论船舶扣押管辖权与实体管辖权

发布时间：2018-06-24 10:49

本文选题：船舶扣押 + 管辖权　；参考：《中国政法大学》2008年硕士论文

【摘要】： 海事请求保全是海商法领域颇具特色的一项制度,船舶扣押则是保全海事请求的重要手段。船舶扣押不仅能为海事请求权人提供可靠的担保,还可以为扣船法院取得案件实体管辖权提供依据。然而,由于大陆法系国家和英美法系国家对船舶扣押的性质及管辖权的认识不同,导致在扣船法院是否享有实体管辖权的问题上存在巨大的分歧。为了缩小两大法系的差距,联合国贸易发展委员会和国际海事组织通过制定有关海事船舶扣押的国际公约统一规定,船舶所在地法院享有实施扣押船舶保全财产的权力,且船舶被扣押后扣船法院可以取得对案件的实体管辖权,确定当事人之间具体权利义务的归属。所以在海事诉讼中,当事人常以保全海事请求权为由申请扣押船舶,进而在扣船地法院提起诉讼,择地行诉挑选法院。因此,船舶扣押地通常具有很大随意性和偶然性,与案件没有必然的、实质的联系,故需要对船舶扣押管辖权向实体管辖权的转化进行约束和限制。本文共分四部分,主要采用比较分析及案例研究的方法,分析国际公约和国家立法关于船舶扣押管辖权和实体管辖权关系的规定,并研究实践中具有代表意义典型案例的基础上,对我国有关船舶扣押制度及相应的扣船保全管辖和实体管辖进行研究,结合实际的立法与司法状况,对我国扣船制度的完善以及法院扣船管辖权和实体管辖权之间关系的确定提出建议。第一部分概括性地介绍船舶扣押以及与扣船有关的管辖权,逐一对船舶扣押的概念和性质、船舶扣押管辖权、实体管辖权进行界定,简要地指出船舶扣押管辖权与实体管辖权之间的关系。第二部分具体论述船舶扣押管辖权与实体管辖权之间的第一层关系——船舶扣押管辖权独立于实体管辖权。在分析国际公约赋予船舶所在地法院独立的扣船保全管辖权的基础上,参考一些国家国内立法对临时性保全措施的规定,对船舶扣押临时性保全措施的实施与案件实体问题的审判相分离予以肯定。第三部分具体论述船舶扣押管辖权与实体管辖权之间的第二层关系——船舶扣押管辖权可以向实体管辖权转化及转化的限制。考虑到海事诉讼实践需要,国际上普遍承认扣船法院可依船舶扣押的事实进而取得案件的实体管辖权,但是为了平衡诉讼双方的利益,防止择地行诉挑选法院之风盛行,在允许船舶扣押管辖权向实体管辖权转化的同时,应依据最密切联系原则、最先受诉法院原则以及不方便法院原则对其进行约束和限制。第四部分结合我国船舶扣押制度以及有关船舶扣押管辖权与实体管辖权的立法和司法现状,对我国完善扣船制度、确定法院实施船舶扣押管辖权和审判案件实体管辖权之间的关系提出建议。结论部分总括全文,概括说明船舶扣押管辖权与实体管辖权的关系,建议我国建立以保全为目的的船舶扣押制度,并在肯定扣船法院可以享有实体管辖权的同时,于立法中明确引入不方便法院原则对船舶扣押管辖权向实体管辖权的转化进行规范。
[Abstract]:Maritime claim preservation is a very special system in the field of maritime law. Ship seizure is an important means to preserve maritime claims. Ship arrest can provide not only a reliable guarantee for maritime claims, but also a basis for obtaining the jurisdiction of the case entity in the court. However, due to the continental law countries and the Anglo American law countries, In order to narrow the gap between the two legal systems, the United Nations Trade Development Commission and the international maritime organization, through the formulation of the unified provisions of the international conventions relating to maritime arrest, the law of the ship's location in order to narrow the gap between the two legal systems. The court has the power to carry out the preservation of the property of the ship, and after the seizure of the ship, the court can obtain the substantive jurisdiction of the case and determine the ownership of the specific rights and obligations between the parties. Therefore, in the maritime litigation, the parties often apply for the application of the maritime claim for the arrest of the ship, and then bring a lawsuit in the court court. As a result, the ship's seizure is usually of great arbitrariness and contingency, and there is no necessary and substantial connection with the case, so it is necessary to restrict and restrict the transformation of the jurisdiction of the ship's seizure to the substantive jurisdiction.
This article is divided into four parts. It mainly adopts the method of comparative analysis and case study to analyze the provisions of the international conventions and national legislation about the relationship between the jurisdiction of ship seizure and the substantive jurisdiction, and on the basis of the typical typical cases in practice, the system of ship seizure and the corresponding custody and entity of the vessel in our country. The study of jurisdiction, combined with the actual situation of legislation and judicature, makes suggestions for the improvement of the system of Chinese buckle and the determination of the relationship between the jurisdiction of the court and the substantive jurisdiction of the court.
The first part is a general introduction to the ship seizure and the jurisdiction related to the buckle ship. The concept and nature of the seizure of ships one by one, the jurisdiction of the ship's seizure, the definition of the substantive jurisdiction, and the relationship between the jurisdiction of the ship's seizure and the substantive jurisdiction.
The second part discusses the first relationship between the jurisdiction of the ship's seizure and the substantive jurisdiction - the jurisdiction of the ship's seizure is independent of the substantive jurisdiction. The implementation of temporary measures for ship seizure is separated from the trial of substantive cases.
The third part concretely discusses the second layers of relation between the jurisdiction of the ship's seizure and the substantive jurisdiction - the limitation on the transformation and transformation of the jurisdiction of the ship's seizure to the substantive jurisdiction. Considering the need of maritime litigation practice, it is universally acknowledged that the court can obtain the substantive jurisdiction of the case according to the fact that the ship can be detained by the ship. In order to balance the interests of the two sides of the lawsuit and prevent the selection of the wind of the choice of the court, while allowing the ship to detain the jurisdiction to convert to the substantive jurisdiction, it should be restricted and restricted according to the most closely related principles, the first principle of the court of litigation and the principle of inconvenient court.
The fourth part, in combination with the state of China's ship seizure system and the legislative and judicial status of the ship's seizure jurisdiction and substantive jurisdiction, puts forward some suggestions on the relationship between the perfect arrest system of our country, the determination of the jurisdiction of the court to carry out the jurisdiction of the ship's seizure and the jurisdiction of the trial cases.
The conclusion is a summary of the full text, which summarizes the relationship between the jurisdiction of the ship's seizure and the substantive jurisdiction, and suggests that our country establish the system of ship seizure for the purpose of preservation, and at the same time, in the affirmation that the court can enjoy the substantive jurisdiction, the transfer of the jurisdiction of the ship's seizure to the substantive jurisdiction is clearly introduced in the legislature. Standardization is carried out.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2008
【分类号】：D925.1

【参考文献】