作者：王廣巍 張柯煒
引言Introduction
2019新型冠狀病毒（2019-nCoV）在中國爆發，如今已經成為全球矚目的公共衛生事件。疫情給眾多企業的生產經營帶來了巨大衝擊，導致其無法履行相關合同義務。在這一情況下，部分企業希望主張「不可抗力」來減輕遲延或無法履行合同的責任。近日，全國人大法工委明確表示，新冠肺炎疫情可以構成不可抗力，這為中國境內的不可抗力認定提供了明確的依據。然而，在國際貿易背景下，由於相關合同的涉外因素，疫情是否構成不可抗力仍面臨更複雜的評判標準
The outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has evolved into a public health emergency that draws global attention. The coronavirus has brought great impact on the production and operation of many enterprises, causing them failing to perform contractual obligations. Under such circumstance, some enterprises hope to claim force majeure in order to relieve the liability for delay or failure to perform contracts. Recently, the Commission of Legislative Affairs of the NPC Standing Committee has made it clear that the outbreak of novel coronavirus can constitute force majeure, which provides explicit basis of force majeure determination in China. However, as international trade contracts involve foreign-related factors, whether the outbreak of novel coronavirus constitutes force majeure is subject to more complicated scrutiny.
本文對於涉外貿易背景下不可抗力在不同情境下的適用進行了簡要梳理，希望為受疫情影響的企業提供一些參考。
This article analyzes the application of force majeure under different circumstances in the context of international trade, with the hope to provide some reference for those affected by the novel coronavirus.
一、合同明確約定不可抗力條款時的處理原則
不可抗力的概念源於大陸法系，大陸法系國家對其定義有細微的差別，但含義大同小異，中國合同法對不可抗力的定義為「訂立合同時不能預見、不能避免並不能克服的客觀情況」。不可抗力在多數大陸法系國家是法定免責理由，但是根據當事人意思自治的原則，仲裁庭和法院依然會尊重合同雙方達成的特別約定。而在英美法系中，不可抗力並非法定的免責事由，只有在合同中明確約定不可抗力條款時才能適用。因此，無論是大陸法系還是英美法系，在處理合同糾紛時首先都會考慮合同本身的具體條款，並結合個案情況具體分析。
Where the contract expressly stipulates a force majeure clause
The concept of force majeure stems from civil law jurisdictions. Despite slight differences, the definitions of force majeure are more or less the same in essentials in most civil law countries. In China, force majeure is expressly stipulated under the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China and defined as 「the objective circumstances that are unforeseeable, unavoidable and insurmountable at the time of contract execution」. Despite that force majeure is a statutory cause of exemption in most civil law countries, according to the principle of party autonomy, the arbitral tribunal or court will still give weight to special agreement reached by parties. While in common law jurisdictions, force majeure is not a statutory cause for exemption, and it only applies where the contract expressly provides a force majeure clause. Therefore, no matter in civil law jurisdiction or common law jurisdiction, when it comes to resolving contract disputes, the specific contract provisions will always be given priority and analyzed on a case by case basis.
01
新冠肺炎疫情是否構成不可抗力取決於合同條款的具體表述
Whether the outbreak of novel coronavirus constitutes force majeure depends on specific wording of contract provisions
合同條款對不可抗力事件表述的清晰程度關係到援引不可抗力抗辯的成功率。在Sun Wah Oil & Cereals Ltd. v. Gee Tai Trading Co., Ltd.一案中[1]，涉案買賣合同的不可抗力條款表述僅僅為簡單的「不可抗力/仲裁：適用標準條款」。香港上訴法院認為該約定毫無意義，因為香港法律中不存在可以適用的所謂「標準條款」[2]。
In international trade contracts, arbitration is a more commonly seen way of dispute resolution. However, arbitral awards rarely become public. This article analyzes court cases in foreign jurisdictions, especially in common law jurisdictions, which should also have some reference value for international arbitration disputes.
有些合同會對構成不可抗力的事件明確列舉，例如「戰爭」、「罷工」、「地震」、「海嘯」等語言。如果合同對不可抗力的定義中有「流行病」、「瘟疫」這類具體的表述，則疫情被認定為不可抗力的可能性較大。
Some contracts specifically list events that constitute force majeure, such as 「war」, 「strike」, 「earthquake」 and 「tsunami」, etc. In such contracts, if the definition of force majeure in the contract includes such specific wordings as 「epidemic」 or 「plague」, the outbreak of novel coronavirus is very likely to be determined as force majeure.
還有一些合同對不可抗力的描述更為籠統，例如「上帝行為」、「政府行為」、「緊急事件」等。一方面，此次疫情中發生的政府防疫措施、世界衛生組織認定的「國際公共衛生緊急事件」等要素都含有不可抗力的屬性，可能滿足合同中的這一類定義，但是另一方面，這些通用化措辭也存在一定Sun Wal Oil案件中「過於寬泛」的風險。
Other contracts describe force majeure in a more general manner, such as 「act of god」, 「act of government」, 「emergency」, etc. On one hand, relevant factors in the outbreak of novel coronavirus this time, including the government’s anti-epidemic measures, the World Health Organization’s announcement of 「Public Health Emergency of International Concern」, all contain characteristics of force majeure. On the other hand, however, these general terms also have the risk of being 「overly broad」 as in the Sun Wal Oil case.
02
官方機構提供的不可抗力事實性證明存在不被認可的風險
Certificates of force majeure issued by authorities may not be recognized
中國國際貿易促進委員會（CCPIT）自2月6日開始免費為企業出具與肺炎疫情相關的不可抗力事實性證明[1]。但從我們目前了解的情況看，該證明書內容可證明發生了延遲復工、交通管制、勞務用工受限等客觀事實，但並沒有直接提到「不可抗力」的說法，更無法直接證明企業無法履行合同的具體事實。企業如果希望依賴該證明書減免合同義務，還需提供更多事實證據來證明相關防疫措施與自身無法履行合同之間的因果關係。
Starting from February 6th, the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) will issue coronavirus-related certificate of force majeure for enterprises free of charge. However, from what we have learnt of, although the contents of such certificate can prove the occurrence of certain objective circumstance such as delayed business resumption, traffic control, staffing restrictions, etc., they do not directly use the word 「force majeure」, nor can they directly prove the incapacity of enterprises to perform the contract. If enterprises wish to use such certificate to waive their contractual obligations, they must provide more factual evidence to prove the causal relationship between relevant anti-epidemic measures and its inability to perform the contract.
事實上，關於CCPIT開具的不可抗力事實性證明的效力是有案可循的。在Hoecheong Products Co., Ltd. v. Cargill H.K. Ltd.一案中，雙方合同約定適用英國法，合同的不可抗力條款約定，賣方因不可抗力無法交付貨物時，賣方需提交CCPIT籤發的證明。後賣方無法交貨，並且也提交了CCPIT出具的不可抗力證明。最終倫敦樞密院司法委員會[1]認定合同中的不可抗力條款僅要求CCPIT證明存在不可抗力事件，所以該證明符合合同約定。雖然該案最終從合同條款解釋的角度加以解決，但是也明確了，官方機構的證明僅是不可抗力事件發生的證明，不能直接取代合同無法履行的相關事實證據。也就是說，即便主張不可抗力成就的一方提交了CCPIT出具的不可抗力證明，英國法院還是會考察該不可抗力事件與合同無法履行之間的因果關係。
In fact, there are some precedents regarding the effectiveness of CCPIT’s certificate of force majeure. In Hoecheong Products Co., Ltd. v. Cargill H.K. Ltd., the parties agreed in the contract that British law shall apply, and the force majeure clause in the contract stipulates that where the seller is unable to deliver goods due to force majeure events, it shall provide the certificate of force majeure issued by CCPIT. Thereafter, the seller was unable to deliver goods, and also submitted the certificate of force majeure issued by CCPIT. In the end, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of London held that the force majeure clause in the contract 「should be understood as requiring only that CCPIT should attest the occurrence of the force majeure event」 and the certificate was 「in compliance of the clause」. Although the case was finally solved by interpreting contract provisions, it nevertheless demonstrated that such authoritative certificate can only prove the occurrence of force majeure event, but cannot replace the factual evidence for the failure of performance. In another word, even if the party claiming force majeure submits certificate of force majeure issued by CCPIT, the British court will still investigate the causal relationship between force majeure event and the failure of performance.
03
主張不可抗力通常還要符合其他條件
There are other requirements for claiming force majeure
企業主張不可抗力條款時，還應注意合同條款或適用法律是否還有其他的要求。例如，常見的義務還包括受不可抗力影響的一方應在合理時限內通知另一方，並且還應盡「合理的努力」來防止或減少損失等。如未能遵守這些要求，企業仍可能需要對相應的損失承擔責任。
When an enterprise invokes force majeure clause, it also needs to pay attention to other requirements stipulated by contract provisions or applicable laws. For example, common obligations include that the party affected by force majeure shall notify the other party within a reasonable time, and use 「reasonable endeavors」 to prevent or mitigate losses. If the enterprise fails to comply with these requirements, it may still be liable for relevant losses.
二、合同未約定不可抗力條款時的處理原則
Where the contract is silent on force majeure clause
01
成文法中不可抗力規則的適用
Application of force majeure rules in statutes
雖然合同並未特別約定不可抗力條款，但如果合同雙方選擇適用的法律有法定的不可抗力規則，則違約一方可以依照法定事由主張免責，這一情形多見於選擇適用大陸法系國家的法律，例如中國法、德國法等。在國際貨物貿易合同中大量適用的《聯合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》對不可抗力也有具體的約定。《公約》第七十九條即規定：「當事人對不履行義務，不負責任，如果他能證明此種不履行義務，是由於某種非他所能控制的障礙，而且對於這種障礙，沒有理由預期他在訂立合同時能考慮到或能避免或克服它或它的後果」。但是統計數據表明，在訴訟中援引這一條款的成功率並不高[1]。
Where a contract does not specifically stipulate the force majeure clause, but the governing law chosen by the parties provides force majeure rules, the party in breach can claim exemption of liability based on statutory causes, which is common when the applicable governing law is the law of civil law countries, such as Chinese law, German law, etc. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, which is widely used in contracts for international sale of goods, also has specific provisions on force majeure. Specifically, Article 79 of the Convention stipulates that: 「a party is not liable for a failure to perform any of his obligations if he proves that the failure was due to an impediment beyond his control and that he could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome it or its consequences.」 However, statistics show that the chances of successfully invoking such clause are not high in litigation.
如前所述，即使不可抗力是法定的免責理由，由於每個企業受到疫情影響的方式和程度各不相同，仍應圍繞具體情況是否符合法定條件進行舉證。目前，在中國境內認定疫情構成不可抗力的情況相對樂觀，但應考慮到中國本身作為疫情國，對受疫情影響的企業進行保護存在一定的政策導向。而在其他大陸法系國家，相關仲裁庭或法院會持何種態度仍取決於具體情形，不能一概而論。
As discussed above, even if force majeure is a statutory cause of exemption, since each enterprise suffers from coronavirus in different way and to different extent, it shall provide evidence to prove whether its specific situation meets statutory requirements. At present, most people are holding relatively optimistic altitudes toward the question whether the outbreak of novel coronavirus constitutes force majeure in China. However, it should be noted that China is in epidemic situation itself, so it has certain policy preference to protect enterprises affected by the coronavirus outbreak. In other civil law countries, the attitude of arbitral tribunal or court still depends on the specific facts and cannot be generalized.
02
英美法系合同落空理論的適用
The application of the doctrine of frustration in common law jurisdictions
如果合同適用英美法系且合同本身沒有不可抗力條款，當事人僅能通過合同落空理論來尋求救濟。該理論來源於經典的Krell v. Henry一案：某遊客花費比其他房間高昂數倍的價格租了一間可以觀賞愛德華七世加冕遊行的房間，但由於愛德華七世患病遊行取消。酒店起訴遊客，要求支付租房費用，該遊客就以合同落空為由抗辯。最終法官認為，由於該租賃合同的目的無法達成，免除了遊客的租金支付義務。
If the contract is governed by a law of a common law country and the contract itself does not have a force majeure clause, the affected party can only seek relief under the doctrine of frustration. The doctrine comes from the classic Krell v. Henry case. In this case, a tourist rented a hotel room, costing several times more than other rooms, to watch the coronation of Edward VII. However, the coronation was eventually cancelled because of Edward VII’s illness. The hotel sued the tourist for the rent, and the tourist invoked the doctrine of frustration as defense. The judge finally held that the tourist is exempted from the obligation to pay the rent because the purpose of the lease contract was frustrated.
合同落空理論常見的適用情形包括標的物滅失、法律變更、當事人死亡或者失去行為能力、合同目的無法實現等。適用合同落空理論的後果是解除合同，總體而言適用難度很大，有著各方面的限制，包括但不限於以下幾點：
Common situations where the doctrine of frustration can apply include destruction of the subject matter, change of law, death or incapacity of a party, impossibility to realize the purpose of contract, etc. The consequence of would be contract termination. Generally speaking, it is very difficult for the doctrine to apply and there are limitations in many aspects, including but not limited to:
相關事件必須有不可預見性。在American Trading & Prod. Corp. v. Shell Int'l. Marine一案中，因六日戰爭導致蘇伊士運河關閉，海運公司主張免除交貨義務。而美國第二巡迴法院認定承運人在籤訂合同時應當知曉中東的緊張局勢，這場戰爭是可以預見的，所以未支持該主張。
The event must be unforeseeable. In American Trading & Prod. Corp. v. Shell Int'l. Marine, the Suez Canal was closed because of the Six Day War. For this reason, the carrier claimed that it should be exempted from the obligation of goods delivery. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the carrier should be aware of the tension in the Middle East when signing the contract, and the war is foreseeable. Therefore, it did not support the carrier’s claim.
該事件必須導致合同在事實或法律上不可能履行。仍以上述案例為例，即使蘇伊士運河因戰爭關閉，但是船隻仍可以從好望角繞道，雖然成本會增加，但是承運人無法因此逃避合同義務。因此，如果存在可行的替代方案，這一主張通常很難得到支持。
The event must cause the contract to be incapable of performance in fact or by law. Take the above case as an example, even if the Suez Canal was closed due to the war, ships can still go around the Good Hope Cape. In this way, the costs will increase, but the carrier cannot get away from its contractual obligations. Therefore, the doctrine will likely fail if there is feasible alternative solution.
The contract does not provide a force majeure clause itself.
The party claiming the doctrine of frustration is not at fault.
根據上述限制，合同落空理論的適用有極高的要求。其中，一大難點在於證明合同不可能履行，此次疫情雖然不可避免會導致合同履行的延遲或成本增加，但能夠真正導致完全無法履行合同的情況極少。非典期間在香港發生的一則案例[1]也可以說明法院對採用這一理論的謹慎態度：一位租客因受到10天的強制隔離措施，希望解除一份2年期的租賃合同，但是法院認為隔離期間相比於租期而言僅僅是一小段時間，租客援引合同落空理論未得到法院的支持，其適用難度可見一斑[2]
Given the above limitations, the application of the doctrine of frustration is very demanding. One of the difficulties is to prove that it is impossible to perform the contract. Although the coronavirus outbreak will inevitably cause the delay of performance or increase of costs, yet under few situations will it result in absolute impossibility to perform the contract. A case in Hong Kong during the SARS also shows the courts』 prudence to apply this doctrine. A tenant subject to a 10-day order of quarantine wished to terminate a two-year lease. The court held that the period of quarantine is very short as compared with the lease period, so the court did not support the tenant in invoking the doctrine of frustration.
三、合同明確約定不可抗力條款時的處理原則
綜上所述，無論是約定事由抗辯、法定事由抗辯或是英美法系中的落空理論抗辯，在主張肺炎疫情構成免責事由時，核心內容還是疫情對合同履行的具體影響如何，這就需要結合具體的合同條款、適用的準據法以及事實情況具體分析。為了應對可能的風險，我們建議做好以下幾點：
Suggestions for enterprises
Based on the above, to claim exemption of contractual obligations due to the outbreak of novel coronavirus, the key is to illustrate specific impact of the coronavirus outbreak on the performance of contract, regardless of whether such defense is based on contract provisions, statutory stipulations, or the doctrine of frustration in common law jurisdiction, and the enterprise should make detailed analysis based on specific contract provisions, governing law and surrounding facts. In case of potential risks, we suggest enterprises to follow these steps:
01
第一，評估合同相關約定。包括梳理合同的管轄法律及爭議解決條款，確定適用的準據法及爭議解決機構，檢查合同是否包含不可抗力條款，評估不可抗力條款的語言表述及其涵蓋的具體範圍，分析肺炎疫情構成不可抗力的可能性，同時關注合同約定的主張不可抗力時應遵循的程序要求。
Firstly, to evaluate relevant provisions of the contract. This includes reviewing the governing law and force majeure clauses, determining the governing law and dispute resolution institute, confirming whether the contract has force majeure clause, evaluating the wording and specific coverage of the force majeure clause, to analyze the possibility that the coronavirus outbreak constitutes force majeure. In the meantime, companies should pay attention to the procedural requirements for claiming force majeure as stipulated under the contract.
02
第二，評估疫情具體影響並留存證據。包括疫情對對本公司上下遊供應鏈、生產規模、物流運輸、勞動用工等方面的影響，評估影響開始的時間及可能持續的期限，及時搜集並留存相關證據。根據企業自身情況，適時向官方機構申請不可抗力事實性證明，雖然該證明不能作為決定性證據，但可以起到幫助證明的作用。
Secondly, to evaluate the actual impact of the coronavirus and preserve relevant evidence. This includes assessing the influence of the coronavirus outbreak on upstream and downstream supply chains, production scale, logistics service, labor use and other aspects of the company, evaluating the start time and possible duration of such influence, and at the same time, collecting and preserving relevant evidence. Based on its own situation, the company should apply for the certificate of force majeure from relevant authorities. Although the certificate can hardly be decisive evidence, it can nevertheless work as ancillary proof.
03
第三，及時履行通知及減少損失的義務。及時向合同相對方發送不可抗力的通知，通知內容應當明確當事雙方身份、受不可抗力影響的具體合同或項目、主張不可抗力依據的合同約定或法律條款、本企業受到疫情何種影響等內容，並明確表示由於疫情構成不可抗力，通知方依法提出減免責任、延期履行或解除合同的主張。同時，應當採取合理措施防止損失擴大，例如積極尋求替代解決方案等。
Thirdly, to perform the obligation of notice and damages mitigation in time. The affected party should send a notice of force majeure to the counterparty in a timely manner, which should specify the identities of parties, the specific contract or project that is affected by force majeure, the contract clauses or statutory provisions on which the force majeure claim is based, and how the enterprise is affected by the coronavirus outbreak. The notice shall also expressly raise the claim that the coronavirus outbreak constitutes force majeure and therefore the notifying party is claiming exemption from liability, delay of performance or termination of contract. Meanwhile, take reasonable measures to prevent the losses from increasing, such as actively seeking alternative solutions.
04
第四，積極與合同相對方保持溝通，共同尋找解決方案。目前疫情勢頭有所緩解，應當評估合同遲延履行或修改合同條款的可能性，爭取與合同相對方達成補充協議，採取推遲合同的履行期限等變通方式，儘可能避免隨意解除合同，以避免不必要的爭端，並維護長期友好合作的關係。
Fourthly, to communicate with the counterparty actively and work up a solution together. At present, the development of coronavirus is slowing down. It is necessary to assess the possibility to delay the performance or modify contract provisions. Try to reach a supplementary agreement with the other party, and to adopt flexible methods such as postpone the deadline of performance. Avoid termination of contract arbitrarily if possible, so as to avoid unnecessary disputes and maintain friendly long-term cooperation.