从《鹿特丹规则》视角看无单放货中卖方权益的保护

发布时间：2018-05-14 11:06

本文选题：鹿特丹规则 + 无单放货　；参考：《中国政法大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：无单放货现象作为国际货物贸易和海上运输界的一个难以完全解决的问题,长期以来困扰着海上承运人,也使得货物卖方的权益在很大程度上得不到保障。尤其是像我国这样一个正在蓬勃的国际经济环境中积极发展,并从航运大国向航运强国转型中的发展中国家,实践中所面临的由于无单放货所带来的问题无疑已经成为了继续前进的障碍。从我国海事法院的案件统计来看,目前我国法院每年受理的无单放货案件多达近万件,相当于其他国家无单放货案件的总和。而根据调查结果,目前我国无单放货现象严重的主要原因还是船速快于提单流转速度的技术原因。从无单放货各形式所占比例来看,副本提单加保函占54%,“电放”占46%;无担保的承运人放货占38%。1而在我国当前对外贸易和运输实际中,我国出口企业使用的合同条款约80%都是FOB条款,且大多数是按照国外进口商的要求使用的,这就给出口企业的合法利益保护带来了极大的隐患。实践中存在着大量无单放货案例即是由于国外货代不去银行付款赎回全套单证而利用海运提单或大副提单向承运人要求无单放货,造成的我国出口商巨大经济利益损失。面对这样的现状,联合国国际贸易法委员会经过多年努力,出台了《联合国全程或部分海上国际货物运输合同公约》,又称《鹿特丹规则》,试图以建立全新的海上运输法律制度的方式解决无单放货的问题。本文即试图通过对《鹿特丹规则》中有关无单放货的新制度的梳理分析,以及与我国目前有关无单放货的立法司法现状的比较,明判其优劣,以期对我国在国际货物贸易和海上运输法律制度方面的修改和完善提出建议,以更好的适应日益发展的国际贸易和运输业,维护我国出口企业的合法权益。本文主要分四个部分进行论述。第一部分主要介绍无单放货问题的一般理论知识,重点分析无单放货现象存在的原因及其主要形式。系统梳理了当前无单放货现象中存在问题的部分并指出其危害。第二部分主要对《鹿特丹规则》中涉及到无单放货的部分规定作了分析和评价。《鹿特丹规则》中对无单放货的新规定主要有两个部分。第一是有条件的承认合法的无单放货,公约将运输单证分为四种类型并逐类规定了在每种运输单证下允许无单放货的条件,并明确了在目的港货物未能正常交付时承运人可以根据公约的规定和控制方的指示进行合法的无单放货。公约另一个在此问题上的制度创新体现在控制权制度方面。通过用“可转让运输单证”、“不可转让运输单证”、“电子运输单证”和“控制方”、“履约方”等概念和体系取代传统的提单制度,将货物的交付问题由原来的以提单为中心,转变为以控制权为中心。规定了控制方可以向承运人发出中途提货、变更收货人等指示,此时承运人的无单放货是被允许且不需要承担法律责任的。同时公约将贸易合同中的货物卖方提到了“单证托运人”的地位上来,并赋予其一定的权利,以保障货物卖方在遇到无单放货时能够享有救济。最后对这部分新规定,尤其是在FOB价格条款下卖方权益保护方面做了正反两方面评价。第三部分介绍了我国无单放货在立法和实务方面的现状。重点介绍了新出台的《最高人民法院关于审理无正本提单交付货物案件适用法律若干问题的规定》在解决无单放货问题方面做出的有益尝试。并分别通过两个与无单放货和控制权利有关的案例介绍,和《鹿特丹规则》、《最高人民法院关于审理无正本提单交付货物案件适用法律若干问题的规定》适用于案例时可能产生的结果分析作了说明,明确直观的将《鹿特丹规则》和最高院解释的优劣利弊呈现出来,并分别分析了其对我国出口企业可能产生的影响。第四部分先介绍了目前各国、卖方协会等组织对《鹿特丹规则》中关于无单放货的规定的反对意见,随后结合上文的理论和案例分析,提出我国应对“鹿特丹时代”的到来方面可以采取的措施,即一方面要积极完善《海商法》中关于无单放货问题的法律制度建设;另一方面也需要我国对外出口企业增强自身实力,迎接挑战,所谓“进攻就是最好的防守”,在积极参与国际竞争中真正实现对自身利益的保护。
[Abstract]:As a difficult problem to be solved in the international trade of goods and maritime transport, the phenomenon of free delivery of goods has long plagued the carrier by sea, and the rights and interests of the goods seller are not guaranteed to a large extent, especially in a booming international economic environment like China, and from a large shipping country. The problems of the developing countries in the transition of the shipping power have undoubtedly become the obstacles to continue to advance in practice. From the case statistics of the maritime courts of China, there are nearly 10000 cases of no single delivery cases accepted by the courts of our country at present, which is equivalent to the sum of the cases of no single delivery in other countries. According to the results of the survey, the main reason for the serious phenomenon of no single delivery in China is the technical reasons for the speed of the ship's speed faster than the bill of lading. From the proportion of all forms, the copy bill of lading is 54% and the "radio" accounts for 46%; the unsecured carrier takes up 38%.1 and is in the current foreign trade and transportation practice in our country. About 80% of the contract terms used by our export enterprises are FOB terms, and most of them are used in accordance with the requirements of foreign importers. This brings a great hidden danger to the protection of the legitimate interests of the export enterprises. In practice, there are a large number of cases of no single delivery, that is, the use of the sea for the redemption of the full set of documents by foreign freight forwarders. In the face of this situation, the United Nations Commission on international trade law, after many years of efforts, has introduced the United Nations Convention on the contract for the whole or part of the international carriage of goods at sea, also called the Rotterdam rule, in an attempt to establish a new one. The legal system of maritime transportation will solve the problem of non delivery of goods. This article is to try to judge its advantages and disadvantages through the analysis of the new system in the "Rotterdam rules" and the current legislative and judicial status of our country, with a view to the legal system of international goods trade and maritime transport in our country. Suggestions for improvement and improvement are put forward in order to better adapt to the increasingly developed international trade and transportation industry and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of China's export enterprises.
This article is mainly divided into four parts. The first part mainly introduces the general theoretical knowledge of the issue of cargo free cargo. It focuses on the analysis of the reasons and main forms of the existence of the phenomenon of the non release goods, and systematically combs the existing problems in the phenomenon of the non single delivery and points out its harm. The second part mainly deals with the "Rotterdam rule >". The provisions of the partial delivery of goods without single delivery have been analyzed and evaluated. There are two main parts of the new provisions for the non release goods in the Rotterdam rules. The first is the conditional recognition of the legal non release goods. The Convention divides the transport documents into four types and stipulates the conditions for the non release of goods under each kind of transport document. When the cargo is not delivered normally by the carrier, the carrier may be legally free of delivery in accordance with the provisions of the Convention and the instructions of the controlling party. The other system innovation on this issue is embodied in the system of control. Through the use of "negotiable transport documents", "non transferable transport documents", "electronic transport documents" and "control" "Party", "performing party" and other concepts and systems replace the traditional bill of lading system, the delivery of goods from the original bill of lading as the center, change to the right to control the center. It provides that the control party can deliver the goods to the carrier, change the consignee and other instructions, at this time the shipper's free delivery is allowed and does not need to bear the law At the same time, the Convention refers to the seller of the goods in the trade contract with the status of the "documentary shipper" and gives it a certain right to ensure that the seller is able to enjoy the relief when he meets the goods without a single delivery. In the end, two aspects of the new provisions, especially the seller's rights and interests under the FOB price clause, have been made. The third part introduces the present situation of the legislation and practice of the non single delivery goods in China. It focuses on the newly issued provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the application of laws to the case of the case of the delivery of goods without original bill of lading. The case introduction of the control rights, and the Rotterdam rules, the provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the application of the law to the case of the delivery of goods without the original bill of lading, and the analysis of the possible results applied to the case, clearly and intuitively presented the advantages and disadvantages of the "Rotterdam rules" and the Supreme Court Interpretation. In the fourth part, the fourth part first introduces the objections to the provisions of the "no single cargo" in the current countries, the seller Association and other organizations, and then, combining the theory and case analysis above, puts forward the measures we can take to deal with the arrival of the "Rotterdam era". On the one hand, on the one hand, we should actively improve the legal system construction of the "maritime law" on the issue of free delivery of goods. On the other hand, it also needs our foreign export enterprises to strengthen their own strength and meet the challenges. The so-called "attack is the best defense", and to actively participate in international competition to realize the protection of its own interests.

【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D996.19;D922.294

【引证文献】