The Arrest Of The Ships And Attachment Procedures- Comparative Issues In The Applicable Law Systems

In this paper we are paying attention over the legislation of EU and Chinese mainland’s law.The purpose of the paper is to compare the two different law systems in the view of the arrest of the ship issue through the base of the research.For the purpose of this paper and during the process I used to visit local and foreign libraries and maritime institutions. Analyzing the volume of the materials and different opinions of specialists.The methods had been used in here include a legal researching of the Chinese and the European Laws, the method of comparative contextual analysis, synthesis and deductions, leading to the all of the following final conclusions in this paper.In the present, we can notice that China become slowly developing to be not only a one of the leading providers of the goods, but also one of the leading consumers of the goods too. This is one of the main reasons to compare the different law systems in this paper, the another one can be pointed is the application of the good arrest of the ship law practices using by both, in EU and here in China. In this context, the maritime issues are guaranteed by stable contracts and fair courts and arbitrations jurisdiction.Although the European Union is certainly not a federal state, but represents a unique mixture of federal and confederal elements. Although China is not a federal state in the sense that this term is used by most Western scholars.The European integration has from the very beginning been driven by an inherent tension between the establishment of a common market. That is the enforcement of the four basic freedoms and the regulatory autonomy of the Member States. In order to foster the development of a Common Market, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice strive to centralize more regulatory activities at the EU and to weaken the regulatory autonomy of the Member States. At least with respect to those regulatory activities that are confronted by heterogeneous preferences among Member States and that do not cause any spillovers or economies of scale, centralization is overstated and lowers social welfare.The structure of the paper draws some basic theory in historical plan about arrest in rem, the attachment and the arrest of the ships in China. Inside can be found also analyses of the Chinese maritime legislation and procedure. Create the framework of the European Union Law, like Regulation No.805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation No.44/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and some internal for European Union national laws like the Maltese Law. There are some comparative analyses with the most popular, related with the arrest of the ships European procedures like Mareva Injunction, Anton Piller Order and Saisie Conservatoire, and at the end are placed the general comparable analysis and final conclusions about the researched issue.This general conclusions shows that the European Union is certainly not a federal state, but represents a unique mixture of federal and confederal elements, and although China is not a federal state in the sense that this term is used by most Western scholars, the EU and China can be considered as two variants of "federal structures", since both have a hierarchy of governments and institutional autonomy, whereby other governments have primary regulatory responsibility over the economy.The European integration has from the very beginning been driven by an inherent tension between the establishment of a common market, that is, the enforcement of the four basic freedoms, and the regulatory autonomy of the Member States. In order to foster the development of a Common Market, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice strive to centralize more regulatory activities at the EU and to weaken the regulatory autonomy of the Member States. At least with respect to those regulatory activities that are confronted by heterogeneous preferences among Member States and that do not cause any spillovers or economies of scale, centralization is overstated and lowers social welfare.Nowadays China become to be from leading provider of the goods, to leading consumer of the goods too, and that is the main reason for the comparison in this paper. In this context, the maritime issues are guaranteed by stable contracts and fair courts and arbitrations jurisdiction.The analyzed issue about China’s and Europeans attitudes toward arrest of the ship in general can be used to provide some guidelines for the practicing lawyers.If convenience and speed continue to be insisted on in the exploration and study of ship arrest laws, then only research on a case-by-case, black-letter-law approach will be emphasized. If such is the case, we will miss the fruitful big picture of understanding its developmental processes, continuities, and changes in ship arrest law.In my point of view the paper can be looked a like a helpful exemplary application, giving the base knowledge for improving the law for arrest of the ship issue in Europe or in here in China.