We write with our preliminary advice on this issue, which is necessarily brief given the urgency and the very limited time allowed.

我們（即律師）就這個問題在下面提出初步建議，考慮到緊迫性和非常有限的時間，我們盡量言簡意賅：

1 - The starting-point is the terms of Clause 83:

1- 從條款第83條款出發(fā)：

“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、繼續(xù)前往、通過或停留在任何經(jīng)世界衛(wèi)生組織認定及通知對人類健康有害的、可能使船舶和船員或船上其他人員面臨高度傳染性疾?。òò２├《荆╋L險的任何港口、地點、地區(qū)或國家（以下稱“疫區(qū)”)?！?/p>

The Legal Test

法律測試

2 - This clause contains several requirements which we consider below.  They break down, as the Club has identified into two broad parts:

2- 該條款包含以下幾個要求，根據(jù)協(xié)會的意見可分為兩大部分：

(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、船員或船上其他人員面臨高度傳染性疾病的危險”；

(2)“as determined and notified by the world health organisation to be harmful to human health”.

(2) “根據(jù)世界衛(wèi)生組織確定及通知，對人類健康有害”。

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- 與別的條款（如BIMCO條款）不同，第83條不涉及船長（或船東）對船舶（或船員）是否可能面臨危險的（合理）判斷，這不是測試。

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，這像是世界衛(wèi)生組織決定是否是測試的。但作為一種建構(gòu)，我們認為，世界衛(wèi)生組織參考的可能只涉及有關(guān)疾病是否“對人類健康有害”的問題。

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- 如果有害的話，那么測試船舶（或船員）是否可能暴露在危險中就很客觀了。以后對該問題進行判決的法庭或?qū)彶锰帉⑼魄盟鞋F(xiàn)有的信息（不論會員是否實際上注意到該信息）。

這會使評估變得十分困難，因為我們無法獲得可能關(guān)于判決的所有信息。

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- 據(jù)我們所知，根據(jù)BIMCO條款的第83條或相關(guān)條款，在風險或危險程度方面，沒有任何報告表明，以“可能使船舶（或船員）面臨危險”為由拒絕租家指令前往Paradip的決定必須證明是否正當。

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 “l(fā)ikely 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，我們認為The Triton Lark [2012] 1 LLR 151一案可以提供一些指導。在該案件中，船長（或船東）對船舶（或船員）是否“可能或很可能（may be, or are likely to be）遭受海盜行為”的合理判斷遭到質(zhì)疑。法官認為，“可能”指的是“很可能”，在戰(zhàn)爭條款（CONWARTIME Clause）中，它指的是該船舶可能暴露在海盜行為危險下的“真正的可能性”。法官在第40段稱：

“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.”

“鑒于被解釋的詞語是“很可能”，我認為雙方的意圖最好解釋為“真正的可能性”的概念，即船舶會遭遇海盜行為。形容詞“真正的”反映了需要基于證據(jù)證明的可能性，而不是基于猜測幻想的可能性。“真正的可能性”既包括很可以發(fā)生而不是不發(fā)生的事件，也可以包括發(fā)生幾率小于均等的事件?！叭f一的事件（a bare possibility）”是不包括在內(nèi)的，因為“很可能（likely to be）”暗示的可能性比“萬一的事件”高得多?！罢嬲目赡苄浴敝邪l(fā)生概率的程度可以用“真正的危險”或“很大的可能性”來形容。戰(zhàn)爭條款（CONWARTIME 1993）的背景和目的（使船長能夠履行責任，使船舶、船員和貨物免受傷害）說服了我，我堅持認為，“真正的可能性”應該被理解為真的會發(fā)生危險?！?/p>

8 - In a further judgment (reported at [2012] 1 LLR 457), dealing with the meaning of “exposed”, the Judge said:

8- 在處理“暴露”含義的進一步判決（[2012] 1 LLR 457一案）中，法官稱：

“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，當船東（或船長）被要求前往某個地方時，需要解決的問題是，該船舶是否真的有可能暴露在海盜風險中，也就是說，該地方因海盜行為而變得危險。因此，亞丁灣是否因為海盜行為而對“Triton Lark”輪構(gòu)成危險取決于海盜行為發(fā)生的可能性以及如果發(fā)生海盜行為對船舶、貨物和船員造成的后果的嚴重性。這是仲裁員需要根據(jù)面臨的證據(jù)進行評估的問題。”

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- 雖然這些判決涉及戰(zhàn)爭條款和海盜風險，但它們至少對法院（或法庭）如何處理使用了類似措辭（“可能”、“暴露”和“危險”）的第83條提供了有用的指導。根據(jù)這個基礎(chǔ)，問題恰好是：“Paradip真的有可能因新冠疫情而對船舶（或船員）構(gòu)成危險嗎？”

The Evidence

證據(jù)

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- 世界衛(wèi)生組織新冠肺炎主頁將該病描述為“傳染病”，沒有使用“高度傳染性”這個術(shù)語（https://www./health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1）。因此，租家可能會辯稱，第83條根本與新冠疫情無關(guān)。該論點讓我們有一點壓力。

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- 該網(wǎng)頁還指出，“大多數(shù)感染新冠病毒的人將經(jīng)歷輕度至中度呼吸道疾病，無需特殊治療即可康復?！毕啾戎拢２├《镜钠骄劳雎蕿?0%。因此，租家也可以辯稱，新冠病毒“對人類健康無害”，盡管我們認為這不是一個好的論點。

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- 我們注意到有關(guān)BIMCO的傳染病或傳染病條款的辯詞，該條款在設計時沒有考慮到嚴重的全球流行病。這是因為，在BIMCO條款的背景下，整個世界實際上都是一個“疫區(qū)”。因為新冠病毒正在影響整個世界，所以可以用同樣的理由來抗辯第83條。因此，船東有權(quán)拒絕前往世界上的任何港口，因為這“可能會使船舶（或船員）暴露于新冠疫情的風險之中”。這看起來并不是第83條的正確解釋。這將是反對將第83條適用于新冠疫情的進一步論據(jù)。

13 - However, it may be possible to argue that the current COVID-19 situation in India is in a different category.

13- 然而，可以認為，印度當前的新冠疫情屬于不同類別。

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- 我們知道B.1.617變體首次在印度被發(fā)現(xiàn)，已經(jīng)被世界衛(wèi)生組織分類為“關(guān)切”的變種 - 請查看相關(guān)例子（https://www./en/who-classifies-indian-coronavirus-mutation-as-a-variant-of-concern/a-57488436）和《最新流行病學周報（第39期）》。該周報指出，“B.1.617變異新冠病毒似乎有較高的傳播率，在多個國家觀察到的流行率迅速增加”（重點補充）。根據(jù)該文件，印度目前占“全球病例的50%，全球死亡人數(shù)的30%”。

15 - The WHO Weekly Epidemiological Update also states (emphasis added):

15- 世衛(wèi)組織《流行病學周報》還指出（重點補充）：

“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.”

“世衛(wèi)組織最近對印度局勢進行的風險評估發(fā)現(xiàn)，新冠病毒在印度的重新抬頭和傳播加速有幾個潛在的促成因素，包括具有潛在傳播能力增加的SARS-CoV-2變異病例的比例增加；若干宗教和政治的群眾集會活動，增加了社交接觸；正在使用的公共衛(wèi)生和社會措施（PHSM）遵守情況下降。印度社會很好地了解到這些因素對印度病毒傳播增加的確切作用。”

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，世衛(wèi)組織的這些聲明將支持會員的一個論點，即第83條確實適用于前往印度港口的指令 - 或至少適用于那些變異病毒流行或感染率實際上特別高的港口。

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- 在這方面，我們沒有任何證據(jù)表明這種變異病毒在Paradip港是否流行。我們還從GAC的電子郵件中注意到，印度所有港口目前都在正常運行，這削弱了會員所持的立場。為了支持會員的立場，我們建議嘗試辯稱，與印度其他地區(qū)相比Paradip港受到的影響有多嚴重。關(guān)于進一步的證據(jù)，世衛(wèi)組織似乎應于（5月18日）發(fā)布新的《流行病學周報》（https://www./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- 在我們看來，關(guān)于Paradip港（或任何港口）是否危險的問題，也要看是否對可采取的預防措施進行了評估，將傳播風險降至最低。在這方面，應考慮在Paradip港有哪些預防措施，以及船舶（或船員）可以采取哪些預防措施。還應詢問當?shù)卮恚摳劭谑欠駡蟾嬗行鹿诓±?，以及是否有證據(jù)表明新冠病毒可能會從岸上傳播給船上船員。

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- 根據(jù)現(xiàn)有的證據(jù)，不能確定會員是否有權(quán)拒絕前往Paradip港的指令。如世衛(wèi)組織《流行病學周報》（第39期）所述，最好的證據(jù)可能是該變異株帶來的風險增加，可能值得發(fā)送給租家看一看。會員們最薄弱的地方是第83條中提到的“高度傳染性”、將該條款很難適用于全球性疫情，以及船上是可以采取預防措施將傳播風險降至最低的。

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，我們的建議是，拒絕前往印度將存在違反租約的風險，這將使會員（船東）因租家損失而面臨損害索賠。這也可能意味著船東違反租約，并使租家有權(quán)終止租約并要求損害賠償。