附录二：外文原文
Article 47(2) of the Rotterdam Rules: The Solution of Old Problems or a New Confusion?
The Rotterdam Rules, adopted by UNCITRAL in 2008, address a number of issues that have not been regulated by previous international conventions, such as the delivery of goods and the right of control. The ambitious and innovative approach of the Rotterdam Rules has attracted much international debate. This article aims at contributing to this debate by discussing the provisions related to the delivery of goods. The main focus is on Article 47(2), one of the most controversial provisions of the Rules, and the article analyses in detail this legislative provision, its rationale and possible impact on the law governing the carriage of goods and international sales law.
- Introduction
On 3 July 2008, UNCITRAL approved the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (the Rotterdam Rules) which was finally adopted by the UN General Assembly on 11 December 2008.This new UNCITRAL legislation has the ambitious goal of restoring the uniformity of the law governing the international carriage of goods by sea. Presently, there are three international regimes governing the carriage of goods by sea: the Hague Rules, the Hague-Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules. If widely adopted, the Rotterdam Rules may be able to replace these three conventions and restore uniformity to the law.
The Rotterdam Rules address a number of issues that have not been regulated by previous international conventions. There are completely new sections which cover the delivery of the goods and the right of control. The growing use of non-negotiable documents and documents in electronic form has drawn the attention of legislators to these areas that previously had been ignored by all of the international conventions governing the carriage of goods by sea. This innovative approach was probably motivated by the need to adjust the international regime governing the carriage of goods by sea in such a way as to cope with various modern developments, such as the increased importance of container transport, logistics and electronic commerce.
The ambitious and innovative approach of the Rotterdam Rules, which in some sections departs from certain well-established principles, has attracted lively international debate. This text aims at contributing to this debate by discussing provisions related to the delivery of the goods. The main focus is on article 47(2), which is one of the most controversial provisions of the Rotterdam Rules. Here it is analyzed in detail including its possible impact on international sales law.
A number of complex questions can be raised with respect to article 47(2). In maritime law, there is a well-established rule that the carrier must not deliver the goods in any way other than against the presentation of an original bill of lading. It may therefore be asked why Article 47(2) has departed from this fundamental principle? Can a document that does not require presentation against delivery of the goods be considered a negotiable document, or have the Rotterdam Rules created a new type of negotiable document which does not have to be presented to the carrier? Was it really necessary to invent a new transport document that would be called negotiable while, in fact, it would not be negotiable in the usual meaning of the term as it would lack an essential feature of negotiable documents, namely surrender in exchange for the goods? How would this affect the role of transport documents in international trade? Would a bank be willing to pay under a letter of credit against a negotiable document which provides that delivery can be made without its presentation? Is Article 47(2) the best solution to the existing problem of the delivery of goods without the surrender of a negotiable document? Was this Article necessary at all? These questions will form the focus of the discussion.
- General Principles Relating to Delivery of Goods
All previous international conventions governing the carriage of goods by sea have failed to regulate the issue of the delivery of goods. Differences among national laws and different practices may have been the reasons why this issue was left aside by the drafters of those conventions. At present, the rules on the delivery of goods are still based on domestic laws.
In maritime law, there is a well-established rule that the carrier can deliver the goods at the destination only against the surrender of a bill of lading by the consignee. Once the master has issued the bill, the carrier has an independent, contractual obligation towards the bill of lading holder which is derived from the nature of the bill of lading. Since the bill of lading is a negotiable document, its holder is entitled to require that the goods are delivered to him.
As long as the consignee can obtain a bill of lading before the goods arrive, there should be no problem for him to present it before delivery. However, in practice, for various reasons, it is often the case that the ship arrives at the port of destination before the consignee has obtained the bill of lading. In such situations, waiting for the bill of lading may cause numerous problems for all parties involved. In order to solve this problem, the practice of delivering the goods without the production of a bill of lading has been developed. This practice, however, may also cause a number of problems particularly for the consignee and the carrier.
The consignee may find himself in a difficult position, because he may not be able to receive the goods at the port of destination even though he performed all his obligations properly. In order to receive the goods the consignee may have to provide a letter of indemnity to the carrie
全文共14751字，剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
附录一：外文文献的中文翻译
《鹿特丹规则》第47条第2款：旧问题的解决方案还是新的混乱？
2008年，由联合国国际贸易法委员会提出的鹿特丹规则，强调了一系列未被先前国际公约规范的重要议题，例如货物交付问题和控制权问题。鹿特丹规则中如此大胆创新的做法引起了国际社会的激烈争论。这篇文章通过讨论与货物交付相关的条款，致力于帮助争论的解决。该文主要关注规则中的四十七条第二款，是整套规则中最受争议的条款之一，并会对这一法律条款的基本原理和对已有法律管控的货物运输方面以及国际买卖法可能产生的影响进行详细地分析。
1.简介
2008年7月3日，联合国国际贸易法委员会核准《联合国全程或部分海上国际货物运输合同公约》（即鹿特丹规则）,最终，联合国大会于12月11日通过。这一联合国国际贸易法委员会的立法以重建海上国际货物运输的统一立法为目标。
目前，由三大国际公约（即《海牙规则》、《维斯比规则》、《汉堡规则》）主导海上货物运输规则，《鹿特丹规则》的广泛适用将有望取代这三个国际公约并推进建立统一化的国际海上货物运输规则。
《鹿特丹规则》，强调了一系列未被先前国际公约规范的重要议题，并有完整的新章节覆盖货物交付问题和货物控制权问题。不可转让单据和电子提单与日俱增的使用率成功地吸引了立法者们的注意力，而关注的这些区域曾被所有调整海上国际货物运输的公约所忽视。这一创新方法可能是被调整海上国际货物运输相关立法的需求所激发的,以适应现代发展，例如越发重要的集装箱运输、物流和电子商务。
鹿特丹规则的雄心勃勃和大胆创新的做法在某些部分背离了一些既定的原则，已经引起了热烈的国际争论。本文旨在通过讨论有关货物交付的条款来促成这一争论的解决。主要关注第四十七条第二款，这是鹿特丹规则最有争议的规定之一。在此详细分析其中可能对国际销售法的影响。
关于第四十七条第二款可以提出一系列复杂的问题。在海商法中，有一个既定的规则，承运人不得以不以正本提单的任何方式提交货物。因此有人会问，为什么第四十七条第二款背离了这个基本原则？可将不需要提交货物的单据视为可转让单证，还是《鹿特丹规则》创造了一种不需要提交给承运人的新型可转让单证？是否真的有必要发明一种被称为可转让的新的运输单据，而事实上，它不会成为通用术语，因为它将缺乏可转让单据的基本特征，即提交换取货物？这会如何影响运输单据在国际贸易中的作用？银行愿意在信用证上付款而非不提交即可实现交货的可转让单据？第四十七条第二款真的是解决现有的货物交付中不提交可转让运输单证问题的最佳方案？这条文是否必要？这些问题将成为讨论的焦点。
2.关于货物交付的一般原则
以前所有关于海上货物运输的国际公约都没有规定货物交付问题。国家法律和不同惯例之间的区别可能是这些公约的起草者将此问题搁置一旁的原因。目前货物交付问题的规定依然基于是国内法。
在海事法中，有一个既定的规则，承运人只能在目的地交货，而不是由收货人出示提单即可交货。一旦船长签发了提单，承运人就提单而言，对提单持有人具有独立的合同义务，这是提单的性质。因为该提单是可转让单证，所以其持有人有权要求将货物交付给他。
只要收货人在货物到达之前可以取得提单，在交货时便毫无疑问地应出示提单。然而，实际上由于种种原因，在收货人已经取得提单之前，船舶已经到达目的地的港口。在这种情况下，等待提单可能对有关各方造成许多问题。为了解决这个问题，已经发展出没有提单的交货方式。然而，这种做法也可能对收货人和承运人造成一些问题。
收货人可能会发现自己处于困难的境地，因为尽管他履行了所有的义务，他可能无法在目的港接收货物。为了收货，收货人可能必须向承运人提供保函，通常由银行担保，但这可能使收货人损失大量费用。
如果承运人在没有提单的情况下交付货物，将自行承担风险。如果货物交付给无权接收的货物，承运人将对违反合同和货物转换负责。在这种情况下，承运人可能被剥夺享受责任限制的权益，不能从P＆I俱乐部获得赔偿。
收货人在交货前必须提交提单的规定有一些例外。如果要求交货的人对货物享有所有权，同时对提单的缺失能够给出合理的解释，那么承运人可以在不提供提单的情况下交付货物。但是，对于这一例外，承运人应该非常谨慎。
3．关于货物交付规则的背景
需要解释的第一个问题涉及承运人必须将货物交付提单的规则的基本原理。承运人有义务承担这一责任的原因并非全面而正确的理解。因此，为了仔细审查与提单移交有关的货物交付问题，本规则的原因应全面检查。
提单作为物权凭证的性质与货物交付的问题直接相关。在普通法上，提单的特征是作为所有权文件，这意味着拥有它即有权接收，持有和处置提单及其代表的货物。在民法系统中，有与之相对应的单据，但二者方法不同。据普通法，在民法中有几种类型的单据，如可转让单证，可转让票据和证券，所有这些单据均由单一类型的文件规定。德国法律中“Wertpapiere”，法国法律中的“titres”，意大利法律中的“titoli di credito”，日本法律中的“yuka shoken”等可以被定义为包含单据本身所体现的某些权利的“有价值的文件”（如获得货物交付的权利），可在合同中指定，或是支付一定金额的权利）。他们赋予持有人通过转让合同将权利转让给第三方的权利。通过法律虚拟，提单被视为代表货物，因此拥有提单相当于占有货物。严格来说，从承运人处取得货物的权利不是基于运输合同，而是基于提单的合法占有。提单使其合法持有人能够在目的地港口获得货物的实物交付，并通过转运提单处理运输途中的货物。
转让提单的效力是由于销售标的特殊性质 – 海上货物运输 – 因此在运输途中买房不可能完成实物交付。交货必须通过承运人作为中间人进行，从托运人（通常是卖方）收到货物，并将其交付给收货人（通常是买方）以换取提单。事实上，卖方通过将提单转让给买方来实现货物交付，从而向买方转让在目的地港要求承运人交付货物的权利。通过由提单所证明的运输合同，承运人承诺将提单所描述的货物交付于托运人转让提单的收货人。提单已转让给收货人后，它代表承运人与收货人之间的合同，承运人享有独立权利，可要求按照提单的规定要求交货。
如果提单在其订单上发出，托运人将货物交付给承运人后，可以保留对货物的控制权，直到买方（收货人）支付价款或接受汇票为止。收货人在没有提单的情况下不能从承运人处收到货物，在支付价格或接受汇票之前，他不会获得提单。托运人在将汇票转移给受让人时，将失去对货物的控制权和处置权。通过取得票据，收货人获得对货物的控制权和推定占有。因此，货物只能提交给提单的规则有助于防止货物交付给无权接收货物的人的风险。该规则保护承运人和有权接收货物的人。
4.《鹿特丹规则》下的货物交付
与所有以前的公约相比，《鹿特丹规则》明确规定了货物交付。第11条首先规定承运人有义务将货物交付给收货人，本义务亦在第13条第（1）款提及。最重要的是，第9章致力于交付货物，详细规定这一问题。关于交付货物，《鹿特丹规则》对不可转让运输单据（第45条），要求出示的不可转让运输单据（第46条）和可转让运输单据（第47条）作了区分。这是对日益重要的在实践中产生，并与提单平行发展，应用越来越广泛的海运单的回应。此外，《鹿特丹规则》设想使用需要出示的不可转让运输单证（第46条），其中使用直提单是首次被国际公约明确承认。增加这种复杂性的是第47条第（2）款，它赋予承运人（在一定条件下）交付货物而不要求可转让运输单据的权利。
《鹿特丹规则》并没有给出可转让单证的确切定义，更注重外观以及单据是否包含诸如“命令”或“转让”等词汇，但未能明确可转让性。因没有普遍定义“可转让单证”一词的含义，显而易见，《鹿特丹规则》将这个问题留给了管辖法确定。
第47条第（2）款包含若干规则，适用于“如果可转让运输单据明确规定货物可以在不交出运输单据或电子运输记录的情况下交货hellip;hellip;”本条款适用于单据持有人未能在目的地要求货物交付的情况，或以适当的方式来识别自己的情况。在这种情况下，承运人可以向托运人或者单证持有人请示。
（b）项规定，当承运人基于指示托运人或托运人的指示交付货物时，根据第2（a）款，他将“履行根据运输合同交付货物的义务,无论可转让运输单据是否已交还给持有人”。
根据（c）项，在第2（a）款规定下，发出指示的人“应赔偿承运人对其持有人承担责任的损失”。在同一款下，如果指示人未能提供足够的担保，承运人可以合理地要求拒绝遵守这些指示。
根据（d）项“据本条第2款（b）项，在承运人交付货物之后成为可转让运输单证或可转让电子运输记录的持有人的人，依照交付之前订立的合同或其他协议安排，可对承运人享有运输合同下除交付货物以外的权利”。
最后，（e）项规定，“在交付后成为持有人的持有人，在成为持有人之时没有并且不能合理地了解此类交付的持有人,获得的权利并入可转让运输单据或可转让电子运输记录”。
(译自：Cˇaslav Pejovicacute;.《鹿特丹规则》第47条第2款：旧问题的解决方案还是新的混乱？[J].国际海商法期刊，(2012)18,5)
附录二：外文原文
Article 47(2) of the Rotterdam Rules: The Solution of Old Problems or a New Confusion?
The Rotterdam Rules, adopted by UNCITRAL in 2008, address a number of issues that have not been regulated by previous international conventions, such as the delivery of goods and the right of control. The ambitious and innovative approach of the Rotterdam Rules has attracted much international debate. This article aims at contributing to this debate by discussing the provisions related to the delivery of goods. The main focus is on Article 47(2), one of the most controversial provisions of the Rules, and the article analyses in detail this legislative provision, its rationale and possible impact on the law governing the carriage of goods and international sales law.
- Introduction
On 3 July 2008, UNCITRAL approved the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (the Rotterdam Rules) which was finally adopted by the UN General Assembly on 11 December 2008.This new UNCITRAL legislation has the ambitious goal of restoring the uniformity of the law governing the international carriage of goods by sea. Presently, there are three international regimes governing the carriage of goods by sea: the Hague Rules, the Hague-Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules. If widely adopted, the Rotterdam Rules may be able to replace these three conventions and restore uniformity to the law.
The Rotterdam Rules address a number of issues that have not been regulated by previous international conventions. There are completely new sections which cover the delivery of the goods and the right of control. The growing use of non-negotiable documents and documents in electronic form has drawn the attention of legislators to these areas that previously had been ignored by all of the international conventions governing the carriage of goods by sea. Th
全文共18548字，剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[144809]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
