【作者】 赵琛；

【导师】 侯军；

【作者基本信息】 上海海运学院 ， 国际法学， 2002， 硕士

【摘要】 基于理论的历史延续性与根源性，本文第一部分阐述了中英两国不同的法律文化与司法制度，追溯两国海事司法审判的演变，尤其是英国的海事诉讼历史的发展，从诉讼经济的角度探讨了海事诉讼改革所应追求的目的与方向，即诉讼公正与效率。 谋求程序正义一直是西方国家倡导实现司法公正的手段，亦是各国司法改革所力图追求的目标。近年来，在我国的诉讼制度发展进程中，对此也愈来愈予以关注和重视。程序是否能最大程度地实现正义，最低限度地节约诉讼成本，归根到底取决于诉讼制度的改革与完善。同时，诉讼制度又深受其所依附的社会意识形态与法律文化的影响，这使得追溯孕育海事诉讼程序的法律文化与历史发展成为必要。 英国的海事诉讼发展至今已有好几百年，在与民事诉讼制度分离、融合的过程中，不断进行着自身的扬弃与完善。英国的“法治”意识形态促成了由当事人自己来实现权利的司法理念，法官只是居中的裁判者。而中国传统的“人治”意识形态促成了由法官来控制实现当事人的权利，当事人只是处于接受与服从判决的地位。这些直接造成了两国司法审判方式的不同，而其中的利弊也是显而易见的。英国促成程序正义的过程中造成了诉讼成本、诉讼时间等司法资源的大量耗费，而中国司法审判受法官的职权及主观意念的影响，其随意性甚大。海事诉讼属于民事诉讼的范畴，其具体程序的实施都深受上述因素的制约。 本文第二部分就两国具体的海事诉讼程序展开论证。以中国1999年《海事诉讼特别程序法》为主线，参照海事法院司法审判的具体程序，对两国之间的差异进行了比较分析，力图在差异中发现不足与问题，并相互借鉴，从而推动我国司法制度的更加完善。 海事管辖权是司法主权的体现，这尤其表现在涉外海事管辖中。在我国，非实体管辖权可以转化为实体管辖权，而英国法院的非实体管辖，诸如冻结令、搜查令的签发不能构成实体管辖权建立的原因。在涉外海事管辖中，我国海事法院应在有效管辖和方便管辖的原则基础上，积极地行使涉外管辖权。 审前准备程序是诉讼效力的价值取向体现得最为明显的一个环节，亦是我国司法改革力图实现诉讼公正的关键环节。我国“一步到庭”的做法远远无法满足诉讼公正的需求。如何淡化法院在审前准备程序中的职权，充分发挥当事人作用， 中英海事诉讼程序之比较研究确保诉讼公正与效率应成为改革与完善我国审前准备程序的基本出发点。英国司法改革在审前程序中强化法宫的控制力；以促进诉讼效率，降低诉讼成本。 海事请求保全与对物诉讼的概念混淆依然存在。在英国，对物诉讼存在真正对物诉讼与准对物诉讼之分，并因之在具体程序与当事人权利实现方式上存在差异。我国不承认对物诉讼，但海事请求保全在程序操作上与对物诉讼却有异曲同工之效。 海事强制令是在总结我国海事审判经验并借鉴国外海事立法的基础上设立的。英国的“中间禁令”制度非常完善，很值得我国借鉴。 海事证据保全突破了民事诉讼诉中证据保全的限制，在一定程度上防止了海事证据流失的风险，但还是存在概念模糊、关系人不明确等问题。英国搜查令时当事人的伤害颇大，其限制条件也非常严格。 特别审判程序对中、英两国的船舶碰撞特别诉讼程序进行了比较分析。 第三部分综合分析了前两部分的内在联系，探讨了我国海事司法实践的未来，尤其是加人WTO以后，海事诉讼发展的趋势与方向。更多还原

【Abstract】 The first part of this thesis is to state the different legal culture and judicial system between PRC and UK on the basis of theoretical history and resource, especially the development on UK maritime litigation. And the author is to explore the objective and direction of maritime litigation reform on the view of litigious economy, that is justice and efficiency of litigation.Procedural justice has always been advocated as a way to realize legal justice by Western countries, and it is the goal of every country’s litigation reform. Recent years the developing litigation system in our country has caused more and more attention and respect. Whether the procedure could realize its utmost justice or save the least litigious cost is ultimately owing to the reform and perfect of litigation system. Meanwhile, the litigation system is largely affected by social ideology and legal culture, which makes it necessary to trace the legal culture and historical development of maritime litigious proceeding.The maritime litigious proceeding in UK has been developed for some hundred years. During its separation and assimilation with civil litigious proceeding, it has developed and perfected itself, In United Kingdom, the ideology of "constitutionality"(or rule by law) has been encouraged people to fulfill his right and the judge is only an intermediate praetor. In our nation, the traditional ideology of "rule by men" has made the judge have the power to come true the parties’ right, where they only were on the statue to accept and obey the outcome. Therefore it caused the two nations’ totally different judicial litigation system in which the defect was manifest. In United Kingdom, the process to make the procedural justice has caused lots of waste on litigious resource, such as litigious costs, proceeding time and so on, meanwhile in China, litigious trial which is at will due to being affected by the judge’s authority and objective ideology. Maritime proceeding is affiliated in civil proceeding and the enforcement of it is deeply influenced by the said factors.The second part of this thesis is to discuss the detailed maritime litigious proceeding in two nations. Resorting to The Maritime Procedure Law of the People ’s Republic of China, 1999 and making reference of specific procedure on litigious trial in maritime court, the author is to analyze the difference between the two nations and attempt to make the litigation more perfect through discovering the shortcoming and questions.Maritime jurisdiction is the reflecting of litigious sovereign, especially on the foreign maritime jurisdiction. In our nation the non-substantive jurisdiction could beturned into substantive jurisdiction, but the non-substantive jurisdiction of British court, such as the issuance on freezing order, couldn’t be the cause of forming the substantive jurisdiction. As to the foreign maritime jurisdiction, our maritime court should positively exercise foreign jurisdiction on the principle of effective jurisdiction and convenient jurisdiction.The preparation of pre-trial is one of the most manifest parts which showing value tendency of the litigious validity, meanwhile it is the crucial part of our nation’s litigious reform to realize proceeding justice. The "one step to court" practice in our nation could far away meet the need of litigious justice. How to impair the court’s authority before trial, how to fully exercise the parties’ role and rectify litigious justice and efficiency should be the basic departure point to reform and perfect our preparation before trial. The litigious reform in the United Kingdom strengthen the judge’s controlling power during the preparation before trial, which attempts to incur the litigious efficiency and reduce the litigious costs.The definitional confusion between the security of maritime claim and action in rem still exists. In UK, action in rem has been divided into the actual action in rem and quasi-action in rem on the grounding of their difference in specific procedure and the means which parties r更多还原