| Summary: | 碩士 === 長榮大學 === 航運管理學系碩士班 === 99 === From a claimant's perspective, the right to arrest a ship is the most valuable tool in enforcing their claims and recovering debts against ship owners and operators. Consequently, arrests are a common way for creditors to secure their debts. There are two conventions which regulate the arrest of ships, and these are the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, established in Brussels on May 10 in1952, and the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships, established in Geneva on March 12 in 1999. In addition, there are also has many related domestic laws in non-contracted countries.
This article will first compare the definition of Arrest of the common law and the similar words in civil law. Second, it finds the differences between 1952 and 1999 International Arrest conventions in time, location, person and reason of arrest. And will then present some related case studies of some civil and common law countries. Third, it will collect concrete examples by interview. Finally, there are some conclusions and suggestions in the end of this article.
There are six conclusions of this article as following: 1.There is no united word related arrest in Taiwan. 2. The development from 1952 to 1999 International Arrest Conventions is mostly unfavorable to creditors. 3. The cases from Taiwan, China, England and Japan, show that there are different ways of arrest respectively. 4. In practice field, the common way to solve arrest issue is compromise. 5. Many marine-orient countries didn’t participant in the International Arrest Conventions, it is inconvenient for creditors who want to arrest a ship in those countries. 6. From Taiwan and China cases, it shows that the word related arrest is not united.
|
|---|
