船舶扣押制度中扣船范围问题分析,国际商法论文

船舶扣押制度中扣船范围问题分析,国际商法论文本篇论文目录导航：【题目】船舶扣押制度中扣船范围问题分析【第一章】【第二章】【第三章】【第四章】【第五章】【第六章】【结束语/以下为参考文献】内容摘要随着国际贸易与国际航运业的发展，围绕船舶而产生的海事诉讼的数量也随之增加。在海事诉讼中，为了保全海事请求人的海事请求，法院经常需要根据海事请求人的申请扣押船舶。然而，由于在当前并不存在一套国际统一化的扣船制度，扣船法院只能根据现存国际公约或者本国国内法的相关规定来扣押船舶。而现存的国际公约和国内法对于法院能够扣押哪些船舶，即扣船范围问题上的规定还不是很完善，对诸如融资租赁船舶、船舶经营人经营的船舶等船舶能否能够扣押的问题并没有作出规定。这种情况使法院在扣押船舶时往往陷入两难的境地。因而，对扣船范围作出清楚明晰的界定，即明确哪些船舶能够被法院所扣押，将能够缓解法院在扣押船舶时面临的难题。同时，也能对国际贸易和国际航运业的健康发展产生积极的影响。为了明确扣船范围，1952年(扣船公约〕和1999年(扣船公约〕在国际法层面进行了努力的尝试。然而，这两个国际公约只是在宏观上明确了扣船的范围，即包括当事船和姊妹船。它们并没有能够在微观上对当事船和姊妹船进行全面的规定。对于扣船范围的某些问题，国际公约或者规定不甚合理，或者根本没有规定，而将相关问题留待各国国内法去规定。在国内法层面，两大法系由于长久以来在法律传统上存在宏大差异，因而国内法中有关扣船范围的规定也相差甚巨。因而往往会出现一船舶在这个国家能够被扣押而在另一个国家则不能够被扣押的情况，这也促使当事人在海事诉讼中择地行诉.有鉴于此，本文在梳理国际公约和主要航运国家国内法有关扣船范围法律规定的基础上，借鉴国际公约和国内法中的合理规定，对扣船范围重新进行了界定。本文以为：在宏观上，扣船范围包括当事船和姊妹船，但是不包括关联船。在微观上，〔1〕除了船舶所有人所有的船舶与光船租船人光租的船舶外，船舶融资租赁承租人租赁的船舶以及船舶经营人经营的船舶也属于能够扣押的当事船舶。〔2〕定期租船人和航次租船人承租的船舶作为当事船时不能被扣押，但是定期租船人和航次租船人的姊妹船是能够被扣押的。〔3〕扣押姊妹船应以在施行扣押时该船能否是姊妹船为时间标准；在份额标准上，应以所有标准而非控制标准来认定姊妹船，并且单一所有和共同所有情况下的船舶都能够认定为姊妹船。〔4〕国有船舶可以以扣押，只要该船舶用于商业目的。对于本国船舶，要求在海事请求发生时和施行船舶扣押时均用于商业目的；对于外国船舶，在海事请求发生时或者施行船舶扣押时用于商业目的的，即可扣押。〔5〕不能扣押完成开航准备的船舶，判定一船舶能否完成开航准备，应以该船舶能否已经办理离港手续为标准。本文所界定的扣船范围与以往研究所界定的扣船范围相比，其创新之处在于：〔1〕船舶融资租赁和船舶经营项下的船舶作为当事船时可以以扣押；〔2〕明确了认定姊妹船的时间标准和份额标准；〔3〕扣押国有船舶时区分本国船舶和外国船舶分别规定扣船条件；〔4〕明确完成开航准备的船舶不属于能够扣押的船舶，并且明确了判定船舶能否完成开航准备的标准。本文关键词语：船舶扣押，扣船范围，当事船，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