「船舶碰撞問題研究」係探討船舶碰撞之意義、船舶碰撞之管轄權與船舶碰撞之準據法三部分。首先，界定與比較各國立法例、我國海商法與國際公約對船舶碰撞之「船舶」適用範圍與「碰撞」包括直接與間接碰撞之意涵，再述船舶碰撞之國際管轄權，後述船舶碰撞之準據法。 凡涉外案件者，管轄權之決定除關乎訴訟勝敗外，尚涉及判決之承認與執行。涉外案件管轄權之決定係指「國際管轄權」之確立，而非內國管轄權（事物管轄或土地管轄）之分配。海事爭議案件中，海事訴訟管轄權的確立有待各國國際民事訴訟法與海商法決定；惟不具國際民事訴訟法制度者，以海商法之特別規定為其海事爭議案件之特別管轄權；倘若海商法未明文者，便有待類推適用內國民事訴訟法或以國際管轄權之確定原則補充之。 本文詳細介紹國際管轄權之意義，包括國際管轄權與審判權之區分及欠缺審判權和欠缺國際管轄權之效果、英美法系與大陸法系國際管轄權之確定原則、海事爭議事件或船舶碰撞之國際管轄權公約，最後探討船舶碰撞國際管轄權積極衝突與消極衝突之解決方式。 最後，船舶碰撞之爭議解決必須適用準據法，此本為國際私法上選法問題，惟我國海商法對船舶碰撞有專章規定，該第九十四條規定，不論碰撞發生於何地，皆適用本章之規定，此規定是否為跳脫選法程序之「即刻適用法」（Lois de Police; Rules of Immediate Application）？涉外民事法律適用法第九條和海商法第九十四條之衝突應如何解決？即刻適用法是濕管轄權款？若他船籍國亦有即刻適用法之規定，與我國船舶碰撞時，應如何解決？本文將詳細探討即刻適用法之意義及類似問題，並比較國際私法之選法程序和即刻適用法之適用、其與單面法則和公序良俗條款之區別，以做為我國日後船舶碰撞問題之準據法適用方向。

　　　　　This article is separate into three parts: First, what is the meaning of collision, which-ships are eligible for subjective of collision in maritime law of Republic of China, of other countries, of treaties and international agreements, what is "direction collision", and what is "indirection collision"? Second, how to select jurisdictions when international events of ships of collision arise, and what are the principles of jurisdiction-selecting? Third, it comes into being a statute of conflict of laws when ships collide with, but how to decide the most proper law when the tragedy happens, and what is "Lois de Police" (sometimes as known "Rules of Immediate Application")? Settling on Jurisdiction is important for litigation and recognition and enforcement of foreign Judgments. This article introduces the meaning of jurisdiction, and explains the differences of the definitions between the venue and jurisdiction, and elucidates the principle of jurisdiction in Civil Law and American Law, and probes into the modes of treaties or international agreements in solving disputes on maritime events and collision between ships in detail. Further, researching into jurisdictional conflicts. How is article ninety-four of maritime law of R.O.C. applied to events of collision? Is this article also belonged to "Lois de Police"? What's the different between the application of choice of law and the application of "Lois de Police"? What are the differences between "Lois de Police" and full faith and credit clause? Is "Lois de Police" a one-side rule? Does jurisdiction-selecting and rule-selecting are implied in article ninety-four of maritime law of R.O.C.? All disputes and problems of above are expounded in this article, and I hope this article can throw a stone clear the way.