战争险与罢工险.docxVIP

协会战争险货物条文（INSTITUTE WAR RISKS [CARGO]）协会战争险货物条文中的第一条就是针对所承保的列名风险，而这些列名风险分为三大类，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名风险。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名风险。而第1.3条就针对一些太平的时候都会面对的，如弃置了的水雷、鱼雷、炸弹、武器，等。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间冲突”（ “War 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。针对这些列名风险的解释，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 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Spinney’s (1948) Ltd v. Royal Insurance Co Ltd 1980) 1 LLR 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 various 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 must 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 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 (1996) 1 LLR 664中有同样的说法，说：“... as to the ladder approach, 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 distru