从《鹿特丹规则》的视角析记名提单制度

发布时间：2018-06-28 05:55

本文选题：记名提单 + 《鹿特丹规则》　；参考：《大连海事大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：近年来,记名提单在实践中的应用越来越多,逐渐受到国际社会的广泛关注。相对于以往的国际海运公约来说,《鹿特丹规则》在一定程度上统一了记名提单制度,有利于记名提单制度的新发展。本文除引言和结论外共分为四章。第一章阐述了记名提单的概念和认定依据。世界上大多数国家并没有明确记名提单的概念和认定依据。最早对记名提单做出明确定义的是美国。在实践中,人们大都赞同根据提单“收货人”一栏的记载以及提单的具体条款来认定记名提单。第二章论述了关于记名提单的诸多争议。首先,各国在记名提单与提单的关系上态度不一。有些国家规定记名提单是提单的一种；有些国家将记名提单排除在提单之外：有些国家采取了折中的态度。其次,记名提单与海运单的关系扑朔迷离。有些国家将两者同一视之；有些国家将两者视为两种截然不同的单证。第三,我国海商法理论界对"Document of Title"含义观点不一。在记名提单是否是"Document of Title"这一问题上,笔者认为,记名提单尽管不具有流通性,但是是"Document of Title"。第四,各国关于记名提单货物交付的实践不一。支持记名提单凭单交货以及支持记名提单无需凭单交货的案例都层出不穷。笔者认为记名提单应凭单交货。第三章列举了《鹿特丹规则》对记名提单制度的新发展,主要包括四个方面：第一《鹿特丹规则》将记名提单统一纳入不可流通运输单证的范畴。第二,《鹿特丹规则》采用排他法的规定相对明确了记名提单的认定依据。第三,《鹿特丹规则》在记名提单货物交付方面做出了详细、系统的创新性规定。第四,《鹿特丹规则》首次将货物控制权制度引入海运公约,完善了记名提单制度。第四章分析了《鹿特丹规则》对我国记名提单制度的借鉴。笔者认为,《鹿特丹规则》的出台为我国海商法提供了良好的发展契机。我国海商法应该借鉴该公约,明确记名提单的概念认定依据以及法律属性；完善记名提单货物交付制度；规定货物控制权。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the application of bearer bill of lading in practice is becoming more and more widely concerned by the international community. Compared with the previous international maritime conventions, the Rotterdam rules unifies the system of bill of lading to a certain extent, which is beneficial to the new development of the system of bill of lading. In addition to the introduction and conclusions, this paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter describes the concept and identification basis of bearer bill of lading. Most countries in the world do not have clear concept and basis of identification of bill of lading. The United States was the first to make a clear definition of a bill of lading. In practice, most people agree to identify the bill of lading on the basis of the record in the "consignee" column and the specific terms of the bill of lading. The second chapter discusses a lot of disputes about bearer bill of lading. First of all, countries have different attitudes on the relationship between bill of lading and bill of lading. Some countries make a bill of lading a form of bill of lading; others exclude a bill of lading: some countries adopt a compromise attitude. Secondly, the relationship between bill of lading and sea waybill is confusing. Some see the two as the same; others treat them as two distinct documents. Third, there are different views on the meaning of document of title in the theory of maritime law in China. On the question of whether the registered bill of lading is "document of title", the author thinks that although the bill of lading is not negotiable, it is "document of title". Fourth, the practice of delivery of goods on bill of lading varies from country to country. Cases of supporting bill of lading delivery and supporting bill of lading delivery without bills of lading are endless. I think the bearer bill of lading should be delivered by voucher. The third chapter lists the new development of the system of straight bill of lading in the Rotterdam rules, which mainly includes four aspects: first, the Rotterdam rule brings the unified bill of lading into the category of non-negotiable transport documents. Secondly, the Rotterdam rule uses the exclusive law to relatively clear the identification basis of the bill of lading. Third, the Rotterdam rules provide detailed, systematic and innovative provisions for the delivery of goods on bearer bills of lading. Fourth, the Rotterdam rules first introduced the system of right of control of goods into maritime conventions, which improved the system of bill of lading. Chapter four analyzes the reference of Rotterdam rules to the system of bearer bill of lading in China. The author believes that the introduction of Rotterdam rules provides a good opportunity for the development of China's maritime law. The maritime law of our country should draw lessons from the convention, define the concept and legal attribute of the bill of lading, perfect the delivery system of the bill of lading, and stipulate the right of control of the goods.
【学位授予单位】：大连海事大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D996.19

【相似文献】