船舶扣押制度中扣船范圍問(wèn)題分析,國(guó)際商法論文

船舶扣押制度中扣船范圍問(wèn)題分析,國(guó)際商法論文本篇論文目錄導(dǎo)航：【題目】船舶扣押制度中扣船范圍問(wèn)題分析【第一章】【第二章】【第三章】【第四章】【第五章】【第六章】【結(jié)束語(yǔ)/以下為參考文獻(xiàn)】?jī)?nèi)容摘要隨著國(guó)際貿(mào)易與國(guó)際航運(yùn)業(yè)的發(fā)展，圍繞船舶而產(chǎn)生的海事訴訟的數(shù)量也隨之增加。在海事訴訟中，為了保全海事請(qǐng)求人的海事請(qǐng)求，法院經(jīng)常需要根據(jù)海事請(qǐng)求人的申請(qǐng)扣押船舶。然而，由于在當(dāng)前并不存在一套國(guó)際統(tǒng)一化的扣船制度，扣船法院只能根據(jù)現(xiàn)存國(guó)際公約或者本國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)法的相關(guān)規(guī)定來(lái)扣押船舶。而現(xiàn)存的國(guó)際公約和國(guó)內(nèi)法對(duì)于法院能夠扣押哪些船舶，即扣船范圍問(wèn)題上的規(guī)定還不是很完善，對(duì)諸如融資租賃船舶、船舶經(jīng)營(yíng)人經(jīng)營(yíng)的船舶等船舶能否能夠扣押的問(wèn)題并沒(méi)有作出規(guī)定。這種情況使法院在扣押船舶時(shí)往往陷入兩難的境地。因而，對(duì)扣船范圍作出清楚明晰的界定，即明確哪些船舶能夠被法院所扣押，將能夠緩解法院在扣押船舶時(shí)面臨的難題。同時(shí)，也能對(duì)國(guó)際貿(mào)易和國(guó)際航運(yùn)業(yè)的健康發(fā)展產(chǎn)生積極的影響。為了明確扣船范圍，1952年(扣船公約〕和1999年(扣船公約〕在國(guó)際法層面進(jìn)行了努力的嘗試。然而，這兩個(gè)國(guó)際公約只是在宏觀上明確了扣船的范圍，即包括當(dāng)事船和姊妹船。它們并沒(méi)有能夠在微觀上對(duì)當(dāng)事船和姊妹船進(jìn)行全面的規(guī)定。對(duì)于扣船范圍的某些問(wèn)題，國(guó)際公約或者規(guī)定不甚合理，或者根本沒(méi)有規(guī)定，而將相關(guān)問(wèn)題留待各國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)法去規(guī)定。在國(guó)內(nèi)法層面，兩大法系由于長(zhǎng)久以來(lái)在法律傳統(tǒng)上存在宏大差異，因而國(guó)內(nèi)法中有關(guān)扣船范圍的規(guī)定也相差甚巨。因而往往會(huì)出現(xiàn)一船舶在這個(gè)國(guó)家能夠被扣押而在另一個(gè)國(guó)家則不能夠被扣押的情況，這也促使當(dāng)事人在海事訴訟中擇地行訴.有鑒于此，本文在梳理國(guó)際公約和主要航運(yùn)國(guó)家國(guó)內(nèi)法有關(guān)扣船范圍法律規(guī)定的基礎(chǔ)上，借鑒國(guó)際公約和國(guó)內(nèi)法中的合理規(guī)定，對(duì)扣船范圍重新進(jìn)行了界定。本文以為：在宏觀上，扣船范圍包括當(dāng)事船和姊妹船，但是不包括關(guān)聯(lián)船。在微觀上，〔1〕除了船舶所有人所有的船舶與光船租船人光租的船舶外，船舶融資租賃承租人租賃的船舶以及船舶經(jīng)營(yíng)人經(jīng)營(yíng)的船舶也屬于能夠扣押的當(dāng)事船舶?！?〕定期租船人和航次租船人承租的船舶作為當(dāng)事船時(shí)不能被扣押，但是定期租船人和航次租船人的姊妹船是能夠被扣押的。〔3〕扣押姊妹船應(yīng)以在施行扣押時(shí)該船能否是姊妹船為時(shí)間標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；在份額標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上，應(yīng)以所有標(biāo)準(zhǔn)而非控制標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)認(rèn)定姊妹船，并且單一所有和共同所有情況下的船舶都能夠認(rèn)定為姊妹船?！?〕國(guó)有船舶可以以扣押，只要該船舶用于商業(yè)目的。對(duì)于本國(guó)船舶，要求在海事請(qǐng)求發(fā)生時(shí)和施行船舶扣押時(shí)均用于商業(yè)目的；對(duì)于外國(guó)船舶，在海事請(qǐng)求發(fā)生時(shí)或者施行船舶扣押時(shí)用于商業(yè)目的的，即可扣押?！?〕不能扣押完成開(kāi)航準(zhǔn)備的船舶，判定一船舶能否完成開(kāi)航準(zhǔn)備，應(yīng)以該船舶能否已經(jīng)辦理離港手續(xù)為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。本文所界定的扣船范圍與以往研究所界定的扣船范圍相比，其創(chuàng)新之處在于：〔1〕船舶融資租賃和船舶經(jīng)營(yíng)項(xiàng)下的船舶作為當(dāng)事船時(shí)可以以扣押；〔2〕明確了認(rèn)定姊妹船的時(shí)間標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和份額標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；〔3〕扣押國(guó)有船舶時(shí)區(qū)分本國(guó)船舶和外國(guó)船舶分別規(guī)定扣船條件；〔4〕明確完成開(kāi)航準(zhǔn)備的船舶不屬于能夠扣押的船舶，并且明確了判定船舶能否完成開(kāi)航準(zhǔn)備的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。本文關(guān)鍵詞語(yǔ)：船舶扣押，扣船范圍，當(dāng)事船，姊妹船AbstractWiththedevelopmentofinternationaltradeandinternationalshippingindustry,thenumberofthemaritimelitigation,inwhichthecourtsusuallyneedtoarresttheships,hasbeenincreasinggreatly.Inmaritimelitigation,inordertopreservethemaritimeclaimoftheclaimant,thecourtsoftenneedtoarresttheshipsaccordingtotheapplicationofthemaritimeclaimants.However,therenoexistasetofinternationalunificationrulesonthearrestofships.Sothecourtsusuallyarreststheshipsonthebasisoftherelevantprovisionsintheexistinginternationalconventionsorthecourtsdomesticlaw.However,theexistingrulesarenotveryperfect.Forexample,thequestionthatwhetheraship,whichisunderafinancingleasecontractorashipmanagementcontract,canbearrestedbythecourtisnotveryclear.Thissituationmakethecourtsoftenfacethedilemmainthearrestofships.Therefore,makingaclearscopeoftheshipsthatcanbearrested,willbeabletoalleviatethedifficultiesfacedbythecourtsatthetimeofarrestingships.Atthesametime,itwillhaveapositiveimpactonthehealthydevelopmentofinternationaltradeandinternationalshippingindustry.Inordertodefinethescopeoftheshipsthatcanbearrested,the1952conventionandthe1999conventiononthearrestofshipshavemadetheirgreateffortstotry.Butaswecansee,thesetwoconventionsjustdefinethescopeoftheshipsthatcanbearrestedinthemacroview,namelythescopeincludestheparticularshipandthesistership.Theyfailtomakerulesonthesetwotypesofshipsinthemicroview.Astosomeimportantaspectsofthearrestofships,thesetwoconventionsdonthaveanyrulesonit,ortheserules,iftheyhave,arenotreasonable.Onthedomesticlawlevel,duetothedifferencesofthelegalsystem,thedomesticlawsinthecivillawcountriesarenotthesamewiththoseinthecommonlawcountries.Therefor,oneshipmaybearrestedinthiscountry,butcannotarrestedintheother.Thismaycauseaproblem,namely,theforumshopping.Consideringthat,thisarticleintendstoredefinethescopeofarrestingshipsonthebasisofcombingtherulesinconventionsanddomesticlaws.Theauthorbelievethat,inthemacroview,thescopeincludestheparticularshipandthesistership.Inthemicroview,firstly,theships,whichareunderfinancingleasecontractorshipmanagementcontract,canbearrestedbythecourt.Whiletheships,whichareunderthetime-charterorvoyage-charter,cannotbearrested.Secondly,whentheshipswhicharearrestedrefertothesisterships,whethertheseshipsaresistershipsthecourtsshouldjudgebyinvestigatingiftheshipsareownedbutnotcontrolledbythepersonswhoareresponsibleforthemaritimeclaimsatthetimeoftheshipsarrested.Thirdly,theships,whichareownedbythestate,canbearrestediftheyareintheuseofcommercialpurposes.Whentheseshipsarethenationalships,theyhavetobeinsuchusebothatthetimetheclaimsaroseandatthetimetheshipsarearrested.Whentheyareforeignships,iftheyareinsuchuseatthetimetheclaimsarose,theycanbearrestedbythecourt.Finally,theships,whichareinsailingorreadytosail,cantbearrested.Andthecourtshouldjudgeawhetherashipisreadytosailbyinvestigatingifithasfinishedtheformalitiesofleavingtheport.Comparedwiththescopewhichtheformerinvestigatesdefine,thescopedefinedbythisarticleisdifferent.Firstly,theships,whichareunderfinancingleasecontractorshipmanagementcontract,canbearrestedbythecourt.Secondly,whentheshipsarrestedrefertothesisterships,whethertheseshipsaresistershipsthecourtshouldjudgebyinvestigatingiftheshipsareownedbutnotcontrolledbythepersonswhoareresponsibleforthemaritimeclaimsatthetimeoftheshipsarrested.Thirdly,whenarrestingastate-ownedship,theconditionsaredifferentbetweenthenationalshipsandtheforeignships.Finally,notonlyclearthattheships,whicharereadytosail,cantbearrested,but