ENG CHN BIMCO ICE CLAUSE Navigation in ice-brief Canada
Ice clause in charter parties
Please refer to the “BIMCO ICE CLAUSE” attached for following:
BIMCO Ice Clause for Time Charter Parties
BIMCO Ice Clause for Voyage Charter Parties
Safe port
The classic definition of a “safe port” is “… a port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period of time, the particular ship can reach it, use it and return from it without, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship…” (The Eastern City). The criteria which has to be applied in determine whether a port is a “safe port” is a matter of law, while safety is a question of fact. Any unsafe port case on account of ice will turn on findings of fact.
Icebound port
A port which would naturally be icebound for certain months of the year is not an icebound port within the meaning of an ice clause if it is kept open by ice breakers. This is also clarified in the Livanita that “the fact that a port may customarily be affected by ice does not equate to the port being unsafe and particular so where the charter itself contemplates what may be thought to be the usual safe use of the port in winter involving ice breakers.”
What if ice en route?
The master may refuse to force ice. If he elects to force ice instead of waiting for icebreaker assistance, in order to reach to the port of destination, then the charterers will not be responsible for damages arising from forcing ice (Limerick v. Stott). But if the port cannot be reached in safety and the master has to force ice, the charterers may be liable for the damage to the ship on ground that the port is unsafe (The Sussex Oak).
Ice clause not modify safe port warranty
The ice clause actually appears to both reinforce and broaden the warranty by expressly stating the master’s right to refuse to enter a port which may be dangerous because of ice conditions, or which the master reasonably may fear will become dangerous because of ice.
International navigation limits/Institute warranty limits
It has long been common for time charterparties to define the limits within which the charterer is entitled to trade the ship. It is important for the owners to check the trading warranties agreed upon, especially since charterparties very often refer to the Institute Warranty Limits (IWL) or International Navigation Limits (INL).
The hull underwriter may allow vessels to trade outside the IWL/INL depending on conditions and the time of the season, with requesting an additional premium for such a voyage. If the vessel would stay in such excluded area, please check that the underwriters have agreed such extensions otherwise the cover may be void.
It seems largely unnoticed that IWL were replaced by INL on 1 November 2003, which re-arranged, redefined the relevant areas and added new areas as well. If the vessel was insured on the basis of INL however the charterparty was refer to IWL, the owner may find itself in the position of contractually bound to go to somewhere for which cover is excluded by hull and machinery insurance. Therefore, you are recommended to speak to us if any doubt about the extent for their hull and machinery cover.
Navigation in ice
Navigation in ice is an enormous exposure for a ship and not so many vessels are fit or classed for sailing in ice. If the vessel encounter the situation to sail or have to sail in ice, always contact us about the information of port condition and obtain assistance. Also, the local government may have publications for ice navigation, such as Canada. Please refer to “Navigation in ice-brief Canada” attached for your reference.
See attached file : ALCO20120025Ice Clause and Unsafe Port.pdf ;BIMCO ICE CLAUSE.pdf ;Navigation in ice-brief Canada.pdf
冰封条款和不安全港口
租约中的冰封条款
随函附上的 “BIMCO ICE CLAUSE” 可作为您的参考，内容包括：
定期租船合同中的BIMCO冰封条款
航次租船合同中的BIMCO冰封条款
安全港口
关于 “安全港口” 的定义在 The Eastern City 案中由法官作了经典的诠释： “…在没有突发事件的情形下，在一定的相关时间内，船员即使使用了良好的船艺，亦不能安全地驶入、靠及离开的港口，这个港口就是不安全港口” 。判断一个港口是否安全的标准属于法律范畴，而安全本身则是一个事实问题。与冰冻有关的不安全港口案件将会依靠事实证据的判断。
冰封港口
一个每年都会因自然原因有几个月之冰封期的港口，若能用破冰船使之开放，则其并不是冰封条款中所指的冰封港口。这同样在 The Livanita 中被阐述如下： “一个港口因（季节地理之原因）通常地有冰的存在，这本身并不一定意味着港口的不安全性。而在一个租约自身条款中涉及到在冬季为了通常安全使用港口而有可能使用破冰船的情况下更是如此。”
如果在航行途中遇上冰封?
船长可以拒绝强行越出冰封地带。如果船长选择强行驶出冰封地区来驶向目的港口，而不是等待破冰船的帮助，那么承租人可不对因此强行驶出冰区的行为承担责任( Limerick v. Stott) 。但若此目的港口不能为船舶安全到达，船长因此不得不强行驶出冰区，那么承租人会因港口为不安全港而对所造成的损失承担责任 (The Sussex Oak) 。
冰封条款并没有减轻安全港口保证之责任
冰封条款实际上通过明示表明当进入一个港口可能因为其冰情、或船长有合理的认为冰情将会使情况变得危险之恐惧时，船长有权利拒绝进入该港口，而增强和扩大了安全港口保证的义务。
（伦敦保险人）协会保证航行范围
在期租中往往会将承租人有权航行船舶的区域范围作出限制。对于船东来说很重要的一点就是租约中确认的航行范围，尤其是租约常常会在航行范围保证的条款中直接指向协会保证航行范围 Institute Warranty Limits (IWL) 或 International Navigation Limits (INL)。
船壳保险人可能会根据具体情况和季节时间来允许船长在IWL/INL范围之外航行，并要求范围外航行的附加保费。如果船舶将会在范围外区域停留，请确认保险人已经同意这样的条款扩充，否则保单可能会无效。
IWL已有INL（发布于2003年11月1日）这一取代者的情况似乎未被普及，后者重新安排、定义了相关的航行区域并新增了一些区域。如果船舶是在INL的基础中被承保的，但是相关的租约合同仍是指向IWL，此时船东可能会发现他们有在船壳险航行范围不允许的区域航行的租约合同义务。因此，若有任何关于船壳险航行范围的疑问，请您与我司联系进行确认。
冰海航行
在冰海中航行对船舶来说是巨大的危险，而且并非有很多船舶适合于在冰海航行或船级为能在冰海航行。如果船舶遇到了在冰海航行或不得不在冰海航行的情况，请您与我司联系以获取当地港口状况的信息并获得帮助。当地的政府可能也有冰海航行相关的文件，比如加拿大。请参考随函附上的 “Navigation in ice-brief Canada” 中加拿大的规定简述。
以上由 ANDREW LIU & CO.,LTD 编译，应以英文为准！
详细信息请参阅附件。
