国际海运货物控制权研究

发布时间：2018-05-12 20:25

本文选题：货物控制权 + 运输法　；参考：《西南政法大学》2007年硕士论文

【摘要】： 在国际海上货物运输中，因行使买卖合同中的抗辩权，或因买卖合同发生变更、解除而处置货物时，需要相应的变更运输合同，尤其是其中目的地或收货人条款。这种变更运输合同的需要催生了货物控制权制度。货物控制权是在运输合同履行过程中，实现卖方在买卖合同中救济权利的需要，也就意味着将贸易法中的条款引入到了运输法中。海运外其他运输方式的国际公约，对货物控制权已有所规定。在海上运输领域，由于提单的最大范围使用，货物控制权一度未受重视。时代与科技都在进步，实践中开始大量使用不可转让单证及电子单证。为了使货物运输更好的衔接货物买卖，同时也为了适应海运单和电子商务的迅猛发展，关于海运货物控制权的研究和立法渐渐受到人们的重视，1990年国际海事委员会《海运单统一规则》和1990年国际海事委员会《电子提单规则》都规定有货物控制权，但只是针对海运单和电子提单的，并不适用于提单运输。CMI／UNCITRAL《货物运输公约》(草案)这一致力于建立运输领域统一规则的国际公约首开先河，对“货物控制权”这一制度进行了全面的规定。我国专门调整海上货物运输的《海商法》没有关于货物控制权的规定，《合同法》第17章运输合同第3节货物运输中的第308条的规定被认为是我国关于货物控制权的规定，但该规定过于宽广，没有任何限制，不适合海上货物运输的特殊需要。立法的不完善导致司法实践中产生了一些困扰，当事人权利得不到有效保护。大连海事大学司玉琢教授就提出建议在《海商法》中增加货物控制权条款。本文基于已有的关于货物控制权的立法例，特别是CMI／UNCITRAL《货物运输公约》(草案)，立足于我国立法及司法现状，对国际海运货物控制权展开研究，以期为我国海商法制建设贡献绵薄之力。论文除绪论和结束语外，分为五个部分，约三万字，主要内容如下：第一部分为货物控制权概述。从实现国际货物买卖合同卖方救济权利的需要及海上货物运输实践发展的需要两个方面详细论述了货物控制权的立法意义；从法理及商业两个角度论述了货物控制权立法的合理性基础，同时也从客体、义务相对人以及性质三个方面指出了货物控制权与所有权、支配权的区别；第一部分还分别介绍了大陆法系、英美法系及国际公约中关于货物控制权的立法例；并特别介绍了货物控制权与中途停运权在渊源上、权利主体上和内容上的区别，也指明中途停运权的实施需通过货物控制权实现，以及两者在权利行使期间、都是承运人来执行指示三个方面存在的密切联系。第二部分为货物控制权的性质和范围。笔者综合CMI／UNCITRAL《货物运输公约》(草案)及其他运输公约中的相关规定，对于货物控制权的本体进行了详尽的探讨。笔者认为，货物控制权从性质上讲是形成权，是法定的合同变更权。货物控制权之本义就是依控制权人单方的意思表示(如以通知的形式发出对货物处置的指示)就可以引起合同变更的效力，不需要事先征得承运人的同意。承运人在货物控制权符合特定权利行使限制的前提下，有义务无条件地服从控制权人单方的意思表示并且须立即执行。承运人不能随意拒绝控制权人的单方指示，否则，要承担相应的责任。货物控制权的直接法律效力是变更合同，其效力指向的对象是合同运输关系，而不是承运人和货物。这一点也符合形成权的法律特征。关于控制权的范围，笔者认为，货物控制权并不是专属于托运人的，考虑到运输合同以外的第三人行使控制权的情况，货物控制权的范围不应该过于宽泛，否则有过多干涉托运人与承运人之间运输合同私法自治之嫌。笔者认为货物控制权可以包括四个方面的指示，，1、不构成对运输合同变更的指示；2、途中交货指示；3、变更收货人指示；4、中止交货指示。第三部分为货物控制权的行使与限制。笔者首先区别所签发运输单证的不同，具体详述了货物控制权的主体，分析了托运人、发货人、收货人、单证贸易下的银行等第三人作为控制权人的不同情况；阐述了未签发可转让运输单证或可转让电子运输记录的、签发可转让运输单证的、签发可转让电子运输记录的三种情形下控制权人行使控制权的不同方式；关于控制权的行使期间，笔者认为应该是货交承运人后，收货人开始提货之前，并指出运输过程中和运输途中的区别；该部分还讨论了货物控制权的效力，指出了行使货物控制权应有的限制因素，即合理性、可行性；第四部分为货物控制权的转让和消灭。笔者阐释了货物控制权的可转让性，介绍了货物控制权的转让方式及转让生效时间；阐述了货物控制权消灭的三种情形。第五部分为我国关于货物控制权的立法及司法实践。笔者介绍了我国关于货物控制权的立法，主要是《合同法》第308条，以及《海商法》的有关规定；并探讨了两个涉及到退运纠纷的案例，试图通过对这两个近期发生的案例，检讨我国相关立法及法律适用，以期能够从司法实践的角度揭示出货物控制权立法的必要性。通过全文的论述，文章最后的结论是我国应该尽快着手修改《海商法》，对国际海运货物控制权进行立法，以完善我国海上货物运输法律规制。在《海商法》海上货物运输合同一章中规定货物控制权将在一定程度上使买卖法律所规定的补救措施得以实现，有利于货物的流转和关系方权利的确认。而控制权的立法涉及到多方当事人的权利义务关系，立法者须认真考量，以期做出最佳安排，努力服务于我国的海上货物运输事业。综观全文，笔者试图努力通过对已有的关于控制权的立法经验的归纳总结，并结合我国的立法及司法实践，对国际海运货物控制权本体有一个较为全面地把握，以服务于我国海上货物运输的立法建设。文章的创新在于对国际海运货物控制权性质的把握，即明确指出货物控制权是形成权，是控制权人对运输合同的单方变更权，并结合国际上关于货物控制权的最新立法，对控制权本体进行了深入地探讨；论文还剖析了新近发生的两个案例，讨论了缺乏海运货物控制权立法背景之下的司法实践，彰显出我国对海运货物控制权立法的迫切需要。
[Abstract]:In the carriage of goods in the sea, the transfer contract, especially the destination or the consignee, is required for the exercise of the right of defense in the contract of sale or the dissolution of the contract of sale, especially the destination or the terms of the consignee. The need for the change of the contract of transport has caused the system of control of the goods. The right of control of goods is in the contract of transportation. In the course of implementation, the realization of the seller's need for the right of relief in the sale of the contract means introducing the provisions of the trade law into the transport law. The international conventions on other modes of transport by sea have provided the right to control of the goods. In the field of maritime transport, the right to control of the goods has not been taken seriously because of the maximum use of the bill of lading. In order to make the transport of goods better connected to goods, and to adapt to the rapid development of sea waybill and electronic commerce, the research and legislation on the right of marine cargo control gradually received attention from the international maritime Commissioner in 1990. "The uniform rules of the maritime bill and the 1990 International Maritime Commission < electronic bill of lading Rules > all have the right of control of goods, but only for sea waybills and electronic bills of lading, which are not applicable to the first opening of the International Convention on the transport of.CMI / UNCITRAL< cargo transport convention (draft), which is committed to the establishment of uniform rules in the field of transport," The system of control of goods has been comprehensively stipulated.
China's "maritime law", which is specially adjusted for marine cargo transportation, has no provisions on the right of control of goods. The provisions of the contract law, the seventeenth chapter of the third section of the transport contract, are considered to be our country's regulations on the control of goods, but the provisions are too broad, without any restrictions, and are not suitable for the special needs of the carriage of goods by sea. The imperfect legislation has led to some troubles in the judicial practice, and the rights of the parties are not effectively protected. Professor Si Yuzhuo of Dalian Maritime University has proposed to increase the goods control clause in the maritime law. This article is based on the existing legislation on the control of goods, especially the CMI / UNCITRAL< cargo transport convention (Draft), Based on the current situation of legislation and judicature in China, this paper studies the control right of international maritime cargo, with a view to contributing little to the construction of maritime legal system in China.
Besides the introduction and concluding remarks, the thesis is divided into five parts, about thirty thousand words. The main contents are as follows:
The first part is an overview of the right to control goods. The legislative significance of the right of control of goods is discussed in two aspects: the need for the realization of the seller's right to the seller's relief and the need for the development of the carriage of goods by sea. The rationalization foundation of the legislation of the right of control of goods is discussed from two angles of law and commerce, and the object is also the object, The duty relative and the nature of the three aspects point out the difference between the right of control of goods and ownership and the right to control. The first part also introduces the legislation on the control of goods in the continental law system, the Anglo American law system and the international conventions, and especially the origin of the right of goods control and the right to stop the transportation, the subject and the content of the right. The difference also indicates that the implementation of the right of Midway is realized through the control of goods, and both are the close links between the three aspects of the carrier to carry out the instructions during the exercise of the right.
The second part is the nature and scope of the right of control of goods. The author makes a detailed discussion on the ontology of the right of control of goods by combining the relevant provisions of the CMI / UNCITRAL< freight transport convention (Draft) and other transport conventions. The author holds that the right of control of goods is the right of form, the right to change the contract, and the right of control of goods. The original meaning is that the meaning of the single party of the controlling person (such as the instruction in the form of notice in the form of notice) can cause the effect of the change of the contract without prior consent of the carrier. The carrier is obliged to obey the control of the right of control unconditionally under the premise that the right of control of the goods is in accordance with the limitation of the exercise of the specific rights. The carrier cannot deny the single direction of the owner at will, otherwise, the carrier should bear the corresponding responsibility. The direct legal effect of the right of control of the goods is the change of the contract, the object of which is the contract transport relationship, not the carrier and the goods. This is also in line with the legal characteristics of the right of formation. In the scope of ownership, the author holds that the right of control of goods is not exclusive to the shipper. Considering that the third persons outside the contract of transport exercise control, the scope of the control of goods should not be too broad, otherwise there is too much interference in the autonomy of the transport contract between the shipper and the carrier. It includes four directions: 1, does not constitute instructions for the change of the contract of carriage; 2, instructions for delivery on the way; 3, change the consignee's instructions; 4, suspend delivery instructions.
The third part is the exercise and restriction of the right of control of goods. First, the author distinguishes the difference between the documents and documents issued, details the main body of the right of control of the goods, and analyses the different conditions of the three persons such as the shipper, the consignor, the consignee and the Bank under the trade in the documents. In the three cases of the issuance of a negotiable transport document and the issuance of a negotiable transport document, a different way of exercising control under the control of the transferable electronic transport record; during the exercise of the right of control, the author thinks that the consignee should start the delivery of the goods after the delivery of the cargo to the carrier and point out the difference between the transport process and the transit. This part also discusses the effectiveness of the control right of goods, and points out the necessary restrictive factors for exercising the right of control of goods, that is, rationality and feasibility.
The fourth part is the transfer and elimination of the right of control of goods. The author explains the transferability of the right of control of goods, introduces the way of transfer of the right of control of goods and the time of the transfer of the goods, and expounds the three cases of the elimination of the right of control of goods.
The fifth part is the legislative and judicial practice of our country's right of control of goods. The author introduces the legislation on the control of goods in our country, mainly the contract law, the 308th articles and the relevant provisions of the maritime law, and probes into two cases involving the dissension of the return transportation, and tries to review our relevant cases through the two recent cases. The application of legislation and law is expected to reveal the necessity of legislation on the control of goods from the perspective of judicial practice.
Through the full text, the conclusion of the article is that China should begin to amend the maritime law as soon as possible, to legislate for the international maritime cargo control right, in order to improve the legal regulation of the carriage of goods by sea in our country. In the chapter of the maritime law > the contract of carriage of goods by sea, the control of goods will be remedied to a certain extent by the law of the sale. The implementation of the measures is conducive to the circulation of goods and the confirmation of the rights of the parties. The legislation of the right of control involves the rights and obligations of many parties. The legislator must consider carefully so as to make the best arrangements and work hard to serve the transport of goods at sea in our country.
In view of the full text, the author tries to make a summary of the existing legislative experience on the right of control and, in combination with the legislation and judicial practice of our country, to have a more comprehensive grasp of the international maritime cargo control rights in order to serve the legislative construction of marine cargo transportation in our country. The innovation of the article lies in the control of international shipping goods. The grasp of the property right, that is, clearly points out that the right of control of goods is the right to form, is the right to change the unilateral change of the contract of transport by the controlling right, and discusses the noumenon of control right in depth with the latest legislation on the right of control of goods in the world. The paper also analyzes two newly occurring cases, and discusses the lack of the control right of shipping goods. The judicial practice under the background of law highlights the urgent need for legislation on control of maritime goods in China.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：D996.1

【引证文献】