| Abstract: | Under the maritime legal system, the maritime lien and the limitation of liability for maritime claims are two systems with distinct characteristics. In academic circles, some scholars deem that the two systems can be described as in the relationship of not mutual exclusion, while some other persons suggest that in case of conflict between the two systems in the application of law, the former should automatically give its way to the latter.Nevertheless, in the legal theory, there are fundamental differences in the nature and function of the two systems, thus they should not be lumped together. In accordance with the principle that the real right should be determined by legislation, the system of the limitation of liability for maritime claims has not the function to extinguish the maritime lien. According to the division of functions in legal branches, there are no reasons to eliminate the arrangement in the substantive law with the procedural law. Furthermore, from the angle of practice, due to the function of the latent mechanisms for harmonization in the legal system, the conflict between the two systems can be automatically diminished by itself, and the so called problem that the recognition of the preferential position of the maritime lien on the fund of limitation will deprive other maritime claimants from the opportunity of obtaining compensation, does not exist in fact.In the current legal system, the way to harmonize the two systems may be as follows. As to the unlimited maritime claims but secured by the maritime lien, the claimants may still claim on the lien. As far as the limited maritime claims also secured by the maritime lien, the claimants may still claim for priority in the fund of limitation. But due to the limited amount of the fund, even the claimants cannot obtain adequate compensation from the fund, they may not further claim on the ship or other properties of the claimees. |
