船舶运载着世界上90%的货物往来于世界各地，如此繁荣的商业运输也使得走私者们选择船运来将违禁品运往世界各地。

多年来，走私者将毒品藏在散货、船舶空舱、集装箱和附着在船体上一直是个大问题，并持续威胁船舶的航行安全。

Gard保赔协会的特约作者，以在海底阀箱中发现贮藏物为例，讨论了当船舶因发现隐藏在船上的毒品而遭到延误或扣留时，船东和承租者的法律立场。

一、介绍

海洋航运的毒品走私通常会让船东、承租者和货方之间发生复杂的合同纠纷。

至关重要的是，这些当事人必须确保他们的合同相应地妥善处理并分配责任，以避免陷入高昂且费时的纠纷。

随着航运业不断改善和世界各地的缉毒行动，毒品贩子也开始使用越来越新奇巧妙的方法走私毒品。

让我们针对可能造成的延误和损失进行探讨，并提供一些实用的建议，以降低潜在的责任。

二、风险增多

在船体水下部分并配备有便携式过滤器板的船舶海底阀箱可以为船舶提供取水水库，而船舶管道系统可以从这里吸取水。

然而，在最近的案例中，还发现了该空间的其他用途：通过切割金属板，在整个航程中将毒品储存在里面。

位于船体和水线以下，毒品走私可以在不知情或不与船员合作的情况下进行。

潜水员可以在起航点和目的地秘密地切开海底阀箱周围的区域，犯罪分子不需要依赖码头工人和船员，不需要支付工资，也不需要传统的登轮和搜索技术。

对船东来说，如果当局发现了违禁品，由此造成的延误可能导致租金损失和货方索赔。

随后定好的租约也可能会因滞留或延误而错过。如果租约中没有具体的措辞，解决这类在利益矛盾方（船东、承租者、转租人等）之间的索赔问题就会特别有争议。

三、责任

因此，确定船东和承租者之间的责任至关重要，这在很大程度上取决于双方在合同中商定的具体措辞。

可能出现的一个问题是，许多走私毒品的新方法在起草有关条款时无法预见，因此，例如像上面设想的情形可能不完全符合租约条款。

其中一个常见条款即2013定期租船合同中的BIMCO美国《1986年反毒品滥用法》条款，承租人通常要对船上隐藏的毒品造成的费用和延误负责。

然而，虽然这一条款在设法分摊损失的时间和罚款的责任方面相当精确，但仍有一些含糊不清之处。

例如，该条款仅针对“船上”隐藏的毒品，而不确定这是否包括在海底阀箱中发现的毒品。

四、从船东的角度

由于缺乏明确的责任分配规定，各方可能会在其他方面寻找论据。

例如，船东可能会争辩说，走私是由于遵守承租人前往某一特定港口的航次命令而发生的，因此他们有权因遵守此类命令而得到赔偿。

另一种选择是，如果在港口发现了毒品，尽管承租人的做法符合安全港要求，船东可能会辩称是承租人命令船舶开到了一个不安全港。

五、从承租者的角度

与之相对的，承租者可能会指出船东的适航义务。

如果这些受到加入合同的《海牙/海牙-维斯比规则》的限制，即为了使船舶在起航前和起航时适航，必须进行尽职调查，这将使承租者的情况更加困难。

例如，这是潜水员偷偷进行的，可能是在夜间做的，在船体内或周围隐***品是不容易被尽职调查发现的。

在这种情况下，承租者可能会辩称船东有义务遵守船旗国和港口国的法律法规。

如果承租者能证明安排进行水下检查和录像或焊接关闭海底阀箱是的做法无误，就可能有助于证明船东未能充分维护船体或遵守其适航义务。

然而，如果该船舶已整理好所有文件并遵守了所有当地法规或国际标准，提出这样的论点将是具有挑战性的。

如果没有令人满意的明确的合同条款，一方可以将所遭受的损失转移给另一方，则损失可能由直接损失的一方承担。

同样，船舶在延误期间是否属于租船或停租将取决于相关的停租条款。

六、货物索赔

如果所运货物易腐烂，并且由于船上或船壳附有毒品而造成延误，货主就可以提出货物索赔。

货主可以向船东或承租者提出相关索赔，具体取决于提单的签发方。

无论如何，任何货物损害责任将在很大程度上取决于提单条款，而且如上所述，也与承运人是否行使了尽职调查使船舶适航有关。

货物索赔是否能从船东转移到承租者，或反之，往往是一个复杂的问题。提单中仔细地加入适当的租约条款可以使其简化。

七、结论

毒品走私的影响远远超出最初的罚款和刑事制裁，并且会根据租约和提货单产生广泛的商业影响。

鉴于此类活动在某些港口的高发生率以及毒贩利用船舶进行非法活动的方式越来越新颖，建议船东、承租者和货主确保将明文规定纳入其租约和提单，以确保不因合同含糊不清而引起纠纷。

虽然BIMCO美国《1986年反毒品滥用法案》中关于2013年定期租约的条款提供了一些指导，但该条款的修改或再定制可能提供更大的合同确定性。

根据合同对责任的分配，船东和管理公司除了采取通常的反走私预防措施外，在离开高风险港口之前安排水下检查和录像可能更稳妥。

此外，当停泊在此类港口时，为了确定任何与走私有关的活动，可能需要保持连续的监测。

英文原文

Ships carry 90% of the world’s goods to and from all corners of the globe. This makes commercial shipping a natural choice for traffickers to move their contraband to market. Hiding drug shipments in bulk cargo, ship void spaces, in containers and attached to the hull has been a problem for years and continues to challenge vessel operations. 

Our guest authors, discuss the legal position of the owner and charterer when the vessel is delayed or detained due to discovery of drugs secreted on the ship, using as an example, a cache found in the sea chest.

Introduction

Drug smuggling in the maritime sector continues to generate complex contractual disputes between owners, charterers, and cargo interests. It is crucial that these parties ensure that their contracts properly address and allocate liability accordingly, to avoid expensive and time-consuming disputes. 

With the maritime industry continually improving anti-***s operations around the world, traffickers are finding increasingly novel and ingenious ways to smuggle drugs. 

We explore the delays and losses that can be caused, and provide some practical advice to help mitigate any potential liability.

Developing risks

A ship’s sea chest in an underwater shell and fitted with a portable strainer plate provides a water intake reservoir from which the vessel’s piping system can draw water. 

However, in recent cases, space has also been found for other uses: by cutting through the plate, ***s can be stored inside for an entire voyage. 

Located on the hull and below the waterline, ***s smuggling can be undertaken without the knowledge or cooperation of the crew. 

Divers can covertly cut open the area around the sea chest at the points of departure and destination without needing to rely on or pay off dock workers and crew, while also rendering conventional board and search techniques redundant.

For the shipowner, where the contraband is discovered by the authorities, the resulting delays can lead to loss of hire and claims from cargo interests. Subsequent fixtures may be missed as well as a result of detention/delays. 

Resolving these types of claims between competing interests (owners, charterers, sub-charterers etc.) can become particularly contentious if the charterparty lacks specific wording.

Liability

Determination of liability as between shipowners and charterers is therefore critical and much turns on the specific wording agreed between the parties in their contracts. 

One issue that can arise is that many of the novel methods of smuggling ***s were not foreseen when the relevant clauses were drafted and so, for example, the scenario envisaged above may not fall neatly within the charterparty clauses

One common clause is the BIMCO U.S. Anti-Drug Abuse Act 1986 Clause for Time Charter Parties 2013 and, where it has been incorporated, charterers will be generally liable for the costs and delays caused by ***s concealed on board the vessel.

However, while this clause is fairly precise in trying to apportion liability for time lost and fines incurred, there remains some ambiguity. 

For instance, the clause only addresses ***s concealed “onboard”, without determining whether this would include ***s found in a sea chest.

Owners’ position

Absent clear provisions as to apportionment of liability, parties can be left scratching around trying to find arguments elsewhere. 

Owners, for example, may argue that the trafficking arose out of compliance with charterers’ voyage orders to proceed to a particular port.

As a result, they would argue that they are entitled to be indemnified for compliance with such orders. 

Alternatively, owners may try to argue that the charterers ordered the vessel to an unsafe port, albeit if the drugs were in fact found at that port, that would perhaps indicate safe port practice.

Charterers’ position

Charterers, on the other hand, may point to the owners’ seaworthiness obligations. 

If these are limited by the incorporation of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules to the exercise of due diligence to make the ship seaworthy before and at the beginning of the voyage, that would make charterers’ case more difficult. 

For example, a covert operation by divers, perhaps at night, concealing drugs in or around the hull is not easily discoverable by the exercise of due diligence. 

Charterers may also look to argue in this scenario that it is owners’ obligation to comply with both flag and port state laws and regulations.

If charterers can demonstrate that it was good practice to arrange for underwater inspections and videotaping, or the welding shut of the sea chest, it may assist in any argument that the owner has failed to sufficiently maintain the hull or comply with their seaworthiness obligations. 

Constructing such an argument would, however, be challenging if the vessel had all her documentation in order and had complied with all local regulations or international standards.

Where there is no satisfactory express contractual provision enabling one party to pass on the losses incurred to another, losses may lie where they fall. 

Likewise, whether the vessel is to be considered on or off-hire during the period of delay will depend on the relevant off-hire clauses.

Cargo claims

Where goods carried are perishable and there are delays caused by the finding of drugs on or attached to the ship, cargo claims can materialise. 

These may be brought against either owners or charterers, depending on which party issued the bills of lading.  

Either way, liability for any cargo damage will largely depend on the terms of the bills and, as above, issues as to whether the carrier exercised due diligence to make the ship seaworthy are likely to be relevant.

Whether cargo claims can be passed from owners to charterers, or vice versa, is often a complex question. It can be simplified by the careful incorporation of suitable charterparty clauses into the bills of lading.

Conclusion

The implications of drug smuggling go far beyond the initial fines and criminal sanctions, and can have wide ranging commercial impacts under charterparties and bills of lading. 

Given the prevalence of such activity at certain ports, and the increasingly novel ways in which drug traffickers are conducting their illegal activities using ships, it is recommended that shipowners, charterers, and shippers ensure that clearly worded provisions are incorporated into their charterparties and bills of lading to ensure that disputes do not result from contractual ambiguities.

Whilst the use of the BIMCO U.S. 

Anti-Drug Abuse Act 1986 Clause for Time Charter Parties 2013 provides some guidance, a variation of this clause or a more bespoke clause may provide greater contractual certainty. 

Depending on the contractual apportionment of liability, it may also be prudent for owners and managers to arrange underwater inspections and videotaping prior to departure from a high-risk port, in addition to usual anti-smuggling precautions. 

Additionally, when anchored in such a port, it may be appropriate to maintain a continuous watch with the specific purpose of identifying any smuggling related activity.

免责申明：本文来源：Gard保赔协会；如有误差以英文为准；仅代表作者观点，不代表中国海员之家立场。其真实性及原创性未能得到中国海员之家证实，在此感谢原作者的辛苦创作，如转载涉及版权等问题，请作者与我们联系，我们将在第一时间处理，谢谢！联系邮箱：cnisu@54seaman.com