法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 海事優先權在國際私法的定性-最高法院一○四年度台上字第二一九七號民事判決評釋(Characterization of Maritime Liens in Conflict of Laws-Comments on Judgment No. Tai-Shang 2189 (2015) of the Supreme Court)
編著譯者: 陳榮傳
出版日期: 2016.12.05
刊登出處: 台灣/月旦法學雜誌第 260 期 /6-15 頁
頁  數: 10 點閱次數: 1106
下載點數: 40 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 陳榮傳
關 鍵 詞: 定性海事優先權涉外民事法律適用法物權法院地法
中文摘要: 各國海商法對於海事優先權的規定,就其標的物及擔保之債權範圍等仍未盡一致,對於海事優先權的性質認定,學說及實務見解也有分歧。最高法院一○四年度台上字第二一九七號民事判決涉及外國船舶及以外國法為準據法之債權,對於海事優先權的性質問題,係以法院地法為定性之標準,並認定其為船舶物權,從而以巴拿馬法律為準據法。本文認為海事優先權本身及海事優先權所擔保的債權範圍,可分別予以定性。
英文關鍵詞: CharacterizationMaritime LienAct Governing the Choice of Law in Civil Matters Involving Foreign ElementsRights in RemLex Fori
英文摘要: The provisions of the maritime liens are still different from state to state in some respects. The conflicts exist in the properties to which the maritime liens attach, the claims secured by them and the opinions on the nature of maritime liens. The facts of the Supreme Court Judgment No. Tai-Shang 2189 (2015) relate to a foreign vessel and claims governed by foreign laws. It was ruled that the nature of maritime liens should be characterized according to the lex fori as rights in rem over the vessel. Therefore, the maritime liens at issue shall be governed by the admiralty law of Panama. This paper proposes to distinguish a maritime lien itself and the claims secured by it, and to characterize them as two separate problems.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、案例事實及法院裁判
參、程序依法院地法
肆、海事優先權應定性為物權?
伍、強制執行法為特別規定?
陸、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列