论文部分内容阅读
英国的判例一直维护提单管辖权条款效力,并以英国法院获得管辖权为核心。美国关于提单管辖权条款效力的判例出现过反复,但总体上对提单管辖权条款效力设置了大量限制标准,并且美国最新的海上货物运输法草案实际上否认了提单管辖权条款的效力。英美两国在提单管辖权条款效力上的司法和理论差异,根源是英国出于航运利益立场,美国则出于贸易利益立场。对照英美两国的做法,中国应站在货主或贸易立场上,在海事立法、司法、仲裁审查等方面严格限制提单管辖权条款和提单外国仲裁协议的效力。
The British jurisprudence has always maintained the validity of the bill of lading jurisdictional provisions and centered on the jurisdiction of English courts. In the United States, the jurisprudence on the validity of the bill of lading jurisdiction has been repeated. However, a large number of restrictions have been set on the effectiveness of bill of lading jurisdictional provisions and the latest US draft law on the carriage of goods by sea has in fact denied the validity of the bill of lading jurisdictional provisions. The judicial and theoretical differences between the United Kingdom and the United States on the validity of the provisions on the bill of lading jurisdiction stem from the position of the United Kingdom out of shipping interests while that of the United States out of trade interests. In contrast with the practices of Britain and the United States, China should stand on the position of the owner of goods or trade and strictly limit the validity of the bill of lading jurisdiction clause and the foreign arbitration agreement of bill of lading in the aspects of maritime legislation, judicature and arbitration review.