记名提单法律规定比较研究

发布时间：2018-10-12 10:21

【摘要】：一般认为,记名提单是指在提单上指明收货人的提单,承运人需在目的港交货给提单上载明的记名收货人。但是各国对于记名提单的交货规则和法律属性的规定各不相同,因此记名提单并没有一个统一的法律界定,因此给司法实践和国际贸易带来了困难。从国际看,英国法律将记名提单排除在法律规定的提单范围之外,且司法判例上对于其的态度也不统一,导致记名提单在英国国内界定模糊;美国法律明确将记名提单和海运单等同对待,承运人无需凭正本提单放货;大陆法系大部分国家将记名提单视为提单的一种,规定承运人需凭正本提单放货。《鹿特丹规则》试图统一相关法律规定,在单证方面出台了新的规定,符合现代海运发展方向,其中明确了记名提单的地位,并强调其与海运单的区别。从国内看,中国《海商法》没有条文明确规制记名提单,但根据既有条文能够合理得出记名提单属于提单的一种。但是“总统轮”案最高人民法院作出的判决使得国内本身并不十分明确的记名提单定位更加不清晰。但是,我国最高人民法院在近年出台了关于审理无单放货案件方面的司法解释,在诉权方面进行了详细的规定,同时在征求意见稿和正式施行的规定中都明确将记名提单纳入提单的范围。实际上,我国司法解释可以向《鹿特丹规则》借鉴,为《海商法》的相关方面的修改以及司法解释进一步完善提供法律基础。同时在没有统一记名提单法律规定的现状下,中国出口商应谨慎使用记名提单,预防其在国际贸易中可能产生的风险。本文正文共分为五个部分,第一部分介绍提单的概念、发展历史和功能以及记名提单的概念,为记名提单的界定提供制度基础。第二部分比较世界各国关于记名提单的不同法律规定,得出记名提单法律规制不统一。第三部分详细分析《鹿特丹规则》关于运输单证的新规定,指出新公约对于记名提单法律规制明确。第四部分论述中国关于记名提单的法律规定,通过法律分析、司法案例剖析,得出国内对于记名提单法律规制不明确。但近几年关于审理无单放货新司法解释出台,在记名提单法律制度上有所发展,使得记名提单规制上比较明确。第五部分在总结记名提单法律规制现状的同时,提示中国出口商在记名提单法律规定统一之前,应预防记名提单在实践中可能产生的风险。
[Abstract]:It is generally believed that the bearer bill of lading refers to the bill of lading indicating the consignee in the bill of lading, and the carrier must deliver it to the named consignee in the port of destination. However, the provisions of delivery rules and legal attributes of straight bill of lading are different in different countries, so there is no uniform legal definition of straight bill of lading, which brings difficulties to judicial practice and international trade. From the international point of view, the British law excludes the bill of lading from the scope of the bill of lading stipulated by law, and the attitude of judicial precedent is not uniform, which leads to the ambiguous definition of the bill of lading in the United Kingdom. United States law explicitly equates a bill of lading with a bill of lading, and the carrier does not need to release the goods on the original bill of lading; most countries in the civil law system regard the bill of lading as one of the bills of lading. The Rotterdam rules attempt to unify the relevant legal provisions by issuing new provisions on documents, which are in line with the development direction of modern maritime transport, in which the status of registered bills of lading is clearly defined. It also emphasizes the difference between sea waybill and sea waybill. From the domestic point of view, China's Maritime Law has no specific provisions to regulate the bill of lading, but according to the existing provisions, it can reasonably be concluded that the bill of lading is a kind of bill of lading. However, the judgment of the Supreme people's Court in the Presidential Round case makes the position of the bearer bill of lading more unclear. However, in recent years, the Supreme people's Court of our country has issued a judicial interpretation on the trial of cases involving the release of goods without documentary evidence, and has made detailed provisions on the right of action. At the same time, the bill of lading is included in the bill of lading. In fact, the judicial interpretation of our country can draw lessons from the Rotterdam rules and provide a legal basis for the revision of the relevant aspects of Maritime Law and the further improvement of the judicial interpretation. At the same time, in the absence of uniform bill of lading, Chinese exporters should use bill of lading with caution in order to prevent its possible risks in international trade. The text of this paper is divided into five parts. The first part introduces the concept of bill of lading, development history and function as well as the concept of bill of lading, which provides the system foundation for the definition of bill of lading. The second part compares the different legal provisions of bearer bill of lading in the world, and draws the conclusion that the legal regulation of straight bill of lading is not uniform. The third part analyzes in detail the new provisions of the Rotterdam rules on transport documents and points out that the new convention is clear about the legal regulation of bearer bills of lading. The fourth part discusses the legal provisions of the bill of lading in China. Through legal analysis and judicial case analysis, it is concluded that the legal regulation of the bill of lading is not clear in China. However, in recent years, the new judicial interpretation on the trial of the delivery of goods without bills of lading has developed in the legal system of bill of lading, which makes the regulation of bill of lading clear. The fifth part summarizes the current situation of legal regulation of bill of lading, and points out that Chinese exporters should prevent the risk of bill of lading in practice before the legal provisions of bill of lading are unified.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D922.294

【相似文献】