论海运承运人的留置权

发布时间：2019-04-04 17:50

【摘要】： 海运承运人留置权,是其根据租约或提单合同主张索赔的一种担保。该等留置权可以通过法律的明文规定以及合同当事人间的明示约定而获得。在我国《民法通则》、《合同法》、《担保法》及其《解释》、《海商法》、《国内水路运输规则》以及新近颁布的《物权法》均有关于留置权的法律规定,但这些法律规定不尽完善,亦不甚明确。其中,对于海运承运人留置权的规定在具体的司法实践中也存在颇多问题,无法发挥其应然作用。鉴于上述现状,笔者试图通过对其他国家留置权制度的研习,特别是通过对英国法下相关制度的探究,来为理解和完善我国的海运承运人留置权制度提供现实的依据。继而,笔者通过对英国法下普通法留置权和约定留置权的探讨,特别是针对货物和转租运费的约定留置权的分析发现,在英国法下,承运人为了保障其应收款项,对于提单项下的货物以及转租运费拥有相当广泛的留置权。海运承运人可以颇为方便地通过合同条款创设留置权,只要提单不存在与主张留置权不一致的规定,则提单持有人对于费用的支付是否应当承担个人责任便在所不论。这种以约定方式形成的留置权,其效力在英国法院所做出的判例中得到了普遍的承认。同时,笔者也考虑到我国系采成文法立法例的国家,判例在我国并不具有法律渊源的效力。因此,笔者试通过对于同样采成文法立法例的大陆法系国家相关制度的研究和借鉴。通过分析比较大陆法系各国通过具有其各自特色的立法模式,笔者发现,在大陆法系采行“民商分立”立法例的国家,普遍引入了优先权制度,即,由留置权制度与优先权制度所共同构成的体系来实现海运承运人留置权制度的功能。通过上述比较分析,笔者由此获得启示,进而认为我国《海商法》第87条之规定有不尽合理之处,并以海上运输之特点及承运人和收货人的利益平衡为重点,论述了承运人对船载货物行使留置权不应以货物所有权归属债权人为条件。在借鉴英国法下海运承运人留置权制度的前提之下,进一步考虑通过对我国优先权制度的建立和完善,来实现对于海运承运人相关权益的保障。
[Abstract]:Maritime carrier lien is a kind of guarantee that it claims under lease or bill of lading contract. Such lien may be obtained by express provisions of the law and express agreement between the parties to the contract. In China, the General principles of Civil Law, the contract Law, the Law of guarantee and its interpretation, the Maritime Law, the domestic rules of Water Transport and the recently promulgated Law on property all have legal provisions on lien. But these laws are not perfect or clear. Among them, there are many problems in the specific judicial practice of maritime carrier lien, which can not play its due role. In view of the above-mentioned situation, the author tries to provide a realistic basis for understanding and perfecting the lien system of sea carrier in China by studying the lien system of other countries, especially the relevant system under British law. Then, through the discussion of the common law lien and the agreed lien under British law, especially the analysis of the agreed lien on the freight of goods and subleases, the author finds that under British law, the carrier in order to protect its receivables, There is a wide range of lien for the goods and sublease freight under the offer item. Maritime carrier can create lien by contract terms quite conveniently, so long as the bill of lading is not inconsistent with the claim of lien, whether the bill of lading holder should bear personal liability for the payment of expenses or not is regardless of whether the bill of lading is not inconsistent with the claim of lien. The validity of this kind of lien formed by agreement has been generally recognized in the jurisprudence of British courts. At the same time, the author also considers that the case law has no legal origin in our country. Therefore, the author tries to study and draw lessons from the relevant systems of civil law countries which adopt the same legislative examples of written law. Through the analysis and comparison of the countries in the civil law system through their respective legislative models, the author finds that the priority system is generally introduced in the countries that adopt the "separation of civil and commercial legislation" in the civil law system. The system consists of lien system and priority system to realize the function of maritime carrier lien system. Through the above-mentioned comparative analysis, the author gets inspiration from this, and then believes that the provisions of Article 87 of China Maritime Law are unreasonable, and focus on the characteristics of maritime transport and the balance of interests between the carrier and the consignee. This paper discusses that the carrier should not exercise lien on the cargo on board on the condition that the owner of the goods belongs to the creditor. On the premise of drawing lessons from the lien system of maritime carrier under British law, we should further consider establishing and perfecting the priority system of our country to realize the protection of the related rights and interests of maritime carrier.
【学位授予单位】：上海海事大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：D922.294;D996.19

【共引文献】