【作者】 郭载宇；

【导师】 余劲松；

【作者基本信息】 武汉大学 ， 国际法， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 所有权问题在国际货物买卖法中居于何种地位，我国学者见仁见智。很多学者认为，因为所有权移转是买卖合同区别于其他合同的本质所在，交易过程中若一方陷入破产境地，对货物享有所有权的人可最大限度保护自己的利益，而且所有权问题与保险法下的风险转移也存在联系，因此，所有权问题是国际货物买卖法中的核心问题。但是，这一所谓的核心问题在国际立法文件和有关司法实践中，却未能得到相应的映射。CISG这一货物买卖领域迄今为止最为重要的国际公约，并未就货物所有权移转问题制定规则，英国1979年货物买卖法是货物买卖领域颇具影响的一部立法，甚至未在法条中明确卖方有向买方移转货物所有权的责任，但这种“核心问题缺失”的现状，并未减损这两部代表性立法文件的巨大影响。司法实践也存在这样的不对称现象。有关国际货物买卖的案件中，涉及所有权移转争议的案件并不多见。法学是一门实践性很强的学科，如果一个问题足够重要，在某范畴中居于核心地位，其理应在相关实践，如货物买卖立法和司法实践中有相当多的表现形式。上述理论与实践的“失衡”，实际上是一种理论与实践的冲突，笔者以此为问题为出发点，展开了相应的研究。如果说法学是一幢大厦，概念则是其基石。第一章对本文所涉若干重要基础概念进行了比较研究，首先，某一买卖是否为国际货物买卖，涉及对“国际性”标准的把握，而目前对何谓“国际性”，人们认识不一；其次，货物是英美买卖法中一个特有的概念，大陆法系下仅存在“标的物”的概念，两个概念既存在交叉之处，也存在不一致的地方；第三，英美法系的“title”，我国学者一般将其翻译为“所有权”，实际上，就功能而言，这两个概念并不完全对应。英美法系通过两个概念，即“property”和“title”来表达大陆法意义下的所有权概念，英美法下“title”一般用于对同一物存在三个或三个以上权利主体的场合，通过比较不同的“title”来确定交易过程中的权利归属，而“property”更多是在静态的物的归属的意义上使用，更适合于针对不动产或日常消费物进行权利状况的描述。大陆法系则是用一个单一的概念即“所有权”来描述这些权利状况。在概念研究的基础之上，第二章在规则层面展开研究。本章首先比较了几种主要的不同的立法例，根据国际货物买卖的特点，同时结合提单和INCOTERMS术语讨论了所有权移转规则问题。由于各国关于该问题立法上差异过大，掺杂提单和INCOTERMS术语因素后，各国对所有权移转问题的认识更是混乱。因此，在很多情况下将不得不借助冲突法规则，在找到应适用的法律后，再确定所有权移转问题。然而，由于冲突法固有的特性，寻找法律的过程中必须要面对诸多变量。实体规则的多样性和冲突法规则的过于灵活，将导致规则的可预期性大大降低，从而使得货物所有权人的权利能否得到保护充满了不确定性。事实上，在国际货物买卖中，在所有权保护方法之外，货款尚未获得清偿的卖方还可通过其他方法保护其权利。如果卖方尚未脱离对货物的占有（可翻译为仍占有货物，占有作动词），即使货物所有权已经移转至买方，卖方仍可对货物行使留置权，即使其已经不是货物所有权人，但在一定条件下其仍可将货物转售从而保护自身的权利；如果货物已经交付运输，即卖方已脱离对货物的占有时，只要货物尚未被交付买方，卖方可行使中途停运权。这些制度设计均与所有权因素无关。在所有权保护方法之外，这些制度可为卖方提供功能类似的方法。货物买卖作为一项商业实践活动，参与主体不限于买卖双方。在国际贸易实践中，海运承运人是其中的重要参与人。为保障承运人的合法利益，两大法系都规定了海运承运人在运费尚未获得清偿时所享有的对货物的留置权。通过分析具有代表性的立法例可知，立法或司法赋予船东留置船载货物的权利为船东的利益提供了强大的制度保障。一旦船东对货物行使留置权，货物所有权人本应享有的所有权的各项权能均将受到限制，所有权所固有的对权利人的利益保障功能无疑会受到影响。保险人也是国际货物买卖中重要的参与人。国际货物买卖中，所有权移转、风险转移与保险利益存在紧密关系，在货物所有权移转和风险转移时间同一的情况下，区分何者是影响保险利益变动的因素并无实际意义。但是，因法定或约定原因造成两者不同步的情况下，孰轻孰重颇值探讨。经过比较法研究，可以认为风险转移因素对保险利益的影响甚于所有权转移因素，所有权的移转对货物风险负担的判断，相对而言不是那么重要。因此，所有权问题在保险环节的重要性也不如我们想象的突出。正是因为重视所有权问题，很多的国际贸易合同中都包含有所有权保留条款，以期买方破产时保护其利益。但是，在国际性背景之下，这一条款对卖方权利的保障作用也是十分有限的。学者们对所有权保留条款的法律性质认识颇不一致，各国关于所有权保留的规则差异明显，所有权保留的法律适用问题也尤为灵活。有英国法官指出，关于该领域的法律即使不是一片雷区，也仿佛一座迷宫，人们不得不小心翼翼地前进，每一步都是如此。这就使得权利人的权利保护面临极大的不确定性，所有权保障功能无疑受到减损。对商品而言，所有权权能的内容不同于一般用于消费的物。其权能更多地是表现为一种决定权，最主要是决定商品价格和销售数量的权利。在国内法中，商品的所有权人的这种决定权会受到一定的制约，而在国际层面，所有权人所受制约将更多，如反倾销制度、反补贴制度和保障措施制度等，都会对所有权人的这种决定权形成限制。另外，各国对环境保护的重视，以及其他问题的特定要求，都会对所有权人课以义务，给所有权人增添额外的负担。总之，不论是英美法系还是大陆法系，货物买卖中所有权问题都呈现出一种弱化趋势，即使不能说所有权问题在货物买卖中毫无地位的话，但可以认为其象征性大于实质性。在国际货物买卖中，这一弱化的趋势更为明显。更多还原

【Abstract】 The opinions regarding the role of title in International Sale of Good Acts vary fromscholar to scholar. However, because transfer of title is the essential difference betweensales contract and other contracts in that if a party falls into bankruptcy, the interest of theperson who owns the title of goods can be protected to the maximum degree, and title isalso related to passage of risk under Insurance Law, many scholars hold that title is thecore issue in International Sales of Goods Acts. In sharp contrast, this core issue is notreflected accordingly in international legislation and judicial practice. CISG, the mostimportant international treaty in the field of sales of goods up to date, does not establishregulations respecting transfer of title. Sale of Goods Act1979, the most influentiallegislation in the same field, even does not clarify that sellers are obliged to transfer titleto goods to buyers. Despite of the lack of core issue, the influence of these twolegislations is not lessened. The unsymmetry also exists in judicial practice. It is notcommon to see cases involving disputes on transfer of title in international sale of goods.Jurisprudence focuses heavily on practice. If an issue plays a vital role in a certaincategory, it should be reflected with various forms in corresponding practices such aslegislation of sale of goods and judicial practice. The above mentioned imbalancebetween theory and practice is, in fact, a conflict between theory and practice. The authorcarries out some research based on this issue.If jurisprudence is a building, concepts are its cornerstone. The first chaptercompares some important basic concepts used in this article. Firstly, whether a sale is aninternational one involves the understanding towards the standard of "international", onwhich people hold different views. Secondly, goods is a unique concept inAnglo-American sale of goods acts while only the concept of "subject matter" exists inthe continental law system. The two concepts are not only overlapping but inconsistent aswell. Thirdly, scholars in China often translate "title" in Anglo-American law system into"proprietary rights". As a matter of fact, these two concepts do not match exactly in termsof function. Anglo-American law system expresses "proprietary rights" under thecontinental lay system with two words, i.e.,"property" and "title"."Title" is used wherethere are three or more than three subjects of rights towards a single object. The right ofownership during transaction is established through comparing different "title"."Property" is more used where the ownership of static objects is mentioned. It is moresuitable to describe fixed assets or daily consumption. The continental law system adopts a single concept--"proprietary rights" to express these rights.The second chapter focuses on regulations. The chapter first compares severaldifferent instances of legislation. According to the characteristics of international sale ofgoods, it discusses the regulations respecting transfer of title combining bills of landingand INCOTERMS terms. With the legislation of each country varying greatly on thisissue, the addition of bill of landing and INCOTERMS terms makes understandingtowards transfer of title more chaotic. As a result, rule of conflict is applied in manysituations. In this way, transfer of title is established after finding applicable laws.However, the characteristics of conflict law make it a must to face numerous variableswhen seeking laws. The variety of substantive rules and over flexibility of rule of conflictdramatically decrease the predictability of regulations, leading to the protection of therights of owners full of uncertainty.In fact, in international sale of goods, unpaid sellers may seek protection of theirrights via other methods in addition to the protection of title. If a seller still occupiesgoods, he is eligible to exercise lien towards goods even if the title of goods has beentransferred to the buyer. He can resell the goods to protect his own rights under certainconditions even if he is no longer the owner of goods; if the goods have been delivered totransport, i.e., when a seller does not occupy goods, he still has the right of stoppage intransit unless the goods have been delivered to the buyer. These systems have nothing todo with title. Besides the protection of title, these systems may serve similar purposes.Sale of goods being a commercial practice, participants are not limited to sellers andbuyers. In international trade, ocean carrier is an important participant. In order to protectthe lawful rights, two law systems both stipulate that ocean carriers have lien of goodswhere the freight is not paid off. The typical instances of legislation illustrate that theright of ship owners to remain the shipping goods, which is endowed by legislation orjudicature, provides strong systematic safeguards for ship owners’ interests. Once a shipowner exercises lien towards goods, the various powers and functions that should havebeen owned by owners of goods will be restricted. Hence the inherent protective functionof title provided for obligees will be undoubtedly influenced.Insurer is another important participant in international trade. In international sale ofgoods, transfer of title, passage of risk and insurable interest are closely related. Whentransfer of title and passage of risk are concurrent, it is pointless to differentiate whichone affects the change of insurance interest. However, the differentiation is of great value when they are not concurrent due to legal or promissory elements. According to theresearch of comparative law, passage of risk exerts more influence on insurance interestthan transfer of title. Transfer of title is relatively less important to the judgment of riskundertaking of goods. Therefore, the role that title plays in insurance is not as importantas what has been imagined.Due to the importance attached to title, many international trade contracts consist ofreservation of title clause in order to protect buyers in case of bankruptcy. But this clauseprovides limited protection for the interest of sellers in international contexts. Withscholars disagreeing on the legal nature of reservation of title clause, regulations aboutreservation of title varying substantially among countries, and legal application ofreservation of title being extremely flexible, an English judge points out that the law inthis field is like a maze, if not a mine field, and people have to proceed cautiously witheach step. Consequently, the protection of the rights of obligees is filled with uncertaintyand the protective function of title is definitely reduced.As far as commodity is concerned, the content of powers and functions of titlediffers from goods used for consumption. Its powers and functions tend to be shown aspower to make decisions, especially the power to decide price and sales volume ofcommodity. In domestic laws, this power of commodity owners is restricted to someextent, and it is subject to more restrictions in international level. The measures such asantidumping, countervailing measures and safeguard measures all restrict the power ofcommodity owners to make decisions. In addition, the increasing attention paid toenvironmental protection and other special requirements will all impose obligations onowners, adding extra burden to them.In conclusion, the issue of title tends to weaken in both Anglo-American law systemand the continental law system. Its symbolic meaning outweighs its substantiality in saleof goods, if not no status at all. This weakening trend is more obvious in internationalsale of goods.更多还原