非班轮运输模式下仲裁协议立法的发展与创新——《鹿特丹规则》相关实证分析  

The Development and Innovation of Arbitration Agreement Legislation in Non-liner Transportation Mode--An Empirical Analysis of the Rotterdam Rules

作　　者：马得懿[1] 周明园 Ma Deyi;Zhou Mingyuan(The International Law School,East China University of Political Science and Law,Shanghai 200042,China)

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学国际法学院,上海200042

出　　处：《中国海洋大学学报（社会科学版）》2020年第5期67-75,共9页Journal of Ocean University of China(Social Sciences)

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大项目“军民融合战略下海上通道安全法治保障研究”(18ZDA155)。

摘　　要：《鹿特丹规则》框架下"非班轮运输"仲裁立法具有较大突破,亦引起颇多争论。《鹿特丹规则》以运输方式对仲裁作出区别立法,与其以运输方式为适用范围标准相契合。就班轮运输而言,《鹿特丹规则》赋予索赔方在仲裁协议之外的"法定仲裁地"提起仲裁的权利;而对于广泛适用仲裁的"非班轮运输",则遵循仲裁协议的契约自由。在展开提单并入"仲裁协议"初略实证分析基础上,《鹿特丹规则》采取区别立法例具有某种意义上的立法创新。《鹿特丹规则》对"非班轮运输"仲裁立法基本符合航运司法实践,中国在立法时可以予以借鉴。The Rotterdam Rules have a greater breakthrough in the arbitration legislation on non-liner shipping and have caused much controversy.The Rotterdam Rules distinguish arbitration by means of transport and are in line with the standards by which its application is divided.In terms of liner shipping,the Rotterdam Rules give the claimant the right to arbitrate in the"statutory arbitration place"outside the arbitration agreement.For non-liner shipping that uses arbitration extensively,the freedom is respected of contract for arbitration agreements.Based on the positive analysis of the incorporation of the bill of lading into the"arbitration agreement",the Rotterdam Rules adopt a legislative innovation with certain significance in the sense of distinguishing legislation.The Rotterdam Rules’arbitration legislation for non-liner shipping is basically in line with China’s judicial practice,from which China can learn in legislation.

关 键 词：《鹿特丹规则》 非班轮运输 仲裁协议立法 法定仲裁地 

分 类 号：D996.1[政治法律—经济法学]