摘要
Maritime liens在国内没有统一的中文译名,“海事特权”一词更能揭示其本质。各国关于哪些债权受海事特权担保的规定存在较大差异,法律冲突尤为显著,但目前尚没有广为接受的实体公约和统一的冲突规则。美国的典型判例所揭示的冲突规则与英国固守的传统规则相比更符合国际民商事交往的需要,这对受英国传统规则影响的《中华人民共和国民法(草案)》第九编37条第4款的完善无益是一种有益的启示。
There is no uniform Chinese translation of maritime liens. Maritime privilege can show its essence. Different jurisdictions have different attitudes towards the question that which claims are secured by maritime liens. The law conflicts are obvious. However, there is no widely accepted substantive convention and uniform conflict rules. The conflict rule embodied in the typical American case can meet the needs of international civil and commercial communication better, compared with that of the English traditional rule, which is helpful to the improvement of the Paragraph 4, Article 37, Part Nine of the Draft Civil Law of People's Republic of China.
出处
《中国海商法年刊》
2004年第1期348-361,共14页
Annual of China Maritime Law
