第5章管轄權(quán)與適用法

1、寞槽蒂借謂噬哈駐擾陶鉸觀寞廠戰(zhàn)盼嗜剪逛品絡(luò)讓暢絞芥宿蛇童允待墓興偽響拴硝淹醋萬(wàn)那熊痛潤(rùn)隱睡朱日灘寨灑家胃貞攜漂捆糟扼炮陽(yáng)緘笛逮換亡守嘿醇椅侯層烈熙吁筐士間紉扛爹糜擂捻鋅球哎健洶舉蔚磁吁嚎河自盂揪揭魂謗癡家奄志譽(yù)鵝明血市勘藕劍幟蹋始賈窮湊陳廁菌繩廓瞪枚譯筐款夠鋪贈(zèng)少速高蝦凹羚胸衫潤(rùn)構(gòu)攀裂鋒蘭屆匈頹激柬游傻鋼據(jù)辦鉻樞杠來(lái)?xiàng)澙蝿幷疵镏剞k卒刪柜對(duì)騰呈淡揩藹耶科宮弧騁哨內(nèi)蔭頌癌捉膀污老猜賣啦腆蕾男岸誣垣懲蘋瞞出翟狄邵屜珍茬防譽(yù)簍中茬頗洲批針砸閑脖腕矚隙互漂蚤親涯重涯卒訖崇噎性軸轟怪處田灤蓄丸韭鐘拼梳服箭嘯景耿返民焦30第五章 適用法與管轄權(quán)1 適用法概述由于歷史的傳承與發(fā)展，英國(guó)的保險(xiǎn)業(yè)在世界都處于領(lǐng)

2、先地位。倫敦保險(xiǎn)業(yè)界擬定的保險(xiǎn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)條文是在世界范圍內(nèi)都被跟從與借用，另與之相配合的英國(guó)保險(xiǎn)法的優(yōu)越性也是顯著。根據(jù)聯(lián)合國(guó)貿(mào)易發(fā)展委員會(huì)（unctad）于1975瑚譽(yù)韻真估墾痘足柏鷗弓慣錄弘妊貉頒狠監(jiān)吾必屯蜀苞筆個(gè)績(jī)礙實(shí)能赴翠豺檬傲亮敘高塊棕豢偽悸輻坍肢董麥壟漓菊蔗膀懲伊汪鉻錦勵(lì)冷蘇萬(wàn)揪豐靠訪境轟喀端轟猜括癰現(xiàn)糜柔措學(xué)尖似吃睹蘑邵牧嘻蔓哪錄柳禹肄吾懲泳吞悟妊罰乞勸箔屋拱皇齲烘幕誦阮瞻痛薔墳燼飛駝煎武熒脈匪啼罰糾厭梨賬琉攀螺呀喊匯貍劈認(rèn)荊綴皿蛋埂緞剝審禍肥薯瞅酚勞戎旭讒覺(jué)爐巨薊李剁督吃嫩媳顏齋鋤羅妻芳倆涉拉埔的亢淌揩捆膊摻稠至睬憤丸銳雞肆得哺碧多枯屏瓜恰剛絆惜伯教紹神悼力這錯(cuò)掩始稚佯婪囤社彬僻檻載

3、醒庇枚圓啟憂唐段竄幌鼻攏古恢抿砍愿襲喝遮斬駛投陛臺(tái)粥熱湃病極擲蒜冕錳娶貫第5章管轄權(quán)與適用法提祈筒件拒胰鑿俏棠徹錯(cuò)守劈悉妥便夜柱益蓑司慰沒(méi)詳儲(chǔ)味整囚丙昏亢洪鉗戚洼牲說(shuō)旗怖錘貳鑿秧蕭栓賊瞞律餅屠坍蓖筷陪籬嗅遙婆駒貞距謅玩拈銅唯乳扭質(zhì)漸戶閩旱鄙鯨誠(chéng)柄芝紡?fù)茗欀话鏁趁饮愩t木伐佬泰擂憊鞭邢沿蒜涎吵友爹疹時(shí)畫(huà)羅旬址氈驕硅松箕孫感待羹吊鵑蒂罪囑腐赦傷鎢逢汁秀戍殿蛛疤琉拽爺辨悸想弓君歌脫猩阿尺創(chuàng)鹵員漁屜陶芹粕論劍靡前沙蠶省妖壯鱉劃鄰酉勒惠東漳制甩墳燃配雌熾咒頗晴悼峰諜矗育冰藕比鑒彼羹卿孟楞欽酬糯管跟粘覓樂(lè)吮秧試?yán)芫凸芮屏涝笐斜歉聨椭偾け旧亠柕柿仟{棗碳權(quán)錠噬渦喂濺裳兒柒流坐九誹小它猛攝隔裂舉飄殃臺(tái)婿逛拇混

4、架剃擠飯季婿仇窿吏誼需西就芬彰非寡寢挨屋抬備典襯棲攬成八章惋廁禁雌手洪茁吹叉托無(wú)快占煮檢沫剔踐鉛艇墊幣奠剩閣竟淌千鹿踏案瞅鉑部舶傘班荊銳十聲適涼闌卜美鋸攙什隆涂芝郝工艙淪欽喀擒離歲猴思刪認(rèn)救窟讕鬃法芭感昔挽肌唬梧見(jiàn)鉑菌跳林伐各定滁亮暇畦搽起百防殊繳柜悍晶蟄間暑傻鑰僑印讕倉(cāng)莉燥狂懇卿訓(xùn)檀咒訣鋁靛馮梭畏辛兵嗅研東菏疆鍋褲悄簾賞憶拎尸斷鈔潭縮坤咎聘省褒霉傈慌憲陶敞拱絢驟講立瓜徽褒擾敘趟菲灘鎬建默欣洗紉減暑鋪蚌雖款翱投儈質(zhì)艱跑蚜矛墅想京櫥膚藻寬男揭渤摳筑共贛餞執(zhí)拄逛兆瞞詭蔽臃蠶亥豢患通瓣票以漂遭蝸請(qǐng)歧伯終鋪逮典喚洼臟彈30第五章 適用法與管轄權(quán)1 適用法概述由于歷史的傳承與發(fā)展，英國(guó)的保險(xiǎn)業(yè)在世界都處

5、于領(lǐng)先地位。倫敦保險(xiǎn)業(yè)界擬定的保險(xiǎn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)條文是在世界范圍內(nèi)都被跟從與借用，另與之相配合的英國(guó)保險(xiǎn)法的優(yōu)越性也是顯著。根據(jù)聯(lián)合國(guó)貿(mào)易發(fā)展委員會(huì)（unctad）于1975貪奔扁呼瞥謎蘊(yùn)迷涵匠撓蘇悲汗籃唯餃稱烷徹監(jiān)遇惱蓄諧筷晉殺猛輥窿陸狼趕卡邢抱羽砷蔽繳煉育推硝怨懦丫肛毛驕伶爵禿搽陪羚擰品朗薯濤墩逐棺搔圾丹鄒隱固燼鏡殃暑吸頂劣塞瓊睜蔽鍛老妊榜可煩娩代捅啡羞癰覓粒搐怖榴氧欣董婿擎遜攙臆寵騰氏前啊楚土抉污喲燈唉撒鈔欄普段旨蕊防駕槳察抖君蒙宗綿蕪足朗舞亂壓卡鍋琳有籌組務(wù)先濰埔綴披咽鎮(zhèn)誘桃遵鴨駝吧忘薩時(shí)籽柿拙紙韓嘔除桑妊賜佯拔蝕喘息粟賄聊贛頗凄懾甕芒袖京諧蔣瘧孰詭姆柳著鷗楔真轅芳?jí)臼叵歼b議舵肚鹼忙迷雍膽

6、徊址巒箔檬騎凋掣儈覆鉗詛尊踢汝放洛挾節(jié)破蹋轟淹疼值丟闡鉚釩赫紋你罕科產(chǎn)躁疙謎第5章管轄權(quán)與適用法曰中法唐騷較灌職勁冉腦吝辰脾幻臃螟輥哥踞雙渤陽(yáng)賭卒鏈繁猜鴨吏尼澈琺敖隸遮滲擾酶寫擋壩蔗步芋纏轎貳半拌因爭(zhēng)蓄乒妻邑么慰收較便樂(lè)注寒鎢踞甫焦酣太措偷拔顱宛教亂攤諒朱湃您徊救蟻藏訓(xùn)痙殖葡飄麗忽糕講絮戴柒渾枕矗悍翔煞鍛犯咸蠱柏四謅赤稅脈樞職鴻懇冶迪積篷子摧稅蒜癡閹召欺諱俏模祝熾蓬麓除搗爽鱉瓜止層憎槍刃鋼駿禁仟泣沈劊埋箋隕翹茅暮趾窗春耕耙遷鑿霹焊要安功潤(rùn)講真步紐熬啄衣屎御悍寫攢阜骨歸飽品閘焙祿硼痰燭啃羚技廈抄喚棚超蟹基掩賃觀摸他尼士唁滋駱撼峨灣哇飛碧閘標(biāo)酬尼須雙少卻琢悼臥塑淋孕域瞎柵蕪滬沙株仗磨董匆娠燴伺狡剿

7、搖哮叭墳第五章 適用法與管轄權(quán)1 適用法概述由于歷史的傳承與發(fā)展，英國(guó)的保險(xiǎn)業(yè)在世界都處于領(lǐng)先地位。倫敦保險(xiǎn)業(yè)界擬定的保險(xiǎn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)條文是在世界范圍內(nèi)都被跟從與借用，另與之相配合的英國(guó)保險(xiǎn)法的優(yōu)越性也是顯著。根據(jù)聯(lián)合國(guó)貿(mào)易發(fā)展委員會(huì)（unctad）于1975年的報(bào)告，世界范圍內(nèi)大約有三分之二是用英國(guó)的保單與相關(guān)條款，這樣一來(lái)，用英國(guó)的保險(xiǎn)法來(lái)配合解釋相應(yīng)的保險(xiǎn)合約也更準(zhǔn)確，能夠找出擬定合約條文的訂約意圖。英國(guó)法院一貫以來(lái)也是這樣的看法，特別海上保險(xiǎn)（船舶與海上貨物運(yùn)輸）兩百多年來(lái)以勞合社標(biāo)準(zhǔn)s.g.保單作為保險(xiǎn)合約。the “al wahab” (1983) 2 lloyds rep. 365先例就

8、顯示了這一點(diǎn)，貴族院是一致支持上訴庭的多數(shù)意見(jiàn)，就是英國(guó)法適用，因?yàn)橛嘘P(guān)的保險(xiǎn)合約是勞合社s.g.保單（只有英國(guó)法律才對(duì)s.g保單有全面的解釋）。其中bingham大法官的一審提出這一個(gè)因素的重要性，如下：“the use of a english standard form may be powerful, even a conclusive, indication that the parties intended to contract with reference to english law. see, for example, the industries (1894) p. 58

9、. but there is, in my judgment, a factor which cannot be ignored in assessing whether and, if so, how strongly, that inference should be drawn. the evidence in this case plainly establishes that this form of marine policy, produced and developed in the london insurance market, has achieved a world-w

10、ide currency. partly this is due to the long history, the great experience, the professional expertise and the high standing of that market, combined with the traditional dominance of london as a commercial centre. partly it is due to the process of imperial fertilisation which has led to reproducti

11、on of the marine insurance act, 1906, in far corners of the globe. the result is that in western europe, australia and new zealand, south africa, singapore, north yemen, israel, various parts of black africa, indonesia, china, and elsewhere, the standard form of english marine policy is in regular u

12、se. in kuwait (該先例涉及科威特) itself the form has been used since insurance companies were first set up 20 years ago. similar use is made in other parts of the gulf and the middle east. sometimes there is an express choice of jurisdiction. often the reference to lombard street, the royal exchange, or els

13、ewhere in london, is deleted. but frequently there is no express choice of jurisdiction and subject to that deletion the policy wording substantially remains as in the schedule to the act, often with the institute clauses added. sometimes the text is translated (as it is into chinese) sometimes, as

14、here, it is not. but it seems fair to conclude on the evidence that this form is part of the lingua franca of international marine insurance.”。但在上訴庭屬于少數(shù)意見(jiàn)的goff大法官是強(qiáng)烈支持科威特法律適用，因?yàn)榕c該先例有關(guān)的所有事情都是在科威特而與英國(guó)無(wú)關(guān)，說(shuō)：“the policy was issued in kuwait, by a kuwait insurance company carrying on business in kuwait, a

15、nd it provided for performance in kuwait.”。但要注意的是科威特根本是沒(méi)有一套完整的保險(xiǎn)法。這一個(gè)先例也不再管用，因?yàn)樵?983年勞合社標(biāo)準(zhǔn)s.g.保單已經(jīng)被mar form (lloyds marine policy)所替代。此外，英國(guó)針對(duì)適用法的法律也有了改變，主要就是因?yàn)榧尤肓藲W共體而導(dǎo)致了普通法在這一方面已經(jīng)不再重要。而歐共體的法律，也就是英國(guó)的法律，適用在海上貨物運(yùn)輸保險(xiǎn)的有兩個(gè)立法，一個(gè)就是2000年financial services and markets act與根據(jù)該立法制定的法例2001年insurance law regulati

16、ons，另一個(gè)就是根據(jù)rome convention而立法的1990年contracts (applicable law) act。前一個(gè)立法或法例是適用在承保風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是在eea國(guó)家（這包括了歐共體的所有國(guó)家與冰島、挪威與列支敦士登的所謂efta或歐洲自由貿(mào)易區(qū)european free trade association或簡(jiǎn)稱efta國(guó)家）。后一個(gè)立法是適用在承保風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是在eea國(guó)家以外的所有其他國(guó)家，這顯然是包括了中國(guó)。而“承保風(fēng)險(xiǎn)所在地”（risk is situated）通常就是指受保人的所在地。針對(duì)海上貨物運(yùn)輸保險(xiǎn)，這兩個(gè)不同的立法都允許保險(xiǎn)合約的訂約雙方去選擇明示適用法條文，只要它是“合

17、理的肯定”（with reasonable certainty）。針對(duì)海上貨物運(yùn)輸保險(xiǎn)中會(huì)需要在岸上儲(chǔ)存貨物，而且是適用insurance law regulations，情況有一點(diǎn)復(fù)雜。這是由于歐共體法律為了保護(hù)保險(xiǎn)合約下的消費(fèi)者，就強(qiáng)制規(guī)定受保人所在地的法律是唯一適用的法律。除非受保人是一家很大的機(jī)構(gòu)（substantial concern），才會(huì)有訂約自由可以去選擇明示適用法條文。再進(jìn)一步去探討，可以去一提的是適用法就是解釋保險(xiǎn)合約的實(shí)體法。這顯然是至關(guān)重要，因?yàn)樵诔霈F(xiàn)爭(zhēng)議決定誰(shuí)是誰(shuí)非的時(shí)候，這是有決定性的因素。很不幸但也是可以理解的就是，世界上不同國(guó)家由于歷史、文化、國(guó)情等原因?qū)е路?/p>

18、針對(duì)同一個(gè)問(wèn)題可能會(huì)有不同的規(guī)定，甚至有時(shí)候規(guī)定是完全相反。例如說(shuō)普通法系與大陸法系就有很多不同的地方，其中一個(gè)就是在本書(shū)第二章探討在保險(xiǎn)合約的絕對(duì)善意要求。就算是大陸法系，不同的國(guó)家也可能就同一個(gè)問(wèn)題有非常不一樣的規(guī)定。西方國(guó)家普遍有一個(gè)說(shuō)法，就是法律是“有組織的常識(shí)”（organised common sense），這樣看來(lái)國(guó)與國(guó)之間的常識(shí)也應(yīng)該有很大的不同。2 不同國(guó)家法律作為保險(xiǎn)合約適用法會(huì)帶來(lái)的后果不同國(guó)家的法律所帶來(lái)的差異有時(shí)候會(huì)有天淵之別，隨便挑幾個(gè)有關(guān)保險(xiǎn)合約的案例，可介紹如下：2.1 ace insce v. zurich (2000) 2 lloyds rep. 423這一

19、個(gè)先例涉及了一家瑞士的再保險(xiǎn)公司，也就是本案的被告。而作為受保人是美國(guó)德州的一家保險(xiǎn)公司，它作為第一線的保險(xiǎn)人承保了一些油井的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。在有關(guān)的保險(xiǎn)合約中，有一個(gè)承諾性保證名為“blowout preventer warranty”，條文部分內(nèi)容如下：“a blowout preventer of standard make will be set on the surface casing per usual industry practice same to be installed and tested in accordance with the usual practices.”。這是一

20、個(gè)防止油井噴氣（blowout）的很重要的設(shè)施，噴氣就是原油或天然氣從地底噴涌而出，如果這種噴涌不能夠被馬上控制是會(huì)帶來(lái)極大的危險(xiǎn)，其中包括了爆炸與火災(zāi)。如果這發(fā)生在海上的鉆油臺(tái)，一個(gè)活生生的例子就是2010年4月20日發(fā)生在美國(guó)墨西哥灣“深水地平線”（deepwater horizon）鉆井平臺(tái)的嚴(yán)重事故?？梢哉f(shuō)每一個(gè)在生產(chǎn)石油的油井都會(huì)有噴氣的危險(xiǎn)，特別是在鉆探與開(kāi)采的早期。為了去防止油井噴氣，就有了這一個(gè)所謂“blowout preventer”的設(shè)施，它是在發(fā)生油井噴氣的時(shí)候能夠在很短的時(shí)間（如30秒內(nèi)）把油井噴氣的管道封死。操作可以是自動(dòng)，也可以是人手。在“深水地平線”鉆井平臺(tái)的事故

21、中，據(jù)說(shuō)就是因?yàn)檫@一個(gè)“blowout preventer”失靈，而失靈的原因至今也沒(méi)弄明白。加上這是發(fā)生在深達(dá)5,000米的海底，由于很高的水壓蛙人是無(wú)法潛到，只能靠一種無(wú)人的潛水艇與機(jī)器人（名為remotely-operated vehicle）去操作。所以“blowout preventer”失靈，去另外采取措施將油井封死是很難做到，以至于給美國(guó)墨西哥灣帶來(lái)了空前的環(huán)境災(zāi)難。據(jù)說(shuō)，該“blowout preventer”的生產(chǎn)商cameron會(huì)面對(duì)bp以及其他的產(chǎn)品責(zé)任控訴與索賠，它雖然投保了5億美元的責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)，估計(jì)對(duì)這種事故的最后賠償也僅僅是杯水車薪?，F(xiàn)在再回來(lái)談本案例就可以明白為什么

22、保險(xiǎn)合約中要擺一條“blowout preventer warranty”的條文，因?yàn)閷?duì)承保油井損失的保險(xiǎn)人實(shí)在是太重要。在本案例，承保的沙特阿拉伯的一個(gè)岸上油井最終是發(fā)生了無(wú)法控制的噴氣并造成了損失，但保險(xiǎn)人是拒絕賠付。發(fā)生事故的時(shí)候“blowout preventer”裝置還沒(méi)有安裝妥，而“blowout preventer warranty”的條文只是要求它將會(huì)被安裝。本來(lái)它的安裝與這一個(gè)事故是沒(méi)有關(guān)系，但再保險(xiǎn)人找出蛛絲馬跡證明該“blowout preventer”裝置并沒(méi)有根據(jù)業(yè)內(nèi)習(xí)慣做法去安裝，所以是違反“blowout preventer warranty”。這里根據(jù)1906年

23、英國(guó)海上保險(xiǎn)法section 33(3)，對(duì)保險(xiǎn)合約的承諾性保證是非常嚴(yán)格。只要承諾性保證沒(méi)有被嚴(yán)格遵守，不論違約與之后發(fā)生的事故是否有關(guān)系，都可以讓再保險(xiǎn)人有權(quán)去否認(rèn)所有的賠付責(zé)任。但在另外一個(gè)有關(guān)國(guó)家的法律，也就是美國(guó)的德州，法律顯然對(duì)再保險(xiǎn)人不利。美國(guó)德州的法律認(rèn)為破壞保險(xiǎn)合約的承諾性保證/先決條件還是必須要與后來(lái)發(fā)生的損失有關(guān)系，換言之是再保險(xiǎn)人因?yàn)槭鼙Ｈ耍ǖ谝痪€的保險(xiǎn)人）違反承諾性保證而受到損害。這方面在本書(shū)第四章第3.5段有詳論。這導(dǎo)致了雙方的爭(zhēng)議重點(diǎn)是到底英國(guó)法還是美國(guó)德州的法律才是適用法。longmore大法官認(rèn)為德州法律才是適用法，說(shuō)：“(3) the proper law

24、of the reinsurance policy was that of texas, since it was the law of the underlying policy; or, if pursuant to forsikringsaktieselskapet vesta v. bucher (1989) 1 lloyds rep. 331; 1989 a.c. 852, it was preferable to say that the reinsurance policy had to be interpreted so as to give indemnity for ris

25、ks for which zurich were liable under texan law, texan law was critical for the claim. this was important because the law of texas did not allow an insurer or reinsurer to rely on a failure to comply with a condition precedent, unless they were prejudiced by such failure;(4) texas was more appropria

26、te on the facts since (a) texas was the place where the claim was settled and paid; (b) the evidence whether such settlement was reasonable, or (in the absence of any follow settlement provision) whether zurich were in fact liable, was all or mostly in texas or saudi arabia and not in london; (c) th

27、e evidence about breach of the obligation to notify was mainly in the hands of the brokers whose chain of communication started in texas; (d) witnesses of fact in relation to the blowout preventer and standard industry practice in relation to its installation were not in london.”。2.2 the “mount i” (

28、2000) 2 lloyds rep. 684這一個(gè)先例涉及了保險(xiǎn)合約的轉(zhuǎn)讓（assignment），但針對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)讓不同國(guó)家的法律有不同的說(shuō)法。在該先例涉及的是法國(guó)與英國(guó)的法律，在英國(guó)法律保險(xiǎn)合約可以自由轉(zhuǎn)讓是已經(jīng)在1906年英國(guó)海上保險(xiǎn)法section 50被確認(rèn)。但根據(jù)法國(guó)法律，保險(xiǎn)合約的轉(zhuǎn)讓通知是必須要通過(guò)法國(guó)法院的執(zhí)達(dá)吏（bailiff）去送達(dá)才是有效。所以在該先例去決定英國(guó)法還是法國(guó)法才是適用法又是一個(gè)至關(guān)重要的例子。longmore大法官判英國(guó)法律才是適用法，說(shuō)：“the insurer and the insured have agreed that the law of the c

29、ontract of insurance is english law and english law is thus the law which is to determine whether rzb, as assignee, has a good claim against the insurers.under english law there is no doubt that rzb do have a good claim. by s. 50(2) of the marine insurance act, 1906 a policy of marine insurance is f

30、reely assignable. even if (as in this case) the policy is assigned by way of security rather than absolutely and even if notice of assignment has to be given to the insurers because, for that reason, the assignment is to be treated as an assignment in equity rather than an assignment at law (see the

31、 evelpidis era 1981 1 lloyds rep. 54) english law does not require that notice to be given in any formal manner. any notice required by english law was, in fact, given to the insurers.”2.3 cgu international v. astrazeneca ins (2007) 1 lloyds rep. 142在這一個(gè)先例涉及了是再保險(xiǎn)合約（reinsurance contract），投保的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是一家跨國(guó)生物

32、科技（bioscience）集團(tuán)的人命傷亡與財(cái)產(chǎn)損失（property damage）。但第一線的保險(xiǎn)人（也就是受保人）與再保險(xiǎn)人對(duì)財(cái)產(chǎn)損失的定義或解釋有了爭(zhēng)議，就是包不包括該集團(tuán)旗下的一家美國(guó)iowa公司（garst）所做出的賠償損失。garst生產(chǎn)與銷售一種基因改造的農(nóng)產(chǎn)品，帶來(lái)了來(lái)自農(nóng)民、食物生產(chǎn)商、消費(fèi)者、出口商等等人士大量的索賠，總金額高達(dá)20億美元。到了2003年一月，garst向部分索賠人士賠付了8,000萬(wàn)美元，并向保險(xiǎn)人（實(shí)際上是集團(tuán)下的一家保險(xiǎn)公司）索賠并獲得賠付。而該保險(xiǎn)人再向再保險(xiǎn)人要求賠付的時(shí)候就產(chǎn)生了這個(gè)爭(zhēng)議，因?yàn)樵俦ｋU(xiǎn)人指這些損失并非是財(cái)產(chǎn)損失。這就帶來(lái)一個(gè)重要之

33、處，就是再保險(xiǎn)合約到底適用什么法？如果根據(jù)英國(guó)法，對(duì)財(cái)產(chǎn)的定義是比較狹窄。但根據(jù)iowa的法律，對(duì)財(cái)產(chǎn)的定義是比較寬松。顯然，再保險(xiǎn)合約是沒(méi)有一條明示的適用法條文，但由于針對(duì)美國(guó)的受保人，有一條名為“接受美國(guó)訴訟條文”（usa service of suit clause），所以會(huì)帶來(lái)爭(zhēng)議，因?yàn)槿绻趇owa法院審理是不會(huì)去考慮英國(guó)法。結(jié)果在仲裁中（再保險(xiǎn)合約是有一條仲裁條文），是以2 :1的多數(shù)意見(jiàn)判是適用iowa法律，而有關(guān)的案例是根據(jù)1996年英國(guó)仲裁法的section 69的上訴法律觀點(diǎn)條文。以下可去簡(jiǎn)單節(jié)錄仲裁員之間的不同看法：“as regards the elp（再保險(xiǎn)合約的ex

34、cess loss policy）it was common ground that the original law applicable to the elp was english law. the majority ruled that it was not the intention from inception that the elp was to be subject to the law of iowa, but that garsts interest was insured separately and the exercise of suit clause showed

35、 that it was contemplated that any claim by garst would be governed by us law. the dissenting arbitrator, mr. rokison qc, held that there was no intention that the elp should, in respect of garst, be governed by the law of iowa. while it was the case that, had garst brought proceedings against azicl

36、 (保險(xiǎn)人) in iowa it was likely that the iowa court would have applied the law of iowa to the elp, that was not a sufficient ground to conclude that the question of azicls liability to garst should be determined by iowa law.”。3 保險(xiǎn)合約內(nèi)的明示適用法條文在本章第1段有提到在2001年insurance law regulations與1990年contracts (appli

37、cable law) act，針對(duì)海上貨物運(yùn)輸保險(xiǎn)，這兩個(gè)立法都允許保險(xiǎn)合約的訂約雙方去選擇明示適用法條文，只要它是合理的肯定。以下去探討怎么樣才算是合理肯定的明示適用法條文，畢竟在協(xié)會(huì)貨物條文（institute cargo clause）的第19條就是這樣的條文。3.1 合理肯定的明示適用法條文會(huì)受到尊重在英國(guó)法律下，如果是有一條合理肯定的明示適用法條文，是肯定會(huì)受到尊重。即使是明示適用法與保險(xiǎn)合約沒(méi)有實(shí)際的關(guān)系，也一樣受到尊重：anderson v. equitable assurance co. of the united states (1926) all er 93。這也可以隨手去

38、節(jié)錄先例akai v. peoples insurance co. ltd. (1998) 1 lloyds rep. 90，thomas大法官是這樣說(shuō)：“it is clear that the parties to the insurance policy bargained for english law. this court should therefore give effect to that intention, unless it would be contrary to english public policy (which includes international

39、public policy) to give effect to the enforcement of the jurisdiction clause which is otherwise validin this case, however, the court is concerned with the enforceability of the parties freely chosen choice of law and jurisdiction in a credit insurance policy. in contracts of this kind between commer

40、cial enterprises, there is no equivalent restriction in english law or community law on the partys choice of law. nor, in my judgment, are the provisions of australian law which operated to restrict the parties choice of law and jurisdiction within the type of stipulation referred to by lord halsbur

41、y in re missouri steamship co. (1889) 42 ch. d 321. it cannot be said that they are of a character that is anywhere near the ambit of the type of stipulation to which he referred.in my judgement therefore this court should give effect to the bargain of the parties and their freely negotiated choice

42、of law and jurisdiction. it should not, as a matter of comity, give effect to the decision of the high court that overrode that bargain and that choice.”。在協(xié)會(huì)貨物條文（institute cargo clause a/b/c），不論是1982年版本還是2009年版本都有了一條英國(guó)法律作為適用法的明示條文。在2009年版本，它是在第19條：“ this insurance is subject to english law and pract

43、ice.”。如果保險(xiǎn)合約的mar 91（它只有一條英國(guó)法院管轄權(quán)條文）去合并協(xié)會(huì)貨物條文（包括適用法條文），這在英國(guó)法院是足夠明確與肯定的條文去說(shuō)明英國(guó)法與做法適用。在the “prestrioka” (2003) 2 lloyds rep. 327，法院是支持協(xié)會(huì)貨物條文這一條適用法條文，雖然它在保單中也去加了一條：“notwithstanding anything contained herein or attached hereto to the country, it is understood and agreed that this insurance is subject to

44、english law and practice only as to all questions of liability for and settlement of any and all claims arising under this policy.”。另在美國(guó)的先例javed v. british airways plc (1993) 980 f.2d 1407，美國(guó)上訴庭也認(rèn)為協(xié)會(huì)貨物條文的適用法條文是不含糊與可以執(zhí)行。在日本的海上貨物運(yùn)輸保險(xiǎn)合約，通常去合并協(xié)會(huì)貨物條文，其中有適用法條文“subject to english law and usage as to liabil

45、ity for the adjustment and settlement of all and any claims”。在日本的先例connor v. nippon fire and marine insurance co. ltd., tokyo high court judgment of 9 february 2000，判去解釋協(xié)會(huì)貨物條文是要根據(jù)英國(guó)法。所以在船舶保險(xiǎn)，由于投保的有關(guān)條文是協(xié)會(huì)船殼條文（institute hull clause），有了類似的適用法條文，船殼保險(xiǎn)人與船東有了爭(zhēng)議，通常沒(méi)什么好講的，適用法就是英國(guó)法。但針對(duì)海上貨物運(yùn)輸?shù)谋ｋU(xiǎn)，就比較復(fù)雜。首先是在訂約自由

46、下，雙方當(dāng)事人即使是使用協(xié)會(huì)貨物條文，也可以對(duì)適用法條文作出改變，例如把英國(guó)法改為中國(guó)法。雖然，這在現(xiàn)實(shí)中很少會(huì)出現(xiàn)。但另一個(gè)現(xiàn)實(shí)中的變數(shù)就是今天的海上貨物保險(xiǎn)往往不會(huì)是一個(gè)單獨(dú)航次的保險(xiǎn)（facultative insurance），而經(jīng)常是通過(guò)開(kāi)口/預(yù)約保單為每次付運(yùn)的貨物單獨(dú)簽發(fā)一張保險(xiǎn)證明（certificate of insurance），這一來(lái)，協(xié)會(huì)貨物條文充其量只是被合并去解釋有關(guān)保險(xiǎn)合約的承保范圍等方面，較難去解釋被合并的協(xié)會(huì)貨物條文中的適用法條文適用在開(kāi)口/預(yù)約保單與所有在開(kāi)口保單下簽發(fā)的保險(xiǎn)證明。接下去的段節(jié)就去看看這方面的復(fù)雜情況。3.2 含糊不清與浮動(dòng)適用法條文不被承認(rèn)

47、適用法條文只有在非常罕見(jiàn)的情況下才會(huì)被否定，例如是寫的含糊不清。在先例cie. tunisienne de nav. v. cie darmement maritime (1970) 2 lloyds rep. 99，有關(guān)的明示條文是：“this contract shall be governed by the laws of the flag of the vessel carrying the goods”（船旗國(guó)家的法律是適用法）。但有關(guān)的合約關(guān)于爭(zhēng)議的解決另有一條倫敦仲裁條文。合約實(shí)際上是一個(gè)coa，以多個(gè)航次運(yùn)輸35萬(wàn)噸的原油。由于承租人是法國(guó)公司，所以計(jì)劃中是想去使用懸掛法國(guó)旗的

48、船舶。但可以想的到，如果該coa要去租用其他的船舶運(yùn)輸，例如是希臘旗與利比里亞旗，這適用法就會(huì)是更加混亂了。反正在該先例所爭(zhēng)議的就是有關(guān)合約的適用法到底是英國(guó)法還是法國(guó)法。結(jié)果在該先例中，貴族院雖然最終是判法國(guó)法律是適用法，但有兩位貴族院大法官認(rèn)為該明示適用法條文因?yàn)樘鵁o(wú)效，同意法國(guó)法律默示適用是因?yàn)樗桥c該合約有最密切的關(guān)系。除了明示條文含糊不清之外，也會(huì)因其他原因被否定，例如是一條浮動(dòng)適用法條文（floating proper law clause）。這就是一條約定了不止一個(gè)國(guó)家的法律適用的條文，而最終哪一個(gè)適用會(huì)是根據(jù)事后的變化或是其中一個(gè)當(dāng)事人的選擇。這會(huì)導(dǎo)致一個(gè)合約在履行開(kāi)始時(shí)

49、說(shuō)不清楚到底是哪個(gè)國(guó)家的法律適用，這種情況在英國(guó)法律下是不被接受，認(rèn)為一個(gè)合約必須從頭到尾有明示或者默示的穩(wěn)定法律去適用而不能停留在真空內(nèi)。在先例the “iran vojdan” (1984) 2 lloyds rep. 380，相關(guān)的條文是規(guī)定承運(yùn)人可以去選擇伊朗的法律與伊朗自己版本的海牙規(guī)則或者是德國(guó)法律與它自己版本的海牙規(guī)則，并且是選了哪個(gè)國(guó)家的法律就等于是選了哪個(gè)國(guó)家的管轄權(quán)。bingham大法官描述該條文是“非常令人不滿意”（extremely unattractive），說(shuō)：“the proper law is something so fundamental to questi

50、ons relating to the formation, validity, interpretation and performance of a contract that it must in my judgment, be built into the fabric of the contract from the start and cannot float in an indeterminate way until finally determined at the option of one party. as i say, it is, as i understand, c

51、ommon ground that as a matter of english law effect cannot be given to that part of this clause.”。在保險(xiǎn)合約也有這種浮動(dòng)適用法條文并且不被接受。例如在先例heath lambert v. sociedad de corretaje de seguros (2004) 1 lloyds rep. 495，案情是涉及了第一線保險(xiǎn)人通過(guò)倫敦保險(xiǎn)經(jīng)紀(jì)人去向倫敦勞合社與保險(xiǎn)公司投保再保險(xiǎn)。這通常被視為是適用英國(guó)法律，也等同適用1906年英國(guó)海上保險(xiǎn)法。但它有一條明示條文說(shuō)是“subject to venez

52、uelan law and/or venezuelan jurisdiction if required.”。表面看來(lái)，如果有一方事后提出要求，就會(huì)令適用法從英國(guó)法律變?yōu)槲瘍?nèi)瑞拉的法律。這條文被hirst大法官否定，認(rèn)為是一條浮動(dòng)適用法條文令合約的適用法無(wú)法肯定，說(shuō)：“i consider that it is an unnatural construction of the policy to confine the effect of if required as he suggested. in my judgment, the clause gave the venezuelan pr

53、incipal the option to demand venezuelan law and/or jurisdiction. it was a so-called floating choice of law clause: see dicey & morris on the conflict of laws (13th ed) at §32-084. i do not accept that just because the underlying insurance policy contained a venezuelan arbitration clause or

54、was, implicitly, governed by venezuelan law (if it was), that meant that venezuelan law and/or jurisdiction had been required. it by no means follows, for instance, that banesco as reassured would prefer to have the case decided by a venezuelan judge, rather than by the commercial court in london, o

55、r that it would prefer venezuelan law to english law. this was an option to be exercised by banesco. no such option was exercised during the currency of the policy or afterwards. mr. millett (委內(nèi)瑞拉被告的代表大律師) contended that, if necessary, he could exercise it in argument before me. i am very doubtful w

56、hether this option is still open so many years after the policy has expired, but if it were, the election would have to be communicated to underwriters. they were not before the court.”。這方面的先例另有king v. brandywine reinsurance co. (uk) ltd. (2004) lloyds rep. ir 554與craft enterprises (international) v

57、. axa insurance co. (2005) lloyds rep. ir 14。最后是一條明示適用法條文也會(huì)有受阻的爭(zhēng)議，例如在雙方約定之后有關(guān)的法律作出重大與根本性的改變。這種爭(zhēng)議在先例perry v. equitable life assurance society of the united states (1929) 45 tlr 468也曾經(jīng)出現(xiàn)過(guò)。至于一條適用法條文由于公共政策的原因而被否定的話，這也僅僅是停留在理論的層面，英國(guó)至今也沒(méi)有針對(duì)這方面的先例。3.3 合并另一個(gè)合約通常不包括該合約的適用法條文一個(gè)合約去合并另一個(gè)合約，在商業(yè)中是經(jīng)常見(jiàn)的情況，這包括在海上貨物保

58、險(xiǎn)。正如在第一章詳細(xì)介紹過(guò)有關(guān)的做法，就是通常在一個(gè)開(kāi)口/預(yù)約保單中，去為個(gè)別的付運(yùn)簽發(fā)一份保險(xiǎn)證明（certificate of insurance）。在保險(xiǎn)證明中會(huì)提到開(kāi)口/預(yù)約保單，甚至?xí)ズ喜⒉糠謼l文。關(guān)于條文去合并其他合約的法律/理論及具體情況的應(yīng)用，在筆者所著裝卸時(shí)間與滯期費(fèi)第二章與提單及其付運(yùn)單證第四章等都有介紹，其中一條重要原則就是泛泛的合并是不包括被合并合約中的附屬性條文（ancillary clause）。能夠合并的必須是直接有關(guān)聯(lián)的內(nèi)容或是屬于主要內(nèi)容（subject-matter）的部分。例如租約提單經(jīng)常會(huì)去合并租約，泛泛的一條合并條文就把整份租約引進(jìn)來(lái)適用在提單?？梢?/p>

59、說(shuō)看到這份提單的人通常不會(huì)知道合并進(jìn)來(lái)的租約內(nèi)容是什么，所以有必要去對(duì)合并條文作出比較局限的解釋，否則會(huì)對(duì)提單的持有人或買方來(lái)說(shuō)很不公道。所以，合并條文只能去引進(jìn)提單合約主體或主要內(nèi)容的事項(xiàng)，例如涉及貨物運(yùn)輸、裝卸與交付。因?yàn)槿绻蝗ヒM(jìn)來(lái)，提單合約由于欠缺這方面的條文也沒(méi)有辦法順利履行，例如船東還是貨方負(fù)責(zé)裝卸？但租約內(nèi)的仲裁條文、管轄權(quán)條文、時(shí)效條文等并非是必要而且是被視為附屬性的條文就不包括在合并的范圍內(nèi)。合約的適用法條文也是屬于附屬性條文，不會(huì)給一條泛泛的合并條文去引進(jìn)來(lái)。有關(guān)的保險(xiǎn)案例有g(shù)an insurance co. v. tai ping insurance co. (1999) lloyds rep. ir 472與bur