由於各國法律規定之差異，對海上貨損索賠當事人之權益影響甚.。故發生糾紛時，應適用何國法律或公約，對於當事人而言，極為重要。兩岸未來將隨著經濟發展及政策變更，海運民事糾紛將會大幅增加，因此瞭解兩岸涉外民事法律適用之規範及法院實務之見解，實有助於事前風險之評估及管理。本文即針對兩岸海上貨物運送涉外案件準據法法規予以分析，並蒐集彙整分析兩岸海上運送契約涉外案件準據法實務見解。研究結果主要發現，大陸在準據法之適用方面，對於載貨證券之準據法條款多採肯定之見解，其他當事人無選擇準據法之情況時，依法官之裁量，多數結果還是採用中國法；台灣在準據法之適用方面，法規規範較無彈性，法官對於準據法條款多採否定之見解，而依法定順序判定準據法時，結果多數案件係以載貨證券簽發地法為 其準據法。

Laws vary from country to country. The decision regarding which country’s law should be applied during dispute resolution could have a great impact on marine cargo liability claims. Hence, the issue of applicable law is of great importance for parties involved. Along with the economic development and policy changes in Taiwan and China, we expect to see greater numbers of shipping contract disputes. An understanding of the applicable laws and their judicial interpretations in Taiwan and China can help shipping companies with risk evaluation and management. This research compares the laws applicable to shipping contracts in Taiwan and China, and analyses cases involving foreign parties. We find that in China, the law accepts the clause of applicable law of bills of lading. If the involved parties do not specify which country’s law are to be used in their cases, the judges are to make the decision. In many cases, judges decided to apply Chinese law. On the contrary, the law in Taiwan is more rigid, and deems the clause of applicable law of bills of lading invalid. It stipulates that only the law of the country where the bill of lading was issued is applicable. Therefore, judges in China have greater judicial discretion than their counterparts in Taiwan.