无单放货诉讼中的法律问题研究

发布时间：2018-03-23 13:51

本文选题：无单放货　切入点：提单　出处：《西南政法大学》2009年硕士论文

【摘要】： 国际贸易的发展依赖于国际运输的发展,海上货物运输由于其运输量大,覆盖范围广,费用相对便宜,占据了国际运输业的主导地位。而提单作为海上运输中最主要的单证发展到今天已经成为国际贸易买卖、运输、结算等过程必不可少的工具。但是由于种种原因,出现了大量的承运人在目的港无单放货的现象,根据相关的国际公约、惯例及国内法规,海上货物运输必须实行凭单交货,以确保货物的实际安全。但是,到目前为止国际上并未形成一个统一的实体公约来规范或者解决无单放货及其诉讼情况。我们作为WTO的成员国,在国际贸易中扮演重要角色,海上货物运输也尤显重要,随着无单放货现象的日益增加,由此产生的纠纷给贸易双方当事人带来了不可磨灭的影响。而我国《海商法》以及《海事诉讼特别程序法》的相关规定很不完善,甚至对于有些问题的解决呈现空白的状态,导致司法界、学术界对无单放货及诉讼问题的争议绵绵不休,长此以往不利于我国进行法制化建设。根据以上对无单放货相关问题的现状分析,在借鉴前人经验的基础上,笔者撰写本文仅作抛砖引玉之用,务求在通过笔者后文的分析,可以给司法实践或者立法理论上带来一点启示,在一定程度上更好的解决无单放货的诉讼问题,本文共分五个部分来进行相关论述。本文第一部分着重论述无单放货的相关问题,首先介绍了凭单放货的含义及其重要性作为铺垫对比论述无单放货。其次笔者对无单放货的含义、原因、表现形式及法律性质展开了逐一论述,笔者把论述重心放在了无单放货的法律性质上,这是因为,无单放货涉及的当事人关系众多,法律关系复杂,把握无单放货的法律性质对于解决无单放货诉讼问题有着决定性的意义。借鉴前人的思路和观点,笔者认为可把无单放货行为分别定性为侵权行为,违约行为,及两者责任竞合的行为,以上三种定性笔者看来都有一定的道理,但是不能一概而论的把无单放货行为划分为某一类性质的行为,而应该根据案件不同的情况认定其为不同性质的行为,详见下文分析。本文第二部分着重论述了无单放货案件管辖权的相关问题,首先介绍了无单放货中管辖权确定之原则,指明了在无单放货司法实践中具体确定管辖权时要考虑的因素。其次本部分介绍了在无单放货案件中的几种常见的管辖类型及协议管辖时当事人约定的提单管辖权条款的效力,笔者认为在适用中国法下,我国是承认提单管辖权条款的效力的除非该条款有意规避了一方应承担的责任。本文第三部分着重论述了无单放货的诉权主体,无单放货由于其发生时涉及的责任主体复杂,所以本文在本部分先从无单放货当事人各方关系分析入手,理清各方当事人关系后便于确定权利人的诉权问题。同时,从相关资料显示,153个无单放货案件中承运人无单放货的比例达到62.96%,本文仅就其中最常见的承运人无单放货时权利人的诉权进行讨论。在责任者识别部分,由于本文第四部分将会涉及相关论述,所以便不再做过多的赘述,仅对定期租船和航次租船这一类比较特殊的现象进行必要的论述。本文第四部分着重论述了无单放货诉因选择及法律适用问题,诉因的选择是当事人行使诉权的表现,无单放货诉因选择更是关系到诉讼成败的关键,在实践中,有些法院禁止当事人选择诉因或者置当事人选择的诉因而不顾,究其原因是因为当事人自行选择诉因容易导致诉累。而减少诉累的最好办法,笔者认为是在允许当事人选择诉因的情况下,如果出现诉因错误则应允许当事人变更其诉讼请求修正其诉因。其次,笔者认为由于无单放货通常具有很强的涉外性质,且不同的国家和地区对这方面纠纷解决的法律规定不尽相同,法律适用问题成为了案件审理和判决的前提,所以在此有必要论述其法律适用问题。本文第五部分着重论述了无单放货的举证责任及诉讼时效,对于举证责任而言笔者认为,原告必须承担证明其为合法的提单持有人的责任,以及因此行为而受到的经济损失,而对于无单放货的事实证明责任可以由法院根据整个案件的具体情况进行公平,诚信的分配。对于诉讼时效而言笔者认为,可以从选择不同诉因时所适用的时效是否相同,以及选择不同诉讼对象所适用的时效是否相同这两个方面入手进行讨论。在讨论诉讼时效的起算点时,考虑到无单放货案件的特殊性,笔者认为应以《海商法》第257条所规定的时间为起算点,具体分析详见下文。
[Abstract]:The development of the international trade development depends on the international carriage of goods by sea transport, due to its large transport capacity, wide coverage, the cost is relatively cheap, occupy the dominant position in the international transport and maritime transport. The bill of lading as the main document development today has become an international trade, transportation, settlement and other essential process tool. But due to various reasons, there are a lot of delivery of goods without the carrier at the port of destination, according to the relevant international conventions, conventions and domestic laws and regulations, carriage of goods by sea shall deliver goods, to ensure the actual safety of goods. However, so far the world has not formed a unified entity convention to regulate or solve the goods without bill of lading and lawsuit.
We as a member of WTO, play an important role in international trade, maritime transport of goods is particularly important, with the delivery of goods without the phenomenon of increasing, resulting in disputes brought indelible influence to trade both parties. China Maritime Law > and < < maritime special procedure law > related litigation the provisions are not perfect, even for solving some problems of blank state, leading to the judicial circles, the academic circles and the delivery of goods without litigation dispute so much, if things go on like this is not conducive to China's legal construction.
Based on the above analysis of the delivery of goods without issues related to the current situation, on the basis of predecessors' experience, this thesis only tries to break the ice, so in the analysis by the author, can give judicial or legislative theory can bring some enlightenment to solve the problem of litigation, better in the extent of delivery of goods without bill of lading and this paper is divided into five parts.
The first part of this paper focuses on issues related to non delivery of goods, first introduced the meaning and importance of the delivery of goods as a way of delivery of goods without contrast. Secondly the author of the delivery of goods without meaning, reasons, forms and legal nature carried out one by one in the paper, the author discusses the focus on the legal nature of delivery of goods without bill of lading and this is because the relationship between the parties involved in the delivery of goods without many complex legal relationship, grasp the legal nature of delivery of goods without to have a decisive significance to solve the problem of delivery of goods without litigation. Based on the previous ideas and views, I believe that the delivery of goods without the behavior qualitative tort, breach of contract, and the concurrence of Liability Act, more than three kinds of qualitative the author seems to have some truth, but can not be generalized to the delivery of goods without a certain type of behavior into the behavior, and should According to the different cases of the case, it should be identified as a different nature of the behavior, as detailed below.
The second part focuses on the related issues of delivery of goods without the jurisdiction of the case, first introduces the principle of delivery of goods without in jurisdiction, specified in the delivery of goods without the judicial practice in the specific jurisdiction to determine the factors to be taken into account. The second part introduces several common types and effectiveness of the jurisdiction agreement in the delivery of goods without the case in the jurisdiction stipulated by the parties to the jurisdiction clause of bill of lading, the author thinks that in the application of China method, China is to recognise the effectiveness of the bill of lading jurisdiction clause unlessthese provisions circumvent the party should bear the responsibility.
The third part focuses on the delivery of goods without the subject of the right, the delivery of goods without as the main responsibility to the occurrence of complex, so this paper in this part of the first delivery of goods from the parties relationship analysis, clarify the relationship between the parties after to confirm the right of rights. At the same time, according to the relevant information from the carrier, no delivery 153 goods delivery of goods without case ratio reached 62.96%, the only one of the most common carrier of delivery of goods without the right of action is discussed. The responsibility recognition part, due to the fourth part of this article will be involved in the related discussion, so they no longer do too much to say, only necessary discussion on time charter and this voyage charter a special phenomenon.
The fourth part focuses on the delivery of goods without complaint due to selection and application of the law, the cause of action is the choice of the parties to exercise performance, delivery of goods without the cause of action choice is the key to the success of litigation, in practice, some courts prohibit parties choose the cause of action or the parties choose v. thus ignoring the the reason is because the parties choose the cause of action is easy to cause the lawsuit. The best way to reduce litigation, the author thinks that in allowing the parties to select the cause of action, if there is wrong action by the parties should be allowed to change his claim to amend its cause. Secondly, the author believes that due to the delivery of goods without usually with foreign nature is very strong, and different countries and regions of the law to solve this dispute is not the same, the applicable law has become the premise of trial and judgment, so in the will It is necessary to discuss the question of the application of its law.
The fifth part focuses on the burden of proof and the limitation of action for the delivery of goods without the burden of proof, the author believes that the plaintiff must bear the lawful holder of the bill of lading of burden of proof, and therefore acts subject to economic losses, and for the delivery of goods without proving responsibility by the court according to the specific circumstances of the case a fair, honest distribution. For the limitation of action for the aging can choose different from the application of the cause is the same, and choose a different procedure for limitation object is same of these two aspects are discussed. In the discussion of the starting point of the limitation of action, considering the particularity of the delivery of goods without the case and I think that we should use the "maritime law > 257th of the time required for the starting point, detailed analysis see below.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2009
【分类号】：D997.3

【引证文献】