狼牙
Exclusive: China's maritime court settles Strait of Hormuz vessel collision dispute as foreign shipowners turn to Chinese law_我的网站
A |
北京和华盛顿正悄悄地恢复驱逐非法居留在美国的中国移民合作，显示双方正扩大落实2023年两国领袖旧金山会晤成果。
B |
美国媒体报道称，据追踪遣返航班的倡议组织“边境见证”观察，一架载有少量但数量不详的被遣返者的包机于3月30日降落在中国东北城市沈阳。 
In 2025, two crude oil tankers collided at the eastern entrance to the Strait of Hormuz, 24 nautical miles off Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, media reported.
Owned by oil tanker operator Frontline, the Liberia-flagged vessel Front Eagle collided with the Antigua and Barbuda-flagged vessel Adalynn on the morning of June 17, 2025.
The Adalynn was damaged in the fire. While the Front Eagle was undergoing repairs in Shenzhen, South China's Guangdong Province, Global Shipping Holding Ltd., which owns the Adalynn, applied to Guangzhou Maritime Court for its arrest. Frontline provided a cash security of 203 million yuan to release the arrest and applied to establish a limitation fund for maritime claims.
The court approved the application and allowed Frontline to establish the limitation fund, setting the amount of the fund at 168 million yuan.
Guangzhou Maritime Court held four pretrial conferences on October 11, 2025, January 12, May 6 and July 13, 2026 to complete preparations for evidence examination, technical investigations and reported the relevant pretrial arrangements to the provincial high court, the Global Times learned from the court.
The court held a public hearing for the case on July 14, 2026.
No government agency had conducted an investigation into the collision, and no official findings were issued after the accident. Taking into account the unique burden-of-proof challenges in maritime collision disputes, Guangzhou Maritime Court took measures to preserve key evidence when handling the vessel arrest, including navigation logs, AIS data, voyage data recorder (VDR) records and CCTV footage, the court told the Global Times in a statement on Sunday.
Under a process that involves exchanging evidence inventories, sealing materials simultaneously and jointly reviewing them after evidence submissions, the court helped ensure the authenticity of critical records and laid the groundwork for determining the facts of the case.
As the two sides and their respective maritime experts reached sharply different conclusions over liability, the court introduced a maritime technical investigator mechanism, with the consent of both parties, allowing technical experts to participate throughout the proceedings. Drawing on the preserved evidence, investigators reconstructed the collision, assessed the vessels' encounter situation and clarified the parties' respective responsibilities.
Following the hearing, the court facilitated mediation, and the two parties reached a settlement agreement on July 27, 2026. On July 31, the court organized the distribution of the maritime liability limitation fund among creditors involved in the foreign vessel collision dispute and related charter-party disputes.
Representatives of the Adalynn traveled from overseas to the court to present a letter of appreciation and a commemorative banner in recognition of the court's efforts, according to the court statement.
After the Guangzhou Maritime Court accepted the case, both parties agreed to apply Chinese law to establish a maritime liability limitation fund and resolve their substantive dispute, breaking away from the long-standing reliance of international shipping disputes on European and US courts and legal systems.
Choice of justice
Bilov Viacheslav, a representative of Global Shipping Holding Ltd., told the Global Times that the main reason they chose a Chinese court to mediate the case is that "we want absolutely fair, unbiased approach to this issue. Because nowadays in this world, there are some countries which believe that they are authorized to give instruction to all others, which definitely is having influence on the decisions of the judge on the approach to the case."
Viacheslav gave the Chinese court's handling of the case a five-star rating, saying he had expected the dispute to take at least three years to resolve, but the Chinese court settled it within just one year. He also praised the judges and lawyers for their commitment to advancing the case throughout the proceedings.
"The judges and lawyers worked to advance the case with the same level of commitment as I did, even though the case directly concerned my own interests. This left a deep impression on me about litigation in China," Viacheslav said.
The case involved two foreign parties and a collision that occurred near the Strait of Hormuz, with no direct connection to China or Guangzhou Maritime Court initially. The fact that the parties chose to seek vessel arrest in China and agreed to apply Chinese law demonstrates the credibility and appeal of China's maritime judicial system, Wu Guining, vice president of the Guangzhou Maritime Court, who served as the presiding judge of the case, told the Global Times.
The court also introduced a maritime technical investigator mechanism in the case, an innovation aimed at addressing complex technical issues arising from vessel collision accidents, Wu said, noting that through technical investigations, the court was able to establish the facts of the case more efficiently, highlighting the integration of professional maritime investigation capabilities with China's specialized maritime adjudication system.
The case demonstrates China's ability to handle major, complex and cross-border maritime disputes with professional expertise, Wu said.
The handling of the collision between the two vessels is just one example of how Chinese courts have been dealing with a growing number of foreign-related maritime cases in recent years.
The Global Times learned from China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) in October last year that over the past 40 years, Chinese courts have handled a total of 88,000 foreign-related maritime cases involving parties from 146 countries and regions.
At a lecture held by the SPC on Friday, Shen Hongyu, director of the Fourth Civil Division of the SPC, told the Global Times that in recent years, Chinese courts have become more influential in participating in and promoting global ocean governance reform. Maritime justice serves as an important instrument for practicing the vision of a maritime community with a shared future and for advancing the reform of the global ocean governance system.
。中美双方于2022年8月暂停合作后，从墨西哥非法进入美国的中国移民急剧增加。据悉，美国边境官员2023年在南部边境逮捕约3.7万名来自中国的公民。这个数字是2022年的10倍，进一步加剧美国总统选举中有关移民议题的紧张局势。
In 2025, two crude oil tankers collided at the eastern entrance to the Strait of Hormuz, 24 nautical miles off Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, media reported.
Owned by oil tanker operator Frontline, the Liberia-flagged vessel Front Eagle collided with the Antigua and Barbuda-flagged vessel Adalynn on the morning of June 17, 2025.
The Adalynn was damaged in the fire. While the Front Eagle was undergoing repairs in Shenzhen, South China's Guangdong Province, Global Shipping Holding Ltd., which owns the Adalynn, applied to Guangzhou Maritime Court for its arrest. Frontline provided a cash security of 203 million yuan to release the arrest and applied to establish a limitation fund for maritime claims.
The court approved the application and allowed Frontline to establish the limitation fund, setting the amount of the fund at 168 million yuan.
Guangzhou Maritime Court held four pretrial conferences on October 11, 2025, January 12, May 6 and July 13, 2026 to complete preparations for evidence examination, technical investigations and reported the relevant pretrial arrangements to the provincial high court, the Global Times learned from the court.
The court held a public hearing for the case on July 14, 2026.
No government agency had conducted an investigation into the collision, and no official findings were issued after the accident. Taking into account the unique burden-of-proof challenges in maritime collision disputes, Guangzhou Maritime Court took measures to preserve key evidence when handling the vessel arrest, including navigation logs, AIS data, voyage data recorder (VDR) records and CCTV footage, the court told the Global Times in a statement on Sunday.
Under a process that involves exchanging evidence inventories, sealing materials simultaneously and jointly reviewing them after evidence submissions, the court helped ensure the authenticity of critical records and laid the groundwork for determining the facts of the case.
As the two sides and their respective maritime experts reached sharply different conclusions over liability, the court introduced a maritime technical investigator mechanism, with the consent of both parties, allowing technical experts to participate throughout the proceedings. Drawing on the preserved evidence, investigators reconstructed the collision, assessed the vessels' encounter situation and clarified the parties' respective responsibilities.
Following the hearing, the court facilitated mediation, and the two parties reached a settlement agreement on July 27, 2026. On July 31, the court organized the distribution of the maritime liability limitation fund among creditors involved in the foreign vessel collision dispute and related charter-party disputes.
Representatives of the Adalynn traveled from overseas to the court to present a letter of appreciation and a commemorative banner in recognition of the court's efforts, according to the court statement.
After the Guangzhou Maritime Court accepted the case, both parties agreed to apply Chinese law to establish a maritime liability limitation fund and resolve their substantive dispute, breaking away from the long-standing reliance of international shipping disputes on European and US courts and legal systems.
Choice of justice
Bilov Viacheslav, a representative of Global Shipping Holding Ltd., told the Global Times that the main reason they chose a Chinese court to mediate the case is that "we want absolutely fair, unbiased approach to this issue. Because nowadays in this world, there are some countries which believe that they are authorized to give instruction to all others, which definitely is having influence on the decisions of the judge on the approach to the case."
Viacheslav gave the Chinese court's handling of the case a five-star rating, saying he had expected the dispute to take at least three years to resolve, but the Chinese court settled it within just one year. He also praised the judges and lawyers for their commitment to advancing the case throughout the proceedings.
"The judges and lawyers worked to advance the case with the same level of commitment as I did, even though the case directly concerned my own interests. This left a deep impression on me about litigation in China," Viacheslav said.
The case involved two foreign parties and a collision that occurred near the Strait of Hormuz, with no direct connection to China or Guangzhou Maritime Court initially. The fact that the parties chose to seek vessel arrest in China and agreed to apply Chinese law demonstrates the credibility and appeal of China's maritime judicial system, Wu Guining, vice president of the Guangzhou Maritime Court, who served as the presiding judge of the case, told the Global Times.
The court also introduced a maritime technical investigator mechanism in the case, an innovation aimed at addressing complex technical issues arising from vessel collision accidents, Wu said, noting that through technical investigations, the court was able to establish the facts of the case more efficiently, highlighting the integration of professional maritime investigation capabilities with China's specialized maritime adjudication system.
The case demonstrates China's ability to handle major, complex and cross-border maritime disputes with professional expertise, Wu said.
The handling of the collision between the two vessels is just one example of how Chinese courts have been dealing with a growing number of foreign-related maritime cases in recent years.
The Global Times learned from China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) in October last year that over the past 40 years, Chinese courts have handled a total of 88,000 foreign-related maritime cases involving parties from 146 countries and regions.
At a lecture held by the SPC on Friday, Shen Hongyu, director of the Fourth Civil Division of the SPC, told the Global Times that in recent years, Chinese courts have become more influential in participating in and promoting global ocean governance reform. Maritime justice serves as an important instrument for practicing the vision of a maritime community with a shared future and for advancing the reform of the global ocean governance system.
。中美双方于2022年8月暂停合作后，从墨西哥非法进入美国的中国移民急剧增加。据悉，美国边境官员2023年在南部边境逮捕约3.7万名来自中国的公民。这个数字是2022年的10倍，进一步加剧美国总统选举中有关移民议题的紧张局势。
中国外交部在本周发给美联社的一份声明中表示，北京“愿意与美国在移民执法领域保持对话与合作”，并接受已核实中国国籍的人员被遣返。中国外交部发言人毛宁曾表示，中方在非法移民问题上的立场明确，我们反对并坚决打击任何形式的非法移民活动。
3月30日这趟航班上被遣返的中国人肯定不会很多，因为这架从亚利桑那州起飞、经停得克萨斯州和阿拉斯加州然后抵达中国的湾流五型飞机通常能坐14人。
C | 虽然，这可能只是刚刚开始。但这一迹象表明在美国前众议院议长佩洛西任性访问台湾地区双方停止了遣返合作后，北京和华盛顿在遣返问题上重新恢复了新的合作。
佩洛西访台的后遗症一直持续，北京还停止了高层军事对话、禁毒合作和气候变化谈判，使两国关系跌入低谷。在两国领导人会面后，双方的接触和对话正逐步恢复，包括有关气候变化的对话。
D |
被美国边境巡逻人员逮捕的中国移民人数在去年12月达到顶峰，但在2024年前三个月呈下降趋势。
E | 如果没有中国政府的合作，美国就无法遣返没有合法居留身份的中国移民。面对影响国际关系的重大问题，没有中美之间的共同合作，要解决会遭遇难以想象的困难。这些都需要中美对话、合作面对。
F |
据中国生态环境部消息，5月8日至9日，中美“21世纪20年代强化气候行动工作组”会议在美国华盛顿特区召开。会议由中国气候变化事务特使刘振民和美国总统国际气候政策高级顾问波德斯塔共同主持。
双方承诺就部署减排技术、建立或完善各自MRV体系和标准推动开展双边合作和能力建设，以实现在21世纪20年代期间甲烷控排或减排的目标。
G |
可以看到，美国拜登政府面对大选的压力很大，一方面要加大遏制中国，表示出其强硬的一面，另一方面又希望寻求与中国展开合作之门，来解决它所遭遇的困境。
Current article:http://www.senchuoshaozaodidia.shop/5fhx3/h3md4w.pptx
Published on:09:12:09
[责任编辑： 马侯北北]
评论
-
关于我们 | 我的网站 版权所有
Copyright ? 2019 我的网站 All Rights Reserved