海難救助報酬係現行海上保險實務條款無論船體、貨物或運費保險單均承保之項目，而拖帶費用除特定情形得以共同海損處理而為承保外（參照F14, Towage from a port of refuge, Rules of Practice of the Association of Average Adjusters 1986, amended 1992），原則上係非承保項目。本研究係針對我國海商法海難救助與拖帶定義付之闕如之情形，尤其是船舶拖帶與海難救助間之轉換，藉比較法作一嚴格區分，以弭實務迭起之爭訟。首先，依實務作業模式與法律成立要件區分兩者異同，尤以海難救助之四大要件海事標的、危險、自願、有效果為重點，再者以此為基礎解決船舶拖帶與海難救助間轉換之問題，並特舉英國The North Goodwin No.16與The Aldora兩案為實例研析之。最後研究結果顯示船舶拖帶與海難救助之轉換在於自願與危險二要件之生與滅。

　　　　　Salvage remuneration is normally covered by the practical hull, cargo and freight marine policies, whereas no towage charges is recoverable, with exceptional cases that it is adjusted as the general average expenditure under specified situation (F14, Towage from a port of refuge, Rules of Practice of the Association of Average Adjusters 1986, amended 1992). Neither the definition nor the distinction between the salvage and towage is ever provided in the Taiwanese Maritime Code, especially the occasional issues of conversion in-between. Hence this work is to try to identify the distinction by taking the legal method of comparative law studies and then to diminish the practical argument and lawsuit there occurred often and often in the insurance or maritime industry. First the author adopting both he practical ways of maritime or insurance operations and the legal requirements to tell the difference, especially the light is thrown on the four well-recognized main requirement of salvage, being maritime property, danger, voluntariness and success, then which result is taken as a base in solving the conversion between salvage and towage. During the rational process, two English leading cases the North Goodwin No.16 and the Aldora are taken as examples to testify the author's analysis. Finally the research result indicates that the conversion between the salvage and towage lies in the occurrence and extinction of both voluntariness and danger.