船舶优先权制度的法理解析
|
摘要
船舶优先权制度的产生、发展和演变过程,体现出了概念法学与现实主义法学的冲突和整合。本文力图通过历史分析和比较研究的方法,以概念法学和现实主义法学两种进路对船舶优先权制度下的各类规定予以法理上的解析。对船舶优先权这样一个自引进到中国直至今天都存在理论和实践争议的特殊制度,系统的法理解析是迫切需要弥补的空白。从概念法学和现实主义法学进路进行解析,为解决船舶优先权制度的诸多争议和完善相关立法、司法提供了新的视角。
论文包括八章：
第一章为绪论,阐明本文的选题意义、研究背景、研究内容、研究方法；梳理概念主义法学和现实主义法学的主要观点及其差异,以及对法律制度的影响。
第二章为船舶优先权起源的历史分析和法理分析,讨论了不同国家不同背景下船舶优先权制度的沿革以及各方面的影响因素,阐述了两种法理进路下关于船舶优先权性质的不同观点以及船舶优先权国际发展的法理整合进路。
第三章是针对船舶优先权的项目的制度比较和法理解析,通过比较不同国家法律在船舶优先权项目上的不同规定,研究了绝对列举和相对列举两种类型及其所体现的概念法学和现实主义法学的理论进路,探讨了这两种法理整合进路下船舶优先权项目的扩展可能与缩减趋势。
第四章是针对船舶优先权标的的制度比较和法理解析,阐释了船舶优先权标的制度分别体现概念法学和现实主义法学的两种倾向；通过立法比较,以法理视角对不同立法中关于运费、保险金、公务船舶等船舶优先权标的问题进行了解读,探讨了我国船舶优先权应予补充的标的。
第五章是针对船舶优先权顺位的制度比较和法理解析,在分析不同立法的基础上,对概念主义和现实主义进路下不同的顺位制度与理论形态进行了利弊比较,研究了可资借鉴之处；
第六章是针对船舶优先权消灭的制度比较和法理解析。对强制拍卖消灭制度中的不消灭说、准据法说、消灭说、特殊制度说、交易安全理论,以及行使期间消灭制度中的时效说、除斥期间说、区别说等进行了概念法学和现实主义法学的辨析。
第七章是针对船舶优先权准据法的制度比较和法理分析,对适用侵权行为地法、最密切联系地法、法院地法等冲突规范的法理进路进行了理论分析和实证研究。
第八章为结论,简要总结本文的主要观点并探讨船舶优先权制度的发展趋势。
The origin, development and the historical evolution of the legal system on Maritime Liens, reflects the conflict and the integration between the Conceptual Legal Dogmatics and the Legal Realism. Adopting the method of historical analysis and comparative research, this dissertation analyzes various provisions under the legal system of Maritime Liens in terms of Jurisprudence from the perspective of both theConceptual Legal Dogmatics and the Legal Realism. For the legal system of maritime lines, a theme for many disputations, a jurisprudencial analysis seems very necessary. An analysis from approaches of both Conceptual Legal Dogmatics and the Legal Realism, may very well provide a new viewpoint to solve the issues of maritime liens in both theory and practice.
This paper includes8chapters:-
The Chapter1is an introduction which clarifies the purpose for choosing this topic, the research background, research contents, research methods, and states briefly main viewpoints under theConceptual Legal Dogmatics and the Legal Realism and the effection thereof;
The Chapter2is a historical analysis and jurisprudential analysis on the origin of Maritime Liens, which examines the historical evolution of the Maritime Lien and the different views on the nature of the Maritime Lien under different backgrounds of different countries. The chpater also make clear that the integration of two approaches can be implied from the trend in international legislation on maritimes liens;
The Chapter3is a system comparison and jurisprudential analysis on the scope of the Maritime Liens, which analyzes the approaches of absolute enumerated lists and relative enumerated lists, and their jurisprudencial foundation. The chapter also makes an analysis of the development trend of this issue;
The Chapter4is a system comparison and jurisprudential analysis on the objects of the Maritime Liens, which explains the ship only concept system and extended ship realism on the objects of the maritime liens. The chapter tries to analyse some special objects, such as freight, insurance compensation, and ships for public affairs, and makes some suggestions to Chinese legislation.
The Chapter5is a system comparison and jurisprudential analysis on the ranking of the Maritime Liens, which makes a comparation between different ranking under different jurisprudencial approaches;
The Chapter6is a system comparison and jurisprudential analysis on the distinction of Maritime Liens, which makes anylasis of various theories about the distinction of Maritime liens;
The Chapter7is a system comparison and jurisprudential analysis on the conflict of laws issues in relation to the Maritime Liens, and makes an analysis of lex fori, lex loci delicti, and the principle of closest connection from the jurisprudencial approaches;
The Chapter8is a conclusion, which briefly summarizes the main views of this paper and discusses the development direction of the Maritime Lien.
论文包括八章：
第一章为绪论,阐明本文的选题意义、研究背景、研究内容、研究方法；梳理概念主义法学和现实主义法学的主要观点及其差异,以及对法律制度的影响。
第二章为船舶优先权起源的历史分析和法理分析,讨论了不同国家不同背景下船舶优先权制度的沿革以及各方面的影响因素,阐述了两种法理进路下关于船舶优先权性质的不同观点以及船舶优先权国际发展的法理整合进路。
第三章是针对船舶优先权的项目的制度比较和法理解析,通过比较不同国家法律在船舶优先权项目上的不同规定,研究了绝对列举和相对列举两种类型及其所体现的概念法学和现实主义法学的理论进路,探讨了这两种法理整合进路下船舶优先权项目的扩展可能与缩减趋势。
第四章是针对船舶优先权标的的制度比较和法理解析,阐释了船舶优先权标的制度分别体现概念法学和现实主义法学的两种倾向；通过立法比较,以法理视角对不同立法中关于运费、保险金、公务船舶等船舶优先权标的问题进行了解读,探讨了我国船舶优先权应予补充的标的。
第五章是针对船舶优先权顺位的制度比较和法理解析,在分析不同立法的基础上,对概念主义和现实主义进路下不同的顺位制度与理论形态进行了利弊比较,研究了可资借鉴之处；
第六章是针对船舶优先权消灭的制度比较和法理解析。对强制拍卖消灭制度中的不消灭说、准据法说、消灭说、特殊制度说、交易安全理论,以及行使期间消灭制度中的时效说、除斥期间说、区别说等进行了概念法学和现实主义法学的辨析。
第七章是针对船舶优先权准据法的制度比较和法理分析,对适用侵权行为地法、最密切联系地法、法院地法等冲突规范的法理进路进行了理论分析和实证研究。
第八章为结论,简要总结本文的主要观点并探讨船舶优先权制度的发展趋势。
The origin, development and the historical evolution of the legal system on Maritime Liens, reflects the conflict and the integration between the Conceptual Legal Dogmatics and the Legal Realism. Adopting the method of historical analysis and comparative research, this dissertation analyzes various provisions under the legal system of Maritime Liens in terms of Jurisprudence from the perspective of both theConceptual Legal Dogmatics and the Legal Realism. For the legal system of maritime lines, a theme for many disputations, a jurisprudencial analysis seems very necessary. An analysis from approaches of both Conceptual Legal Dogmatics and the Legal Realism, may very well provide a new viewpoint to solve the issues of maritime liens in both theory and practice.
This paper includes8chapters:-
The Chapter1is an introduction which clarifies the purpose for choosing this topic, the research background, research contents, research methods, and states briefly main viewpoints under theConceptual Legal Dogmatics and the Legal Realism and the effection thereof;
The Chapter2is a historical analysis and jurisprudential analysis on the origin of Maritime Liens, which examines the historical evolution of the Maritime Lien and the different views on the nature of the Maritime Lien under different backgrounds of different countries. The chpater also make clear that the integration of two approaches can be implied from the trend in international legislation on maritimes liens;
The Chapter3is a system comparison and jurisprudential analysis on the scope of the Maritime Liens, which analyzes the approaches of absolute enumerated lists and relative enumerated lists, and their jurisprudencial foundation. The chapter also makes an analysis of the development trend of this issue;
The Chapter4is a system comparison and jurisprudential analysis on the objects of the Maritime Liens, which explains the ship only concept system and extended ship realism on the objects of the maritime liens. The chapter tries to analyse some special objects, such as freight, insurance compensation, and ships for public affairs, and makes some suggestions to Chinese legislation.
The Chapter5is a system comparison and jurisprudential analysis on the ranking of the Maritime Liens, which makes a comparation between different ranking under different jurisprudencial approaches;
The Chapter6is a system comparison and jurisprudential analysis on the distinction of Maritime Liens, which makes anylasis of various theories about the distinction of Maritime liens;
The Chapter7is a system comparison and jurisprudential analysis on the conflict of laws issues in relation to the Maritime Liens, and makes an analysis of lex fori, lex loci delicti, and the principle of closest connection from the jurisprudencial approaches;
The Chapter8is a conclusion, which briefly summarizes the main views of this paper and discusses the development direction of the Maritime Lien.
引文
1霍姆斯的名著《普通法》在讨论法律成长时以对物诉讼和船舶优先权为例进行过论述。
2梁慧星.民法解释学.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005：61.
3伯恩·魏德士著,丁小奋.吴越译.法理学.北京：法律出版社、2003：209.
4梁慧星.民法解释学.北京：中国政法大学出版社.2005：57.
5刘翀.现实主义法学的批判与建构.法律科学.2009(5)：14.
6张娟.什么是法律现实主义.西南政法大学学报.2010(5)以及冯玉军.当代美国法律思想的演进谱系.法学家,2007(6).
7 David Brice Toy,Introduction to the Law of Maritime Liens.47 Tulane Law Review,1972-1973:559.
8 D.R. Thomas在其Maritime Liens一书中将船舶优先权的起源理论分为三类,即拟人化说、程序说和冲突说。很多国内相关的论述也都遵循了这种分类。但是从他的论述中可以看出,这三种学说与其说是探讨船舶优先权的起源,还不如说足在分析船舶优先权的性质或者法理基础更为准确。见D.R. Thomas, Maritime Liens.London:Stevens & Sons, Ltd,1980:6-9类似的论述还见Paul Macarius Hebert, The Origin and Nature of the Maritime Liens.4 Tulane Law Review,1929-1930:381.
9 William Tetley, Maritime Lien and Claims.Intel Shipping Pubns,1985:1.
10[美]G·吉尔摩,[美]C·布莱克著,杨召南等译.海商法.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,2000：796-800.又见Ivon d'Almeida Pires Filho, Comparative Maritime Liens:Anglo and Latin Based Law in theAmericas.9 Mar. Law,1984:245.
11至少英国人自己是这么认为的。可f参见Edward F. Ryan, Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien:an Historical Perspective.7 Western Ontario Law Review,1968:173.
12:W illiam Tetley,Maritime Lien and Claims.lntel Shipping Pubns.1985:11.
13 Oliver Wendell Holmes. Jr.The Common Law(New Edition by Mark De Wolfe Howe) London:Macmillan. 1985:24-29.
14G吉尔摩,C布菜克.海商法.北京：中国大百科全书出版社.2000：801-802.
15 Paul Vrinogradoff, Roman Law in Medieval Europe. London:Harper & Brothers,1909:118.转引自Edward F. Ryan. Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien:an Historical Perspective.7 Western Ontario Law Review,173. 1968:190.
16何建华编著.1993年船舶优先权和抵押权国际公约释义,北京：人民交通出版社.1997.
17张乃根：西方法哲学史纲.北京：中国政法大学出版社.2008：6.
18本文将以93年公约所建立的体系作为现代船舶优先权制度的代表。
19参见徐新铭.船舶优先权.大连：大连海事大学出版社,1995：1：又见：曹艳芝.优先权论.长沙：湖南人民出版社.2005：247.
20汪鹏南.海上保险合同法详论.大连：大连海事大学出版社,1996：14.另参见Bryan A.Garner,Black's Law Dictionary,7th ed. West Group,1999:1050.
21该抵押权的实现需要以航次的成功完成为条件。如果从船货冒险抵押贷款中如果船货灭火则债务也随之消灭这一制度来看,冒险抵押贷款可能还是海事赔偿责任限制的最初形式。
22林群弼著.海商法论.台北：三民书局,2003：18.
23汪鹏南.海上保险合同法详论.大连：大连海事大学出版.1996：14
24 W.R.Fisher.Fisher & Lightwood's Law of Mortgage.London:Butterworth & Co.Ltd.,1988:111.
25 W illiam Tetley. Maritime Lien and Claims.Intel Shipping Pubns.1985:3.
6有关船舶优先权(在法国商法典中是maritime privilege)的规定在该法典第190-196条。
27 John Rodman. The Commercial Code of France with The Motives.C. Wiley, Printer,1814:150-154.
28 Tetley前引书第11页称耶路撒冷的古代海商法典Assises中有关于共同海损作为优先权的规定,并指出该法典与奥列隆海法集有密切的联系,但我们可以看到在法国商法典中的maritime privilege却不包括共同海损、海难救助等债权。
29 Thomas Grey,Langdells' Orthodoxy,45 University of Pittsburgh Law Review,1983.
30见张辉.船舶优先权法律制度研究.武汉：武汉大学出版社,2005：12.
31特生.疑云满楼的船舶优先权问题及其解决途径(一).法令月刊.1986(12)：3-7：张特生.疑云满楼的船舶优先权问题及其解决途径(二).法令月刊,1987(1)：3-8.
32汪杰.论优先请求权的法律性质和法律适用.北京：学术书刑出版社,1989：144.
33 D. R. Thomas. Maritime Liens.British Shipping Laws Vol.14.London:Stevens and Sons.1980:6-9.
34 Paul Macarius Hebert, The Origin and Nature of Maritime Liens. Tulane Law Review,1930(4):38.
35 Coke. On Littleton.6ed.1664:260转引自Lionel H Laing. Historic Origins of Admiralty Jurisdiction in England. Michigan Law Review,1946-1947:163.
36 Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard. Modern Admiralty Law.2001:5.同样见 Lionel H Laing, Historic Origins of Admiralty Jurisdiction in England.Michigan Law Review,1946-1947:163-165.
37在该战役中,100条船的英国人击败了250条船的法国人,英国人因此得到了多佛尔海峡的控制权。
38 Lionel H Laing, Historic Origins of Admiralty Jurisdiction in England.Michigan Law Review,1946-1947:165-167.
39 Edward F. Ryan, Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien:An Historical Perspective.7 W.Ontario L. Rev.173. 1968:173.
40意指国王特许可以违反法律的特权。
41 Edward F. Ryan. Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien:An Historical Perspective.7 W.Ontario L. Rev. 173.1968:178.
42 Edward F. Ryan. Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien:An Historical Perspective.7 W.Ontario L. Rev. 173.1968:183.
43 Jan M. Sandstrom.The changing international concept of the maritime lien as s securty right. Tulane. Law. Revie\ 1972-1973 (47):682.
44 Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard. Modern Admiralty Law. London:Cavendish Publishing Limited.2001:6.
45 Edward F. Rvan. Admiraltv Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien:An Historical Perspective.7 W.Ontario L. Re 173.1968:190.
46陈朝壁.罗马法原理.北京：法律出版社.2006：552.
47 18 Fed. Cas.9 No.10,126.该案的判决首度出现了maritime lien的字样,虽然它似乎并不是作为一个特定的概念出现的。
48 Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard, Modern Admiralty Law. London:Cavendish Publishing Limited.2001:22.
49何建华编著.1993年船舶优先权和抵押权国际公约释义.北京：人民交通出版社,1997.
50该公约第二条。
51 John M.Krizia.Ship Mortgages,Maritime Liens,and Their Enforeement:The Brussels Conventions of 1926 and 1952.DL1952,Duke Review.1963:674-675.
52 John M.Kroz,Ship Mortgages,Maritime Licns,and Their Enforcement:The Brussels Conventions of 1926 and 1952.Duke L.J.1963(12):671:Duke L.J.1964(1964):70.
53船舳优先权不依协议而成立(right in dependent of agreement),而为法定享有之对物权利(right in rem)参见D. R. Thomas. Maritime Liens.British Shipping Laws Vol.14,London:Stevens and Sons,1980:30-32.
54 G. Price. The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet and Maxwell Ltd.,1940:172.
55参见赖来焜.海事国际私法中船舶优先权研究：(博士论文)台湾：国立政治大学法律研究所.1992：63.
56值得注意的是,日本于昭和50年对优先权项目进行缩减。
57参见赖来焜.海事国际私法中船舶优先权研究：(博士论文).台湾：国立政治大学法律研究所.1992：64.
58梁宇贤.海商法.台北：三民书局.1987：232-246.
59 Captain L.F.H. Stanton, The Law and Practice of Sea Transport基隆：龙玺出版社.1978：229-230.
60 Lord and Glenn, The Foreign Ship Mortgage.56 Yale Law J.1947:923-939.
61条文原文为：An y person furnishing repairs, supplies, towage, use of dry dock or marine railway or other necessaries, to any vessel, whether foreign or domestic,upon the order of the owner of such vessel, or of a person authorized by the owner, shall have a maritime lien on the vessel, which may be enforced by suit in rem, and it shall not be necessary to allege or prove that credit was given to the vessel."
62 Foreign Ship Mortgage Act.1954,46 U.S.C § 951:The difficult Quest for a Uniform Maritime Law:Failure of the Brussels Convention to Achieve International Agreement on Collision Liability, Liens and Mortgage.64 Yale Law.J.. 1955:878-901.
63 G. Gilmore.C. Jr. Black. The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn, The Foundation Press,1975:627-632.
64 D. R. Thomas. Maritime Liens. British Shipping Laws (Vol.14). London:Sweet & Maxwell,1980:325.
65 The Maharaj Nagendra Singh, International Maritime Law Conventions. British Shipping Laws, Vol.4.London: Stevens and Sons.1983:3053-3059.
66条约第2条原文：The following give rise to maritime liens on a vessel, on the freight for the voyage during which the claim giving rise to the lien arises, and on the accessories of the vessel and freight accrued since the commencement of the voyage;
69美国在1925年开会时即称无法接受公约草案,1926年会议也未参加,且因其不参加,公约恢复至1913年会议态度,并删除之前的第六项载货证券优先权。因此,美国规定与1926年公约不同,而台湾则参照了该公约的大部分规定。参见G. Price, The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.,1940:172.G. Price, The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet and Maxwell Ltd.,1940:231-234.
70陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士论文).台北：台湾大学,1983：82-83.
71台湾学者对于“其期间未满一年者”如何适用,有四种观点：(1)系指未满一年的薪资总额,见施智谋.海商法.台北：自版,1979(10)：37；(2)系指雇佣契约所定雇佣期间,见台湾“最高法院”五十八年台上4002号判决及台湾高等法院四十三年三月二十日令赎公字第5504号令；(3)系指最近未满一年之薪资债权而言,见杨仁寿.海商法,航运法律之三.台北:自版.1986(2)：77；梁宇贤.论海商法上之优先权.中华法学1984(20)：239；(4)系指自发生之日起期间未满一年,见何佐治.海商法释义.台北：自版.1962：117。
72张展芳：船舶优先权与抵押权研究：(硕士论文).台湾：国立海洋大学,1982：49.
73 United States v. Certain Subfreights Due S.S. Neponset,300 F.981.987.1924 A.M.C.726.734 (D. Mass.l 924), rev'd on other grounds sub nom.; Luckenback v. Pearce,212 F.388(5th Cir 1924).
74 92e d Congress. Public Law. No.92-576.86 Stat.1251(1972).
75陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士论文).台湾：台湾大学.1983：66.
76 The Act of June 23,1910, C373.36 Stat. at L.604:The Merchant Marine Act of June 5,1920.C.250,41 Stat.At L.988.1005,as Subsections P.Q.R.S. And T. of S.30.
77 The General S mith.17 U.S.(4 Wheat) 438 (1819):The St. Jago de Cuba,22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 409,417(1824);The J. E. Rumbell.148 U.S.1,11-12(1983).
78 The River Queen, A.M.C.79,8 F.(2nd) 426 (E.D.Va.1925).
79甘其绶.船舶优先权之研究.交通资料月刊,1963(5)：5.
80张展芳：船舶优先权与抵押权研究：(硕士论文).台湾：国立海洋大学.1982：117.
81 60 U.S (19 How) 82,89 (1857) "But this privilege or lien, though adhering to the vessel, is a secret one:it may operate to the prejudice of general creditors and purchaser without notice; it is therefore 'stricti juris', and connot he extended by construction, analogy or inference ".See G. Gilmore, C. Jr. Black, The Law of Admiralty.New York: Brooklyn, The Foundation Press,1975:519.
82公约第四条The following clai ms shall be secured by maritime liens on the vessel......"及公约第七条’1. The maritime liens set out in Article 4 arise whether the claims secured by such liens are against the owner or against the demise or other charterer, manager or operator of the vessel;2. Subject to the provisions of Article 11, the maritime liens securing the claims set out in Article 4 follow the vessel notwithstanding any change of ownership or of registration."
84田中诚二.海商法详论.东京：劲草书房.1985(6)：569-573.
85 D. R. Thomas. Maritime Liens. British Shipping Laws Vol. 14.London:Stevens and Sons,1980:225-227:278-290, 382-383:"The cargo is not subject to the lien, but may be arrested to compel the payment into Court of freight due to the shipowner."
86 G. Price. The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet and Maxwell Ltd.,1940:38-40.
87 G. Price. The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet and Maxwell Ltd.,1940):149-152:Nicholas.J. Heal. Brainerd Curric.Cases and Materials on Admiralty.St. Paul Minn:West Publishing Co.,1977:221-227.
88施智谋.海商法.台北：自版.1979(10)：339.
89 Conventi on on the High Seas (April 29.1958),Article 9.
90 The P orto Alexandre,(1920),32 T.L.R.519.
91 The Parlement Beige, See Robert Chorley and Giles, Shipping Law (London:Pitman Publishing 6th ed;1970) p37.
92 Compania Naviera Vassongaoa v. SS.Cristina, (1938) A.C.485.
93陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士论文),台湾：台湾大学,1983：73.
94 G. Price, The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet and Maxwell Ltd.,1940:26.
95肯定说的代表作见：杨仁寿.海商法.航运法律之三.台北：自版.1986(2)：6-8.
96否定说的代表者如施智谋先生及梁宇贤先生。
97折衷说的代表者如张东亮先生。
8 Felix Cohen.Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach.35 Columbia Law Review,1935.
99参见赖来焜.海事国际私法中船舶优先权研究：(博士论文).台湾：国立政治大学法律研究所.1992：63.
100公约第十条原文：A lien on freight may be enforced so long as the freight is still due or the amount of the freight is still in the hands of the master or the agent of the owner. The same principle applies to a lien on accessories.
101如施智谋.海商法.台北：自版,1979(10)：340；杨仁寿.海商法,航运法律之三.台北：自版,1986(2)：81；张特生.疑云满楼的船舶优先权问题及其解决途径(二).法令月刊1987(1)：3-8.
102如刘承汉.论船舶优先权及抵押权.交通建设1970(12)：34.
103梁宇贤.海商法.台北：三民书局.1987：252.
104如陈显娃荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士论文).台湾：台湾大学,1983：104.
105沈潮江.船舶保险金能否为优先权之标的.台湾jd法通讯,1973：613.
106持肯定说的,除沈潮江先生外,还有刘承汉、何佐治、吴智、郑玉波等学者。
107如陈计男.论船舶优先权.法学从刊.1971(4)：68.
1081926年公约第4条第3款原文：1Payments made or due to the owner on policies of insurance, as well as bounties subventions, and other national subsidies are not deemed to be accessories of the vessel or of the freight.
109 A.M.Bright Grocery Co. V. Lindsey, (1915).225 F.257 (S.. D.Ala)
110日本持肯定说的学者如原茂太一,见原茂太一.海商法.东京：千仓书房,昭和和六十三年九月全订十五版：284-285；持否定说的学者如西岛弥太郎,参见：西岛弥太郎.海商法要论.昭和六年：183.
111见台湾“司法院”公报.1972(3)：7.
112陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士学位论文).台湾：台湾六学.1983：112.
113陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士学位论文).台湾：台湾六学,1983：112.
114《海商法》第二十四条,此项非船舶优先权项目,但其清偿顺序符合国际通行作法。
115《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
116《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
117《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
118《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
119《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
120《海商法》第二十五条。
121《海商法》第二十五条。
122《海商法》第二十五条。
123见《最高人民法院关于海事法院拍卖被扣押船舶清偿债务的规定》第三条第(三)项第二款。
124《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
125《海商法》第二十三条第二款。
126《海商法》第二十三条第二款。
127台湾学者关于优先权之顺位与效力的著作参见黄茂清.论海上优先权项目及位次.台六法学论从.1975(4)：297-324.
128 The Cou ntess [1923] A.C.345.
129 The S tream Fisher [I926].26 LI. L. Rep.4.
130 The Veritas[1901]p. 304.
131 The Russland [1924] p. 55.
132 The Mons [1932] p. 109.
133 The Mons [1932]p. 109.
134 The Mons [1932] p. 109.
135 Curie v. M'Knight [1897] A.C.97; The Veritas [1901] p. 304;The Aline [1839] Ⅰ W,Rob.Ⅲ.
136 The Elin [1882] 8 P.D. 39: The Inna [1938] p. 148.
137 The Aline [1839] Ⅰ W.Rob. Ⅲ.
138 The Linda Flor [1867] Swab. 309; The Chimera [1852]11 L.T.113.
139 The Inna [193]|p. 148: The Longford [1889] 14P.D.34.
140 The Selina [1842] 2 Not. Cas. 18.
141 Car go ex Galam [1863] B. &l. 167.181.
142 The Veritas [1901] p. 304.
143 The Veritas[1901]p.304.
144 The Lyrma (No.2)[1978] 2 Lloyd's Rep.30.
145 The Lyrma (No.2)[1978] 2 Lloyd's Rep.30.
146 The Selina [1842] 2 Not. Cas.18.
147 ATT.-Gen. V. Norstedt [1816] 3 Price 97,136.
148 The Salacia [1862] Lush.545;The Athena [1921] 8 L1. L.R.482; The Mons [1932] p.109.
149 The Mado nna D'Idra [1811]1 Dods.37.
150 The Mary Ann [1845]9 Jur 94; The Hope [1873]1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas.563.
151 The Janathan Good hue [1859] Swab.524.
152 G. Gilmore.C. Jr. Black, The Law of Admiralty.New York; Brooklyn, The Foundation Press,1975:627-633.
153 Com ment,Developments in the law of Maritime Liens.45 Tul L. Rev,1970:574.
54 Con or,Maritime Lien Priorities:Cross-Currents of Theory.54 Michigan Law Review.1956:786.
55 G.Gilmore,C.Jr.Black.The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn,The Foundation Press,1975:615-616
156公约第3条原文：The mortgages, hypothecations, and other charges on vessels referred to in Article 1 rank immediately after the secured claims referred to in the preceding Article. National laws may grant a lien in respect of claims other than those referred to in the said last-mentioned Article, so. however, as not to modify the ranking of claims secured by mortgages, hypothecations, and other similar charges, or by the liens taking precedence thereof.公约第5条原文：Claims secured by a lien and relating to the same voyage rank in the order in which they are set out in Article 2. Claims included under any one heading share concurrently and rateably in the event of the fund available being insufficient to pay the claims in full. The claims mentioned under Nos.3 and 5 in that Article rank, in each of the two categories, in the inverse order of the dates on which they came into existence. Claims arising from one and the same occurrence are deemed to have come into existence at the same time.
18吴智.海商法论(第4版).台北：三民书局股份有限公司.1976：57.
19王效文.商事法要义.上海：上海吕明书屋,1948：167.
160郑玉波.海商法，台北：三民书局，1983：25.
161郑洋一.银行对海上优先权与抵押权竞合之实行问题的探究.彰银资料,1973(3)：15-16.
1162 The City of Tawas,3 F.170(E.D.Mich.1880):The De Smet,10 F.483(E.D.La.1881):The Guilding Star,18 F.263 (S.D.Ohio 1883):Bogart v.The John Jay,58 U.S.(17 How.)339(1854).
.163 G yory,Security at Sea:A Review of the Preferred Ship Mortgage.Ford.L.Rev(1962-1963(31):231.
164涂学明.船舶担保物权之研究：(硕士论文).台北：台湾六学.1970.刊载于法学专刊1974(4)：58.
165钱文颖.论法律上优先权的适用顺序.法令月刊.1978(12)：18.
166《海商法》第二十五条。
167见1993年船舶优先权和抵押权国际公约》第5条第1项。
168 The Benwell Tower 72 L.P.664.
169 D.C.Ja ckson. Enforcement Of Maritime Claims.2nd Edition.London:Lloyd's Of London Press,1996:500.
170见Halcyon Isle (1981)AC.221;The Shizelle (1992)2 Lloyd's Rep.445.
171参见于海涌著.船舶抵押权法律效力问题研究.收录于梁慧星主编.民商法论從第九卷.北京：法律出版社.1998(1)：562.
172石井照久.海商法(法律性全集30).东京：有裴阁.昭和49年：136.
173黄文滨.海商法优先权之研究：(硕士论文).台北：政治大学.1971.刊载于法学丛刊.1972(3)：29.
174涂学明.船舶担保物权之研究：(硕士论文).台北：台湾大学.1970.刊载于法学专刊.1974(4)：55-56.
175施智谋.海商法.1968：344.
176[1924],130 L.T.763.
177刘承汉.论船舶优先权及抵押权.海商法论译从编.1971：240.
18涂学明.船舶担保物权之研究：(硕士论文).台北：台湾六学,1970.刊载于法学专刊,1974(4)：55-56.
179见The Africano (1894) P.141; McGuffie. Admiralty Practice.British Shipping Laws. Stevens & Sons,1964:71.
180最高人民法院《关于海事法院诉讼前扣押船舶的规定》第二条第(一)至第(二十)项。
181最高人民法院《关于海事法院诉讼前扣押船舶的规定》第二条第(一)至第(三)项。
182 (1964)1 Lloyd's Rep.384.
183《海商法》第二十五条。
184具体可参加本文第69页。
185 (1924) P.55.
186 (1903)P.26.
187也参见The Gustaf (1862) Lush 506; The Immacolata Concezione (1883) 9 P.37.
188见《海商法》第二十五条。
189 (1980) 3 All E.R.197.
190见The Lyons (1887) L.T.818.
191 The Right Hon ourablc Lord MacKay of Clashfern.Halshury's Laws Of England,4th Edition. London: LexisNexis Butterworths Reissue. 1973-1997:1279-1280;The Lymia (No.2)(1978) 2 Lloyd's Rep.30.
192 D.C.Jackson. E nforcement Of Maritime Claims.London:I,loyd"s of London PressI.td..2005:501-503.
193 The Sea Spray (1907) P. 133.
194 The Hlope(1873) 1 Asp. MLC.(563).
195 The Inna(1938) P. 148.
196 The Veritas (1901 )P. 304.
197 Currie V.M1 Knight (1897) A.C.97.
198 The Daring (18 68) L.R. 2A.D.260.
199 The Veritas (1901)P.304.
200 The Royal Wells (1984) 2 Lloyd's Law Rep.255.
201 The L yrma (No.2) 1978 2 Lloyd's Rep.30.
202 The Two Ellens (1872) L.R.4 P.C.161.
203 The S tream Fisher (1927) P.73.
204 The Leoborg (No.2)(1964) 1 Lloyd's Rep.380.
205 The Tergeste (1903) P.26.
206 The Royal Wells (1984) 2 Lloyd's Law Rep.255.
207 William Tetley,Maritime Lien and Claims.Intel Shipping Pubns,1985:27-28.
208 46 U.S.C.A.S.31341-31343.
209 Bogart v.The John Jay(S.C.t.1854).
210 G.Gilmore.C.Jr.Black.The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn.The Foundation Press.1975:362
211 46 U.S.C.911-984,Chapter 313. Commercial Instruments And Maritime Liens.p.302.
212 46 U.S.C.A.S.31301(5),31326(b)1.
213 G. Gilmore.C. Jr. Black, The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn. The Foundation Press,1975:751-757;Ship Mortgage Act,1920 Section 953 (a).
214 G. Gilmore,C. Jr. Black, The Law ofAdmiralty New York:Brooklyn, The Foundation Press,1975:756.
215 G. Gilmore.C. Jr. Black. The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn, The Foundation Press.1975:735-736:Ship Mortgage Act,1920:753:Section 953 (a).
216 Oil S hipping V. Sonmez Benizcilik Be Ticaret A. F. (3d)Cir (1993).
217 G. Gilmore.C. Jr. Black, The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn. The Foundation Press,1975:733.
218 Frank L. Maraist, Admiralty In A Nutshell.3rd Edition.St. Paul Minn:West Publishing Co.,1996:98-101.
219 G. Gilmore,C. Jr. Black. The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn, The Foundation Press,1975:751-753.
220 G. Gilmore,C. Jr. Black, The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn, The Foundation Press,1975:743-745.
221 National Shawmut Bank of Boston V. The Winlhrop, D. Mass,1955.
222《海商法》第三十条规定：“本节规定不影响本法第十一章关于海事赔偿责任限制规定的实施。”
223梁慧星主编.邓瑞平著.船舶侵权行为法基础理论问题研究.北京：法律出版社.1999(9)：45-46.
224 The Bra mley Moore (1964)1 All ER 105.
225陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士论文).台湾：台湾大学.1983：120.
226 Roger G. Connor, Maritime Lien Priorities:Cross-Currents of Theory.Michigan Law Review,1956:777.
227陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士论文).台湾：台湾大学,1983：121.
228也见The Young Mechanic,Fed.Cas.No.18.180.876(1855).
229 Richard E. Burke, op.cit., p.275黄茂清.论海上优先权之项目及位次.台大法学论从.1975(4)：315-316.
230见The J.W.Tucker(D.C.W.Y.1884)20 F.129.
231《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
232《海商法》第二十三条第二款。
233郑戈著.法律与现代人的命运：马克斯·韦伯法律思想研究导论.北京：法律出版社,2006(3):181
234 Felix Cohen,Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach.Columbia Law Review,1935:35.
235《海商法》第二十二条。
236《海商法》第二十四条。
237见The Mons(1932)P.109.
238中国《海商法》第二十三条也确认了这一原则。第二十三条第一款规定第(四)项,即海难救助的救助款项的给付请求,后十第(一)项至第(三)项发生的,应当先于第(一)至第(三)项受偿。
239 G. Gilmore,C. Jr. Black, The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn, The Foundation Press,1975:652-653.
240见The Veritas(1901)R304:The Lyrma (No.2)(1978)2 Lloyd's Rcp.30.
41 The Paragon (D.C.Me.1836) Fed.Cas.No.10,708.
12英国判例The Madonna D'Idra(1811)1 Dods 37.
243《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
244 The F.H.Stanwood(7th Cir. 1892)49F.577.
245 (1978)2 Lloyd's Rep,30.
246《海商法》第二十三条第二款。
247《海商法》第二二十三条第一款。
248 The L yrma (No.2) (1978)Lloyd's Law Reports 30.
249《海商法》第二十二条第(二)项。
250《海商法》第二十二条第(五)项
251 The John G, Stevens,170 U.S.113,18,S.Ct.544(1898).
252见The Aline (1893)W. Rob.111.
253《海商法》第二十二条第(三)项。
254见英国的Harbors, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 《1847年海港、船坞、码头条例法》,及Port Of LondonAct,1968《1968年伦敦海港法》；The Freightline One,(1998) Llyod's Rep.266.
255《海商法》第二十三条第二款。
256见《1993年船舶优先权和抵押权国际公约》第5条第3项。
257 Roger G. Connor, Maritime Lien Priorities:Cross-Currents of Theory.Michigan Law Review1956:777.
258《海商法》第二十九条第(一)项。
259《海商法》第二十六条。
260一些国家如英国,特别立法规定对此类债务,港口当局对船舶具有滞留权及处分权,包括拍卖权。法院要扣船时,港口当局也可拒不放弃占有,但如果占有权权转移给法院,相应的债务可首先受偿,并比所有的船舶优先权优先受偿。所以这被称为“最高优先请求仪”(Claims of Paramount Priority),或“特别法定权”(Special Legislative Rights);见D.R.Thomas. Maritime Liens. London:Sievens A Sons. Lid. 1980:231; William Tetley. Maritime Lien and Claims.Intel Shipping Pubns.1985:42.
261 William Tetlcy. Maritime Lien and Claims.Intel Shipping Pubns. 1985:392.
262 Halsburv's Laws Of E:ngland.4th Editon.Reissue,Vol.43(2).1997:1279-1280.
263 G. Gilmore,C. Jr. Black. The Law of Admiralty .New York: Brooklyn. The Foundation Press. 1975.该书第737页指出：“法院的自由裁量权的权力范围比任何学说上的原则都大,但这些原则多已过时且不通用。”
264《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
265《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
266 Carrier, Maritime Lien For Damage.Columbia Law Review,1903:369-378.
267 The Aline(1893)W. Rob.11.
268钱国成.破产法要义.台北：三民书局.1968：133-138.
59 The Royal Arch (1857) 30 L.T.198.
270 Oliver Wendell Holmes.The Path of the Law.10Harvard Law Review,1897.
271 The Feronia(1868)17 L.T.619.
272 The P ickaninny(1960)1 Lloyd's Rep.533.
273参见赖来焜.海事国际私法中船舶优先权研究：(博士论文).台湾：国立政治大学法律研究所.1992：96-97.
274原茂太一.海商法.东京：千仓书房,昭和六十三年九月全订订十五版：288-289.
275 HaWgood and Auery Transit Co.V.Dingman.94 F. 1011(1899):D.R.Thomas,Maritime Liens.London:Stevens & Sons,Ltd,1980:63-65.
276 D.R. Thomas. Maritime Liens.London:Stevens & Sons. Ltd.1980:502-529.
277 D.R. Thomas. Maritime Liens London:Stevens & Sons. Ltd.1980-528-529.
278 Frank G. Harmon.Discharge and Waiver of Maritime Liens.47 Tulane Law Review.1973:786.
279 G. Price. The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet and Maxwell Ltd.,1940:168-171.
280公约第9条原文：The liens cease to exist, apart from other cases provided for by national laws, at the expiration ol one year. and. in the case of hens for supplies mentioned in No.5 of Article 2. shall contmue in force for not more than six months. As respects the cases provided for in the national laws in which a lien is extinguished, a sale shall extinguish a lien only if accompanied by formalities of publicity which shall be laid down by the national laws.
281公约第8条第一款原文：The maritime liens set out in Article 4 shall be extinguished after a period of one year from the time when the claims secured thereby arose unless, prior to the expiry of such period, the vessel has been arrested, such arrest leading to a forced sale.第11条第一款原文：In the event of the forced sale of the vessel in a Contracting State all mortgages and "hypothques". except those assumed by the purchaser with the consent of the holders, and all liens and other encumbrances of whatsoever nature shall cease to attach to the vessel, provided however that: (a) at the time of the sale, the vessel is in the jurisdiction of such Contracting State, and (b) the sale has been effected in accordance with the law of the said State and the provisions of this Convention.
2如房阿生.船舶优先权之研究：(硕士论文).台中：国立中兴大学,1971：30.
3涂学明.船舶担保物权之研究：(硕士论文).台北：台湾大学.1970.刊载于法学专刊.1974(4)：41-44页。
284陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士论文).台湾：台湾大学,1983年：155-158.
285 Felix Cohen,Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach,35 Columbia Law Review, 1935.
286参见甘其绶.船舶优先权之研究.交通资料月刊.1963(5)：115.
287见杨仁寿.海商法，航运法律之三.台北：自版,1986(2)：91.
288沈茂树.船舶优先权法律制度研究：(博市论文).北京：北京大学.2000:198
289例如《海商法》第273条规定：“船舶碰撞的损害赔偿,适用侵权行为地法律。船舶在公海上发生碰撞的损害赔偿,适用受理案件的法院所在地法律。同一国藉的船舶,不论碰撞发生于何地,碰撞船舶之间的损害赔偿适用船旗国法律。”
290 (1971) 1 W.L.R.1176.
291 D.C.Jackson,Enforccmcnt of Maritime Claims,2nd Edition.London:Lloyd's London Press 1996:588-592.
292 Phillips V. Eyre (1870) 22 L.T.869.
293 (1868) 16 E.R.514.
294英国《1993年引航法》规定：“船舶所有人必须为引航员的过错负责任”,这一规定修改了原又的船舶所有人不需负责任的规定。
295 Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995.
296 (1999)3 All ER.749.
297 34 5 U.S.571, (1953).
298 William Tetley, Maritime Lien and Claims.Intel Shipping Pubns,1985:527-528.
299见丁伟主编.冲突法论.北京：法律出版社.1996(9)：206-209.
300见《中华人民其和国民法通则》第146条第二款。
301沈茂树.船舶优先权法律制度研究：(博士论文).北京：北京大学.2000：202.
302 D. R. Thomas, Maritime Liens.British Shipping Laws Vol.14.London:Stevens and Sons.1980:317转引自：沈茂树.船舶优先权法律制度研究：(博士论文).北京：北京大学.2000：202.
303(1958)3 1 p.42.
304详见《海商法》第269条“合同当事人可以选择台同适用的法律,法律另有规定的除外。合同当事人没有选择的,适用‘与合同有最密切联系的国家的法律。”
305 Oliver Wendell Holmes.The Path of the Law.10 Harvard Law Review.1897.
306 Oliver Wendell Holmes,The Path of the Law,10 Harvard Law Review,1897.
307见司玉琢,吴兆麟.船舶碰撞法.大连：大连海事大学出版社.1995(5)：318.该书指出：“许多国家的法律的国际私法的冲突规则都包含了最密切联系原则。”
308 D. R. Thomas, Maritime Liens.British Shipping Laws Vol. H.London:Stevens and Sons,1980:318.
309见1910年《关于统一海上救助若干法律规则的国际公约》第6条。
310见Lloyd's Standard Form of Salvage Agreement "No Cure-No Pav也称为Llovd's Standard Form或Lloved's Open Form,最新版为“LOF 1995”。
311 (1972) 1 All E.R.1110.
312王保树主编,张丽英著.海商法.北京：人民法院出版社,1998(4)：286.
313梁慧星主编,王国华著.海事国际私法研究.北京：法律出版社.1999(2)：67-68.
314 Dice y and Morris, The Conflict of Laws,12 Edition, Vol.1.London:Sweet & Maxwell,1993:182
315参见：沈茂树.船舶优先权法律制度研究：(博士论文).北京：北京大学.2000.206-208.
316沈茂树.船舶优先权法律制度研究：(博士论文).北京：北京大学.2000：206-207.
317 (1974)1 Lloyd's Rep.174.
318 Karl Llewellyn,Some Realism about Realism:Responding to Dean Pound.44 Harvard Law Review,1931.
319中国《海商法》第十四章。
320见傅旭梅主编.中华人民共和国海商法诠释.北京：人民法院出版社,1995(9)：493.
321 (1980)3 All ER 197.
322前述已提及,美国规定的优先权项日比英国多。
323 Toll Rian Sing. Admiralty Law & Practice.Singapore: Buttcrworths Asia .1998:223.
324 The Mili'ord,( 1858)31 L. T.42;The Tagus. 1903:44:The Zigurds,1932:l 13: The Acrux,1965:391.这些判断所规定的原则与判例The Halcyon Isle似,即当涉及船舶优先权便仅以法院所在地法律确决船舶优先权的产生于受偿顺序的问题,取代了应适用的外国法律。
325 D.C.Jackson.E.nforcement of Ma rilime Claims.2nd Edition.London:Llovd's London Press .1996:603.梁慧星主编.
326郑戈.法律与现代人的命运：马克斯·韦伯法律思想研究导论.北京：法律出版社2006(3)：178.
327张乃根.西方法哲学史纲(第四版).北京：中国政法大学出版社.2008(7)：208.
[1]梁慧星.民法解释学.北京：中国政法大学出版社，2005.
[2]刘翀.现实主义法学的批判与建构.法律科学,2009(5)：13-24.
[3]伯恩·魏德十著,丁小春,吴越泽.法理学.北京：法律出版社，2003：209.
[4]司玉琢.海商法(第二版).北京：法律出版社,2007.
[5]司玉琢.海商法专论.北京：中国人民大学出版社.2007.
[6]司玉琢等编著.海商法详论.大连：大连海事大学出版社,1995.
[7]屈广清.海事国际私法新编.北京：法律出版社,2005：10.
[8]傅廷中.海商法论.北京：法律出版社2007.
[9]吴焕宁.海商法(第二版).北京：法律出版社,1996.
[10][美]波斯纳,苏力译.法理学问题.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[11]张乃根：西方法哲学史纲.北京：中国政法大学出版社，2008.
[12][美]E·博登海默著,邓止来泽.法理学——法哲学及其方法.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[13]霍姆斯著,明辉译.法律的生命在于经验——霍姆斯法学文集.北京：清华大学出版社出版,2007.
[14][美]罗斯科·庞德.著,邓正来译.法律史解释.北京：中国法制出版社,2002.
[15]田默迪.东西方之间的法律哲学.北北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[16][美]波斯纳著,苏力译.法理学问题.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[17][英]哈特著,张文显等译.法律的概念.北京：.中国大百科全书出版社,1996.
[18]韩德培.国际私法(第二版).北京：高等教育出版社,2007.
[19]赖来焜.最新海商法论.台北：台北元照出版有限公司,2008.
[20]韩德培.国际私法新论.武汉：武汉大学出版社,1997.
[21]张庆熊.二十世纪英美哲学.北京：人民出版社,2005.
[22][英]Dennis Lloyd著,张茂柏泽..法律的理念.台北：台北联经出版事业公司,1984.
[23]张文显.二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究.北京：法律出版社,,2006.
[24]严存生主编.西方法律思想史.北京：法律出版社,2004.
[25]付池斌著.现实主义法学.北京：法律出版社,2005.
[26]Thomas C. Grey, Langdell'S Orthodoxy.University Of Pittsburgh Law Review,1983:45.
[27][美]G吉尔摩,[美]C布莱克,杨召南等著.海商法.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,2000.
[28]李海.船舶物权之研究.北京：法律出版社,2002.
[29]李双元.比较民法学.武汉：武汉大学出版社,2000.
[30]周旺生.立法论.北京：北京大学出版社,1994.
[31][美]卡多佐著,苏力译.司法过程的性质.北京：商务印书馆,2000.
[32]沈宗灵.现代西方法理学.北京：法律出版社.1992.
[33][美]蒙罗·斯密并,姚梅镇译.欧陆法律发达史.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[34]强世功.双重结构化下的法律解释.载梁治平编《法律解释问题》.北京：法律出版社,1998.
[35]Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of Law.10 Harvard Law Review,1897.
[36]Gerry,Method & interpretation of source of law.Lousiana State Law Institute,1963.
[37]张娟.什么是法律现实主义.西南政法大学学报,2010(5).
[38]冯玉军.当代美国法律思想的演进谱系.法学家,2007(6).
[39]Uriel Philip Bauer,Tacking a True Course For Maritime Liens on Freight. Cardozo L. Review, 1985-1986(7):187.
[40]Norman B. Richards, Maritime Liens in Tort. General Average and Salvage. Tulane Law Review.1972-1973(47):569.
[41]Paul Myburgh, Recognition of Foreign Maritime Liens. The South African Law Journal,1989 (106):263.
[42]Charles S. Donovan. Picking the Shipowner's Poson-Choice-of-Law Clauses and Maritime Liens. University of San Francisco Law Journal,2001-2002(14):185.
[43]David A. Marcello. Developments in The Law of Maritime Liens. Tulane Law Review. 1970-1971 (45):574.
[44]Frank G.,Harmon, Discharge and Waiver of Maritime Liens. Tulane. Law. Review.1972-1973 (47):786
[45]Harry A. Allen, The Expanding Scope of Federal Maritime Liens:A Critique of Blair M/V Blue Spruce. University of San Francisco Law Journal,1974-1975(9):665.
[46]Edward C. Biele, Maritime Liens Arising Out of Collision. Tulane Law Review,1976-1977 (51):134.
[47]Lucian Y. Ray, Martitime Contract Liens. Tulane Law Review,1972-1973(47):587.
[48]Warren J. Marwedel, Mark O. Kasanin, Mark K. de Langis, Maritime Procedure:An Overview and a Caution Regarding Privilege Waiver. Tulane Law Review.2004-2005(79):1421.
[49]Kipling. Personification of Vessel. Harvard Law Review,1963-1964(77):1122.
[50]David Brice Toy.Introduction to the Law of Maritime Liens.47 Tulane Law Review,1972-1973.
[51]D.R. Thomas. Maritime Liens.London:Stevens & Sons, Ltd,1980.
[52]Paul Macarius Hebert, The Origin and Nature of the Maritime Liens.4 Tulane Law Review,1929-1930.
[53]Ivon d'Almeida Pires Filho, Comparative Maritime Liens:Anglo and Latin Based Law in the Americas.9 Mar. Law,1984:245.
[54]Edward F. Ryan, Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien:an Historical Perspective.7 Western Ontario Law Review,1968(7):173..
[55]William Tetley,Maritime Lien and Claims.Intel Shipping Pubns,1985.
[56]William Tetley,International Maritime and Admiralty Law.Les Editions Yvon Blais Inc.,2002.
[57]Oliver Wendell Holmesr,The Common Law(New Edition by Mark De Wolfe Howe). London: Macmillan,1985.
[58]Paul Vrinogradoff, Roman Law in Medieval Europe. London:Harper & Brothers,1909.
[59]屈广清.周后春.论船舶优先权的法律适用.中国海商法年刊第13卷,2002：96-107.
[60]郑海涛.论《物权法》对我国船舶物权制度之影响.法制与社会，,2008(10).
[61]马聪.霍姆斯现实主义法学思想研究：(博士论文).上海：华东政法大学.2007.
[62]Theodore M.Benditt,Law as Rule and Principle.Stanford University Press,1978:26-37.
[63]杨仁寿.法学方法论.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[64]刘星.法律的不确定性——美国现实主义法律评述.中山大学学报(社会科学版)，1996：198-202.
[65]H.L.A.Hart,TheConceptual Legal Dogmatics.Oxford University Press,1961.
[66]Joseph William Singer,Legal Realism Now.76 California law review,1988:465-467.
[67]Richard Taylor,Law and Morality.New York University Law Review,1968:627.
[68][法]卢梭,何兆武译.社会契约论.北北京：商务印书馆,1980.
[69]谢晖.规范解释的创新何以艰难?.山东大学学报,2000.
[70]谢新胜.船舶优先权的法律适用规则.华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2006(5)：73-78.
[71]何建华.1993年船舶优先权和抵押权国际公约释义.北京：人民交通出版社,1997.
[72]江杰.论优先请求权的法律性质和法律适用.收录于海商法论文集.北京：学术书刊出版社,1989：150-151.
[73]李双元.论国际私法关系中解决法律选择的方法问题.中国法学,1984.
[74]李双元,郑远明.应当重视对国际民事诉讼法的研究.法学家,1995.
[75]李双元著.走向21世纪的国际私法.北北京：法律出版社,1999：330-429.
[76]屈广清著.国际民事程序统—法研究(下).北京：中国经贸出版社,2001：145.
[77]徐新铭.船舶优先权.大连：大连海事大学出版社,1995.
[78]曹艳芝.优先权论.长沙：湖南人民出版社,2005.
[79]韩德培,李双元.应该重视对冲突法的研究.武汉大学学报,1983(6).
[80]李海.论海事优先权法律冲突的解决途径.收录于海商法论文集.北京：学术书刊出版社,1989.
[81][美]霍维茨著,谢鸿飞译.美国法的变迁：1780-1860.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[82]Bryan A.Garner,Black's Law Dictionary,7th ed. West Group,1999.
[83]林群弼.海商法论.台北：三民书局.2003.
[84]W. R. Fisher, Fisher & Lightwood's Law of Mortgage. London:Butterworth & Co. Ltd.,1988.
[85]T MOMMSEN Digest of Justinian. (2 Volume Set) Book XXII. University of Pennsylvania Press,1997.
[86]John Rodman, The Commercial Code of France with The Motives.C. Wiley, Printer,1814.
[87]Thomas Grey,Langdells'Orthodoxy,45 University of Pittsburgh Law Review,1983.
[88]Lionel H Laing, Historic Origins of Admiralty Jurisdiction in England.Michigan Law Review, 1946-1947(45):163..
[89]Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard. Modern Admiralty Law. Cavendish Publishing Limited.2001.
[90]陈朝壁.罗马法原理.北京：法律出版社.2006.
[91]G. Price. The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet and Maxwell Ltd.,1940.
[92]赖来焜.海事国际私法中船舶优先权研究：(博士论文).台湾：国立政治大学法律研究所.1992.
[93]梁宇贤.海商法.台北：三民书局.1987.
[94]Captain L.F.H. Stanton, The Law and Practice of Sea Transport.基隆,龙玺出版社.1978.
[95]Lord and Glenn, The Foreign Ship Mortgage.56 Yale Law J,1947.
[96]Jeremy Browne,The Extinction of Maritime Liens.Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly,2003,4(3):365.
[97]G. Gilmore,C. Jr. Black, The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn, New York:The Foundation Press,1975.
[98]D. R. Thomas, Maritime Liens. British Shipping Laws (Vol.14). London:Sweet & Maxwell, 1980.
[99]梁宇贤.海商法精义.台北：台湾三民书局有限公司,1996：60.
[100]The Maharaj Nagendra Singh, International Maritime Law Conventions, British Shipping Laws, Vol.4.London:Stevens and Sons,1983.
[101]David Weil, Charting a Course through Dangerous Waters:a Landlubber's Introduction to the Rules of
[102]Maritime Indebtedness in the Context of a Maritime Bankruptcy.University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal,1996(4):3.
[103]陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士学位论文).台湾：台湾大学，1983.
[104]Christopher Hill, Maritime Law,4th Edition.London:Lloyd's of London Press,1995.
[105]Nigel Meeson, Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice.London:Lloyd's of London Press,1993.
[106]杨仁寿.海商法,航运法律之三.台北：自版,1986(2).
[107]梁宇贤.论海商法上之优先权.中华法学,1984：20.
[108]何佐治.海商法释义.台北：自版,1962.
[109]张展芳：船舶优先权与抵押权研究：(硕十学位论文).台湾：国立海洋大学,1982.
[110]甘其绶.船舶优先权之研究.交通资料月刊,1963(5).
[111]田中诚二,海商法详论.东京：劲草书房,1985(6).
[112]Nicholas J. Heal, Brainerd Currie.Cases and Materials on Admiralty.St. Paul Minn:West Publishing Co.,1977.
[113]施智谋.海商法.台北：自版,1979(10).
[114]Robert Chorley and Giles, Shipping Law,6th ed.London:Pitman Publishing,1970.
[115]Felix Cohen,Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach.35 Columbia Law Review, 1935.
[116]张特生.疑云满楼的船舶优先权问题及其解决途径(一).法令月刊,1986(12)：3-7.
[117]张特生.疑云满楼的船舶优先权问题及其解决途径(二).法令月刊,1987(1)：3-8.
[118]刘承汉.论船舶优先权及抵押权.交通建设.1970(12).
[119]梁宇贤.海商法.台北：三民书局,1987.
[120]沈潮江.船舶保险金能否为优先权之标的.台湾司法通讯,1973：613.
[121]陈计男.论船舶优先权.法学丛刊,197](4).
[122]原茂太一.海商法.东京：千仓书房,昭和六十三年九月全订十五版.
[123]西岛弥太郎.海商法要论.昭和六年.
[124]黄茂清.论海上优先权项目及位次.台大法学论丛,1975(4)：315-316.
[125]Roger G. Connor, Maritime Lien Priorities:Cross-Currents of Theory.Michigan Law Review,1956.
[126]吴智.海商法论(第4版).台北：三民书局股份有限公司,1976.
[127]王效文.商事法要义.上海：上海昌明书屋,1948.
[128]胡绪雨.船舶优先权消灭效力研究.法学评论,2012(3)：48-56.
[129]郑玉波.海商法,台北：三民书局,1983.
[130]郑洋一.银行对海上优先权与抵押权竞合之实行问题的探究.彰银资料,1973(22)：3.
[131]Jose Maria Alcantara,A Short Primer on the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages.Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce,1996,12(4):15.
[132]Gyory, Security at Sea:A Review of the Preferred Ship Mortgage.31 Ford. L. Rev.231 (1962-1963).
[133]候军主编.当代海事国际私法.上海：上海科学技术文献出版社,1990.
[134]赖来馄.海事国际私法.台北：神州图书出版有限公司，2002.
[135]威廉.泰特雷.国际冲突法—普通法、大陆法及海事法.北京：法律出版社,2003.
[136]涂学明.船舶担保物权之研究：(硕士论文).台北：台湾大学,1970.刊载于法学专刊,1974(4)：55-56.58.
[137]钱文颖.论法律上优先权的适用顺序.法令月刊,1978(12)：23.
[138]D.C.Jackson, Enforcement Of Maritime Claims,2nd Edition.London:Lloyd's Of London Press.1996.
[139]Raymond P.Hayden,The Uniqueness of Admiralty and Maritime Law:the Unique Nature of Maritime Liens.Tulane Law Review June.2005(2):12-13.
[140]Neill Hutton,The Origin,Development,and Future of Maritime Liens and the Action in rem.Tulane Maritime Law Journal,2003(4):10.
[141]于海涌.船舶抵押权法律效力问题研究.收录于梁慧星主编.民商法论从第九卷.北京：法律出版社,1998(1).
[142]黄文滨.海商法优先权之研究.法学丛刊,1974(4)：21.
[143]周相.罗马法原论.北京：商务印书馆.2001：19.
[144]McGuffie, Admiralty Practice,British Shipping Laws.London:Stevens & Sons,1964.
[145]Frank L. Maraist, Admiralty In A Nutshell,3rd Edition.St. Paul Minn:West Publishing Co.,1996
[146]钱国成.破产法要义.台北：三民书局,1961.
[147]Frank G. Harmon,Discharge and Waiver of Maritime Liens.47 Tulane Law Review,1973:23.
[148]房阿生.船舶优先权之研究：(硕士学位论文).台中：国立中兴大学,1971.
[149]石井照久.海商法(法律性全集30).东京：有斐阁,昭和49年.
[150]张忠晔主编.各国和地区海商法比较.北京：人民交通出版社,1994.
[151]Jo Desha Lucas, Admiralty.The Foundation Press,Inc,1996.
[152]沈茂树.船舶优先权法律制度研究：(博士论文).北京：北京大学,2000.
[153]丁伟.冲突法论.J匕京：法律出版社,1996(9).
[154]Oliver Wendell Holmes,The Path of the Law.10 Harvard Law Review,1897.
[155]司玉琢,吴兆麟.船舶碰撞法.大连：大连海事大学出版社,1995(5).
[156]Roscoe, The Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice,5th Edition. Professional Books Ltd,1987.
[157]王保树,张丽英.海商法.北京：人民法院出版社,1998(4).
[158]梁宇贤.海商法专题论从.台北：台湾三民书局,1988.
[159]傅旭梅.中华人民共和国海商法诠释,北京：人民法院出版社,1995(9).
[160]Dicey and Morris. The Conflict of Laws,12 Edition, Vol.1.London:Sweet & Maxwell,1993.
[161]梁慧星,王国华.海事国际私法研究.北京：法律出版社,1999(2).
[162]Karl Llewellyn, Some Realism about Realism:Responding to Dean Pound.44 Harvard Law Review,1931.
[163]Toh Kian Sing. Admiralty Law & Practice.Singapore:Butterworths Asia.1998.
[163]Samir Manbahady,lnternational Shipping Law,Vol.11 UNCTAD's Rules, Accidents and Incidents at Sea. Euromoney Books,1991.
[165]夏贞鹏.“概念法学VS自由法学”的法解释学命题考察——写在“民法典”之前.法律方法.2003.
[166]吕世伦,付池斌.现实主义法学对美国法学教育的影响.东岳论丛,2006(3).
[167]Lord Hailsham, Halsbury's Laws of England,4th Edition, Reissue Vol.8(l), Vol.43 (21) Butterworths,1996.
[168]Roscoe Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice.Report of the 29th Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association. Vol.29,1906.
[169]Richard Posner, The Problematics Of Moral And Legal Theory.The Harvard Law Review Association,1998.
[170]Karl N. Llewellyn, Jurisprudence:Realism in Theory and Practice.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1962.
[171]Hart, TheConceptual Legal Dogmatics.London:oxford University Press,1994.
[172]Brian Leiter, Rethinking Legal Realism:Toward a Naturalized Jurisprudence.76 Texas Law Review,1997.
[173]Wendy Brown Scott, Oliver Wendell Holmes On Equality And Adarand. Howard Law Journal,2003.
[174]Marting Golding,Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy in Twentieth-Century America:Major Themes and Developments.36 Journal of Legal Eduction,] 986.
[175]Albert W Alschuler, The Descending Trail:Holmes' Path Of The Law One Hundred Years Later,49 Fla. L. Rev.,1997.
[176]Brian H. Bix,Law as an Autonomous Discipline, in the Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies. Oxford University Press,2003:979.
[177]Albert W Alschuler, Law Without Values:The Life, Work, And Legacy Of Justice Holmes. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,2000.
[178]Louise Weinberg,Federal Common Law.Northwestern University Law Review,1989:805-834.
[179]Felix Cohen,Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach,35 Columbia Law Review,1935.
[180]David J. Seipp, Holmes's Path.77 Boston University Law Review,1997.
[181]Karl Llewellyn, A Realistic Jurisprudence:the Next Step,30 Columbia Law Review,1930.
[182]Walter Wheeler Cook.Privileges of Labor Unions in the Struggle for Life. Yale Law Journal, 1918(27):779.
[183]Round and round the bramble bush:From legal realism to critical legal scholarship.Harvard Law Review,1982(95):1669-1690.
[l84]Morton Horwitz.The Transformation of American Law:1870-1960. Harvard University Press.1977.
[185]Olive Wendell Holmes,Natural Law. Harvard Law Review,1918.
[186]Thomas C. Grey, Langdell'S Orthodoxy, University Of Pittsburgh Law Review,1983:45.
[187]O. W. Holmes, Codes and the Arrangement of The Law. American Law Review,1870(5).
[188]Jerome Frank.Law and the Modem Mind.New York:Brentanos,1930.
[189]Oliver Wendell Holmes,The Path of the Law.10 Harvard Law Review,1897.
[190]Michael Martin,Legal Realism:American and Scandinavian.New York:Peter Land Publishing, Inc.,1997.
[191]Thomas C. Grey,Holmes And Legal Pragmatism.Standfond Law Review 41.1989.
[192]George C. Christie and Patrick H. Martin. Jurisprudence Text and Readings on the Philosophy of Law. West Publishing Co.,1995.
[193]G. Longenecker,Developments in the Law of Maritime Liens.45 Tulane L. R.574,1971: 604-605.
[194]於世成,杨召南.汪淮江.海商法.北京：法律出版社,1997.
[195]林咏荣主编.商事法论文选集,台北：台湾五南图书出版公司.1974：632.
[196]杨仁寿.海商法论.台北：三民书局.1985.
[197]杨良宜.海事法.大连：大连海事大学出版社，1999.
[198]William Tetley, International Conflict of Laws,Common, Civil and Maritime. Intl Shipping Pubns,1994.
[199]梁慧星,邓瑞平.船舶侵权行为法基础理论问题研究.北京：法律出版社,1999(9).
[200]郑戈.法律与现代人的命运：马克斯.韦伯法律思想研究导论.北京：法律出版社.2006(3).
[201]Carrier, Maritime Lien For Damage.Columbia Law Review,1903.
[202]张特生.海商法实务问题专论.台北：台湾五南图书出版公司,1998.
[203]张立英.船舶优先全法律性质若干学说析.比较法研究,2004(4).
[204]王娟.海事特权法律通用新论.中国海商法年刊.北京：法律出版社,2005.
[204]张辉.船舶优先权法律制度研究.武汉：武汉大学出版社.2005.
[206]徐新铭.船舶优先权.大连：大连海事大学出版社,1995.
[207]金正佳,翁子明主编.中国海事审判的理论与实践.深圳：海天出版社.1993.
[208]韩立新编著.海事国际私法.大连：大连海事大学出版社.2001.
[209]梅夏英,方春晖.优先权制度的理论和立法问题.法商研究.2004(3).
[210]吴焕宁,论船舶留置权的定义、性质和特征.远洋运输,1985(6).
[211][英]约翰·奥斯丁著,刘星译.法理学的范围.北京：中国法制出版社,2002.
[212]威廉·泰特雷,王立志、李志文泽.论船舶优先权法律冲突.比较法研究.2009：148-164.
[213]王利明.物权法专题研究：下.长春：吉林人民出版社,2001：1494-1495.
[214]谢在全.民法物权论,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：110.
[215][日]我妻荣著,申政武等译.新订担保物权法.北京：中国法制出版社,2008：47.
[216]谌瑜.船舶优先权法律性质探析——兼谈民法典制定中的船舶优先权问题.财贸研究,2003(6)：110-114.
[217]Tetley W, Mcdonough B G.Maritime liens and Claims.London:Business Law Communications Ltd.,1985:4.
[218]Biele.Maritime Liens Arising Out of Collision.Tulane Law Review.1977:1134-1156.
[219]张丽英.船舶优先权法律性质若干学说析.比较法研究.2004(4)：129-135.
[220]勒内·达维德.漆竹生译.当代主要法律关系.上海：上海译文出版社.1984.
[221]李强,周后春.论船舶优先权的法律性质.河北法学,2003(6)：87-93.
[222]韩立强,吴星奎.船舶抵押权与优先权关系之反思与重构.两南农业大学学报：社会科学版,2007(4)：38-40.
[223]Jan M. Sandstrom,The changing international concept of the maritime lien as s securty right. Tulane. Law. Review.1972-1973 (47):682.
[224]Paul Macarius Hebert, The Origin and Nature of Maritime Liens. Tulane Law Review,1930(4):38.
[225]John M. Kriz, Ship Mortgages, Maritime Liens, and Their Enforcement:The Brussels Conventions of 1926 and 1952.Duke L.J.1963(12):671; Duke L.J.1964(1964):70.
[226]Percy H Winfield,Ltd.,The Chief Sources of English Legal History.Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1925.
[227]Raymond P. Hayden, Kipp C. Leland, The Uniqueness of Admiralty and Maritime Law:The Unique Nature of Maritime Liens. Tulane Law Review,2004-2005(79):1227.
[228]Frank Goodwin, Some Feature of Maritime Liens. American Law Review,l 882(16):193.
[229]John K. Beach, Relative Priority of Maritime Liens. Yale Law Journal,1923-1924(33):841.
[230]Hilton Staniland, Should Foreign Maritime Liens Be Recognized?.The South African Law Journal,1991(108):293.
[231]George L. Varian, Rank and Priority of Maritime Liens. Tulane Law Review,1972-1973(47):751.
[232]Edward L. Willard, Priorities Among Maritime Liens. Cornell L.Q.,1930-1931(16):522.
[233]Ivon D'Almeida Pires-Filho, Priority of Maritime Liens in The Western Hemisphere:How Secure is Your Claim?,Inter-American Law Review,1984-1985(16):505.
2梁慧星.民法解释学.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005：61.
3伯恩·魏德士著,丁小奋.吴越译.法理学.北京：法律出版社、2003：209.
4梁慧星.民法解释学.北京：中国政法大学出版社.2005：57.
5刘翀.现实主义法学的批判与建构.法律科学.2009(5)：14.
6张娟.什么是法律现实主义.西南政法大学学报.2010(5)以及冯玉军.当代美国法律思想的演进谱系.法学家,2007(6).
7 David Brice Toy,Introduction to the Law of Maritime Liens.47 Tulane Law Review,1972-1973:559.
8 D.R. Thomas在其Maritime Liens一书中将船舶优先权的起源理论分为三类,即拟人化说、程序说和冲突说。很多国内相关的论述也都遵循了这种分类。但是从他的论述中可以看出,这三种学说与其说是探讨船舶优先权的起源,还不如说足在分析船舶优先权的性质或者法理基础更为准确。见D.R. Thomas, Maritime Liens.London:Stevens & Sons, Ltd,1980:6-9类似的论述还见Paul Macarius Hebert, The Origin and Nature of the Maritime Liens.4 Tulane Law Review,1929-1930:381.
9 William Tetley, Maritime Lien and Claims.Intel Shipping Pubns,1985:1.
10[美]G·吉尔摩,[美]C·布莱克著,杨召南等译.海商法.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,2000：796-800.又见Ivon d'Almeida Pires Filho, Comparative Maritime Liens:Anglo and Latin Based Law in theAmericas.9 Mar. Law,1984:245.
11至少英国人自己是这么认为的。可f参见Edward F. Ryan, Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien:an Historical Perspective.7 Western Ontario Law Review,1968:173.
12:W illiam Tetley,Maritime Lien and Claims.lntel Shipping Pubns.1985:11.
13 Oliver Wendell Holmes. Jr.The Common Law(New Edition by Mark De Wolfe Howe) London:Macmillan. 1985:24-29.
14G吉尔摩,C布菜克.海商法.北京：中国大百科全书出版社.2000：801-802.
15 Paul Vrinogradoff, Roman Law in Medieval Europe. London:Harper & Brothers,1909:118.转引自Edward F. Ryan. Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien:an Historical Perspective.7 Western Ontario Law Review,173. 1968:190.
16何建华编著.1993年船舶优先权和抵押权国际公约释义,北京：人民交通出版社.1997.
17张乃根：西方法哲学史纲.北京：中国政法大学出版社.2008：6.
18本文将以93年公约所建立的体系作为现代船舶优先权制度的代表。
19参见徐新铭.船舶优先权.大连：大连海事大学出版社,1995：1：又见：曹艳芝.优先权论.长沙：湖南人民出版社.2005：247.
20汪鹏南.海上保险合同法详论.大连：大连海事大学出版社,1996：14.另参见Bryan A.Garner,Black's Law Dictionary,7th ed. West Group,1999:1050.
21该抵押权的实现需要以航次的成功完成为条件。如果从船货冒险抵押贷款中如果船货灭火则债务也随之消灭这一制度来看,冒险抵押贷款可能还是海事赔偿责任限制的最初形式。
22林群弼著.海商法论.台北：三民书局,2003：18.
23汪鹏南.海上保险合同法详论.大连：大连海事大学出版.1996：14
24 W.R.Fisher.Fisher & Lightwood's Law of Mortgage.London:Butterworth & Co.Ltd.,1988:111.
25 W illiam Tetley. Maritime Lien and Claims.Intel Shipping Pubns.1985:3.
6有关船舶优先权(在法国商法典中是maritime privilege)的规定在该法典第190-196条。
27 John Rodman. The Commercial Code of France with The Motives.C. Wiley, Printer,1814:150-154.
28 Tetley前引书第11页称耶路撒冷的古代海商法典Assises中有关于共同海损作为优先权的规定,并指出该法典与奥列隆海法集有密切的联系,但我们可以看到在法国商法典中的maritime privilege却不包括共同海损、海难救助等债权。
29 Thomas Grey,Langdells' Orthodoxy,45 University of Pittsburgh Law Review,1983.
30见张辉.船舶优先权法律制度研究.武汉：武汉大学出版社,2005：12.
31特生.疑云满楼的船舶优先权问题及其解决途径(一).法令月刊.1986(12)：3-7：张特生.疑云满楼的船舶优先权问题及其解决途径(二).法令月刊,1987(1)：3-8.
32汪杰.论优先请求权的法律性质和法律适用.北京：学术书刑出版社,1989：144.
33 D. R. Thomas. Maritime Liens.British Shipping Laws Vol.14.London:Stevens and Sons.1980:6-9.
34 Paul Macarius Hebert, The Origin and Nature of Maritime Liens. Tulane Law Review,1930(4):38.
35 Coke. On Littleton.6ed.1664:260转引自Lionel H Laing. Historic Origins of Admiralty Jurisdiction in England. Michigan Law Review,1946-1947:163.
36 Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard. Modern Admiralty Law.2001:5.同样见 Lionel H Laing, Historic Origins of Admiralty Jurisdiction in England.Michigan Law Review,1946-1947:163-165.
37在该战役中,100条船的英国人击败了250条船的法国人,英国人因此得到了多佛尔海峡的控制权。
38 Lionel H Laing, Historic Origins of Admiralty Jurisdiction in England.Michigan Law Review,1946-1947:165-167.
39 Edward F. Ryan, Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien:An Historical Perspective.7 W.Ontario L. Rev.173. 1968:173.
40意指国王特许可以违反法律的特权。
41 Edward F. Ryan. Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien:An Historical Perspective.7 W.Ontario L. Rev. 173.1968:178.
42 Edward F. Ryan. Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien:An Historical Perspective.7 W.Ontario L. Rev. 173.1968:183.
43 Jan M. Sandstrom.The changing international concept of the maritime lien as s securty right. Tulane. Law. Revie\ 1972-1973 (47):682.
44 Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard. Modern Admiralty Law. London:Cavendish Publishing Limited.2001:6.
45 Edward F. Rvan. Admiraltv Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien:An Historical Perspective.7 W.Ontario L. Re 173.1968:190.
46陈朝壁.罗马法原理.北京：法律出版社.2006：552.
47 18 Fed. Cas.9 No.10,126.该案的判决首度出现了maritime lien的字样,虽然它似乎并不是作为一个特定的概念出现的。
48 Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard, Modern Admiralty Law. London:Cavendish Publishing Limited.2001:22.
49何建华编著.1993年船舶优先权和抵押权国际公约释义.北京：人民交通出版社,1997.
50该公约第二条。
51 John M.Krizia.Ship Mortgages,Maritime Liens,and Their Enforeement:The Brussels Conventions of 1926 and 1952.DL1952,Duke Review.1963:674-675.
52 John M.Kroz,Ship Mortgages,Maritime Licns,and Their Enforcement:The Brussels Conventions of 1926 and 1952.Duke L.J.1963(12):671:Duke L.J.1964(1964):70.
53船舳优先权不依协议而成立(right in dependent of agreement),而为法定享有之对物权利(right in rem)参见D. R. Thomas. Maritime Liens.British Shipping Laws Vol.14,London:Stevens and Sons,1980:30-32.
54 G. Price. The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet and Maxwell Ltd.,1940:172.
55参见赖来焜.海事国际私法中船舶优先权研究：(博士论文)台湾：国立政治大学法律研究所.1992：63.
56值得注意的是,日本于昭和50年对优先权项目进行缩减。
57参见赖来焜.海事国际私法中船舶优先权研究：(博士论文).台湾：国立政治大学法律研究所.1992：64.
58梁宇贤.海商法.台北：三民书局.1987：232-246.
59 Captain L.F.H. Stanton, The Law and Practice of Sea Transport基隆：龙玺出版社.1978：229-230.
60 Lord and Glenn, The Foreign Ship Mortgage.56 Yale Law J.1947:923-939.
61条文原文为：An y person furnishing repairs, supplies, towage, use of dry dock or marine railway or other necessaries, to any vessel, whether foreign or domestic,upon the order of the owner of such vessel, or of a person authorized by the owner, shall have a maritime lien on the vessel, which may be enforced by suit in rem, and it shall not be necessary to allege or prove that credit was given to the vessel."
62 Foreign Ship Mortgage Act.1954,46 U.S.C § 951:The difficult Quest for a Uniform Maritime Law:Failure of the Brussels Convention to Achieve International Agreement on Collision Liability, Liens and Mortgage.64 Yale Law.J.. 1955:878-901.
63 G. Gilmore.C. Jr. Black. The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn, The Foundation Press,1975:627-632.
64 D. R. Thomas. Maritime Liens. British Shipping Laws (Vol.14). London:Sweet & Maxwell,1980:325.
65 The Maharaj Nagendra Singh, International Maritime Law Conventions. British Shipping Laws, Vol.4.London: Stevens and Sons.1983:3053-3059.
66条约第2条原文：The following give rise to maritime liens on a vessel, on the freight for the voyage during which the claim giving rise to the lien arises, and on the accessories of the vessel and freight accrued since the commencement of the voyage;
69美国在1925年开会时即称无法接受公约草案,1926年会议也未参加,且因其不参加,公约恢复至1913年会议态度,并删除之前的第六项载货证券优先权。因此,美国规定与1926年公约不同,而台湾则参照了该公约的大部分规定。参见G. Price, The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.,1940:172.G. Price, The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet and Maxwell Ltd.,1940:231-234.
70陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士论文).台北：台湾大学,1983：82-83.
71台湾学者对于“其期间未满一年者”如何适用,有四种观点：(1)系指未满一年的薪资总额,见施智谋.海商法.台北：自版,1979(10)：37；(2)系指雇佣契约所定雇佣期间,见台湾“最高法院”五十八年台上4002号判决及台湾高等法院四十三年三月二十日令赎公字第5504号令；(3)系指最近未满一年之薪资债权而言,见杨仁寿.海商法,航运法律之三.台北:自版.1986(2)：77；梁宇贤.论海商法上之优先权.中华法学1984(20)：239；(4)系指自发生之日起期间未满一年,见何佐治.海商法释义.台北：自版.1962：117。
72张展芳：船舶优先权与抵押权研究：(硕士论文).台湾：国立海洋大学,1982：49.
73 United States v. Certain Subfreights Due S.S. Neponset,300 F.981.987.1924 A.M.C.726.734 (D. Mass.l 924), rev'd on other grounds sub nom.; Luckenback v. Pearce,212 F.388(5th Cir 1924).
74 92e d Congress. Public Law. No.92-576.86 Stat.1251(1972).
75陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士论文).台湾：台湾大学.1983：66.
76 The Act of June 23,1910, C373.36 Stat. at L.604:The Merchant Marine Act of June 5,1920.C.250,41 Stat.At L.988.1005,as Subsections P.Q.R.S. And T. of S.30.
77 The General S mith.17 U.S.(4 Wheat) 438 (1819):The St. Jago de Cuba,22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 409,417(1824);The J. E. Rumbell.148 U.S.1,11-12(1983).
78 The River Queen, A.M.C.79,8 F.(2nd) 426 (E.D.Va.1925).
79甘其绶.船舶优先权之研究.交通资料月刊,1963(5)：5.
80张展芳：船舶优先权与抵押权研究：(硕士论文).台湾：国立海洋大学.1982：117.
81 60 U.S (19 How) 82,89 (1857) "But this privilege or lien, though adhering to the vessel, is a secret one:it may operate to the prejudice of general creditors and purchaser without notice; it is therefore 'stricti juris', and connot he extended by construction, analogy or inference ".See G. Gilmore, C. Jr. Black, The Law of Admiralty.New York: Brooklyn, The Foundation Press,1975:519.
82公约第四条The following clai ms shall be secured by maritime liens on the vessel......"及公约第七条’1. The maritime liens set out in Article 4 arise whether the claims secured by such liens are against the owner or against the demise or other charterer, manager or operator of the vessel;2. Subject to the provisions of Article 11, the maritime liens securing the claims set out in Article 4 follow the vessel notwithstanding any change of ownership or of registration."
84田中诚二.海商法详论.东京：劲草书房.1985(6)：569-573.
85 D. R. Thomas. Maritime Liens. British Shipping Laws Vol. 14.London:Stevens and Sons,1980:225-227:278-290, 382-383:"The cargo is not subject to the lien, but may be arrested to compel the payment into Court of freight due to the shipowner."
86 G. Price. The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet and Maxwell Ltd.,1940:38-40.
87 G. Price. The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet and Maxwell Ltd.,1940):149-152:Nicholas.J. Heal. Brainerd Curric.Cases and Materials on Admiralty.St. Paul Minn:West Publishing Co.,1977:221-227.
88施智谋.海商法.台北：自版.1979(10)：339.
89 Conventi on on the High Seas (April 29.1958),Article 9.
90 The P orto Alexandre,(1920),32 T.L.R.519.
91 The Parlement Beige, See Robert Chorley and Giles, Shipping Law (London:Pitman Publishing 6th ed;1970) p37.
92 Compania Naviera Vassongaoa v. SS.Cristina, (1938) A.C.485.
93陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士论文),台湾：台湾大学,1983：73.
94 G. Price, The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet and Maxwell Ltd.,1940:26.
95肯定说的代表作见：杨仁寿.海商法.航运法律之三.台北：自版.1986(2)：6-8.
96否定说的代表者如施智谋先生及梁宇贤先生。
97折衷说的代表者如张东亮先生。
8 Felix Cohen.Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach.35 Columbia Law Review,1935.
99参见赖来焜.海事国际私法中船舶优先权研究：(博士论文).台湾：国立政治大学法律研究所.1992：63.
100公约第十条原文：A lien on freight may be enforced so long as the freight is still due or the amount of the freight is still in the hands of the master or the agent of the owner. The same principle applies to a lien on accessories.
101如施智谋.海商法.台北：自版,1979(10)：340；杨仁寿.海商法,航运法律之三.台北：自版,1986(2)：81；张特生.疑云满楼的船舶优先权问题及其解决途径(二).法令月刊1987(1)：3-8.
102如刘承汉.论船舶优先权及抵押权.交通建设1970(12)：34.
103梁宇贤.海商法.台北：三民书局.1987：252.
104如陈显娃荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士论文).台湾：台湾大学,1983：104.
105沈潮江.船舶保险金能否为优先权之标的.台湾jd法通讯,1973：613.
106持肯定说的,除沈潮江先生外,还有刘承汉、何佐治、吴智、郑玉波等学者。
107如陈计男.论船舶优先权.法学从刊.1971(4)：68.
1081926年公约第4条第3款原文：1Payments made or due to the owner on policies of insurance, as well as bounties subventions, and other national subsidies are not deemed to be accessories of the vessel or of the freight.
109 A.M.Bright Grocery Co. V. Lindsey, (1915).225 F.257 (S.. D.Ala)
110日本持肯定说的学者如原茂太一,见原茂太一.海商法.东京：千仓书房,昭和和六十三年九月全订十五版：284-285；持否定说的学者如西岛弥太郎,参见：西岛弥太郎.海商法要论.昭和六年：183.
111见台湾“司法院”公报.1972(3)：7.
112陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士学位论文).台湾：台湾六学.1983：112.
113陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士学位论文).台湾：台湾六学,1983：112.
114《海商法》第二十四条,此项非船舶优先权项目,但其清偿顺序符合国际通行作法。
115《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
116《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
117《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
118《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
119《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
120《海商法》第二十五条。
121《海商法》第二十五条。
122《海商法》第二十五条。
123见《最高人民法院关于海事法院拍卖被扣押船舶清偿债务的规定》第三条第(三)项第二款。
124《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
125《海商法》第二十三条第二款。
126《海商法》第二十三条第二款。
127台湾学者关于优先权之顺位与效力的著作参见黄茂清.论海上优先权项目及位次.台六法学论从.1975(4)：297-324.
128 The Cou ntess [1923] A.C.345.
129 The S tream Fisher [I926].26 LI. L. Rep.4.
130 The Veritas[1901]p. 304.
131 The Russland [1924] p. 55.
132 The Mons [1932] p. 109.
133 The Mons [1932]p. 109.
134 The Mons [1932] p. 109.
135 Curie v. M'Knight [1897] A.C.97; The Veritas [1901] p. 304;The Aline [1839] Ⅰ W,Rob.Ⅲ.
136 The Elin [1882] 8 P.D. 39: The Inna [1938] p. 148.
137 The Aline [1839] Ⅰ W.Rob. Ⅲ.
138 The Linda Flor [1867] Swab. 309; The Chimera [1852]11 L.T.113.
139 The Inna [193]|p. 148: The Longford [1889] 14P.D.34.
140 The Selina [1842] 2 Not. Cas. 18.
141 Car go ex Galam [1863] B. &l. 167.181.
142 The Veritas [1901] p. 304.
143 The Veritas[1901]p.304.
144 The Lyrma (No.2)[1978] 2 Lloyd's Rep.30.
145 The Lyrma (No.2)[1978] 2 Lloyd's Rep.30.
146 The Selina [1842] 2 Not. Cas.18.
147 ATT.-Gen. V. Norstedt [1816] 3 Price 97,136.
148 The Salacia [1862] Lush.545;The Athena [1921] 8 L1. L.R.482; The Mons [1932] p.109.
149 The Mado nna D'Idra [1811]1 Dods.37.
150 The Mary Ann [1845]9 Jur 94; The Hope [1873]1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas.563.
151 The Janathan Good hue [1859] Swab.524.
152 G. Gilmore.C. Jr. Black, The Law of Admiralty.New York; Brooklyn, The Foundation Press,1975:627-633.
153 Com ment,Developments in the law of Maritime Liens.45 Tul L. Rev,1970:574.
54 Con or,Maritime Lien Priorities:Cross-Currents of Theory.54 Michigan Law Review.1956:786.
55 G.Gilmore,C.Jr.Black.The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn,The Foundation Press,1975:615-616
156公约第3条原文：The mortgages, hypothecations, and other charges on vessels referred to in Article 1 rank immediately after the secured claims referred to in the preceding Article. National laws may grant a lien in respect of claims other than those referred to in the said last-mentioned Article, so. however, as not to modify the ranking of claims secured by mortgages, hypothecations, and other similar charges, or by the liens taking precedence thereof.公约第5条原文：Claims secured by a lien and relating to the same voyage rank in the order in which they are set out in Article 2. Claims included under any one heading share concurrently and rateably in the event of the fund available being insufficient to pay the claims in full. The claims mentioned under Nos.3 and 5 in that Article rank, in each of the two categories, in the inverse order of the dates on which they came into existence. Claims arising from one and the same occurrence are deemed to have come into existence at the same time.
18吴智.海商法论(第4版).台北：三民书局股份有限公司.1976：57.
19王效文.商事法要义.上海：上海吕明书屋,1948：167.
160郑玉波.海商法，台北：三民书局，1983：25.
161郑洋一.银行对海上优先权与抵押权竞合之实行问题的探究.彰银资料,1973(3)：15-16.
1162 The City of Tawas,3 F.170(E.D.Mich.1880):The De Smet,10 F.483(E.D.La.1881):The Guilding Star,18 F.263 (S.D.Ohio 1883):Bogart v.The John Jay,58 U.S.(17 How.)339(1854).
.163 G yory,Security at Sea:A Review of the Preferred Ship Mortgage.Ford.L.Rev(1962-1963(31):231.
164涂学明.船舶担保物权之研究：(硕士论文).台北：台湾六学.1970.刊载于法学专刊1974(4)：58.
165钱文颖.论法律上优先权的适用顺序.法令月刊.1978(12)：18.
166《海商法》第二十五条。
167见1993年船舶优先权和抵押权国际公约》第5条第1项。
168 The Benwell Tower 72 L.P.664.
169 D.C.Ja ckson. Enforcement Of Maritime Claims.2nd Edition.London:Lloyd's Of London Press,1996:500.
170见Halcyon Isle (1981)AC.221;The Shizelle (1992)2 Lloyd's Rep.445.
171参见于海涌著.船舶抵押权法律效力问题研究.收录于梁慧星主编.民商法论從第九卷.北京：法律出版社.1998(1)：562.
172石井照久.海商法(法律性全集30).东京：有裴阁.昭和49年：136.
173黄文滨.海商法优先权之研究：(硕士论文).台北：政治大学.1971.刊载于法学丛刊.1972(3)：29.
174涂学明.船舶担保物权之研究：(硕士论文).台北：台湾大学.1970.刊载于法学专刊.1974(4)：55-56.
175施智谋.海商法.1968：344.
176[1924],130 L.T.763.
177刘承汉.论船舶优先权及抵押权.海商法论译从编.1971：240.
18涂学明.船舶担保物权之研究：(硕士论文).台北：台湾六学,1970.刊载于法学专刊,1974(4)：55-56.
179见The Africano (1894) P.141; McGuffie. Admiralty Practice.British Shipping Laws. Stevens & Sons,1964:71.
180最高人民法院《关于海事法院诉讼前扣押船舶的规定》第二条第(一)至第(二十)项。
181最高人民法院《关于海事法院诉讼前扣押船舶的规定》第二条第(一)至第(三)项。
182 (1964)1 Lloyd's Rep.384.
183《海商法》第二十五条。
184具体可参加本文第69页。
185 (1924) P.55.
186 (1903)P.26.
187也参见The Gustaf (1862) Lush 506; The Immacolata Concezione (1883) 9 P.37.
188见《海商法》第二十五条。
189 (1980) 3 All E.R.197.
190见The Lyons (1887) L.T.818.
191 The Right Hon ourablc Lord MacKay of Clashfern.Halshury's Laws Of England,4th Edition. London: LexisNexis Butterworths Reissue. 1973-1997:1279-1280;The Lymia (No.2)(1978) 2 Lloyd's Rep.30.
192 D.C.Jackson. E nforcement Of Maritime Claims.London:I,loyd"s of London PressI.td..2005:501-503.
193 The Sea Spray (1907) P. 133.
194 The Hlope(1873) 1 Asp. MLC.(563).
195 The Inna(1938) P. 148.
196 The Veritas (1901 )P. 304.
197 Currie V.M1 Knight (1897) A.C.97.
198 The Daring (18 68) L.R. 2A.D.260.
199 The Veritas (1901)P.304.
200 The Royal Wells (1984) 2 Lloyd's Law Rep.255.
201 The L yrma (No.2) 1978 2 Lloyd's Rep.30.
202 The Two Ellens (1872) L.R.4 P.C.161.
203 The S tream Fisher (1927) P.73.
204 The Leoborg (No.2)(1964) 1 Lloyd's Rep.380.
205 The Tergeste (1903) P.26.
206 The Royal Wells (1984) 2 Lloyd's Law Rep.255.
207 William Tetley,Maritime Lien and Claims.Intel Shipping Pubns,1985:27-28.
208 46 U.S.C.A.S.31341-31343.
209 Bogart v.The John Jay(S.C.t.1854).
210 G.Gilmore.C.Jr.Black.The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn.The Foundation Press.1975:362
211 46 U.S.C.911-984,Chapter 313. Commercial Instruments And Maritime Liens.p.302.
212 46 U.S.C.A.S.31301(5),31326(b)1.
213 G. Gilmore.C. Jr. Black, The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn. The Foundation Press,1975:751-757;Ship Mortgage Act,1920 Section 953 (a).
214 G. Gilmore,C. Jr. Black, The Law ofAdmiralty New York:Brooklyn, The Foundation Press,1975:756.
215 G. Gilmore.C. Jr. Black. The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn, The Foundation Press.1975:735-736:Ship Mortgage Act,1920:753:Section 953 (a).
216 Oil S hipping V. Sonmez Benizcilik Be Ticaret A. F. (3d)Cir (1993).
217 G. Gilmore.C. Jr. Black, The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn. The Foundation Press,1975:733.
218 Frank L. Maraist, Admiralty In A Nutshell.3rd Edition.St. Paul Minn:West Publishing Co.,1996:98-101.
219 G. Gilmore,C. Jr. Black. The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn, The Foundation Press,1975:751-753.
220 G. Gilmore,C. Jr. Black, The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn, The Foundation Press,1975:743-745.
221 National Shawmut Bank of Boston V. The Winlhrop, D. Mass,1955.
222《海商法》第三十条规定：“本节规定不影响本法第十一章关于海事赔偿责任限制规定的实施。”
223梁慧星主编.邓瑞平著.船舶侵权行为法基础理论问题研究.北京：法律出版社.1999(9)：45-46.
224 The Bra mley Moore (1964)1 All ER 105.
225陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士论文).台湾：台湾大学.1983：120.
226 Roger G. Connor, Maritime Lien Priorities:Cross-Currents of Theory.Michigan Law Review,1956:777.
227陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士论文).台湾：台湾大学,1983：121.
228也见The Young Mechanic,Fed.Cas.No.18.180.876(1855).
229 Richard E. Burke, op.cit., p.275黄茂清.论海上优先权之项目及位次.台大法学论从.1975(4)：315-316.
230见The J.W.Tucker(D.C.W.Y.1884)20 F.129.
231《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
232《海商法》第二十三条第二款。
233郑戈著.法律与现代人的命运：马克斯·韦伯法律思想研究导论.北京：法律出版社,2006(3):181
234 Felix Cohen,Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach.Columbia Law Review,1935:35.
235《海商法》第二十二条。
236《海商法》第二十四条。
237见The Mons(1932)P.109.
238中国《海商法》第二十三条也确认了这一原则。第二十三条第一款规定第(四)项,即海难救助的救助款项的给付请求,后十第(一)项至第(三)项发生的,应当先于第(一)至第(三)项受偿。
239 G. Gilmore,C. Jr. Black, The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn, The Foundation Press,1975:652-653.
240见The Veritas(1901)R304:The Lyrma (No.2)(1978)2 Lloyd's Rcp.30.
41 The Paragon (D.C.Me.1836) Fed.Cas.No.10,708.
12英国判例The Madonna D'Idra(1811)1 Dods 37.
243《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
244 The F.H.Stanwood(7th Cir. 1892)49F.577.
245 (1978)2 Lloyd's Rep,30.
246《海商法》第二十三条第二款。
247《海商法》第二二十三条第一款。
248 The L yrma (No.2) (1978)Lloyd's Law Reports 30.
249《海商法》第二十二条第(二)项。
250《海商法》第二十二条第(五)项
251 The John G, Stevens,170 U.S.113,18,S.Ct.544(1898).
252见The Aline (1893)W. Rob.111.
253《海商法》第二十二条第(三)项。
254见英国的Harbors, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 《1847年海港、船坞、码头条例法》,及Port Of LondonAct,1968《1968年伦敦海港法》；The Freightline One,(1998) Llyod's Rep.266.
255《海商法》第二十三条第二款。
256见《1993年船舶优先权和抵押权国际公约》第5条第3项。
257 Roger G. Connor, Maritime Lien Priorities:Cross-Currents of Theory.Michigan Law Review1956:777.
258《海商法》第二十九条第(一)项。
259《海商法》第二十六条。
260一些国家如英国,特别立法规定对此类债务,港口当局对船舶具有滞留权及处分权,包括拍卖权。法院要扣船时,港口当局也可拒不放弃占有,但如果占有权权转移给法院,相应的债务可首先受偿,并比所有的船舶优先权优先受偿。所以这被称为“最高优先请求仪”(Claims of Paramount Priority),或“特别法定权”(Special Legislative Rights);见D.R.Thomas. Maritime Liens. London:Sievens A Sons. Lid. 1980:231; William Tetley. Maritime Lien and Claims.Intel Shipping Pubns.1985:42.
261 William Tetlcy. Maritime Lien and Claims.Intel Shipping Pubns. 1985:392.
262 Halsburv's Laws Of E:ngland.4th Editon.Reissue,Vol.43(2).1997:1279-1280.
263 G. Gilmore,C. Jr. Black. The Law of Admiralty .New York: Brooklyn. The Foundation Press. 1975.该书第737页指出：“法院的自由裁量权的权力范围比任何学说上的原则都大,但这些原则多已过时且不通用。”
264《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
265《海商法》第二十三条第一款。
266 Carrier, Maritime Lien For Damage.Columbia Law Review,1903:369-378.
267 The Aline(1893)W. Rob.11.
268钱国成.破产法要义.台北：三民书局.1968：133-138.
59 The Royal Arch (1857) 30 L.T.198.
270 Oliver Wendell Holmes.The Path of the Law.10Harvard Law Review,1897.
271 The Feronia(1868)17 L.T.619.
272 The P ickaninny(1960)1 Lloyd's Rep.533.
273参见赖来焜.海事国际私法中船舶优先权研究：(博士论文).台湾：国立政治大学法律研究所.1992：96-97.
274原茂太一.海商法.东京：千仓书房,昭和六十三年九月全订订十五版：288-289.
275 HaWgood and Auery Transit Co.V.Dingman.94 F. 1011(1899):D.R.Thomas,Maritime Liens.London:Stevens & Sons,Ltd,1980:63-65.
276 D.R. Thomas. Maritime Liens.London:Stevens & Sons. Ltd.1980:502-529.
277 D.R. Thomas. Maritime Liens London:Stevens & Sons. Ltd.1980-528-529.
278 Frank G. Harmon.Discharge and Waiver of Maritime Liens.47 Tulane Law Review.1973:786.
279 G. Price. The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet and Maxwell Ltd.,1940:168-171.
280公约第9条原文：The liens cease to exist, apart from other cases provided for by national laws, at the expiration ol one year. and. in the case of hens for supplies mentioned in No.5 of Article 2. shall contmue in force for not more than six months. As respects the cases provided for in the national laws in which a lien is extinguished, a sale shall extinguish a lien only if accompanied by formalities of publicity which shall be laid down by the national laws.
281公约第8条第一款原文：The maritime liens set out in Article 4 shall be extinguished after a period of one year from the time when the claims secured thereby arose unless, prior to the expiry of such period, the vessel has been arrested, such arrest leading to a forced sale.第11条第一款原文：In the event of the forced sale of the vessel in a Contracting State all mortgages and "hypothques". except those assumed by the purchaser with the consent of the holders, and all liens and other encumbrances of whatsoever nature shall cease to attach to the vessel, provided however that: (a) at the time of the sale, the vessel is in the jurisdiction of such Contracting State, and (b) the sale has been effected in accordance with the law of the said State and the provisions of this Convention.
2如房阿生.船舶优先权之研究：(硕士论文).台中：国立中兴大学,1971：30.
3涂学明.船舶担保物权之研究：(硕士论文).台北：台湾大学.1970.刊载于法学专刊.1974(4)：41-44页。
284陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士论文).台湾：台湾大学,1983年：155-158.
285 Felix Cohen,Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach,35 Columbia Law Review, 1935.
286参见甘其绶.船舶优先权之研究.交通资料月刊.1963(5)：115.
287见杨仁寿.海商法，航运法律之三.台北：自版,1986(2)：91.
288沈茂树.船舶优先权法律制度研究：(博市论文).北京：北京大学.2000:198
289例如《海商法》第273条规定：“船舶碰撞的损害赔偿,适用侵权行为地法律。船舶在公海上发生碰撞的损害赔偿,适用受理案件的法院所在地法律。同一国藉的船舶,不论碰撞发生于何地,碰撞船舶之间的损害赔偿适用船旗国法律。”
290 (1971) 1 W.L.R.1176.
291 D.C.Jackson,Enforccmcnt of Maritime Claims,2nd Edition.London:Lloyd's London Press 1996:588-592.
292 Phillips V. Eyre (1870) 22 L.T.869.
293 (1868) 16 E.R.514.
294英国《1993年引航法》规定：“船舶所有人必须为引航员的过错负责任”,这一规定修改了原又的船舶所有人不需负责任的规定。
295 Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995.
296 (1999)3 All ER.749.
297 34 5 U.S.571, (1953).
298 William Tetley, Maritime Lien and Claims.Intel Shipping Pubns,1985:527-528.
299见丁伟主编.冲突法论.北京：法律出版社.1996(9)：206-209.
300见《中华人民其和国民法通则》第146条第二款。
301沈茂树.船舶优先权法律制度研究：(博士论文).北京：北京大学.2000：202.
302 D. R. Thomas, Maritime Liens.British Shipping Laws Vol.14.London:Stevens and Sons.1980:317转引自：沈茂树.船舶优先权法律制度研究：(博士论文).北京：北京大学.2000：202.
303(1958)3 1 p.42.
304详见《海商法》第269条“合同当事人可以选择台同适用的法律,法律另有规定的除外。合同当事人没有选择的,适用‘与合同有最密切联系的国家的法律。”
305 Oliver Wendell Holmes.The Path of the Law.10 Harvard Law Review.1897.
306 Oliver Wendell Holmes,The Path of the Law,10 Harvard Law Review,1897.
307见司玉琢,吴兆麟.船舶碰撞法.大连：大连海事大学出版社.1995(5)：318.该书指出：“许多国家的法律的国际私法的冲突规则都包含了最密切联系原则。”
308 D. R. Thomas, Maritime Liens.British Shipping Laws Vol. H.London:Stevens and Sons,1980:318.
309见1910年《关于统一海上救助若干法律规则的国际公约》第6条。
310见Lloyd's Standard Form of Salvage Agreement "No Cure-No Pav也称为Llovd's Standard Form或Lloved's Open Form,最新版为“LOF 1995”。
311 (1972) 1 All E.R.1110.
312王保树主编,张丽英著.海商法.北京：人民法院出版社,1998(4)：286.
313梁慧星主编,王国华著.海事国际私法研究.北京：法律出版社.1999(2)：67-68.
314 Dice y and Morris, The Conflict of Laws,12 Edition, Vol.1.London:Sweet & Maxwell,1993:182
315参见：沈茂树.船舶优先权法律制度研究：(博士论文).北京：北京大学.2000.206-208.
316沈茂树.船舶优先权法律制度研究：(博士论文).北京：北京大学.2000：206-207.
317 (1974)1 Lloyd's Rep.174.
318 Karl Llewellyn,Some Realism about Realism:Responding to Dean Pound.44 Harvard Law Review,1931.
319中国《海商法》第十四章。
320见傅旭梅主编.中华人民共和国海商法诠释.北京：人民法院出版社,1995(9)：493.
321 (1980)3 All ER 197.
322前述已提及,美国规定的优先权项日比英国多。
323 Toll Rian Sing. Admiralty Law & Practice.Singapore: Buttcrworths Asia .1998:223.
324 The Mili'ord,( 1858)31 L. T.42;The Tagus. 1903:44:The Zigurds,1932:l 13: The Acrux,1965:391.这些判断所规定的原则与判例The Halcyon Isle似,即当涉及船舶优先权便仅以法院所在地法律确决船舶优先权的产生于受偿顺序的问题,取代了应适用的外国法律。
325 D.C.Jackson.E.nforcement of Ma rilime Claims.2nd Edition.London:Llovd's London Press .1996:603.梁慧星主编.
326郑戈.法律与现代人的命运：马克斯·韦伯法律思想研究导论.北京：法律出版社2006(3)：178.
327张乃根.西方法哲学史纲(第四版).北京：中国政法大学出版社.2008(7)：208.
[1]梁慧星.民法解释学.北京：中国政法大学出版社，2005.
[2]刘翀.现实主义法学的批判与建构.法律科学,2009(5)：13-24.
[3]伯恩·魏德十著,丁小春,吴越泽.法理学.北京：法律出版社，2003：209.
[4]司玉琢.海商法(第二版).北京：法律出版社,2007.
[5]司玉琢.海商法专论.北京：中国人民大学出版社.2007.
[6]司玉琢等编著.海商法详论.大连：大连海事大学出版社,1995.
[7]屈广清.海事国际私法新编.北京：法律出版社,2005：10.
[8]傅廷中.海商法论.北京：法律出版社2007.
[9]吴焕宁.海商法(第二版).北京：法律出版社,1996.
[10][美]波斯纳,苏力译.法理学问题.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[11]张乃根：西方法哲学史纲.北京：中国政法大学出版社，2008.
[12][美]E·博登海默著,邓止来泽.法理学——法哲学及其方法.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[13]霍姆斯著,明辉译.法律的生命在于经验——霍姆斯法学文集.北京：清华大学出版社出版,2007.
[14][美]罗斯科·庞德.著,邓正来译.法律史解释.北京：中国法制出版社,2002.
[15]田默迪.东西方之间的法律哲学.北北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[16][美]波斯纳著,苏力译.法理学问题.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[17][英]哈特著,张文显等译.法律的概念.北京：.中国大百科全书出版社,1996.
[18]韩德培.国际私法(第二版).北京：高等教育出版社,2007.
[19]赖来焜.最新海商法论.台北：台北元照出版有限公司,2008.
[20]韩德培.国际私法新论.武汉：武汉大学出版社,1997.
[21]张庆熊.二十世纪英美哲学.北京：人民出版社,2005.
[22][英]Dennis Lloyd著,张茂柏泽..法律的理念.台北：台北联经出版事业公司,1984.
[23]张文显.二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究.北京：法律出版社,,2006.
[24]严存生主编.西方法律思想史.北京：法律出版社,2004.
[25]付池斌著.现实主义法学.北京：法律出版社,2005.
[26]Thomas C. Grey, Langdell'S Orthodoxy.University Of Pittsburgh Law Review,1983:45.
[27][美]G吉尔摩,[美]C布莱克,杨召南等著.海商法.北京：中国大百科全书出版社,2000.
[28]李海.船舶物权之研究.北京：法律出版社,2002.
[29]李双元.比较民法学.武汉：武汉大学出版社,2000.
[30]周旺生.立法论.北京：北京大学出版社,1994.
[31][美]卡多佐著,苏力译.司法过程的性质.北京：商务印书馆,2000.
[32]沈宗灵.现代西方法理学.北京：法律出版社.1992.
[33][美]蒙罗·斯密并,姚梅镇译.欧陆法律发达史.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[34]强世功.双重结构化下的法律解释.载梁治平编《法律解释问题》.北京：法律出版社,1998.
[35]Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of Law.10 Harvard Law Review,1897.
[36]Gerry,Method & interpretation of source of law.Lousiana State Law Institute,1963.
[37]张娟.什么是法律现实主义.西南政法大学学报,2010(5).
[38]冯玉军.当代美国法律思想的演进谱系.法学家,2007(6).
[39]Uriel Philip Bauer,Tacking a True Course For Maritime Liens on Freight. Cardozo L. Review, 1985-1986(7):187.
[40]Norman B. Richards, Maritime Liens in Tort. General Average and Salvage. Tulane Law Review.1972-1973(47):569.
[41]Paul Myburgh, Recognition of Foreign Maritime Liens. The South African Law Journal,1989 (106):263.
[42]Charles S. Donovan. Picking the Shipowner's Poson-Choice-of-Law Clauses and Maritime Liens. University of San Francisco Law Journal,2001-2002(14):185.
[43]David A. Marcello. Developments in The Law of Maritime Liens. Tulane Law Review. 1970-1971 (45):574.
[44]Frank G.,Harmon, Discharge and Waiver of Maritime Liens. Tulane. Law. Review.1972-1973 (47):786
[45]Harry A. Allen, The Expanding Scope of Federal Maritime Liens:A Critique of Blair M/V Blue Spruce. University of San Francisco Law Journal,1974-1975(9):665.
[46]Edward C. Biele, Maritime Liens Arising Out of Collision. Tulane Law Review,1976-1977 (51):134.
[47]Lucian Y. Ray, Martitime Contract Liens. Tulane Law Review,1972-1973(47):587.
[48]Warren J. Marwedel, Mark O. Kasanin, Mark K. de Langis, Maritime Procedure:An Overview and a Caution Regarding Privilege Waiver. Tulane Law Review.2004-2005(79):1421.
[49]Kipling. Personification of Vessel. Harvard Law Review,1963-1964(77):1122.
[50]David Brice Toy.Introduction to the Law of Maritime Liens.47 Tulane Law Review,1972-1973.
[51]D.R. Thomas. Maritime Liens.London:Stevens & Sons, Ltd,1980.
[52]Paul Macarius Hebert, The Origin and Nature of the Maritime Liens.4 Tulane Law Review,1929-1930.
[53]Ivon d'Almeida Pires Filho, Comparative Maritime Liens:Anglo and Latin Based Law in the Americas.9 Mar. Law,1984:245.
[54]Edward F. Ryan, Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien:an Historical Perspective.7 Western Ontario Law Review,1968(7):173..
[55]William Tetley,Maritime Lien and Claims.Intel Shipping Pubns,1985.
[56]William Tetley,International Maritime and Admiralty Law.Les Editions Yvon Blais Inc.,2002.
[57]Oliver Wendell Holmesr,The Common Law(New Edition by Mark De Wolfe Howe). London: Macmillan,1985.
[58]Paul Vrinogradoff, Roman Law in Medieval Europe. London:Harper & Brothers,1909.
[59]屈广清.周后春.论船舶优先权的法律适用.中国海商法年刊第13卷,2002：96-107.
[60]郑海涛.论《物权法》对我国船舶物权制度之影响.法制与社会，,2008(10).
[61]马聪.霍姆斯现实主义法学思想研究：(博士论文).上海：华东政法大学.2007.
[62]Theodore M.Benditt,Law as Rule and Principle.Stanford University Press,1978:26-37.
[63]杨仁寿.法学方法论.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[64]刘星.法律的不确定性——美国现实主义法律评述.中山大学学报(社会科学版)，1996：198-202.
[65]H.L.A.Hart,TheConceptual Legal Dogmatics.Oxford University Press,1961.
[66]Joseph William Singer,Legal Realism Now.76 California law review,1988:465-467.
[67]Richard Taylor,Law and Morality.New York University Law Review,1968:627.
[68][法]卢梭,何兆武译.社会契约论.北北京：商务印书馆,1980.
[69]谢晖.规范解释的创新何以艰难?.山东大学学报,2000.
[70]谢新胜.船舶优先权的法律适用规则.华中农业大学学报(社会科学版),2006(5)：73-78.
[71]何建华.1993年船舶优先权和抵押权国际公约释义.北京：人民交通出版社,1997.
[72]江杰.论优先请求权的法律性质和法律适用.收录于海商法论文集.北京：学术书刊出版社,1989：150-151.
[73]李双元.论国际私法关系中解决法律选择的方法问题.中国法学,1984.
[74]李双元,郑远明.应当重视对国际民事诉讼法的研究.法学家,1995.
[75]李双元著.走向21世纪的国际私法.北北京：法律出版社,1999：330-429.
[76]屈广清著.国际民事程序统—法研究(下).北京：中国经贸出版社,2001：145.
[77]徐新铭.船舶优先权.大连：大连海事大学出版社,1995.
[78]曹艳芝.优先权论.长沙：湖南人民出版社,2005.
[79]韩德培,李双元.应该重视对冲突法的研究.武汉大学学报,1983(6).
[80]李海.论海事优先权法律冲突的解决途径.收录于海商法论文集.北京：学术书刊出版社,1989.
[81][美]霍维茨著,谢鸿飞译.美国法的变迁：1780-1860.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[82]Bryan A.Garner,Black's Law Dictionary,7th ed. West Group,1999.
[83]林群弼.海商法论.台北：三民书局.2003.
[84]W. R. Fisher, Fisher & Lightwood's Law of Mortgage. London:Butterworth & Co. Ltd.,1988.
[85]T MOMMSEN Digest of Justinian. (2 Volume Set) Book XXII. University of Pennsylvania Press,1997.
[86]John Rodman, The Commercial Code of France with The Motives.C. Wiley, Printer,1814.
[87]Thomas Grey,Langdells'Orthodoxy,45 University of Pittsburgh Law Review,1983.
[88]Lionel H Laing, Historic Origins of Admiralty Jurisdiction in England.Michigan Law Review, 1946-1947(45):163..
[89]Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard. Modern Admiralty Law. Cavendish Publishing Limited.2001.
[90]陈朝壁.罗马法原理.北京：法律出版社.2006.
[91]G. Price. The Law of Maritime Liens.London:Sweet and Maxwell Ltd.,1940.
[92]赖来焜.海事国际私法中船舶优先权研究：(博士论文).台湾：国立政治大学法律研究所.1992.
[93]梁宇贤.海商法.台北：三民书局.1987.
[94]Captain L.F.H. Stanton, The Law and Practice of Sea Transport.基隆,龙玺出版社.1978.
[95]Lord and Glenn, The Foreign Ship Mortgage.56 Yale Law J,1947.
[96]Jeremy Browne,The Extinction of Maritime Liens.Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly,2003,4(3):365.
[97]G. Gilmore,C. Jr. Black, The Law of Admiralty.New York:Brooklyn, New York:The Foundation Press,1975.
[98]D. R. Thomas, Maritime Liens. British Shipping Laws (Vol.14). London:Sweet & Maxwell, 1980.
[99]梁宇贤.海商法精义.台北：台湾三民书局有限公司,1996：60.
[100]The Maharaj Nagendra Singh, International Maritime Law Conventions, British Shipping Laws, Vol.4.London:Stevens and Sons,1983.
[101]David Weil, Charting a Course through Dangerous Waters:a Landlubber's Introduction to the Rules of
[102]Maritime Indebtedness in the Context of a Maritime Bankruptcy.University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal,1996(4):3.
[103]陈显荣.从比较法论我国船舶优先权：(硕士学位论文).台湾：台湾大学，1983.
[104]Christopher Hill, Maritime Law,4th Edition.London:Lloyd's of London Press,1995.
[105]Nigel Meeson, Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice.London:Lloyd's of London Press,1993.
[106]杨仁寿.海商法,航运法律之三.台北：自版,1986(2).
[107]梁宇贤.论海商法上之优先权.中华法学,1984：20.
[108]何佐治.海商法释义.台北：自版,1962.
[109]张展芳：船舶优先权与抵押权研究：(硕十学位论文).台湾：国立海洋大学,1982.
[110]甘其绶.船舶优先权之研究.交通资料月刊,1963(5).
[111]田中诚二,海商法详论.东京：劲草书房,1985(6).
[112]Nicholas J. Heal, Brainerd Currie.Cases and Materials on Admiralty.St. Paul Minn:West Publishing Co.,1977.
[113]施智谋.海商法.台北：自版,1979(10).
[114]Robert Chorley and Giles, Shipping Law,6th ed.London:Pitman Publishing,1970.
[115]Felix Cohen,Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach.35 Columbia Law Review, 1935.
[116]张特生.疑云满楼的船舶优先权问题及其解决途径(一).法令月刊,1986(12)：3-7.
[117]张特生.疑云满楼的船舶优先权问题及其解决途径(二).法令月刊,1987(1)：3-8.
[118]刘承汉.论船舶优先权及抵押权.交通建设.1970(12).
[119]梁宇贤.海商法.台北：三民书局,1987.
[120]沈潮江.船舶保险金能否为优先权之标的.台湾司法通讯,1973：613.
[121]陈计男.论船舶优先权.法学丛刊,197](4).
[122]原茂太一.海商法.东京：千仓书房,昭和六十三年九月全订十五版.
[123]西岛弥太郎.海商法要论.昭和六年.
[124]黄茂清.论海上优先权项目及位次.台大法学论丛,1975(4)：315-316.
[125]Roger G. Connor, Maritime Lien Priorities:Cross-Currents of Theory.Michigan Law Review,1956.
[126]吴智.海商法论(第4版).台北：三民书局股份有限公司,1976.
[127]王效文.商事法要义.上海：上海昌明书屋,1948.
[128]胡绪雨.船舶优先权消灭效力研究.法学评论,2012(3)：48-56.
[129]郑玉波.海商法,台北：三民书局,1983.
[130]郑洋一.银行对海上优先权与抵押权竞合之实行问题的探究.彰银资料,1973(22)：3.
[131]Jose Maria Alcantara,A Short Primer on the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages.Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce,1996,12(4):15.
[132]Gyory, Security at Sea:A Review of the Preferred Ship Mortgage.31 Ford. L. Rev.231 (1962-1963).
[133]候军主编.当代海事国际私法.上海：上海科学技术文献出版社,1990.
[134]赖来馄.海事国际私法.台北：神州图书出版有限公司，2002.
[135]威廉.泰特雷.国际冲突法—普通法、大陆法及海事法.北京：法律出版社,2003.
[136]涂学明.船舶担保物权之研究：(硕士论文).台北：台湾大学,1970.刊载于法学专刊,1974(4)：55-56.58.
[137]钱文颖.论法律上优先权的适用顺序.法令月刊,1978(12)：23.
[138]D.C.Jackson, Enforcement Of Maritime Claims,2nd Edition.London:Lloyd's Of London Press.1996.
[139]Raymond P.Hayden,The Uniqueness of Admiralty and Maritime Law:the Unique Nature of Maritime Liens.Tulane Law Review June.2005(2):12-13.
[140]Neill Hutton,The Origin,Development,and Future of Maritime Liens and the Action in rem.Tulane Maritime Law Journal,2003(4):10.
[141]于海涌.船舶抵押权法律效力问题研究.收录于梁慧星主编.民商法论从第九卷.北京：法律出版社,1998(1).
[142]黄文滨.海商法优先权之研究.法学丛刊,1974(4)：21.
[143]周相.罗马法原论.北京：商务印书馆.2001：19.
[144]McGuffie, Admiralty Practice,British Shipping Laws.London:Stevens & Sons,1964.
[145]Frank L. Maraist, Admiralty In A Nutshell,3rd Edition.St. Paul Minn:West Publishing Co.,1996
[146]钱国成.破产法要义.台北：三民书局,1961.
[147]Frank G. Harmon,Discharge and Waiver of Maritime Liens.47 Tulane Law Review,1973:23.
[148]房阿生.船舶优先权之研究：(硕士学位论文).台中：国立中兴大学,1971.
[149]石井照久.海商法(法律性全集30).东京：有斐阁,昭和49年.
[150]张忠晔主编.各国和地区海商法比较.北京：人民交通出版社,1994.
[151]Jo Desha Lucas, Admiralty.The Foundation Press,Inc,1996.
[152]沈茂树.船舶优先权法律制度研究：(博士论文).北京：北京大学,2000.
[153]丁伟.冲突法论.J匕京：法律出版社,1996(9).
[154]Oliver Wendell Holmes,The Path of the Law.10 Harvard Law Review,1897.
[155]司玉琢,吴兆麟.船舶碰撞法.大连：大连海事大学出版社,1995(5).
[156]Roscoe, The Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice,5th Edition. Professional Books Ltd,1987.
[157]王保树,张丽英.海商法.北京：人民法院出版社,1998(4).
[158]梁宇贤.海商法专题论从.台北：台湾三民书局,1988.
[159]傅旭梅.中华人民共和国海商法诠释,北京：人民法院出版社,1995(9).
[160]Dicey and Morris. The Conflict of Laws,12 Edition, Vol.1.London:Sweet & Maxwell,1993.
[161]梁慧星,王国华.海事国际私法研究.北京：法律出版社,1999(2).
[162]Karl Llewellyn, Some Realism about Realism:Responding to Dean Pound.44 Harvard Law Review,1931.
[163]Toh Kian Sing. Admiralty Law & Practice.Singapore:Butterworths Asia.1998.
[163]Samir Manbahady,lnternational Shipping Law,Vol.11 UNCTAD's Rules, Accidents and Incidents at Sea. Euromoney Books,1991.
[165]夏贞鹏.“概念法学VS自由法学”的法解释学命题考察——写在“民法典”之前.法律方法.2003.
[166]吕世伦,付池斌.现实主义法学对美国法学教育的影响.东岳论丛,2006(3).
[167]Lord Hailsham, Halsbury's Laws of England,4th Edition, Reissue Vol.8(l), Vol.43 (21) Butterworths,1996.
[168]Roscoe Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice.Report of the 29th Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association. Vol.29,1906.
[169]Richard Posner, The Problematics Of Moral And Legal Theory.The Harvard Law Review Association,1998.
[170]Karl N. Llewellyn, Jurisprudence:Realism in Theory and Practice.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1962.
[171]Hart, TheConceptual Legal Dogmatics.London:oxford University Press,1994.
[172]Brian Leiter, Rethinking Legal Realism:Toward a Naturalized Jurisprudence.76 Texas Law Review,1997.
[173]Wendy Brown Scott, Oliver Wendell Holmes On Equality And Adarand. Howard Law Journal,2003.
[174]Marting Golding,Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy in Twentieth-Century America:Major Themes and Developments.36 Journal of Legal Eduction,] 986.
[175]Albert W Alschuler, The Descending Trail:Holmes' Path Of The Law One Hundred Years Later,49 Fla. L. Rev.,1997.
[176]Brian H. Bix,Law as an Autonomous Discipline, in the Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies. Oxford University Press,2003:979.
[177]Albert W Alschuler, Law Without Values:The Life, Work, And Legacy Of Justice Holmes. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,2000.
[178]Louise Weinberg,Federal Common Law.Northwestern University Law Review,1989:805-834.
[179]Felix Cohen,Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach,35 Columbia Law Review,1935.
[180]David J. Seipp, Holmes's Path.77 Boston University Law Review,1997.
[181]Karl Llewellyn, A Realistic Jurisprudence:the Next Step,30 Columbia Law Review,1930.
[182]Walter Wheeler Cook.Privileges of Labor Unions in the Struggle for Life. Yale Law Journal, 1918(27):779.
[183]Round and round the bramble bush:From legal realism to critical legal scholarship.Harvard Law Review,1982(95):1669-1690.
[l84]Morton Horwitz.The Transformation of American Law:1870-1960. Harvard University Press.1977.
[185]Olive Wendell Holmes,Natural Law. Harvard Law Review,1918.
[186]Thomas C. Grey, Langdell'S Orthodoxy, University Of Pittsburgh Law Review,1983:45.
[187]O. W. Holmes, Codes and the Arrangement of The Law. American Law Review,1870(5).
[188]Jerome Frank.Law and the Modem Mind.New York:Brentanos,1930.
[189]Oliver Wendell Holmes,The Path of the Law.10 Harvard Law Review,1897.
[190]Michael Martin,Legal Realism:American and Scandinavian.New York:Peter Land Publishing, Inc.,1997.
[191]Thomas C. Grey,Holmes And Legal Pragmatism.Standfond Law Review 41.1989.
[192]George C. Christie and Patrick H. Martin. Jurisprudence Text and Readings on the Philosophy of Law. West Publishing Co.,1995.
[193]G. Longenecker,Developments in the Law of Maritime Liens.45 Tulane L. R.574,1971: 604-605.
[194]於世成,杨召南.汪淮江.海商法.北京：法律出版社,1997.
[195]林咏荣主编.商事法论文选集,台北：台湾五南图书出版公司.1974：632.
[196]杨仁寿.海商法论.台北：三民书局.1985.
[197]杨良宜.海事法.大连：大连海事大学出版社，1999.
[198]William Tetley, International Conflict of Laws,Common, Civil and Maritime. Intl Shipping Pubns,1994.
[199]梁慧星,邓瑞平.船舶侵权行为法基础理论问题研究.北京：法律出版社,1999(9).
[200]郑戈.法律与现代人的命运：马克斯.韦伯法律思想研究导论.北京：法律出版社.2006(3).
[201]Carrier, Maritime Lien For Damage.Columbia Law Review,1903.
[202]张特生.海商法实务问题专论.台北：台湾五南图书出版公司,1998.
[203]张立英.船舶优先全法律性质若干学说析.比较法研究,2004(4).
[204]王娟.海事特权法律通用新论.中国海商法年刊.北京：法律出版社,2005.
[204]张辉.船舶优先权法律制度研究.武汉：武汉大学出版社.2005.
[206]徐新铭.船舶优先权.大连：大连海事大学出版社,1995.
[207]金正佳,翁子明主编.中国海事审判的理论与实践.深圳：海天出版社.1993.
[208]韩立新编著.海事国际私法.大连：大连海事大学出版社.2001.
[209]梅夏英,方春晖.优先权制度的理论和立法问题.法商研究.2004(3).
[210]吴焕宁,论船舶留置权的定义、性质和特征.远洋运输,1985(6).
[211][英]约翰·奥斯丁著,刘星译.法理学的范围.北京：中国法制出版社,2002.
[212]威廉·泰特雷,王立志、李志文泽.论船舶优先权法律冲突.比较法研究.2009：148-164.
[213]王利明.物权法专题研究：下.长春：吉林人民出版社,2001：1494-1495.
[214]谢在全.民法物权论,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：110.
[215][日]我妻荣著,申政武等译.新订担保物权法.北京：中国法制出版社,2008：47.
[216]谌瑜.船舶优先权法律性质探析——兼谈民法典制定中的船舶优先权问题.财贸研究,2003(6)：110-114.
[217]Tetley W, Mcdonough B G.Maritime liens and Claims.London:Business Law Communications Ltd.,1985:4.
[218]Biele.Maritime Liens Arising Out of Collision.Tulane Law Review.1977:1134-1156.
[219]张丽英.船舶优先权法律性质若干学说析.比较法研究.2004(4)：129-135.
[220]勒内·达维德.漆竹生译.当代主要法律关系.上海：上海译文出版社.1984.
[221]李强,周后春.论船舶优先权的法律性质.河北法学,2003(6)：87-93.
[222]韩立强,吴星奎.船舶抵押权与优先权关系之反思与重构.两南农业大学学报：社会科学版,2007(4)：38-40.
[223]Jan M. Sandstrom,The changing international concept of the maritime lien as s securty right. Tulane. Law. Review.1972-1973 (47):682.
[224]Paul Macarius Hebert, The Origin and Nature of Maritime Liens. Tulane Law Review,1930(4):38.
[225]John M. Kriz, Ship Mortgages, Maritime Liens, and Their Enforcement:The Brussels Conventions of 1926 and 1952.Duke L.J.1963(12):671; Duke L.J.1964(1964):70.
[226]Percy H Winfield,Ltd.,The Chief Sources of English Legal History.Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1925.
[227]Raymond P. Hayden, Kipp C. Leland, The Uniqueness of Admiralty and Maritime Law:The Unique Nature of Maritime Liens. Tulane Law Review,2004-2005(79):1227.
[228]Frank Goodwin, Some Feature of Maritime Liens. American Law Review,l 882(16):193.
[229]John K. Beach, Relative Priority of Maritime Liens. Yale Law Journal,1923-1924(33):841.
[230]Hilton Staniland, Should Foreign Maritime Liens Be Recognized?.The South African Law Journal,1991(108):293.
[231]George L. Varian, Rank and Priority of Maritime Liens. Tulane Law Review,1972-1973(47):751.
[232]Edward L. Willard, Priorities Among Maritime Liens. Cornell L.Q.,1930-1931(16):522.
[233]Ivon D'Almeida Pires-Filho, Priority of Maritime Liens in The Western Hemisphere:How Secure is Your Claim?,Inter-American Law Review,1984-1985(16):505.