【摘要】：海上航行的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)較大,貨損或者船貨俱損的情形時(shí)有發(fā)生。當(dāng)發(fā)生重大海上事故造成損害時(shí),船舶所有人等責(zé)任主體可以向海事法院申請(qǐng)?jiān)O(shè)立海事賠償責(zé)任限制基金。在啟動(dòng)海事賠償責(zé)任限制程序之前或之后,因責(zé)任人無法清償?shù)狡趥鶆?wù),就會(huì)有該責(zé)任主體本身或者其債權(quán)人向人民法院申請(qǐng)破產(chǎn),兩類法律關(guān)系分別由海事法律和破產(chǎn)法規(guī)定,對(duì)于交叉內(nèi)容的規(guī)定卻是空白,由此海事賠償責(zé)任限制程序與破產(chǎn)程序就可能產(chǎn)生沖突。此時(shí),如何協(xié)調(diào)法院的審判程序、如何妥善處理海事債權(quán)和岸上債權(quán),解決各類債權(quán)在受償順序上的矛盾等等就成為亟需解決的問題。如何解決上述沖突,是一個(gè)海商法與破產(chǎn)法、海商法與物權(quán)法、實(shí)體法與程序法相交叉的未決課題,雖然在實(shí)踐中較少遇到,但終將成為困擾海事理論界與實(shí)務(wù)界的一大難題。本文分為以下四部分： 本文第一章和第二章將簡(jiǎn)要概述海事賠償責(zé)任限制程序與破產(chǎn)程序。 第三章將闡述海事賠償責(zé)任限制程序與破產(chǎn)程序沖突的具體表現(xiàn),包括海事賠償責(zé)任限制程序在破產(chǎn)程序啟動(dòng)后的存續(xù)問題、海事債權(quán)和破產(chǎn)債權(quán)審查確認(rèn)的問題、海事賠償責(zé)任限制基金與破產(chǎn)財(cái)產(chǎn)之間的關(guān)系等等問題。 第四章將在分析沖突原因的基礎(chǔ)上提出解決海事賠償責(zé)任限制與破產(chǎn)程序沖突的建議,并對(duì)整體立法手段和具體問題之解決都進(jìn)行詳細(xì)的研究和梳理。 第五章將整體研究跨國海事賠償責(zé)任限制程序與破產(chǎn)程序的沖突,描述已經(jīng)存在的管轄問題與法律適用問題并提出解決問題的思路。 本文將詳細(xì)研究?jī)沙绦蛑g存在的沖突以及兩個(gè)程序中涉及的不同權(quán)利之間的沖突,通過運(yùn)用法律基本原則來解決沖突所產(chǎn)生的問題,并對(duì)于我國海事賠償責(zé)任限制程序的完善提出意見和建議。該研究對(duì)于如何完善我國的海事賠償責(zé)任限制程序制度和海事司法審判實(shí)踐具有非常重要的意義。
[Abstract]:The risk of navigation at sea is high, and damage or damage to cargo and cargo occur from time to time. When damage is caused by a major maritime accident, the owner of the ship and other responsible parties may apply to the maritime court for the establishment of a limitation fund for maritime claims liability. Before or after the commencement of the procedure for limiting liability for maritime claims, because the person responsible is unable to pay off the debts due, the subject of the liability or its creditors will apply to the people's court for bankruptcy, The two kinds of legal relations are stipulated by maritime law and bankruptcy law respectively, but the provisions of cross-content are blank, so the limitation procedure of maritime claim liability and bankruptcy procedure may produce conflict. At this time, how to coordinate the court's trial procedure, how to properly deal with maritime claims and shore claims, and how to solve the contradictions of various claims in the order of compensation has become an urgent problem to be solved. How to solve the above conflicts is an outstanding subject that maritime law and bankruptcy law, maritime law and property law, substantive law and procedural law are intersected. Although they are seldom encountered in practice, they will eventually become a major problem puzzling maritime theorists and practitioners. This paper is divided into four parts: the first and second chapters briefly summarize the limitation procedure and bankruptcy procedure of maritime claims liability. The third chapter will expound the concrete manifestation of the conflict between the limitation procedure of maritime claim liability and the bankruptcy procedure, including the existence of the limitation procedure of maritime claim liability after the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings, the problems of the examination and confirmation of the maritime creditor's right and the bankruptcy claim, The relationship between the limitation of liability for maritime claims and bankruptcy property and so on. The fourth chapter will put forward some suggestions to solve the conflict between the limitation of liability for maritime claims and the bankruptcy procedure on the basis of analyzing the causes of the conflict, and make a detailed study and combing of the overall legislative means and the solution of specific problems. The fifth chapter will study the conflict between the limitation procedure of transnational maritime claim liability and the bankruptcy procedure, describe the existing jurisdiction problem and law application problem, and put forward the way to solve the problem. This paper will study in detail the conflicts between the two procedures and the conflicts between the different rights involved in the two procedures, and solve the problems arising from the conflicts by applying the basic principles of law. And put forward the opinion and suggestion on the perfection of the limitation procedure of maritime claim liability in our country. This study is of great significance to improve the limitation procedure system of maritime claims liability and the practice of maritime judicial trial in China.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張勇健;錢曉晨;楊以生;;美國破產(chǎn)法若干問題聚焦[J];法律適用;2010年09期

2 宋錫祥;;論歐盟跨國破產(chǎn)法[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2007年04期

3 王利明;破產(chǎn)立法中的若干疑難問題探討[J];法學(xué);2005年03期

4 莫偉剛;海事賠償責(zé)任限制的程序問題[J];廣西政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年04期

5 黃少彬;張旭;溫文治;;國外跨國破產(chǎn)管轄制度及對(duì)我國立法的啟示[J];湖南財(cái)政經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年04期

6 周后春;屈廣清;;海事賠償責(zé)任限制的法律適用[J];世界海運(yùn);2006年02期

7 張潔;;淺析跨國破產(chǎn)的管轄權(quán)[J];合作經(jīng)濟(jì)與科技;2011年06期

8 季立剛;解正山;;美國跨國破產(chǎn)立法的最新發(fā)展及對(duì)我國的借鑒意義[J];暨南學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年05期

9 張海征;;試述我國破產(chǎn)財(cái)產(chǎn)清償制度——以英國破產(chǎn)制度為視角[J];中國市場(chǎng);2008年01期

10 畢丹華;;沉船沉物強(qiáng)制打撈清除中的若干法律問題[J];水運(yùn)管理;2007年01期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 洪燕;海事賠償責(zé)任限制程序相關(guān)法律問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2011年

2 賀洪龍;海事賠償責(zé)任限制程序問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2007年

3 胡杏軍;我國海事賠償責(zé)任限制程序完善研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2009年

4 賈楠;CMI《責(zé)任限制程序規(guī)則指南》對(duì)完善我國相關(guān)立法之借鑒[D];大連海事大學(xué);2010年

5 李妍;海事賠償責(zé)任限制制度若干問題研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：2370133