无单放货的法律规制
发布时间：2018-08-23 14:07
【摘要】：《鹿特丹规则》设计了一套合法实施无单放货的解决方案。比较各国及国际公约的相关规定，这套规则是最具针对性的，较系统，较完备的，具有很强的借鉴意义。但是，鹿特丹式无单放货法律规制颠覆了凭单放货这一基本原则。这不符合国际立法趋势。对此，本文持批判继承的态度。 经济利益的驱动是无单放货现象产生且屡禁不止的根本原因。无单放货是把双刃剑，法律规制无单放货不应格杀勿论，搞一刀切，仍应坚持凭单放货基本原则地位，对于既能提高交易效率又能保障交易安全的无单放货行为应予以肯定。无单放货的法律规制必须确保效率与安全的有效协调，这是构建无单放货法律规制的指导思想。 我国无单放货法律规制应采取并存模式。在该模式下，本文分别提出了在传统纸质单证下及电子提单机制下修改我国《海商法》及无单放货司法解释的具体建议。立法框架方面，本文参考了《鹿特丹规则》确立的“运输单证”与“电子运输记录”并存的二元体系。具体制度设置方面，，本文借鉴了《鹿特丹规则》、英国法及《国际海事委员会电子提单规则》的相关规定。
[Abstract]:Rotterdam rules designed a set of legal implementation of the solution for the delivery of goods without bills. Compared with the relevant provisions of various countries and international conventions, this set of rules is the most targeted, more systematic, more complete, has very strong reference significance. However, Rotterdam-type non-documentary delivery of goods legal regulation overturned the basic principle of delivery of goods by voucher. This is not in line with international legislative trends. To this, this text holds the attitude of critical inheritance. The driving force of economic benefit is the root cause of no-bill delivery phenomenon and repeated proscription. No bill delivery is a double-edged sword, the legal regulation of no bill delivery should not be shot to kill, to carry out a one-size-fits-all approach, should still adhere to the basic principle status of delivery of goods on the basis of documents, and should be affirmed for the undocumented delivery behavior, which can both improve the transaction efficiency and ensure the transaction safety. The effective coordination between efficiency and safety must be ensured in the legal regulation of the delivery of goods without bill, which is the guiding ideology of constructing the legal regulation of the delivery of goods without bill of lading. In our country, the legal regulation of delivery of goods without bill should adopt the coexistence mode. Under this model, this paper puts forward some specific suggestions on the revision of China's Maritime Law and judicial interpretation under the traditional paper documents and the electronic bill of lading mechanism. In terms of legislative framework, this paper refers to the binary system of "transport document" and "electronic transport record" established by the Rotterdam rules. In terms of system setting, this paper draws lessons from the Rotterdam rules, English Law and the rules of Electronic Bills of Lading of the International Maritime Committee.
【学位授予单位】：黑龙江大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D996.19;D922.294
本文编号：2199302
[Abstract]:Rotterdam rules designed a set of legal implementation of the solution for the delivery of goods without bills. Compared with the relevant provisions of various countries and international conventions, this set of rules is the most targeted, more systematic, more complete, has very strong reference significance. However, Rotterdam-type non-documentary delivery of goods legal regulation overturned the basic principle of delivery of goods by voucher. This is not in line with international legislative trends. To this, this text holds the attitude of critical inheritance. The driving force of economic benefit is the root cause of no-bill delivery phenomenon and repeated proscription. No bill delivery is a double-edged sword, the legal regulation of no bill delivery should not be shot to kill, to carry out a one-size-fits-all approach, should still adhere to the basic principle status of delivery of goods on the basis of documents, and should be affirmed for the undocumented delivery behavior, which can both improve the transaction efficiency and ensure the transaction safety. The effective coordination between efficiency and safety must be ensured in the legal regulation of the delivery of goods without bill, which is the guiding ideology of constructing the legal regulation of the delivery of goods without bill of lading. In our country, the legal regulation of delivery of goods without bill should adopt the coexistence mode. Under this model, this paper puts forward some specific suggestions on the revision of China's Maritime Law and judicial interpretation under the traditional paper documents and the electronic bill of lading mechanism. In terms of legislative framework, this paper refers to the binary system of "transport document" and "electronic transport record" established by the Rotterdam rules. In terms of system setting, this paper draws lessons from the Rotterdam rules, English Law and the rules of Electronic Bills of Lading of the International Maritime Committee.
【学位授予单位】：黑龙江大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D996.19;D922.294
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前5条
1 胡正良;海运提单项下的提货权与承运人无单放货责任的认定[J];大连海事大学学报(社会科学版);2003年02期
2 郭瑜;论提单债权关系[J];中外法学;1999年02期
3 许俊强;无单放货的法律适用[J];中国海商法年刊;2004年00期
4 司玉琢;初北平;;论无单放货引起提单物权性的争论[J];中国海商法年刊;2005年00期
5 胡正良;;论无单放货损害赔偿的责任主体[J];中国海商法年刊;2005年00期
本文编号：2199302
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/guojifa/2199302.html
