海事纠纷之确权诉讼研究

发布时间：2018-05-15 21:29

本文选题：确权诉讼 + 给付之诉　；参考：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着全球经济贸易往来的越来越频繁,各国的航运业务也随之发展。船舶的巨大运输力使之成为跨海贸易的主要方式,但是随之而来的是船舶碰撞、共同海损、海难等事故的发生概率增加。发生事故往往又会伴随着纠纷的产生,由此而来海事纠纷也越来越多。《海事诉讼特别程序法》于2000年7月1日施行(下文简称“海诉法”),其中规定了一种不同于现有任何一种民事诉讼程序的特殊海事诉讼程序,即第116条1规定的确权诉讼。《海诉法》规定的确权诉讼是针对与法院裁定强制拍卖船舶的债权以及海事赔偿责任限制基金程序有关的限制性债权而设计的诉讼制度。海事诉讼属于民事诉讼的范畴,那么确权诉讼无疑也是民事诉讼程序中的一种特殊诉讼程序。作为一种我国独有的特殊海事诉讼程序,《海诉法》及最高人民法院2003年发布的《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法〉若干问题的解释》(下文简称“海诉法解释”)仅有为数不多的几个条文对其进行规定,其余相关司法解释也未专门涉及确权诉讼,理论界对程序的研究讨论也严重不足,海事纠纷的频繁发生又需要相关的配套法律法规来规范法官的司法行为,健全法律制度,并且司法实践中也亟需统一的标准来维护司法权威。根据程序法定原则,任何一个诉讼程序,从起诉到结案都应当有法律对其进行规定,显然确权诉讼中配套规定的缺失与其在实践中所起到的作用是不相协调的。本文将从确权诉讼的基础理论展开论述,按照诉讼程序进程来发现、解决问题,针对确权诉讼中所具有的相关法律滞后和配套规定不完整的现象,结合司法实践的不统一,着重对确权诉讼制度所存在的程序问题提出笔者的程序设计,以此为完善《海诉法》尽一份绵薄之力。本文一共分为四章:第一章将对确权诉讼的概念、性质、特点等基础理论进行论述。理论界对于确权诉讼的性质虽然讨论不多但是却也一直无法形成统一的认识,主要分歧在于确权诉讼究竟是确认之诉、给付之诉还是二者结合之诉。笔者观点认为是给付之诉,后文将展开详细论述。第二章将对确权诉讼的提起、管辖等审理前程序问题进行论述。关于确权诉讼的程序问题,整个《海诉法》以及《海诉法解释》中都没有相关的法条对确权诉讼形成较为完整、系统的规范体系,法条之间前后条文的不协调也是造成司法实践混乱的重要原因之一,没有统一的法律准绳来规范法官的审理。第三章将对确权诉讼的审理范围、债权审查以及程序转化等问题展开论述。对债权的确认是整个诉讼的核心,参与分配受偿是确权诉讼的最终目的,所以第三章是本文的核心内容。第四章将对确权诉讼结案以后,一审终审制度缺陷救济、确权诉讼是否能够运用调解结案以及诉讼判决的执行力等问题进行探讨,以此来完善程序架构。
[Abstract]:With the increasing frequency of global economic and trade exchanges, the shipping business of various countries has also developed. The great capacity of shipping makes it the main way of transoceanic trade, but the probability of accidents such as ship collision, general average and shipwreck increases. Accidents are often accompanied by disputes. The Law on Special procedures for Maritime Proceedings came into force on July 1, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Sea suit Act), which provides for a special maritime procedure different from any existing civil procedure, That is to say, Article 116 (1) provides for the confirmation action, which is designed in response to the restrictive claims related to the court ruling on the compulsory auction of the ship and the limitation of maritime liability fund procedure. Maritime action belongs to the category of civil action, so affirmative action is no doubt a kind of special procedure in civil procedure. As a unique special maritime litigation procedure in China, the Law on Maritime Proceedings and the interpretation of the Supreme people's Court on the Application of the Special procedure Law of the people's Republic of China concerning Maritime Litigation issued by the Supreme people's Court in 2003 > (hereinafter referred to as "interpretation of the Law of Maritime Action") it is provided for in only a few articles, Other relevant judicial interpretations are not specifically related to the right of confirmation litigation, the theoretical circle of research and discussion of the procedure is also seriously inadequate, maritime disputes frequently occur and need relevant supporting laws and regulations to regulate the judicial behavior of judges and improve the legal system. And the judicial practice also needs the unified standard to safeguard the judicial authority. According to the principle of procedural law, any legal procedure should be regulated by law from the prosecution to the conclusion of the case. It is obvious that the deficiency of the supporting provisions in the affirmative action is not in harmony with the role it plays in practice. This article will discuss from the basic theory of the right of confirmation litigation, discover, solve the problem according to the process of the procedure, and combine the disunity of the judicial practice, aiming at the phenomenon that the relevant law lags behind and the supporting stipulation is not complete in the affirmative right lawsuit. The author puts forward the author's program design for the procedural problems existing in the system of confirming the right of action, so as to make a modest contribution to the perfection of the Law of Sea Proceedings. This paper is divided into four chapters: the first chapter will discuss the concept, nature, characteristics and other basic theories of affirmative action. Although there is not much discussion on the nature of the right of confirmation litigation, the theoretical circle has been unable to form a unified understanding. The main difference lies in whether the right of confirmation action is the action of confirmation, the action of payment or the action of combination of the two. The author holds that it is the lawsuit of payment, which will be discussed in detail later. The second chapter will discuss the pre-trial procedure such as the initiation and jurisdiction of the right of confirmation. With regard to the procedural issues concerning the confirmation proceedings, there are no relevant articles in the whole Law of Maritime Action and the interpretation of the Law of Maritime Proceedings to form a relatively complete and systematic normative system for the determination of the right of action. The disharmony between the articles is also one of the important reasons for the confusion of judicial practice. There is no uniform legal criterion to regulate the judge's trial. The third chapter will discuss the trial scope, creditor's rights review and procedural transformation. The confirmation of creditor's rights is the core of the whole lawsuit, and participating in the distribution of compensation is the ultimate purpose of the right of confirmation litigation, so the third chapter is the core content of this paper. The fourth chapter will discuss the problems of the defect relief of the first instance final appeal system after the conclusion of the final right lawsuit, whether the right of confirmation litigation can use mediation to close the case and the execution of the lawsuit judgment, and so on, so as to perfect the procedural framework.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】