《货规》被废止对国内水路运输合同法律适用影响的分析

发布时间：2018-06-05 05:27

本文选题：货规 + 实际承运人　；参考：《大连海事大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：《国内水路货物运输规则》(以下简称"《货规》")是我国国内水路运输双方当事人权利义务归责的主要依据,它对国内水路货物运输合同的订立以及国内水路货物运输合同当事人的权利与义务作出了详细的规定。但2016年5月30日,《货规》被明文废止。本文从《货规》的历史作用以及废止前的适用方式着手,论证《货规》废止后会给国内水路货物运输行业所带来的不便。进而以假设性的方式提出了一些建议,试图填补过渡时期的法律空白,尽可能减少合同纠纷。第一部分分析了《货规》从制定到废止的过程。计划经济时期,为了促进水运行业的发展制定了《货规》。随后,为满足相应时代背景下的法律需要,对《货规》进行了四次修改。尽管在《货规》施行的四十余年间,为我国的水路运输行业做出了卓越的历史贡献。但是直到《立法法》的颁布,才渐渐理顺了《货规》的法律地位,同时也对《货规》的合法性产生了质疑,最终导致了《货规》的废止。第二部分主要通过分析《货规》废止后的影响,提出了《货规》废止后的法律适用。《合同法》、《民法通则》和《水路货物运输合同实施细则》可以替代《货规》解决相关的法律问题。事实上,《货规》未被废止之前,《合同法》也是作为第一顺位的法律来解决国内水路货物运输的合同纠纷问题。但是,《合同法》关于水路运输部分的规定远不及《货规》详细和精准,从而导致超出《合同法》规定范围时,无法确认相关当事人的权利和义务。第三部分针对《货规》被废止后产生的实际承运人问题、收货人法律地位问题和时效问题,进行了深入分析。《合同法》中并无实际承运人之概念,使得《货规》废止之后必然会导致在法律实践中相关当事人权利和义务的变化。《合同法》中也无收货人法律地位的规定,这必将导致收货人在权利和义务上的规定不明,不利于当事人合法权益的保护。由于《民法通则》中有关诉讼时效的规定与《货规》中相应规定不同,如果按照《民法通则》中有关诉讼时效的规定,其时效时间较长,不利于证据的采集和保存。通过对比分析发现,《货规》中的相关规定才更符合行业特点下水路货物运输市场的有序发展。第四部分主要根据当今国内水路货物运输领域的行业特殊性给出相关建议,出台司法解释,速度可能最快。按照《最高人民法院关于司法解释工作的规定》,由最高人民法院结合海事以及水运司法实践,尽快出台有关国内水路货物运输相关问题的司法解释,使得司法审判有依据可循。与此同时,建议在时机与各方面条件都成熟的情况下,在国务院层面出台国内水路货物运输的法规并在适当的时候对《海商法》进行修订。为推动和形成我国完善而成熟的国内水路货物运输法律体系发挥积极的影响。
[Abstract]:The rules of domestic Waterway Freight Transport (hereinafter referred to as "cargo regulations") are the main basis for the rights and obligations of the parties involved in domestic waterway transportation in China. It makes a detailed stipulation on the conclusion of domestic waterway freight transport contract and the rights and obligations of the parties to the domestic waterway freight transport contract. On May 30, 2016, however, the Regulation was expressly repealed. This paper starts with the historical function of the "cargo Code" and the applicable way before its abolition, and proves the inconvenience caused by the abolition of the "goods Code" to the domestic waterway freight transport industry. Then some suggestions are put forward in a hypothetical way, trying to fill in the gap of law in the transitional period and reduce the contract disputes as much as possible. The first part analyzes the process from formulation to repeal. Planned economy period, in order to promote the development of water transport industry formulated the "cargo regulations". Subsequently, in order to meet the legal needs in the context of the corresponding era, the cargo Code was amended four times. Although more than forty years after the implementation of the Regulation, it has made outstanding historical contributions to the waterway transport industry in China. However, it was not until the enactment of the legislation Law that the legal status of the goods Regulation was gradually straightened out. At the same time, the legality of the goods Regulation was questioned, which eventually led to the abolition of the goods Regulation. The second part mainly through the analysis of the impact after the abolition of the "cargo Code", It is pointed out that the application of the law after the abolition of the goods regulations. The contract Law, the General principles of Civil Law and the detailed rules for the implementation of the contract for the Carriage of goods by Waterway can replace the regulations to solve the related legal problems. As a matter of fact, the contract Law was also the first law to solve the contract dispute of domestic waterway freight transportation before it was repealed. However, the provisions of the contract Law on waterway transport are far less detailed and precise than those of the cargo Code, which leads to the inability to confirm the rights and obligations of the parties concerned when they are beyond the scope of the contract Law. The third part analyzes the actual carrier problem, the legal status of consignee and the limitation problem. There is no concept of actual carrier in contract Law. This will inevitably lead to the change of the rights and obligations of the parties concerned in legal practice. There is no legal status of the consignee in the contract Law, which will inevitably lead to unclear provisions on the rights and obligations of the consignee. Not conducive to the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the parties. Because the provisions of limitation of action in General principles of Civil Law are different from the corresponding provisions in General rules of Civil Law, if according to the provisions on limitation of action in General principles of Civil Law, the limitation period is longer, which is not conducive to the collection and preservation of evidence. Through comparison and analysis, it is found that the relevant provisions in the "cargo Code" are more in line with the orderly development of the waterway freight transport market under the characteristics of the trade. The fourth part mainly according to the domestic waterway freight transportation profession particularity to give the related suggestion, the introduction judicial explanation, the speed may be fastest. In accordance with the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on Judicial interpretation, the Supreme people's Court shall, in conjunction with maritime and waterborne judicial practice, issue as soon as possible the judicial interpretation of domestic waterway freight transport related issues, so that the judicial trial can be based on. At the same time, it is suggested that when the time and conditions are ripe, the State Council should issue the domestic regulations on waterway freight transportation and amend the Maritime Law at an appropriate time. In order to promote and form China's perfect and mature domestic waterway freight transport legal system play a positive role.
【学位授予单位】：大连海事大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.296

【相似文献】