论海事国际惯例在中国法中的地位

　　海事国际惯例本身是一个复杂的概念，基于不同的研究视角和目的可能做出不同的界定。从国内立法与司法的视角探讨海事国际惯例的地位问题，应对其做出广义的解释，以确保实践中发挥调整作用的各种习惯做法等都可获得国内立法与司法的关注。在国际海事领域，既存在与调整跨国海上民商事关系有关的实体性以及冲突性国际惯例，也存在与处理跨国海上民商事纠纷有关的程序性国际惯例。海事国际惯例的演进因主权国家，以及旨在推动国际海事法统一的国际组织和民间团体等的参与，在不同阶段呈现出不同的特色。中国在海事国际惯例发展的各个阶段处于不同的地位。海事国际惯例不具有当然的法律约束力，其法律效力的取得依赖于国内立法或司法机关对其事实上的约束力的认可。外国立法与司法对海事国际惯例的认可通常采用直接或间接两种方式。现代国际商事仲裁领域中有关现代商人法与国内法关系的理论可以为国内法认可海事国际惯例提供可选择的模式，包括自动适用、自治适用以及补充适用。从中国的现实情况看，国内海事立法与司法认可海事国际惯例既具有现实的必要性，同时也面临着一些问题。因此，选择何种模式和方式以及在何种程度上认可海事国际惯例必须结合中国的现实而定。中国国内立法与司法认可海事国际惯例的现状可通过三个方面表现出来：其一，从整体表现看，对海事国际惯例的接受程度较高，现行海事立法与相关司法解释等都大量移植或参照了海事国际惯例，司法实践中也多对海事国际惯例非常尊重；其二，从立法技术看，中国立法对海事国际惯例的认可基本采用直接和间接两种途径，直接认可的方法更为突出，被间接认可的海事国际惯例的地位仍具有不确定性。但立法过多依赖将海事国际惯例纳入国内法的认可方式导致立法的僵化，而“可以适用国际惯例”的规定则影响法律的稳定性，而且与《海商法》对不同海事领域采用不同的调整方式的风格不相协调；其三，从实际效果看，对海事国际惯例的纳入存在与国情不符、所纳入的惯例之间不协调以及因纳入不当导致操作困难等问题。而“可以适用国际惯例”规定的模糊性以及相关识别标准和查明方法等规定的缺失，导致司法实践中海事国际惯例适用的混乱，不仅带有浓厚的职权主义色彩，而且对海事国际惯例相对于法律规定的地位的认识不一致，被适用的国际惯例的性质不明确。中国国内法在确定海事国际惯例的地位时所存在的不足既源于立法当时的特定背景，也与立法技术方面的问题有关。对现行海事立法的修改时应根据中国现实的变化情况采用适当的方式和模式：首先，可依循的基本思路包括：立足于本土需求，为本国的航运经济发展服务；适用区分原则，对调整不同海事关系、符合不同构成标准的海事国际惯例，采用不同的方式予以认可；在认可海事国际惯例的过程中，兼顾确定性和灵活性，在尽量实现对海事国际惯例的内容予以确定化的情况下，考虑到海事国际惯例进一步发展的可能性。其次，对认可方式的选择方面，应谨慎适用将海事国际惯例逐条转化的方式，可适当考虑在任意性调整的范围内将成文的海事国际惯例整体纳入国内法，并根据后者的发展变化随时对所纳入的版本进行调整，以实现立法的稳定性和灵活性。同时，应避免采用笼统模糊的认可方式直接承认海事国际惯例的法源地位，而应强化对间接认可方式的采用，既防止导致法律的不确定，又可实现对更大范围的海事国际惯例的关注。第三，在具体认可模式的适用方面，立法明确认可当事人可选择国际惯例作为准据法既不存在理论上的障碍，也与中国的现实情况相适应。但是，是否视当事人选择的国际惯例作为准据法，仍应根据当事人的意思表示而定；当事人未明确选择国际惯例时，仍可将海事国际惯例作为补充解释合同的工具，或视作合同的默示条款。但《海商法》有必要针对不同的海事合同的特点，明确规定海事惯例在补充合同时的地位。另外，不论是实体性，或冲突性以及程序性海事国际惯例，都应被作为解释和补充法律漏洞的工具，立法应明确规定“在任何情况下，都应参照国际惯例”。最后，对海事国际惯例的识别可适用客观标准和主观标准，也可适当采形式标准或实质标准，根据海事国际惯例在国内法中的地位不同应各有侧重。‘

　　【英文摘要】：Marine international practice itself is a complex concept，which based on different perspectives and research purposes may make different definitions。To study the status of the marine international practice from domestic legislation and judicial perspectives，it should make its broad interpretation to ensure that the practice that play certain role in practice will obtain the domestic legislation and judicial attention。In the international maritime areas，there exists both the sustantive and conflict international practice concerning the transnational civil and commercial relations between the maritime-related entities，as well as international practice relating to the procedures about the dealing of transnational marine commercial disputes。The evolution of international practice，because of the participation of sovereign countries，as well as the international organizations and non-governmental organizations aiming at promoting international maritime law，shows different characteristics in different stages。China played different role in the maritime international practice in its different stage。Marine international practice of course is not legally binding，its legal effect dependents on the achievement of the recognition of domestic legislation or judicial of its de facto binding。Foreign legislation and judicial commonly used direct or indirect way in recognizing the international marine practice。Theory in modern International Commercial Arbitration of the relations between modern law merchant and domestic law provides alternative modes in recognizing marine international practice，including automatic application，as well as，autonomous and complementary application。From China\’s situation in reality，there are both realistic necessity and some problems for domestic legislation and judicial to recognize maritime international practice。Therefore，the choice of mode and manner and the extent to which the marine international practice should be recognized must be integrated with the reality of China。The status quo of China\‘s domestic legislative and judicial recognition of marine international practice can be demonstrated through three levels:First，on the overall performance，degree of acceptance of the marine international practice is high，and the existing maritime legislation and related judicial interpretations，both largely transplant or refer to a marine international practice，and judicial practice in the maritime also respect international practice；Second，from the point of the legislative technology，China\’s marine legislation basically recognize international norms by both direct and indirect channels，direct methods more prominent，while the status of the international practice indirectly recognized is still uncertain。But legislation depending too much on bringing the international practice into domestic law led to the rigidity of legislation，and“may apply international practice”not only destroy the legal stability，but also differ from the style of“CMC”that different adjustments are applied in different areas；Third，from a practical effect，some practices being brought into“CMC”are inconsistent with the domestice requirement，or lack of co-ordination between each other，or some improper assorbtion leads to operational difficulties。Fuzzy of“may apply international practices”，as well as the missing of relevant provisions on standards and identification methods，lead to confusion in judicial practice，which not only represent with a strong authorative color，but also inconsistent understanding of the status of international practice to legal provisions，and the legal nature of the international practice applied is often not clear。The above defficiency of China\‘s domestic law in determining the status of the marine international roots in both the specific background and technical aspects of the legislation。On amending the existing maritime legislation，the appropriate manner and mode should be adopted in accordance with the realities of China\’s changes:First，the basic ideas that can be followed includs:to base on the local demand，to serve for domestic shipping economic development；to apply the principle of distinction，adopt different approach in the recognition of marine international practice according to its different standard and different area therein。In the process of recognizing international practice，to take into account the certainty and flexibility，in achieving as far as possible the certainty in determining the contents of the marine international practice，taking account of the the possibility of further development of marine international practice。Secondly，on the choice of means of recognition，it should be prudent in bringing international practice into domestic law。It can be properly considered in any discretionary area to incorporate some written international practice into domestic law as a whole，and in accordance with the latter\s development and changes at any time version of included，in order to achieve the stability and flexibility of legislation。At the same time，it should try to avoid using general and vague way to recognize directly marine international practice as source of law，but should strengthen the use of indirect way of recognition，in order to not only avoid the legislative uncertainty，but also achieve attention to a greater scope of the marine international practice。Thirdly，in the specific application of the pattern，there is no theoretically barriers for the legislature to clearly recognize the parties may choose international practice as the applicable law，which is also in line with the reality of China。However，it should still depend on whether the parties choose international practice as the law applicable。While the parties to contract does not clearly choose international practice，the marine international practice can be explained as a supplementary tool for the contract，or as contracts implied terms。However，it isnecessary for“CMC”to clearly define status of maritime practices in the supplementing contract according to different characteristics of the marine contract。In addition，both substantive or conflict，as well as procedural marine international practice，should be explained as a supplementary tool for loopholes in the law，legislation should make it clear that“under no circumstances，should be in accordance with international practice。”Finally，the objective criteria and subjective criteria can be applied to identify marine international practices，as well as the formal or virtual standards，and according to status of international practice in domestic law，different focus should be given。