置權(quán)視為物權(quán)的一種,我國亦認(rèn)可留置權(quán)為物權(quán)。其次,對留置權(quán)法律特征進行分析,就其物權(quán)性、法定性、從屬性、不可分性、二次效力性逐一展開,留置權(quán)的法律特征亦與留置權(quán)的成立要件有關(guān);最后重點分析留置權(quán)的成立要件,尤其對于其積極要件著重分析,例如債權(quán)人對留置物“占有”的定義,留置物的范圍,債權(quán)與留置物的牽連性,債權(quán)清償期是否屆滿等,這些要件是否成立直接決定債權(quán)人的留置權(quán)是否成立,是否可以執(zhí)行。本文第二章主要分寫海上貨物留置權(quán)較一般留置權(quán)的突破之處:首先,留置物的所有權(quán)不應(yīng)僅局限于債務(wù)人,鑒于海上運輸?shù)奶厥庑?不應(yīng)當(dāng)給承運人設(shè)定過重的負(fù)擔(dān),若固執(zhí)于貨物所有權(quán)應(yīng)歸屬于債務(wù)人,則該海上貨物留置權(quán)對于承運人而言在很大程度上形同虛設(shè);其次,對債權(quán)與留置物牽連性的突破,因海上貨物運輸合同關(guān)系絕大多數(shù)情況下為商事主體之間的合同關(guān)系,而各國立法已認(rèn)可商事留置權(quán)中對于債權(quán)與留置物牽連性的突破,故此在海上貨物留置權(quán)中,只要符合商事留置權(quán)的情形,亦應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)可留置物不必與相關(guān)債權(quán)具有牽連關(guān)系;第三,對于海上貨物留置權(quán)擔(dān)保之范圍作出界定,海上貨物留置權(quán)用以擔(dān)保運費、共同海損分?jǐn)偸俏阌怪靡傻?本文意圖對海上貨物留置權(quán)所擔(dān)保的滯期費作出進一步的分析,并列出相關(guān)限制條件;第四,對海上貨物運輸承運人就提單等運輸單證是否可以留置進行分析,海商法作為特別法將“貨物”明確為海上貨物留置權(quán)的標(biāo)的物,但這一法律規(guī)定并非限定承運人不能留置債務(wù)人的運輸單證;第五,對海上貨物留置權(quán)的執(zhí)行進行討論,在我國海上貨物留置權(quán)的執(zhí)行涉及法院及海關(guān),相關(guān)法律規(guī)定仍有沖突,承運人在執(zhí)行其留置權(quán)的過程中時常遭遇困難,經(jīng)常是可以留置貨物,卻無法變價從而優(yōu)先受償,因此我國法律法規(guī)應(yīng)就此弊端加以完善。
[Abstract]:Lien on cargo by sea originates from international conventions and practices. It is a relief to the carrier's rights in Anglo-American legal system and is not entirely subordinate to the concept of lien. However, since the carriage of goods by sea often involves many parties and the contract of carriage, especially the international contract of carriage, involves many countries'laws and even international conventions, international practice, it is bound to apply if the lien on goods by sea is fully interpreted in accordance with the ordinary lien in specific judicial practice. Combining with the legislation and theories at home and abroad, this paper tries to point out the differences between the lien on cargo by sea and the ordinary lien on cargo by sea, and how to understand the lien on cargo by sea in China. This paper is divided into two parts. The first chapter of this paper quotes the legislation of various countries, expounds the origin and concept of lien, and briefly analyzes it. Because the origin of lien affects the different tendencies of the legislation of lien in the subsequent legal development of various countries, different countries hold different views on the nature of lien as creditor's right or real right: France, Germany, Germany. Countries represented by China regard lien as an extension of creditor's rights, while countries represented by Switzerland, Japan and Taiwan regard it as a kind of real right, and China also recognizes it as a real right. The legal characteristics of the lien are also related to the elements of the establishment of the lien. Finally, it focuses on the elements of the establishment of the lien, especially on its positive elements, such as the definition of the "possession" of the lien by the creditor, the scope of the lien, the involvement of the creditor's right with the lien, the expiration of the debt liquidation period, and so on. Chapter 2 of this article mainly points out the breakthrough of lien on goods by sea compared with general lien. Firstly, the ownership of the lien should not be limited to the debtor. In view of the particularity of carriage by sea, the carrier should not be given an excessive burden, if stubborn in the goods. If the ownership belongs to the debtor, the lien on the goods by sea is to a great extent null and void to the carrier; secondly, the breakthrough of the relationship between creditor's right and the lien is due to the fact that most of the contractual relations in the carriage of goods by sea are the contractual relations between the commercial subjects, and the legislation of various countries has recognized the debt in the lien on commercial affairs. Therefore, as long as the lien meets the circumstances of the commercial lien, it should be recognized that the lien does not have to be related to the relevant creditor's rights. Thirdly, the scope of the lien on goods at sea is defined, and the lien on goods at sea is used to guarantee the freight, so it is unnecessary to apportion the general average. Doubtless, this article intends to make a further analysis of the demurrage charges guaranteed by the lien on goods on the sea, and lists the relevant restrictive conditions. Fourthly, it analyzes whether the carrier of goods on the sea can lie on the transport documents such as bills of lading. As a special law, the "goods" are defined as the subject matter of the lien on goods on the sea, but This legal provision does not limit the carrier's inability to retain the debtor's transport document; fifthly, the enforcement of the lien on goods at sea is discussed. In China, the enforcement of the lien on goods at sea involves the courts and customs, and the relevant legal provisions are still in conflict. The carrier often encounters difficulties in the process of enforcing his lien, which is often possible. If goods are retained, they can not be changed in price so that they can be compensated first. Therefore, China's laws and regulations should be perfected.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.2
本文編號：2195306
[Abstract]:Lien on cargo by sea originates from international conventions and practices. It is a relief to the carrier's rights in Anglo-American legal system and is not entirely subordinate to the concept of lien. However, since the carriage of goods by sea often involves many parties and the contract of carriage, especially the international contract of carriage, involves many countries'laws and even international conventions, international practice, it is bound to apply if the lien on goods by sea is fully interpreted in accordance with the ordinary lien in specific judicial practice. Combining with the legislation and theories at home and abroad, this paper tries to point out the differences between the lien on cargo by sea and the ordinary lien on cargo by sea, and how to understand the lien on cargo by sea in China. This paper is divided into two parts. The first chapter of this paper quotes the legislation of various countries, expounds the origin and concept of lien, and briefly analyzes it. Because the origin of lien affects the different tendencies of the legislation of lien in the subsequent legal development of various countries, different countries hold different views on the nature of lien as creditor's right or real right: France, Germany, Germany. Countries represented by China regard lien as an extension of creditor's rights, while countries represented by Switzerland, Japan and Taiwan regard it as a kind of real right, and China also recognizes it as a real right. The legal characteristics of the lien are also related to the elements of the establishment of the lien. Finally, it focuses on the elements of the establishment of the lien, especially on its positive elements, such as the definition of the "possession" of the lien by the creditor, the scope of the lien, the involvement of the creditor's right with the lien, the expiration of the debt liquidation period, and so on. Chapter 2 of this article mainly points out the breakthrough of lien on goods by sea compared with general lien. Firstly, the ownership of the lien should not be limited to the debtor. In view of the particularity of carriage by sea, the carrier should not be given an excessive burden, if stubborn in the goods. If the ownership belongs to the debtor, the lien on the goods by sea is to a great extent null and void to the carrier; secondly, the breakthrough of the relationship between creditor's right and the lien is due to the fact that most of the contractual relations in the carriage of goods by sea are the contractual relations between the commercial subjects, and the legislation of various countries has recognized the debt in the lien on commercial affairs. Therefore, as long as the lien meets the circumstances of the commercial lien, it should be recognized that the lien does not have to be related to the relevant creditor's rights. Thirdly, the scope of the lien on goods at sea is defined, and the lien on goods at sea is used to guarantee the freight, so it is unnecessary to apportion the general average. Doubtless, this article intends to make a further analysis of the demurrage charges guaranteed by the lien on goods on the sea, and lists the relevant restrictive conditions. Fourthly, it analyzes whether the carrier of goods on the sea can lie on the transport documents such as bills of lading. As a special law, the "goods" are defined as the subject matter of the lien on goods on the sea, but This legal provision does not limit the carrier's inability to retain the debtor's transport document; fifthly, the enforcement of the lien on goods at sea is discussed. In China, the enforcement of the lien on goods at sea involves the courts and customs, and the relevant legal provisions are still in conflict. The carrier often encounters difficulties in the process of enforcing his lien, which is often possible. If goods are retained, they can not be changed in price so that they can be compensated first. Therefore, China's laws and regulations should be perfected.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.2
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條
1 鄒海林;;留置權(quán)基本問題研究[J];法學(xué)研究;1991年02期
，本文編號：2195306
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/sflw/2195306.html
教材專著
