浅析涉外船舶碰撞民事管辖依据
Analysis on Civil Jurisdiction Basis for Foreign Ship-Related Collision

船舶碰撞具有大多数情况下只涉及财产赔偿，很难触及国家的公共政策和公共利益的特点。通过对比不同国家的船舶碰撞管辖权立法，发现英美法系国家注重在有效原则下进行长臂管辖，但美国等国的判例显示他们考虑了可预见性原则。大陆法系国家在属地原则下积极增加船籍港、船舶登记地等虚拟连接点，但日本等国的立法明确了可预见性原则。由此可见在管辖权积极扩张的背景下，许多国家仍然在损害结果具有不可预见性时拒绝管辖。我国在船舶碰撞管辖权的立法方面并没有纳入可预见性原则，并且积极规定了数量庞大的九个管辖连接点，不利于提升司法效率和提高判决公认度。是故，本文建议我国法院在损害后果具有不可预见性时拒绝管辖，有利于节约海事审判资源，也有利于细化不方便法院原则。
Ship collision is characterized by the fact that most of the cases involve only property compensation and hardly touch the public policy and public interest of the state. By comparing the ship collision jurisdiction legislation of different countries, it is found that common law countries focus on long-arm jurisdiction under the principle of validity, but the juris-prudence of countries such as the United States shows that they consider the principle of foreseeability. The civil law countries actively increase the virtual connecting points such as the port of registry and the place of registration of the ship under the principle of territoriality, but the legislation of Japan and other countries clarifies the principle of foreseeability. This shows that in the context of the active expansion of jurisdiction, many countries still refuse jurisdiction when the result of the damage is unpredictable. China has not incorporated the principle of predictability into the legislation on jurisdiction over ship collisions, and has actively stipulated a large number of nine jurisdictional connection points, which is not conducive to improving judicial efficiency and increasing the recognition of judgments. Therefore, this paper suggests that our courts refuse jurisdiction when the consequences of damage are unpredictable, which is conducive to saving maritime trial resources, but also helps to refine the principle of forum non conveniens.