Operation and Improvement of the Doctrine of Registration of Property Rights to Ships against Third Parties in China
【中文摘要】对船舶物权变动，我国《物权法》仍延续了《海商法》的登记对抗主义立法例，但在登记对抗主义的具体表述上，摒弃了《海商法》等法规先要求“应当登记”，后规定“未登记，不得对抗第三人”的做法，同时将第三人明确限定为善意第三人。这一本来更符合登记对抗主义真义的表述，却在海商法界引发了较普遍的疑虑、困惑和担忧。这既暴露了长期以来在理解登记对抗主义上的纷争和分歧，也暴露了我们司法实践中的一般理念和做法与登记对抗主义真义的偏离，同时还说明我们不仅在船舶物权变动，而且在其他采登记对抗主义的物权方面，均缺乏对登记对抗主义真义的完整、准确解读。本文采用实证分析方法，通过43个样本案例，较客观真实地描述、总结了当前我国司法实践中船舶登记对抗主义的实际运行及特点。在此基础上，通过对登记对抗主义的真义探寻，针对司法实践中涉及登记对抗的典型判断，就如何匡正提出了自己的看法。 【Abstract】 With respect to changes in property rights to ships, China's Property Law has borrowed the doctrine of registration of property rights against a third party from the Maritime Law. However, in the specific expression of this doctrine，the Property Law rejects the Maritime Law's and certain other regulations' approach where it first requires registration and then states that “[a property right] shall not be valid against a third party without registration.” In addition, the Property Law expressly limits the definition of “third party”to bona fide third parties. Although the Property Law's formulation is more faithful to the true essence of the doctrine, it has also generated widespread concern, confusion, and worry among maritime law experts and practitioners. This discomfort reveals not only the long-standing controversy over the understanding of the doctrine, but also how the ideas and practice in Chinese judicial practice in general have strayed from the true meaning of the doctrine. At the same time, it shows a lack of a full and accurate understanding of the doctrine with regards to changes in property rights to ships as well as other property rights to which the doctrine is applicable. Through the empirical analysis of 43 cases, this paper gives an objective, practical, and complete view of the operation and features of the doctrine of registration of property rights to ships against third parties in Chinese judicial practice. Based on the analysis, the paper searches for a true meaning of the doctrine and proposes ways to rectify the potential errors in the typical judgments involving the doctrine in practice.