论文部分内容阅读
提单制度形成于14世纪的航运实践,经过几个世纪的不断发展,提单在海上货物运输贸易中发挥着十分重要的作用。我国法律明确规定,承运人应当在收回正本提单的情况下交付货物,但由于海运技术的发展和提单故有的缺陷,无单放货现象在海上货物运输中时有发生。它对无单放货的相关当事人和国际贸易正常秩序都产生了不同程度的危害。我国法律和《鹿特丹规则》都对无单放货的法律性质、承运人的免责事由及赔偿责任限制作出了不同的规定。通过将二者的比较分析,不难发现,我国法律在无单放货的法律责任性质方面的规定更为具体,有利于司法实践中的法律适用。而在承运人的免责事由和赔偿责任限制方面都存在一定缺陷。总体上说,我国立法者还应结合《鹿特丹规则》和其它国际公约的合理之处对无单放货的法律责任问题进行更完善的立法。
The bill of lading system was formed in the shipping practice in the 14th century. After several centuries of continuous development, bill of lading has played an important role in the maritime freight trade. China’s law clearly stipulates that the carrier should deliver the goods with the original bill of lading recovered. However, due to the development of shipping technology and the defects of the bill of lading, the phenomenon of non-delivery of goods without a single receipt of goods occurs frequently in the carriage of goods by sea. It has produced varying degrees of harm to the parties involved in releasing goods without a single shipment and the normal order of international trade. Both our law and the Rotterdam Rules make different stipulations on the legal nature of the release of goods without a single shipment, the exemption of the carrier and the limitation of liability. Through the comparative analysis of the two, it is not difficult to find out that the provisions of our law on the nature of the legal liability of non-delivery of goods are more specific and conducive to the application of law in judicial practice. However, there are some shortcomings in the carrier’s liability and limitation of liability. In general, our legislators should also make better legislation on the legal liability of the issue of goods without a single bill in the light of the reasonableness of the Rotterdam Rules and other international conventions.