制裁条款与信用证规则的冲突与协调:基于摩根大通案的分析

Conflict and Coordination between Sanction Clause and Letter of Credit Rules:An Analysis Based on the JP Morgan Case

当事人约定遵守相关国家的单边制裁规范,日益成为涉外商事合同条款常见的安排。但在信用证交易领域,因其特有的商业基础和法律逻辑使得银行在信用证中订入作为可能止付条件的制裁条款存在非常独特的理论矛盾与实践困境。近期新加坡法院的一则裁判案例则表明,此类制裁条款因赋予了银行过大的自由裁量权,与信用证的不可撤销性、独立性、相符交单等基础规则产生冲突,将削弱信用证交易固有的确定性和可预测性。新加坡上诉法院出于对当事人商业活动的尊重,并没有轻易地否认制裁条款的效力,而是通过“严格解释路径”对制裁条款下双方的权利义务进行调整以期平衡,但这种个案解决方式难以从制度层面化解制裁条款“过度合规”对信用证交易带来的系统性危机。还需要通过国际商会的合规指引等多边路径完善制裁条款的磋商、订立、通知及止付后赔偿等实体与程序内容,实现“制裁合规”与“信用证交易可预测”的协调共存。

The increasing prevalence of unilateral sanctions regimes in international trade has led to a growing trend of parties incorporating sanction compliance provisions into their cross-border commercial contracts.However,the unique commercial underpinnings and legal logic of letter of credit(LC)transactions introduce a complex interplay between sanction clauses and the fundamental principles of LC rules.This tension was recently brought to the forefront in a landmark Singapore Court of Appeal case,which highlighted the inherent contradictions and practical dilemmas arising from the incorporation of sanction clauses into LCs.The court recognized that sanction clauses,by granting banks excessive discretion to halt payments under LCs based on their own assessment of potential sanctions violations,pose a significant threat to the core principles of LC-their irrevocability,independence,and strict conformity to presented documents.Although the Court balanced the rights and obligations of both parties through a"strict interpretation",this approach,however,falls short of addressing the systemic risks posed by"overly compliant"sanction clauses to the integrity of LC.By a more comprehensive solution lies in a multi-pronged approach that involves the negotiation,formulation,notification,and post payment compensation of sanctions through multilateral channels,the international trade community can achieve a more harmonious coexistence between sanctions compliance and the predictability of LC transactions.