Research On The Legal Issues Of Ship Arrest And Maritime Entity Jurisdiction

The ship seizure system is a temporary protection measure to ensure that the maritime claimant's right to request has been fulfilled,and that the court of jurisdiction has applied for legal proceedings to allow the competent court to retain the relevant ship in question before the commencement of the lawsuit or arbitration,or to restrict the departure from the corresponding port.The ship seizure system has specific functions and independent procedures.It is closely related to the jurisdiction of maritime facts and is an important part of China's "Marine Litigation Special Procedure Law."There may be two types of jurisdiction involved in the seizure of a ship.One is the detention of the ship's jurisdiction,that is,where the court has the jurisdiction to exercise the seizure measures on the ship being applied for;and the second is the jurisdiction of the case of the maritime entity,ie where the court can The maritime entity disputes jurisdiction of the referee.With regard to the relationship between ship seizure and maritime factional jurisdiction,common law and common law systems in the United Kingdom and the United States are divided on the basis of their respective traditional theories.Civil law countries consider that the seizure of ships is only a preservation measure in the procedural sense;while the Anglo-American law countries consider that the seizure of ships has not only procedural but also substantive meanings,and the courts of the places where the ships are detained can pass the “ship detainment sites”.A linking factor gains maritime jurisdiction.In order to eliminate the differences between the two major legal systems,the 1952 Seizure of Vessels Convention has made active exploration.However,due to the limitations of the convention itself,the coordination effect is unsatisfactory.The International Convention on the Engagement of Ships of 1999,according to the actual needs of the maritime industry at that time,actually preferred the views of the Anglo-American law system in terms of specific content,so that the court of arrest of the vessel could obtain jurisdiction over the maritime entity unless the parties had a jurisdictional agreement.Due to the use of "territorial principles" for ship seizure jurisdiction and the ship's own liquidity,coupled with changes in the views of national conventions,maritime claimants have competed to seize ships to encourage courts that are in their own interest to obtain sea authority jurisdiction,thereby exacerbating marine accidents.The situationof conflict of substantive jurisdiction.According to the independence of the ship seizure system and the actual situation of the shipping industry,it is necessary for the court of the ship's seizure area to obtain the jurisdiction of the maritime entity under certain preconditions.Under this circumstance,in order to ease the conflict of jurisdiction,only the process of arresting the jurisdictional transformation of the ship to the maritime entity can be reasonably limited.According to the practical experience of various countries,this kind of transformation process may be constrained by such factors as the principle of autonomy of the will,the principle of inconvenience to the court,the principle of the first responding court,and so on.At the same time,the "Hamburg Rules" and "Rotterdam Rules" and other international conventions also stipulated the relationship between the detention system of ships and the jurisdiction of maritime facts,and made active explorations to mitigate the conflict of jurisdiction over maritime facts,revealing the relationship between the two.development trend.In the context of the system of ship seizure,the dominant position of maritime claimants,the wide variation in the national laws of various countries,the limitations of international conventions itself,and the prevalence of judicial chauvinism,the conflict between the jurisdiction of international maritime truth bodies is serious,mainly manifested as parallel lawsuits.The practice of alternatives to land selection is widespread.In order to cope with this situation,based on the analysis of legislation and judicature based on China's jurisdiction over ship seizure and maritime facts,this paper believes that China's ship seizure and maritime facts jurisdiction system should be conducted from the three aspects of theory,legislation and justice.perfect.On the theoretical level,the “personification of ships” should be reasonably limited and the principle of international comity should be adhered to.At the legislative level,the principles of inconvenient courts should be added,the principle of first responding court should be clarified,and party autonomy should be respected;in terms of judicial practice,The application of relevant principles should be optimized and international judicial cooperation strengthened.