Posts Tagged ‘legal’

Lese-majesty 冒犯君主罪

June 18, 2012 Leave a comment

Lese-majesty  冒犯君主罪

Lese-majesty /ˌliːz ˈmædʒɨsti/[1] (French: lèse majesté [lɛz maʒɛste]; Law French, from the Latin laesa maiestas, “injured majesty”; in English, also lese majesty or leze majesty) is the crime of violating majesty, an offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state.

Lese-majesty冒犯君主罪[1](法文: lèse majesté [lɛz maʒɛste];法国法律,拉丁文laesa maiestas,“受创的威严”,英语也用lese majesty或leze majesty)是违反国王陛下的罪名,是对一个统治主权的尊严或对一个国家的攻击。

This behavior was first classified as a criminal offence against the dignity of the Roman republic in Ancient Rome. In the Dominate, or Late Empire period the Emperors scrapped the Republican trappings of their predecessors and began to identify the state with their person.[2] Though legally the princeps civitatis (his official title, roughly ‘first citizen’) could never become a sovereign, as the republic was never officially abolished, emperors were deified as divus, first posthumously but by the Dominate period while reigning. Deified Emperors thus enjoyed the legal protection provided for the divinities of the state cult; by the time it was exchanged for Christianity, the monarchical tradition in all but name was well established.

这种行为第一次在古罗马时代因为有人冒犯罗马共和国的尊严而被列为刑事罪行。在帝政期或晚期帝国的时期,皇帝摆脱了前任共和党员的制约,开始把个人和国家的地位划上等号[2]。虽然在法律上princeps civitatis(皇帝的官衔,相当于现在的“第一公民”)不可能成为一个主权,共和国体制并未正式废除,但皇帝却被神化为(divus)神人,在加冕时首度追封帝政期的先帝。因此,神化了的皇帝就享有国家级被崇拜的神位,得到法律的保障;这时的神位取代了基督教,传统的君主制度除了名称以外,全部结构都建立得完善。

Narrower conceptions of offences against Majesty as offences against the crown predominated in the European kingdoms that emerged in the early medieval period. In feudal Europe, various real crimes were classified as lese-majesty even though not intentionally directed against the crown, such as counterfeiting because coins bear the monarch’s effigy and/or coat of arms.


However, since the disappearance of absolute monarchy, this is viewed as less of a crime, although similar, more malicious acts could be considered treason. By analogy, as modern times saw republics emerging as great powers, a similar crime may be constituted, though not under this name, by any offence against the highest representatives of any state.



Contents  目录

1 Current lese-majesty laws  当前的冒犯君主罪

1.1 Europe  欧洲

1.1.1 Denmark  丹麦

1.1.2 Netherlands  荷兰

1.1.3 Spain  西班牙

1.1.4 Greece  希腊

1.2 Morocco  摩洛哥

1.3 Thailand  泰国

1.4 Others  其他

2 Former laws  之前的法律

2.1 United Kingdom  英国

3 See also  另见

4 References  参考文献

5 External links  外部链接


Current Lese-majesty Laws  当前的冒犯君主法律

Europe  欧洲

Further information: Freedom of speech by country: Germany and Poland


In Germany, Switzerland,[3] and Poland it is illegal to insult foreign heads of state publicly.


On 5 January 2005, Marxist tabloid publisher Jerzy Urban was sentenced by a Polish court to a fine of 20,000 złoty (about €5000 or US$6,200) for having insulted Pope John Paul II, a visiting head of state.[4]

2005年1月5日,马克思派的小报出版商Jerzy Urban被波兰法院判处罚款20000zloty(约€5000欧元或6,200美元),因为他侮辱教皇约翰保罗二世这位到访的国家元首。[4]

On 26–27 January 2005, 28 human rights activists were temporarily detained by the Polish authorities for allegedly insulting Vladimir Putin, a visiting head of state. The activists were released after about 30 hours and only one was actually charged with insulting a foreign head of state.[5]


In October 2006, a Polish man was arrested in Warsaw after expressing his dissatisfaction with the leadership of Lech and Jarosław Kaczyński by passing gas loudly.[6]

2006年10月,一名波兰男子在华沙被捕,因为不满领导人Lech和Jaroslaw Kaczyrisjki的车队大声排放烟雾。[6]

Denmark  丹麦

In Denmark, the monarch is protected by the usual libel paragraph (§ 267 of the penal code which allows for up to four months of imprisonment), but §115[7] allows for doubling of the usual punishment when the regent is target of the libel. When a queen consort, queen dowager or the crown prince is the target, the punishment may be increased by 50%. There are no historical records of §115 having ever been used, but in March 2011, Greenpeace activists who unfurled a banner at a dinner at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference were charged under this section.[8] They received minor sentences for other crimes, but were acquitted of the charge relating to the monarch.[9]

在丹麦,君主通常都受到诽谤条文的保护(刑法§ 第267条允许最多4个月的监禁),但是,当摄政成为诽谤目标时,§第115条[7]就允许加倍处罚。当王后,皇太后或王储成为诽谤目标时,处罚可能会增加50%。历史记录里还没使用过§第115条,但是,在2011年3月,绿色和平活跃份子在2009年联合国气候变化大会的晚宴上展开布条之后,他们就在这个条款下被控诉[8]。他们的其他罪行都获得轻判,而跟君主有关的指控都获得无罪释放。[9]

Netherlands  荷兰

In October 2007, a 47-year-old man was fined €400 for, amongst other things, lese-majesty in the Netherlands when he called Queen Beatrix a “whore” and described several sexual acts he would like to perform on her to a police officer.[10]


Spain  西班牙

The Spanish satirical magazine El Jueves was fined for violation of Spain’s lese-majesty laws after publishing an issue with a caricature of the Prince of Asturias and his wife engaging in sexual intercourse on the cover in 2007.[11]

西班牙的讽刺杂志“El Jueves”因为违反了西班牙的冒犯君主法而被罚款,该杂志在2007年的某一期的杂志封面刊登了一则漫画描绘Asturias王子和他的妻子性交的画面。[11]

Greece  希腊

The 14th article of the Constitution of Greece makes it an offence for the press to insult the President of Greece (as well as Christianity and any other religion recognized by the state).[12]


Morocco  摩洛哥

Moroccans are routinely prosecuted for statements deemed offensive to the King. The penal code states that the minimum sentence for a statement made in private (i.e.: not broadcast) is imprisonment for 1 year. For a public offense to the King, the minimum sentence is 3 years. In both cases, the maximum is 5 years.[13]


The case of Yassine Belassal[14] The Fouad Mourtada Affair, and Nasser Ahmed (a 95 year-old who died in jail after being convicted of lese-majesty), revived the debate on these laws and their applications. In 2008, an 18 year-old was charged with “breach of due respect to the king” for writing “God, Country, Barca” on a school board, in reference to his favorite football club. The national motto of Morocco is “God, Country, King”.

最近,Yassine Belassal[14]在The Fouad Mourtada的事件中以及Nasser Almed的案例(95岁的囚犯因为冒犯君主被定罪死在狱中)使到这些法律及其应用的辩论再度展开。2008年,一名18岁青年被控“违反对君主不敬”的罪名,只因为他在学校布告栏上写“上帝,国家,Barca(巴卡球队)”的字,指的是他最喜欢的足球俱乐部。而摩洛哥的国家格言应该是“上帝,国家,国王”。

In February 2012, 18 years old Walid Bahomane was convicted for posting two mild cartoons of the king on Facebook. The procès-verbal cites two facebook pages and an IBM computer being seized as evidence. Walid is officially prosecuted for “touching the sacralities”.[15]

2012年2月,18岁的Walid Bahomane因为在脸书上张贴了两张温和的泰王卡通图片而被判罪。官方说法是用两篇脸书上的记录和没收的IBM电脑为证据,正式控告Walid“触碰到神圣的品德”。

Thailand  泰国

Thailand’s Criminal Code has carried a prohibition against lese-majesty since 1908.[16] In 1932, when Thailand’s monarchy ceased to be absolute and a constitution was adopted, it too included language prohibiting lese-majesty. The 2007 Constitution of Thailand, and all seventeen versions since 1932, contain the clause, “The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.” Thai Criminal Code elaborates in Article 112: “Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.” Missing from the Code, however, is a definition of what actions constitute “defamation” or “insult”.[17] From 1990 to 2005, the Thai court system only saw four or five lese-majesty cases a year. From January 2006 to May 2011, however, more than 400 cases came to trial, an estimated 1,500 percent increase.[18] Observers attribute the increase to increased polarization following the 2006 military coup and sensitivity over the elderly king’s declining health.[19]


Neither the King nor any member of the Royal Family has ever personally filed any charges under this law. In fact, during his birthday speech in 2005, King Bhumibol Adulyadej encouraged criticism: “Actually, I must also be criticized. I am not afraid if the criticism concerns what I do wrong, because then I know.” He later added, “But the King can do wrong,” in reference to those he was appealing to not to overlook his human nature.[19] The Constitution does not provide the legal right for the royal family to defend themselves; accordingly they cannot file grievances on their own behalf.[citation needed] Instead, the responsibility has been granted to the state and to the public. Cases are often filed by state authorities or by individuals, and anyone may take action against anyone else. In one notable incident during the 2005–2006 political crisis, deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his political opponent Sondhi Limthongkul filed charges of lese-majesty against each other. Thaksin’s alleged lese-majesty was one of the stated reasons for the Thai military’s 2006 coup.[20][21][22][23]

国王或任何王室成员都未曾用这条法律亲自告状提控任何人。事实上,Bhumibol Adulyadej莆湄博国王在他的2005年生日上还鼓励批评,他说:“其实,我也必须被批评。我不怕批评我做错了什么事,这样我才能知道。”接着他又补充说,“但是国王也会做错事”,呼吁那些崇拜他的人不要忽略他也是个人。”宪法并没有为王室提供合法权利去为自己辩护;因此他们不能自行控告。相反的,责任在政府和公众手上。案件往往都由国家机关或个人提告,任何人都可以用这条法律去控告任何人。值得一提的一件事发生在2005-2006年的政治危机,被废黜的总理(Thaksin Shinawatra)达信和他的政治对手Sondhi Limthongkul用冒犯君主罪互相起诉对方。达信涉嫌的冒犯君主罪是2006年泰国军方发动政变声明的其中一个理由。[20][21][22][23]

Social activists such as Sulak Sivaraksa were charged with the crime in the 1980s and 1990s because they allegedly criticized the king; Sulak was eventually acquitted.[24]

在20世纪80年代和90年代的社会活跃份子如Sulak Sivaraksa也被控这样的罪名,因为他们涉嫌批评国王; 最终Sulak还是获得无罪释放。[24]

Frenchman Lech Tomasz Kisielewicz allegedly committed lese-majesty in 1995 by making a derogatory remark about a Thai princess while on board a Thai Airways flight. Although in international airspace at the time, he was taken into custody upon landing in Bangkok and charged with offending the monarchy. He was detained for two weeks, released on bail, and acquitted after writing a letter of apology to the king, and deported.[citation needed] In March 2007, Swiss national Oliver Jufer was convicted of lese-majesty and sentenced to 10 years in jail for spray-painting graffiti on several portraits of the king while drunk in Chiang Mai;[25] he was pardoned by the king on 12 April 2007 and deported.[26]

1995年,法国人Lech Tomasz Kisielewicz涉嫌在泰国航空的班机上发表诋毁泰国公主的言论而犯了冒犯君主罪。虽然当时是在国际航空领域里,他在飞机降落曼谷时马上被羁押,然后被控冒犯君主罪。他被拘留了两周,获得保释,写了一封道歉信给国王才获得无罪释放,并驱逐出境。2007年3月,瑞士人Oliver Jufer因为在清迈喝醉酒[25],在几幅国王的人像照上喷漆涂鸦,被判处10年徒刑,当年4月12日国王赦免他,然后驱逐出境。[26]

In March 2008, Colonel Watanasak Mungkijakarndee of Bang Mod police station filed a case against Jakrapob Penkhair a politician and spokesman for former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, for public statements threatening violence and national security made on the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand (FCCT) stage in August 2007.[27] In 2008 BBC South-East Asia correspondent and FCCT vice-president Jonathan Head was accused of lese-majesty three times by Col. Watanasak. Col. Watanasak filed new charges and evidence highlighting a conspiracy connecting Thaksin Shinawatra, Jakrapob Penkhair and Jonathan Head to Veera Musikapong at the FCCT. Jonathan Head was subsequently transferred by the BBC to Turkey.[28] Prime Minister Abhisit Vejajiva has still not made a decision as to whether prosecutors should continue proceedings against Jakrapob Penkhair.

2008年3月,Bang Mod警局的Watanasak Mungkijakarndee上校提告政治家Jakrapob Penkhair和前总理达信的发言人在2007年8月公开发表言论以暴力和国家安全威胁泰国的外国记者俱乐部(FCCT)[27]。2008年,BBC的东南亚特派记者和FCCT副总裁Jonathan Head被Watanasak上校连续三次指控冒犯君主。Watanasak上校提出新的指控和证据凸显达信,Jakrapob Penkhair和Jonathan Head三人跟FCCT的Veera Musikapong有关联的阴谋。后来Jonathan Head被英国广播公司(BBC)调到土耳其去[28]。总理Abhisit Vejajiva阿比西还未决定检察官是否应该继续起诉Jakrapob Penkhair。

In September 2008, Harry Nicolaides[29] from Melbourne, Australia, was arrested at Bangkok’s international airport[30] and charged with lese-majesty, for an offending passage in his self published book Verisimilitude. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced to three years in jail[31] but then pardoned by the king, released, and deported.[32]

2008年9月,澳洲墨尔本的Harry Nicolaides[29]在曼谷国际机场被捕[30],被控冒犯君主的罪,因为他在自行出版的一本书“Verisimilitude-逼真的事物”里有冒犯的段落。他认罪后被判处3年有期徒刑,后来也被国王赦免释放,并驱逐出境。[32]

On 29 April 2010, Thai businessman Wipas Raksakulthai was arrested following a post to his Facebook account allegedly insulting Bhumibol.[33] The arrest was reportedly the first lese-majesty charge against a Thai Facebook user.[34] In response, Amnesty International named Wipas Thailand’s first prisoner of conscience in nearly three decades.[35]

2010年4月29日,泰国商人Wipas Raksakulthai在他的Facebook脸书页面上发表涉嫌侮辱莆湄博国王的言论之后就被捕[33]。这是第一次有泰国的脸书用户因为冒犯君主罪而被捕[34]。因此,国际特赦组织把Wipas命名为三十年来泰国的第一位良知囚犯。[35]

On 27 May 2011, an American citizen, Joe Gordon (Lerpong Wichaikhammat), was arrested on charges he insulted the country’s monarchy, in part by posting a link on his blog to a banned book about the ailing king. Gordon had lived in the United States for thirty years before returning to Thailand. He is also reportedly suspected of translating, from English into Thai, portions of The King Never Smiles – an unauthorized biography of King Bhumibol Adulyadej – and posting them online along with articles he wrote that allegedly defame the royal family.[36][37]After being denied bail eight times, a shackled–and–handcuffed Gordon said in court on 10 October, “I’m not fighting in the case. I’m pleading guilty, sirs.”[38] On 8 December 2011] a court in Thailand sentenced Joe Gordon to two and a half years in prison for defaming the country’s royal family by translating excerpts of a locally banned biography of the king and posting them online. []

2011年5月27日,一名美国公民,Joe Gordon(泰国原名为Lerpong Wichaikhammat)被逮捕,他在自己的博客上的一篇贴文中链接到一本关于生病的泰王的禁书而被控局部性地侮辱国家的君主。Gordon在美国住了三十年才回到泰国。据报道,他也涉嫌把泰王未授权的自传“The King Never Smiles-未曾笑过的国王”中的一部份从英文翻译成泰文,连同他自己写的也涉嫌诋毁王室的文章都一起贴在网页上[36[37]。他被拒绝保释八次之后,10月10日那天,手脚被镣的Gordon戈登在法院说:“我不想再辩护。我认罪,大人们。”[38] 2011年12月8日,泰国法庭判处戈登两年半徒刑,罪名是翻译本地禁止的国王传记中的摘录张贴在网上诽谤了国家的王室。[]

In September 2011, computer programmer Surapak Puchaieseng was arrested, detained and had his computer confiscated after accused of insulting the Thai royal family on Facebook – his arrest marked the first lèse majesté case since prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra was elected.[39] The 10 October AP report on Joe Gordon’s plea adds that “Yingluck’s government has been just as aggressive in pursing the cases as its predecessors.”

2011年9月,软件程序员Surapak Puchaieseng被逮捕,拘留,电脑被没收,被控在脸书上侮辱泰国王室家族-他的被捕是瑛乐Yinluck Shinawatra当选总理之后第一起冒犯君主案[39]。10月10日美联社报道戈登的呼吁时补充说:“瑛乐的政府跟前任政府一样在处理这种案件时咄咄逼人。”

Others  其他

In January, 2009 there was a diplomatic incident between Australia and Kuwait over an Australian woman being held for allegedly insulting the Emir of Kuwait during a fracas with Kuwaiti Immigration authorities.[40]


Even though the Supreme Leader of Iran is not a king, there are laws against insulting the station of the Supreme Leader.



Former Laws  之前的法律

United Kingdom  英国

In Scotland, section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 abolished the common law criminal offences of sedition and ‘leasing-making’. The latter offence, also known as ‘lease /ˈliːz/ making’, was considered an offence of lese-majesty or making remarks critical of the Monarch of the United Kingdom. It had not been prosecuted since 1715.[41]



See also  另见

  • Blasphemy  亵渎
  • Flag desecration  沾污国旗
  • Insubordination  犯上
  • Mutiny  兵变
  • Sedition  煽动
  • Treason  叛国


References  参考文献

[1] ^ “lese-majesty”. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2nd ed. 1989.

^ “冒犯君主罪”牛津英文字典。牛津大学出版社第二版1989。

[2] ^, “Lese majesty”, Columbia Encyclopedia, retrieved 22 September 2006

^ 免费字典网站,“冒犯君主罪”,哥伦比亚百科全书,2006年9月22日索取资料。

[3] ^ Swiss Penal Code , SR/RS 311.0 (E·D·F·I), art. 296 (E·D·F·I)

^ 瑞士刑法,SR/RS 311.0(E.D.F.I),art.296(E.D.F.I)

[4] ^, “Criminal Defamation Laws Hamper Free Expression”, retrieved 22 September 2006

^ IFEX组织网站,“刑事毁谤法律钳制言论自由”,2006年9月22日索取资料。

[5] ^, “Sensitive heads of state”, retrieved 30 January 2008

^ 英国广播电台新闻网站,“敏感的国家元首”,208年1月30日索取资料。

[6] ^, “Police hunt farting dissident”, retrieved 31 August 2008

^ Ananova网站,“警察追捕放屁的异议份子”,2008年8月31日索取资料。

[7] ^  ^ 丹麦网站

[8] ^ “COP-15 activists in lèse majesté case”. Politiken (Copenhagen). 1 March 2011. Retrieved 1 March 2011.


[9] ^ Københavns Byret (22-08-2011). Greenpeace-aktivister idømt betinget fængsel i 14 dage. (in Danish).

^ Københavns Byret (2011年8月22日)。绿色和平活跃份子(丹麦文)

[10] ^ – Binnenland – Boete voor majesteitsschennis

[11] ^ “Spain royal sex cartoonists fined”. BBC. 13 November 2007. Retrieved 13 November 2007.

^ “西班牙王室性漫画的画家被罚款“。英国广播电台2007年11月13日报道。2007年11月13日索取资料。

[12] ^

[13] ^

[14] ^  ^ 巴塞罗那报道网站

[15] ^ “Busted for Posting Caricatures of the King on Facebook”. 8 February 2012. Retrieved 9 February 2012.

^ “破获在脸书上张贴的国王漫画”。2012年2月8日。2012年2月9日索取资料。

[16] ^ ^ 英国广播电台新闻网站

[17] ^ ^ 英国广播电台新闻网站

[18] ^ a b Todd Pitman and Sinfah Tunsarawuth (27 March 2011). “Thailand arrests American for alleged king insult”. Retrieved 27 May 2011.

^ a b Todd Pitman and Sinfah Tunsarawuth (2011年3月27日)。“泰国当局逮捕涉嫌侮辱泰王的美国人”。2011年5月27日索取资料。

[19] ^ “Royal Birthday Address: ‘King Can Do Wrong'”. National Media. 5 December 2005. Retrieved 26 September 2007.

^ “皇家生日发言:“国王也会做错”。国家媒体,2005年12月5日报导。2007年9月26日索取资料。

[20] ^ Asiaweek, A Protective Law, 3 December 1999 vol.45 no.28

^ 亚洲周刊,“保护性法律”,1999年12月3日45集第28本。

[21] ^ Colum Murphy, “A Tug of War for Thailand’s Soul”, Far Eastern Economic Review, September 2006

^ Colum Murphy,“泰国灵魂的拔河赛”,远东经济评论,2006年9月。

[22] ^ AFP, Thai coup leader says new PM within two weeks, 19 September 2006

^ 法新社,“泰国政变领袖说两星期内选出新总理”,2006年9月19日。

[23] ^ Time, World Notes Thailand: Not Fit for a King, 15 September 1986

^ 时报周刊,世界栏,“泰国不适合国王”,1986年9月15日。

[24] ^ “A Critic May Now Look at a King”, Macan-Markar, Marwaan, The Asian Eye, 18 May 2005

^ “评论家或许可以看看国王”,Macan-Marker,Marwaan撰,亚洲眼,2005年5月18日。

[25] ^ BBC News, Sensitive heads of state, 29 March 2007

^ 英国广播电台新闻,“敏感的国家元首”,2007年3月29日报导。

[26] ^ BBC News, Thailand’s king pardons Swiss man, 12 April 2007

^ 英国广播电台新闻,“泰王赦免瑞士人的罪”。2007年4月12日。

[27] ^ The Nation ( Police to summon Jakrapob for allegedly lese majeste

^ 国家(国家多媒体网站):“警察召集涉嫌触犯冒犯君主罪的Jakrapob。”

[28] ^ Colonel Watanasak filed further charges against BBC reporter at CSD, Manager Online, 23 December 2008

^ “Watanasak上校在CSD提告BBC记者”,管理在线,2008年12月23日。

[29] ^ Australian man refused bail for insulting Thai King, ABC Online, 3 September 2008

^ “澳洲人拒绝侮辱泰王的保释”,ABC在线,2008年9月3日。

[30] ^ Australian arrested in Thailand for lese-majeste

^ 澳洲人在泰国因为冒犯君主罪被逮捕。

[31] ^, Writer jailed for Thai ‘insult’

^ 英国广播电台新闻网站,“作家在泰国因为侮辱罪而坐牢”

[32] ^, Thailand frees Australian writer

^ 英国广播电台新闻网站,“泰国释放澳洲作家”。

[33] ^ “Thai man arrested for Facebook post about monarchy”. 30 April 2010. Retrieved 15 May 2011.

^ “泰国人在脸书上张贴有关君主的内容被捕”。2010年4月30日。2011年5月15日索取资料。

[34] ^ “Govt cracks down on social networking forums”. Bangkok Post. 3 July 2010. Retrieved 15 May 2011.

^ “政府镇压社交网络论坛”。泰国邮报,2010年7月3日报导。2011年5月15日索取资料。

[35] ^ Pravit Rojanaphruk (14 May 2011). “Amnesty International names Thailand’s first ‘prisoner of conscience'”. The Nation. Retrieved 15 May 2011.

^ Pravit Rojanaphruk (20115月14日)撰。“国际特赦组织称泰国为第一个良知的囚犯”。国家报。2011年5月15日索取资料。

[36] ^ “Joe Gordon, Colorado Man Living In Thailand, Arrested For Allegedly Insulting Monarchy”. Huffington Post. 27 May 2011.

^ “住在泰国的科罗拉多人Joe Gordon涉嫌侮辱君主被捕”。Huffinton邮报。2011年5月27日。

[37] ^ “Freedom Alert: American arrested in Thailand, accused of criticizing monarchy”. Freedom House.

^ “自由警报:美国人在泰国被指责批评君主被捕”。自由之家。

[38] ^ “Joe Gordon pleads guilty to lese majeste charges”. Asian Correspondent. AP. 10 October 2011. “BANGKOK (AP) – Hoping for a lenient sentence, a shackled U.S. citizen pleaded guilty Monday to charges of defaming Thailand’s royal family, a grave crime in this Southeast Asian kingdom that is punishable by up to 15 years in jail.”

^ “Joe Gordon为冒犯君主罪认罪”。亚洲通讯,太平洋,2011年10月10日。“曼谷(太平洋)—希望轻判,戴上镣铐的美国公民在星期一因为被控毁谤泰国王室而认罪,这个重大罪名可以在这个东南亚的王国里被判处最长15年的徒刑”。

[39] ^ “Thai Computer Programmer Detained After Criticizing Monarchy on Facebook”. Freedom House.

^ “泰国电脑程序员在脸书上批评君主之后被拘留”。自由之家。

[40] ^ ^ 澳洲SMH网站

[41] ^ “Justice Committee Official Report (see column 2942)”. Scottish Parliament. 20 April 2010. Retrieved Feb 2011.

^ “公正委员会官方报告(见2942栏)”。苏格兰国会,2010年4月20日。2011年2月索取资料。

Categories  分类

  • Crimes  罪行
  • Monarchy  帝制
  • French legal terms  法国法律名词


——- END ——


Source > Wikipedia at

Translated by > BlogHost — hkTan

Word Count > approx. 2900 words in English



Romalpa Clause 罗马巴条款

June 12, 2012 Leave a comment

Title Retention Clause  罗马巴条款


A retention of title clause (also called a Romalpa clause in some jurisdictions[1]) is a provision in a contract for the sale of goods that the title to the goods remains vested in the seller until certain obligations (usually payment of the purchase price) are fulfilled by the buyer.

保留所有权条款 (在某些司法管辖区内称为Romalpa罗马巴条款)[1]在售物合同中规定,物品的所有权仍然归属卖方,直到某些义务(通常是在支付买价时)由买方达成。


Contents  目录

  • Purpose  目的
  • Legal analysis  法律分析
  • Sample clauses  条款范文
  • Case list  案例列表
  • Notes  注


Purpose  目的

The main purposes of retention of title clauses are to ensure that where goods are supplied on credit, if the buyer subsequently goes into bankruptcy, the seller can repossess the goods. Retention of title clauses are most prevalent in Europe (particularly in Germany). In North America they appear to be less common, and there may be a variety of reasons for this.[2]

保留所有权条款的主要目的是要确保赊账的货物在供应以后,如果买方在收货后破产,卖方就有权收回货物。保留所有权条款在欧洲最常用到(尤其是在德国) 。在北美,这个条款似乎是不普遍,可能有多种原因。[2]

Title retention clauses are often seen as a natural extension of the credit economy; where suppliers are expected to sell goods on credit, there is a reasonable expectation that if they are not paid they should be able to repossess the goods. Nonetheless, in a number of jurisdictions, insolvency regimes or credit arrangement regimes prevent title retention clauses from being enforced where doing so would upset administration of the regime.[3]



Legal Analysis  法律分析

Although title retention clauses are conceptually very simple, they have become increasingly widely drafted, which has resulted in the courts in a number of countries striking down the clauses, or recharacterising them as the grant of a security interest. Several particular problems have resulted:—

虽然保留所有权条款的概念很简单,但是这类条款已经被起草得越来越多,导致一些国家的法院要删除这些条款,或者解读成一项被赋予的保安利益。有一些特定的问题出现: –

  • If for example, the clause reserves only part of the title to the seller (instead of reserving title to the whole thing) then in many jurisdictions this is recharacterised as an equitable charge, and is often void if certain registration requirements are not complied with.[4]


  • Problems can also arise where the goods sold are mixed with other goods of a similar nature, so that they are no longer identifiable (e.g. a quantity of oil, or grain).[5]


  • Many jurisdictions allow the buyer to re-sell the goods before title has passed to him (often this is the only way that he can pay the seller). In many jurisdictions such an onward sale passes good title to the subsequent purchaser, and the original seller loses title despite the clause[6]


  • Where the seller tries to have a clause which provides that, if the buyer re-sells the goods, then the proceeds of sale of the goods shall be held on trust for the seller, this can be recharacterised as a registrable charge, which may also be void for non-registration.[7]


  • Another frequently litigated problem occurs where the goods which are subject to the clause are then either improved (e.g. raw thread is worked into cloth) or mixed with other raw materials to form a new product (e.g. silica is used to make glass).[8]
  • ·另一个常惹官司的问题是受制于该条款的货物不是经过改良(如原材料的线织入布料中)就是跟其他原料混合在一起,形成另一个新的产品(如矽石被用来做成玻璃)。[8]
  • In some countries, where a clause purports to retain title until, not only the purchase price, but also any other debts of the buyer to the seller are paid in full, such clauses have been struck down for non-compliance with security registration requirements in those jurisdictions.



Sample Clauses  条款范文

Retention of title clauses will obviously vary from country to country, and even within countries they will usually be specialised to the form of industry used in, and the type of goods which are sold. The following are just two examples of the types of clause which can be seen.


A shorter form clause:


  1. Title to {the Goods} shall remain vested in {the Seller} and shall not pass to {the Buyer} until the purchase price for {the Goods} has been paid in full and received by {the Seller}.


A longer form clause:


  1. Title to {the Goods} shall remain vested in {the Seller} and shall not pass to {the Buyer} until the purchase price for {the Goods} has been paid in full and received by {the Seller}. Until title to {the Goods} passes:


1.  {the Seller} shall have authority to retake, sell or otherwise deal with and/or dispose of all or any part of {the Goods};


2.  {the Seller} and its agents and employees shall be entitled at any time and without the need to give notice enter upon any property upon which {the Goods} or any part are stored, or upon which {the Seller} reasonably believes them to be kept;


3.  {the Buyer} shall store or mark {the Goods} in a manner reasonably satisfactory to {the Seller} indicating that title to {the Goods} remains vested in {the Seller}; and


4.  {the Buyer} shall insure {the Goods} to their full replacement value, and arrange for {the Seller} to be noted on the policy of insurance as the loss payee.


  1. Irrespective of whether title to {the Goods} remains vested in {the Seller}, risk in {the Goods} shall pass to {the Buyer} upon delivery.



Case List  案例列表

  • Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Alumnium Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676

Aluminium Industrie Vaassen铝工业公司BV诉Romalpa Alumnium罗马巴铝业有限公司   [1976] 1 WLR 676

  • Re Peachdart [1984] Ch 131, if the clause applies to something not yet made, then it is a charge and must be registered to be effective.

Re Peachdart重保 [1984] 131章,如果该条款适用于一些尚未制造的货品,那么它就是一个赊账,必须登记才算有效。

  • Clough Mill Ltd v Martin [1984] 3 All ER 982, explaining how a simple clause operates.

Clough Mill Ltd克拉夫磨坊有限公司诉Martin马丁 [1984] 3 ALL ER 982,此案解释一个简单的条款如何运作。

  • Indian Oil v Greenstone Shipping [1987] 3 WLR 869

Indian Oil印度石油诉Greestone Shipping绿宝石船务 [1987] 3 WLR 869

  • E Pfeiffer v Arbuthnot Factors [1988] 1 WLR 150

E.Pfeiffer诉Arbuthnot Factors亚毕诺租赁信贷 [1988] 1 WLR 150

  • Compaq Computer v Abercorn [1991] BCC 484

Compaq Computer康柏电脑诉Abercom阿伯康 [1991] BCC 484

  • Armour v Thyssen [1991] 2 AC 339

Armour装甲诉Thyssen泰森 [1991] 2 AC 339


Notes  注

[1] ^ Named after the decision in Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Alumnium Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676

[1] ^在铝工业公司Vaassen BV诉Romalpa Alumnium有限公司 [1976] 1 WLR 676一案的决定之後命名。

[2] ^ The two most commonly suggested reasons are (i) that the provisions under the UCC of most States in the U.S.A. limit the effectiveness of such clauses, and (ii) that under American bankruptcy law, the relative ease of obtaining a stay of creditor’s rights in bankruptcy under Chapter 11 undermines the effect of such a clause. Whilst both reasons may apply to the U.S.A., it doesn’t really indicate why they should be less popular in other parts of North America

[2] ^最多人普遍认同的两个原因是(i)在美国大多数的州裡,根据UCC的規定限制这类条款的效力,以及(ii)根据美国破产法第11章的规定,相对容易獲取保留债权人的权利破坏了这种条款的效果。虽然这两个原因適用於美国,卻没有明确说明为什么他们在北美其他地区就不普遍。

[3] ^ For example, in the United Kingdom, where an administration order is made with respect to a company, section 11 of the Insolvency Act 1986 prevents goods being repossessed without the leave of the court.

[3] ^例如,在英国,当接管令发出给一家公司时,1986年破产法第11条就禁止未经法院许可,任何人不得收回货品。

[4] ^ For example, in England in Re Bond Worth Ltd [1980] Ch 228 such a clause was held to be void as it had not been registered within 21 days as required by section 395 of the Companies Act 1985

[4] ^例如,在英国Re Bond Worth 有限公司 [1980] 228章,这样的条款因为没有在21天内根据1985年的公司法第395条的规定作登记而被裁定为无效。

[5] ^ In most common law jurisdictions, so long as the clause prohibited mixing in this manner, the rule is that the buyer and the seller jointly own the whole mixture as tenants in common, see Indian Oil v. Greenstone Shipping [1987] 3 WLR 869

[5] ^在大部分普通法的司法管辖区里,只要该条款禁止以这种方式混合,规则就是买方和卖方就以分权共享人的身份共同拥有整个混合物,见Indian Oil印度石油公司诉Greenstone Shipping绿宝石航运[1987]3 WLR 869

[6] ^ For example, in England this is the effect of section 25(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, and section 2(1) of the Factors Act 1889

[6] ^例如,在英国,这是1979年货物买卖法第25条第(1)节和第1889年代理商法第2条第(1)节的效用。

[7] ^ In England, see E Pfeiffer v. Arbuthnot Factors [1988] 1 WLR 150, although a differently worded clause was distinguished and upheld in Compaq Computer v. Abercorn [1991] BCC 484

[7] ^在英国,见E Pfeiffer菲佛诉Arbuthnot Factors亚毕诺代收 [1988] 1 WLR 150,虽然措辞不同的条文在Compaq Computer康柏电脑诉Abercom阿伯康[1991] 484 BCC一例中被区分和维持原判。

[8] ^ Generally speaking, in England, the law has been consistently applied that if the retention of title clause purports to apply to the new substance which has been made, then it takes effect as a charge and would be void if not registered, see for example, Re Peachdart [1984] Ch 131

[8] ^一般来说,在英国,如果保留所有权条款有意用在已经制成的新物品里,那么就成为赊账,如果没有登记,就会失效,这套法律也一贯地沿用至今,例如,Re Peachdart [1984] 131章的案例。


Categories  分类

  • English law  英国法律
  • Business law  商业法
  • Contract law  合同法
  • Insolvency  破产法
  • Contract clauses  合同条款


—— END ——


Source > Wikipedia at

Translated by > BlogHost — hkTan

Word Count > approx.1100 words in English


Yellow Dog Contract 黄犬合同

June 6, 2012 Leave a comment

Yellow-dog Contract  黄犬合同


A yellow-dog contract (a yellow-dog clause[1] of a contract, or an ironclad oath) is an agreement between an employer and an employee in which the employee agrees, as a condition of employment, not to be a member of a labor union. In the United States, such contracts were, until the 1930s, widely used by employers to prevent the formation of unions, most often by permitting employers to take legal action against union organizers. In 1932, yellow-dog contracts were outlawed in the United States under the Norris-LaGuardia Act.[2][3]


The term yellow-dog clause can also have a different meaning: non-compete clauses within or appended to a non-disclosure agreement to prevent an employee from working for other employers in the same industry.[4]

黄犬条款这个名词也可以有不同的含义: 内部不竞争条款或附加在不披露协议之上,防止雇员为同业的雇主工作[4]。


Contents  目录

  • Origin of term and brief history  词源与简史
  • Yellow-dog union  黄犬工会
  • See also  另见
  • References  参考文献


Origin of Term and Brief History  词源与简史

In the 1870s, a written agreement containing a pledge not to join a union was commonly referred to as the “Infamous Document”. This strengthens the belief that American employers in their resort to individual contracts were consciously following English precedents. This anti-union pledge was also called an “iron clad document”, and from this time until the close of the 19th century “iron-clad” was the customary name for the non-union promise. Beginning with New York in 1887, sixteen states wrote on their statute books declarations making it a criminal act to force employees to agree not to join unions.[citation needed] The Congress of the United States incorporated in the Erdman Act of 1898 a provision relating to carriers engaged in interstate commerce.


During the last decade of the 19th century and the opening years of the 20th, the individual, anti-union promise declined in importance as an instrument in labor warfare. Its novelty had worn off; workers no longer felt themselves morally bound to live up to it and union organizers, of course, wholly disregarded it. In the early 20th century, the individual, anti-union promise was resorted to frequently in coal mining and in the metal trades. And it was not membership in a union that was usually prohibited, but participation in those essential activities without which membership is valueless.


In 1910, the International United Brotherhood of Leather Workers on Horse Goods, following an unsuccessful conference with the National Saddlery Manufacturers’ Association, called a national strike in the saddlery industry for the 8-hour day. The strike proved a failure, and a large number of employers required verbal or written promises to abandon and remain out of the organization as a condition of re-employment.


In the case Adair v. United States, the United States Supreme Court’s majority held that the provision of the Erdman Act relating to discharge, because it would compel an employer to accept or retain the personal services of another person against the employer’s will, was a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which declares that no person shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. The court was careful, however, to restrict the decision to the provision relating to discharge, and to express no opinion as to the remainder of the law. The section of the Erdman Act making it criminal to force employees to sign anti-union agreements therefore remained unadjudicated.


The term yellow dog started appearing in the spring of 1921, in leading articles and editorials devoted to the subject which appeared in the labor press. Typical was the comment of the editor of the United Mine Workers’ Journal:


This agreement has been well named. It is yellow dog for sure. It reduces to the level of a yellow dog any man that signs it, for he signs away every right he possesses under the Constitution and laws of the land and makes himself the truckling, helpless slave of the employer.[5]


Even though they were forbidden in the private sector by the Norris – LaGuardia Act in 1932, Yellow dog contracts were allowed in public sector, including with all sorts of government jobs, such as teachers, until the 1960s, beginning with precedent established in 1915 with Frederick v. Ownens.[6]


The purpose of the yellow dog contract is essentially to prevent employees from organizing. Such contracts are not enforceable, as they are illegal under the Norris-LaGuardia Act (Section 3).[7]



Yellow-dog Union  黄犬工会

A yellow-dog union, sometimes also known as a company union refers to an employee association calling itself a trade union but which, in fact, is affiliated covertly or which is operated openly by an employer.



See also  另见

  • Labour rights  劳工权益
  • Labour and employment law  劳工和就业法
  • Christian Labour Association of Canada  加拿大基督教劳工协会
  • Coppage v. Kansas 一案


References  参考文献

[1] ^ definition


[2] ^ Kaushik Basu (January 2006). “Coercion, Contract and the Limits of the Market (CAE Working Paper #06-01)”.

^Kaushik Basu(2006年1月)著的“强制性,合同以及市场的局限(CAE工作文件#06-01)”。

[3] ^ Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., The Crisis of the Old Order, 1919-1933, (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1957), pp. 238-239

^Arthur Schlesinger,Jr.著的“旧秩序的危机”,1919-1933,(Houghton Miffin公司,波士顿,1957),238-239页

[4] ^ James Hague, compiler & editor, Stephen Biggs: Halcyon Days: Interviews with Classic Computer and Video Game Programmers, June 2002

^James Hague,编辑与编纂人,“Stephen Biggs:Halcyon日:访问旧电脑以及电玩程序编写员”,2002年6月。

[5] ^ Joel I. Seidman, The Yellow Dog Contract, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1932, Ch. 1, pp.11-38

^Joel I.Seidman著的“黄犬合约“,Johns Hopkins出版社,1932,第一章,11-38页。

[6] ^ Slater, Joseph E.. Public Workers: Government Employee Unions, the Law and the State, 1900 – 1962. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 2004.

^Slater,Joseph E著的“公共员工:政府雇员工会,法律与国家”,1900-1962。Ithaca,纽约:ILR出版社,2004.

[7] ^ Roberts, Harold S. (1986) Roberts’ Dictionary of Industrial Relations (3rd ed.). p. 800.

^Roberts,Harold S.(1986)著的“Robert的工业关系字典”(第三版)第800页。


Categories  分类

  • Contract law  合同法
  • Labour law  劳动法
  • History of labor relations in the United States  美国的劳工关系史
  • History of the United States (1918–1945)  美国历史(1918年至1945年)


Other Categories  其他分类

Contract law  合同法

Part of the common law series  普通法系列的一部分

Contract formation  合同的订立

Offer and acceptance  邀约和承约:Mailbox rule 邮箱规则

Mirror image rule 镜像规则• Invitation to treat 邀请作交易

Firm offer 确定的邀约• Consideration 代价

Defenses against formation  抗辩合约的成立

Lack of capacity 能力不足

Duress 胁迫• Undue influence 不当的影响

Illusory promise 虚假的承诺• Statute of frauds 欺诈条例

Non est factum 否认定理契约的答辩

Contract interpretation  合同的释义

Parol evidence rule 口头证据规则

Contract of adhesion 附着力合同

Integration clause 集成条款

Contra proferentem 对条文发起人不利的解读

Excuses for non-performance 不履行的藉口

Mistake 过失• Misrepresentation 失实陈述

Frustration of purpose 目的受挫• Impossibility 不可能性质

Impracticability 不可行性质• Illegality 不合法

Unclean hands 不洁的手• Unconscionability 不合情理性质

Accord and satisfaction 协定和满意度

Rights of third parties  第三方的权利

Privity of contract 相互关系的合同

Assignment 转让• Delegation 转授

Novation 约务更替• Third party beneficiary 第三方受益人

Breach of contract  违约

Anticipatory repudiation 预期废除• Cover 承保

Exclusion clause 摒除条款• Efficient breach 有效率违约

Deviation 偏差• Fundamental breach 基本的违反

Remedies  补救措施

Specific performance 具体表现

Liquidated damages 算定的赔偿金

Penal damages 刑事赔偿• Rescission 撤销

Quasi-contractual obligations  半合同法律责任

Promissory estoppel 承诺不反悔

Quantum meruit 合理金额/按劳计酬

Related areas of law  相关领域的法律

Conflict of laws 法律冲突• Commercial law 商业法

Other common law areas  其他普通法适用地区

Tort law 侵权法·Property law 产权法

Wills, trusts and estates 遗嘱,信托和产业

Criminal law 刑法• Evidence 证据


—— END ——


Source > Wikipedia at

Translated by > BlogHost — hkTan

Word Count > approx.870 words in English


Himalaya Clause

June 1, 2012 Leave a comment

Himalaya Clause  喜马拉雅条款


A Himalaya clause is a contractual provision expressed to be for the benefit of a third party who is not a party to the contract. Although theoretically applicable to any form of contract, most of the jurisprudence relating to Himalaya clauses relate to marine matters, and exclusion clauses in bills of lading for the benefit of stevedores in particular.



Contents  目录

  • Origin of the term  专业用语的起源
  • Reasoning  辩护理由
  • Developments since Adler v Dickson 。Adler诉Dickson一案以后的发展
  • The United States  美国法律
  • Sample clause  条款范文
  • Footnotes  注脚


Origin of the Term  专业用语的起源

The clause takes its name from a decision of the English Court of Appeal in the case of Adler v Dickson (The Himalaya) [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 267, [1955] 1 QB 158 [1]. The claimant was a passenger on the S.S. Himalaya who had been injured when a gangway fell, throwing her onto the quayside below. The passenger ticket contained a non-responsibility clause exempting the carrier, so the claimant sued the master of the ship and the boatswain. The claimant argued that under the normal rules of privity of contract the defendants could not rely on the terms of a contract that they were not party to. However, the Court of Appeal declared that in the carriage of passengers as well as in the carriage of goods the law permitted a carrier to stipulate not only for himself, but also for those whom he engaged to carry out the contract. It was held as well that the stipulation might be express or implied. Ironically, on the facts before the court, it was held that the passenger ticket did not expressly or by implication benefit servants or agents and thus the defendants could not take advantage of the exception clause. However, after the decision, specially drafted Himalaya clauses benefiting stevedores and others began to be included in bills of lading.[1]

条款名称出自英国上诉法院在Adler诉Dickson阿德勒v迪克森(喜马拉雅号)[1955] Lloyd’s Rep 267 1 QB 158一案的判词. 索赔人是一位SS喜马拉雅号客船的乘客,在走道掉落时跌到码头岸边受了伤。船票中有一则条款豁免承运人的的责任,申请人就只好起诉船长和水手。索赔人认为,根据合同参与者的一般规则,被告不能依据不包括他们在内的合同中的条款去豁免责任。然而,上诉法院宣布,法律允许运载乘客以及货物的承运人不仅是规定自己,也包括受雇履行合同的人都豁免责任。而这种规定可以是明示也可以是默示的。讽刺的是,法庭根据呈上法庭的事实认为,船票并没有明示或暗示雇员或代理人也受益于不负责条款,因此,被告就不能引用例外条款来免责获益。然而,在这次裁定之后,对码头工人和其他人有利而特别起草的喜玛拉雅条款就开始被列入装卸提单中[1]。

The decision has subsequently been upheld several times by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and is now accepted as settled law in most common law countries.



Reasoning  辩护理由

Although the decision in The Himalaya is clear and unambiguous, the reasoning underpinning the case is still the subject of some debate. The courts at various times have suggested that the exception to the common law rules of privity of contract may be founded upon “public policy” reasoning, the law of agency, trust arrangements or (with respect to goods) by the law of bailment rather than the law of contracts.



Developments since Adler vs Dickson  爱德乐诉迪生一案以后的发展

The following cases reveal how English law has developed:


Scruttons v Midland Silicones [1962] AC 446: The House of Lords applied the Privity Rule to prevent a negligent stevedore from relying on a limitation clause in the bill or lading.

Scruttons诉Midland Silicons[1962] AC 446一案:上议院引用知情规则阻止一名疏忽的码头工人依据提货單中的限制条款的免责保护。

N.Z. Shipping v Satterthwaite (The Eurymedon) [1975] AC 154: The Privy Council found that enough had been done to allow a negligent stevedore to rely on such a limitation clause.

N.Z.船务诉Satterthwaite(The Eurymedon)[1975] AC 154一案:枢密院发现有足够的努力允許疏忽的码头工人可以依据這個限制条款的免责保护。

Port Jackson Stevedoring v Salmond, The New York Star [1980] 3 All ER 257 PC developed the law further.

Port Jackson码头工诉Salmond,纽约之星[1980] 2 All ER 257 PC 一案进一步发展这个法律。

Houtimport v Agrosin, The Starsin [2003] 1 Lloyds rep 571 also developed the law further.

Houtimport诉Agrosin,The Starsin [2003] 1 Lloyds rep 571一案也进一步发展这个法律。

Note that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (which amends the Doctrine of Privity) does NOT apply to contracts for the carriage of goods by sea.



The United States  美国法律

The decision of the English courts has been generally accepted and adopted throughout the Commonwealth. In the United States, which has always had a more circumspect view of the rules of privity of contract, has generally been accommodating to exceptions to the principle, and the decision in Herd v Krawill 59 US 297, [1959] Lloyd’s Rep 305 is generally taken to uphold them provided (as in other legal systems) certain criteria are ahered to.

英国法院的裁定已被普遍接受,也被整个英联邦采纳。美国法律中通常都有更周到的合同参与性规则,一般上都可容纳原则以外的例外状况,在Herd诉Krawill 59 US 297, [1959] Lloyd’s Rep 305一案的裁定总的来说是维持了这个观点,条件是有符合(其他法律制度)中的特定标准。


Sample Clause  条款范文

“It is hereby expressly agreed that no servant or agent of the carrier (including every independent contractor from time to time employed by the carrier) shall in any circumstances whatsoever be under any liability whatsoever to the shipper, consignee or owner of the goods or to any holder of this Bill of Lading for any loss, damage or delay of whatsoever kind arising or resulting directly or indirectly from any act, neglect or default on his part while acting in the course of or in connection with his employment and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this clause, every exemption, limitation, condition and liberty herein contained and every right, exemption from liability, defense and immunity of whatsoever nature applicable to the carrier or to which the carrier is entitled hereunder shall also be available and shall extend to protect every such servant or agent of the carrier acting as aforesaid and for the purpose of all the foregoing provisions of this clause the carrier is or shall be deemed to be acting as agent or trustee on behalf of and for the benefit of all persons who are or might be his servants or agents from time to time (including independent contractors as aforesaid) and all such persons shall to this extent be or be deemed to be parties to the contract in or evidenced by this Bill of Lading.”[2]



Footnotes  注脚

[1] ^ The decision itself has been partly superseded by legislation in the United Kingdom on two fronts. Under s.2(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, it is now no longer possible to limit liability for personal injury or death caused by negligence, and under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 contracts can confer benefits upon persons not party to the contract, in a wider form than under the judicial decision. Although contracts for carriage of goods by sea are excluded from the operation of the Act in order to avoid conflict with the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, the Act does apply to giving a third party the benefit of an exclusion or limitation clause in the contract.


[2] ^ Eisen und Metall AG v Ceres Stevedoring Co Ltd and Canadian Overseas Shipping Ltd (The Cleveland) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 665

     ^Eisen und Metall AG艾森与冶金公司诉Ceres Stevedoring Co Ltd与Canadian Overseas Shipping Ltd(The Cleaveland)谷神星港埠有限公司和加拿大海外船务有限公司(克利夫兰)[1977] 1 Lloyd Rep 665

—— END ——


Source > Wikipedia at

Translated by > BlogHost

Word Count > approx. 1100 words in English


Vis Major

Vis Major  主要可见


Vis major (play /ˌvɪs ˈmeɪdʒər/; in Latin ‘a superior force’) is a greater or superior force; an irresistible force. It may be a loss that results immediately from a natural cause that could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. It is also termed as vis divina or superior force.

主要可见(拉丁语是指“优势”)是一个更大的优势力量,一种不可抗拒的力量。它可能是一个审慎,尽力和小心还是无法预防损失的自然成因所造成的损失。它也被称为vis divina或优势力量。

It is an irresistible violence; inevitable accident or act of God. Its nature and power absolutely uncontrollable, for example, the inroads of a hostile army or forcible robberies, may relieve from liability from contract.


This term has specific meaning in regard to strict liability. Strict liability in the law of torts allows for the accrual of liability against an actor where there is no fault or proximate cause given the damages arose from their participation in an ultrahazardous activity, i.e. blasting, damming of water, etc. However, “vis major” offers an exception to such liability. In Fletcher v. Rylands In the Exchequer Chamber, L.R. 1 Ex. 265, 1866, affirmed in the House of Lords on appeal in Rylands v. Fletcher L.R. 3 H.L. 330, the exception of vis major is introduced:

这个术语在严格责任方面有特别的含义。在侵权法中,严格责任允许一名行事者在没有人犯错或没有近因的情况下参与高度危险的活动时,如爆破, 水坝破裂等等造成的损伤不必负责赔偿。不过,“重大事件“对这种赔偿责任则有例外。在Fletcher诉Rylands(财政大臣厅内,LR 1 Ex.265,1866年)案中,众议院上议院在Rylands诉Fletcher(LR 3 HL 330)上诉案里肯定了“大事件”也有例外之处:

“[Defendant] can excuse himself by showing that the escape [of a dangerous substance] was owing to the plaintiff’s default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God… [emphasis added]” -Blackburn J Fletcher v. Rylands L.R. 1 Ex. 265, 1866.

“[被告]可以不必负责,但必须证明躲避[危险性质]是原告的错,或者躲避是因为重大事件或天灾的结果….. [特别强调] “Fletchers诉Rylands LR 1 Ex.265,1866。

The existence of vis major, or an act of God, will preclude the use of the theory of strict liability given the impossibility of anticipating such an event. (Think of a dam breaking after a hurricane where there is no negligence found on the part of the owner/operator of the dam.)



See also  另见

  • Force majeure 不可抗力


References 参考文献

  • Black’s Law Dictionary, P.1567, 7th Edn.,


  • Mitra’s Legal & Commercial Dictionary – 4th Edn., Eastern Law House, Page 790

Mitra法律和商业词典 – 第4版,东方律师楼,790页。

  • Prosser Wade and Schwartz’s Torts: Cases and Materials, 11th Edn., Foundation Press, P. 694

Prosser Wade与Schwartz的侵权法:案例与资料,第11版,基金会出版社,第694页。

Categories 分类

  • Contract law 合同法

Part of the common law series 普通法系列的一部分

  • Contract formation 合同的订立

Offer and acceptance 邀约和承约:Mailbox rule 邮箱规则

Mirror image rule 镜像规则 • Invitation to treat 邀请作交易

Firm offer 确定的邀约 • Consideration 代价

  • Defenses against formation 抗辩合约的成立

Lack of capacity 能力不足

Duress 胁迫• Undue influence 不当的影响

Illusory promise 虚假的承诺• Statute of frauds 欺诈条例

Non est factum 否认定理契约的答辩

  • Contract interpretation 合同的释义

Parol evidence rule 口头证据规则

Contract of adhesion 附着力合同

Integration clause 集成条款

Contra proferentem 对条文发起人不利的解读

  • Excuses for non-performance 不履行的藉口

Mistake 过失 • Misrepresentation 失实陈述

Frustration of purpose 目的受挫 • Impossibility 不可能性质

Impracticability 不可行性质 • Illegality 不合法

Unclean hands 不洁的手 • Unconscionability 不合情理性质

Accord and satisfaction 协定和满意度

  • Rights of third parties 第三方的权利

Privity of contract 相互关系的合同

Assignment 转让 • Delegation 转授

Novation 约务更替 • Third party beneficiary 第三方受益人

  • Breach of contract 违约

Anticipatory repudiation 预期废除• Cover 承保

Exclusion clause 摒除条款 • Efficient breach 有效率违约

Deviation 偏差 • Fundamental breach 基本的违反

  • Remedies 补救措施

Specific performance 具体表现

Liquidated damages 算定的赔偿金

Penal damages 刑事赔偿 • Rescission 撤销

  • Quasi-contractual obligations 半合同法律责任

Promissory estoppel 承诺不反悔

Quantum meruit 合理金额/按劳计酬

  • Related areas of law 相关领域的法律

Conflict of laws 法律冲突 • Commercial law 商业法

  • Other common law areas 其他普通法适用地区

Tort law 侵权法 · Property law 产权法

Wills, trusts and estates 遗嘱,信托和产业

Criminal law 刑法 • Evidence 证据

—— END ——


Source > Wikipedia at

Translated by > BlogHost

Word Count > approx.330 words


Force Majeure

Force Majeure  不可抗力


Force majeure (French; pronounced: [fɔʁs maʒœʁ], approximately fors ma-zhur) or vis major (Latin) “superior force”, also known as cas fortuit (French) or casus fortuitus (Latin) “chance occurrence, unavoidable accident”,[1] is a common clause in contracts that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, or an event described by the legal term act of God (such as hurricane, flooding, earthquake, volcanic eruption, etc.), prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract.[2]

不可抗力 ( 法文 ; 相近义或主要可见/大事件 (拉丁文)“强大力量”,又称cas fortuit(法国)或casus fortuitus(拉丁文)“偶然发生,无法避免的事故”[1],是合同里常见的条款,基本上在发生一件不可控又非比寻常的事件或状况之下,如战争,罢工,暴动 ,犯罪,或法律条文所描述的天灾( 如飓风,洪水,地震,火山爆发等等)让有法律义务与责任的双方都能不必负责,免除一方或双方根据合同履行其义务的要求[2]。

However, force majeure is not intended to excuse negligence or other malfeasance of a party, as where non-performance is caused by the usual and natural consequences of external forces (for example, predicted rain stops an outdoor event), or where the intervening circumstances are specifically contemplated.

但是, 不可抗力不能因为外界力量(如预测下雨而停办户外活动)造成的平常与自然后果,或特别设想去制造干预的状况之下不能执行合约而免除其中一方疏忽或其他渎职的责任。


Contents 目录

  • Purpose  目的
  • Importance  重要性
  • Elements  因素
  • Sample clause  范文
  • See also  另见
  • References  参考文献
  • Note  註记
  • External links  外部链接


Purpose 目的

Time-critical and other sensitive contracts may be drafted to limit the shield of this clause where a party does not take reasonable steps (or specific precautions) to prevent or limit the effects of the outside interference, either when they become likely or when they actually occur. A force majeure may work to excuse all or part of the obligations of one or both parties. For example, a strike might prevent timely delivery of goods, but not timely payment for the portion delivered. Similarly, a widespread power outage would not be a force majeure excuse if the contract requires the provision of backup power or other contingency plans for continuity.


A force majeure may also be the overpowering force itself, which prevents the fulfillment of a contract. In that instance, it is actually the impossibility or impracticability defenses.

不可抗力 本身也可能是压倒性的力量,从而阻止合同的履行。在这种情况下,不可抗力本身其实就是不可能或不可行的辩护理由。

In the military, force majeure has a slightly different meaning. It refers to an event, either external or internal, that happens to a vessel or aircraft that allows it to enter normally restricted areas without penalty. An example would be the Hainan Island incident where a U.S. Navy aircraft landed at a Chinese military airbase after a collision with a Chinese fighter in April 2001. Under the principle of force majeure, the aircraft must be allowed to land without interference.



Importance  重要性

The importance of the force majeure clause in a contract, particularly one of any length in time, cannot be overstated as it relieves a party from an obligation under the contract (or suspends that obligation). What is permitted to be a force majeure event or circumstance can be the source of much controversy in the negotiation of a contract and a party should generally resist any attempt by the other party to include something that should, fundamentally, be at the risk of that other party. For example, in a coal-supply agreement, the mining company may seek to have “geological risk” included as a force majeure event; however, the mining company should be doing extensive exploration and analysis of its geological reserves and should not even be negotiating a coal-supply agreement if it cannot take the risk that there may be a geological limit to its coal supply from time to time. The outcome of that negotiation, of course, depends on the relative bargaining power of the parties and there will be cases where force majeure clauses can be used by a party effectively to escape liability for bad performance.


In Hackney Borough Council v. Dore (1922) 1 KB 431 it was held that “The expression means some physical or material restraint and does not include a reasonable fear or apprehension of such a restraint”.

在Hackney Borough Council诉Dore的案子里,法官认为“(对不可抗力)表述的意思是说有物理和物质上的局限,但不包括对这种局限合理的恐惧和害怕。

The expression bears more extensive meaning than “act of God” or vis major. As to delay due to breakdown of machinery, it comes within the words “force majeure”, which certainly cover accidents to machinery. The term cannot, however, be extended to cover bad weather, football matches, or a funeral. Matsoukis v. Priestman & Co (1915) 1 KB 681.

這個表述比起“天灾”或大事件有更廣泛的含義。因為機械故障而延誤,“ 不可抗力 ”這個字當然就包含了機械意外在內。但是,這個名詞的涵蓋範圍不能被扩展到包括恶劣天气,足球比赛,或葬礼。如Matsoukis對Priestman & Co (1915年)的案例。

The expression is undoubtedly a term of wider import than vis major. Judges have agreed that strikes, breakdown of machinery, which though normally not included in vis major, are included in force majeure.


In Re Dharnrajmal Gobindram v. Shamji Kalidas [All India Reporter 1961 Supreme Court (of India) 1285] it was held that “An analysis of ruling on the subject shows that reference to the expression is made where the intention is to save the defaulting party from the consequences of anything over which he had no control”.

在Re Dharnrajmal Gobindram诉Shamji Kalidas [(All India Report)全印度報導1961年最高法院(印度)1285]的案例中,法官認為“根據案件判決的分析顯示,有參考引用的表述在於要替违约方善後處理任何他无法控制之事的意圖”。

Under international law it refers to an irresistible force or unforeseen event beyond the control of a State making it materially impossible to fulfil an international obligation. Force majeure precludes an international act from being wrongful where it otherwise would have been.



Elements  因素

The understanding of force majeure in French law is similar to that of international law and vis major as defined above. For a defendant to invoke force majeure in French law, the event proposed as force majeure must pass three tests:


Externality  源自外部

The defendant must have nothing to do with the event’s happening.


Unpredictability  不可预测性

If the event could be foreseen, the defendant is obligated to have prepared for it.[3] Being unprepared for a foreseeable event leaves the defendant culpable. This standard is very strictly applied:


CE 9 April 1962, “Chais d’Armagnac”: The Conseil d’Etat adjudged that, since a flood had occurred 69 years before the one that caused the damage at issue, the latter flood was predictable.

CE 1962年4月9日,“Chais d’Armagnac行政長官”:The Counceil d’Etat行政法院裁定,由于洪水在69年前已经发生过现在这个问题的破坏,以后的洪水就可以预见。

Administrative tribunal of Grenoble, 19 June 1974, “Dame Bosvy”: An avalanche was judged to be predictable since another had occurred around 50 years before.


Irresistibility  不可抗拒

The consequences of the event must have been unpreventable.


Other events that are candidates for force majeure in French law are hurricanes and earthquakes. Force majeure is a cause of relief from responsibility that is applicable throughout French law.


On the other hand, the German understanding goes under the German translation of vis major (höhere Gewalt) but seems conceptually synonymous with the common law interpretation of force majeure, comprehending both natural disasters and events such as strikes, civil unrest, and war. However, even in the event of force majeure, liability persists in the face of default by a debtor (Schuldnerverzug, cf. BGB §287 (in German)) or deprivation of property (Sachentziehung, cf. BGB §848 (in German)).


Force Majeure in areas prone to natural disaster requires a definition of the magnitude of the event for which Force Majeure could be considered as such in a contract. As an example in a highly seismic area a technical definition of the amplitude of motion at the site could be established on the contract base for example on probability of occurrence studies. This parameter or parameters can later be monitored at the construction site (with a commonly agreed procedure). An earthquake could be a small shaking or damaging event. The occurrence of an earthquake does not imply the occurrence of damage or disruption. For small and moderate events it is reasonable to establish requirements for the contract processes; for large events it is not always feasible or economical to do so. Concepts such as ‘damaging earthquake’ in force majeure clauses does not help to clarify disruption, especially in areas where there are no other reference structures or most structures are not seismically safe.[4]


Force majeure and cas fortuit are distinct notions in French Law.

不可抗力cas fortuit在法国律法中是很特出的观念。


Sample Clause  範文

The following is an example of how force majeure might be described in a specific contract.


Clause 19. Force Majeure  第19条。不可抗力

A party is not liable for failure to perform the party’s obligations if such failure is as a result of Acts of God (including fire, flood, earthquake, storm, hurricane or other natural disaster), war, invasion, act of foreign enemies, hostilities (regardless of whether war is declared), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, military or usurped power or confiscation, terrorist activities, nationalisation, government sanction, blockage, embargo, labor dispute, strike, lockout or interruption or failure of electricity or telephone service. No party is entitled to terminate this Agreement under Clause 17 (Termination) in such circumstances.


If a party asserts Force Majeure as an excuse for failure to perform the party’s obligation, then the nonperforming party must prove that the party took reasonable steps to minimize delay or damages caused by foreseeable events, that the party substantially fulfilled all non-excused obligations, and that the other party was timely notified of the likelihood or actual occurrence of an event described in Clause 19 (Force Majeure).



See also  另见

  • Acts of God  天灾
  • Contract law  合同法
  • Hardship clause  艰难条款
  • Hell or high water clause  地狱或高水位条款
  • Impossibility  不可能的事
  • Mutual assent  相互同意
  • Substantial performance  实质履行
  • Vis major  主要可见/大事件


References  参考文献

[1] ^ Royal Institute of Thailand. (n.d.). Word Coinage by the Royal Institute of Thailand. accessed 18 March 2008.

^ 泰国皇家学院 。(n.d.)。泰国皇家学会的造字。 2008年3月18日检索。

[2] ^ Principle of Force Majeure (including international references),

^ 不可抗力(包括国际引用)的原则,

[3] ^ Lufthansa – Terms & Conditions

^ 德国汉莎航空公司-条款及条件

[4] ^ (Spanish) Force Majeure Construction and Earthquakes

^ (西班牙语)不可抗力的建设和地震


Note  註記

  • Mitra Legal & Commercial Dictionary-Mitra法律和商业的词典。350-351页。第四版。Eastern Law House。ISBN 978-8171770151。


External Links  外部链接

  • (Spanish) Force Majeure Construction and Earthquakes



Categories  分类

  • Contract clauses  合同条款
  • French legal terms  法国法律名词
  • French loanwords  法语外来词
  • Contract law  合同法


Other Categories  其他分类

  • Contract law  合同法

Part of the common law series  普通法系列的一部分

  • Contract formation  合同的订立

Offer and acceptance 邀约和承约:Mailbox rule  邮箱规则

Mirror image rule  镜像规则 • Invitation to treat  邀请作交易

Firm offer  确定的邀约 • Consideration 代价

  • Defenses against formation  抗辩合约的成立

Lack of capacity  能力不足

Duress 胁迫 • Undue influence 不当的影响

Illusory promise 虚假的承诺 • Statute of frauds 欺诈条例

Non est factum 否认定理契约的答辩

  • Contract interpretation  合同的释义

Parol evidence rule  口头证据规则

Contract of adhesion  附着力合同

Integration clause  集成条款

Contra proferentem  对条文发起人不利的解读

  • Excuses for non-performance  不履行的藉口

Mistake  过失 • Misrepresentation  失实陈述

Frustration of purpose 目的受挫 • Impossibility 不可能性质

Impracticability 不可行性质 • Illegality 不合法

Unclean hands 不洁的手 • Unconscionability 不合情理性质

Accord and satisfaction 协定和满意度

  • Rights of third parties  第三方的权利

Privity of contract 相互关系的合同

Assignment 转让 • Delegation 转授

Novation 约务更替 • Third party beneficiary 第三方受益人

  • Breach of contract  违约

Anticipatory repudiation 预期废除 • Cover 承保

Exclusion clause 摒除条款 • Efficient breach 有效率违约

Deviation 偏差 • Fundamental breach 基本的违反

  • Remedies  补救措施

Specific performance 具体表现

Liquidated damages 算定的赔偿金

Penal damages 刑事赔偿 • Rescission 撤销

  • Quasi-contractual obligations  半合同法律责任

Promissory estoppel 承诺不反悔

Quantum meruit 合理金额/按劳计酬

  • Related areas of law  相关领域的法律

Conflict of laws 法律冲突 • Commercial law 商业法

  • Other common law areas  其他普通法适用地区

Tort law 侵权法 · Property law 产权法

Wills, trusts and estates 遗嘱,信托和产业

Criminal law 刑法 • Evidence 证据

—— END ——


Source > Wikipedia at

Translated by > BlogHost

Word Count > approx.1480 words in English


High Water Clause

March 5, 2012 Leave a comment

Hell or High Water Clause  地狱或高水位条款


A hell or high water clause is a clause in a contract, usually a lease, which provides that the payments must continue irrespective of any difficulties which the paying party may encounter (usually in relation to the operation of the leased asset). The clause usually forms part of a parent company guarantee. It is intended to limit the applicability of the doctrines of impossibility or frustration of purpose. The term for the clause comes from a colloquial expression that a task must be accomplished “come Hell or high water” that is, regardless of any difficulty.



See also  另见

  • Hardship clause  困苦条款
  • Force majeure  不可抗力


External links  外部链接

  • Article: “Are Hell or High Water Clauses and Waiver of Defence Clauses Enforceable?”


  • Article: “Hell or high water clauses: Make them work for you

 文章:“地狱或高水位条款:让它们为你效劳 ”


Categories  分类

  • Contract law  合同法

  Part of the common law series  普通法系列的一部分

  • Contract formation  合同的订立

  Offer and acceptance 邀约和承约: Mailbox rule 邮箱规则

  Mirror image rule 镜像规则 • Invitation to treat 邀请作交易

  Firm offer 确定的邀约• Consideration 代价

  • Defenses against formation 抗辩合约的成立

  Lack of capacity 能力不足

  Duress 胁迫 • Undue influence  不当的影响

  Illusory promise  虚假的承诺 • Statute of frauds  欺诈条例

  Non est factum  否认定理契约的答辩

  • Contract interpretation  合同的释义

  Parol evidence rule  口头证据规则

  Contract of adhesion  附着力合同

  Integration clause  集成条款

  Contra proferentem  对条文发起人不利的解读

  • Excuses for non-performance  不履行的藉口

  Mistake  过失 • Misrepresentation  失实陈述

  Frustration of purpose  目的受挫 • Impossibility  不可能性质

  Impracticability  不可行性质 • Illegality  不合法

  Unclean hands  不洁的手 • Unconscionability  不合情理性质

  Accord and satisfaction  协定和满意度

  • Rights of third parties  第三方的权利

  Privity of contract  相互关系的合同

  Assignment  转让 • Delegation  转授

  Novation  约务更替 • Third party beneficiary  第三方受益人

  • Breach of contract  违约

  Anticipatory repudiation  预期废除 • Cover  承保

  Exclusion clause  摒除条款 • Efficient breach  有效率违约

  Deviation  偏差 • Fundamental breach  基本的违反

  • Remedies  补救措施

  Specific performance  具体表现

  Liquidated damages  算定的赔偿金

  Penal damages  刑事赔偿 • Rescission  撤销

  • Quasi-contractual obligations  半合同法律责任

  Promissory estoppel  承诺不反悔

  Quantum meruit  合理金额/按劳计酬

  • Related areas of law  相关领域的法律

  Conflict of laws  法律冲突 • Commercial law  商业法

  • Other common law areas  其他普通法适用地区

  Tort law  侵权法 · Property law  产权法

  Wills, trusts and estates  遗嘱,信托和产业

  Criminal law  刑法 • Evidence  证据

—— END ——


Source > Wikipedia at

Translated by > BlogHost

Word Count > approx.330 words in English


%d bloggers like this: