伯马石油有限公司诉总检察长
| 伯马石油有限公司 诉 总检察长 | |
|---|---|
.svg) | |
| 法院 | 上议院 |
| 判决下达日期 | 1964年4月21日 |
| 判例引注 | [1965] AC 75 |
| 转录 | 上议院裁决 |
| 案件历史 | |
| 后续行动 | 1965年战争损害法令 |
| 法庭成员 | |
| 法官 | 李特勋爵、拉德克利夫子爵、霍德森勋爵、皮尔斯勋爵、阿普约翰勋爵 |
伯马石油有限公司诉总检察长（英语：Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate；[1965] AC 75），是一个在苏格兰提告的法院案件，其最终在英国上议院中做出裁决。该案件是英国宪法中的一个重要决定，在当时具有不同寻常的法律影响，并引起极大争议。[1][2]
经过
[编辑]这起案件涉及1942年第二次世界大战期间，英国军队对缅甸油田的破坏。英方为了防止在其撤退后石油装置等有关战略性设施落入推进的大日本帝国陆军的手中，下令进行在缅甸采取“焦土政策”的军事行动，并炸毁其公司在缅甸的油田及设施。而事后，英国政府拒绝伯马石油公司的赔偿要求，且并未做出任何赔偿；其直接影响了伯马石油有限公司，因此该公司对英国政府采取法律行动。而英国政府方由苏格兰总检察长（Lord Advocate）代表。[3][4]
在苏格兰高等民事法院的外庭，基尔布兰登勋爵发现了支持伯马石油的理据。当局提出上诉。高等民事法院内庭第一分部一致推翻了以下决定。随后，伯马石油向上议院提出上诉。
大法官
[编辑]上议院一共委任了5个大法官，负责最终的裁决结果。他们分别为：李特勋爵、拉德克利夫子爵、霍德森勋爵、皮尔斯勋爵、阿普约翰勋爵。最终，上议院以3比2通过判决，裁定英国政府需要赔偿伯马石油有限公司在缅甸军事行动中，炸毁的设施所造成的财产损失。
以下为各法官的观点[1]：
同意
[编辑]霍德森勋爵
[编辑]霍德森勋爵（Lord Hodson）认为：“在这项上诉中产生的核心问题是：对于财产根据其特权权力销毁的财产是否应当支付或不支付赔偿金以防止其落入敌人手中。”[注 1]
皮尔斯勋爵
[编辑]皮尔斯勋爵（Lord Pearce）认为：“在阁下之前，官方摧毁追讨者财产的权力范围就一直备受争议。双方都同意破坏是合法的。我有点怀疑这是凭借官方的某方面特权来完成的，因为这是在战争和危险时期保护其领土和公民的权利和义务。”[注 2]
阿普约翰勋爵
[编辑]阿普约翰勋爵（Lord Upjohn）认为：“我发现我自己与我那高尚和学识渊博的朋友——李特勋爵和皮尔斯勋爵——所表达的观点达成了如此普遍的一致，他们的观点我有机会阅读；我不打算耽搁阁下很长一段时间。我也发现苏格兰高等民事法院外庭法官（Lord Ordinary）的判断非常引人注目，我已经为他找到了充分的权威引用。”[注 3]
反对
[编辑]拉德克利夫子爵
[编辑]拉德克利夫子爵（Viscount Radcliffe）认为：
| “ | 我认为这是一个非常特殊的案例。 我认为，仅仅根据诉状，这是不方便的。 我非常怀疑它是否在真正的基础上进行。 双方同意有关的破坏行为是合法的，无论如何，上诉人的案件完全取决于他们在行使特权时所做的理论。 被访者的论点中有很多（但不是全部）接受了这一立场。 正如我们只是含糊地知道这个特权是什么，甚至在历史上何时以及在什么场合断言时都有更多的信息，我越来越不确定我们真正在谈论的是什么。[注 4] | ” |
李特勋爵
[编辑]李特勋爵（Lord Reid）认为：
| “ | 在阁下向他们提起诉讼之前，一共有4起案例根据1857年的《官方诉讼法令》对他们提起诉讼。当与日本爆发战争时，这些公司在缅甸拥有广泛的财产，包括油井、管道、炼油厂、其他建筑物和石油，还有其他货物的库存。 当日本人入侵缅甸时，这些被英国政府下令摧毁；上诉人声称，他们有权支付这笔款项，以使债权人因破坏而遭受的损害。苏格兰高等民事法院外庭法官、基尔布兰登勋爵，两人拒绝了恳求，债权者的申请是无关紧要的，并且允许在回答之前提供证据。1963年3月14日，上诉者提出了第一次诉讼的请求，但被驳回。而现在上诉人寻求外庭法官作为对话者恢复诉讼。[注 5] | ” |
又认为：
| “ | 在我因此看来，这种情况转变为所谓的战争伤害的例外程度。这种损害必须包括在作战过程中造成的意外和蓄意破坏。无论伤害是无意还是我们的炮兵或飞机驱逐敌人或敌人驱逐我们的部队都无关紧要。在敌人实际捕获它之前，同样必须适用于建筑物或桥梁的破坏。而且，如果这种建筑物或桥梁的赔偿权取决于敌人在被摧毁时的距离，那将是荒谬的。但是我认为瓦特尔在对比故意做的行为（自由和预防措施）与不可避免的必然性造成的损害（不可避免的必要条件）之间是正确的。他的例子表明，他的意思是由对立势力的倾向决定的。在战争期间可能有必要建立新的机场或训练场地，必要性可能是不可避免的，但任何评论员所说的那种事情都不会出现在例外情况之内，这是不可避免的必要因为实际上没有选择：例如，该国家可能只有一家工厂或一个特定用途的工厂。[注 6] | ” |
判决
[编辑]英国上议院以3比2大比数通过，然而拉德克利夫子爵和霍德森勋爵则存有异议。上议院认为：“虽然损害是合法的，因其相当于征用财产；但任何征用行为都是为了公众的利益而进行的，是为了牺牲了个人而获益大众。因此，其财产所有人应该从公共资金中获得补偿。”
上议院大法官裁定石油公司有权向政府索赔，“不受惯用的‘战争损失无须赔偿’的法例限制”[注 7][1]。政府需向伯马石油公司支付四百六十万英镑[5]。
结果
[编辑]在伯马石油有限公司诉总检察长案宣判后，英国政府为避免引发大量战争索偿上诉，于国会通过《1965年战争损害法令》。该法令在伯马石油有限公司诉总检察长案之后颁布，是一项十分罕见的具有追溯效力的英国法令。
其行为导致本判例与《1965年战争损害法令》在当时广为讨论，民众开始对法律出现信任问题[6]。
影响
[编辑]英国
[编辑]最终，英国政府为避免伯马石油有限公司诉总检察长案引发大量战争索偿上诉，立刻在同年修例[7]。国会通过《1965年战争损害法令》（War Damage Act 1965），此法令订明具有追溯性，成为“具追溯力法律”（Ex Post Facto Law），定明可涵盖过去的两次大战（第一次世界大战及第二次世界大战）。
由于通过了一项追溯性的国会法令（即《1965年战争损害法令》；War Damage Act 1965）导致判决结果被阻扰，令大众[谁？]失望。该法令追溯豁免除官方在其所从事战争期间、在其预期的战争中由于官方合法行为而对财产造成的损害、或毁坏等等之赔偿责任。
由于英国政府通过新立具追溯力法律，直接阻扰了判决，绕过了判决的约束[7]。此案后续发展事情违反了法治精神中的不溯及既往原则、“法庭的决定是维护人权的最后防线”原则[8]。
乌干达
[编辑]乌干达共和国阿鲁阿高等法院在判决时，引用了该案例[9]。文中说道：
| “ | 在普通法中，在与敌人作战期间夺取或摧毁财产并不会引起任何赔偿要求，无论是由官方武装部队还是由携带武器保卫其国家或敌人。[注 8]⋯⋯例如，在第一次世界大战期间，在“伯马石油公司（伯马贸易）诉总检察长案”中，[1965] AC 75 中引用的1915年的案例中，军事当局占用了肖勒姆小型机场的土地。业主对所提供的赔偿表示不满，并声明寻求他们有权获得适当的赔偿。官方辩称，这块土地是由官方特权所取代的，或者是1914年的《王国防御法令》所规定的。据此，任何一方都没有法律规定的赔偿。[注 9]⋯⋯ | ” |
并提到：
| “ | 从未澄清过的问题是，在为了国防目的而故意采取财产时是否应支付赔偿的问题，例如：训练部队，制造弹药，获得维持现役部队所需的各种物资，以及经济战和各种目的对于进行战争至关重要，但不是立即与维持战斗服务有关。而澄清的机会出现在“伯马石油（伯马贸易）有限公司诉总检察长案，[1965] AC 75，[1965] 2 All ER 348，[1964] 2 WLR 1231”，1939年至1945年战争期间，总指挥干事下令将仰光附近的上诉人石油设施摧毁。由于日本人正在推进，政府希望剥夺他们的资源。这是在日本占领仰光的前一天完成的。问题是：是否应为这种破坏支付赔偿金。政府正在行使特权，要求他们支付赔偿金。他们警惕通过现代眼镜看待老当局，同时注意不要忽视宪法法律和法理的许多变化，他们的大法官将这种情况与战争过程中财产遭到破坏或毁坏的情况区分开来。[注 10] | ” |
香港
[编辑]有支持全国人大第五次释法者认为：“此次判例涉及在判决前几十年发生的行为，跟人大释法关于港独议员在上月的辱华宣誓非常类近，都对未审结案件具有法律约束力，无需订明追溯性。”[10][11]
其他条目
[编辑]参考内容
[编辑]注释
[编辑]- ^ 英语原文：“The central question arising on this appeal is whether or no compensation is payable to a subject for property destroyed by the Crown under its prerogative powers to prevent it falling into the hands of the enemy.”
- ^ 英语原文：“The extent of the power by virtue of which the Crown destroyed the pursuers' property has been much debated before your Lordships. Both sides agree that the destruction was lawful. I feel little doubt that it was done by virtue of some aspect of the Crown's prerogative which arises out of its right and duty to protect its realm and citizens in times of war and peril.”
- ^ 英语原文：“I find myself in such general agreement with the views expressed by my noble and learned friends, Lord Reid and Lord Pearce, whose opinions I have had an opportunity of reading, that I do not propose to detain your Lordships for any great length of time. I also find the judgment of the Lord Ordinary very compelling, and I have found his ample citation of authority of the greatest assistance.”
- ^ 英语原文：“I regard this as a very exceptional case. It is argued, inconveniently I think, merely upon pleadings. I doubt very much whether it is proceeding upon a true basis. Both sides agree that the acts of destruction in question were lawful, and the appellants' case at any rate rests wholly upon the theory that they were done in exercise of the prerogative. Much, but not all, of the respondent's argument accepted this position. As we know only vaguely what this prerogative is and have even vaguer information as to when and on what occasions it has been asserted throughout history, I have become more and more uncertain what it is that we are really talking about.”
- ^ 英语原文：“There are before your Lordships four appeals by associated companies in actions brought by them against the Lord Advocate under the Crown Suits Act, 1857. When war broke out with Japan, these companies owned extensive properties in Burma, including oil wells, pipe lines, refineries and other buildings and stocks of petroleum and other goods. When the Japanese invaded Burma, these were destroyed by order of the British Government. The appellants claim that they are entitled to payment of such sum as will make good to the pursuers the damage sustained by them as a result of that destruction. The Lord Ordinary, Lord Kilbrandon, repelled pleas that the pursuers' averments are irrelevant and allowed proof before answer. The First Division by interlocutors of 14th March 1963 sustained the pleas to relevancy and dismissed the actions. The appellants now seek to have the interlocutors of the Lord Ordinary restored.”
- ^ 英语原文：“This case therefore turns, in my view, on the extent of the exception of what has been called battle damage. Such damage must include both accidental and deliberate damage done in the course of fighting operations. It cannot matter whether the damage was unintentional or done by our artillery or aircraft to dislodge the enemy or by the enemy to dislodge our troops. And the same must apply to destruction of a building or a bridge before the enemy actually capture it. Moreover, it would be absurd if the right to compensation for such a building or bridge depended on how near the enemy were when it was destroyed. But I would think that Vattel is right in contrasting acts done deliberately (librement et par precaution) with damage caused by inevitable necessity (par une necessite inevitable). His examples show that he means something dictated by the disposition of the opposing forces. It may become necessary during the war to have new airfields or training grounds and the necessity may be inevitable, but that kind of thing would not come within the exception as stated by any of the commentators, inevitably necessary because there is really no choice: for example, there may be only one factory in the country or one site available for a particular purpose.”
- ^ 英语原文：“In conclusion, I would agree that the Public Authorities Protection Act of 1893 does not assist the respondent in this case.”
- ^ 英语原文：“At common law, taking or destroying property in the course of fighting the enemy did not give rise to any claim for compensation whether that was done by the armed forces of the Crown or by individuals taking arms to defend their country or by the enemy. ”
- ^ For example in In re A Petition of Right (1915 case cited in Burmah Oil Company (Burma Trading) Limited v. Lord Advocate, [1965] AC 75) during the first world war, the military authorities took possession of land for Shoreham Aerodrome. The owners were dissatisfied with the compensation offered and sought a declaration that they were entitled to proper compensation. The Crown pleaded that the land had been taken by the royal prerogative or, alternatively, under The Defence of the Realm Act, 1914. It was held that no compensation was legally due under either.
- ^ 原文内容：“This case therefore turns, in my view, on the extent of the exception of what has been called battle damage. Such damage must include both accidental and deliberate damage done in the course of fighting operations. It cannot matter whether the damage was unintentional or done by our artillery or aircraft to dislodge the enemy or by the enemy to dislodge our troops. And the same must apply to destruction of a building or a bridge before the enemy actually capture it. Moreover, it would be absurd if the right to compensation for such a building or bridge depended on how near the enemy were when it was destroyed. But I would think that Vattel is right in contrasting acts done deliberately (librement et par precaution) with damage caused by inevitable necessity (par une necessite inevitable). His examples show that he means something dictated by the disposition of the opposing forces. It may become necessary during the war to have new airfields or training grounds and the necessity may be inevitable, but that kind of thing would not come within the exception as stated by any of the commentators, inevitably necessary because there is really no choice: for example, there may be only one factory in the country or one site available for a particular purpose.”
文献
[编辑]- ^ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Burmah Oil v LA [1964] UKHL 6, 1964-04-21 [2018-09-06], （原始内容存档于2018-09-06）
- ^ Burmah Oil Case. lawofwar.org. [2018-09-06]. （原始内容存档于2009-02-21）.
- ^ Daintith, T. C. The Case of Demolitions (Based on Burmah Oil Co. (Burma Trading) Ltd. v. Lord Advocate). The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 1965, 14 (3): 1000–1011 [2018-09-06]. （原始内容存档于2018-09-06）.
- ^ Webb, Thomas. Burmah Oil Company v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75, House of Lords. [2018-09-06]. doi:10.1093/he/9780191842832.001.0001/he-9780191842832-chapter-8. （原始内容存档于2018-09-06） （美国英语）.
- ^ Loveland, Ian. Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction. Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction. Oxford University Press. 2018-04-05 [2018-09-18]. ISBN 9780198804680. （原始内容存档于2018-09-18） （英语）.
- ^ Turpin, Colin; Tomkins, Adam. British Government and the Constitution: Text and Materials. British Government and the Constitution: Text and Materials. Cambridge University Press. 2011-09-01 [2018-09-23]. ISBN 9781139503860. （原始内容存档于2018-09-23） （英语）.
- ^ 7.0 7.1 Rule of Law. Lawaspect.com. [2018-09-19]. （原始内容存档于2018-09-19） （英语）.
- ^ Burmah Oil Co v Lord Advocate [1965] - Case Summary - Webstroke Law. webstroke.co.uk. [2018-09-19]. （原始内容存档于2018-09-19） （英语）.
- ^ Uganda Legal Information Institute. hc-land-division-2017-85. Uganda Judgement Files. 2017: p.7-8 [2018-09-08]. （原始内容存档于2018-09-09）.
- ^ Ng DH. www.facebook.com. [2018-09-06]. （原始内容存档于2018-09-12） （中文（香港））.
- ^ 正思香港. www.facebook.com. [2018-09-06]. （原始内容存档于2018-09-12） （中文（香港））.