论船舶优先权客体

发布时间：2018-08-26 08:28

【摘要】： 船舶优先权作为海商法所特有的法律制度,是基于社会的、经济的以及人道的理由,或者基于公益、共益理由和衡平原则,给予一些法定的海事债权以特殊的保护。建立完善的船舶优先权制度既是基于维护公平与经济弱者利益之目的、又兼具提高船舶营运安全之效能。船舶优先权的客体,即海商法上允许成立船舶优先权的财产,也就是船舶优先权人(法定的海事债权人)得主张其优先受偿权的财产。在船舶优先权制度上,客体的地位至关紧要:它既是船舶优先权人充分实现其利益的最终保障;也是与其他债权人之间划分权益的疆界。船舶优先权客体的规定之完善与否,不仅涉及到优先权人利益的保护程度问题;也涉及到抵押权人、留置权人及其他一般债权人的利益能在多大范围内得到偿付。由于船舶优先权所担保的损害是由特定的海上财产造成的,并且也只有这些特定的海上财产才从中获益,因此,赔偿应该由这些特定的海上财产来承担并以此为限。但是,这些特定的海上财产具体包括哪些?对此,不仅各国(地区)海商法的规定存在一定差异,而且三个有关的国际公约的规定也不尽一致。 1926年公约对船舶优先权客体的规定较为完备,包括了船舶、运费、(船舶或运费的)附属利益。1967年公约与1993年公约则都将船舶优先权客体限定为船舶。但是,它们都面临着缔约国廖廖无己的尴尬局面。究其原因,三个国际公约始终致力于限制船舶优先权以改善船舶抵押权人的地位,这既在很大程度上削弱了船舶优先权设立基础上的公共利益目的,也是与各国对船舶优先权制度的多元化需求相矛盾的。另外,比较两大法系中一些主要海运国家的法律,尽管由于政治、经济及文化背景不同,各国(地区)对船舶优先权客体的规定千差万别,但也大多数承认了船舶、运费、出让价金、损害赔偿,甚至船载货物等。可见,由于船舶优先权所保护的公共利益在不同的国家有着不同的内容,各国(地区)都希望立足于本国的需要形成适合自己的船舶优先权制度;不把船舶优先权的客体限定在船舶上,则充分反映了各国(地区)对船舶优先权设立宗旨的尊重。我国《海商法》将船舶优先权客体限定为船舶,虽然与最新国际公约保持了一致,但是,船舶优先权客体的狭窄不符合优先权制度的立法目的、削弱优先权以保护抵押权缺乏合理性、在实践上与多国通行做法相背、在理论上又与我国若干相关规定不协调等诸多缺陷的存在,实不足以充分有效地保护本国船舶优先权人的应有权益。海商法是要服务于我国航运经济的现实需求的。因此,它的修改应优先重视本土化,在很长一段时间内我国都将继续是出口大国而非航运强国的前提下,我们应立足于充分保护船舶优先权人这一现实需要。另外,船舶优先权客体是船舶优先权制度对特殊海事债权人优先保护的最终指向,只有它的立法完善才能真正确保此领域内公共利益的实质内容。因此,我们应合理地扩展船舶优先权的客体范围,以更好地服务于本国的海商业。
[Abstract]:As a special legal system of maritime law, maritime lien is given special protection to some statutory maritime claims on the basis of social, economic and humanitarian reasons, or on the basis of public welfare, common interests and the principle of equity. The object of maritime lien, that is, the property allowed to establish maritime lien in maritime law, is the property in which the maritime lien holder (the legal creditor of maritime affairs) may claim his priority of repayment. Whether the object of maritime lien is perfected or not involves not only the degree of protection of the interests of the maritime lien, but also the extent to which the interests of the mortgagee, the lien and other general creditors can be repaid.
As the damage guaranteed by maritime lien is caused by specific maritime property and only those particular maritime property can benefit from it, the compensation should be borne by these particular maritime property and be limited to this extent. However, what are the specific maritime property involved? Not only the maritime law of each country (region) can do so. There are certain differences in the stipulations, and the provisions of the three international conventions are also inconsistent.
The object of maritime lien is well defined in the 1926 Convention, including the vessel, freight, and the subsidiary interests of the vessel. Both the 1967 Convention and the 1993 Convention limit the object of maritime lien to the vessel. However, they all face the embarrassment of being a party to the Convention. Limiting maritime lien to improve the status of mortgagee of ship not only weakens the public interest purpose based on the establishment of maritime lien to a great extent, but also contradicts the diversified demands of various countries on maritime lien system.
In addition, comparing the laws of some major maritime countries in the two legal systems, although the provisions on the object of maritime lien vary greatly from country to country (region) due to different political, economic and cultural backgrounds, most of them recognize ships, freight, transfer price, damages, and even cargo on board. Common interests have different contents in different countries. Each country (region) hopes to form its own system of maritime lien based on its own needs. If the object of maritime lien is not limited to the ship, it fully reflects the respect of each country (region) for the purpose of establishing maritime lien.
Although the object of maritime lien is limited to ship in China's Maritime Law, it is consistent with the latest international conventions, but the narrowness of the object of maritime lien does not conform to the legislative purpose of the priority system, weakening the rationality of the priority to protect the mortgage. In practice, it is contrary to the common practice of many countries, and in theory, it is similar to some of China's. The maritime law is to serve the actual needs of China's shipping economy. Therefore, its amendment should give priority to localization. For a long time, China will continue to be a major exporter rather than a shipping power. In addition, the object of maritime lien is the ultimate orientation of the maritime lien system to the priority protection of special creditors. Only by perfecting its legislation can we truly ensure the essential content of public interests in this field. Therefore, we should expand the ship reasonably. The object scope of maritime priority is to better serve the maritime business of our country.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2008
【分类号】：D996.19;D912.29

【相似文献】