船舶扣押法律制度有关问题研究

【作者】 李振宇；

【导师】 侯军；

【作者基本信息】 上海海运学院 ， 国际法学， 2001， 硕士

【摘要】 船舶扣押制度(Arrest of Ship)是解决海事争议的重要程序，也是各国法院行使管辖权的基础，一直都得到了国内外航运界、法律界的普遍重视。同其他法律一样，对于海商法来说，权利若没有有效的程序保证其实现，等于没有权利。西方国家向来就注意到了船舶具有流动性的特点以及该特点所可能造成的债权人不能实现海事请求的危险性。所以他们积极地发展了一套适合于海事司法和国际航运要求的判决前保全海事请求的程序。 但这一特殊的海事司法制度在我国从起源到发展，只经历了一段并不太长的历史。1986年扣船规定的颁布实施，是我国扣船制度形成的重要标志。1991年《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》增加了诉前财产保全的规定，对诉前扣船制度的最终确立具有重要意义。此后，最高人民法院1994年制定的“94年扣船规定”作为司法解释对诉前扣押船舶做出了具体规范。1999年12月25日，全国人大常委会通过了《中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法》(以下简称特别程序法)，使我国的船舶扣押制度从《民诉法》的财产保全制度中凸现出来，海事诉讼的特殊性继《海商法》之后再次得到彰显。 本文从世界各国及不同法系下对船舶扣押基本性质的不同理解出发，力图探寻具体的船舶扣押法律规定的理论根源，并由此对中国海事诉讼程序法中有关船舶扣押及相关海事担保的一般规定，及船舶扣押实践中我国国有船东面临的风险做出一定的分析，提出问题并就此进行阐述。 本文共分四章。 第一章中笔者就不同法系下及我国法律对船舶扣押制度性质的不同理解进行了阐述和分析，试图对物诉讼和海事请求保全作出一定的比较，并阐明了我国海事诉讼法下船舶扣押的法律性质，中国坚持法律关系中的主体必须是人(自然人、法人)的原则，因此中国法学界一直将扣押船舶规范列为财产保全制度范畴。 第二章着眼于我国海事诉讼法有关船舶扣押的具体规定。海事诉讼法参照“1999年扣船公约”的规定采用的是封闭式的定义方式，其具体的海事请求项目也基本上与“ 1999年扣船公约”的规定一致。可扣押船舶的范围是船舶扣押的核心内容。扣押船舶的范围包括对当事船的扣押和对姐妹船的扣押。重复扣船是指基于同一海事请求两次或两次以上扣押同一船舶，或者被申请人所有或光租的其他船舶。“活扣押”，即采取限制船舶所有权或者法律规定的其他方式，限制了船舶所有人对船舶的处分权以及获得保险赔偿的权利，但是保留了占有权或使用权，船舶所有人可以在船舶被扣押期间继续使用船舶。 第三章中笔者就海事诉讼法中其他相关海事担保的一般规定进行了一定的阐述和分析。海事诉讼法以“最高院94卖船规定”为基础对拍卖船舶的条件做了较为严格的规定，还参照拍卖法的规定，对拍卖船舶的程序作了具体规定，体现了拍卖船舶的公厂、公正，并使之规范化。海事诉讼法第一次以立法的形式对船载货物的扣押和拍卖作了专门规定。海事诉讼法在总结海事法院的审判经验的基础上，借鉴了英联邦国家的“玛瑞瓦禁令”制度和大陆法系国家的假处分制度，设立了类似于行为保全性质的海事强制令制度。海事证据保全制度参照了英国的先进制度，较民事诉讼法有很大的突破。海事担保包括海事请求保全、海事强制令、海事证据担保等程序中所涉及的担保。 第四章中笔者鉴于当前南非等国家的有关法律规定在实践中造成了我国国有船舶被扣押风险的加大，拟通过对南非法律及实践中有关船舶扣押方面的有关规定及发展，力图找出其根基之所在，并试图并就船东如何规避南非的特有扣船风险提出自己的意见，以期希望引起各位业界同仁和前辈对此问题的关注，椎动有关方面进行积极的努力，减少这种对于国有船舶的不合理扣押。更多还原

【Abstract】 Arrest of ship, which is commonly regarded to be an important procedure to settle the maritime disputes and creates the jurisdiction for the courts worldwide, is always attract the common attention of the shipping and law circles in home and foreign countries. As to maritime law, the right would mean nothing if it could not be complemented and guaranteed by the effective legal procedure. In the western countries, much attention is paid to the nature of the fluidity on the ship and the risk of failing to satisfying the maritime claims. As a result, the perseverance of maritime claims prior to the commencement of the suit has been established in order to satisfy the requirements of the maritime jurisdiction and international shipping.In China, it has not taken long time to develop and establish such a maritime legal system. The Regulation for Arrest of Ship in 1986 acts as the important signal of forming such a system. In P.R.C. Civil Procedure of 1991 the provisions of preservation of property prior to the suit created the legal base for the arrest of ship prior to the suit. Henceforth, the Regulation for Arrest of Ship of 1994 issued by the Supreme Court, as the judicial interpretation, established the material provisions for arrest of ship. The Maritime Procedure Law of People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Maritime Procedure Law", MPL), which was enacted at the 13th meeting of the Standing Committee of the 9th session of the National People’s Congress of China (NPC, legislator) on 25th December 1999 and implemented on 1st July 2000, reflected the characteristics of maritime actions and arrest of ship.This article provides for a detailed study on the different understanding regarding the elementary nature of arrest of ship under different legal systems worldwide, and devotes to material provisions in respect of arrest of ship and relevant maritime security in maritime procedure law. Furthermore, the author provides an analysis of the risks which the state-owned shipowner will encounter in arrest practice, and try to find the ways to avoid such risks.This article consists of four chapters.In chapter 1 the author carry out the detailed description and analysis of the different understanding regarding the nature of arrest of ship under different legal systems worldwide. In the meantime, this article also refers to our understandingunder Chinese legal system. Chinese law insisted that the subject in legal relation should be person (including legal person), so our law circle hold that arrest of ship falls into the category of property preservation.Chapter 2 focuses on the material provisions regarding the arrest of ship under Maritime Procedure Law. In the MPL, China has adopted the closed list of claims in the Arrest Convention 1999. This contrast with uncertainty of the current Arrest Regulations 1994 which provided a generic description of a ’maritime claim’, followed by a non-exhaustive list of examples. The MPL mirrors the provisions of the Arrest Convention 1999. In most cases, arrest is only possible if, at the time of the arrest, the ship to be arrested is owned or demises chartered by the respondent. The so called ’living arrest’ is recognized by the MPL. After ordering to preserve a ship, the maritime court may, with the consent of the maritime claimant, allow continued operation of the ship by means of restraining disposition or mortgage of the ship.Chapter 3 devotes to the general provisions of the other relevant maritime security in MPL. MPL, based on Arrest Regulations 1994, provided for more detailed procedure of auction of arrest. For the first time the MPL provided the specific on the arrest of cargo, bunkers and necessaries carried on a ship in order to obtain security supplement the current general provisions allowing for pre -litigation conservatory measures. New powers have been granted to the Courts to make mandatory orders requiring a party to do or to refrain from doing an act., backed up by the sanction of a fine imprisonment. (Equivalent to the old ’M更多还原