發(fā)布時間：2018-05-15 21:29

  本文選題：確權訴訟 + 給付之訴��； 參考：《西南政法大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著全球經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易往來的越來越頻繁,各國的航運業(yè)務也隨之發(fā)展。船舶的巨大運輸力使之成為跨海貿(mào)易的主要方式,但是隨之而來的是船舶碰撞、共同海損、海難等事故的發(fā)生概率增加。發(fā)生事故往往又會伴隨著糾紛的產(chǎn)生,由此而來海事糾紛也越來越多�！逗Ｊ略V訟特別程序法》于2000年7月1日施行(下文簡稱“海訴法”),其中規(guī)定了一種不同于現(xiàn)有任何一種民事訴訟程序的特殊海事訴訟程序,即第116條1規(guī)定的確權訴訟。《海訴法》規(guī)定的確權訴訟是針對與法院裁定強制拍賣船舶的債權以及海事賠償責任限制基金程序有關的限制性債權而設計的訴訟制度。海事訴訟屬于民事訴訟的范疇,那么確權訴訟無疑也是民事訴訟程序中的一種特殊訴訟程序。作為一種我國獨有的特殊海事訴訟程序,《海訴法》及最高人民法院2003年發(fā)布的《最高人民法院關于適用〈中華人民共和國海事訴訟特別程序法〉若干問題的解釋》(下文簡稱“海訴法解釋”)僅有為數(shù)不多的幾個條文對其進行規(guī)定,其余相關司法解釋也未專門涉及確權訴訟,理論界對程序的研究討論也嚴重不足,海事糾紛的頻繁發(fā)生又需要相關的配套法律法規(guī)來規(guī)范法官的司法行為,健全法律制度,并且司法實踐中也亟需統(tǒng)一的標準來維護司法權威。根據(jù)程序法定原則,任何一個訴訟程序,從起訴到結案都應當有法律對其進行規(guī)定,顯然確權訴訟中配套規(guī)定的缺失與其在實踐中所起到的作用是不相協(xié)調(diào)的。本文將從確權訴訟的基礎理論展開論述,按照訴訟程序進程來發(fā)現(xiàn)、解決問題,針對確權訴訟中所具有的相關法律滯后和配套規(guī)定不完整的現(xiàn)象,結合司法實踐的不統(tǒng)一,著重對確權訴訟制度所存在的程序問題提出筆者的程序設計,以此為完善《海訴法》盡一份綿薄之力。本文一共分為四章:第一章將對確權訴訟的概念、性質(zhì)、特點等基礎理論進行論述。理論界對于確權訴訟的性質(zhì)雖然討論不多但是卻也一直無法形成統(tǒng)一的認識,主要分歧在于確權訴訟究竟是確認之訴、給付之訴還是二者結合之訴。筆者觀點認為是給付之訴,后文將展開詳細論述。第二章將對確權訴訟的提起、管轄等審理前程序問題進行論述。關于確權訴訟的程序問題,整個《海訴法》以及《海訴法解釋》中都沒有相關的法條對確權訴訟形成較為完整、系統(tǒng)的規(guī)范體系,法條之間前后條文的不協(xié)調(diào)也是造成司法實踐混亂的重要原因之一,沒有統(tǒng)一的法律準繩來規(guī)范法官的審理。第三章將對確權訴訟的審理范圍、債權審查以及程序轉(zhuǎn)化等問題展開論述。對債權的確認是整個訴訟的核心,參與分配受償是確權訴訟的最終目的,所以第三章是本文的核心內(nèi)容。第四章將對確權訴訟結案以后,一審終審制度缺陷救濟、確權訴訟是否能夠運用調(diào)解結案以及訴訟判決的執(zhí)行力等問題進行探討,以此來完善程序架構。
[Abstract]:With the increasing frequency of global economic and trade exchanges, the shipping business of various countries has also developed. The great capacity of shipping makes it the main way of transoceanic trade, but the probability of accidents such as ship collision, general average and shipwreck increases. Accidents are often accompanied by disputes. The Law on Special procedures for Maritime Proceedings came into force on July 1, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Sea suit Act), which provides for a special maritime procedure different from any existing civil procedure, That is to say, Article 116 (1) provides for the confirmation action, which is designed in response to the restrictive claims related to the court ruling on the compulsory auction of the ship and the limitation of maritime liability fund procedure. Maritime action belongs to the category of civil action, so affirmative action is no doubt a kind of special procedure in civil procedure. As a unique special maritime litigation procedure in China, the Law on Maritime Proceedings and the interpretation of the Supreme people's Court on the Application of the Special procedure Law of the people's Republic of China concerning Maritime Litigation issued by the Supreme people's Court in 2003 > (hereinafter referred to as "interpretation of the Law of Maritime Action") it is provided for in only a few articles, Other relevant judicial interpretations are not specifically related to the right of confirmation litigation, the theoretical circle of research and discussion of the procedure is also seriously inadequate, maritime disputes frequently occur and need relevant supporting laws and regulations to regulate the judicial behavior of judges and improve the legal system. And the judicial practice also needs the unified standard to safeguard the judicial authority. According to the principle of procedural law, any legal procedure should be regulated by law from the prosecution to the conclusion of the case. It is obvious that the deficiency of the supporting provisions in the affirmative action is not in harmony with the role it plays in practice. This article will discuss from the basic theory of the right of confirmation litigation, discover, solve the problem according to the process of the procedure, and combine the disunity of the judicial practice, aiming at the phenomenon that the relevant law lags behind and the supporting stipulation is not complete in the affirmative right lawsuit. The author puts forward the author's program design for the procedural problems existing in the system of confirming the right of action, so as to make a modest contribution to the perfection of the Law of Sea Proceedings. This paper is divided into four chapters: the first chapter will discuss the concept, nature, characteristics and other basic theories of affirmative action. Although there is not much discussion on the nature of the right of confirmation litigation, the theoretical circle has been unable to form a unified understanding. The main difference lies in whether the right of confirmation action is the action of confirmation, the action of payment or the action of combination of the two. The author holds that it is the lawsuit of payment, which will be discussed in detail later. The second chapter will discuss the pre-trial procedure such as the initiation and jurisdiction of the right of confirmation. With regard to the procedural issues concerning the confirmation proceedings, there are no relevant articles in the whole Law of Maritime Action and the interpretation of the Law of Maritime Proceedings to form a relatively complete and systematic normative system for the determination of the right of action. The disharmony between the articles is also one of the important reasons for the confusion of judicial practice. There is no uniform legal criterion to regulate the judge's trial. The third chapter will discuss the trial scope, creditor's rights review and procedural transformation. The confirmation of creditor's rights is the core of the whole lawsuit, and participating in the distribution of compensation is the ultimate purpose of the right of confirmation litigation, so the third chapter is the core content of this paper. The fourth chapter will discuss the problems of the defect relief of the first instance final appeal system after the conclusion of the final right lawsuit, whether the right of confirmation litigation can use mediation to close the case and the execution of the lawsuit judgment, and so on, so as to perfect the procedural framework.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D925.1

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 沈曉鳴;海事糾紛中的留置權[J];法學;1994年04期

2 于耀東;;上海國際航運中心建設中完善海事糾紛解決機制的研究[J];海大法律評論;2011年Z1期

3 田守福 ,張新立 ,王加新;海事糾紛調(diào)解的方式方法淺論[J];齊魯漁業(yè);2004年07期

4 鐘國定;兩岸直航海事糾紛解決之路[J];中國航海;1996年02期

5 王輝;舟山建立全國首家漁場審判庭[J];中國水產(chǎn);1995年06期

6 鄭壽德;海事糾紛中ADR的作用[J];中國海商法年刊;2000年00期

7 許俊強;;海事糾紛中主管異議的審理程序[J];人民司法;2009年14期

8 許碩;;論我國船舶扣押制度中的活扣押制度[J];南昌教育學院學報;2011年04期

9 雷海;;沒有最好只有更好[J];中國遠洋航務;2012年09期

10 何麗新;李盼;;論涉臺海事案件直接適用國際海事公約[J];中國海商法研究;2012年01期

相關重要報紙文章 前10條

1 駐滬記者 呂雪　通訊員 倪中月;法院聯(lián)合仲裁機構搭建海事糾紛委托調(diào)解平臺[N];中國水運報;2011年

2 水旺;研究船舶糾紛 應對海事訴訟[N];中國船舶報;2002年

3 廈門海事法院院長 黃勇民;把詹紅荔精神融入到海事審判實踐中[N];人民法院報;2012年

4 記者 胡毓 胡雯;重視律師方可從容應對糾紛[N];中國船舶報;2009年

5 記者 李承萬;打造“金箍棒” 迎戰(zhàn)“船魔王”[N];中國船舶報;2002年

6 本報記者 鄧新建 本報見習記者 章寧旦;海事審判白皮書提示港航業(yè)五大問題[N];法制日報;2013年

7 記者 方一慶 通訊員 陳建武;海事巡回法庭落戶南澳[N];南方日報;2007年

8 通訊員　 郝光亮 張國棟;煙臺海事成功調(diào)解一涉外海事糾紛[N];中國水運報;2006年

9 李順;航運市場糾紛呈爆發(fā)式增長[N];中國國門時報;2009年

10 記者 胡毓;內(nèi)外結合 活用律師[N];中國船舶報;2009年

相關碩士學位論文 前5條

1 劉禹;構建中國海事ADR機制研究[D];華東政法大學;2013年

2 陳思偉;古希臘海事貸款研究[D];西南大學;2007年

3 李艷秋;海事糾紛之確權訴訟研究[D];西南政法大學;2015年

4 方曉東;軍艦海事法律適用芻議[D];上海海事大學;2003年

5 鄭雨霆;海事仲裁法律制度研究[D];華東政法大學;2013年

，

本文編號：1894029