透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.88.254.50
  • 學位論文

1952及1999年國際扣船公約之比較與相關判決之探討

The compare of the 1952 and 1999 International Arrest Conventions and related cases study

指導教授 : 曾國雄

摘要


一般債權於日常生活中發生頻率極高,若船東或船舶產生之債務發生於海上段,債權人通常會採取扣船方式,以保全未來債權之取得,此行為不但易造成港口壅塞,亦會造成船上貨物無法順暢運送,侵害無辜貨主之權利。對於扣船之規定,除1952及1999年國際扣船公約外,亦有非簽約國之國內法規定之,因此,於海運貿易上,不論對貨主或航商而言,因債權產生之扣船實為一重要議題,值得探討。 本文利用法學五方法論,包含成文法、判決回顧法、比較法、學說及法理,首先釐清國際扣船公約中「arrest」之定義,與我國扣船相關之名詞有何不同,又於何種情況下會產生扣船,而在大陸法系與英美法系兩種法律體系中,兩者對於扣船有何不同之規定等3項。其次,針對1952年及1999年國際扣船公約對時間、地點、人、事等比較其規定之異同。再就蒐集大陸法系與英美法系國家中列舉數個國家對於實務案例扣船之原因及扣船結果之統計,並以具體案例訪談探討業者實例,了解實務扣船解決原因及方法。最後,提出本研究之結論。 本文之結論有六:1. 我國對於扣船相關之用詞並無統一2. 1952年國際扣船公約到1999年國際扣船公約之改變,大多對債權人較為不利3.台灣、中國、英國、日本對於實務上之扣船原因,皆有不同之習慣方式以及法院判決4. 實務上,許多扣船案例多可透過私下和解,雙方各退一步,以雙方皆可接受之協調結果,達到共同合意之賠償金額或另一種補償性契約5. 許多海運強國仍未參與此公約,因此,若於非公約國欲行使扣船,仍需依照其不同國家之國內法對扣船之規定,仍造成債權人之不便6. 台灣及中國之判決對於扣押及假扣押之概念及用字仍無一定用法,而對於保全程序之假扣押以及終局判決之扣押之用字仍存有混淆之處。

並列摘要


From a claimant's perspective, the right to arrest a ship is the most valuable tool in enforcing their claims and recovering debts against ship owners and operators. Consequently, arrests are a common way for creditors to secure their debts. There are two conventions which regulate the arrest of ships, and these are the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, established in Brussels on May 10 in1952, and the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships, established in Geneva on March 12 in 1999. In addition, there are also has many related domestic laws in non-contracted countries. This article will first compare the definition of Arrest of the common law and the similar words in civil law. Second, it finds the differences between 1952 and 1999 International Arrest conventions in time, location, person and reason of arrest. And will then present some related case studies of some civil and common law countries. Third, it will collect concrete examples by interview. Finally, there are some conclusions and suggestions in the end of this article. There are six conclusions of this article as following: 1.There is no united word related arrest in Taiwan. 2. The development from 1952 to 1999 International Arrest Conventions is mostly unfavorable to creditors. 3. The cases from Taiwan, China, England and Japan, show that there are different ways of arrest respectively. 4. In practice field, the common way to solve arrest issue is compromise. 5. Many marine-orient countries didn’t participant in the International Arrest Conventions, it is inconvenient for creditors who want to arrest a ship in those countries. 6. From Taiwan and China cases, it shows that the word related arrest is not united.

參考文獻


6.WEST LAW,網址:
與LEXIS NEXIS共參考8個案例
7.LEXIS NEXIS,網址:
一、書籍 (依姓氏筆劃)
1.田中誠二 (1985) 。海商法詳論增補版,東京都:勁草書房。

延伸閱讀