论文部分内容阅读
在海事纠纷中,海事请求人所行使的留置权与《民法通则》第89条第4款所确立的留置权相比最根本的差异在于海事纠纷中的留置权有时突破了普通留置权中的“占有”要件。纵观《中华人民共和国海商法》(下简称《海商法》)、最高人民法院《关于诉讼前扣押船舶的具体规定》(下简称最高院《扣船规定》)、《民法通则》等法律的有关规定,我国海事纠纷中的留置权主要有两种类型:一、基于合同关系产生的占有留置权。如海上拖航合同中承拖方对被拖物的留置等。
In maritime disputes, the most fundamental difference between liens exercised by maritime petitioners and liens established by article 89, paragraph 4, of the General Principles of Civil Law is that liens in maritime disputes sometimes break through the ordinary liens “Possession” requirement. Throughout the “Maritime Law of the People’s Republic of China” (hereinafter referred to as the “Maritime Law”), the Supreme People’s Court’s “Specific Provisions Concerning the Arrest of Ships Before Litigation” (hereinafter referred to as “Provisions on Arrest of Ships”) and the “General Principles of Civil Law” Relevant regulations, there are two main types of liens in maritime disputes in our country: First, possession of lien on the basis of contractual relationship. Such as maritime towing contract in the towing party on the towing objects such as indwelling.