We write with our preliminary advice on this issue, which is necessarily brief given the urgency and the very limited time allowed.
我们（即律师）就这个问题在下面提出初步建议，考虑到紧迫性和非常有限的时间，我们尽量言简意赅：
1 - The starting-point is the terms of Clause 83:
1- 从条款第83条款出发：
“A) The vessel shall not be obliged to proceed to or continue to or through or remain at any port, place, area or country (hereinafter “affected area”) which may expose the vessel and crew or other persons on board the vessel to danger from highly infectious diseases, including Ebola, as determined and notified by the world health organisation to be harmful to human health.”
“A)船舶不得前往、继续前往、通过或停留在任何经世界卫生组织认定及通知对人类健康有害的、可能使船舶和船员或船上其他人员面临高度传染性疾病（包括埃博拉病毒）风险的任何港口、地点、地区或国家（以下称“疫区”)。”
The Legal Test
法律测试
2 - This clause contains several requirements which we consider below. They break down, as the Club has identified into two broad parts:
2- 该条款包含以下几个要求，根据协会的意见可分为两大部分：
(1) Whether Paradip (which is where we understand Charterers have ordered the Vessel to go) is a place “which may expose the vessel and crew or other persons on board the vessel to danger from highly infectious diseases”
(1) Paradip港（租家要求船舶前往的地方）是否有“可能使船舶、船员或船上其他人员面临高度传染性疾病的危险”；
(2)“as determined and notified by the world health organisation to be harmful to human health”.
(2) “根据世界卫生组织确定及通知，对人类健康有害”。
3 - Unlike certain other clauses (e.g. the BIMCO Clause), Clause 83 does not refer to the Master’s or Owners’ (reasonable) judgment as to whether the vessel/crew may be exposed to danger. That is not the test.
3- 与别的条款（如BIMCO条款）不同，第83条不涉及船长（或船东）对船舶（或船员）是否可能面临危险的（合理）判断，这不是测试。
4 - On first reading, it may appear that the test is the WHO’s determination. However, as a matter of construction, it seems to us that the reference to the WHO probably only relates to the question of whether the disease in question is “harmful to human health”.
4- 乍一看，这像是世界卫生组织决定是否是测试的。但作为一种建构，我们认为，世界卫生组织参考的可能只涉及有关疾病是否“对人类健康有害”的问题。
5 - If that is correct, then the test of whether the Vessel/crew may be exposed to danger is an objective one. A Court or Tribunal deciding the issue later will take into account all the information available, whether or not Members were in fact aware of it. That makes our assessment difficult because we do not have access to all information that may be relevant to this decision.
5- 如果有害的话，那么测试船舶（或船员）是否可能暴露在危险中就很客观了。以后对该问题进行判决的法庭或审裁处将推敲所有现有的信息（不论会员是否实际上注意到该信息）。
这会使评估变得十分困难，因为我们无法获得可能关于判决的所有信息。
6 - As far as we are aware, there are no reported decisions on either Clause 83 or the relevant part of the BIMCO Clause in terms of the level of risk or danger that must be shown to justify a refusal to follow Charterers’ orders to Paradip on the grounds it “may expose” the Vessel/crew to danger.
6- 据我们所知，根据BIMCO条款的第83条或相关条款，在风险或危险程度方面，没有任何报告表明，以“可能使船舶（或船员）面临危险”为由拒绝租家指令前往Paradip的决定必须证明是否正当。
7 - However, we consider The Triton Lark [2012] 1 LLR 151 may provide some guidance. In that case, the issue was the Mater’s/Owners’ reasonable judgment as to whether the Vessel/crew “may be, or are likely to be, exposed to acts of piracy”. The Judge considered that “may be” meant “likely to be”, and in the context of the CONWARTIME Clause that meant “a real likelihood” that the Vessel would be exposed to acts of piracy. The Judge said, at paragraph 40:
7- 然而，我们认为The Triton Lark [2012] 1 LLR 151一案可以提供一些指导。在该案件中，船长（或船东）对船舶（或船员）是否“可能或很可能（may be, or are likely to be）遭受海盗行为”的合理判断遭到质疑。法官认为，“可能”指的是“很可能”，在战争条款（CONWARTIME Clause）中，它指的是该船舶可能暴露在海盗行为危险下的“真正的可能性”。法官在第40段称：
“Given that the words to be construed are 'likely to be' I consider that the parties’ intentions are best captured by the concept of a 'real likelihood' that the vessel will be exposed to acts of piracy. The adjective 'real' reflects the need for the likelihood to be based on evidence rather than to be a fanciful likelihood based on speculation. Whilst 'a real likelihood' includes an event that is more likely than not to happen it can also include an event which has a less than an even chance of happening. A bare possibility would not be included because the phrase 'likely to be' suggests a degree of probability rather greater than a bare possibility. The degree of probability inherent in a 'real likelihood' is or can be reflected in phrases such as 'real danger' or 'serious possibility.' The context and purpose of the CONWARTIME 1993 (to enable the master to exercise his responsibility to keep the vessel, crew and cargo out of harm’s way) persuades me, and I so hold, that 'real likelihood' is to be understood in the sense of a real danger.”
“鉴于被解释的词语是“很可能”，我认为双方的意图最好解释为“真正的可能性”的概念，即船舶会遭遇海盗行为。形容词“真正的”反映了需要基于证据证明的可能性，而不是基于猜测幻想的可能性。“真正的可能性”既包括很可以发生而不是不发生的事件，也可以包括发生几率小于均等的事件。“万一的事件（a bare possibility）”是不包括在内的，因为“很可能（likely to be）”暗示的可能性比“万一的事件”高得多。“真正的可能性”中发生概率的程度可以用“真正的危险”或“很大的可能性”来形容。战争条款（CONWARTIME 1993）的背景和目的（使船长能够履行责任，使船舶、船员和货物免受伤害）说服了我，我坚持认为，“真正的可能性”应该被理解为真的会发生危险。”
8 - In a further judgment (reported at [2012] 1 LLR 457), dealing with the meaning of “exposed”, the Judge said:
8- 在处理“暴露”含义的进一步判决（[2012] 1 LLR 457一案）中，法官称：
“Thus the question to be addressed by an owner or master, when ordered to go to a place, is whether there is a real likelihood that the vessel will be exposed to acts of piracy in the sense that the place will be dangerous on account of acts of piracy. … Thus, whether or not the Gulf of Aden was dangerous to Triton Lark on account of acts of piracy will depend upon the degree of likelihood that they will occur and the gravity of the consequences to the vessel, cargo and crew should they occur. That is a matter for the arbitrators to assess on the evidence before them.”
“因此，当船东（或船长）被要求前往某个地方时，需要解决的问题是，该船舶是否真的有可能暴露在海盗风险中，也就是说，该地方因海盗行为而变得危险。因此，亚丁湾是否因为海盗行为而对“Triton Lark”轮构成危险取决于海盗行为发生的可能性以及如果发生海盗行为对船舶、货物和船员造成的后果的严重性。这是仲裁员需要根据面临的证据进行评估的问题。”
9 - Although these judgments relate to CONWARTIME and the risk of piracy, they are at least useful guidance as to how a Court/Tribunal might approach Clause 83 which uses similar wording (“may”, “expose” and “danger”). On that basis, the question may well be, “Is there a real likelihood that Paradip will be dangerous to the Vessel/crew by reason of COVID-19?”
9- 虽然这些判决涉及战争条款和海盗风险，但它们至少对法院（或法庭）如何处理使用了类似措辞（“可能”、“暴露”和“危险”）的第83条提供了有用的指导。根据这个基础，问题恰好是：“Paradip真的有可能因新冠疫情而对船舶（或船员）构成危险吗？”
The Evidence
证据
10 - The WHO COVID-19 homepage describes it as “an infectious disease”. It does not use the term “highly infectious”. Charterers may therefore argue that Clause 83 is not triggered at all in relation to COVID-19. We can see some force in such an argument.
10- 世界卫生组织新冠肺炎主页将该病描述为“传染病”，没有使用“高度传染性”这个术语（https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1）。因此，租家可能会辩称，第83条根本与新冠疫情无关。该论点让我们有一点压力。
11 - The same page also states that, “Most people infected with the COVID-19 virus will experience mild to moderate respiratory illness and recover without requiring special treatment.” This contrasts with, for example, Ebola which has an average 50% death rate. Charterers may therefore also argue that COVID-19 is not “harmful to human health”, although that is in our view not a good argument.
11- 该网页还指出，“大多数感染新冠病毒的人将经历轻度至中度呼吸道疾病，无需特殊治疗即可康复。”相比之下，埃博拉病毒的平均死亡率为50%。因此，租家也可以辩称，新冠病毒“对人类健康无害”，尽管我们认为这不是一个好的论点。
12 - We have seen it argued in relation to the BIMCO Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clause that it was not designed with a severe global pandemic in mind. That is because, in the context of the BIMCO Clause, the whole world is effectively an “affected area”. The same argument could be made against Clause 83 since COVID-19 is affecting the entire world. Thus, Owners would be entitled to refuse to go to any port in the world because that “may expose” the Vessel/crew to the risk of COVID-19. It seems unlikely that is the correct construction of Clause 83. This would be a further argument against applying Clause 83 to COVID-19.
12- 我们注意到有关BIMCO的传染病或传染病条款的辩词，该条款在设计时没有考虑到严重的全球流行病。这是因为，在BIMCO条款的背景下，整个世界实际上都是一个“疫区”。因为新冠病毒正在影响整个世界，所以可以用同样的理由来抗辩第83条。因此，船东有权拒绝前往世界上的任何港口，因为这“可能会使船舶（或船员）暴露于新冠疫情的风险之中”。这看起来并不是第83条的正确解释。这将是反对将第83条适用于新冠疫情的进一步论据。
13 - However, it may be possible to argue that the current COVID-19 situation in India is in a different category.
13- 然而，可以认为，印度当前的新冠疫情属于不同类别。
14 - We understand that the B.1.617 variant first identified in India has been classified by the WHO as a “variant of concern” – see example here and the latest WHO Weekly Epidemiological Update (No. 39). The latter document states that, “B.1.617 sublineages appear to have higher rates of transmission, including observed rapid increases in prevalence in multiple countries” (emphasis added). According to the same document, India currently accounts for “50% of global cases and 30% of global deaths”.
14- 我们知道B.1.617变体首次在印度被发现，已经被世界卫生组织分类为“关切”的变种 - 请查看相关例子（https://www.dw.com/en/who-classifies-indian-coronavirus-mutation-as-a-variant-of-concern/a-57488436）和《最新流行病学周报（第39期）》。该周报指出，“B.1.617变异新冠病毒似乎有较高的传播率，在多个国家观察到的流行率迅速增加”（重点补充）。根据该文件，印度目前占“全球病例的50%，全球死亡人数的30%”。
15 - The WHO Weekly Epidemiological Update also states (emphasis added):
15- 世卫组织《流行病学周报》还指出（重点补充）：
“A recent risk assessment of the situation in India conducted by WHO found that resurgence and acceleration of COVID-19 transmission in India had several potential contributing factors, including increase in the proportion of cases of SARS-CoV-2 variants with potentially increased transmissibility; several religious and political mass gathering events which increased social mixing; and, under use of and reduced adherence to public health and social measures (PHSM). The exact contributions of these each of these factors on increased transmission in India are not well understood.”
“世卫组织最近对印度局势进行的风险评估发现，新冠病毒在印度的重新抬头和传播加速有几个潜在的促成因素，包括具有潜在传播能力增加的SARS-CoV-2变异病例的比例增加；若干宗教和政治的群众集会活动，增加了社交接触；正在使用的公共卫生和社会措施（PHSM）遵守情况下降。印度社会很好地了解到这些因素对印度病毒传播增加的确切作用。”
16 - These statements by the WHO would therefore support an argument by Members that Clause 83 does apply to orders to go to Indian ports – or at least, ports where the variant is prevalent or infection rates are in fact particularly high.
16- 因此，世卫组织的这些声明将支持会员的一个论点，即第83条确实适用于前往印度港口的指令 - 或至少适用于那些变异病毒流行或感染率实际上特别高的港口。
17 - In that regard, we do not have any evidence as to whether the variant is prevalent in Paradip. We also note from the GAC email that all ports in India are currently operating normally, which weakens Members’ position. In order to improve Members’ position, we would recommend trying to establish how badly affected Paradip is compared to the rest of India. In terms of further evidence, it appears there should be a new Weekly Epidemiological Update published by the WHO tomorrow, 18 May.
17- 在这方面，我们没有任何证据表明这种变异病毒在Paradip港是否流行。我们还从GAC的电子邮件中注意到，印度所有港口目前都在正常运行，这削弱了会员所持的立场。为了支持会员的立场，我们建议尝试辩称，与印度其他地区相比Paradip港受到的影响有多严重。关于进一步的证据，世卫组织似乎应于（5月18日）发布新的《流行病学周报》（https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports）。
18 - The question of whether Paradip (or any port) is dangerous will also, in our view, involve an assessment of the precautions that can be taken to minimise the risk of transmission. In that regard, it will be relevant to consider what precautionary measures are in place at Paradip, as well as what precautions can be taken by the Vessel/crew. The local agents should also be asked whether there have been any reported cases of COVID-19 at the port and/or and evidence of transmission from shoreside to crews on board.
18- 在我们看来，关于Paradip港（或任何港口）是否危险的问题，也要看是否对可采取的预防措施进行了评估，将传播风险降至最低。在这方面，应考虑在Paradip港有哪些预防措施，以及船舶（或船员）可以采取哪些预防措施。还应询问当地代理，该港口是否报告有新冠病例，以及是否有证据表明新冠病毒可能会从岸上传播给船上船员。
19 - On the evidence as it stands, it is uncertain whether Members are entitled to refuse orders to sail to Paradip. The best evidence is probably the increased risks posed by the variant strain, as set out in the WHO Weekly Epidemiological Update (No. 39) which it may be worth sending to Charterers. Members’ weakest points are the reference to “highly infectious” in Clause 83, the difficulties in applying the clause to a worldwide pandemic, and the fact that it is possible to take precautions to minimise the risk of transmission.
19- 根据现有的证据，不能确定会员是否有权拒绝前往Paradip港的指令。如世卫组织《流行病学周报》（第39期）所述，最好的证据可能是该变异株带来的风险增加，可能值得发送给租家看一看。会员们最薄弱的地方是第83条中提到的“高度传染性”、将该条款很难适用于全球性疫情，以及船上是可以采取预防措施将传播风险降至最低的。
20 - Accordingly, our advice is that there is a real risk that a refusal to sail to India would be a breach of the Charterparty which would expose Members to a damages claim in respect of Charterers’ lost employment. It would potentially also amount to a repudiatory breach of the Charterparty by Owners entitling Charterers to terminate the Charterparty as well as claim damages.
20- 因此，我们的建议是，拒绝前往印度将存在违反租约的风险，这将使会员（船东）因租家损失而面临损害索赔。这也可能意味着船东违反租约，并使租家有权终止租约并要求损害赔偿。
联系客服
