从《中国物权法草案建议稿》看船舶物权的若干问题

发布时间：2019-05-25 01:54

【摘要】： 由于历史和立法发展的种种原因，我国现行法律中没有“物权”这个词。而正因为如此，《海商法》中就没有“船舶物权”这个词，对船舶物权的规定也是不系统的。1999年定稿的《中国物权法草案建议稿》(以下简称《物权法建议稿》)虽然在以后的审议中被否决了，但其提出的许多现行法律中没有的概念和规定，对于我们研究船舶物权有着一定的借鉴作用。本文以《物权法建议稿》为依照，对船舶物权的一些问题做了浅显的探讨。 本文采用了比较研究的方法，对《海商法》与《物权法建议稿》中不同的规定，，以及《物权法建议稿》有而《海商法》没有的规定作出了比较，并得出结论。 本文共分为五大部分。 第一部分探讨了《海商法》中建立船舶物权的必要性。在这一部分，笔者从大陆法系各主要国家及我国的物权法的理论研究及立法发展的历史入手，探讨了船舶物权的立法历史以及《海商法》立法对于建立船舶物权概念的需求。结论是《海商法》中建立“船舶物权”的概念是一个无法回避的课题，我国在建立物权概念的同时，应建立“船舶物权”的概念。 第二部分是所有权部分，在这一部分共提出三个问题。即，一、我国《海商法》应建立什么样的船舶所有权概念。结论是我国应建立的船舶所有权的概念应当是采用抽象概括式的概念而不应该是具体列举式的概念。二、建造中的船舶所有权的问题。本文首先结合《物权法建议稿》对物的定义，论述了建造中的船舶应建立以及可以建立所有权概念，然后阐述了建造中的船舶所有权的取得与公示。三、探讨了《物权法建议稿》取消“共同共有”而代之为份额相等的“按份共有”，这一规定对于船舶抵押权以及他物权的设定的影响。 第三部分是船舶的抵押权方面的问题。在这个部分也讨论了三个方面的问题。第一个问题是第三人是否可以成为船舶抵押的抵押人的问题。据《海商法》的规定可推知，在船舶抵押中第三人不能用自己的船舶为他人的债务做担保。但据《物权法建议稿》规定并依法理分析，结论是这种限制完全没有必要。第二个问题是抵押权的“不可分性”是否适用于船舶抵押权。《物权法建议稿》规定有抵押权的“不可分性”，而《海商法》规定有抵押权的部分转移。通过分析，建议从《物权法建议稿》的规定。第三问题是抵押权的物上代位权的规定是否适用于船舶物权。结论是船舶灭失后的物上代位物的范围应包括《物权法建议稿》规定的范围。 第四部分是关于船舶留置权中的问题。首先是《物权法建议稿》中关于留置权的善意取得的规定是否适用于船舶留置权，结论是造船人或修船人对其根据造 船合同或修船合同所占有的船舶或“合同另一方”交付建造或修理的船舶得享有 留置权，不必非得“善意”。第二个问题是船舶留置权是否具有物上代位性，结 论是应承认船舶灭失后债权人留置权的物上代位性。 第五部分是优先权是否应被规定为一种担保物权。结论是船舶优先权根据其 性质应定性为一种担保物权，在《海商法》修改时，若能将“船舶物权”列为单 独的一章，则应把船舶优先权归入担保物权的范围内。
[Abstract]:Due to the various reasons of the development of history and legislation, there is no "real right" in our current laws. In this case, there is no "real right of ship" in the Code of Maritime Law, and the regulation of the real right of the ship is not systematic. The draft of the draft of China's real right law, which was finalized in 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "Law of the Property Law"), was rejected in future deliberations. However, there are no concepts and regulations in many existing laws, which can be used to study the real right of ship. This paper has made a brief discussion on some of the problems of the real right of the ship in accordance with the proposed draft of the Property Law. In this paper, the methods of comparative study are adopted, and the provisions of the "Maritime Law> and the Recommendations for the Law of the Property Law", as well as the "Recommendations for the Property Law", are made in accordance with the provisions of the Law on the Non-Maritime Law. A comparison is made and a conclusion is drawn. This paper is divided into five parts. The first part discusses the necessity of establishing the real right of the ship in the Code of Maritime Law. In this part, the author discusses the ship from the main countries of the civil law system and the theory of the real right law in China and the history of the development of the legislation. The legislative history of real right and the need to establish the concept of the real right of the ship by the legislation of the Maritime Law> The conclusion is that the concept of establishing the "real right of ship" in the Maritime Law is an unavoidable topic, and in the meantime, the concept of the real right should be established and the "real right of ship". The second part is the part of ownership There are three questions in this part. That is, what kind of ship ownership concept should be established in China The conclusion is that I The concept of the ownership of the ship to be established should In this paper, the concept of abstract generalization is adopted, and the concept of specific enumeration is not supposed to be. Secondly, the problem of ship ownership in construction is discussed. The article first combines the definition of the article and the definition of the object, and discusses the construction. The ship of the medium should be established and the concept of ownership can be established, then the acquisition and publicity of the ownership of the ship in the construction are set forth. re by share", This provision is for the mortgage of the ship and the real right of the ship. The effect of the setting. The third part is the mortgage of the ship The first question is whether the third person can be a ship The issue of a mortgage on a mortgage. It may be inferred that the third person in the ship's mortgage does not To make a guarantee for the debts of others with their own ship, but according to the Recommendations of the Property Law, and in accordance with the law, the conclusion is that the restriction is not absolutely necessary. The second question is whether the "inseparability" of the right to mortgage is applicable to the mortgage of the ship. The "trunk of the mortgage" is" ineparbi " ity ", and the part of the mortgage Transfer. Through the analysis, it is suggested that from the provisions of the draft of the Property Law, the third question is the object of the mortgage. Whether the provisions of the right of subrogation are applicable to the real right of the ship. The scope of the replacement of the ship after the loss of the ship shall include the scope of the proposed draft of the Property Law. The fourth part is on the ship. The question in the lien of a ship. First of all, whether the provisions on the good faith of the lien apply to the liens of the ship, and the conclusion is that the ship-builder or the ship-builders have the right to make a lien on it. A ship or "the other party of the Contract " Delivery Build or Repair The ship shall have a lien, and it is not necessary 寰

本文编号：2485392

qikan