海上貨物運送事件之國際管轄及仲裁

International Jurisdiction and Arbitration in Contracts of Carriage of Goods by Sea

固定航線貨物運送契約當事人間談判地位，除批量契約外，居於市場之高度寡占、經濟資力、專業能力之差異，運送方談判能力普遍高於貨方；又運送方通常於運送契約或其下發給之定型化運送單據，印刷、置入國際管轄條款，談判相對劣勢之貨方，無從商議、變更該條款，而僅能附和，而產生「掠奪管轄」問題。海牙規則、海牙威士比規則、漢堡規則及鹿特丹規則四組國際海上貨運公約，自1978年漢堡規則始對國際管轄及仲裁規範之，原告貨損請求權人僅能於公約法定有管轄權法院或仲裁地選擇起訴法院或仲裁地。將視野拉高，從國家競爭角度觀察，船舶運送業，為資本、勞力及專業密集之服務產業，是資本發達、已開發國家之優勢領域，同時亦是戰略性產業。運送方國家為維持其運送產業優勢，鞏固國家之經濟利益及戰略地位，而抵制漢堡規則之國際管轄及仲裁條文，或認為侵害其作為當事人合意管轄為訴訟或仲裁地之商業習慣，危害其國際海商事件爭端處理中心之地位，而抵制漢堡規則。2008年鹿特丹規則定性國際管轄及仲裁條文為選擇性而得作保留之任意規定，締約國得以於任何時間聲明願受拘束或於任何時間撤回聲明，試圖解決漢堡規則國際管轄條文之強制屬性所導致之國際抵制。回到我國法，海商法第78條就國際管轄及仲裁規定之，使我國籍國民有於本國訴訟及仲裁之機會。其目的是否達到？海商法法源具有國際性，本法第78條有關國際管轄及仲裁之規定，與國際規範是否存在差異及漏洞？漏洞如何填補？本文試圖提出解決方案。 The liner carrier’s negotiation position, except volume contracts, is normally higher than the shipper, in view of the oligopoly as well as the difference I n economic and professional power. In addition, the carrier commonly uses standard jurisdiction clauses in the contract and incorporates them into the transpo rt document issued under the contract. The cargo interest standing in a lower position can hardly have alternatives to disagree those standard clauses but to accept them, and thus leading to the issue of ‘jurisdiction hijacking’. Hamburg Rules, amongst the four sets of carriage conventions, namely, Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules, Hamburg Rules and Rotterdam Rules, being the first one to regulate jurisdiction provides that the claimant can only choose one of the co mpetent courts or places stipulated by the Rules to institute an action or arbitr ation proceedings against the carrier to cope with the hijacking. From the view -angle of the international competing status of the states, the shipping business is a kind of strategy industry as well as capital, labor and professional intensi ve industry that is an advantageous sector for the developed and capital countries. The states of the carrier interest, thus, resist the Hamburg Rules or on the grounds that it would jeopardize the status of the traditional maritime disputes solving centers. The Rotterdam Rules follows the system introduced by the Ha mburg Rules, yet go a step further to categorize the jurisdiction and arbitration provisions as ‘opt-in’ clauses, that is, the contracting States can at any time a nd stage opt to declare to be bound by them or withdraw them, attempting to resolve the resistance emerged in the Hamburg Rules. Back to the national law, the section 78 of the Maritime Code provides a system to govern the jurisdiction and arbitration for the sake of rotecting the nationals to have an opportunity to bring legal or arbitration proceedings in their home state. Can the le gislative purpose be achieved so far? Taking into account the international nature of the sources of maritime law, is there any difference or gap between national law and the international regimes in the respect? And how to resolve them? The author attempts to figure out