提单管辖权条款若干法律问题研究
|
摘要
本文主要根据国际海事审判实践中经常遇到的提单管辖权问题进行了讨论。提单管辖权条款是提单中的一个重要条款，它的意义在于当提单项下发生争议时，这一项争议在哪里解决。因为不同的国家和地区对提单条款的解释、对法律的运用以及处理的程序各不相同，对当事人的影响也不一样，可能同样的争议在不同的法院或仅由不同的人来处理，都会得到不同的结果。所以提单管辖权条款对双方当事人有着非常重要的意义。
但是，海事争议各不相同，所涉及的问题也有多种：提单管辖权问题在实践中也分为不同的情况，本文只能就司法实践中遇到的几个典型性问题进行讨论，主要包括：1)提单管辖权条款的效力及依据；2)当事人怎样依据提单管辖权条款保护自己的利益；3)对提单管辖权条款理论与实践的思考。分为三个部分：
一、引言；二、正文；三、结论。
引言主要介绍关于提单管辖权条款的司法现状，并引出本文将要讨论的主要问题。
正文部分分为四章。第一章主要介绍研究提单管辖权条款对海事管辖制度和海事审判实践的意义。提单管辖权条款涉及到案件在哪一国家得到处理，所以它不仅关系到案件适用的法律，也决定了案件程序上的问题怎样处理，从而对案件结果有着决定性的影响。
第二章和第三章是本文的重点部分。第二章从实践和理论分析了提单管辖权条款的性质和效力。鉴于提单本身的特殊性质，提单管辖权条款也不同于一般意义上的“协议管辖”，它只有在条款明确、清晰，并有证据证明是双方当事人的真实意思表示时，才够得上有“协议的效力”并得到承认。而提单管辖权条款的效力各国均没有明确的立法规定，取决于法院的自由裁量。但是法官行使自由裁量权时也要考虑到法律的强制性规定和社会公共秩序，同时要注意到提单管辖权条款的表现形式，只有在不违反法律的强制性规定和公共秩序，并有符合法律规定的表现形式时才能被裁定为有效，即法院对提单管辖权条款的接受。
第三章主要通过Sky Reefer一案的判决对提单管辖权条款的影响说明了法
院通常情况下会考虑到适用提单管辖权条款是否会减轻承运人的法定责任，以期
充分保护货主利益。在接受外国法院管辖时，他们可以保留自己的管辖权，只是
暂时中止诉讼，如果外国法院能够合理运用本国的法律，保障货主的利益，那么
就承认管辖权条款的效力;如果不能，就否定其效力。同时，若货主想撤销外国
法院选择条款，可以说服法官如果去外国诉讼或仲裁，托运人或收货人将无法获
得COGSA或《哈特法》提供的法律保护;法院必须调查清楚实际情况指明诉讼或
仲裁应在托运人或收货人选择的地点而不是提单规定的地点进行。寻求撤销外国
法院选择条款的当事人应全力收集必要的证据以取得法庭的支持。
第四章是对我国提单管辖权条款理论和实践的讨论，建议我国司法机关在考
虑提单管辖权条款效力时要考虑实际联系、表现形式明确以及公平合理等因素，
同时结合国际惯例和通行的实际做法，使我国的审判与国际接轨。
结论部分总结了全文的主要内容，并提出解决提单管辖权条款纠纷的根本措
施是事先预防。
This dissertation discusses mainly several legal issues about jurisdiction clauses of B/L arising from the international maritime cases frequently. A jurisdiction clause of B/L is an important clause in a bill of lading, which provides where the disputes of B/L should be settled. As we know, different countries and regions have different explanations to clauses of B/L, different utilizing of laws and different procedures of handling, and all these will effect the decisions of the cases, which mean a lot to both of the parties. So jurisdiction clauses of B/L are very important in maritime cases.
However, there are so many maritime disputes in practice, and there are so many kinds of issues involved; the issues about jurisdiction clauses of B/L are also varied, and this dissertation mainly discusses several typical issues in maritime trial practice including: 1) the validity of jurisdiction clauses of B/Land the basis to be valid; 2) both the parties of eases haw to protect the interests of himself on the basis of jurisdiction clauses of B/L; 3) thought about the theories and the trials on jurisdiction clauses of B/L.The whole dissertation consists of three parts: the introduction, the text and the conclusion.
The first part introduces the present conditions of the jurisdiction clauses of B/L, then recommends the main issues that will be discussed in this dissertation.
The main body comprises of four chapters. The first chapter briefs the meanness of the jurisdiction clauses of B/L to the maritime jurisdiction and the maritime trial. Jurisdiction clauses of B/L effect which country the maritime cases will be settled in, accordingly decide the governing laws and the settling
procedures, and finally influence the decisions of maritime cases.
This paper emphasizes the second chapter and the third chapter The second section analyzes the character and the validity of jurisdiction clauses of B/L. Because of the special nature of a B/L itself, jurisdiction clauses of B/L differ from common jurisdiction agreements. Only if they are clear and distinct, and can be proved to be the true mean of both parties, jurisdiction clauses of B/L can be called "agreements" and be accepted. There are no explicit laws ruling the validity of jurisdiction clauses of B/L in most countries. Their validity depends on the judgment of judges. When judges determine whether jurisdiction clauses of B/L are valid, they usually consider that jurisdiction clauses of B/L should conform to the obligatory prescriptions of laws and the society public policies. At the same time, the formation of jurisdiction clauses of B/L should meet the requires of laws.
The third chapter says, in order to protect the interests of owners of cargo, forums usually consider whether jurisdiction clauses of B/L will release the legal duty of carriers. When they accept jurisdiction clauses of B/L and the involved cases are settled in foreign countries, forums always retain their jurisdiction and just suspend the procedures. If the foreign forums use internal laws reasonably and protect the interests of owners of cargo, jurisdiction clauses of B/L will be accepted; if not, jurisdiction clauses of B/L will be rejected. At the same time, if owners of cargo attempt to avoid jurisdiction clauses of B/L, they may persuade judges that if cases are handled in foreign countries, they won't get the protection provided by laws such as the COGSA. The applying party should present necessary certifications to provide his position.
The following section, the forth, discusses the theories and the trial practice of jurisdiction clauses of B/L in China, suggesting that the legal departments of China consider the practical links, the clear expressions, the justice factors and the international practice when they decide whether jurisdiction clauses of B/L are valid.
2
The conclusion summarizes the whole dissertation, and provides the fundamental way to settle the disputes of jurisdiction clauses of B/L.
但是，海事争议各不相同，所涉及的问题也有多种：提单管辖权问题在实践中也分为不同的情况，本文只能就司法实践中遇到的几个典型性问题进行讨论，主要包括：1)提单管辖权条款的效力及依据；2)当事人怎样依据提单管辖权条款保护自己的利益；3)对提单管辖权条款理论与实践的思考。分为三个部分：
一、引言；二、正文；三、结论。
引言主要介绍关于提单管辖权条款的司法现状，并引出本文将要讨论的主要问题。
正文部分分为四章。第一章主要介绍研究提单管辖权条款对海事管辖制度和海事审判实践的意义。提单管辖权条款涉及到案件在哪一国家得到处理，所以它不仅关系到案件适用的法律，也决定了案件程序上的问题怎样处理，从而对案件结果有着决定性的影响。
第二章和第三章是本文的重点部分。第二章从实践和理论分析了提单管辖权条款的性质和效力。鉴于提单本身的特殊性质，提单管辖权条款也不同于一般意义上的“协议管辖”，它只有在条款明确、清晰，并有证据证明是双方当事人的真实意思表示时，才够得上有“协议的效力”并得到承认。而提单管辖权条款的效力各国均没有明确的立法规定，取决于法院的自由裁量。但是法官行使自由裁量权时也要考虑到法律的强制性规定和社会公共秩序，同时要注意到提单管辖权条款的表现形式，只有在不违反法律的强制性规定和公共秩序，并有符合法律规定的表现形式时才能被裁定为有效，即法院对提单管辖权条款的接受。
第三章主要通过Sky Reefer一案的判决对提单管辖权条款的影响说明了法
院通常情况下会考虑到适用提单管辖权条款是否会减轻承运人的法定责任，以期
充分保护货主利益。在接受外国法院管辖时，他们可以保留自己的管辖权，只是
暂时中止诉讼，如果外国法院能够合理运用本国的法律，保障货主的利益，那么
就承认管辖权条款的效力;如果不能，就否定其效力。同时，若货主想撤销外国
法院选择条款，可以说服法官如果去外国诉讼或仲裁，托运人或收货人将无法获
得COGSA或《哈特法》提供的法律保护;法院必须调查清楚实际情况指明诉讼或
仲裁应在托运人或收货人选择的地点而不是提单规定的地点进行。寻求撤销外国
法院选择条款的当事人应全力收集必要的证据以取得法庭的支持。
第四章是对我国提单管辖权条款理论和实践的讨论，建议我国司法机关在考
虑提单管辖权条款效力时要考虑实际联系、表现形式明确以及公平合理等因素，
同时结合国际惯例和通行的实际做法，使我国的审判与国际接轨。
结论部分总结了全文的主要内容，并提出解决提单管辖权条款纠纷的根本措
施是事先预防。
This dissertation discusses mainly several legal issues about jurisdiction clauses of B/L arising from the international maritime cases frequently. A jurisdiction clause of B/L is an important clause in a bill of lading, which provides where the disputes of B/L should be settled. As we know, different countries and regions have different explanations to clauses of B/L, different utilizing of laws and different procedures of handling, and all these will effect the decisions of the cases, which mean a lot to both of the parties. So jurisdiction clauses of B/L are very important in maritime cases.
However, there are so many maritime disputes in practice, and there are so many kinds of issues involved; the issues about jurisdiction clauses of B/L are also varied, and this dissertation mainly discusses several typical issues in maritime trial practice including: 1) the validity of jurisdiction clauses of B/Land the basis to be valid; 2) both the parties of eases haw to protect the interests of himself on the basis of jurisdiction clauses of B/L; 3) thought about the theories and the trials on jurisdiction clauses of B/L.The whole dissertation consists of three parts: the introduction, the text and the conclusion.
The first part introduces the present conditions of the jurisdiction clauses of B/L, then recommends the main issues that will be discussed in this dissertation.
The main body comprises of four chapters. The first chapter briefs the meanness of the jurisdiction clauses of B/L to the maritime jurisdiction and the maritime trial. Jurisdiction clauses of B/L effect which country the maritime cases will be settled in, accordingly decide the governing laws and the settling
procedures, and finally influence the decisions of maritime cases.
This paper emphasizes the second chapter and the third chapter The second section analyzes the character and the validity of jurisdiction clauses of B/L. Because of the special nature of a B/L itself, jurisdiction clauses of B/L differ from common jurisdiction agreements. Only if they are clear and distinct, and can be proved to be the true mean of both parties, jurisdiction clauses of B/L can be called "agreements" and be accepted. There are no explicit laws ruling the validity of jurisdiction clauses of B/L in most countries. Their validity depends on the judgment of judges. When judges determine whether jurisdiction clauses of B/L are valid, they usually consider that jurisdiction clauses of B/L should conform to the obligatory prescriptions of laws and the society public policies. At the same time, the formation of jurisdiction clauses of B/L should meet the requires of laws.
The third chapter says, in order to protect the interests of owners of cargo, forums usually consider whether jurisdiction clauses of B/L will release the legal duty of carriers. When they accept jurisdiction clauses of B/L and the involved cases are settled in foreign countries, forums always retain their jurisdiction and just suspend the procedures. If the foreign forums use internal laws reasonably and protect the interests of owners of cargo, jurisdiction clauses of B/L will be accepted; if not, jurisdiction clauses of B/L will be rejected. At the same time, if owners of cargo attempt to avoid jurisdiction clauses of B/L, they may persuade judges that if cases are handled in foreign countries, they won't get the protection provided by laws such as the COGSA. The applying party should present necessary certifications to provide his position.
The following section, the forth, discusses the theories and the trial practice of jurisdiction clauses of B/L in China, suggesting that the legal departments of China consider the practical links, the clear expressions, the justice factors and the international practice when they decide whether jurisdiction clauses of B/L are valid.
2
The conclusion summarizes the whole dissertation, and provides the fundamental way to settle the disputes of jurisdiction clauses of B/L.
引文
1．李双元、谢石松．国际民事诉讼法概论．武汉：武汉大学出版社，1992．22-43
2．Grant Gilmore，CharleS L Black．海商法(上)(，杨召南、王君粹译，吴焕宁校)北京：中国大百科全书出版社，2000．57-74
3．韩德培．国际私法新论．武汉：武汉大学出版社，1997．49-58
4．最高人命法院民事审判第四庭编，万鄂湘主编．全国法院优秀涉外商事海事裁判文书选．北京：人民法院出版社，2002．219-224
5．乔欣、郭纪元．外国民事诉讼法．北京：人民法院出版社、中国社会科学出版社，2002．66-74
6．傅廷中．海商法律与实务从谈．大连：大连海事大学出版社，2001．193-199
7．邢海宝．海事诉讼特别程序法研究．北京：法律出版社，2002．56-84
8．William Tetley．国际沖突法：普通法、大陆法及海事法(，刘兴莉译，黄进校)．北京：法律出版社，2003．525-547
9．杨良宜．提单及其付运单证．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2001．342-352
10．王国华．海事国际私法研究．北京：法律出版社，1999．56-59
11．李守芹．海事诉讼与海商法．北京：人民法院出版社，1999．57-66
12．侯军．当代海事国际私法．上海：上海科学技术文献出版社，1990．78-94
13．李浩培．国际民事诉讼程序法概论．北京：法律出版社，1996．176-253
14．张茂．美国国际民事诉讼法．北京：中国政法大学出版社，1996．32-42
15．郭国汀．国际海商法律实务．大连：大连海事大学出版社，1996．178-194
16．朱清．海事诉讼与仲裁．大连：大连海事大学出版社，1996．76-89
17．张卫平、陈刚．法国民事诉讼法导论．北京：中国政法大学出版社，1997．87-103
18．白绿铉．日本新民事诉讼法．北京：中国法制出版社，2000．67-83
19．D. C. JACKSON. ENFORCEMENT OF MARITIME CLAIMS．第3版．伦敦劳氏出版社，2000．124-159
20．李玉泉．国际民事诉讼与国际商事仲裁．武汉：武汉大学出版社，1994．112-127
21．侯军、吕建．当代国际海事私法．北京：人民交通出版社，1992．32-55
22．李守芹、李洪积．中国的海事审判．北京：法律出版社，2002．43-62
23．徐卉．涉外民商事诉讼管辖权冲突研究．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2001．6-19
24．於世成、杨召南、汪淮江．海商法．北京：法律出版社，1997．121-122
1．郁志轰．美国对提单仲裁条款的立法趋势．中华法律网
2．谢振衔．提单仲裁条款的法理分析和司法实践．中国贸易新闻网
3．孟捷．英国法院关于管辖权条款争议的基本原则．法律行者之家网
4．ROY GOLDBERG. MAR SEGUROS诉M/V SKY RDDFER案后撤销外国法院管辖条款的尝试．中国海商法年刊，2000
5．GOVERT SMALLEGARGE (赵阳等译)．欧洲法律下的提单管辖权条款．中国海商法年刊，2000
6．李双元等．与国际私法有关的问题．中华法律教育网
7．张智勇、曾艳．浅议提单中的管辖权条款．最高人民法院网
8．高良臣．替代背面管辖权条款的法律效力．中国涉外海事审判网
9．规避中国法下提单中管辖权条款的理论与实践．第五届海商法国际研讨会论文集
1．中国海商法年刊1997年-2001年
2．中国海事审判年刊2000年-2001年
3．中国国际私法与比较法年刊2000年
4．人民司法2000年
5. Lloyd's Law Report 2003 Vo11,2003 Vol2,2004 Voll
6. Tulane Maritime Law Journal Vol27
7．AMC 1995年-2003年
8．美国判例汇编第407卷
2．Grant Gilmore，CharleS L Black．海商法(上)(，杨召南、王君粹译，吴焕宁校)北京：中国大百科全书出版社，2000．57-74
3．韩德培．国际私法新论．武汉：武汉大学出版社，1997．49-58
4．最高人命法院民事审判第四庭编，万鄂湘主编．全国法院优秀涉外商事海事裁判文书选．北京：人民法院出版社，2002．219-224
5．乔欣、郭纪元．外国民事诉讼法．北京：人民法院出版社、中国社会科学出版社，2002．66-74
6．傅廷中．海商法律与实务从谈．大连：大连海事大学出版社，2001．193-199
7．邢海宝．海事诉讼特别程序法研究．北京：法律出版社，2002．56-84
8．William Tetley．国际沖突法：普通法、大陆法及海事法(，刘兴莉译，黄进校)．北京：法律出版社，2003．525-547
9．杨良宜．提单及其付运单证．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2001．342-352
10．王国华．海事国际私法研究．北京：法律出版社，1999．56-59
11．李守芹．海事诉讼与海商法．北京：人民法院出版社，1999．57-66
12．侯军．当代海事国际私法．上海：上海科学技术文献出版社，1990．78-94
13．李浩培．国际民事诉讼程序法概论．北京：法律出版社，1996．176-253
14．张茂．美国国际民事诉讼法．北京：中国政法大学出版社，1996．32-42
15．郭国汀．国际海商法律实务．大连：大连海事大学出版社，1996．178-194
16．朱清．海事诉讼与仲裁．大连：大连海事大学出版社，1996．76-89
17．张卫平、陈刚．法国民事诉讼法导论．北京：中国政法大学出版社，1997．87-103
18．白绿铉．日本新民事诉讼法．北京：中国法制出版社，2000．67-83
19．D. C. JACKSON. ENFORCEMENT OF MARITIME CLAIMS．第3版．伦敦劳氏出版社，2000．124-159
20．李玉泉．国际民事诉讼与国际商事仲裁．武汉：武汉大学出版社，1994．112-127
21．侯军、吕建．当代国际海事私法．北京：人民交通出版社，1992．32-55
22．李守芹、李洪积．中国的海事审判．北京：法律出版社，2002．43-62
23．徐卉．涉外民商事诉讼管辖权冲突研究．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2001．6-19
24．於世成、杨召南、汪淮江．海商法．北京：法律出版社，1997．121-122
1．郁志轰．美国对提单仲裁条款的立法趋势．中华法律网
2．谢振衔．提单仲裁条款的法理分析和司法实践．中国贸易新闻网
3．孟捷．英国法院关于管辖权条款争议的基本原则．法律行者之家网
4．ROY GOLDBERG. MAR SEGUROS诉M/V SKY RDDFER案后撤销外国法院管辖条款的尝试．中国海商法年刊，2000
5．GOVERT SMALLEGARGE (赵阳等译)．欧洲法律下的提单管辖权条款．中国海商法年刊，2000
6．李双元等．与国际私法有关的问题．中华法律教育网
7．张智勇、曾艳．浅议提单中的管辖权条款．最高人民法院网
8．高良臣．替代背面管辖权条款的法律效力．中国涉外海事审判网
9．规避中国法下提单中管辖权条款的理论与实践．第五届海商法国际研讨会论文集
1．中国海商法年刊1997年-2001年
2．中国海事审判年刊2000年-2001年
3．中国国际私法与比较法年刊2000年
4．人民司法2000年
5. Lloyd's Law Report 2003 Vo11,2003 Vol2,2004 Voll
6. Tulane Maritime Law Journal Vol27
7．AMC 1995年-2003年
8．美国判例汇编第407卷