2018-03-23
1594 【关键词】海盗、Sulu sea、停租、保费
续之前《从螺旋桨被废弃缆绳缠绕说起》的文章之后，那篇文中的X轮，按照承租人指示，离开Dangjin后南下。X轮船上有足够跑一个西澳回国的航次，鉴于近期市场下滑比较严重，因此承租人又想先空放到新加坡加油，然后等待市场起色。该承租人在没找到合适的航次任务时，还不忘保留一些权利，挖空心思想从出租人那里找理由扣钱。
在X轮南下的途中，该承租人发了一封如下电邮给船长，说万一要去Dampier港装货的话，船长需要从Sulu海以最短的距离通过，如果有额外的保费，承租人将会付给出租人；但是如果基于出租人的风险评估而选择从别的地方过的话，那么该绕航及燃油消耗将由出租人承担。
Good Day Captain,
Noted your last and please proceed direction spore if no advice from us afteryou reach deviation point and send eta notices to Spore Agents Johnasia.
Please kindly revert with regards to u/w cleaning or ask your owners to revertsoonest to arrange divers.
In case vessel has to proceed to Dampier you will proceed by shortest route via Sulu/Celebes Sea and if any additional premium for transiting such area charterers will pay owners such premium otherwise if you so wish to take longer route based on "owners" risk assessment then such deviation and consumption will befor owners account.
Trust you are clear on your instructions.
在航运实务中，碰到这类问题，如果感觉承租人的说法没有道理的话，那就最好反驳一下。一是可以明确出租人的立场保留权利，二是可以给船长清晰的意图。要不让船长在碰到这种问题，往往会担心如果不听承租人的指示，会造成出租人被扣钱。于是出租人发了如下电邮，主张依据合同条款，已经并入了Conwartime2013(期租租约战争险条款)，凭船长或出租人的合理的评估判断，船长有权利拒绝过Sulu海；且承租人无权将此绕航费用算到出租人头上。
Thanks for Charterers’ last, Charterers please provide their full reports including video at Danjing for Owners’ persual.
Charterers should fulfill their obligation as per c/p, not only to conduct propeller polishing. But on the other hand, Charterers should arrange professional diver company to avoid any damage to anti-fouling paint coating.
In respect of shortest route, Owners are unable to accept charterers’ last allegation.
Pursuant to this charterparty clause 65-Trading Exclusions, It’s expressly stipulated that Conwartime 2013 will be applied to this charterparty.
Assumethe charterers well aware that clause (b) of Conwartime 2013 which provides:
(b)The Vessel shall not be obliged to proceed or required to continue to or through, any port,place, area or zone, or any waterway or canal (hereinafter “Area”), where itappears that the Vessel, cargo, crew or other persons on board the Vessel, in the reasonable judgement of the Master and/or the Owners, may be exposed to War Risks whether suchrisk existed at the time of entering into this Charter Party or occurred thereafter. Should the Vessel be within any such place as aforesaid, which onlybecomes dangerous, or may become dangerous, after entry into it,the Vessel shall be at liberty to leave it.
And(a) ii:
(ii)“War Risks” shall include any actual, threatened or reported: war, act of war, civilwar or hostilities; revolution; rebellion; civil commotion; warlike operations;laying of mines; acts of piracy and/or violent robbery and/or capture/seizure(here inafter“Piracy”); acts of terrorists; acts of hostility or malicious damage; blockades(whether imposed against all vessels or imposed selectively against vessels of certain flags or ownership, or against certain cargoes or crews or otherwise howsoever), by any person, body, terrorist or political group, or the government of any state or territory whether recognised or not, which, in the reasonable judgement of the Master and/or the Owners, may be dangerous or may becomedangerous to the Vessel, cargo, crew or other persons on board the Vessel.
It’s common ground that if in the reasonable judgement of the Master and or Owners,the vessel shall be at liberty to leave it. i.e leave from Sulu/Celebes Sea.
Thus,If the Master in his judgement not to transit high risks area ( Sulu/Celebessea), The charterers are not entitled to place those deviation cost on Owners.
Hopea bove are acceptable by charterers.
承租人很显然还想在辩解，认为Sulu海还未被JWC列为禁区，过Sulu也没有额外的保费；同时认为如果出租人引援Conwartime2013的话，那么将导致会认为新加坡/马六甲海峡，所有印度尼西亚水域，印度，所有菲律宾和其他几个地区都可能被船长认为是不安全的。Conwartime的应用必须确定是否存在“真正的可能性”或“严重的海盗威胁”，而不是仅仅在船长考虑安全问题时松散地使用。
As per routing via Sulu / Celebes charterers maintain their last as reported incidents so far has not been classified by JWC as exclusion zones and
though warnings have been lodged there has been no additional premium levied onSulu Transit. If owners apply Conwartime 2013, that would then
deem Spore/Malacca Straits, All Indonesian waters,
The application of Conwartime has to satisfy as to whether there is a"real likelihood" or "serious threat of piracy" and not just used loosely as and when the master decides there is "safety Concern"
Charterers maintain their last and if owners so decide to proceed in any othe rlonger direction it will be for owners cost and expenses.
All charterers’ rights maintained.
参之前的文章，对于出租人认为发生这种海盗风险的真正可能性，严重的海盗风险问题，出租人指出，承租人依赖的是Teare法官在The “Triton Lark”案中的判决，但在那个案中，过的是亚丁湾（GOA）。法官认为有很多护航编队，海盗风险及严重威胁的真正可能性并不是很高，因此发回仲裁员重新考虑。但是Teare法官在随后的The “Paiwan Wisdom”案中，认为前往肯尼亚的途中，因为在过海盗区内没有护航编队，因此有危险；出租人有权依赖Conwartime条款的保护，拒绝前往。
In respect of routing via Sulu / Celebes, Ownerswish to emphasize that as per definition of Conwartime 2013, (ii)“War Risks”shall include any actual, threatened or reported: … acts of piracy and/orviolent robbery and/or capture/seizure(herein after “Piracy”). Owners wish to draw charterers’ keen attention to below which are self-explanatory, thereare numerous reported accident occurred during pass year. Therefore, the piracy at Sulu/Celebes sea should be fully deemed as war risks, The Vessel shall not be obliged to proceed or required to continue to or through this high risks area in accordance with clause (b).
Charterers contend that the “real likelihood" or "serious threat of piracy" seem affected by Justice Teare in his judgement in The “Triton Lark” case. Owners wish to remind that in that case, Area is for GOA, And the vessel may join convoy there. But there is no any convoy in Sulu/Celebes sea.
Owners would draw charterers’ attention to [2012] EWHC 1888 (Comm)-the “Paiwan Wisdom”case.
In that case, Justice Teare held that by the terms of the charterparty construed in its factual context, the Owners have not accepted the risk of piracy intrading to Mombasa,and Charterers’ appeal fail.
There are provisions in the charterparty for the payment of war risk insurance by the Charterers (see clause (d)(ii) of clause 50) but none which provides for the cost of war risk insurance for going to a named place.
Thus the present case is not one in which the Owners have, by the terms of the charterparty construed in its factual context, accepted the risk of piracy in trading to Mombasa, Kenya.
So far as "commercial sense" is concerned I do not accept that there is a lack of commercial sense in a construction of the charterparty which permits trading to
Nor am I persuaded that Mr. Jarvis' example of a voyage from the Black Sea to
For these reasons I consider, as did the majority of the arbitrators, Mr. Siberry QC and Mr. Martin-Clark, that the answer to the Preliminary Issue is No. The appeal must be dismissed.
Thus we should follow the latest judgement from Justice Teare, i.e the“Paiwan Wisdom”case to be applied in our X case.
The Owners never accept the risks to transit Sulu/Celebes sea, the Owners are entitled to refuse to transit there due to there is no convoy basis above authorities and reported accidents.
出租人认为X轮的争议应该适用The “PaiwanWisdom”案的判决，因此出租人有权拒绝过Sulu海。这两个判例，在之前的文章《关于过海盗危险区的若干思考-兼评The “Triton Lark” 案》中有分析，就不在此详细解释。
接下来再来具体看看依据合同条款，X轮的船长是否有权拒绝过Sulu海。
所先需要再次明确的是，法院的任务是确定当事人双方选择用来表达其协议的措辞的客观含义。法院必须考虑所使用的措辞，并确定合理的人，即具有在合同签订时已合理地向当事方提供的所有背景知识的人理解的内容。法院必须将整个合同视为一个整体，并根据合同起草的性质，形式和质量，或多或少地重视更广泛的内容，以达到其所用措辞的客观含义。如果有两种可能的解释，法院有权选择符合商业合理性的解释。为了在语言表达和相互竞争解释的含义之间取得平衡，法院必须考虑起草该条款的质量；同样，法院也不能忽视这样一种可能性，即一项条款可能是谈判妥协，或者谈判者无法就更准确的条款达成一致。只要法院平衡各自给出的指示，更详细的分析是否与事实背景以及竞争对手的解释的影响或合同中相关措辞的深入研究无关。
如2018年高等法院的Popplewell法官在The “Ocean Neptune”案中，第8段判决书中所说的如下：
8. There is an abundance of recent high authority on the principles applicable to the construction of commercial documents, including Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896; Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1101; Re Sigma Finance Corp [2010] 1 All ER 571; Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900; Arnold v Britton [2015] AC 1619;and Wood v Capita InsuranceServices Ltd [2017] AC 1173. The court's task is to ascertain the objective meaning of the language which the parties have chosen in which to express their agreement. The court must consider the language used and ascerta in what a reasonable person, that isa person who has all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract, would have understood the parties to have meant. The court must consider the contract as a whole and, depending on the nature, formality and qualityof drafting of the contract, give more or less weight to elements of the wider context in reaching its view as to the objective meaning of the language used.If there are two possible constructions, the court is entitled to prefer the construction which is consistent with business common sense and to reject the other. Interpretation is a unitary exercise; in striking a balance between the indications given by the language and the implications of the competing constructions, the court must consider the quality of drafting of the clauseand it must also be alive to the possibility that one side may have agreed to something which with hindsight did not serve his interest; similarly, the court must not lose sight of the possibility that a provision may be a negotiated compromise or that the negotiators were not able to agree more precise terms.This unitary exercise involves an iterative process by which each suggested interpretation is checked against the provisions of the contract and its commercial consequences are investigated. It does not matter whether the more detailed analysis commences with the factual background and the implications of rival constructions or a close examination of the relevant language in the contract, so long as the court balances the indications given by each.
Popplewell法官所提及的相关权威判例，在之前的合约解释系列文章已经提及，也不在此重复说明。合约的解释必须将合同当着一个整体来考虑，如果措辞足够清晰明确，那么纵然结果是荒谬的，当事人也不得不接受。没有任何解释原则可以使法院有权重写合同条款，如果仅仅是因为当事方所需要的因素似乎并没有按照当事人预期的方式发展。
首先来看前文提到的Conwartime,2013，其全文如下：
CONWARTIME 2013 War Risks Clause for Time Chartering
(a) For the purposeof this Clause, the words:
(i) “Owners” shall include the shipowners, bareboat charterers,disponent owners, managers or other operators who are charged with themanagement of the Vessel, and the Master; and
(ii)“War Risks” shall include any actual, threatened or reported:war, act of war, civil waror hostilities; revolution;rebellion; civil commotion; warlike operations; laying of mines; acts of piracy and/or violentrobbery and/or capture/seizure(hereinafter “Piracy”); acts of terrorists;acts of hostility or malicious damage; blockades (whether imposedagainst all vessels or imposed selectively against vessels of certain flags orownership, or against certain cargoes or crews or otherwise howsoever), by anyperson, body, terrorist or political group, or the government of any state orterritory whether recognised or not, which, in the reasonable judgement of theMaster and/or the Owners, may be dangerous or may become dangerous to theVessel, cargo, crew or other persons on board the Vessel.
(b)The Vessel shall not be obliged to proceed or required to continue toor through, any port, place, area or zone, or any waterway or canal(hereinafter “Area”), where it appears that the Vessel, cargo, crew orother persons on board the Vessel, in the reasonable judgement of the Masterand/or the Owners, may be exposed to War Risks whether such risk existed at thetime of entering into this Charter Party or occurred thereafter. Should theVessel be within any such place as aforesaid, which only becomes dangerous, ormay become dangerous, after entry into it, the Vessel shall be at liberty toleave it.
(c)The Vessel shall not be required to loadcontraband cargo, or to pass through any blockade as set out in Sub-clause (a),or to proceed to an Area where it may be subject to search and/or confiscationby a belligerent.
(d)If the Vessel proceeds to or through an Areaexposed to War Risks, the Charterers shall reimburse to the Owners anyadditional premiums required by the Owners' insurers and the costs of anyadditional insurances that the Owners reasonably require in connection with WarRisks.
(e)All payments arising under Sub-clause (d) shall besettled within fifteen (15) days of receipt of Owners’ supported invoices or onredelivery, whichever occurs first.
(f)If the Owners become liable under the terms ofemployment to pay to the crew any bonus or additional wages in respect ofsailing into an Area which is dangerous in the mannerdefined by the said terms, then the actual bonus or additional wagespaid shall be reimbursed to the Owners by the Charterers at the same time asthe next payment of hire is due, or upon redelivery, whichever occurs first.
(g)The Vessel shall have liberty:
(i) to comply with all orders, directions, recommendationsor advice as to departure, arrival, routes, sailing in convoy, ports of call,stoppages, destinations, discharge of cargo, delivery, or in any other waywhatsoever, which are given by the government of the nation under whose flagthe Vessel sails, or other government to whose laws the Owners are subject, orany other government of any state or territory whether recognised or not, bodyor group whatsoever acting with the power to compel compliance with theirorders or directions;
(ii) to comply with the requirements of the Owners’insurers under the terms of the Vessel’s insurance(s);
(iii)to comply with the terms of any resolution of theSecurity Council of the United Nations, the effective orders of any otherSupranational body which has the right to issue and give the same, and withnational laws aimed at enforcing the same to which the Owners are subject, andto obey the orders and directions of those who are charged with theirenforcement;
(iv)to discharge at any alternative portany cargo or part thereof which may expose the Vessel to being held liable as acontraband carrier;
(v)to call at any alternative port to change the crewor any part thereof or other persons on board the Vessel when there is reasonto believe that they may be subject to internment, imprisonment, detention orsimilar measures.
(h)If in accordance with their rights under theforegoing provisions of this Clause, the Owners shall refuse to proceed to theloading or discharging ports, or any one or more of them, they shall immediatelyinform the Charterers. No cargo shall be discharged at any alternative portwithout first giving the Charterers notice of the Owners’ intention to do soand requesting them to nominate a safe port for such discharge. Failing suchnomination by the Charterers within 48 hours of the receipt of such notice andrequest, the Owners may discharge the cargo at any safe port of their ownchoice. All costs,risk and expenses for the alternative discharge shall be forthe Charterers’ account.
(i)The Charterers shall indemnify the Owners forclaims arising out of the Vessel proceeding in accordance with any of theprovisions of Sub-clauses (b) to (h) which are made under any bills of lading,waybills or other documents evidencing contracts of carriage.
When acting inaccordance with any of the provisions of Sub-clauses (b) to (h) of this Clauseanything is done or not done, such shall not be deemed a deviation, but shallbe considered as due fulfilment of this Charter Party.
在该条款的战争风险中，明确说明：“战争风险”应包括任何实际的、收到威胁的或报道的：战争、战争行动、内战或敌对行动、革命、叛乱、内乱、作战行动、布雷、海盗行为以及/或暴力抢劫和/或捕获（以下简称“海盗”）、恐怖行动、敌意行为或恶意破坏、任何人员、实体、恐怖或政治集团或任何无论注册与否的国家或领地政府的封锁（无论针对所有船舶或选择性针对特定船旗或出租人的船，或针对特定货物或船员或其他），船长和/或出租人基于合理判断认为可能或可能变的对船舶、货物、船员或其他在船人员产生的威胁。该条款关于海盗的说法是：海盗行为以及/或暴力抢劫和/或捕获（以下简称“海盗”），这里and/or是并列的关系，但并没有提及需发生海盗行为的真正的可能性或劫持的严重性问题，因此Sulu海的海盗显然可以视为该条款下的战争风险。
接着看(b)款，船舶无义务进入或被要求继续驶向或经由任何由船长和/或出租人的合理判断可能有战争威胁的港口、地点、地区或区域或航道或运河（以下简称“区域”），无论该风险是否在租约生效时已存在或生效后出现。如果船舶驶入前文所述仅变得危险或可能便危险的地点，进入后船舶可自由驶离。结合战争风险中的，任何实际的、收到威胁的或报道的，那么Sulu海的海盗风险显然是有报道的，因此船舶可凭借（b）款的保护，无义务进入或被要求继续驶往该区域。即船长有权利拒绝过Sulu海。
承租人认为拒绝过Sulu海导致了有饶航，相关的费用得由出租人承担。但是参该条款的最后部分，“When acting in accordance with any of the provisions of Sub-clauses (b) to (h) of this Clause anything is done or not done, such shall not be deemed a deviation,but shall be considered as due fulfilment of this Charter Party. ”。
按照该条款分条款（b）到（h）任何条文为或不为，不视为绕航而应视为本租约的适当履行。
因此承租人所谓的绕航并不成立，应视为本租约的适当履行。
接下来看看X轮合同中的第66条：
Clause66
Thefollowing BIMCO clauses are deemed to be incorporated in the Charterparty inthe latest version current at the date of this Charter Party :
BIMCONew Oil Pollution Charter Party Clause;
BIMCOStandard ISM Clause for Voyage and Time Charter Parties;
BIMCOISPS / MTSA Clause for Time Charter Parties 2005;
BIMCOBunker Fuel SulphurContent Clause for Time Charter Parties 2005;
BIMCO
BIMCONorth American Advance Cargo Notification Clause for Time Charter Parties;BIMCO
BIMCOStowaways Clause for Time Charter Parties 2009;
BIMCO War Risks Clause for TimeChartering (CONWARTIME 2013)
BIMCO Piracy Clause;
BIMCORadioactivity Risk Clause for Time Charter Parties.
BIMCOInfectious or Contagious Diseases Clause for Time Charter Parties
BIMCONEW JASON Clause
BIMCOBoth-to-Blame Collision Clause
BIMCOParamount Clause General
BIMCOP. & I. Bunker Deviation Clause, 1948
BIMCOBunker Non-Lien Clause for Time Charter Parties
TheUS/Canadian Clause Paramount as applicable, orthe Hague Rule as enacted in countries other than the
这里列明一系列BIMCO条款并入到该租约，其中还提到了BIMCO的海盗条款。
关于BIMCO的海盗条款，早先有2009年版本。但是在2012年The “Triton Lark”中，Teare法官对于过GOA发生的海盗劫持，提出了a real likelihood的问题，即发生海盗真正的可能性问题。该案涉及Conwartime的解释问题。但在2012年The “Saldanha”案中，高等法院的Gross法官判海盗劫持期间承租人无权停租。因此为了消除潜在的不确定问题，BIMCO对此作了修改，随后有了2013年的版本。鉴于合同中没有列明BIMCO海盗条款，是哪一种版本，因此本文以2013年的版本来分析。
BIMCO Piracy Clause for Time Charter Parties 2013
(a) The Vessel shall not be obliged to proceed orrequired to continue to or through, any port, place, area or zone, or anywaterway or canal (hereinafter "Area") which, in the reasonablejudgement of the Master and/or the Owners, is dangerous to the Vessel, cargo,crew or other persons on board the Vessel due to any actual, threatened orreported acts of piracy and/or violent robbery and/or capture/seizure (hereinafter"Piracy"), whether such risk existed at the time of entering intothis Charter Party or occurred thereafter. Should the Vessel be within any suchplace as aforesaid which only becomes dangerous, or may become dangerous, afterentry into it, the Vessel shall be at liberty to leave it.
(b) If in accordance with sub-clause (a) the Owners decidethat the Vessel shall not proceed or continue to or through the Area they mustimmediately inform the Charterers. The Charterers shall be obliged to issuealternative voyage orders and shall indemnify the Owners for any claims fromholders of the Bills of Lading or third parties caused by waiting for suchorders and/or the performance of an alternative voyage. Any time lost as aresult of complying with such orders shall not be considered off-hire.
(c) If the Owners consent or if the Vessel proceeds toor through an Area exposed to the risk of Piracy the Owners shall have theliberty:
(i) to take reasonable preventative measures toprotect the Vessel, crew and cargo including but not limited to re-routeingwithin the Area, proceeding in convoy, using escorts, avoiding day or nightnavigation, adjusting speed or course, or engaging security personnel and/ordeploying equipment on or about the Vessel (includingembarkation/disembarkation).
(ii) to comply with the requirements of the Owners'insurers under the terms of the Vessel's insurance(s);
(iii) to comply with all orders, directions,recommendations or advice given by the Government of the Nation under whoseflag the Vessel sails, or other Government to whose laws the Owners aresubject, or any other Government, body or group (including militaryauthorities) whatsoever acting with the power to compel compliance with theirorders or directions; and
(iv) to comply with the terms of any resolution of theSecurity Council of the United Nations, the effective orders of any otherSupranational body which has the right to issue and give the same, and withnational laws aimed at enforcing the same to which the Owners are subject, andto obey the orders and directions of those who are charged with theirenforcement; and the Charterers shall indemnify the Owners for any claims fromholders of Bills of Lading or third parties caused by the Vessel proceeding asaforesaid, save to the extent that such claims are covered by additionalinsurance as provided in sub-clause (d)(iii).
(d) Costs
(i) If the Vessel proceeds to or through an Area wheredue to risk of Piracy additional costs will be incurred including but notlimited to additional personnel and preventative measures to avoid Piracy, suchreasonable costs shall be for the Charterers' account. Any time lost waitingfor convoys, following recommended routeing, timing, or reducing speed ortaking measures to minimise risk, shall be for the Charterers' account and theVessel shall
remain on hire;
(ii) If the Owners become liable under the terms ofemployment to pay to the crew any bonus or additional wages in respect ofsailing into an area which is dangerous in the manner defined by the saidterms, then the actual bonus or additional wages paid shall be reimbursed tothe Owners by the Charterers;
(iii) If the Vessel proceeds to or through an Areaexposed to the risk of Piracy, the Charterers shall reimburse to the Owners anyadditional premiums required by the Owners' insurers and the costs of anyadditional insurances that the Owners reasonably require in connection withPiracy risks which may include but not be limited to War Loss of Hire and/ormaritime K&R.
(iv) All payments arising under Sub-clause (d) shallbe settled within fifteen (15) days of receipt of Owners’ supported invoices oron redelivery, whichever occurs first.
(e) If the Vessel is attacked by pirates any time lostshall be for the account of the Charterers and the Vessel shall remain on hire.
(f) If the Vessel is seized by pirates the Owners shallkeep the Charterers closely informed of the efforts made to have the Vesselreleased. The Vessel shall remain on hire throughout the seizure and theCharterers' obligations shall remain unaffected, except that hire paymentsshall cease as of the ninety-first (91st) day after the seizure until release.The Charterers shall pay hire, or if the Vessel has been redelivered, theequivalent of Charter Party hire, for any time lost in making good any damageand deterioration resulting from the seizure. The Charterers shall not beliable for late redelivery under this Charter Party resulting from the seizure ofthe Vessel.
(g) If in compliance with this Clause anything is doneor not done, such shall not be deemed a deviation, but shall be considered asdue fulfilment of this Charter Party. In the event of a conflict between theprovisions of this Clause and any implied or express provision of the CharterParty, this Clause shall prevail.
该海盗条款（a）款和Conwartime的（b）款差不多。船舶无义务进入或继续进入或通过，在船长和/或出租人合理判断的情况下，对于船舶、货物、船员或其他在船人员有实际或可能危险，或有报告的海盗活动和/或暴力抢夺和/或俘获/捕获（以下简称“海盗”）的任何港口、地点、区域或地区或任何航道或海峡（以下简称 “区域”），无论此风险是否在订立本租约期间存在或是租约订立以后。当船舶进入前述地点变为危险或可能危险、或进入后危险，船舶可自由离开。
因此X轮的船长依据此款可以选择拒绝过Sulu海。接着看（b）款，说的是：
根据分条款（a）出租人决定船舶不进入或不继续经过该区域，应立即通知承租人。承租人有义务发出替代航程的指令，并对出租人由于提单持有人或第三方对于等待此指令和/或进行替代航程导致的索赔负责。为遵循此指令导致的时间损失不得视为停租。
该款只要求不进入或不继续经过的时候应通知承租人，但在等待承租人指示所造成的时间损失不得停租。
（e）到（g）款，接着作出规定：如果船舶被海盗袭击，时间损失由承租人承担，船舶不得停租。如果船舶被海盗捕获，出租人应及时通知承租人其解救船舶的努力。船舶在被捕获期间不得停租，承租人义务不影响，除租金支付自被捕获后第91天停止直至被释放。承租人应支付租金、被捕获导致的修理和修复的时间损失。
如果按本条款为或不为，不视为绕航，应被视为对本租约的适当履行。本租约条款与租约中其他默示或明示条文冲突时，本条款优先适用。
结合这些条款，可以看出，Conwartime及Piracy clause对X轮的出租人起到了很好的保护作用。船长和或船东，以其合理性判断可以选择拒绝过Sulu海海盗区域，而按这些条款，为或不为，均不视为绕航，而应被视为对本租约的适当履行。同时，如果万一被海盗劫持，承租人也不得停租。
2013年版本的海盗条款，（d）款中对过海盗区域的费用作了规定。
(i) If the Vessel proceeds to or through an Area wheredue to risk of Piracy additional costs will be incurred including but notlimited to additional personnel and preventative measures to avoid Piracy, suchreasonable costs shall be for the Charterers' account. Any time lost waitingfor convoys, following recommended routeing, timing, or reducing speed ortaking measures to minimise risk, shall be for the Charterers' account and theVessel shall
remain on hire;
(ii) If the Owners become liable under the terms ofemployment to pay to the crew any bonus or additional wages in respect ofsailing into an area which is dangerous in the manner defined by the saidterms, then the actual bonus or additional wages paid shall be reimbursed tothe Owners by the Charterers;
(iii) If the Vessel proceeds to or through an Areaexposed to the risk of Piracy, the Charterers shall reimburse to the Owners anyadditional premiums required by the Owners' insurers and the costs of anyadditional insurances that the Owners reasonably require in connection withPiracy risks which may include but not be limited to War Loss of Hire and/ormaritime K&R.
(iv) All payments arising under Sub-clause (d) shallbe settled within fifteen (15) days of receipt of Owners’ supported invoices oron redelivery, whichever occurs first.
如果船舶驶入或经由海盗风险区，额外费用包括但不仅限于防海盗个人和预防措施，这些合理的费用应由承租人承担。任何等待护卫、遵照建议航线、时间或减速或采取减小风险的措施的时间损失，由租家负责，船舶不得停租。如果出租人根据雇佣合同驶入根据所述条款被定义为危险区域的地区，应支付船员奖金或额外工资，承租人应支付出租人实际的奖金或额外的工资。如果船舶驶入或经由海盗危险区域，承租人应支付出租人其保险人额外的保费以及关于海盗额外保费的合理费用，包括但不仅限于租金战争损失和/或海上绑架和赎金险。由于分条款（d）产生的一切费用应在收到船东支持性发票15天内或还船时支付，取其先到者。
最后来说说过海盗区所涉及的保费方面的问题。2013年版本的海盗条款的措辞相对2009年版本的海盗条款中关于费用承担部分如下，清晰很多。
(iii) If the underwriters of the Owners’ insurances require additionalpremiums or additional insurance cover is necessary because the Vessel proceeds to or throughan Area exposed to risk of Piracy, then such additional insurance costs shallbe reimbursed by the Charterers to the Owners;
(iv) All payments arising under Sub-clause (d) shall be settled withinfifteen (15) days of receipt of Owners’ supported invoices or on redelivery,whichever occurs first.
在2016年的The“Bulk Indonesia”案中，涉及的是过GOA的保费问题，在合同中并入了2009年版本的BIMCO海盗条款。而且在合同中还作了如下额外规定：
"G.O.A/SUEZ ALLOWED BUT MAXIMUM TWO TRANSIT DURINGTHE CURRENCY OF CP
Cost of transit Goa toread
AS A REFERENCE ONLY PROVISIONAL PIRACY COSTS (INCLUDINGOR NOT AND NOT LIMITED TO) AS FOLLOWS
Extra insurance war risk Usd.15,000 abt K&RUsd.30,000.00 Loss of Hire Usd.5,000.00 Anti piracy material Usd.15,000.00Armed Guards abt Usd.35,000.00 (depends embarkation/disembarkation/duration)
Crew bonus abt Usd 5,000
Total Abt. 105,000.00 usd. Without Guarantee"
在该案中的二船东，支付给了原船东还是绑架及赎金险（kidnap and ransom insurance），两次过GOA总共60,000美金。然后要求承租人依据BIMCO的海盗条款及合同额外的规定支付此费用，承租人要求二船东提供付款凭证。二船东向承租人解释说，出于保密的原因，原船东无法向他们提供直接证据，证明向保险人支付了绑架及赎金险。二船东主张，他们有权凭借原船东提供的debit note，要求承租人支付此费用。但承租人否认他们有有责任支付任何款项，并在他们反诉中向二船东索赔已支付了12,000美元的款项。
仲裁员作出了对承租人有利的裁决。仲裁员认为，“海盗条款”要求出租人必须证明每次穿过GOA向保险商支付了多少保费。二船东所依靠的借方票据仅仅是他们向原船东人支付的证据，并没有提供证据表明支付给保险人的款项。最终裁定由于缺乏证据，二船东索赔不成立。二船东不服裁决上诉。
高等法院的Leggatt法官认为，对于该条款的唯一合理解释是，在这种情况下，正如第一种情况一样，出租人有权要求偿还的额外保险费用是购买额外保险保障的费用。这些费用必然是由提供保险的承保人收取并支付的款项。因此，“额外保险费用”一词实际上只涉及实际购买的保险保险费，无论是在现有保险下还是在新安排的保险下。这个措辞不能合理地解释为二船东向原船东支付的费用，这与原船东为获得海盗风险保险而承担的费用不相符。我认为与战争风险条款的比较并不能改变这一结论，或者对二船东提出的条款可能更好或不同措辞的说法有所帮助。但无论如何，差异可以用以下事实来解释：战争风险条款仅涉及战争险已经实施的情况。它没有海盗条款中的第二条规定，额外的保险是必须的。
In my view, the only reasonable interpretation of the clause is that in this situation, just as in the first situation, the additional insurance costs for which the owners are entitled to claim reimbursement are the costs of purchasing the additional insurance cover. Such costs will necessarily be the sums charged by and payable to the underwriters who provide the insurance. It follows that the phrase"additional insurance costs" must indeed refer only to premiums payable for insurance cover actually purchased, whether under an existing insurance or under newly arranged insurance. The phrase cannot reasonably beinterpreted as referring to costs payable by disponent owners to head ownerswhich do not correspond to costs incurred by the head owners to obtaininsurance cover for piracy risks. I do not consider that comparison withthe War Risks Clause detracts from that conclusion or assists thedisponent owners' arguments that a clause could have been better ordifferently worded are seldom persuasive, but in any event the difference canbe explained by the fact that the War Risks Clause is only dealing with asituation where war risks insurance has already been effected. It does not havethe second limb which the Piracy Clause has which provides for reimbursement where additional insurance cover isnecessary.
最终，Leggatt法官支持了仲裁员的裁决，二船东的上诉被驳回。
因此，为规避风险，涉及到过海盗的相关费用问题，如果不方便提供发票的话，对所发生的费用，应该以更清晰明确的措辞来规定，比如本案中的，可以修改为：
Extra insurance war risk Usd.15,000 abt K&RUsd.30,000.00 Loss of Hire Usd.5,000.00 Anti piracy material Usd.15,000.00Armed Guards abt Usd.35,000.00 (depends embarkation/disembarkation/duration)
Crew bonus abt Usd 5,000
Total 105,000.00 usd should be paid by the charterers as lumpsum and without supporting vouchers.
明确规定承租人需支付105,000美金作为包干费用，而且无需提供发票。
(后记：去年尝试过一个月写8篇，今年春节回来至今已完成12篇，感觉极限是一个月15篇，但不想去挑战了；本篇用时3小时完成。
合约解释，无外乎所签订的合同；因此依份好的租约显得异常重要，鉴于海盗风险的加大，合同中并入并入Conwartime条款或BIMCO Piracy Clause有重要的意义。）
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号 航运佬）
