伯馬石油有限公司訴總檢察長案

维基百科,自由的百科全书
跳到导航 跳到搜索
伯馬石油有限公司訴檢察總長案
法院 上議院
宣判日期 1964年4月21日
案件號碼 [1965] AC 75
判案書 上議院裁決
法官 李特勳爵、拉德克利夫子爵、霍德森勳爵、皮爾斯勳爵、阿普約翰勳爵
案件歷史
後續行動 1965年戰爭損害法令

伯馬石油有限公司訴檢察總長案英语:Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate[1965] AC 75),是一个在蘇格蘭提告的法院案件,其最终在上議院中做出裁決。該案件是英國憲法中的一個重要決定,在當時具有不同尋常的法律影響,並引起極大爭議。[1][2]

經過[编辑]

這起案件涉及1942年第二次世界大戰期間,英國軍隊緬甸油田的破壞。英方為了防止在其撤退後石油裝置等有關戰略性設施落入推進的大日本帝國陸軍的手中,下令進行在緬甸採取「焦土政策」的軍事行動,並炸毀其公司在緬甸的油田及設施。而事後,英國政府拒絕伯馬石油英语Burmah Oil公司的賠償要求,且並未做出任何賠償;其直接影響了伯馬石油有限公司,因此該公司對英國政府採取法律行動。而英國政府方由蘇格蘭檢察總長英语Lord AdvocalLord Advocate)代表。[3][4]

蘇格蘭高等民事法院英语Court of Session外庭英语Outer House基爾布蘭登勳爵英语Lord Kilbrandon發現了支持伯馬石油的理據。當局提出上訴。高等民事法院內庭英语Inner House第一分部一致推翻了以下決定。隨後,伯馬石油向上議院提出上訴。

大法官[编辑]

上議院一共委任了5個大法官,負責最終的裁決結果。他們分別為:李特勳爵、拉德克利夫子爵、霍德森勳爵、皮爾斯勳爵、阿普約翰勳爵。最終,上議院以3比2通過判決,裁定英國政府需要賠償伯馬石油有限公司在緬甸軍事行動中,炸毀的設施所造成的財產損失。

以下為各法官的觀點[1]

同意[编辑]

霍德森勳爵[编辑]

霍德森勳爵(Lord Hodson)認為:「在這項上訴中產生的核心問題是:對於財產根據其特權權力銷毀的財產是否應當支付或不支付賠償金以防止其落入敵人手中。」[註 1]

皮爾斯勳爵[编辑]

皮爾斯勳爵(Lord Pearce)認為:「在閣下之前,官方摧毀追討者財產的權力範圍就一直備受爭議。雙方都同意破壞是合法的。我有點懷疑這是憑藉官方的某方面特權來完成的,因為這是在戰爭和危險時期保護其領土和公民的權利和義務。」[註 2]

阿普約翰勳爵[编辑]

阿普約翰勳爵(Lord Upjohn)認為:「我發現我自己與我那高尚和學識淵博的朋友——李特勳爵和皮爾斯勳爵——所表達的觀點達成瞭如此普遍的一致,他們的觀點我有機會閱讀;我不打算耽擱閣下很長一段時間。我也發現蘇格蘭高等民事法院外庭法官(Lord Ordinary)的判斷非常引人注目,我已經為他找到了充分的權威引用。」[註 3]

反對[编辑]

拉德克利夫子爵[编辑]

拉德克利夫子爵(Viscount Radcliffe)認為:

李特勳爵[编辑]

李特勳爵(Lord Reid)認為:

又認為:

判決[编辑]

英國上議院以3-2大比數通過,然而拉德克利夫子爵英语Viscount Radcliffe霍德森勳爵英语Lord Hodson則存有異議。上議院認為:「虽然损害是合法的,因其相當於徵用財產;但任何徵用行為都是為了公眾的利益而進行的,是為了犧牲了個人而獲益大眾。因此,其財產所有人應該從公共資金中獲得補償。」

上議院大法官裁定石油公司有權向政府索賠,「不受慣用的『戰爭損失無須賠償』的法例限制」[註 7][1]。政府需向伯馬石油公司支付4.6百萬英鎊[5]

結果[编辑]

在伯馬石油有限公司訴總檢察長案宣判後,英國政府為避免引發大量戰爭索償上訴,於國會通過《1965年戰爭損害法》。該法令在伯馬石油有限公司訴總檢察長案之後頒佈,是一項十分罕見的具有追溯效力的英國法令。

其行為導致本法例與《1965年戰爭損害法》在當時廣為討論,民眾開始對法律出現信任問題[6]

反應[编辑]

英國[编辑]

最終,英國政府為避免伯馬石油有限公司訴總檢察長案引發大量戰爭索償上訴,立刻在同年修例[7]。國會通過《1965年戰爭損害法令》(War Damage Act 1965),此法例訂明具有追溯性,成為「具追溯力法律」(Ex Post Facto Law),定明可涵蓋過去的兩次大戰(第一次世界大戰第二次世界大戰)。

由於通過了一項追溯性國會法令(即《1965年戰爭損害法令》;War Damage Act 1965)導致判決結果被阻擾,令大眾失望。該法令追溯豁免除官方在其所從事戰爭期間、在其預期的戰爭中由於官方合法行為而對財產造成的損害、或毀壞等等之賠償責任。

由於英國政府通過新立具追溯力法律,直接阻擾了判決,繞過了判決的約束[7]。此案後續發展事情違反了法治精神中的不溯及既往原則、「法庭的決定是維護人權的最後防線」原則[8]

烏干達[编辑]

烏干達共和國阿魯阿高等法院在判決時,引用了該案例[9]。文中說道:

並提到:

其他條目[编辑]

參考內容[编辑]

註釋[编辑]

  1. ^ 英語原文:「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.」
  2. ^ 英語原文:「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.」
  3. ^ 英語原文:「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.」
  4. ^ 英語原文:「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.」
  5. ^ 英語原文:「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.」
  6. ^ 英語原文:「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.」
  7. ^ 英語原文:「In conclusion, I would agree that the Public Authorities Protection Act of 1893 does not assist the respondent in this case.」
  8. ^ 英語原文:「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. 」
  9. ^ 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.
  10. ^ 原文內容:「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.」

文獻[编辑]

  1. ^ 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) 
  2. ^ Burmah Oil Case. lawofwar.org. [2018-09-06]. (原始内容存档于2009-02-21). 
  3. ^ 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). 
  4. ^ 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). 
  5. ^ 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. ISBN 9780198804680 (英语). 
  6. ^ 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. ISBN 9781139503860 (英语). 
  7. ^ 7.0 7.1 Rule of Law. Lawaspect.com. [2018-09-19] (英语). 
  8. ^ Burmah Oil Co v Lord Advocate [1965] - Case Summary - Webstroke Law. webstroke.co.uk. [2018-09-19] (英语). 
  9. ^ 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).