国际海运货物留置权研究  

Research on Liens of International Maritime Cargo

作　　者：袁亮 Liang Yuan(HARNEST&GARNER Law Firm,Ningbo Zhejiang)

机构地区：[1]浙江和义观达律师事务所,浙江宁波

出　　处：《法学（汉斯）》2024年第8期5235-5242,共8页Open Journal of Legal Science

摘　　要：《海商法》第87条赋予了承运人对国际海上货物运输合同下货物的留置权,成为保护承运人合法债权的重要救济途径。但我国《海商法》第87条及相关规定尚存适用上的困境,立法目的与司法实践有所偏离。海运货物留置权标的所有权归属的概念缺失、担保债权范围过宽和商事留置权的主体范围局限等问题的存在,一定程度上增加了司法实践中双方当事人利益的受损风险,不利于营造良好有序的海上货物运输活动秩序。应当进一步完善海运货物留置权制度,删除《海商法》第87条中的对标的物所有权的限制,删除原条文“其货物”中的“其”字;细化担保债权范围的规定,明确对“运费预付”情况的限制,将滞期费排除在担保债权范围外;肯定双方明确约定下的商事留置权法律效力。Article 87 of the Maritime Law gives the carrier the right of lien on the goods under the contract of international carriage of goods by sea,which is an important remedy to protect the carrier’s legal claims.However,there are still difficulties in the application of Article 87 and related provisions of the Maritime Law,and the legislative purpose deviates from the judicial practice.The absence of the concept of ownership of the subject matter of maritime cargo lien,the wide scope of secured claims and the limited scope of commercial liens increase the risk of damage to the interests of both parties in judicial practice to a certain extent,which is not conducive to building a good and orderly order of maritime cargo transport activities.We should further improve the lien system of maritime goods,delete the restriction on the ownership of the subject matter in Article 87 of the Maritime Law,and delete the word“it”in the original article“its goods”.Refine the provisions on the scope of secured claims,clearly limit the situation of“freight prepaid”,and exclude demurrage from the scope of secured claims;affirm the legal effect of commercial liens expressly agreed upon by both parties.

关 键 词：海上货物运输 承运人 货物留置权 商事留置权 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]