摘要
随着国际贸易与国际航运业的发展，围绕船舶而产生的海事诉讼的数量也随之增加。在海事诉讼中，为了保全海事请求人的海事请求，法院经常需要根据海事请求人的申请扣押船舶。然而，由于在目前并不存在一套国际统一化的扣船制度，扣船法院只能依据现存国际公约或者本国国内法的相关规定来扣押船舶。而现存的国际公约和国内法对于法院可以扣押哪些船舶，即扣船范围问题上的规定还不是很完善，对诸如融资租赁船舶、船舶经营人经营的船舶等船舶是否可以扣押的问题并没有作出规定。这种情况使法院在扣押船舶时往往陷入两难的境地。
因此，对扣船范围作出清晰的界定，即明确哪些船舶可以被法院所扣押，将能够缓解法院在扣押船舶时面临的难题。同时，也能对国际贸易和国际航运业的健康发展产生积极的影响。
为了明确扣船范围，1952 年《扣船公约》和 1999 年《扣船公约》在国际法层面进行了努力的尝试。然而，这两个国际公约只是在宏观上明确了扣船的范围，即包括当事船和姊妹船。它们并没有能够在微观上对当事船和姊妹船进行全面的规定。对于扣船范围的某些问题，国际公约或者规定不甚合理，或者根本没有规定，而将相关问题留待各国国内法去规定。在国内法层面，两大法系由于长久以来在法律传统上存在巨大差异，因此国内法中有关扣船范围的规定也相差甚巨。
因此往往会出现一船舶在这个国家可以被扣押而在另一个国家则不可以被扣押的情况，这也促使当事人在海事诉讼中“择地行诉”.有鉴于此，本文在梳理国际公约和主要航运国家国内法有关扣船范围法律规定的基础上，借鉴国际公约和国内法中的合理规定，对扣船范围重新进行了界定。
本文认为：在宏观上，扣船范围包括当事船和姊妹船，但是不包括关联船。在微观上，（1）除了船舶所有人所有的船舶与光船租船人光租的船舶外，船舶融资租赁承租人租赁的船舶以及船舶经营人经营的船舶也属于可以扣押的当事船舶。（2）定期租船人和航次租船人承租的船舶作为当事船时不能被扣押，但是定期租船人和航次租船人的姊妹船是可以被扣押的。（3）扣押姊妹船应以在实施扣押时该船是否是姊妹船为时间标准；在份额标准上，应以“所有”标准而非“控制”标准来认定姊妹船，并且单一所有和共同所有情况下的船舶都可以认定为姊妹船。（4）国有船舶也可以扣押，只要该船舶用于商业目的。对于本国船舶，要求在海事请求发生时和实施船舶扣押时均用于商业目的；对于外国船舶，在海事请求发生时或者实施船舶扣押时用于商业目的的，即可扣押。（5）不能扣押完成开航准备的船舶，判断一船舶是否完成开航准备，应以该船舶是否已经办理离港手续为标准。
本文所界定的扣船范围与以往研究所界定的扣船范围相比，其创新之处在于：（1）船舶融资租赁和船舶经营项下的船舶作为当事船时也可以扣押；（2）明确了认定姊妹船的时间标准和份额标准；（3）扣押国有船舶时区分本国船舶和外国船舶分别规定扣船条件；（4）明确完成开航准备的船舶不属于可以扣押的船舶，并且明确了判断船舶是否完成开航准备的标准。
关键词：
船舶扣押，扣船范围，当事船，姊妹船
Abstract
With the development of international trade and internationalshipping industry, the number of the maritime litigation, in which thecourts usually need to arrest the ships, has been increasing greatly. Inmaritime litigation, in order to preserve the maritime claim of theclaimant, the courts often need to arrest the ships according to theapplication of the maritime claimants. However, there no exist a set ofinternational unification rules on the arrest of ships. So the courts usuallyarrests the ships on the basis of the relevant provisions in the existinginternational conventions or the courts' domestic law. However, theexisting rules are not very perfect. For example, the question that whethera ship, which is under a financing lease contract or a ship managementcontract, can be arrested by the court is not very clear.This situation makethe courts often face the dilemma in the arrest of ships.Therefore, makinga clear scope of the ships that can be arrested, will be able to alleviate thedifficulties faced by the courts at the time of arresting ships. At the sametime, it will have a positive impact on the healthy development ofinternational trade and international shipping industry.
In order to define the scope of the ships that can be arrested, the1952 convention and the 1999 convention on the arrest of ships havemade their great efforts to try. But as we can see, these two conventionsjust define the scope of the ships that can be arrested in the macro view,namely the scope includes the particular ship and the sister ship. They failto make rules on these two types of ships in the micro view. As to someimportant aspects of the arrest of ships, these two conventions don't haveany rules on it, or these rules, if they have, are not reasonable. On thedomestic law level, due to the differences of the legal system, thedomestic laws in the civil law countries are not the same with those in thecommon law countries. Therefor, one ship may be arrested in this country,but can not arrested in the other. This may cause a problem, namely, theforum shopping.
Considering that, this article intends to redefine the scope ofarresting ships on the basis of combing the rules in conventions anddomestic laws. The author believe that, in the macro view, the scopeincludes the particular ship and the sister ship. In the micro view, firstly,the ships, which are under financing lease contract or ship managementcontract, can be arrested by the court. While the ships, which are underthe time-charter or voyage-charter,can not be arrested. Secondly, whenthe ships which are arrested refer to the sister ships, whether these shipsare sister ships the courts should judge by investigating if the ships areowned but not controlled by the persons who are responsible for themaritime claims at the time of the ships arrested. Thirdly, the ships, whichare owned by the state, can be arrested if they are in the use ofcommercial purposes. When these ships are the national ships, they haveto be in such use both at the time the claims arose and at the time theships are arrested. When they are foreign ships, if they are in such use atthe time the claims arose, they can be arrested by the court. Finally, theships, which are in sailing or ready to sail, can't be arrested. And thecourt should judge a whether a ship is ready to sail by investigating if ithas finished the formalities of leaving the port.
Compared with the scope which the former investigates define, thescope defined by this article is different. Firstly, the ships, which areunder financing lease contract or ship management contract, can bearrested by the court. Secondly, when the ships arrested refer to the sisterships, whether these ships are sister ships the court should judge byinvestigating if the ships are owned but not controlled by the persons whoare responsible for the maritime claims at the time of the ships arrested.
Thirdly, when arresting a state-owned ship, the conditions are differentbetween the national ships and the foreign ships. Finally, not only clearthat the ships, which are ready to sail, can't be arrested, but also definethe standard that how to judge a ship is ready to sail or not.
Key words:
arrest of ships,scope of arresting ships,particular ship,sister ship
目录
一、引言
（一）研究背景
（二）问题的提出
（三）文献综述
（四）研究方法
（五）结构安排
二、研究扣船范围涉及的关键概念
（一）船舶扣押
（二）当事船
（三）姊妹船
（四）关联船
三、扣船理论的发展及其对扣船范围的影响
（一）对物诉讼理论下的扣船范围
（二）财产保全理论下的扣船范围
（三）1952 年《扣船公约》的扣船范围
（四）1999 年《扣船公约》的扣船范围
（五）本章小结
四、扣船范围的国内法规定
（一）扣船公约缔约国的国内法规定
（二）扣船公约非缔约国的国内法规定
（三）本章小结
五、中国有关扣船范围法律规定的评析
（一）《海事诉讼特别程序法》界定的扣船范围
（二）存在的不足及其完善的建议
（三）本章小结
六、扣船范围的重新界定
（一）当事船
（二）姊妹船
（三）国有船舶
（四）完成开航准备的船舶
（五）本章小结
七、结语
（一）研究结论
（二）研究局限
（三）研究展望
参考文献
致谢
