海事優先權三方關係之探討

A Study of Tripartite Relationships of Maritime Lien

海事優先權為海商法上重要制度，確保特定債權人能優先獲得清償，惟如何具體實行權利，我國法並無程序性條文之規範，依法院一貫見解，應由海事優先權人同時或分別提起給付及確認之訴，除請求債務人為一定給付之外，同時確認海事優先權存在，再類推適用抵押權實行規定，聲請法院開啟強制執行程序。惟上述我國實務見解，似乎與美國實務有所出入。考慮大陸法系及海洋法系理論體制不同，差異在所難免，惟海商法本具國際性之特質，海商事件多為跨國紛爭，為求與國際接軌，自應盡量向海運主流國家同步，消弭實務落差。綜上，本文擬由海事優先權、對物訴訟及扣押出發，分析上述三者之關聯及法律效果，並徵引美國實務，說明海洋法系國家如何實行海事優先權。最後，將回顧我國實務判決，探討目前做法是否有不足之處，並將提供若干建言，以為參考。

Maritime lien is a special system in maritime law which aims to protect some people who engage marine risk a priority to get compensation. The problem is there is no procedural law to enforce it in Taiwan. In United States, lien holders must arrest a ship in action in rem process to open a lawsuit. The process in Taiwan to enforce maritime lien is not as seriously as that in the United States. Some lien holders arrest a ship before lawsuits, but some not. The author of this article will discuss the nature of maritime liens first, then discuss the difference to enforce maritime lien between the United States and Taiwan.