我國海商法船舶拖帶部分沒有就拖帶意義作說明，而海商法通則之船舶則僅適用可航行之船舶，使運送章船舶拖帶節對於失去動力之被拖船是否適用海商法之船舶拖帶有疑義。我國海商法之船舶拖帶節僅兩個條文，規定簡略，加上民國88年修訂海商法時刪去「契約」兩字，造成船舶拖帶究係規範拖帶行為或拖帶契約亦有疑義。我國海商法條文之規定與國際大港多適用之「標準拖帶契約」正好相反，因已難以涵蓋日漸多元之拖帶現況，文獻多認為該部分確有修改之必要性，本文因以探討我國海商法修正之建議。

There is no definition for towage of ships in the Section III: Towage of Ships/Chapter III: Carriage of our Maritime Code, the ship of towage concerned has to apply to Chapter I: General Provision. There is only navigable ship applicable, it gives rise to doubt as to whether, under the context of Section III: the towed ship which lost power or totally powerless, shall apply to the “Towage of Ships” of Maritime Code at all. Furthermore the word “contract” was deleted when revising our ROC Maritime Code the year of 1999, and as a result there has been ambiguity concerning whether the provision in our Maritime Code intends to govern act of towage of ship or contract of towage of ship. There are only two articles governing towage of ships under Section 3 /Chapter III, of the Maritime Code, which appears completeness-lacking. Also what has been provided in one of the two relevant articles goes contrary to the terms of the Standard Towage Conditions which are commonly applicable in most major ports world wide, and the current provisions might not be sufficient to regulate the presently ever diversifying towage practices. Literature concerned suggested the necessity of revision to the said Section. This paper aims at discussing and reviewing the suggested revision.