新冠疫情是否属于不可抗力？这里有“东盟十国和印度律师的简答”（上）

新冠疫情必然影响国际经贸往来，依据当地的法律法规，疫情的发生可否视为不可抗力事件，并对当事人合同义务产生影响？我们访谈了海外同行，供各企业参考。本文涉及东盟十国即越南、老挝、柬埔寨、泰国、印度尼西亚、马来西亚、新加坡、马来西亚、缅甸、菲律宾和文莱，此外我们还采访了印度律师提供印度法律的答复。上篇涉及越南、柬埔寨、泰国、马来西亚、印度尼西亚的法律，下篇涉及老挝、新加坡、缅甸、菲律宾、文莱的法律。
01 Is the legal concept of “force majeure” recognised in your jurisdiction?
贵国法律体系内是否有“不可抗力”的法律概念？
Chinese Law 中国法
Yes.有。
Vietnamese Law越南法
Yes.有。
Indonesian Law印度尼西亚（“印尼”）法
Yes.有。
Cambodian Law柬埔寨法
Yes.有。
Thai Law泰国法
Yes.有。
Malaysian Law马来西亚法
(a) There is no generally applicable concept of “force majeure” under Malaysian law. However, Malaysian law allows parties to a contract to provide for “force majeure” events;
(a) 马来西亚法律中并不存在普遍适用的“不可抗力”概念。但是，马来西亚法律允许合同当事人就“不可抗力”事件作出约定;
(b) contracting parties are free to incorporate “force majeure” clauses into contracts entered into to suspend the performance of the contracts or release of parties from performing their obligations in the circumstances specified in the relevant clauses. “Force majeure” clauses may take a variety of forms and should be construed according to the words used, having dueregard to the nature and general terms of the contracts;
(b) 缔约双方可在其订立的合同中自由加入“不可抗力”条款，以便在有关条款规定的情况下中止履行合同或免除缔约双方义务的履行。“不可抗力”条款有多种形式，应根据所使用的词语进行解释，并应适当考虑到合同的性质和一般条款;
(c) and typically, in the Malaysian context, contracts have “force majeure” clauses. It is up to the court to determine whether the scope of the “force majeure” clause present in a contract is wide enough to cover the particular contingency.
(c) 在马来西亚，合同中一般都有“不可抗力”条款。法院根据合同中所规定的“不可抗力”条款来确定是否足以涵盖所发生的事件。
02 What is the definition of force majeure under the law of your jurisdiction?
贵国法律中关于“不可抗力”的定义如何？
Chinese Law 中国法
According to the Contract Law of China, force majeure refers to any objective circumstance which is unforeseeable, inevitable and insurmountable.
根据我国《合同法》，不可抗力，是指不能预见、不能避免并不能克服的客观情况。
Vietnamese Law越南法
Under Vietnamese laws, an event of forcemajeure is an event which occurs in an objective manner which is unforeseeable and
insurmountable even if all necessary measures that are availablehave been taken (Civil Code, Article 156.1).
根据越南相关法律（越南《民法典》第156条第1款），不可抗力事件，是指即便已采取可获取的所有的必要措施，仍不可预见、不可克服的客观情况。
Indonesian Law印尼法
While the concept of force majeure is recognized under Indonesian law, there is no legal definition of such phrase. It is generally understood that force majeureis the occurrence of an unforeseen event which is beyond the control of the parties which affect the ability of a party to perform its obligations under acontract.
尽管印尼法律中承认不可抗力，但法律上并无相应的定义界定。一般来讲，不可抗力是指发生不可预见，且非当事人一方或多方可以控制的，致使影响当事人履行其合同义务的事件。
Contracts typically have a force majeureclause which lists specific events which are defined as force majeure eventsuch as weather, war, or strike, to provide more certaintyas to what circumstances this clause can be invoked by a party to excusenon-performance.
通常，合同中会约定不可抗力条款，并在条款中列明可以被识别为不可抗力的具体的事件，例如气候、战争、罢工，以便为在何种情况下援引该条款作为不履行合同的理由提供更多的确定性。
Cambodian Law柬埔寨法
While the concept of force majeure isrecognized, there is no legal definition provided under Cambodian law and the parties are left to define certain events that shall be deemed as events offorce majeure. Generally, “force majeure” is understood as “any event thatoccurs not within the parties” intent, and is unforeseeable and irresistible”.
虽然柬埔寨法律承认“不可抗力”，然而法律本身并没有明确定义不可抗力，而是交给当事人通过约定来明确哪些情况属于不可抗力。“不可抗力”通常被理解为“不受当事人意志影响，不能预见、不能抗拒的客观事件”。
Thai Law泰国法
Pursuant to Section 8 of The Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand, force majeure is defined as any event the happening or pernicious result of which could not be prevented, even though aperson against whom it happened or threatened to happen were to take an appropriate care as might be expected from him in his situation and such condition.
依据泰国《民商事法典》第8条，不可抗力被定义为当事人经妥善处置，仍旧不能避免其发生或造成有害后果的事件。
Malaysian Law马来西亚法
(a) As explained above, there is nogenerally applicable concept of “force majeure” under Malaysian law. The scope of “force majeure” is dependent on the “force majeure” clause present in thecontract concerned, having regard to the nature and general terms of the contract concerned;
(a)如上所述，马来西亚法律中没有普遍适用的“不可抗力”概念。“不可抗力”的范围取决于合同中约定的“不可抗力”条款，同时结合合同的性质和一般条款加以认定;
(b) accordingly, whether or not a “forcemajeure” event arises, and, where it does arise, the rights and obligationsthat follow, would depend on the construction of the “force majeure” clause inlight of the provisions of the contract as a whole.
(b)因此，“不可抗力”事件是否发生，以及如果确实发生，随之而来的权利和义务，将取决于按照整个合同对”不可抗力”条款的解释。
03 The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared that the Novel Coronavirus outbreak constitutes a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC), does the current epidemic constitute a force majeure event under the law of your jurisdiction?
鉴于世界卫生组织已宣布新冠疫情构成“国际公共卫生紧急事件”，该疫情在贵国是否构成不可抗力事件？
Chinese Law中国法
There is a good chance that the Chinese court will consider that the Novel Coronavirus epidemic constitutes a forcemajeure event if the performance of a contract is affected by the epidemic, but it shall be subject to the particular facts of each case.
如果合同的履行受到疫情影响，新冠病毒疫情有可能构成不可抗力，但要具体案件具体分析。
Vietnamese Law越南法
The declaration of WHO does not automatically result in the constitution of a force majeure event due to the current Novel Coronavirus. Instead, force majeure events would be considered on a case-by-case basis by courts.
尽管世界卫生组织因武汉新冠病毒出具该声明，但疫情并不会理所应当的、自动的成立不可抗力事件。具体而言，法院会在个案的基础上判断武汉肺炎疫情是否构成不可抗力。
Particularly, while the current Novel Coronavirus is arguably an objective and unforeseeable circumstance, it is not clear whether the Novel Coronavirus is insurmountable for the performance of aspecific obligation by a specific party and whether necessary and available measureshave been taken. Further details would also need to be assessed (such asspecific impacts of the current Novel Coronavirus on the contractual parties, the application of administrative decisions of the authorities restricting/preventing performance of a specific obligation, etc.) to determine if the current Novel Coronavirus is a cause resulting in a force majeure eventin such specific case.
具体来说，尽管目前的武汉新冠肺炎疫情可论证为客观和不可预见的情况，但疫情是否构成不可抗力需进一步考虑新冠疫情是否对当事人一方履行某特定义务构成不可克服的阻力，同时，需在个案中考虑必要措施和可用手段的使用情况。此外，在处理具体案件中还需进一步评估案件细节以便明确新冠肺炎是否会在个案中被识别为不可抗力。（例如，当前新冠疫情对合同方的特定影响，或行政命令对特定义务的限制/防止履行情况等）。
Indonesian Law印尼法
The fact that it is declared a PHEIC by the WHO does not automatically make it a force majeure event for the performance of obligations under a contract. It will depend on how the force majeure clause is drafted in the contract. The epidemic would clearly be a force majeure event if specified as a force majeure event in the contract.
世界卫生组织宣布新冠疫情为“国际公共卫生紧急事件”的事实并不会理所当然的、自动的使其成为履行合同义务的不可抗力事件，还要看合同中不可抗力条款的措辞。如果合同中的不可抗力条款中罗列有传染病或类似表述，则该合同当事人将有较大机会援引不可抗力条款。
Cambodian Law柬埔寨法
Not automatically and only if the parties to a contract expressly state that such pandemic shall be deemed as the event of force majeure, failing which any claim shall be brought to the court for its interpretation.
除非合同明确约定流行病构成不可抗力，否则不会自动构成不可抗力，需要法庭根据实际情况判断。
Thai Law泰国法
No. This incident would not necessarily constitute a force majeure under Thai law. It is further noted that the definition of force majeure would be strictly interpreted by the court on a case by case basis.
这不必然在泰国法下构成不可抗力，法院会根据具体案件判断。
Malaysian Law马来西亚法
This is a matter of construction of the “force majeure” clause present in the contract concerned.
这是对特定合同中”不可抗力”条款解释的问题。
04 Other than force majeure, does the current epidemic constitute any circumstance that releases the non-performing party to a contract from the liability of breach or mitigate such liablity? If so, please briefly explain that circumstance.
除不可抗力外，新冠疫情是否有可能构成其他可减轻或免除未妥善履行合同一方当事人违约责任的事由？如有，请简要叙述。
Chinese Law中国法
Yes. Other than force majeure, the current epidemic may also constitute "change of circumstances" and release the non-performing party from liability of breach. Under Chinese law,where there is a major change which (1) occurs after the signing of a contract,(2) is unforeseeable, (3) is not a business risk, and (4) is not caused byforce majeure, and if the continuous performance is obviously unfair or cannotachieve the purpose of the contract, any party to the contract is entitled torequest the court to modify or terminate the contract.
存在。除不可抗力外，新冠疫情同样可能构成 “情势变更”，并可据此免除未履行合同一方当事人的违约责任。中国法下，合同成立以后客观情况发生了当事人在订立合同时无法预见的，非不可抗力造成的，不属于商业风险的重大变化，继续履行合同对于一方当事人明显不公平或者不能实现合同目的，当事人请求法院变更或者解除合同，法院可能根据公平原则，并结合案件的实际情况确定是否变更或者解除。
Vietnamese Law越南法
Yes. Other than force majeure, if the Vietnamese authority declared a state of emergency due to this epidemic with subsequent application of administrative measures (e.g. operation suspension, restrictionon trading and consumption, restriction of transportation, etc.), it may possibly constitute an exemption of liability on performance of contract due to implementation of the State’s decisions. It is noted that the Vietnam authority has not yet declared the state of emergency presently.
存在。除不可抗力外，如越南行政当局因新冠疫情宣布紧急状态，并采取后续的行政措施（例如，行动禁止、限制贸易、限制消费、限制交通等），则有可能因政府措施介入构成对合同履行的免责事由。目前，越南行政当局尚未因新冠疫情宣布紧急状态。
Additionally, contractual parties may agree or even request the court to decide on amendment to or termination of contract due to a change of “basic circumstance”. Under Vietnamese laws, achange of “basic circumstance” would be constituted when it meets the regulatory conditions, e.g. the circumstances change due to objective reasons occurred after the conclusion of the contract; at the time of conclusion of the contract, the parties could not foresee a change in circumstances; the circumstances change so fund amentally that if the parties had known in advance,the contract would not have been concluded or would have been concluded, but with completely different terms and conditions; the continuous performance of the contract without the change in the contract would cause serious damage to one party; the party whose interests are adversely affected has adopted all the necessary measures within his capability, but having regard to the nature of the contract, it can not prevent or mitigate the damage. As the current Novel Coronavirus situation may be an objective event which is unforeseeable, the party in default shall still bear the burden of proof to satisfy the other conditions.
此外，由于“基本情况”的变更，合同当事人可能会同意甚至要求法院决定合同的修改或终止。根据越南法律，在符合监管条件的情况下，新冠疫情可能构成“基本情况”的变更。例如，在订立合同后，由于发生的客观原因导致情况发生变化；在订立合同时，双方无法预见情况的变化；情况的变化极大，以至于当事各方如事先知道，可能不会缔结合同，或即便缔结，但其内容完全不同；继续履行合同会导致一方当事人明显受损；利益受到不利影响的当事方已采取了所有必要的措施，但因合同性质，无法阻止或减少其受损失的程度。目前，新冠疫情可能构成不可预见的客观事件，违约方仍应对其他条件是否满足承担举证责任。
The laws also allow an exemption of liability to the extent that it is expressly agreed inthe parties’ agreement. Accordingly, a mutual agreement of parties on performance of contract due to the current Novel Coronavirus situation would be considered in the first instance.
法律还允许在双方同意的情况下免除责任。因此，应当首先考虑双方因武汉新冠肺炎，而在合同履行方面达成的协议。
It is noted that written notices of the event and possible consequences to other contractual parties are compulsory for triggering any exemption of liability.
须注意，对于事件以及对其他合同方可能造成的后果的书面通知，对于任何免责条款来说均是强制性的要求。
Indonesian Law印尼法
No.没有。
Cambodian Law柬埔寨法
No.没有。
Thai Law 泰国法
No.没有。
Malaysian Law 马来西亚法
(a)Malaysia recognises the doctrine of frustration of contracts;
(a)马来西亚承认合同落空原则;
(b) section 57(2) of The Malaysian Contracts Act 1950 (“the Contracts Act”) provides that a contract becomes void if the performance becomes impossible or unlawful. The frustrating event should be a supervening event and subsequent to the formation of the contract concerned. And a party cannot rely on the doctrine of frustration of contract, if the event concerned was self-induced;
(b)根据1950年马来西亚《合同法》(以下简称《合同法》)第57条第(2)款规定，如果合同的履行变得不可能或不合法，则该合同即宣告作废。但该落空事件应发生于合同订立之后；而且，如果该事件是由当事人自己引起的，则当事人不能主张合同落空原则;
(c) the Contracts Act does not define the word “impossible”. Case law suggests that the concept of impossibility only extends to circumstances where there is such a change of circumstances which results in a fundamental or radical change in the obligation(s) originally undertaken so as to make the performance of the contract something radically different from that originally undertaken – the mere fact that performance of the contract has become more onerous or more expensive for one party is not sufficient for the doctrine of frustration to be invoked;
(c)《合同法》并未对“不可能”一词进行定义。判例认为，不可能的概念仅适用于特殊情况的变化，这种变化会导致最初承担的义务发生根本改变或颠覆，从而使合同的履行与原先承担的义务发生根本不同的情况。——仅仅因为合同的履行对一方当事人来说变得更加沉重或更加昂贵，这并不构成合同落空；
(d) where frustration is established, the contract becomes void at the date of frustration and not void ab initio – accordingly, the parties will only be released from the performance of their future obligations under such a contract.
(d)一旦合同落空成立，合同应自落空之日起宣告作废，而不是自始无效。——因此，双方免除的合同义务，仅仅是导致履行合同落空的事实发生之后的义务；
(e) section 15(2) of Malaysian Civil Code 1956 provides for the adjustment of rights and liabilities of parties to a frustrated contract;
(e) 1956年马来西亚《民法典》第15条第（2）款规定了落空合同当事人的权利和责任的调整;
(f) accordingly, if the requirement of impossibility of performance as provided for under section 57(2) of the Contracts Act is fulfilled (as the term “impossibility” is construed by the Malaysian courts), then the doctrine of frustration can be relied upon to release the non-performing party from performance of the relevant contract. The alternative and probably a more viable route, is to rely on the “force majeure” clause present in the contract concerned (which typically should be present and normally drafted in wide terms).
(f)如果满足《合同法》第57条第(2)款规定，构成合同不可能履行，那么可以依据合同落空原则解除不履行合同方的履行义务。不过，最好的办法还是在合同中约定“不可抗力”条款，这种做法在实践中也比较普遍。