【作者】 张志国；

【导师】 司玉琢；

【作者基本信息】 大连海事大学 ， 国际法学， 2002， 硕士

【摘要】 无人前来提领已经运抵目的港的货物，这种情形目前在国际集装箱班轮运输中已经并不鲜见，本文作者在从事律师工作中就曾经代理过多起此类案件的诉讼，并痛感此类诉讼在给当事方带来严重损害的同时，也造成社会财富的巨大浪费。然而，本文作者也深感这一问题远没有引起我国海商法学界、海事司法界的足够重视，对于这一问题的研究也因此乏人间津。本文作者在总结自己代理此类案件所积累的经验基础上，对目的港无人提货相关法律问题进行了初步探讨。 本文第一章首先基于篇幅的考虑和租船合同与集装箱班轮运输的区别，以定义的形式将本文的研究范围限定在国际集装箱班轮运输中的目的港无人提领或者收货人拒绝提领到港货物两种情形，总结、归纳了目的港无人提货问题的特征、产生的原因，分析了遭受目的港无人提货损害的当事方，指明在目前目的港无人提货问题中承运人是最大的损害承担者。 本文第二章重点探讨因目的港无人提货所产生的民事责任。本文作者从合同转让制度的角度研究认为，国际海上货物运输合同并不具有约束第三方的性质，运输合同在通常情况下所具有的转让性是此类合同区别于其他合同的显著特征。海商法学界关于“国际海上货物运输合同具有约束第三方性质”的主张，并不是对于海上货物运输合同特征的准确描述，但这一主张却是导致在理解海商法相关条款上产生歧义、在司法实践中确定目的港无人提货主体时产生纷争的重要根源。从合同转让的角度，作者认为当国际海上货物运输合同表现出约束第三方(收货人)特征时，实际上受运输合同约束的该第三人已经以明确的意思表示加入到业已成立的运输合同当中，成为该运输合同的当事一方了。运输合同的转让不是权利、义务的全部转让，在运输合同转让后，托运人与受让运输合同的收货人一道，分别向承运人承担一定的合同义务，形成并存的债务承担。从合同转让的角度看，目的港无人提货或收货人拒绝提货，是运输合同的转让未能实现，因此作为运输合同一方的托运人，应当对于承运人因无法交付货物而遭受的损害承担赔偿责任。法律没有加诸收货人必须提取到港货物的义务。但当收货人以明确的意 思表示加人／受让运输合同，成为运输合同的一方后，便应当承担起提领到港货 物的义务。一般情况下，应当将收货人向承运人主张权利（要求提货或者就货物 损坏、灭失或迟延交付行使索赔权）视为收货人受让运输合同的标志。 本文第三章探讨实务中承运人在发生目的港无人提货时所面临的困境，解析 民商法律和海关行政管理规定在处理目的港无人提取货物问题上的冲突，认为解 决目的港无人提货问题，避免社会财富的巨大浪费，解脱承运人的困境，需要相 关各方共同的努力，包括民商法律自身的完善，民商法律与海关行政管理规定的 协调一致，当事方自身法律意识的提高和司法审判效率的改善。 本文作者认为，缘于出口商品构成的限制，我国是目的港无人提货损害的重 灾区。目的港无人提货法律问题的研究，对于维护我国航运、外贸企业乃至我们 国家的利益，都有着非常重要的现实意义。更多还原

【Abstract】 There are lots of cases in the international container liner transportation that there is no one receiving the arrived cargo at destination. The author of this thesis has handled many such cases in his lawyer business,and keenly felt that this kind of matters not only brings much harms to the parties concerned but also creates much waste to the wealth of society. But,the author also felt that this kind of matters has not drawn much attention of the maritime legal community. So till now,the studies on this kind of matters are few. The author now makes a primary study to the matters based on his experiences in dealing with such kind of cases.Considering the length of this thesis and the differences between the charter party and the container liner transportation,the first chapter of this thesis,limits the discussion in two circumstances that the goods are not taken delivery of and the consignee refuses to take delivery of the goods at the port of destination in the international container liner transportation. Then the thesis sums up the characteristics and causes of this kind of matters,analyses the parties suffering the damages or losses,and points out that the carrier is the most suffered.In the chapter two of this thesis,the focal point civil liabilities created from nondelivery at the port of destination was researched thoroughly. From the theory of the transferring of contract,the author believes that the contract of international carriage of goods by sea has no characteristic of binding the third party,and the transferability of this kind of contract is the very characteristic which differences this kind of contract from other contracts. The views " the contract of international carriage of goods by sea has the characteristic of binding the third party" in maritime legal community are not correct. This view directly leads to the disputes in understanding the relevant articles of the Chinese Maritime Code and the disputes in determining the person liable for not taking delivery of the goods at destination. In view of the transferring of contract,the author believes that only when the third party has clearly expressed his intention to accept the established contract and has become a party of the said contract,can the contract have the binding force to this third party. The transferring of this contract of carriage is not thetransferring of all the rights and obligations in the contract. After the transferring of the contract,the shipper and the consignee who have accepted the transferred contract will separately bear certain contractual obligations to the carrier and become the common debtors to the carrier. In view of the transferring of contract,the situation that goods are not taken delivery of or the consignee refuses to take delivery of the goods at the port of destination is the fail of the transferring of contract. So,the shipper who is a party of the contract of carriage should be responsible for the carrier’s losses suffered from the above situations. The law does not impose the consignee an obligation to take delivery of the goods at the port of destination. But when the consignee clearly expresses his intention to accede or accept the contract and then becomes a party of the contract,he should have the responsibility to take delivery of the goods. Generally speaking,it should be deemed as a sign of accepting the contract of carriage that the consignee claims against the carrier (claiming to take delivery of cargo or claiming the damage / loss caused by the carrier).The third chapter of this thesis,discusses the difficult positions of the carriers facing the matter of non-delivery at the port of destination,analyses the conflicts between the civil-commercial law and the customary law in dealing with the matter of non-delivery at the port of destination. In order to avoid wastes to the wealth of society and to help the carriers to deal with the difficult position facing non-delivery at destination,all the legal community should do their best to perfect the civil-commercial law an更多还原