近年來海盜行為猖獗,於亞丁灣與非洲之角(索馬利亞半島)尤為嚴重。海盜之問題對於全球航運業及保險業之運作有相當之影響,本文擬從海事法之角度就相關問題加以觀察。 於海事法就海盜行為之定義是否應與國際公法或刑事法上之海盜行為定義為相同之解釋?抑或應於海事法中就海盜行為賦予不同之定義,成為重要之議題。觀諸英國法之態度,其認為於海事法之規範下,應就商業上相關問題加以考量,而採取較國際公法或刑法為寬鬆之態度。 現代之海盜行為模式係以勒索贖金之目的而捕獲船舶或船員,與過去以自己使用之目的而劫掠船舶大不相同。針對此現象,本文探討海盜行為之危險如何承保於現行海上保險實務,並討論遭海盜捕獲之船舶或貨物是否構成英國《1906年海上保險法》之實際全損或推定全損。 支付海盜贖金之行為,並無違反英國法抑或是英國之公序良俗。於此前提下,本文就被保險人支付予海盜之贖金得否視為損害防阻費用或共同海損費用 而獲補償之問題,加以研究並深入探討。
In recent years, piracy, particularly off the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa, has become a major problem for global shipping and insurance industries. The new issues and questions emerged as a result, including the effects on the marine insurance law in regards to piracy. This essay discussion of current events and English law as it affects marine insurance law. The definition of piracy adopted at public international law and criminal law is unconformable with that adopted by marine insurance law in its civil or commercial sphere, the marine insurance law definition is not so confined. Modern piracy is very different from that of the past, who captured the ship, kept the crew, in order to demand ransom for the release of any hostages. This essay looks to where the peril of piracy fits with in a modern insurance market, and discusses whether capture by pirates constitutes an actual total loss or a constructive total loss under the Marine Insurance Act 1906. The payment of ransom was not illegal under English law, and also not contrary to United Kingdom public policy. In the absence of any illegality or contravention of public policy, this essay explores whether the payments of ransom are recoverable as a sue and labour expense or a general average expenditure.