《第9章战争险与罢工险》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《第9章战争险与罢工险（30页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、1第九章 协会战争险/罢工险条文（货物）与有关协会货物条文（B）与（C）的承保1 协会战争险条文（货物）承保风险协会战争险条文（货物）中的第一条就是针对所承保的列明风险，而这些列明风险分为三大类，其中第 1.1 条针对从战争（war）直至叛乱（insurrection ）的一连串涉及有暴力的列明风险。而第 1.2 条针对从捕获（capture）直至羁押（detainment）的一连串不一定涉及暴力的列明风险。而第 1.3 条就针对一些和平的时候都会面对的，如弃置了的水雷、鱼雷、炸弹、武器，等。1.1 第一类战争险这条承保由于“战争、内战、革命、造反、叛乱或由于这些原因引起的民变” （ “War
2、 civil war revolution rebellion insurrection or civil strife arising therefrom, or any hostile act by or against a belligerent power”）所引致的损失。 针对这些列明风险的解释，曾经有个说法用由上至下的阶梯型（ladder） 去对这一类型的风险作出描述。也就是说，国与国之间的战争是最严重与层次最高的风险，然后到了最低层次的叛乱。这种说法可见 Farwell 大法官在 Republic of Bolivia v. Indemnity Mutual Assurance
3、Co Ltd (1909) 1 KB 785 在第 801 页所说的。但这个说法不被后来的一些著名先例所接受，例如 Mustill 大法官在 Spinneys (1948) Ltd v. Royal Insurance Co Ltd (1980) 1 Lloyds Rep 406 中所说的，如下：“reliance was placed on a number of judgments (such as that of Lord Justice Farwell in the Republic of Bolivia case) in which Courts have identified va
4、rious stages through which civil strife can pass as it becomes progressively worse: the suggestion being that if one can establish an order of ranking with civil war at the top, and if the characteristics of a peril lower down the list can be established, it can safely be assumed that a civil war mu
5、st possess all these characteristics together with some others. I have not found this approach very productive. Even if a ranking could be devised, it would not be invariable. In certain instances, some of the steps would be omitted. Furthermore, I am not convinced that all the listed perils lie in
6、a straight line with riot at the bottom and civil war at the top. Some appear to stand rather to one side.”（Mustill 大法官不认为这个说法很有建设性，因为在不同的情况中会有一些阶段是不会出现的，也会有些情况中这些阶段是相当一致的与不容易区分。 ） 另外，Rix 大法官在 Kuwait Airways Corp v. Kuwait Insurance Co (No 1) (1996) 1 Lloyds 2Rep 664 中有同样的说法，说：“. as to the ladder ap
7、proach, or as to the approach to the effect that the terms found in pars.(a) to (f) (these are insured perils with (a) war, invasion, foreign enemies, etc to (f) hi-jacking) should be construed so as to permit of no overlap between them, or some of them, I am distrustful of the usefulness of such ge
8、neral maxims, save in limited circumstances The fact is, that the ladder approach and the no overlap approach may be able to grade a list of perils in a descending or ascending order of gravity, but that is not to say that some terms of greater gravity may not embrace, rather than be distinct from,
9、other terms of lesser gravity; and some terms may be more general, others more specific. The no overlap approach, however seeks to give each peril or groups of perils an exclusive meaning.”（Rix 大法官也不接受这些一般性的说法，除了在一些局限的情况下。这说法是一个阶梯型，每一个阶段都是独立的，不与其他阶段重叠。但事实上有一些比较严重的阶段会包括一些不那么严重阶段的风险。例如， “造反”就会包括“叛乱” ，
10、两者之间很难分得开。 ） 。在 Kuwait Airways Corp v. Kuwait Insurance Co 先例中，要去区分在该保单中是哪一种战争风险，第条文有关承保科威特航空公司放置在科威特机场的昂贵零件或设备是只有除了承保风险（）的其他战争风险引致的损失才能获得延伸去承保，有关条文如下：“It is noted and agreed that the indemnity provided by this Policy other than Par.(a) of Section 1 is extended to include loss of or damage to Aircra
11、ft Spares and equipment which is the property of the Assured or for which they are responsible.”。而承保风险（）的列明风险有战争、外国侵略、外国敌意行为、内战，等（war, invasion, acts of foreign enemies, hostilities whether war be declared or not, civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, attempts at usurpation of power.） 。显然，
12、针对 1996 年伊拉克侵略科威特而造成的这些损失，保险公司作为被告声称是由承保风险（）所引起，所以不赔付。但受保人的科威特航空公司说是由延伸被承保风险（c）或（e ）所引起，它们分别是：“(c) Any act of one or more persons, whether or not agents of a sovereign power, for political or terrorist purposes and whether the loss or damage resulting therefrom is accidental or intentional.（由于政治或恐怖的
13、原因，部分人士不论是否属于主权国家的代理人，意外或故意的行动所造成的损失。 ）(e) Confiscation, nationalisation, seizure, restraint, detention, appropriation, requisition for title or use by or under the order of any Government (whether civil military or de facto) or 3public or local authority.（没收、国有化、扣押、拘禁、羁押、征收，等根据某些政府的命令。 ） ”。另外去介绍的是
14、National Oil Company of Zimbabwe v. Nicholas Collwyn Sturge (1991) 2 Lloyds Rep 281，案情涉及一个非法组织名为 Mozambique National Resistance (Renamo)，由于想推翻 Frelimo 政府（莫桑比克解放前线） ，将莫桑比克的油库炸毁。争议是要去看该行为是属于内战、革命、造反、叛乱或民变（“loss damage or expense caused by civil war, revolution, rebellion, insurrection, or civil strife
15、 therefrom ”）还是恐怖行为（“Any terrorist or person acting from a political motive”） ，因为前者的风险被排除在承保范围外，而后者是在承保范围内。非法组织 Renamo 是受到白人政府的支持，去推翻Frelimo 政府。而 Frelimo 在 1974 年从葡萄牙独立的时候就已经是掌握合法政权。Saville 大法官认为这些被排除的战争险的定义在一个商业合约中应该尽量从商业人士的角度去看待，而保险人只要证明当时莫桑比克的情况如果已经能够达到叛乱，就不用进一步去考虑阶梯中更高的造反或者是内战，因为保险人已经可以拒赔。Savill
16、e 大法官是这样说：“In the context of a commercial contract such as the policy under discussion, the expressions civil war, rebellion and insurrection bear their ordinary business meaning. In this context, civil war means a war with the special characteristic of being civil ie being internal rather than external see Spinneys (1948) Ltd v. Royal Insurance Co Ltd (1980) 1 Lloyds Rep 406. Rebellion and insurrection have somewhat similar meanings to each other.
