简介

国际仲裁库以国际商事仲裁程序为框架，就国际仲裁协议撰写，适用法律选择，仲裁地确认等核心问题进行了实务解读。其中，文书范本栏目提供了仲裁条款、仲裁申请、仲裁答辩、证据披露等模板，国际规则栏目收录了中英对照的国际商会仲裁规则、联合国国际货物销售合同公约等国际仲裁规定。

国际仲裁库作者许杰，德衡律师集团高级合伙人，北京德和衡（上海）律师事务所执行主任，著有《国际商事仲裁实务》《再审攻略：审判监督程序之抗诉征程》等。许杰律师主要业务领域包括：重大疑难复杂民商事案件的诉讼与仲裁、国际商事仲裁等，给东方希望集团、安钢集团、西门子中国等逾百家国内外大型企业提供过法律解决服务，具有丰富的实战经验。

背景介绍

国际贸易中的法律风险

“世人熙熙,皆为利来;世人攘攘,皆为利往。”凡是有人类活动的地方,就存在利益之争或者引发利益之争的高度盖然性。小到个人、企业,大到国家和种族,鲜有例外,国与国之间的投资、贸易活动,尤其如此。

既然在国际经济活动的过程中,各类投资、贸易争端无可避免,那么,当争端发生后,如何“师夷长技以制夷”?如何利用现行国际规则,熟练、体面、有效地解决国际经济纠纷,维护中国企业的正当权益?

本章看点:我们为何关注国际仲裁?它有多重要?

加入世贸组织以来,中国在世界贸易中的比重逐步提升,已成为世界第一大出口国、第二大进口国。2015年度,世界贸易总额的四分之一都要归功于三大进出口强国—中、美、德。而在当年,中国是唯一一个进出口总额均保持正增长的国家。^[1]

2008年以来,世界经济仍未彻底走出金融危机的阴霾,发达经济体经济形势持续低迷,私人投资增速放缓。近年来,受到美国政府换届、英国脱欧、欧洲难民问题、恐怖主义等因素的影响,世界经济的走势存在更多的不确定性。尽管如此,中国2016年度出口总值仍达到20,974.44亿美元、进口总值达到15,874.81亿美元^[2],为世界经济复苏提供了强劲动力。

我国的进出口企业为巨额的进出口总值作出了重大贡献,但它们在国际贸易中,却面临着多重风险:外方合作伙伴的信用、风俗习惯、外国政治经济形势与政策等直接影响跨境贸易的安全性。除此之外,合同方的数量、合同的类型、支付方式及运输方式的选择、货物保险的选择,都是进出口企业必须慎重考虑的。

进口贸易中的法律风险主要来源于国外出口商的信用、供货规格和质量、交货时间、原产地真实性等。

出口贸易中的法律风险主要来源于国外进口商的信用、国际支付方式、国际运输方式,以及国外特有法律环境所带来的种种潜在风险(如反贿赂、环境保护、知识产权、反倾销调查或措施、反补贴调查或措施等)。

尽管以上法律风险通过审慎操控,可以被控制在最小范围之内,但是通过法律途径解决争议仍然是维护国内进出口企业合法权益的最后一道防线。

不少企业抱着“息事宁人”的态度,不愿意“打官司”,认为这样不利于客户的维护,并且有损于企业信誉。其实,这样的想法是完全错误的。企业合作必然基于一定的利益,而这“利益”必然是共同、双方的。试问,如果某一外国客户只能为国内企业带来时间和财力上的损失,不能带来利益,又何必任其为所欲为呢? 在国外交易相对方违约时,如果抱着侥幸心理一拖再拖,反而会被恶意的交易相对方利用,甚至“反咬一口”,更会导致损失扩大化。因此,对于中国企业而言,明确商业策略和法律之间的分界线,适当运用法律手段维护合法权益,对于国际业务发展,乃至企业自身存续,都显得尤为重要。

解决跨境贸易争端,不能局限于在当事国法院提起诉讼这一传统方式。事实上,贸易壁垒普遍存在,而国际司法协助存在各种问题。跨国诉讼往往不是解决跨境争端的最佳选择。随着国际贸易的迅猛发展,各类更加高效的争议解决机制已经被国际社会所接受,本书所介绍的国际商事仲裁就是最为常用的一种。

1.资料来源:世界贸易组织:https://www.wto.org/“Wordl Trade Statistical Review 2016”.

2.中华人民共和国海关总署:http://www.customs.gov.cn/《2016年12月全国进出口总值表》

国际仲裁的发展

国际仲裁的优势

在介绍国际仲裁之前,需要明确本书所讨论主题的范畴。

根据中国法律,依案件性质与仲裁地点^[1]的不同,仲裁可分为三类:国际仲裁、涉外仲裁和国内仲裁。

“国际仲裁”,也称“外国仲裁”,是指仲裁地在中国境外的仲裁。

“涉外仲裁”,指具有涉外因素、但是仲裁地位于中国境内的仲裁。“涉外因素”是指在一个案件中(1)一方或者双方当事人是外国人、无国籍人、外国法人;(2)标的物在外国领域内;或者(3)产生、变更或者消灭法律关系的法律事实发生在外国。

“国内仲裁”,指不含任何涉外因素,仲裁地位于中国的仲裁。

以上三类仲裁所做裁决,适用范围、效力、承认和执行方面的法律规定均有所不同。本书所讨论的仅限于国际仲裁与涉外仲裁。

仲裁vs.诉讼

从事国际贸易业务的企业所要面对的,不仅仅是国际市场的收益。巨大的潜能,也会带来更多的风险。风险现实化之后、及时控制损失便成为第一要务。此时,除了积极解决争端的态度,如何选择争端解决机制往往是至关重要的一步。

国际化交易发生争议,解决方式大致可以分两种:一是诉讼,一是“替代性争端解决方式”(Alternative Dispute Resolution,“ADR”)。所谓“替代性”,是指协商替代诉讼程序、中立第三方机构替代一国国内法院而解决争端。ADR主要包括磋商(Negotiation)、调解(Mediation)以及仲裁(Arbitration);其中,以仲裁最为普遍。

跨境交易当事人往往乐于选择国际仲裁解决争端。究其原因,主要有以下几点:

第一,仲裁程序更有利于保护隐私

以我国民事诉讼法为例,审判公开原则意味着民众可以旁听、媒体可以报道,除了合议庭评议,法庭审理的全过程都是公之于众的。

相较于“大张旗鼓”的诉讼程序,仲裁则更加私密。仲裁员、仲裁机构不得泄漏与案件有关的信息。高度的私密性,意味着维护企业商誉、稳定市场份额、确保与争议发生地其他合作伙伴的友好关系。

第二,仲裁程序更加高效

诉讼程序的进展,直接取决于一国国内法的规定、司法系统的效率;虽然程序继续进行有所保障,但通常会耗费大量时间。以我国民事诉讼法为例,一审判决作出后,如果一方当事人上诉,需要经历二审程序;特殊情况下,更需再审程序。

跨境交易争议标的额往往巨大,动辄上百万美元甚至过亿美元,无法或不宜适用快速判决程序^[2]。如何尽快解决纠纷,在节约财力物力的同时不错过商机,既是各方当事人力争确保的,也恰恰是仲裁程序能够提供的。

第三,适用法律规则更加确定

跨境贸易争议本为解决某一法律问题。如果选择国内诉讼,则必然面对另一国家的陌生法律规则。比如,普通法系和大陆法系针对某一特定问题,很可能有不同的推定规则、不同的处理方式。这为双方当事人、尤其是对于“客场”参加另一国国内诉讼的当事人,带来了巨大的不确定性。而国际贸易中,不确定性意味着不可控的风险。

相较之下,国际仲裁中,双方当事人可以合意选择适用法律规则。这一法律规则可以是某一国国内法,也可以是国际条约。这样,当事人就可以绕开完全陌生的法律体系,避开暗礁,在风险更低、确定性更高的体系下实现争议解决。

第四,仲裁裁决更易于执行

就算是案件获得了有利判决,跨境承认和执行也是一大令当事人头疼的问题。一国国内法院所作的判决,在另一国申请执行的成功几率,基本上取决于两国之间是否存在司法协助条约,甚至取决于申请执行国国内法院对于国外判决的态度。在程序上游,需要当事人各方及代理律师首先查明两国之间是否存在相关条约,并查明条约内容,才能放心应诉。在程序下游,由于法律体系的不同,甚至国家文化的不同,一国判决也很可能无法顺利得到承认和执行。

仲裁机构依规则所作出的仲裁裁决,依照《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》(“纽约公约”) (the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards,“New York Convention”)即可获得承认和执行。^[3]由于缔约方众多,承认与执行仲裁裁决的领域,在世界范围内的覆盖率也相当之高。

* 上图深色部分为《纽约公约》生效的国家/区域。

仲裁的发起

与诉讼程序不同,仲裁程序的适用,以当事人达成合意并明确加以选择为前提。及时达成仲裁协议、确保其完整有效,是保障仲裁程序顺利进行、仲裁裁决得以被承认和执行的基础。

(1) 仲裁协议的达成

双方当事人可以在争议发生之前、协商基础合同草案时,拟定仲裁条款、约定仲裁将是解决未来争端的唯一机制。这样选择的优势非常明确:可预测性。或许风险无法精准预测,但在很大程度上可以有效控制。争端解决条款存在的意义,就是在发生争议时,为双方提供一条尽可能迅速、有效的道路。在争端解决条款中明确约定仲裁机构、仲裁语言、仲裁地点等,将为双方合同义务的履行提供无形但绝对有力的保障。

同样,争议发生之后,双方仍然可以通过自由合意的方式,选择通过仲裁解决。然而,此时双方往往已经经历了漫长的谈判与磋商,仍然无法取得一致意见;在疲惫不堪的对峙状态下,能否就争端解决机制达成合意,是个未知数。根据中国法律,在没有仲裁协议、或者仲裁协议无效的情况下,如果一方当事人先行向法院起诉, 法院有权依法予以受理。因此,如未能确定选择仲裁,当事人将面临国内诉讼程序的繁复和不确定性。

相较之下,草拟合同时选择仲裁的优势,不言自明。有关如何撰写简洁有效的仲裁协议,详见本书第二章第一节“仲裁协议的撰写”及第九章文书范本中的“仲裁条款”相关内容。

(2) 特设vs.常设

仲裁庭的组成,直接影响着仲裁的进行、裁决的效力、甚至决定了裁决能否顺利得以承认与执行^[6]。

国际商事仲裁中,仲裁庭依照组成方式的不同,可以分为特设、常设两种。

双方当事人可以在争议发生之后,任命仲裁员、即时组成仲裁庭(Ad hoc Arbitration) 进行仲裁。之所以称之为“特设”仲裁庭,是因为该仲裁庭独立于仲裁机构。值得注意的是,特设仲裁庭的英文“Ad hoc”本为拉丁文,意为“专为实现某一目的而组成的”,并无“仓促之间组成”之意。因此,将其译为“临时仲裁庭”,或有不妥。特设仲裁庭存在的唯一意义即在于审理本案;一旦审理终结,裁决作出,仲裁庭即告解散。

与此相对,当事人也可以选择某一家专业的常设国际仲裁机构,并选择适用该机构拟订公布的仲裁规则管理仲裁进程。此为常设机构仲裁(Institutional Arbitration)。

特设仲裁不下属于任何一个专门仲裁机构,没有既定管理流程。这种情况下,案件的保密性较高,也具有很高的灵活性,乍看颇有“量身定制”的感觉。然而,特设仲裁庭的“灵活”是一把双刃剑:没有专属仲裁机构,没有固定的仲裁规则,也没有统一的管理流程,一切皆取决于当事人的安排,这意味着提交仲裁的协议需要准备得相当完备。而在实务中,仲裁协议通常以条款的形式,简明扼要地出现在基础合同的后半部分,绝不会长篇大论去讨论仲裁的流程细节。如果仲裁协议中没有相应规定,双方当事人最好选择有经验的仲裁员,或者选择适用某一仲裁机构的规则。

尺有所短,寸有所长。跨境交易争端中,选择专业机构并适用机构仲裁规则往往更加有利。如下文所述,专业仲裁机构可以提供高素质的仲裁员名单、高效率的程序管理服务;更重要的是,专业机构所拟定的规则具体、明确,可以保障仲裁程序确定性、统一性,如果程序违法,当事人也更易于维护程序权利;其所作出的仲裁裁决亦有高度的可预测性。

无论何时达成仲裁协议,如何选择仲裁机构,最明智的选择,总是及时寻求法律意见。充分咨询专业人士意见,才是真正量体裁衣的精细化服务。

世界主要仲裁机构

常设机构仲裁(Institutional Arbitration) 是跨境交易中争议解决的首选,具体选择哪一仲裁机构,就是当事人双方的第一要务。

国际仲裁机构分布于世界各国,大多独立于政府。本书选择其中具有代表性的几个,从机构历史、规则特色等方面加以介绍,方便读者了解和选择。

首先需要明确的是,仲裁机构的选择并不影响仲裁语言、仲裁地、适用法律的确定。举例而言,如果当事人双方选择了地理位置在法国巴黎的仲裁机构,这并不影响仲裁庭在英国伦敦开庭。同样,位于美国纽约的仲裁机构,在当事人合意的基础上,也可能适用国际公约作出裁决。中国当事方和日本当事方,既可以选择位于中国北京的仲裁机构,也可以选择位于日本东京的机构。而如果双方选择位于瑞典斯德哥尔摩、新加坡或香港的仲裁机构,也是完全可行的。从这个角度上看,国际仲裁机构是独立于一国政府的,是“无国籍”、“无国界”的。

国际商会 ICC

国际商会( International Chamber of Commerce,“ICC”) 国际仲裁院(International Court of Arbitration,“ICA”),是国际仲裁领域历史最悠久的机构。

(1) 机构简介

第一次世界大战之后,欧洲国家开始寻求国际范围内的合作与发展。国际商会成立于1919年,迄今已有近百年的历史。其宗旨包括维护国家间经贸合作关系、协助国际贸易争议解决、制定国际贸易规则。

国际商会虽为非营利性民间贸易组织,但基于对跨境贸易实务的深入了解,其制定的规则条款,已经在当今国际贸易界具有相当权威地位,亦为业界人士所熟知。广泛适用于国际货物买卖合同的国际贸易术语解释通(International Rules for the Interpretation of Trade Terms,下称“Incoterms”)、跟单信用证统一惯例(ICC Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits,“UCP 600”)、托收统一规则 (ICC Uniform Rules for Collection,“URC 522”) 均出自国际商会。

国际仲裁院独立于国际商会,于1923年在巴黎成立,是国际商事仲裁领域历史最悠久、最负盛名的机构之一。截止2016年底,仲裁院已审理逾一万九千件仲裁案。仅2015年一年,就有来自于133个不同国家、逾2000位当事人选择了国际商会仲裁,并在56个国家、97个城市进行了仲裁。这些程序调动了逾1300名仲裁员,其国籍达77国之多。调查显示,国际仲裁院是“最受信赖且最广泛被选择的仲裁机构”^[1]。

国际商会总部设在巴黎,在香港有分支机构;国际仲裁院在上海设有代表处。

(2) 《国际商会仲裁规则》

国际商会制定了《国际商会仲裁规则》(最近一次修订是2016年底,新规则于2017年开始实施)、《国际商会调解规则》、《国际商会专家意见规则》。需要明确的一点是,国际商会仲裁院并不扮演法院的角色。依照规则,仲裁院在仲裁程序中担任主要的行政性职务,例如管理案件、指定仲裁员等。真正从实体上审理案件的,是双方任命、仲裁院指派的仲裁员。

国际商会仲裁规则为仲裁程序确定了大体框架;基于对当事人双方合意的尊重,实际可采用的程序有很大的自由空间。

与其他机构规则不同的是,国际商会仲裁规则要求仲裁庭在组建后较短时间内制订“审理范围书”,有效进行案件管理。关于这一点,本书第四章第一节有详细介绍。ICC另一特色,是仲裁院对裁决书草稿的核阅(scrutiny)。这是国际商会仲裁裁决最终作出之前的必经程序,仲裁院有权针对实体问题提请仲裁庭注意。这是主要行使行政职能的仲裁院权利范围的一大突破。

在2017新规则中,国际商会主要做出了以下几点调整:

1—新增程序:快速裁决程序^[2](Expedited Procedure 以下简称“速裁程序”);

2—费用调整^[3]:案件受理费(filing fees) 变高、最低额管理费(minimum of ad-ministrative expenses) 变高、增加独立适用于速裁程序的费用标准;

3—高效透明:审理范围书(Terms of reference) 订立时间缩短、仲裁院重大决定理由需要披露。

其中最具特色的,是新增的速裁程序。根据 2017新规则,速裁程序自动适用于标的额低于200万美金的案件;当事人双方也可以选择适用。顾名思义,速裁程序最大的优势在于争议解决之“速”——仲裁庭须于案件管理会议后6个月内作出终局裁决。并且,速裁程序并不会造成当事人“骑虎难下”的局面,2017新规则附件六第1-4条特别规定了终止适用快速裁决程序的情形:程序进行中,仲裁院既可以主动决定终止适用,也可以依一方当事人申请决定终止适用。如仲裁院认为应终止适用,则须征求仲裁庭及双方当事人的意见。对于标的额不大的案件,以及需要迅速获得终局性裁定的案件,这无疑是一条捷径。

中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会 CIETAC

(1) 机构简介

中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会(“贸仲委”) (China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission,“CIETAC”) 在1956年设立于北京,并在深圳、上海、天津、重庆、杭州、武汉和福州分别设有华南分会、上海分会、天津国际经济金融仲裁中心(天津分会)、西南分会、浙江分会、湖北分会和福建分会。贸仲委在香港特别行政区设立贸仲委香港仲裁中心。根据贸仲委《章程》,分会及仲裁中心均为贸仲委的派出机构,依据贸仲委的授权接受并管理仲裁案件。

成立以来,贸仲委共受理近3万件的国内外仲裁案件、总数位居第一,年度新受理案件数量同样遥遥领先于其他国际仲裁机构。2015年一年案件争议金额更是高达425亿元人民币。

根据贸仲委网上公布的数据,2006至2015年,虽然每年受理的涉外案件数量相对较为稳定(少则300余件,多则500余件),但由于国内仲裁案件数量不断攀升,贸仲委审理的涉外案件占比呈逐年下滑趋势。这也证明了我国国内企业之间对仲裁的认识愈加深入,并逐渐倾向于通过仲裁解决争议。

(2) 规则特色

贸仲委的特色之一,是广泛设立各个地方/行业办事处,满足不同行业当事人的专业需求。比如,贸仲委提供的争议解决服务,覆盖粮食行业、商业行业、工程建设、金融、羊毛;并提供域名争议解决服务、制定了《网上仲裁规则》及相应的简易程序和快速程序。这无疑提供了仲裁程序上游的更多选择。

相较于其他国际仲裁机构规则,贸仲委规则的一大特点,是详尽规定了仲裁与调解相结合的原则。虽然在一般的国际仲裁中,双方当事人可以调解、和解,但对仲裁程序进行中的调解与和解专章规定,则颇为特殊。

规则不仅鼓励当事人自行和解,还进一步规定,调解并不一定由仲裁庭主持。

在双方当事人期望调解时,贸仲委敢于主动“退位”、留给当事人更大的自由协商空间,无疑是对国际仲裁中双方当事人的自愿性和自主性的极大保障。

华南国际经济贸易仲裁委员会 SCIA

(1) 机构简介

华南国际经济贸易仲裁委员会(South China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission,“SCIA”)(下称“华南国仲”) ^[4]1983年设立于中国深圳,是解决境内外自然人、法人和其他组织之间发生的合同纠纷和其他财产权益纠纷的仲裁机构。

(2) 《深圳国际仲裁院2016新仲裁规则》

2016年12月1日起,华南国仲全新仲裁规则开始施行。被起草委员之一称为“中国大陆最领先”的新规则,将适用范围扩大到了审理国际投资争议中的投资方和东道国争议(新规则第二条(二)),并为投资争议仲裁案另行规定了费用标准。

值得注意的是,新规则第三条(五)款规定,如果一方当事人将一国政府与他国投资者之间的投资争议案件提交华南国仲,则仲裁院“将按照《联合国国际贸易法委员会仲裁规则》(UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules,下称“〈UNCITRAL仲裁规则〉”) 及《深圳国际仲裁院关于适用〈联合国国际贸易法委员会仲裁规则〉的程序指引》管理案件。”

这一款之所以重要,是因为我国在最新签订的双边投资协定中,往往写入了UNCITRAL仲裁规则。

例如,我国于2003年与德国签订的双边投资协定第九条第三款规定:

“争议应依据1965年3月18日《解决国家和他国国民之间投资争端公约》提交仲裁,除非争议双方同意依据《联合国国际贸易法委员会仲裁规则》或其他仲裁规则设立专设仲裁庭。”

再如,我国于2005年与芬兰签订的协定第九条第二款规定:

二、如争议自书面提起之日三个月内未能解决,经投资者选择,该争议可提交:

(一) 作出投资所在地缔约一方有管辖权的法院;

(二) 依据1965年3月18日在华盛顿签署的《解决国家和他国国民之间投资争端公约》设立的“解决投资争端国际中心”仲裁;或

(三) 根据联合国国际贸易法委员会仲裁规则设立的专设仲裁庭,除非争议当事双方另有其他一致同意。

一般而言,投资者与东道国之间的争议(Investor-State Disputes),根据双边投资协定的不同,或由国际投资争端解决中心(International Center for Settlement of In-vestment Disputes,下称“ICSID中心”) 的投资仲裁解决,或依照《UNCITRAL 仲裁规则》所组成的特设仲裁庭解决。ICSID中心虽然专为国际投资所创,但其作出的裁决,存在被废止的可能性。除此之外,在一些国家还极有可能无法得到承认与执行。

与此相对,华南国仲2016新规则具有以下几点优势:

程序上,华南国仲提供完备的机构仲裁规则,并提供 UNCITRAL规则适用指引可供当事人选择;

管辖上,华南国仲可以审理投资者与东道国之间的国际投资争议,因此,ICSID仲裁程序并非当事人解决争议的唯一途径;裁决性质上,其所作出的裁决属于国际商事仲裁裁决,在《纽约公约》156个缔约国范围之内可以得到有效的承认和执行。

(3) 《海事物流仲裁特别规则》

值得瞩目的是,华南国仲在深圳设立了前海海事物流仲裁中心( 下称“华南海仲”)、并于2016年公布了《海事物流仲裁特别规则》(下称“《海事仲裁规则》”),自2016年12月1日起施行。

从管辖范围上看,依据《海事仲裁规则》,华南国仲受理货物和旅客运输、租船合同、运输单证争议、与航运和物流相关的金融、金融租赁与保险争议、海事和航空 事故及处理等争议。这无疑为海事案件提供了解决争议的专业通道。

从规则性质上看,《海事仲裁规则》属于华南国仲受案范围之内,较为特殊的规则。如果当事人约定由华南国仲管辖案件、但未明确约定适用《海事仲裁规则》,则适用《深圳国际仲裁院仲裁规则》中的一般性规定。可以看出,规则充分尊重当事人合意后作出的选择,仲裁机构不会横加干涉。

从仲裁庭的组成上看,华南国仲为海事仲裁案件确立了三人仲裁庭的“默认”规则;如争议金额低于人民币500万元,则由独任仲裁员审理。如果争议金额超过这一限度,当事人需要书面同意,才能由独任仲裁员审理案件。反之,就算争议金额不满这一限度,当事人仍可以通过合意约定的方式,排除适用《海事仲裁规则》。

上海国际仲裁中心 SHIAC

上海国际仲裁中心(Shanghai International Arbitration Center,“SHIAC”),又名上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会,设立于1988年。

(1) 机构简介

受案范围方面,除了传统的商事争议,上海国际仲裁中心受理的案件还涉及到私募股权、互联网金融、融资租赁、航空服务、能源与环境权益等领域。2000至2012年间,中心每年受理的涉外案件在82至167件之间浮动,数量较为稳定。而国内案件数量则呈递增趋势。^[5]

仲裁员名册方面,中心共有仲裁员909名,其中外籍及港澳台地区仲裁员占到了近四成。 当事人的选择随之变得更为广泛、更为国际化。

上海国际仲裁中心的国际化发展战略,同样体现在制订规则、设立仲裁院的举措上。中心先后设立了中国(上海)自由贸易试验区仲裁院、上海国际航空仲裁院、金砖国家争议解决上海中心和中非联合仲裁上海中心,为特定领域的争议提供了重要的替代解决方式。

(2) 《中国(上海) 自由贸易试验区仲裁规则》

《中国(上海) 自由贸易试验区仲裁规则》(下称“自贸区仲裁规则”) 制订于2014年,并于2015年进行了修订,新规则于2015年1月1日起施行。

自贸区仲裁规则有着广泛的适用性—在当事人约定上海国际仲裁中心为仲裁机构的情况下,如果争议当事人、标的物、有关法律事实涉及上海自贸区,当事人又没有针对适用的规则进行特殊约定,则仲裁案件自动适用自贸区仲裁规则。由于“涉及”是一个相对广泛的概念,自贸区仲裁规则的适用也随之拓宽了。

为确保双方当事人的自由度,自贸区仲裁规则规定,如果当事人约定上海国际仲裁中心为仲裁机构,并且约定适用自贸区仲裁规则,则双方仍然可以约定针对自贸区仲裁规则进行变更。

同时,在当事人没有明确约定仲裁地的情况下,自贸区仲裁规则将“默认”仲裁地规定为上海国际仲裁中心所在地。如此,仲裁裁决将被视为上海作出的裁决、其在我国境内的承认与执行,应依照我国相关法律规定进行。

除此之外,自贸区仲裁规则还专章规定了简易程序,适用于争议金额不超过人民币100万元的涉外、涉港澳台案件,为争议解决提供了便利。规则规定,简易程序下,由独任仲裁员审理案件、答辩书、反请求答辩书的提交时限也由普通程序中的45日缩减为20日。独任仲裁员须在仲裁庭成立后3个月内作出裁决书。

值得一提的是,自贸区仲裁规则虽然专章规定了小额争议程序、提交时限更短(仅10日),但小额争议程序仅可适用于国内争议案件,不得适用于涉外争议。这从另一个侧面体现了上海国际仲裁中心对涉外、涉港澳台争议的谨慎态度。

香港国际仲裁中心 HKIAC

(1) 机构简介

香港国际仲裁中心(Hongkong International Arbitration Center,“HKIAC”) 成立于1985年,三十多年来,已经成为亚洲领先的争议解决机构。

HKIAC受理的案件持续国际化。2015年,HKIAC受理271起仲裁案件,争议总金额约62亿美金。其中,79%涉及非香港当事人,国际案件比例高达94.8%,43.4%的案件与香港没有联系、6.1%的案件与亚洲没有联系。^[6]

值得注意的是,除了传统的仲裁和调解服务,HKIAC还提供专业的审裁和域名争议解决服务。

审裁(Adjudications)是一种快捷争议解决途径,其特征是由独任仲裁员根据审裁规则、合同条款和适用法律进行裁决。和仲裁裁决一样,审裁员作出的裁决对双方当事人具有约束力,且可以经由另一种程序而进行修改。比如,审裁员作出的裁决,可以在仲裁程序中被修订。审裁程序在建筑纠纷中有广泛的运用。

同时,HKIAC还擅长通过在线争议解决系统,处理恶意注册、使用域名等知识产权领域的争议。2002年,HKIAC合作创立了通过亚洲域名争议解决中心,并且负责管理其香港秘书处。目前,HKIAC可以提供所有通用顶级域名(gTLD)、香港域名、中国域名等域名争议解决办法。域名争议或通过在线争议解决平台、或通过电子文件交换解决,一般可在60天内结案。^[7]

(2) 2013年《HKIAC机构仲裁规则》

2013年11月1日起开始施行的《香港国际仲裁中心机构仲裁规则》,被《环球仲裁评论》Global Arbitration Review,“GAR”提名为2013年最佳发展之一。

在仲裁费用方面,HKIAC率先为仲裁双方当事人提供了选择,对国际商事仲裁费用制度起到了突破性的创新作用。根据2013HKIAC规则,当事人可以选择按小时(封顶为每小时6500港元),或者按照标的额高低支付仲裁员费用。在有效预见仲裁时间、案件复杂程度的前提下,此项规定可以帮助当事人减少不必要的开支。

新加坡国际仲裁中心 SIAC

(1) 机构简介

新加坡国际仲裁中心(Singapore International Arbitration Center,“SIAC”)(下称“新仲”)1991年设立于新加坡,目前在上海设有代表处。

设立之初,新仲主要处理建筑工程、船运、银行和保险类纠纷。从2000 年的58件到2015年的271件^[8],近十余年来,新仲受理案件数量不断增长;2012至2015年度,位居新仲境外当事人前三位的,包括中国、印度、印度尼西亚、韩国、美国。

(2) 新仲2016新规则

2016年,新仲颁布了最新修订的仲裁规则,最主要的增加和修改如下:

1—多份合同仲裁。相同当事人之间如有多个合同争议,申请人有两种选择:或根据每份合同中的仲裁协议,提交多份“仲裁通知书”,申请合并这些仲裁案件;或根据所有仲裁协议,仅提交一份“仲裁通知书”。当然,申请人需要在“仲裁通知书”中说明与被申请人之间的各份合同的情况,及双方之间仲裁协议的情况。显然,后一种选择对申请人而言最省时省力。

2—合并仲裁。如果多个仲裁案件所涉及的合同之间相互关联、但仲裁当事人不完全相同( 如连环买卖合同、建设工程分包等),无论这些案件中仲裁庭是否已经组成,当事人都可以申请将相关争议合并审理。当然,合并审理需要案件满足当事人合意这一条件。这种合意可以有多种表现:其一,所有当事人明确同意合并仲裁;其二,各案件的仲裁请求,均依据同一份仲裁协议提出;其三,仲裁请求基于不同的仲裁协议提出,但是协议相容,且争议由相同法律关系或同一系列交易产生。

3—默认仲裁地。在先前的版本中,如若当事人未约定仲裁地,则新加坡应作为默认仲裁地。在新规则下,当事人未约定仲裁地的情况下,仲裁庭应在考虑全部案情后确定仲裁地。可以理解为,这是新仲为了充分尊重来自不同地域、不同文化的当事人的需求、提供更加国际化、自由化的仲裁规则的体现。

世界范围内最负盛名的仲裁机构,还有伦敦国际仲裁院(London Court of Inter-national Arbitration,“LCIA”)、斯德哥尔摩商会仲裁院(the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce,“SCC”) 以及美国仲裁协会国际争议解决中心 (International Centre for Dispute Resolution,“ICDR”of American Arbitration Associa-tion,“AAA”)。

位于亚洲的客户最常选择的仲裁机构,包括贸仲委、新仲以及香港国际仲裁中心。基于地域优势,贸仲委受理的案件数量远高于其他国际仲裁机构。相较之下,国际商会仲裁院所受理的案件,地域分布更加广泛、客户也更加多元化。

附表:

国际商会(ICC)仲裁院、新仲(SIAC)、贸仲委(CIETAC)、香港国际仲裁中心(HKIAC)最新仲裁规则要点比较

本章小结

本章简单介绍了我们为何关注国际商事仲裁,本书又为何以此为主题。

可以说,国际经济环境越是低迷,跨境交易就越容易出现不同利益体的碰撞,争议解决也越重要。在这种背景之下,厌诉的态度是万万不可取的。当今经济全球化,交易规则与中国传统文化中的君子之交、礼尚往来大相径庭。而更接近于达尔文式的进化论—丛林法则,适者生存。

我国已经成为世界第一出口大国,2016年1 至11月,全国出口总值已达124,699.81亿元人民币^[9]。在华夏企业纷纷冲向世界、成为全球贸易弄潮儿的同时,守护与拼搏同样重要。签订合同时,一定要防患于未然,尽量考虑到相关风险;出现纠纷苗头时,务必慎之又慎,及时寻求专业法律意见。

1.国际商会官方网站公布数据,见:http://www.iccwbo.org/。

2.“快速裁决程序”一词,系参考中国国际商会推送文章暂译,原文为ICC Expedited Procedure

3.详见本书第二章第七节“仲裁费用”。

4.华南国仲是一个多名称的仲裁机构,亦称“深圳国际仲裁院”(Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration)、曾名中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会华南分会、中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会深圳分会。

5.《上海国际仲裁中心受案数量》,见:http:// www.shiac.org/

6.见:http://www.hkiac.org/zh-hans/about-us/statistics在HKIAC公布的数据中,从2009到2015年，国际仲裁案件始终占到了绝大多数地位。

7.《关于亚洲域名争议解决中心及其香港秘书处》,见:http://www. hkiac.org/。

8.《新加坡国际仲裁中心2005年度至2015年度新受理案件总数》(Total Number of New Cases Handled by SIAC(2005-2015)),见:http://siac.org.sg/ 。

9.海关总署《2016年11月全国进出口总值表(人民币值)》,“1至当月累计”。

国际仲裁要点分析

国际仲裁协议的撰写

仲裁协议的由来和发展

仲裁制度历史悠久,是双方当事人按照自身意愿解决纠纷的最高体现。那么,作为国际商事仲裁的一方当事人,需要注意哪些方面呢?

本章看点:从法律实务角度讨论国际商事仲裁中最为重要的八大方面。

仲裁是人类社会解决矛盾的最古老的方式之一,拥有悠久的历史,随着世界经济的发展,仲裁这一纠纷解决方式在国际商贸领域的适用日益普遍。解决当事人之间纠纷的仲裁是双方当事人意思自治的一种体现。

经过一些历史学者考査研究,在公元前2500年的古埃及第四王朝KHEFREN统治时期,就出现了有关仲裁活动的文字记录。古罗马时代,有关法律强制执行力方面,并未对仲裁协议和裁决予以法律规定,但签订仲裁协议的一方当事人如果拒绝将争议交付仲裁,如果双方签订的仲裁协议中含有违约罚金条款,那么另一方当事人就可以通过请求违约赔偿保护自己的权益。

英国肯特君主王朝时代,当时的法律对仲裁有关问题予以规定,其中对债权债务纠纷的双方当事人约定仲裁裁决赔偿金额的权利和程序进行了详细清楚地规定。

从以上材料可以看出国际商事仲裁起源于古代社会,但之后的发展壮大与欧洲中世纪的海洋贸易有直接关联,是海洋贸易的发展促进了国际商事仲裁的发展,而且国际商事仲裁与长期稳定商品交易的贸易有关。

这些活动也促进了契约自由的成长。契约自由折射在法律理论上,那就是当事人意思自治原则(Principle of the autonomy of the parties)。意思自治原本属于法哲学的思想,其含义就是人的意志可以通过自身的法则去设定自己的权利义务。当事人的意志不仅仅是权利义务的渊源,而且是其发生的根据。

随着法学理论的发展,在法学的各个领域中,意思自治原则也逐渐得到认可,甚至于民商事方面的纠纷解决过程中,也要考虑当事人意思自治内容。在仲裁发展过程中,通过法律对仲裁协议予以确认,不仅是双方当事人间契约自由的必然选择,也是为了更好保护双方自由契约的需要。

仲裁协议的内容

一般情况下,仲裁协议是在签订合同时规定在合同里的,但是即便合同里没有规定,任何时候双方都可以达成提交仲裁的一致意见,签订一份独立的仲裁协议。

仲裁范围的选择是指双方当事人约定仲裁现在的争议事项,或约定仲裁可能发生的争议事项。仲裁协议是仲裁的根本是不可否认的,其实在内涵是尊重当事人以仲裁方式解决争议的意愿,而仲裁协议中的主要作用就是约定仲裁什么和怎样仲裁。选择仲裁范围就是解决仲裁什么的问题。

实践中,约定仲裁范围后,仲裁庭就只能就约定的进行管辖。仲裁庭只能针对当事人约定争议事项作出对应裁决。

《纽约公约》第5条第1款(C)项规定,如果仲裁裁决的事项超越了当事人协议提交仲裁的范围,该裁决可被申请执行地法院裁定不予承认和执行。大多数国家的仲裁立法都借鉴了《纽约公约》对此的写法,多数司法判例也是按这一规定进行审査的。

中国《仲裁法》第58条规定,如一方当事人提出证据证明裁决的事项是不属于仲裁协议的范围,当事人可以向仲裁机构所在地的中级人民法院申请撤销仲裁裁决;对于什么样的争议可以用国际商事仲裁制度解决,就变得越来越重要。从而引发的一个重要的界定便是该“争议”本身是否属于国际商事仲裁事项范围,从争议事项的范围入手,探讨“争议”可仲裁的法律规定和实践。

当事人对仲裁范围的选择,这主要是通过签订仲裁协议内容中约定仲裁事项。一般来说,通过常设仲裁机构进行仲裁的,仲裁机构都有推荐的标准仲裁条款;对临时仲裁来说,联合国国际贸易法委员会也要求推荐标准条款。

通常情况下,在约定将争议提交仲裁解决前,双方当事人在仲裁协议中会写明提交仲裁的争议事项。早在1981年,法国就将争议标的的重要性写入了《民事诉讼法典》(Le Code de Procedure Civile) 第 1448条:“仲裁协议要有明确的争议标的,否则协议无效。”

Article 1448-1 of French Code of Civil Procedure(Year of 1981)

The compromise must,under penalty of nullity,determine the subject-matter of the dispute. ^[1]

国际上通常做法是,双方当事人同意将签订的仲裁协议中约定的事项通过仲裁解决时,仲裁机构才有了受理仲裁案件的依据。假如一方当事人向仲裁机构提交的仲裁事项不是协议中约定的,另一方当事人因此可对仲裁机构的管辖权提出异议,也可要求法院撤销该仲裁裁决,或者向法院请求拒绝承认与执行该仲裁裁决。在签订仲裁协议时,双方当事人约定的争议事项必须是能够通过仲裁来解决的,也就是争议事项是相关法律所允许的,且可以通过仲裁来解决的事项。

《法国民事诉讼法典》1448条:仲裁员的任命与仲裁协议效力

其实,1448条只是1981年条款刚刚写入法典时的编号。该法条已被其后多条法令（DECRET）删改。目前,这一条款编入法国《民事诉讼法典》1445条,并仍然规定,仲裁协议如不规定争议标的,则为无效。

1981年《法国民事诉讼法典》1448条共有三款。第一款确立了争议标的的重要地位。第二款则规定,仲裁协议必须任命仲裁员、或明确任命仲裁员的程序,否则协议无效。相应地,第三款规定,如果仲裁协议所任命的仲裁员拒绝任命,则仲裁协议无效。

本条直接将协议效力与仲裁员选任制度挂钩。立法者如此考量,一方面体现了当时仲裁员任命程序的重要性,或许与当时仲裁员任命的制度在法国法律中尚不完善有直接联系。当时,为避免仲裁协议滥用,或应如此规定。而另一方面,仅因未规定仲裁员任命程序就无效,仲裁协议自身的效力不免显得“岌岌可危”。

随着国际仲裁的逐步发展,机构仲裁(Institutional Arbitration) 的仲裁规则也为法律人所熟知。独任仲裁员、三人仲裁庭任命的程序也在国际社会上普遍得以确认。

响应这一法律发展,法国《民事诉讼法典》目前关于仲裁协议中仲裁员任命的规定如下—

1444条:仲裁协议应:任命仲裁员;或以某一仲裁规则为范例任命仲裁员,或规定仲裁员的任命规则。

如果仲裁协议没有依1444条任命仲裁员、亦未规定任命规则,则仲裁员的任命规则适用《民事诉讼法典》1451至1454条。

1.法语原文:“A peine de nullite,le compromis determine lobjet du litige. “英文翻译版本来自法国政府官网:https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/。

仲裁协议的有效性

有效的仲裁协议或条款应当具有下列内容:

(1) 意思表示

当事人请求仲裁的意思表示必须清楚明确。经常出现的情形是当事人在合同中约定“或者仲裁或者起诉”,或“先仲裁,后起诉”。包含上述内容或与上述内容相似表述的仲裁条款通常被认为无效。尽管如此,如果一方当事人申请仲裁,另一方当事人未在规定的期间内(即首次开庭前)提出异议,则视为仲裁机构对争议有管辖权。

(2) 仲裁事项

当事人有权选择具体的事宜作为仲裁事项,或在仲裁协议或条款中概括约定仲裁事项为“所有争议”。在第二种情形下,“所有争议”包括合同成立、效力、变更、转让、履行、违约、违约责任、解释、解除等中存在的任何争议。值得注意的是,即使当事人认为这些争议的性质是侵权纠纷,也仍然都受该仲裁协议或条款的约束。

(3) 约定的仲裁机构

仲裁机构通常是仲裁协议中最容易被认定无效的一个因素。建议将争议提请仲裁的当事人只选择一个仲裁机构,并予以明确该仲裁机构的名称。

鉴于约定的仲裁机构是仲裁协议必须具备的内容,在争议属于国内仲裁或者 涉外仲裁对象的情形下,如果当事人订立了临时仲裁协议,该协议往往将被认定为无效;但如果争议属于国际仲裁对象,临时仲裁协议是被认可的。仲裁地在中国境外的情况下,只要仲裁协议依据当事人选择的法律或者仲裁地的法律是有效的,中国法院就可能因此认可该仲裁协议的效力。

这里需要考虑的另一个问题是:如果仲裁协议或条款中包含诸如“本仲裁适用

XXX仲裁规则”的表述,但没有提及仲裁地及仲裁协议或条款适用的法律时,该仲裁协议或条款在中国法下是否有效?

答案为“无效”。因为在上述情况下,双方没有选定仲裁机构,该仲裁协议将被认作临时仲裁协议,除非约定的仲裁规则明确规定约定适用该仲裁规则将自动确定争议所应提交的仲裁机构。

例如,如果当事人在仲裁协议中约定适用《中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会(“CIETAC”) 仲裁规则》,该仲裁协议即视为有效,因为《CIETAC仲裁规则》第4条第4款规定:“凡当事人约定按照本规则(CIETAC 规则)进行仲裁但未约定仲裁机构的,均视为同意将争议提交 CIETAC仲裁”。

但是,如果当事人选择了《ICC仲裁规则》或《UNCITRAL仲裁规则》,由于上述两个仲裁规则中没有与《CIETAC仲裁规则》第4条第4款相似的规定,仲裁协议或条款将被认定为无效。《最高人民法院关于德国旭普林国际有限责任公司与无锡沃可通用工程橡胶有限公司申请确认仲裁协议效力一案的请示的复函》明确规定:条款“Arbitration:ICC Rules,Shanghai shall apply”是无效的。因为根据本案仲裁地的法律(即中国法),仲裁条款中应当有明确的仲裁机构,但上述仲裁条款中没有约定仲裁机构,仲裁机构也无法根据《ICC仲裁规则》确定。因此,如果当事人希望约定到ICC进行仲裁,那么一定要写清楚仲裁机构名称,以免发生不必要的误会。

(4)其他事项也可以在仲裁条款中规定,如适用法律、仲裁员人数、仲裁地、仲裁语言等。

一些特殊情形下,考虑到各国国内法的特殊性,仲裁条款需要进行相应修改, 特别要关注仲裁所在地和可能的执行所在地的法律的强制性要求。如果有超过两个以上当事人,应当规定更加详细的条款。

关于仲裁条款的样本,参见第九章文书范本。

国际仲裁协议的效力

当事人双方须具备合法的资格和能力

仲裁协议约定的是当事人间重要的争议事项、是重大法律行为,不具有完全行为能力的自然人、法人及其他组织不能完成,进而保证当事人意思表示是真实的。限制行为能力人和无行为能人,由于自身的原因不能对实际情况作出正确的判断,不能对诸如诉权等重大权益作出处分行为。限制行为能力人和无行为能力人由于行为能力问题,是不具有缔约能力的,这样的人签订的仲裁协议无效,根据这样仲裁协议作出的裁决也将无法得到有关法院的承认和执行。

这是当事人从事包括订立仲裁协议在内的民商事活动的前提。至于如何确定当事人的资格和能力,《纽约公约》第5条第1款第1项只是作出了这样的规定:

“协定之当事人依对其适用之法律有某种无行为能力情形者,或该项协定依当事人作为协定准据之法律系属无效,或未指明以何法律为准时,依裁决地所在国法律系属无效者。”

这就是把确定的标准交由各国的国内法,依据国际私法上的一般原则,当事人的行为能力适用属人法,即其国籍所属国或其住所地国的法律。如其依属人法为无行为能力者,但依据行为地法为有行为能力者,亦应视为有行为能力。

仲裁协议的形式须合法

根据众多的国际法公约和国内法,仲裁协议必须采用书面形式。《纽约公约》第2条、《联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》(UNCITRAL Model Lawon International Commercial Arbitration,下称《UNCITRAL仲裁示范法》)第7条第2款都有类似的规定。

但是在有些国家(如瑞典)法律并未规定以书面形式为必要。因而所谓形式上的合法应以符合仲裁地国家和裁决执行地国家的法律对仲裁协议形式的规定为准。

仲裁条款是指在国际商务合同中,双方当事人在履行合同时将以后可能发生的一切争议通过仲裁解决的条款。在最初很长一段时间,合同中的仲裁条款没有得到法律的承认。随着贸易的发展和国际商务仲裁的不断完善,越来越多的国家允许当事人将可能发生的争议约定提交仲裁,仲裁条款的效力为国际条约和各国立法所接受。关于合同中仲裁条款的性质和作用,英国麦克米兰(Macmilan)大法官对此作过精辟的论述。他认为,合同中的其他条款与仲裁条款的性质是不等同的。因为合同中的其他条款规定的都是一方当事人对另一方当事人应当承担的义务,而仲裁条款却是不同的。仲裁条款中双方当事人是平等的关系,如果一方当事人与另一方当事人因承担义务方面发生争议,这些争议就可通过仲裁庭来解决。两者本质区别是:合同中当事人间的义务通常情况下是不能强制执行,如果违反了合同,另一方当事人可以请求损害赔偿,通过这种方式主张自己权力;仲裁当事人能通过仲裁机构强制执行,违反后的救济办法不是要求赔偿而是要求强制执行仲 裁协议。

仲裁协议书是独立协议,是指双方当事人在争议没有发生时或争议已经发生后签订的,同意将这些争议通过仲裁方式解决的协议。国际商事仲裁中,一般情况下仲裁协议书是双方当事人签订合同时没有签订仲裁条款,或签订的不太明确、无法执行时,根据需要,重新签订并达成的协议。由于仲裁协议独立于先前订立的合同,因此不受其约束,具有更大的独立性。虽然它的形成方式与仲裁条款有所不同,但它们在法律效力上是相同的。在国际贸易实践中,仲裁协议的存在形式主要是把标准仲裁条款插入到合同书中的方式。

仲裁协议内容合法

这是构成仲裁协议有效性的一个实质性要件,首先,提交仲裁的事项必须是依仲裁地或裁决执行地国法律能够提交仲裁的事项;其次,协议的内容不得与仲裁地国法律中的强制性规定以及该国的公共秩序相抵触。由于各国法律规定的差异,同样内容的仲裁协议,在一些国家是有效合法的,在另外一些国家很可能就被视为非法。例如,我国《仲裁法》中是将仲裁机构的约定以及约定的明确性作为仲裁协议是否有效的一项认定因素。还有些国家的仲裁地法规定,协议中必须载明仲裁员的姓名和地址,或者是指定仲裁员的方法,否则协议无效,然而国际上通行做法只是将仲裁意思表示和仲裁事项确定做为仲裁协议的内容。但无论如何,仲裁协议的内容至少不得违背仲裁地国法律中的强制性规定。

当事人的意志表示是仲裁产生的基础,仲裁员仲裁的权力也是通过当事人签订的协议才得到的。仲裁员有义务按照当事人意志仲裁,体现当事人意思自治原则。但当事人的自由并不是绝对无限制,它们不能违背仲裁地法律。一般来说,当事人意思自治原则往往会受到某些限制性条件的束缚,违反限制条件的会被认定 不符合规定,之后被认定无效。其内容主要会受到以下的限制:

(一) 公共政策或善良风俗的限制

当事人对仲裁进行约定时,要遵守该国的公共政策和善良风俗的法律规范。双方当事人仲裁中约定的事项是特定国家的法律所允许的。应当说,公共政策或善良风俗是各国法律的共同原则。

(二) 有实际联系的限制

对于这个方面,各国没有严格的要求。但是仲裁实践中,双方当事人签订仲裁协议时会选一个与争议没有关联的某一国家的法律作为合同准据法。

(三) 善意与合法的限制

当事人签订仲裁是一种善意的想法,是一种合法的想法,不能存在故意规避法律的行为,仲裁协议是经过双方当事人约定后才产生的一种法律行为,那么它不能违背法律规定,这样才能产生相关法律效力,受到法律的保护。仲裁协议作为一种法律行为,在约定时不能损害社会公共利益,否则是法律所不允许的。公序良俗原则是世界各国的普通原则,对仲裁协议一般都会要求不得损害本国公共利益,在涉外国际商事仲裁中,一般仲裁协议规定不得有违国际公共秩序。

仲裁协议系双方当事人真实意思表示

仲裁协议是通过双方自愿和协商在平等基础上形成的真实意思表示。契约性是国际商事仲裁协议本质属性,仲裁协议也是双方当事人一致想法的表现形式。所以,考察国际商事仲裁协议是否有效,首先要看双方当事人签订的仲裁协议内容,双方意思表示是否真实、一致。也就是说,双方当事人是否有真正请求仲裁的意思表示,进而签订仲裁协议。没有仲裁协议,也就没有仲裁,仲裁协议是双方当事人约定仲裁的真实体现。

意思表示真实,首先是仲裁协议达成是双方当事人自愿想法,故当事人在不自愿的情况下签订的仲裁协议是有瑕疵的仲裁协议。意思自治是传统私法的灵魂和核心。一般情况下,不自愿主要体现在胁迫、欺诈和乘人之危之中。胁迫有强迫和威胁两种情形。强迫是一方当事人向另一方施加压力,迫使对方服从,从而作出违背自己真实意思的表示。威胁是指当事人用武力或权势对对方进行恐吓,使另一方有了恐惧,因此作出不是自己真实意思的表示。通过分析用胁迫手段签订的仲裁协议与当事人真实意思的协议是相违背的,不具有法律效力。欺诈,是指一方当事人用奸诈的手段,使对方做出误解从而做出有违自己真实意思表示的行为。乘人之危,是指一方当事人趁着对方危难的时候,去要挟或侵害对方,从而使其作出违背本意的表示。对于欺诈和乘人之危,虽然当事人一方在精神或身体上受到另一方当事人的一定影响,但是其可以无视对方的影响做出正确的抉择,自己的真实意志可以表达出来。所以,仲裁协议的一方当事人在这两种情况下签订的仲裁协议的效力问题,就不是完全无效的,是处于一种无效和有效之间的状态。如果当事人签订协议后认为协议内容有误,可以通过法定程序申请变更或撤销。如果在法定期间里当事人未依法申请,这样仲裁协议就会由于当事人的默许而产生法律效力。因此,以欺诈、胁迫手段或乘人之危的手段达成的仲裁协议,如果是不真实意思表示的,协议无效。

除以上所说的情形之外,在实际国际商事仲裁中还有其他意思表示不真实的状态。如当事人之间由于经济、地位上的不平等,或处于弱者身份,从而在国际商事仲裁时能力受限、机会不等、自由不足,表达真实意思不完全,从而使当事人的意思自治不完全、不彻底、不真实。如果这样的双方当事人选择仲裁解决经济纠纷时,就会使弱者地位的当事人利益不能完全保全。当事人意思表达不实,这种情形是与仲裁最初的意思自治的原则完全背离的。因意思表示与当事人的想法是不一致的,多数国家对此都有相应规定,认定签订的仲裁协议是无效。

综上所述,有效的国际商事仲裁协议必须是当事人的真实意思表示。在国际商事仲裁实践过程中,对于当事人的意思表示不真实这一情况,应当区分不同情形不同对待,之后决定国际商事仲裁协议的效力问题,不能对意思表示有瑕疵的仲裁 协议一概否认,不能全部否定其效力。

争议事项须具有可仲裁性

仲裁协议约定的争议可仲裁性,也就是通过有关法律审査,什么样的争议事项 不可以通过仲裁来解决,什么样的争议事项可以提交仲裁解决的问题。

在仲裁实践中,根据法律规定仲裁协议的当事人提交仲裁的事项,通过仲裁方式解决的范畴。一般来说,这里所说的“争议事项”不是指仲裁协议内容需要包含什么的问题,而是指当事人签订仲裁协议时约定的通过仲裁解决的争议,用什么法律规则进行规范。长期以来,争议事项是否具有可仲裁性被视作仲裁协议的有效要件之一。

在国际商事仲裁实践中,对争议事项的可仲裁性的研究对仲裁实践有非常重要的意义。它对仲裁协议的效力、裁决的承认与执行、仲裁庭的管辖权等都会产生直接影响。

随着国际经济贸易数量的增加,其范围也涉及各行各业,随之产生的经济贸易争议内容也很繁杂,争议事项能否通过仲裁解决,主要看是争议事项是否得到有关国家的法律认可,这些会影响到他们所订立的仲裁协议和依据此项仲裁协议所作出的仲裁裁决,影响裁决能否得到承认与执行。各国对这方面规定不同,有时一国认为可以仲裁,另一国可能认为不能选择仲裁。如果法院认为某一国际商事仲裁中所涉及的仲裁事项是不可仲裁的,那么即使双方签订仲裁协议,也会因为仲裁事项不可仲裁性导致协议无效,仲裁裁决也不会得到法院的强制执行。对争议事项可仲裁性的规定,主要考虑的是一个国家设定的公共政策。所以,多数国家都把设定争议事项的可仲裁性看作公共政策范畴的一部分内容。

如果仲裁协议是否有效是法院能否承认与执行仲裁裁决的前提条件,那么哪些仲裁协议无效呢? 要依据各国的国内法来确定。

根据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第十七条的规定,

“仲裁协议无效主要有以下几种情形:

(1) 仲裁事项涉及婚姻、收养、监护、扶养和继承,或者为行政争议;

(2) 无民事行为能力人或者限制民事行为能力人订立的仲裁协议;或

(3) 一方受到胁迫而订立的仲裁协议。”

上述规定在很大程度上影响了中国企业对仲裁的态度,特别是国际仲裁。绝大多数中国企业,包括一些外商投资企业,在陷入国际仲裁后往往选择不应诉;在缺席裁决作出后,寻找借口请求人民法院对仲裁裁决不予承认或执行。当事人最常使用的方法便是对仲裁协议的效力提出异议。但这种方法显然不再奏效,国际仲裁中也出现了越来越多中国企业的身影。

适用法律

选择适用法律的必要性

通常作法,一般合同起草和谈判时,当事人及律师都会注意在合同中加入“适用法律”的条款,这种选择法律适用的方式被称作合同的准据法,选择合同的准据法是为了对合同当事人之间的权利和义务进行确定。选择合同的准据法,不能完全解决发生仲裁争议时的法律适用产生的问题。通过国际仲裁和国内仲裁的实践比较表明,对于国内仲裁法律适用来说,解决国际商事仲裁争议时面对的法律适用问题比国内仲裁的要复杂得多。

国际商事仲裁实践中,除了要适用合同的准据法外,也可能要选用以下法律:仲裁条款适用的法律;仲裁庭组成和仲裁程序适用的法律;当事人签订合同或订立仲裁条款行为能力的法律;仲裁裁决的承认和执行适用的法律。涉外民事关系法律适用法是一国国际私法的重要组成部分。国外涉外民事关系法律适用法的立法成文化、法典化的趋势十分明显。

当事人在签订合同时国际商事仲裁所适用的法律有些是能够选择的,有些是不能选择的。能够选择的法律包括:合同准据法、仲裁程序适用的法律和仲裁条款适用的法律等等;没有选择余地的如审查当事人行为能力应当适用的法律,仲裁裁决承认和执行时适用的法律。对于当事人可以选择适用的法律,选择是否有必要,国际仲裁界对此看法不统一。有的认为,通过仲裁条款约定所有仲裁适用的法律,一是不可能;二是会增加签订仲裁条款的难度和成本,而且有些仲裁法律选择可能在仲裁过程中是无用的。如果当事人间选择的仲裁法律不当,可能产生矛盾或使仲裁协议内容产生歧义,导致仲裁执行方面的障碍,最明智的做法是对其选择一部分,其余的留给仲裁员进行选择,由其选择适用的法律。也有观点认为,在仲裁条款中对仲裁适用的法律不予以选择,就会造成仲裁条款上缺陷,可能导致发生仲裁后,因法律适用不明的原因造成难以仲裁,更可能产生审查仲裁协议时认定协议无效的风险。笔者认为,这两种观点都有道理,确定仲裁地点比合同中选择仲裁适用的法律更有意义。仲裁适用法律未选择的,也不能全认为仲裁条款是有缺欠的;但仲裁地点不选择的仲裁条款,一定是有缺陷的,除非是在仲裁条款中约定了确定仲裁地点的规则,如国际商会仲裁规则。

在仲裁实践中,这一理论是正确的,是合理的,是适用的。有个别律师,在签订仲裁程序或适用法律规则时,写下的仲裁协议与仲裁地所在国法律相冲突,使仲裁条款不能继续执行。—些特殊的仲裁协议中,比如在仲裁协议中选择" 浮动仲裁地"的,就必须对仲裁协议所适用的法律进行约定,否则会因法律适用造成仲裁协议无效的风险,因此选择法律适用是有必要的。

如何选择适用法律

总的来说,在实践过程中,国际仲裁的法律适用包括两方面,一是仲裁程序的法律适用问题,二是仲裁实体法律的适用问题。

关于国际仲裁程序的法律适用,各国立法和有关国际公约普遍允许当事人协商选择,如瑞士、日本、德国、法国等。如果当事人没有选择仲裁程序法,一般适用于仲裁地法。另外,有些仲裁机构所属的商会制定的仲裁规则规定,如果当事人没有选择程序法,则所属仲裁机构适用该规则。

对于国际仲裁实体法适用问题,从各国立法和国际惯例看,最基本的原则是当事人的意思自治,即适用于双方当事人合意选择的法律。但这种自主选择实体法不是绝对自由的,当事人自主选择法律要受到国内强制法的限制。如我国《涉外经济合同法》第五条第二款规定:“在我国境内履行的中外合资经营企业合同、中外合作经营企业合同,必须适用我国法律,不得适用外国法律。”因此,在遇有类似强制性规定的,就不能选择其他国家的法律。

如果当事人没有选择仲裁的实体法,通常的做法有两类:一类是根据仲裁地国 冲突法规则确定仲裁适用的实体法,一类是授权仲裁庭决定合同争议的法律适用。世界大多数国家冲突法规定的原则是适用于与合同具有最密切联系的国家的法律。如我国《涉外经济合同法》第五条第一款规定:“当事人没有选择的,适用与合同有最密切联系的国家的法律。”至于法律如何界定“ 最密切联系”,各国国内法往往都作了规定,同时国际经济贸易活动本身也形成一种惯例。我国最高人民法院在《关于适用〈涉外经济合同法〉若干问题的解答》中对“最密切联系”作了具体的司法解释。第二类做法多是国际法的规定,如《UNCITRAL 仲裁示范法》等。另外有些国家如美国、奥地利、挪威等国内法也作此规定。

国际仲裁的法律适用是个比较复杂而重要的问题,如在实体法方面,当事人往往对本国法律比较熟悉,都希望适用本国法,而最后折中的办法往往是适用第三国法律。但由于各国法律制度不尽相同,对于相同的问题不同的国家法律规定往往也不同。在选择外国法律时,要结合合同可能产生的争议,熟悉相关法律,以确定适用哪国法律。另外,是选择法律还是不选择法律,也要根据经贸活动性质具体分析,这要看按照冲突规则确定适用的实体法对我方是否有利。当然,也有一些国际通用的实体法律可以选择,如《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》(the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods,“CISG”,下称〈CISG公约〉)、国际贸易术语(Incoterms)等等。

仲裁地

确定仲裁地的重要性

与仲裁事项相比,仲裁协议中关于仲裁地点的约定是更加重要。通过以上的分析,仲裁地点对仲裁协议本身的适用法律以及仲裁程序的适用法律的确定都有重要作用。尤其对临时仲裁而言其重要性是其他仲裁内容无法比拟的,如果双方当事人对仲裁地点没有进行约定,就无法确定仲裁规则,仲裁程序就无法进行,仲裁一事容易陷入僵局。因此,对仲裁地约定不明确的,如果因此发生了争议,就可能因无法执行被有关法院判决为无效。

实践中,还有一种仲裁地约定不明确的情形,双方当事人在签订的仲裁协议中约定,仲裁地点由被告进行选择。这种写法主要是因为双方当事人就仲裁地点和仲裁机构不能达成一致时的一种约定形式。该协议是否有效,或者由于无法实施被认定为无效,由法院进行裁定。

在英国法院审理Star Shiping和中国对外贸易运输公司纠纷一案时,双方当事人在签订仲裁协议时就约定由被告选择仲裁地点。原告以该仲裁条款的内容含义十分含糊,无法实施为理由,请求法院裁定仲裁条款无效,被告根据签订的仲裁条款申请法院中止诉讼程序。英国上诉法院裁定仲裁条款有效,认为不能因为含义的问题裁定协议无效。英国上诉法院的Steyn L.J法官审理时,关于仲裁条款是否有效阐述了如下仲裁思想:“法院审查时,应当研究双方仲裁条款的语言表述,在所有争议的解释中选择最能体现当事人意思的表示。争议的仲裁条款中,确实存在双方当事人都可能成为被告的可能,但法院选择了一种更加贴近签订时双方当事人想法的解释。”所以,他认为:“仲裁条款中约定的被告,应根据其给人的第一印象确定从仲裁条款上下文联系后,其给我的第一印象,是在仲裁程序和诉讼程序中第一次成为被告的人。”英国法院对此案的裁定,是对仲裁支持的具体体现。虽然此案当事人签订仲裁协议时,其内容表述不明确,但双方有仲裁的想法,这就需要找出适合当事人意愿的解释,来支持仲裁。

选择仲裁地与仲裁机构的关系

“任何因合同而引起或与之有关的,或对于合同有效性的争议,均应提交国际商会进行仲裁。仲裁地点为中国上海。所有仲裁程序均以英语进行。”

在与中国有关的合同项下的仲裁约定中,上述语句被广泛使用,尽管此类约定的有效性并不确定。在中国的许多外国企业出于两个主要原因,坚持将上述仲裁约定纳入他们与中国合作伙伴订立的合同当中:一是他们想将仲裁交由一个他们认为更加客观、公正的国际仲裁机构;二是为了地域方便考虑,他们希望在中国进行仲裁程序。

长久以来,确定外国仲裁机构在中国地域内作出的仲裁裁决的有效性引起了激烈争论。中国法律并未明确解决这一问题。在实务中,中国法院持有两种不同观点:

一种观点认为,此类仲裁裁决是无效的,根据中国法律应拒绝执行此类裁决。根据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》,仲裁机构只有向中国有关部门申请注册之后,才能开展仲裁程序。因此,外国仲裁机构,包括国际商会,不能在中国地域内进行仲裁。

另一种观点认为,此类仲裁裁决是有效的,应予以执行。2009年4月22日,浙江省宁波市中级人民法院执行了一项由国际商会在北京作出的仲裁裁决。该裁定书写道:

“《1958年纽约公约》第1条第1款规定的适用范围有两种情形:一是‘仲裁裁决,因自然人或法人间之争议而产生且在申请承认及执行地所在国以外国家领土内作成者,其承认及执行适用本公约。另一种情形是‘本公约对于仲裁裁决经申请承认及执行地所在国认为非内国裁决者,亦适用之。这里所指的‘非内国裁决是相对‘申请承认及执行地所在国而言的。本案并非我国国内的裁决,应当适用《1958年纽约公约》。”

此案例成为ICC在中国内地作出的仲裁裁决被执行的先例,但因其仅为个案,且涉及《纽约公约》中中国的保留条款,只有外国裁决,而非任何其它“非内国裁决”,才能在《纽约公约》项下在中国获得承认和执行。因此,在中国执行外国仲裁裁决的法律依据仍然不明确。

目前,考虑到上述执行的不确定性,出于安全考虑,建议企业不采用外国仲裁机构在中国进行仲裁的仲裁协议。

那么是否意味着外国仲裁机构不能在中国进行仲裁?当然不是。根据《关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的安排》(“安排”),如果外国仲裁机构选择在香港进行仲裁,那么仲裁裁决的承认与执行问题也会随之迎刃而解。并且逾80年历史的ICC国际仲裁院首次在法国巴黎以外设仲裁院,也就是设立在香港,香港分处成为ICC在亚太区的唯一分支。

仲裁员

选择仲裁员

仲裁制度起源于地中海沿岸,为便于快捷解决商事争议而形成的民间裁判机制。所以,当时就由争议各方选择大家信赖、德高望众、办事公道、熟悉情况的第三人来担任仲裁员,居中裁判。现代仲裁制度吸收了长期以来形成的这种商事习惯,仲裁机构都聘请了一些业界高人,担任仲裁员,置备了仲裁员名册,供选择仲裁方式解决争议的当事人进行选定。每个仲裁机构的特点不同,仲裁员也各不相同。如何选择仲裁员才更有利于案件的审理呢?

古代西方选择仲裁员的其中一个原则就是熟悉情况,有的案件,技术性特别强,一般人无法理解,或者介绍起来比较困难,如果能在仲裁员名册中选择一个行业内人员,就能减少对案件相关事实的介绍难度,也更有机会得到其他仲裁员的接受。毕竟就算是您的律师再敬业、再聪明,也没办法比行业内的人更理解行业特点。有的案件,法律争议很大,己方观点相对比较新颖,如果选择的仲裁员比较保守,

估计己方的目的就很难实现。但,如果仲裁员更理解商事规则,理解商事逻辑,己方的选择与商事逻辑之间更为契合。则选择理解接近商事前沿的仲裁员更为合适。

分析仲裁员

(1) 仲裁庭组成之前的分析

在确定仲裁员之前,应对仲裁员的背景进行必要的查询,尤其在国际仲裁机构中,大多数仲裁员都是来自不同国家的,有不同的文化背景的。一般仲裁机构都会规定独任和首席仲裁员的国籍须中立于当事人。仲裁员承办案件的特点、风格、个人能力,对于案件结果有着至关重要的影响。

要知道,往往哪一方选定仲裁员,该仲裁员相对会偏向于哪一方。如果所选仲裁员德高望众、办事公道,则仲裁庭合议的时候,往往其他仲裁员会比较尊重、愿意倾听和接受他的观点。

(2) 仲裁庭组成之后的分析

当仲裁委通知仲裁庭组成人员时,则应及时分析仲裁庭审所有人员,了解所有仲裁员,充分研究案件发表合适的代理观点,尽量让仲裁庭都能接受己方的观点,至少将该仲裁员对案件发表不利于己方意见的影响降低到最小。

仲裁员人数

独任仲裁员(Sole Arbitrator) 可独自作出仲裁裁决;当事人亦可选择三人仲裁庭(the Panel of Three Arbitrators)共同审理案件。

一般而言,标的额较小、当事人追求裁决效率的案件中,选择任命独任仲裁员的情形较为常见。独任仲裁员作出仲裁裁决,耗时相对较短;由于当事人仅需支付一名仲裁员的报酬,整体仲裁费用与三人仲裁庭相比,也更低。^[1]几大知名国际仲裁机构对于仲裁员人数的规定总体相差不大,只有一些细微差别。总体上讲,各机构均尊重当事人对于仲裁员人数的约定。这也是当事人意思自治原则在仲裁机构规则中的体现。

在当事人对仲裁员人数没有约定的情况下,机构才会介入、决定仲裁员的人数。各机构规则在这方面的差异,主要体现在“默认”仲裁员人数上。当然,机构仍然会综合考虑案件金额、复杂性、紧迫性、当事人国籍、所涉行业相关管理、以及(或许也是最直接的影响因素)可供选择的仲裁员名册,最终确定仲裁员人数。

一些规则中,如当事人无约定,则“默认”由独任仲裁员审理案件(如国际商会ICC^[2]、新仲 SIAC、美国仲裁协会AAA等机构规则);机构考虑相关因素后,可以任命三人仲裁庭。值得注意的是,新仲仲裁规则明确规定,机构考量应否任命三人仲裁庭的前提,是“充分考虑当事人的建议”。这在很大程度上体现了新仲对于仲裁程序中,对于主簿(Registrar)权力的限制、以及鼓励双方当事人积极有效参与程序性决定事项的态度。

Article 9. 1 SIAC Rules(2016)

A sole arbitrator shall be appointed in any arbitration under these Rules unless the parties have otherwise agreed;or it appears to the Registrar,giving due regard to any proposals by the parties,that the complexity,the quantum involved or other relevant circumstances of the dispute,warrants the appointment of three arbitrators.(emphasis added)

另一些规则中,“默认”仲裁员为三名( 如贸仲委 CIETAC 等机构规则);机构考虑案件相关因素之后,可以决定任命独任仲裁员。

而在香港国际仲裁中心(HKIAC) 及斯德哥尔摩商会(SCC) 规则中,则没有仲裁员人数的“默认”规定,由仲裁中心针对个案自由裁量。

知名国际仲裁机构对于仲裁员人数的规定

1.关于仲裁员人数对仲裁费用的影响,参见本章第七节“仲裁费用”。

2.关于这一规定，2017年新规则并无实质更改

仲裁语言

当事人有约定的情况

有时候,中国企业在选择国际仲裁机构时有一些误区,认为选择了国际商会仲 裁院等境外仲裁机构是不是就一定要讲英文,因为担心语言上的障碍而拒绝选择国际仲裁机构。

实际上,仲裁语言与仲裁机构完全是两个概念,当事人完全有权选择境外仲裁机构,同时约定仲裁语言为中文。中国企业不必将“仲裁语言”视作选择国际仲裁机构的阻碍。

当事人有了约定的情况下,通常就省却了事后纷争不止的情况。但也并不是总是这样。进入仲裁程序的当事人,双方的关系由当初的合作转变成对抗,合同约定的任何可能的疏忽,都会成为争执不休的话题。如果当事人约定了一种语言,通常不会有太多的问题。但在当事人约定了两种或以上语言上,问题就出来了,比如,“中文和英文”、“中文或英文”,在实际运用中,就产生了许多问题。

如果当事人约定的是“中文或英文”,那么究竟由谁来决定到底使用英文还是中文? 首先,当事人应当有机会进行进一步的协商,以确定具体使用何种语言。如果双方能协商一致,则仲裁语言问题得到解决。但此时当事人处于对立状态,很难达成一致。那么仲裁庭应当有权介入,作出决定。

仲裁庭可以根据案件的情况,选择当事人同意的“中文或英文”中的任何一种,作为仲裁语言,这样仲裁语言就只有一种。但更为尊重当事人意思自治的办法,是让每方当事人各自选择“中文或英文”中他认为方便的任何一种,两方当事人的选择可以不同,同时仲裁庭也选择一种语言作为其工作语言,这样仲裁语言实际上就 有两种。 两种情形,都符合当事人约定的“中文或英文”,双方都可以在两种语言中选择其一。

而在“中文和英文”的情形下,现在基本上都理解为两种语言在仲裁同时使用。这在实践中实行起来非常麻烦。通常,当事人参加仲裁的代表是两种语言都熟悉,他们制定的仲裁员通常也是这样。但就因为仲裁条款约定了仲裁语言为“中文和英文”,所有的仲裁文书都必须制作中文和英文双语的,这产生了很大的费用浪费。甚至到了开庭,有的当事人还坚持每次发言,都必须进行翻译,这样一句话都必须说两遍,大大延长了开庭时间。

如果对“中文和英文”的约定,换一个方式理解,认为其实际意图在授权两种仲裁语言,任何一方当事人只要选择其中之一,就符合了约定,这样就会使得仲裁语言问题简化许多。很多情况下,当事人参加仲裁的代表都熟悉两种语言,对其中任何一种都可以轻松应对。即使在有些当事人代表只熟悉两种语言中一种的情况下,其实际效果也不过是将提供翻译的责任进行了调换,即由原来提供文件的一方提供翻译,改变成了接受文件的一方提供翻译。这样的做法,可以在仲裁语言问题上,节省当事人的很多资源。

当事人没有约定的情况

仲裁当事人对仲裁语言没有约定时,各仲裁机构的处理方式不尽一致,因此增加了仲裁程序上不确定性。 所以当事人在仲裁条款中明确约定仲裁语言的做法是明智的,以免因为没有约定而在仲裁开始后浪费大量时间并造成不便。

值得注意的是,国际商会2012规则第20条^[1]明确规定,仲裁庭在决定仲裁语言时,应当考虑合同语言等相关因素;也明确了多种语言进行仲裁的可能性。

ICC Rules(2012)

Article 20:Language of the Arbitration

In the absence of an agreement by the parties,the arbitral tribunal shall determine the language or languages of the arbitration,due regard being given to all relevant circumstances,including the language of the contract. (emphasis added)

与此相类似,香港国际仲裁中心(HKIAC)、美国仲裁协会(AAA)、斯德哥尔摩商会仲裁机构(SCC)等规则,同样明确了多种语言仲裁的可能性。这无疑为来自不同国家的当事人提供了相当的程序权利保障。

相对地,贸仲委则规定,在当事人无约定的情况下,“默认”仲裁语言为中文。当然,委员会也可另行确定其他语言为仲裁语言。

在当事人没有约定时,知名国际仲裁机构对仲裁语言的规定

1.关于这一规定，2017新规则并无实质更改。

仲裁费用

仲裁费用的内容

综合而言,仲裁机构管理下的仲裁案件,费用的额度是直接与案件标的额成正比的。享有国际声誉的各大仲裁机构,普遍在其官方网站上提供仲裁费用在线计算器(costs calculator),便于当事人对仲裁费用进行预算。

虽然仲裁规则中会给出费用计算的具体办法,但仲裁院普遍享有一定范围之内的自由裁量权、可以针对仲裁费用进行或高或低的微调。就此,一些机构针对仲裁员报酬给出了最高额和最低额。

总体而言,国际商事仲裁费用包括仲裁机构收取的案件管理费用以及支付给仲裁员的报酬。

就案件管理费用而言,大部分仲裁机构都采取了根据案件标的额叠加累进的计费方法。

就仲裁员的报酬而言,大部分仲裁机构根据仲裁庭花费的时间来收取费用;也有仲裁机构,例如国际商会仲裁院,会根据案件标的、案件复杂程度、仲裁员的勤勉程度和效率等确定仲裁员的报酬。

除此之外,仲裁费用还包括:仲裁员的开支、仲裁庭聘请专家的费用开支、当事人为进行仲裁而产生的合理费用(包括法律费用和其他费用)。

ICC仲裁规则中,直接明确了这一点—

Article 37

Decision as to the Costs of the Arbitration

1 The costs of the arbitration shall include the fees and expenses of the arbitra-tors and the ICC administrative expenses fixed by the Court,in accordance with the scale in force at the time of the commencement of the arbitration, as well as the fees and expenses of any experts appointed by the arbitral tribunal and the reasona-ble legal and other costs incurred by the parties for the arbitration.

国际仲裁费用示例

管理费和仲裁员报酬有着较大差距—仲裁员报酬远远超出案件管理费。下文将以国际商会仲裁规则为例,进行讲解。

如前文所述,仲裁庭或由独任仲裁员组成、或由三名仲裁员组成。一般而言,机构仲裁规则中仅针对独任仲裁员的费用计算方式作出规定。例如,国际商会2012规则规定,三人仲裁庭的报酬总额,一般不得超过一位仲裁员报酬的三倍^[1]。由此,可大致推算出国际商会2012规则下的费用构成—

值得一提的是,国际商会2012规则特别规定,“仲裁员报酬和开支应当按照国际商会规则的规定专门由仲裁院确定。当事人与仲裁员之间的单独报酬安排违背国际商会规则的规定。”^[2]这一规定,或可被视为是国际商会为防止私密性较高的仲裁程序中出现腐败。

ICC Arbitration Rules(2012)

APPENDIX III-Arbitration Costs and Fees Article 2 Costs and Fees

4 The arbitrators fees and expenses shall be fixed exclusively by the Court as required by the Rules. Separate fee arrangements between the parties and the arbitrator are contrary to the Rules.

为适应国际最新形势,也为了回应客户需求,各仲裁机构都会定期更新自己的仲裁规则。每次更新仲裁规则,提高程序效率、调整具体程序事项可谓“传统看点”。此外,仲裁机构及案件管理部门的职能权限、双方当事人和仲裁庭的角色设置、仲裁费用调整也是更新的重点和亮点。

2016年12月,国际商会发布消息,已经通过2017仲裁规则下新的仲裁费用规则。据称,2017新规则下的仲裁费用将出现以下变更:

1—仲裁申请费(filing fees) 从3000美金提升至5000美金;

2—针对标的额高于5亿美金的案件,管理费(administrative expenses)上限从113,215美金提升至150,000美金。3—针对快速裁决程序(Expedited Procedure),另行适用独立费用标准。

国际商会2017新规则下的费用标准,将于2017年1月1日起实施;快速裁决程序费用标准自2017年3月1日起实施。

管理费( Administrative expenses)

ICC 仲裁费用表(2012 规则与 2017 规则对比)

仲裁员报酬( Arbitrators fees)

国际商会对于仲裁员报酬,分别进行了下限(minimum) 和上限(maximum) 的规定。一方面保证了仲裁员公平公正收取费用,另一方面也方便了当事人预估花销。为统计方便,本书所计算仲裁员报酬,一般取上限。 但从下表可以看出,仲裁员报酬的下限和上限相差极大,有时上限甚至是下限的四倍有余。

ICC 仲裁费用表(2012 规则)

ICC 仲裁费用表(2017 规则)

可见,国际商会2017费用标准针对管理费用进行了调整、且仅限于标的额不高于2,000,000美元的案件。虽然规定了更高的预付金,但从下图可以看出,对于标的额1亿美金以下的案件,2017的费用标准,与2012标准基本持平。只有在标的额超过1亿美金之后,才有所增高。

再者,速战速决的快速裁决程序( Expedited Procedure) 收费明显更低。这么看来,新规则在实践中或许真的可以实现“价廉物美”。

1.国际商会(ICC)2012仲裁规则,附件三仲裁费用和报酬,第2-3条。

2.国际商会(ICC)2012仲裁规则,附件三仲裁费用和报酬,第2-4条。

3.需要说明的是,限于本书交付印刷日期,国际商会新的费用标准和新规则虽然已在ICC官网发布,但ICC 2017新规则尚未正式适用。笔者在此特地保留费用英文,作为提示。

4.需要说明的是,限于本书交付印刷日期,国际商会新的费用标准和新规则虽然已在ICC官网发布,但ICC 2017新规则尚未正式适用。笔者在此特地保留费用英文,作为提示。

仲裁费用的收取:以国际商会为例

与国内仲裁一次性全部缴清的收费模式完全不同的是,ICC仲裁院采用的是循序渐进的收费模式,先收取仲裁费预付金(advance on costs of the arbitration),再根据争议金额计算管理费,封顶113,215美金。^[1]仲裁费预付金由申请人和被申请人双方平均分担。^[2]这样既减缓了当事人一次性缴纳所有仲裁费用时的负面感受,又可以合理的根据案件的进程收取相应的费用。而费用由双方各预付一半,大大减轻了申请人的成本。如若一方未缴付的,可由他方缴付全额,以继续仲裁。未能全额缴付的,仲裁庭可暂停工作。一定期限内仍未能全额缴付的,相关的仲裁请求或反请求可视为撤回。^[3]秘书处向当事人发送裁决前,当事人必须缴清仲裁员报酬和开支及ICC的管理费,包括仲裁庭聘请专家的费用和开支。

仲裁预付金(Advance on costs)/保证金(Costs deposit)

ICC仲裁规则下,最终的仲裁费用(arbitration costs) 由仲裁院(the Court)在程序终结后确立。因此,仲裁预付金对于裁决作出前的案件管理、程序推进,具有至关重要的保证作用。也正是因此,仲裁预付金又名“保证金”(costs deposit)。

而国际商会的预付金,具体又可分为三个部分:

(1) 案件申请费(不退还)(Non-refundable filing fee)

这一项费用由申请人在提交仲裁申请时支付。只有申请人支付申请费,秘书处才会就仲裁申请通知被申请人。^[4]在2012规则中,申请费用为3,000美元;2017新规则中,涨至5,000美元。

另外,如果有当事人希望追加当事人(join an additional party),则同样需要缴纳申请费。

(2) 临时预付金(Provisional advance)

此项费用由秘书长(Secretary General) 确定,由申请人支付。而申请人缴纳的临时预付金,将用于充抵申请人应承担的仲裁费预付金。

这项费用的主要作用,在于支付在仲裁庭确立审理范围书(Terms of Reference) 之前的管理费用。下文将会介绍,审理范围书的确立,一般在申请人和被申请人首轮书面文件提交之后。由于审理范围书是仲裁庭组建之后的首要任务之一,可以说,仲裁庭真正开始在程序中扮演重要角色,恰恰是审理范围书确立之后。 因此,申请人支付临时预付金,是组建仲裁庭的先决条件。

(3) 仲裁预付金(狭义)(Advance on costs)

一般而言,在被申请人提交答辩书(及反请求)之后,仲裁院会及时确定狭义的仲裁预付金。一般而言,仲裁当事人所承担的仲裁预付金份额相当。由于申请人此前已经缴纳过不可退还的申请费,又缴纳过临时预付金,相应份额将被充抵。

国际商会(ICC)仲裁费用缴纳流程图

虽然仲裁费用不涉及法律问题,却也是当事人考虑是否要选择国际仲裁、选择哪个仲裁机构时的重要考量因素。甚至有些时候,也可以称为律师用以对抗对方的技巧。下文在案件评析中,笔者会详细讲述如何利用仲裁费用的缴纳过程体现对方当事人的恶意“bad faith”。

1.根据ICC2016年12月公布的2017新规则,预交费用从3000美金提升到了5000美金,最高管理费用也提高到了150,000美金。

2.国际商会(ICC)2012规则36-2条。

3.Op.,cit.,36-6条。

4.国际商会(ICC)2012 规则,4-3条。

四大仲裁机构费用统计

笔者参照国际商会ICC2012规则及2017新规则、贸仲委CIETAC 2015规则、香港国际仲裁中心HKIAC2013规则、新仲SIAC2016规则,综合整理了上述四大仲裁机构仲裁费用总额、案件管理费用、仲裁员报酬统计数据。^[1]统计数据包括:

—仲裁费用总额=案件管理费+仲裁员报酬^[2];

—案件管理费;

—仲裁员报酬;

并区分了独任仲裁员程序和三人仲裁庭程序的费用。以下几点需要特别说明—

其一,一些机构,例如国际商会仲裁院,针对仲裁员报酬规定了最高额和最低额。本书为了给读者展现更加直观的费用统计,一律采用最高额报酬。

其二,如前所述,香港国际仲裁中心(HKIAC)率先规定,当事人可以选择不同的仲裁员报酬计算方式:或者按工作小时、或者按标的额高低^[3]。此处为了方便比较,一律按照标的额高低计算。

其三,贸仲委(CIETAC)根据案件管理机构的不同,制订了不同的费用规则。仲裁委员会香港仲裁中心管理的仲裁案件,适用“中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁费用表(三)”,对于仲裁申请费(filing fees)、机构管理费(administrative expenses)、仲裁员报酬(arbitrator‘s fees)均进行了详尽的规定。然而,针对非香港仲裁中心管理的仲裁案件,笔者并未查到关于仲裁员报酬的相关信息。因此,本书仲裁费用统计数据“独任仲裁员”部分,并无针对贸仲委仲裁员报酬的数据;“三人仲裁庭”亦然。

为方便阅读,图表统计数据采用各机构缩写。

鉴于国际商会ICC2017新规则即将实施,图表也对2012规则及 2017 新规则的费用标准进行了对比。

特附机构缩写如下—

—ICC2012 国际商会2012仲裁规则;

—ICC2017 国际商会2017仲裁规则;

—CIETAC 贸仲委2015仲裁规则;

—HKIAC 香港国际仲裁中心 2013 规则;

—SIAC 新仲 2016 仲裁规则。

独任仲裁员仲裁费用统计

不难看出,在争议标的额不超过 2000 万美金的案件中,收费最低的是贸仲委 CIETAC(标的额2000万美金的案件,贸仲委仲裁费用为154,658美金)。

然而,在标的额超过2000万美金之后,贸仲委费用一跃而上;标的额超过8000万美金后,贸仲委费用遥遥领先。标的额超过1亿美金之后,贸仲委的仲裁费用远远高于其他机构,标的额6亿美金的案件中,贸仲委仲裁费用高达2,174,764美金, 比位居第二的国际商会(2017新规则)多出140万美金。

国际商事仲裁标的额普遍偏高,国际投资仲裁标的额更是轻易上亿美金。当事人在考虑选择仲裁机构时,仲裁费用将是决定性的因素。

相较之下,国际商会的收费标准变化不大。在标的额超过1亿美金之后,费用线更是趋于平缓。考虑到国际商会悠久的历史和国际方面的声誉,为何其连年受到国际当事人青睐,不难理解。

标的额5万~100万美金

标的额 100 万 ~ 1000 万美金

标的额 1000 万 ~ 1 亿美金

标的额 1 亿 ~ 6 亿美金

三人仲裁庭仲裁费用统计

一般而言,三人仲裁庭的费用比独任仲裁员的费用高出不少。其实,案件管理费方面,三人或独任,各机构的费用标准并无出入;高出的部分,更多地体现为仲裁员报酬。这一点从逻辑上亦不难理解—既然多了两名仲裁员研究案件并作出裁决,当事人自然需要增加相应的价码。

需要重申的是,由于贸仲委的计算数据未能区分体现每位仲裁员的报酬,本书“三人仲裁庭 仲裁费用统计”未能纳入贸仲委的数据。

标的额 5万~100万美金

标的额100万~1000万美金

标的额1000万~1亿美金

标的额1 亿~6亿美金

1.因编纂时间,以上统计所使用汇率为2016年12月13、14日的汇率。

2.如上文所述(参见本章第七节“仲裁费用的内容”),实务中,仲裁费用还包括其他一些开支、费用。此处仅计算两个最重要的组成部分。

3.详见本书第一章第三节 国际仲裁的发展。

反请求

在很多民商事纠纷中,双方当事人之间责任、利益纵横交错。申请人认为自身权益受损,向仲裁机构提交仲裁申请。被申请人也不必“被动挨打”,可以在程序中提出反请求(Counterclaim)(在诉讼中称“反诉”)。因此,反请求是民商事仲裁中被申请人保障其权益的重要手段之一。

与国内仲裁法规定的“在首次开庭前至辩论终结前均可以提出反请求申请”不同,ICC仲裁院的反请求申请必须要与答辩书一同提交。根据ICC仲裁规则第5条^[1]:

“被申请人提出的任何反请求应当与答辩书一起提交并载明以下内容:

(1)引起反请求的争议的性质及情况,以及提出反请求的依据;

(2)所请求的救济,连同任何已量化的反请求的数额,以及对任何其他反请求可能得出的金额估值;

(3)任何有关协议,特别是仲裁协议;以及

(4)如果反请求是按照多项仲裁协议提出的,应写明每项反请求所依据的仲裁协议。

被申请人可以在提交反请求时,一并提交其认为适宜的或可能有助于有效解决争议的其他文件或信息。”

反请求并不是强制性的,当事人可以选择提交或者不提交。虽然反请求跟原请求是两个独立的部分,但是由于是基于同一个事实,相同的当事人,因此反请求的结果对仲裁申请的结果还是有一些影响的。下文在案件评论处,会详细解释。

本章小结

本章以国际商会仲裁院规则为出发点,简要介绍了国际商事仲裁中,最关键的几个要素。

这些要素,在跨境交易的合同协商阶段就需慎重考虑。其中,仲裁协议的起草是重中之重,因为它直接决定了争端解决程序的效率高低。

除了格式仲裁条款之外,适用法律、仲裁地的选择,将直接影响案件的实体裁决,甚至影响到仲裁裁决的承认与执行。

值得注意的是,国际仲裁机构大多在官方网站上设置了在线费用计算器。只要输入案件标的额、选择仲裁员人数,即可估算计算仲裁费用。^[2]对于风险管控和费用预算,在线计算器都是极为有效的工具,值得加以利用。

1.关于这一规定,2017 新规则并无实质更改。

2.截止本书交付印刷之日,国际商会2017新规则的费用标准业已公布、但在线费用计算器仍然适用2012费用标准。笔者再次提请各位读者在计算费用时,务必首先确认案件适用的规则、及相关费用标准。

仲裁程序开端

仲裁程序时间轴

国际商事仲裁程序介绍

外国企业恶人先告状,中方企业权益受到侵害、却成为了对方口中的“违约方”。如何实现后来居上?

本章看点:虽然错失了先发制人的最佳时机,但只要趋利避害,各个击破,再难的案子都有回天之术。

尽管各大仲裁机构的仲裁规则不尽相同,但总体而言,针对程序推进的规则趋于一致。本书以国际商会(ICC)仲裁规则为例进行讲解。

国际商事仲裁程序大致可以分为申请人提出仲裁申请、被申请人提交答辩书、组成仲裁庭、申请人与被申请人交换书面陈述、证据披露、申请人与被申请人交换书面陈词、开庭、仲裁庭作出裁决几个环节。

从本章开始,本书将根据仲裁程序各环节的先后顺序,介绍仲裁当事人需要注意的事项。

2016年10月20日,国际商会通过了2017最新仲裁规则(以下简称“2017新规则”)。新规则将于2017年3月1日起实施。

2017新规则以国际商会2012仲裁规则为基础,进行了程序上、费用上的改进和补充。其中改变最大的,要数新增的快速裁决程序(Expedited Procedure)。

2017年3月1日起,快速裁决程序将自动适用于标的额200万美金以下的所有案件。对于标的额超过200万美金的案件,在双方当事人同意的前提下,同样可以适用。

由于2017年3月1日之前受理的案件,除非双方当事人同意,仍将适用2012规则,且2017新规则并未大篇幅改动2012规则,本书仍保留了2012规则的程序规定,并标注出2017新规则所作重要改动。^[1]

1.因本书出版早于2017新规则中文官方翻译版本的公布日期,如有出入,一切以国际商会最终公布的版本为准。

案例背景

为方便阅读,本段从涉案企业所处的行业大背景出发,为读者介绍本案。

行业分析

钢铁产业是国民经济的重要基础产业,是实现工业化的支撑产业,是技术、资金、资源、能源密集型的产业,在整个国民经济中具有举足轻重的地位。作为重要的基础产业,钢铁行业受经济周期变化的影响较大,具有较为明显的周期性特征。

目前,钢铁行业面临着严峻的形势:全面深化改革已经开始,企业面临着不断改革的挑战;钢铁企业盈利状况不容乐观,提高盈利能力迫在眉睫;钢铁行业的产能严重过剩,化解过剩产能的任务任重而道远;钢铁行业的产品结构不合理,有待进一步优化;环保政策日趋严格,倒逼企业增加环保投资、追求环保发展;钢铁行业资金紧张,短期内难以得到有效的缓解,钢铁企业的发展困境已经引起社会和管理层的高度关注。

(1) 钢铁产业集中度低

中国是一个钢铁大国,现有钢铁”炼企业近1000家。但中国并非一个钢铁强国,行业集中度低、竞争力不高、整体抗风险能力偏弱等是中国钢企的缺点。近几年,国内部分地区的钢铁企业意图通过兼并重组,来促进产业集中和结构优化。然而,国内的钢铁产业集中度不增反降,集中度偏低的问题仍没有解决。

国家统计局数据显示,2016年全年,全国粗钢产量8.23亿吨,同比增长0.9%。

根据中国钢铁工业协会数据显示,前十家钢企粗钢产量为3亿吨,同比降低1.99%,

占到全国总产量36.58%,而美国的钢铁企业集中度已高达70%,可见我国钢铁行业的集中度还有较大提升空间。

(2) 钢铁产品结构不合理

与国际发达国家相比,我国钢铁行业特殊钢材产品比例较低。目前在发达国家钢铁工业总量中,特钢产品占比约为15%-25%,例如日本、美国、欧洲的占比分别为25%、20%和18%左右,而我国仅为8%-10%。另一项代表高附加值、高技术的板管材比例(板材、管材总产量与钢材总产量比) 也只有48%左右,低于世界平均水平,意味着我国钢铁产品以低附加值的为主。

此外,国内钢铁工业的产品结构亦不能完全适应国内经济发展的需要,高附加值的产品如高端的汽车板、高牌号硅钢、及建筑类钢材等产品仍需进口。除此之外,我国铁路、船舶、石化、航天、军工、机械等行业的发展需要高品质特钢产品,我国正由数量增长为主转向品种质量提升为主的钢铁需求阶段。

(3) 负债率较高、盈利率低

2015年,全球钢材价格下跌。12月末,CRU国际钢材综合价格指数同比下降32.4%,其中长材指数下降28.5%,板材指数下降34.6%。CSPI中国钢材价格指数同比下降32.16%,其中长材指数下降31.18% ,板材指数下降33.27%。CRU国际钢材综合价格指数降幅高于CSPI中国钢材价格指数。受钢材价格大幅下跌影响,中国钢铁工业经济效益有所下降。2015年,中国钢铁工业(包括黑色金属矿采选业和黑色金属”炼及压延加工业)实现销售收入7.2万亿元,比上年下降13.9%,利润总额971.9亿元,比上年下降60%。

据中国钢铁工业协会统计数据显示,中国重点钢铁企业负债率整体保持在较高水平,钢铁行业资金自我造血功能弱,外部输血被严格控制,银行还在不断的抽贷。目前,钢铁行业一般都是由钢厂提供抵押担保,通过相关贸易公司进行贷款。但是这样的贷款一般周期都很短,利息也较高。有的钢厂借助信托、甚至高利贷等渠道拿钱,因此短期内钢厂资产负债率情况会进一步增加。

2016年我国重点钢铁企业盈利状况有所好转,主要得益于原燃料价格大幅下降以及内部挖潜降成本。虽然这是近三年交出的最好成绩,但整体利润率仍相对较低,铁矿石价格下跌幅度有限,钢材市场供给依然严重过剩,预计盈利状况进一步明显好转的概率较小。

数据来源:中经网产业数据库

数据来源:中经网产业数据库

(4) 钢铁出口贸易艰难

钢铁产业是支撑一个国家和地区工业发展的基础,同时涉及的下游产业很多。当前国际局势不稳,全球经济复苏缓慢,大国间的竞争更加激烈,一些行业组织借机游说本国政府,使得相关产业的保护力度不断加大,从而加剧了钢铁领域的国际贸易争端。

据了解,目前中国钢铁产量已占全球的半壁江山,2015 年中国钢材出口量超1亿吨。中国钢材出口日益增多正在给欧美钢企带来危机感,也使中国钢材成为“众矢之的”。如果只是单一出口低端钢材产品的话,国际市场空间确实已非常有限。

海关总署公布的数据显示,2016年11月,中国钢材出口同比大降15.5%至812万吨;前11个月累计,同比下滑1%至1.0068亿吨。这也意味着,2016全年钢材出口要赶上 2015年的1.124亿吨的历史高点是几乎不可能的了。

中国钢铁产量占全球的一半,2016年,中国钢铁出口引发的贸易问题,持续成为关注焦点:

(5) 维权之路任重道远

2017年全球经济复苏力度将会加大,以美国为首的发达国家将推动全球经济恢复性增长,新兴经济体的增速则呈现放缓趋势。全球经济增长在持续低迷之后有望出现回升,全球经济增长将好于2016年。

我国经济长期向好趋势没有改变,当前国家经济运行总体保持在合理区间,整个经济发展仍处在去库存、去过剩产能的环境下。钢铁主要消费下游中,占整个投资比重较大的房地产投资放慢,基础设施投融资体制制约基建持续高速增长,经济增长对钢材需求强度持续下降,钢材消费增长乏力,外需也难以大幅度提升。同时,粗钢产量仍然保持小幅增长,市场供大于求矛盾仍然突出,钢铁企业寻求发展出路、积极维护自身权益刻不容缓。

①改革管理体制,提升生产效率

西方钢铁强国在钢铁行业产能过剩调整期均有过大规模产业工人分流的现象,欧盟还出现过钢铁企业私有化的浪潮,这些因素都大大提高了生产效率。同时,西方钢铁强国注重提高生产自动化、设备大型化和管理科学化程度,也大幅提高了生产效率。中国钢铁企业受体制等因素的影响,劳动生产率较其他钢铁强国明显偏低。而中国钢铁行业一直受政府保护,加之国有企业规模巨大,造成庞大的过剩人员,给企业造成较大负担。中国钢铁企业可以像西方钢铁强国学习先进经验,改变管理体制,提升生产效率。

②兼并重组,化解过剩产能

中国钢铁产业经历十年之久的兼并重组,现阶段市场走势依旧不明朗。为进一步加强产业有序健康发展,工信部发布关于钢铁产业转型升级指导行政方案,监管日渐加强。

钢铁行业产能严重过剩,我国淘汰落后产能进程加快。《钢铁工业转型发展行动计划》计划的目标是经过三年时间的努力,压缩我国8000万吨钢铁产能,以缓解产能过剩矛盾,建立智能示范工厂,提升行业两化融合水平,一方面要坚决遏制新增产能,加大落后产能淘汰力度和在建项目监督力度;另一方面还要大力支持先进 企业实施技术改造、产品调整等有利于内生增长的投资,围绕国家战略布局重大项目。

③积极应诉,维护自身权益

钢铁企业出口,最常遇到的就是两个大问题:一是进口国家的反倾销制度和措施,二是买卖合同发生纠纷被诉。

国际仲裁作为国际贸易中的常用手段,只能直面无法回避。只要存在国际贸易,存在贸易保护主义,反倾销和争议解决就会是无尽的任务。中国企业缺乏应诉意识和应对经验,是中国企业在国际诉讼存在的两大问题。

国内企业不愿应诉源于怕打官司怕败诉,规模小的不愿花高额律师费,规模大的企业负责人又怕承担责任。这种前怕狼后怕虎的弱者心态和法律素质上的缺陷,带来的后果非常严重,甚至会对整个国家经济利益造成重大损害。殊不知,积极应诉才是保住市场的惟一办法。而且同一些发展中国家相比,美国、欧盟的法律环境相对较好,透明度也比较高,赢得公正裁决的机会还是很多的。

令人欣喜的是,为维护了自身的合法权益,有些企业也开始尝试拿起法律的利剑。应诉国际官司,就像人熊赛跑,只要不跑在最后,就有生的希望。

人物简介

本书人名、地点皆为化名;金额均已调整。

案情概要

A公司是钢铁行业中的领军企业,也是名副其实的国有企业。当然也不可避免地存在国有企业的固有缺点:党政治企。大型国有企业的领导都是副处级以上职称,任命时很少考虑市场经验,管理能力,经营手段等。更有甚者,只是将董事长一职当作政治仕途的跳板,并无用心治理企业的想法。

再加上过去的三年全球经济低迷,实体经济特别是传统制造业处境异常艰难,可谓濒临崩溃。大型企业动辄亏损几十亿,企业运作不灵,即使合同权利遭受巨大损害,也没有使用法律武器应对的意识,一直沿用中国传统的中庸、忍让的思想。在律师接触到这一案子之前,双方当事人的分歧和僵局已经持续了大半年,本可以抓住最佳时机先发制人,却由于缺乏维权意识反被咬一口,一下子变得非常被动。

现在国内的律师,尤其是欠发达地区的律师,大多从事的还是传统律师业务,外语水平有限,能做国际仲裁的律师人数少之又少。

国际仲裁团队在听到这个案子后,立即驱车前往A公司所在地,查阅公司提供的证据材料,做了一份初步评估,认为本案虽然失去了先机,被对方“恶人先告状”,但还是有很大机会能够扳回一局的。在给当事人分析清楚局势后,当事人非常满意,很快地就把案子委托团队代理。

经过详细地访谈和沟通,团队理清了案情的脉络,把握了抗辩的重点所在:

X公司是中国在瑞士最大的供应铁管的公司,在瑞士公司B的工程招标过程中,有两家公司竞标,一家是X公司,另一家是A公司。一轮价格战后,A公司凭借更好的优势中标,并于2014年5月29日签订合同。

合同规定,货物为用于地下水管使用的铁管及其管件,买方先提供银行保函, 卖方分两批发货。眼看着第一批货物已经发出,X公司对此心存芥蒂,担心A公司开始进军瑞士市场很有可能会抢走更多的客户,因此从中作梗,企图以更低的价格供应申请人B公司,抢走第二批货物的订单。

适逢,2014年下半年开始,钢铁价格大幅下降,更加让B公司觉得对A公司进行违约并向X公司采购第二批货物可以节省更多成本。但是碍于没有借口直接拒绝接收货物,于是B公司恶意延迟一个多月开具银行保函,导致发货延迟,再对 A公司的货物吹毛求疵,并以船方导致货损为借口来嫁祸A公司。

第一批货物在2014年9月25日到达目的港F港口,B公司收货之时与其工程主管部门和A公司一起检验了货物并签署了质量通过报告。但是随后几天便出尔反尔,指责货物有质量问题。A公司本着友好合作的态度立刻要求与B公司一同勘验损失情况,不料却被拒绝。

B公司在未通知A公司的情况下,自行安排人员对铁管进行检查验损,并单方出具了所谓的“专家报告”,并要求索赔。A公司仍然以温和忍让的态度对待买方的无理取闹,甚至还提出了制药继续履行合同,愿意提供5万美金补偿的优厚条件。这也是A公司的底线了。但是,B公司狮子大开口,提出索赔150万美元的无理要求,然后拒绝进一步会见和协商。并且在此期间,秘密地向X公司采购了第二批货物。至此为止,合同无法继续履行,合作关系破裂。本次国际商事仲裁案,也就此拉开了序幕。

仲裁申请书

综述

当事人申请仲裁时,应当提交仲裁申请书。以国际商会(ICC)仲裁规则为例, 申请书一般应包含以下内容:

1. 各方当事人名称全称、基本情况、地址和其他联系信息;

2. 在仲裁中代表申请人的任何人士的名称全称、地址和其他联系信息;

3. 请求仲裁的争议的性质及情况,以及提出请求的依据;

4. 所请求的救济,连同任何已量化的请求的数额,以及对其他任何请求可能得出的金额估值;

5. 列明任何有关协议,特别是仲裁协议;

6. 如果仲裁请求是按照多项仲裁协议提出的,应写明每项仲裁请求所依据的仲裁协议;

7. 确定仲裁员人数及仲裁员选择方式的所有相关说明及任何意见或建议,以及根据上述条款提名的仲裁员人选;以及

8. 所有关于仲裁地、适用的法律规则和仲裁语言的相关说明、意见或建议。

递交仲裁申请的程序意义

仲裁机构案件管理部门(以国际商会为例,国际仲裁院秘书处Secretariat负责在仲裁庭组建之前管理案件)收到仲裁申请的日期,一般将被视为仲裁开始的日期(the date of the commencement of the arbitration)。而这一日期是有程序意义的——最直接的意义,就是对于所适用的仲裁规则的先决作用。

比如,根据国际商会仲裁2012规则第6.1条,“当事人协议按照国际商会仲裁规则提交仲裁的,应视为他们事实上愿意按照仲裁开始之日有效的仲裁规则进行仲裁,除非他们已经约定按照订立仲裁协议之日有效的仲裁规则进行仲裁。”2017新规则第6.1条延续了这一规定:

Article 6

Effect of the Arbitration Agreement

1 Where the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration under the Rules,they shall be deemed to have submitted ipso facto to the Rules in effect on the date of commencement of the arbitration,unless they have agreed to submit to the Rules in effect on the date of their arbitration agreement.

各版本的仲裁机构规则,都有其生效日期。ICC2012规则生效日期为2012年1月1日;2017新规则生效日期为2017年3月1日。

换言之,如果A、B两公司于2016年12月30日签订仲裁协议(对于所适用的仲裁规则版本无明确约定),且ICC国际仲裁院秘书处于2017年5月1日收到了A公司递交的仲裁申请(Request for Arbitration),由于此时ICC2017新规则已经生效,则默认当事人双方自愿选择2017新规则、适用于A、B两公司的仲裁程序。

反之,如果A、B两公司在仲裁协议中明确表示“如若争议提交ICC国际仲裁院通过仲裁解决,则适用协议签订之日有效的仲裁规则”,那么,即便秘书处在2017年5月1日方才收到仲裁申请,仲裁也仍适用ICC2012仲裁规则。

值得注意的是,仲裁开始日期仅对仲裁规则的适用版本具先决作用,对ICC费用标准并无影响。2012规则规定,2012费用标准适用于2012年1月1日起受理的所有仲裁,“无论其适用国际商会规则的何种版本”。

APPENDIX III-Arbitration Costs and Fees

Article 4 Scales of Administrative Expenses and Arbitrators Fees

1 The Scales of Administrative Expenses and Arbitrators Fees set forth below shall be effective as of 1 January 2012 in respect of all arbitrations commenced on or after such date,irrespective of the version of the Rules applying to such arbitrations.

2017新规则延续了这一规定,新的费用标准适用于2017年1月1日起受理的所有仲裁。

除了上文提到的申请书应包含的内容,申请人也可以在提交申请书时,一并提交其认为适宜的或可能有助于有效解决争议的其他文件或信息。

当然,这是申请人的程序权利,而非义务。一方面,在申请人向仲裁机构提交申请书时,仲裁庭尚未组建,自然无主体对于申请人需要提供的材料、文件进行更细化的规定(参见本书下文“程序令”);另一方面,随着仲裁程序的深入推进,发现更多证据材料,在接下来的书面陈词中加以选择提交仲裁庭,亦为程序策略的一种。

评析

EQUEST FOR ARBITRATION

1.INTRODUCTION

1.This Request for Arbitration,together with its Exhibits numbered C-1 to C-3, is submitted on behalf of COMPANY B (hereinafter“Claimant”) pursuant to Article 4 of the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in force as from 1 January 2012 (the“ICC Rules”) against COMPANY A ( hereinafter “Respondent”),(hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties”).

[1段]通常在仲裁申请书的第一段,申请人会简单介绍一下申请人和被申请人的名称(包括第三人)以及提交的争议事项。

2.This Request for Arbitration contains information concerning the following:

(i)The name,description and address of each of the Parties(I);

(ii) The Parties contractual relationship and the na-ture and circumstances of the Parties dispute giving rise to Claimants claims(II):

(iii)The dispute resolution clause and the governing law (III);

(iv) Claimant’s position as regards the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal(IV);

(v) Claimants damages(V);and

(vi) A statement of the relief sought(VI).

3.This dispute principally concerns Respondents con-tractual defaults in supplying and delivering pipes to Claimant by cargo between China and theSwitzer-land,and in particular in relation to delay, damaged pipes and incomplete delivery.

[2-3段]申请人本可以先用一到两段简要介绍案情,开门见山、直截了当地指出被申请人的违约行为,让仲裁庭一目了然。随后,再介绍本仲裁申请书的目的和主要内容。但申请人在这里将两者顺序调换了,虽然无可厚非,但却体现不出内在的逻辑和应有的效果。

II.THE PARTIES

A.CLAIMANT

4.Claimant is Company B,a company registered under the laws of Switzerland.

[4段]在提供申请人信息时,不仅应当提供名称、性质、所在地、经营范围和联系方式,如果公司不是很出名,最好还要提供工商登记证书或信誉证书,或者最新的年报和公司网站都可以附上,以留下良好印象。显然,这里介绍的过于简单。

5.Claimants counsels are:XXX

[5段]随后应当提交代理律师的介绍和联系方式并附上委托授权书。委托书不需要公证。在本案中,申请方律师一直没有提交委托授权书,体现了其不专业的一面。

B.RESPONDENT

6.Respondent is COMPANY A,a company registered under the laws of China.

III.THE CONTRACT AND THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DISPUTE

A.FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7.Claimant obtained a tender from the State of Switzerland for the construction of a domestic water distribution line in the Switzerland(the“Project”).For the construction of the Project,Claimant needed a considerable volume of pipes.

8.In this context,Claimant and Respondent entered into a Contract of Sales between Company A and Company B dated 29 May 2014 (the“Contract”or the“Agreement”) for the supply of goods (pipes,fittings,etc.) for the construction of the Project.

9.However, the first delivery of goods by Respondent did not comply with the requirements of the SalesContract.In particular, Respondent delivered the goods with significant delay and the delivered goods were incomplete and damaged, and the goods were therefore useless to Claimant for the construction of the Project. Despite Respondents repeated promises to indemnify Claimant,Respondent failed to take action.

[7-9段]详细介绍合同背景和引起纠纷的事实原因,一般情况下,因为每一方对于事实的理解都是有出入的,立场也是不同的甚至完全对立,所以在描述事实的时候完全可以带入主观色彩。但是申请人在这里写的已经不是主观立场导致的分歧了,更多的是歪曲事实,这样薄弱的阐述是非常容易被对方攻击的。

B.CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS

10.Article 4.3 of the Contract provides that Respondents shipment of the goods cannot be later than 45days from the date of reception and acceptance ofClaimants Letter of Guarantee(L/G). Article 4.3 stipulates:

‘The first lot latest shipment date from Chinese port pursuant to the stipulations of this Contract would be no later than 45 days since the date when the Seller

-Respondent-receives the workable L/G opened from(he buyer and acceptable by the Seller(...)

11.The goods should respect a certain quality and be de-livered without any damage as provided in the Con-tract and its Annexes.In particular. Article 1.2 of the Contract provides the description,technical specification,quantity and other details of the goods:

“The description, technical specification, quantity and other details of the goods herein are listed in annex/as attached(...)

12.The Contract also records Respondents undertaking that the goods would be shipped from Respondents storage area to Claimants digging area without any damage and within a reasonable time period. Article

4. 1 states that:

The goods which are nested will be prepared separately and without any damage on(he storage area of Seller-Respondent-for shipment to digging are-a of Buyer-Claimant- in a reasonable time period.

13.As the contract provides that the goods sold by Respondent and purchased by Claimant are pipes and fittings, an incomplete delivery of appropriate fittings necessarily amounts to an incomplete delivery of the goods and constitutes a breach under the Contract. Article 1.1 of the Contract provides that:

The Seller-Respondent-agrees on selling manufactured pipes and fittings and accessories in full authority and the Buyer-Claimant-agrees on buying them in full authority

[10-13段]引出相关合同条款,指出违约的依据

C.RESPONDENTS BREACHES UNDER THE CONTRACT

14.The day following the Parties signature of the Contract, on 30 May 2014,Claimant personally delivered a letter of guarantee worth USD 3,000,000.00 to Respondent,which complied with Respondents requirements,from the bank H.

15.As the date of shipment of the goods cannot be later than 45 days from Respondents reception and acceptance of Claimants letter of guarantee pursuant to Article 4. 3 of the Contract,the latest day for shipment was 14 July 2014. Respondent, however, shipped the goods on 7 August 2014,which amounts to a 24-day delay.

[14-15段]由于所有递交给仲裁庭的文件全部都被默认为是真实的,除非被对方的证据反驳,所以在阐述双方履行权利义务的过程中,一定要用词谨慎, 不能被对方抓住漏洞, 否则很容易构成英美法中的“自认”。自认也是有效证据。另外,由于国际仲裁通常会设置几个回合,用于书面抗辩和反驳,所以每一次提交的文件之间,也要保持论点一致,千万不能出现先自相矛盾的情况。

16.Moreover, in relation to the duration of transport. Respondent represented during meetings with Claimant that,according to industry practice,cargoes take 30-35 days to reach Claimants port of destination,port F. Although time was of the essence, the

cargo arrived 50 days after being shipped,or 57 days including the unloading to the stock field,which amounts to a 22-day delay in transport and to a total of a 46-day delay,in breach of Article 4.3 of the Contract.

[16段] 此处需要特别注意的是对方律师貌似不经意写出的“time was of the essence”,这是具有法律意义的,需要驳斥。{详见书面答辩陈述}

17.After their arrival at the Port F, the goods were to be transported to Respondents stock field and unloaded pursuant to the Contract ( one-by-one and without any damage, in accordance with Article 4.1 of the Contract). After pulling them out,at Respondents expense, the goods must be kept ready for de-livery to Claimant. However, benefiting from the diameter difference of the pipes,Respondent transported far too many pipes within each other which caused them to get bent, curled and broken, in breach of Articles 4.1 and 1.2 of the Contract which pro-vides that the goods must he delivered to Claimant without any damage and in the conditions, quantities,types,qualities and forms set forth in Annex I of the Contract, as indicated supra.

[17段]在引用合同条款作为论据的时候,首先要对合同条款进行解释。很多时候纠纷的来源就是对合同的理解或解释有两种以上,那么采取哪种解释更加符合己方当事人的利益,就会倾向于证明这种解释的合理性。这里申请人并没有合理解释这一条款,而是简单粗暴地陈述某种行为违反了某一条款。这样的没有逻辑的陈述是不堪一击的。

18.Claimant immediately notified Respondent of the situation, which was determined and recorded by a Notary and an expert in official expert reports.

19.It is common knowledge within the industry that pipes which were shipped could not be broken and could only be bent, even under intense pressure. However, in the present case, the conditions of transport were so inappropriate and brutal that these pipes actually broke. This demonstrates not only that transportation was not compliant with international shipping standards, but also that the pipes had a manufacturing defect,in breach of Articles 1.2 and 4.1 of the Contract.

20.Also, the price of the goods of the first delivery paid by Claimant, in accordance with the Contract for USD 12,100,000. 00 and the pro forma invoice prepared by Respondent, was USD 9,000,000(USD 6.000,000+USD3,000,000). However, the goods delivered were worth only USD 7,500,000. In other words,Respondent failed to deliver USD 1,500,000 worth of goods.

[20段]低级错误,陈述部分和证据部分内容相左。这里说被申请人开出的商业发票是900万,而第一批货物价值700多万,少运了100多万的货物。而提供的证据是那份商业发票,非常清楚的记载了发票金额是700多万,跟货物价值完全一致的, 体现出申请方律师对事实的把握尚存问题。

21.Moreover, although the pro forma invoice stipulates that the delivered pipe was to be 35 KM long, the pipe delivered by Respondent was only 19 KM long and the remaining 16 KM were never delivered.

22.Furthermore,Respondent failed to deliver the fittings necessary for the usage of the 19 KM long pipes in breach of Article 1.1 of the Contract. 1he failure to deliver the fittings resulted in the impossibility to use any of the 19 KM long pipes delivered.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE AND GOVERNING LAW

A.THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE

23.This arbitration is initiated pursuant to Article 9.1 of the Contract, which provides as follows:

“Arbitration:All dispute arising in connection with this Contract or the execution thereof shall be settled amicably by negotiation within 90days. In case no settlement can be reached the case under dispute shall then be submitted for arbitration to International Chamber of Commerce International Cowl of Arbitration in Paris. The award of arbitration tribunal pursuant to the provisions of this Contract shall be in writing and final and binding upon the Seller and ( he Buyer, if necessary, in any court of competent jurisdiction. The arbitral ion fee shall be bourne by the losing party. "

[23 段] 仲裁协议,通常是写在救济措施的后面的,着重论述程序性问题,理论性的这些要点问题我们已经在上文的第二章探讨过了。以下主要针对具体问题进行点评。

24.Claimant approached Respondent about settling the current dispute immediately following the Respondents multiple breaches of contract. The Parties met in Istanbul in order to amicably discuss the settlement of the dispute multiple times. The final attempt to settle the dispute occurred on 12-13 October 2014. As the Parties were unable to settle their dispute within 90 days. Claimant was forced to bring the current arbitration proceedings.

[24段]首先,引出仲裁协议,论述其有效性,仲裁有前置条件的论述条件已经满足。

B.THE SEAT OF ARBITRATION

25.Pursuant to Article 9.1, set out above, the place of arbitration is Paris,France.

[25 段] 根据仲裁协议,确定仲裁地是法国巴黎。

C.GOVERNING LAW

26.The governing law is not explicitly specified in the Contract. It is common ground between the Parties that the place of arbitration is Paris, France, although neither of the Parties have current connections with the city. According to Article V(l)(a) of the New York Convention, the validity of an arbitration agreement is to be determined by either the law that the parties chose in the agreement or, if the parties failed to make a choice of law in the agreement, the law of the country where the award was made. Absent a choice-of-law designation by the parties, the law of the country in which the arbitral award was rendered therefore governs with respect to issues concerning the validity of an arbitration agreement

27.The place where the award will be rendered will be Paris. Moreover, the current arbitration clearly corresponds to the French legal definition of an international arbitration under Article 1504 of the NewFrench Code of Civil Procedure, since the Parties have different nationalities and the transfer of services and payments crossed international borders. French law is therefore applicable.

28.This is a largely academic point, however, since the Contract falls under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(the“Vienna Convention”),which forms an integral part of French,Swiss and Chinese law.

[26-28段]仲裁协议中没有规定适用法律, 申请方律师建议使用仲裁地的法律,即法国法。显然这一点对中国律师是非常不利的,因为适用法律上原则是双方意思自治原则, 所以在对法国法没有深入研究的情况下,最好要选择自己熟悉的法律,比如国际通用的法律或者中国法。由于本案属于国际贸易纠纷,双方也是《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》(“CISG”) 的缔约国,所以我们强烈要求适用CISG。

国际仲裁适用法律( Applicable law):《纽约公约》( New York Convention) 与法国《民事诉讼法典》1504条关于国际仲裁的适用法律,在本书第二章第三节已有介绍。国际仲裁适用法律可分为两个层面:程序法律和实体法律。再详细划分,可以分为:

—适用于当事人之间争议(基础合同)的实体法律;

—适用于当事人之间国际仲裁协议的实体法律;

—适用于仲裁程序的程序法律;

—适用于仲裁裁决的承认与执行的程序法律。

其中,适用于基础合同的实体法律、适用于仲裁程序的程序法律,都是可以基于当事人双方自愿加以选择的。国际仲裁协议虽然经常以争议解决条款的形式,普遍存在于基础合同之中,但国际上普遍认为,仲裁协议“独立”于基础合同,当事人完全可以协商选择仲裁协议的管辖法律。最后,由于世界上许多国家均加入了《纽约公约》,因此,仲裁裁决的承认与执行的程序法律,大多以《纽约公约》与相应的国内立法为基础。

那么,本案申请方律师在《仲裁申请书》26-28段所论述的,是哪一类适用法律呢?

一、《纽约公约》第五条(1)(a)款:仲裁协议效力管辖法律

首先,申请方律师所引用的《纽约公约》第5条(1)(a)款,其实是缔约国国内法院拒绝承认与执行某一国外仲裁裁决的理由之一:

Article V(1)(a)

1. Recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the competent authority where the recognition and enforcement is sought, proof that:

(a)The parties to the agreement referred to in article II were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made; or(…)

本条款给出了拒绝国外仲裁裁决承认和执行的第一个理由。公约缔约国国内法院在两种情况下可以拒绝承认、执行某特定国外仲裁裁决:

其一,依照适用于协议双方当事人的法律,协议双方存在无行为能力的情形;

其二,依照协议双方选择适用的法律(若双方未选择适用法律,则依照仲裁裁决作出地法律),仲裁协议无效。

那么,能否通过这一条款确定适用于基础合同的法律呢?

首先,本条款所针对的时间点,是缔约国法院需要承认和执行某一国外仲裁裁决之时。

第二,本条款所探讨的,确定“仲裁协议的效力”(validity of the arbitration agreement)所适用的法律。由于仲裁协议独立于基础合同,“管辖仲裁协议效力的实体法律”,与“管辖基础合同的实体法律”这两个概念,即便在现实生活中可能同一,在法理学意义上,也不是重合的。

因此,本条款的适用情形如下:双方当事人未选择适用于管辖仲裁协议的实体法律,法院需要通过裁决作出地的法律(本案中为法国法),去确定仲裁协议是否有效、是否拒绝承认裁决。

很显然,这并不是仲裁程序中确定当事人各自权利义务、确定是否存在违约行为的实体法律规则。

综上,申请方律师通过《纽约公约》第5-(1)(a)款论证本案基础合同适用法国法律,纯属无稽之谈。

二、法国《民事诉讼法典》第1504条:“国际仲裁”的定义

申请方律师引用的第二个法条,是法国《民事诉讼法典》第1504条。

Code de procedure civile

Article 1504 Est international l arbitrage quimeten cause des inter ts du commerce international.

这一条款可以粗略译为英语“The arbitration is international when it put at stake the interests of international business.”

实际上,本条款所针对的,是法国国内法律体系下,“国际仲裁”的定义。在法国,仲裁是否具有国际性质,取决于产生争议的经济关系,而非争议双方的意愿。^[1]换言之,假设两个法国当事人在法国境内签署合同,并完全在法国境内履行完毕,依据本条,不具备法国法定义中的国际性质。这是一种经济关系在具体国别跨度上的审查。的确,本案中合同的履行,无论是物质跨度(销售货物)还是金钱跨度(给付货款),都涉及到了两个国家,按照1504条的标准,的确属于“国际仲裁”。然而,1504条仅仅能够确定仲裁的性质,不能确定适用于基础合同的实体法律。再者,法国《民事诉讼法典》分为六大部分,其中第四部分仲裁分为两章,第一章题为“国内仲裁“,第二章题为“国际仲裁”。在法条布局上,1504条位于“国际仲裁”章节的第一条,很明显在适用法律规则上区分于一般的国内仲裁。

申请方律师想要通过1504条论证本案基础合同关系适用法国法律,多少有些生搬硬套了。

D．LANGUAGE OF THE ARBITRATION

29.The Language of Arbitration is not explicitly stated in the Contract but should be English. The Contract was executed in English and Swiss versions, but in any case of conflict between the English version and the Swiss version the English version shall prevail (Article 10.4).The Parties common language for business was also English. The Parties common intention was therefore that the arbitration should take place in English.

[29段]仲裁协议中也没有规定仲裁语言,首先这个也是尊重当事人意思自治的,但是当双方当事人意见不一致时,ICC仲裁庭会适当考虑合同使用的语言。由于本案中合同语言是以英语为主,所以申请人建议仲裁语言也用英语。但这并不是绝对的,虽然通常做国际仲裁的律师英文水平都很高,但毕竟英文不是母语,很多时候英文也无法表达出中文的巧妙的意思,所以不论对方建议什么语言,中方当事人首先都可以要求使用中文。这样一来,中方的工作量和工作效率都可以大大提高。

V.THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL

30.The Contract does not specify the number of arbitrators. Pursuant to Article 12 (1) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration, disputes may be decided upon by a sole arbitrator or by three arbitrators.

31.Given the relatively small amount in dispute, a sole arbitrator is clearly appropriate. Claimant proposes the following Sole Arbitrator.

32.Mr.P is a well-known arbitrator who speaks English, who has previous construction and ICC arbitration experience, who has knowledge of the Vienna Convention, and who is independent of the Parties involved in this arbitration.

33.Should Respondent disagree with his nomination, Claimant requests the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the ICC Court of Arbitration who has similar characteristics.

[30-33段]仲裁协议中没有规定仲裁员人数和组成方式,那么申请人应当指定一个或三个仲裁员,以及指定的方法,并请求被申请人同意或仲裁庭指定。首先本案并不复杂,不论是出于效率的考虑还是成本的考虑,选择一个仲裁员足以。其次,对方建议的仲裁员一定要进行详细调查,确认其独立性、专业性。并且最好要了解仲裁员的背景、风格、要求等,以便于有的放矢的进行程序。

VI.CLAIMANTS DAMAGES

34.Claimant has suffered significant financial loss and damage as a direct result of Respondent‘s multiple breaches of the Contract.

35.For present purposes,total damages under the Contract arc conservatively estimated at USD,plus interest:

36.Given the considerable bad faith that Respondent has illustrated throughout the Parties course of business dealings, and Respondents crystal clear violation of the Parties Contract but refusal to pay any compensation, there is a significant risk that Respondent will refuse to pay the amounts eventually awarded by an arbitral tribunal. It is therefore appropriate to award post-award interest in order to ensure the payment of the amount ultimately awarded by the arbitral tribunal. Claimant therefore requests the awarding of post-award interest at twice the applicable rate under French law.

VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

37.As a result, Claimant respectfully requests the Arbitral Tribunal to issue an award:

(i)declaring that the Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the dispute described herein between the Parties;

(ii) declaring that Respondent breached the Contract repeatedly;

(iii) ordering Respondent to compensate Claimant for the damages and losses suffered as a result of Respondents breaches of Contract currently estimated to be in the sum of USD ;

(iv) ordering Respondent to pay all arbitration costs, including Claimant’s counsel s costs and expenses;

(v) ordering payment by Respondent of interest in an amount to be determined;

(vi) ordering payment by Respondent of post-award interest in an amount to be determined.

[37段] 救济请求:除了当事人的一些具体的特殊要求之外,通常还会请求仲裁庭指令对方赔偿利息、仲裁相关费用、律师费用、立即执行等等。

38.For the avoidance of doubt. Claimant reserves its right to:

(i) raise any and all further claims arising out of or in connection with the disputed matters described in this Request for Arbitration or otherwise arising between the Parties;

(ii) amend and/or supplement the relief sought herein;

(iii) produce such factual or legal arguments or evidence(including witness testimony, expert testimony and documents) as may be necessary to present its case or rebut any case which may be put forward by Respondent; and

(iv) seek interim and provisional measures before an Emergency Arbitrator, the Arbitral Tribunal, or any competent national court.

Respectfully submitted,Counsel for Claimant

[38 段]可以保留一些权利,为后面的修改或新增要求做铺垫。

1.法国最高法院:C. Cass, civ. 1re ,13 mars 2007:Bull. civ. I, no 102;D. 2007.

答辩书及反请求

综述

根据国际商会2012规则^[1],被申请人收到秘书处转来的申请书之日起三十日内,须提交答辩书(Answer to the Request)。答辩书应当包括以下内容:

1.被申请人名称全称、基本情况、地址和其他联系信息;

2.代表被申请人的律师或其他人士的名称全称、地址和其他联系信息;

3.对于请求仲裁的争议的性质、情况以及请求依据的意见;

4.对于所请求的救济的答复;

5.基于申请人的建议,确定仲裁员人数及仲裁员选择方式以及提名的仲裁员人选提出任何意见或建议;以及

6.关于仲裁地、适用的法律规则和仲裁语言的任何意见或建议。

被申请人可以在提交答辩书时,可以一并提交其认为适宜的或可能有助于有效解决争议的其他文件或信息。

另外,被申请人提出的任何反请求(Counterclaim)应当与答辩书一起提交并载明以下内容^[2]:

1.引起反请求的争议的性质及情况,以及提出反请求的依据;

2.所请求的救济,连同任何已量化的反请求的数额,以及对任何其他反请求可能得出的金额估值;

3.任何有关协议,特别是仲裁协议;以及

4.如果反请求是按照多项仲裁协议提出的,应写明每项反请求所依据的仲裁协议。

被申请人可以在提交反请求时,可以一并提交其认为适宜的或可能有助于有效解决争议的其他文件或信息。

本案被申请人确定委托代理之前,浪费了很多时间,答辩书是在非常有限且紧急的情况下完成的。专业的团队也有疏漏和不足,在此进行客观点评。

1.国际商会 ICC 2012 仲裁规则第5-1条。关于这一规定,2017新规则中并无本质修改。

2.国际商会 ICC 2012 仲裁规则第5-5条。

评析

PART A. ANSWER TO THE REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION

I.INTRODUCTION

1.Pursuant to the letter of notification regardingCase sent by International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce(the“Tribunal”) on 17th November 2015,and the Rules of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC Rules”),Company A(hereinafter “Respondent”) hereby submits this answer to Company Bs (hereinafter “Claimant”) request for arbitration.

[1段]介绍被申请人的信息,如果同时提起反请求书,那么被申请人也可以称为反请求人(Respondent and Counterclaimant)。

2.This answer to Claimant’s request for arbitration includes the contents as the following:

•Respondent‘s answer to the claims brought by Claimant (PART A)

•Respondent’s Counter Claim including Claimants substantial breaches of contract(PART B)

3.Contrary to the Claimants statement of introduction under its request for arbitration,this case mainly concerns the Claimants substantial breaches of the pipe supplying contract (hereinafter “Contract”) between the two parties, especially in relation to the delayed and incomplete payment and the purchase of the contracted amount of goods from other manufacturer(an unknown third party),while Respondent has fully ful-filled its obligations under the Contract.

[2-3段]除了某些事项有所保留之外,反对申请人的所有请求,简述争议事项并介绍本答辩书的组成部分。

II.APPLICABLE LAW

4.Regarding the applicable law governing this case, Claimant proposed that French law shall apply. Respondent opposes Claimants opinion on this matter. This case concerns principally the Contract of supplying pipes between Claimant, a company registered and operating in the Republic of Switzerland, and Respondent, a company registered and operating in the People’s Republic of China. The pipes ordered under the Contract were manufactured in China and to be delivered to Switzerland. Any disputes or claims arising from this case have no substantial relation to France and French law. Furthermore,in Claimants request to Arbitration, page 8,paragraph 26,Claimant cited Article V(1) (a) of the New York Convention to prove that “the validity of an arbitration agreement is to be determined by either the law in the agreement or, if the parties failed to make a choice of law in the agreement,the law of the country where the award was made.”However,the New York Convention is concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, which has no relation to the question of governing law in this case and cannot prove the Claimants opinion.The Claimants cited provision in New York Convention is as following:

“Article V

1. Recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused,at the request of the party against whom it is invoked,only if that party furnishes to the competent authority where the recognition and enforcement is sought,proof that:

(a)The parties to the agreement referred to in article II were,under the law applicable to them,under some incapacity,or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or,failing any indication thereon,under the law of the country where the award was made;or”

…

This provision is mainly about the conditions of refusal to recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award, which is completely irrelevant to the question of applicable law in this case andobviously cannot support Claimants opinion. Therefore,Claimants opinion of applying French law to this case is clearly inappropriate and contrary to the principle of predictability.

5. though there is no explicit provision in the Contract concerning the applicable law, Respondent believes that the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter“CISG”) shall be the sole governing law in this case. According to CISG Article 1(1)(a),

“Article 1

(1)This Convention applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States:

(a)when the States are Contracting States”.

China andSwitzerland are the Contracting States of CISG,which entered into force on 1st January 1988 and 1st August 2011 respectively. The Contract concerning sales of pipes was signed between a Chinese company and a Swiss company on 29th May 2014.Moreover,Article 6 of the CISG stipulates that the parties may exclude the application of this Convention,which means that if the parties do not explicitly exclude the application of the Convention in the Contract,CISG shall be consequently applied according to the conditions in Article 1 of CISG. In this case,there is no provision in the Contract excluding the application of CISG. Therefore CISG shall apply to the Contract and be the sole governing law in this case.

[4-5段]讨论适用法律的问题。注意反驳申请人建议的法国法和纽约公约。首先,由于仲裁协议中没有明确规定适用法律,所以优先由当事人意思自治选择。虽然仲裁地在法国巴黎,程序上的法律可能会有部分与法国法重合,但是实体上却未必一定要适用法国法。再加上被申请方律师对法国法显然没有对方法国律师更加熟悉,因此主张适用CISG。其次,纽约公约只是规定了外国判决和裁决的承认和执行,是建立在有效裁判的基础上的,目前还在仲裁过程当中,显然此处不适用纽约公约。

III.FACTS SUMMARY

6.Dispute Background-Steel Price Fell Sharply

The dispute rose during a period of consistent international steel price decrease. According to CRU and LME steel price indicators,global steel price started to fall since February 2014. It can be observed that Claimants actions are mirrored in international steel market situation:when Claimant delayed in its opening full-amount Letters of Guarantee in both May and June 2014,the steel price started to decline at the same time;while Claimant breached the Contract by purchasing the Goods from a third party in October and November 2014,the steel price fell sharply.

[6段]介绍案子背景,深入分析纠纷引起的深层原因:在全球经济下滑的背景下,钢铁价格剧烈下跌,构成了对方违约的动机,给仲裁员留下深刻印象。有利观点一旦涉及数字,就要善于运用数据并以图表的形式体现出来,冲击的视觉效果非常直观。

Considering Claimants conducts under such circumstances, Respondent has reasons to believe that Claimants multiple breaches and false allegations were meant to distribute its own international commercial risks on Respondent.

7.On 29th May 2014,Respondent and Claimant signed the Contract for supplying the pipes,in which Respondent is the seller and Claimant is the buyer.The total price of the ordered products is USD 12,100,000.00.Regarding the payment,it is stated in Article 3 and Article 4 of the Contract that the total price of the Contract should be paid partially as the following:

i.For the first shipment of products -

a)The buyer should open two Letters of Guarantee in amount of USD 6,000,000.00 and USD 3,000,000.00 respectively which must reach the seller and be accepted by the seller within 5 days after the signing of the Contract.

b)Then the seller should startits production of the ordered pipes and make the first shipment from Chinese port no later than 45 days from the date of receiving and accepting the Letter of Guarantee.

c)Followed by that, the buyer should payUSD 6,100,000.00 to the seller by telegraphic transfer (T/T) within 85 days after the issuing date of Bill of Lading for the first shipment.

ii.For the second shipment of products -

a)The seller should return the Letters of Guarantee in price of USD 3,000,000.00 to the buyer after the seller receives the payment of USD 6,100,000.00.

b)Then, the sellers should startits production for the second shipment within 30 days after receiving the payment of USD 6,100,000. 00. The second shipment shall be no later than 120 days from the issuing date of Bill of Lading for the first shipment as well as after receiving the payment for the first shipment.

c)After that, the buyer should pay the rest of the total price which is USD 6,000,000.00 by telegraphic transfer(T/T) to the seller within 85 days after the issuing date of Bill of Lading for the second shipment.

d)The seller should keep and not return the Letters of Guarantee until the completion of the whole project.

8.The performance schedule according to provisions of the Contract can be summarized as following:

[7-8段]引出相关合同条款,再次以流程图表的形式体现出合同义务的先后顺序,侧面反映了对方违约在先,货物延误并非被申请方过错的事实。并不是说法律文书就一定要非常死板,仲裁员的自由心证也是取决于双方的这些书面文件的可靠性和证明力度,因此文件不管在外在格式还是内在表述上,都要做得简单明了。

9.On 30th May 2014,Respondent received the Letters of Guarantee in amount of USD3,000,000.00 from Claimant and immediately started the production.

10.However,Claimant did not open the Letters of Guarantee in amount of USD 6,000,000.00 within 5 days after signing of the Contract,which is substantial breach of its contractual obligation. Repeatedly urged by Respondent, Claimant finally opened two Letters of Guarantee in amount of USD 3,000,000.00 and USD 3,000,000.00 respectively on 2nd and 3rd July 2014.

11.Due to the delay of providing Letters of Guarantee, Respondent cannot produce the pipes and reserve the necessary freight in accordance with the original plan,which directly caused financial losses on Respondent such as the dead freight for the first shipment and etc.

12.According to Article 4.3 of the Contract,the first shipment shall be no later than 45 days after the seller received and accepted the Letters of Guarantee from the buyer. As the buyer did not open complete Letters of Guarantee until 3rd July 2014,the deadline for the first shipment shall be 17th August 2014 in accordance with the Contract.Even in such frustrating situation due to the fault caused by Claimant,Respondent still accomplished the production and loaded the products on 7th August 2014,which was largely ahead of the time required by the Contract.

13.During the manufacturing of the first shipment,the representatives of Claimant and Switzerland General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works(DSH) have visited Respondents site.Since DSH and Claimants representatives did not raise any objection,the order pipes shall be considered as qualified in accordance with the Contract.

14.The first shipment arrived at the destination port F,on 25th September 2014. Meanwhile,the products have been tested again in the destination port and recognized by DSH,Claimant and Respondent with a certificate signed by the three parties above.

15.After the arrival of the firstshipment,Claimant alleged that some pipes were damaged during the shipment. Respondent then required a meeting at the port attended by both parties to confirm whether the pipes were actually damaged and to assess the accurate damages.However,Claimant refused Respondents proposal of meeting and arranged the measurement of damages by its own personnel without the attendance and acceptance of Respondent. Regarding the damage assessment report unilaterally recorded by Claimant,Respondent clearly stated that such report should not be valid and recognized due to the absence of Respondent’s acceptance.

16.On 10th October 2014,the head of sales department of Respondent visited Claimant to discuss the resolution of damaged pipes. During the meeting,Respondent required Claimant to continue the execution of the Contract and fulfill its contractual obligations of sending the adequate payment by T/T,providing full-amount Letter of Guarantee and taking the products within a reasonable time.But Claimant proposed an unreasonable requirement of lowering the Contract price,which was rejected by Respondent.The parties could not reach an agreement and Claimant expressed its intention to give up fulfilling its contractual obligations.

17.In November 2014,Respondent also made a friendly proposal to settle the encountered problems so that the Contract would have an opportunity to be executed continuously.As a friendly gesture to demonstrate its sincerity,Respondent offered to compensate a reasonable amount of the damaged pipes for Claimant with a condition that Claimant should continue to execute the Contract and fulfill its obligations.More precisely,to be able to accept this offer,Claimant had to accept the second shipment of ordered products and pay the total price of the Contract. However,Claimant never agreed to such terms and eventually gave up executing the Contract. In this situation, the Respondents offer shall be regarded as completely rejected by Claimant and Respondent should not be responsible for any damaged pipes.

18.In December 2014,the Sales Manager of Respondent visited Claimant again to discuss this matter and expressed the sincere attitude of solving this dispute properly. However,Claimant proposed an unreasonable and unacceptable demand with a compensation of USD1.5 million for Claimant. After that,Claimant refused to attend further meetings and negotiations. In such circumstances,Claimant clearly expressed its intention of giving up the execution of the Contract.Due to the lack of mutual consent for amicable negotiation,Claimant shall bear all the liability for its breaches of Contract and be solely responsible for any adverse consequences caused by its breaches.

19.On 29th October 2015,Claimant filed this case to ICC Court of Arbitration in Paris and sent the Request for Arbitration.

[9-19段]按照时间和事情发展的顺序,介绍事实,并阐述解释合同条款。其实,只要把合同拿出来、逐字逐句解读,就会发现申请人的误读。该部分在第二回的的书面答辩陈述部分会更加详细的表述{详见书面答辩陈述}

IV.RESPONDENT HAS FULFILLED ITS CONRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

A.DELIVERY ON TIME

20.In Claimants Request for Arbitration,Claimant stated that Respondent breached Article 4.3 of the Contract due to a “total of a 46-day delay”. Respondent objects to this statement and believes that Respondent has already fulfilled its obligations under Article 4.3 of the Contract,while the delay of delivery was completely caused by Claimants own fault.

[20 段]从第四部分开始,突出重点部分,一一反驳申请人的论点。反驳分为四大部分:

(1)按时交货

(2)完成CIF义务

(3)货物数量充足

(4)反驳申请人的损失计算部分。

21.According to Article 4.3 of the Contract,it stated that:“4.3 The first lot latest shipment date from Chinese port pursuant to the stipulations of this contract would be no later than 45 days since the date when the seller receives the workable L/G opened from the buyer and acceptable by the seller…”.It is clearly stated in this Article that Respondents obligation to make the first shipment shall be based on the condition that Claimant must open workable Letters of Guarantee to Respondent in accordance with the stipulations of the Contract. Thus,Claimants obligation of opening Letters of Guarantee shall be fulfilled prior to Respondents obligation of deliver the first shipment.

22.Regarding issue of opening Letters of Guarantee,Article 3.1 explicitly stated that:

“3.1 …After this contract is signed,the buyer should open two Letters of Guarantee in Amount of 6,000,000.00 US dollars and 3,000,000.00 US dollars through the first class bank accepted both by the seller and by the buyer within 5 days. Then the seller arrange the production… “In the light of this Article, Claimant has obligation to open two Letters of Guarantee, which shall be in amount of USD 6,000,000.00 and USD 3,000,000.00 respectively,and shall be opened within 5 days after the date of signing the Contract. However,after the Contract was signed on 29th May 2014,Claimant only opened one Letter of Guarantee in amount of USD 3,000,000.00 to Respondent on 30th May 2014. Despite Respondents repeated reminding, Claimant failed to open the remaining Letter of Guarantee in amount of USD 6,000,000. 00 to Respondent before the stipulated due time,which should be 3rd June 2014 in this case. On 1st July 2014,Claimant finally opened two Letters of Guarantee in amount of USD 3,000,000.00 and USD3,000,000. 00 respectively. It was already delayed for one month as the stipulated due time of opening Letter of Guarantee shall be 2nd June 2014. Hence,Claimant failed to open adequate Letters of Guarantee required by the Contract and consequently breached the Contract.

23.Non-fulfillment of the obligation to open complete Letters of Guarantee on time by Claimant caused huge financial losses to Respondent including the dead freight and severely impeded Respondent fulfilling its obligation to make the first shipment. Such consequence that the date of the first shipment was later than the original plan is completely due to Claimants severe delay of opening contractagreed Letters of Guarantee,which is a substantial breach of Contract.Thus,Claimant shall be solely responsible for all unfavorable consequences caused by its breach of Contract.

[23段]扭转思路,把申请人以偏概全的论点全部驳回,层层铺垫,针针见血。此处最精彩的地方在于对“开具银行保函”这一义务的解释,本合同规定买方一共要开具两份银行保函,一份600万美金的,一份300万美金的,在保函开好之后,卖方安排生产并45日之内完成装运。因此,开具保函无疑是买方应当先履行的合同义务,后续的合同义务都是在这个义务基础上继续产生的。

24.Furthermore,even with such obstacles caused by Claimant,Respondent still fulfilled its obligation by shipping the first lot on 7th August 2014 which is credited to Respondents adequate preparation and efficient productivity.

25.In Claimants Request for Arbitration,the statement that Respondent caused a total of a 46-day delay of delivery is based on the argument by counting the stipulated 45-day-due-time of the first shipment from the date of opening the first Letter of Guarantee in amount of USD3,000,000.00 on 30th May 2014,which was incomplete and did not meet the requirement under the Contract. This method of calculating time limit is obviously wrong and contrary to the substance of the Contract.Respondent believes that the 45-day-due-time shall be counted from the date that Claimant opened the stipulated Letters of Guarantee in full amount, which was on 3rd July 2014. It means that the latest date to ship the first shipment shall be 17th August 2014.

26.Therefore,the fact that Respondent shipped the firstshipment on 7th August 2014 is completely in conformity with its obligation to ship the Goods under Article4.3 of the Contract, while Claimant did breach its obligation to open adequate Letters of Guarantee within the stipulated time limit.

B.RESPONDENT HASNO LIABILITY AS TO DAMAGED PIPES

i.Fulfillment of all obligations by Respondent

27.In Claimants Request for Arbitration,Claimant stated that Respondent breached Articles4.1 and 1.2 of the Contract because the pipes were “bent, curled and broken“ caused by “manufacturing defects and inappropriate transportation”. Respondent objects to this statement and believes that Respondent has already fulfilled its obligations under Articles 4. 1 and a)2 of the Contract since the quality of the pipes conformed to the products standards. Furthermore,in accordance with CIF Incoterms 2000 trading usage stipulated in the Contract,Claimant shall bear all the risks of losses and damages after the goods passed the ships rail.

[27段]既然合同选择了CIF这一贸易术语,那么首先就要论证合同是一个CIF合同,然后该部分从卖方的义务角度出发,阐述了CIF下卖方的主要义务,即:

—“Cost”交收符合合同要求的货物;

—“Insurance”购买保险合同;

—“Freight“支付海上运费。

只要卖方满足了这三大义务,那么就是完成了自己的合同义务。

28.According to Article 4.1 of the Contract,“For the purpose of this contract,the buyer and the seller agree that the goods shall be delivered on the terms CIF FIO port F…according to Incoterms 2000.”

29.In the light of Incoterms 2000,CIF rule is clearly explained as following:

“‘Cost,Insurance and Freight means that the seller delivers when the goods pass the ship‘s rail in the port of shipment.”

“The seller must pay the costs and freight necessary to bring the pods to the named port of destination BUT the risk of loss of or damage to the goods,as well as any additional costs due to events occurring after the time of delivery,are transferred from the seller to the buyer.However,in CIF the seller also has to procure marine insurance against the buyers risk of loss of or damage to the goods during the carriage.”

“Consequently,the seller contracts for insurance and pays the insurance premium.The buyer should note that under the CIF term the seller is required to obliga-tion insurance only on minimum cover.Should the buyer wish to have the protection of greater cover,he would either need to agree as such expressly with the seller or to make his own extra insurance arrangements.”

30.In summary,under CIF(Incoterms 2000),sellers obligations mainly consist in:

a)make delivery of goods in conformity with the contract;and

b)arrange contract of insurance;and

c)arrange contract of carriage;and

d)payrelevant expenses.

Respondent duly fulfilled all its obligations according to the Contract and also according to CIF(Incoterms 2000).

1.Goods in conformity with the Contract

31.According to CIF Incoterms 2000, “A THE SELLERS OBLIGATIONS

A1 Provision of goods in conformity with the contract

The seller must provide the goods and the commercial invoice,or its equivalent electronic message,in conformity with the contract of sale and any other evidence of conformity which may be required by the contract. “Before the first shipment,Claimant sent its representatives to visit Respondents factory. At this moment,the Goods were already inspected bythe representatives of Claimant,Respondent and DSH. Since none of the three parties has raised any objection as to the quality of the Goods,such inspection has established that the Goods were in conformity with the Contract.

At the port of shipment, the Mate’s Receipt, the Certificate of Origin and the Bill of Lading all confirmed that the Goods were well prepared and without any damage for shipment.

Therefore,the Goods were in conformity to the Contract before they passed the ships rail at the port of shipment.

In addition, at the destination port of shipment, the quality and conditions of the pipes were inspected again by Claimant,Respondent and DSH,with a certificate signed by all the three parties. It proves that the Goods were also qualified as to the stipulated requirement after they had been delivered to the destination port. Therefore,Respondent fulfilled its obligation to deliver the qualified goods.

[31段] 详细论述为何货物已经符合合同要求:

第一,货物在生产过程中,已经经过买方亲自来中国工厂检验过。

第二,货物在装船发运的时候,长已经签发了清洁提单,清洁提单就已经证明货物是没有损坏的,并且没有包装不良的情况。

第三,在货物到达买方所在地后,买方和卖方再一次对货物进行了质量检查并出具了检测合格报告。

2. Contract of Insurance

32. According to CIF Incoterms 2000,

“A THE SELLERS OBLIGATIONS

A3 Contracts of carriage and insurance

b) Contract of insurance

The seller must obtain at his own expense cargo insurance as agreed in the contract,such that the buyer,or any other person having an insurable interest in the goods,shall be entitled to claim directly from the insurer and provide the buyer with the insurance policy or other evidence of insurance cover.

The insurance shall be contracted with underwriters or an insurance company of good repute and,failing express agreement to the contrary,be in accordance with minimum cover of the Institute Cargo Clauses (Institute of London Underwriters) or any similar set of clauses. The duration of insurance cover shall be in accordance with B5 and B4. When required by the buyer,the seller shall provide at the buyers expense war,strikes,riots and civil commotion risk insurances if procurable.The minimum insurance shall cover the price provided in the contract plus ten percent(i.e.110%) and shall be provided in the currency of the contract.”

On 7th August 2014,Respondent purchased an insurance policy for the first shipment from an insurance company with outstanding reputation:_____.Therefore,Respondent fulfilled its obligation to obtain cargo insurance at its own expense.

[32段]CIF下卖方有购买保险义务,但是这一义务仅仅包括为买方办理货运保险,支付保险费。按一般国际贸易惯例,卖方投保的保险金额应按CIF价加成10%。如买卖双方未约定具体险别,则卖方只需取得最低限底的保险险别,如买方要求加保战争保险,在保险费由买方负担的前提下,卖方应予加保,卖方投保时,如能办到,必须以合同货币投保。本案中卖方已经购买了中国有名的保险公司的海运保险,并且将保单和提单一起交付给了买方。买方却说没有收到保单,简直是无稽之谈。

3.Contract of Carriage

33.According to CIF Incoterms 2000,“A THE SELLERS OBLIGATIONS

A3 Contracts of carriage and insurance

a)Contract of carriage

The seller must contract on usual terms at his own expense for the carriage of the goods to the named port of destination by the usual route in a seagoing vessel(or inland waterway vessel as the case may be) of the type normally used for the transport of goods of the contract description.” Respondent booked a vessel for the first shipment on the 7th July 2014 from Shipping company,limited In the Freight Agreement between Respondent and Shipping company,the carriage expenses were to be paid by Respondent,in compliance with CIF requirements.

[33段]CIF下卖方有办理海上运输支付运费的义务。因此在合同签订后,卖方就已经着手开始安排订舱,并且签订了承运合同。但由于买方的延迟打乱了整个计划安排,导致产生了亏舱费。这部分会在反请求里面详细讲述。

4.Payment ofrelevant expenses

34.According to CIF Incoterms 2000:

“A THE SELLERS OBLIGATIONS

A6 Division of costs

The seller must,subject to the provisions of B6,pay

•all costs relating to the goods until such time as they have been delivered in accordance with A4;and

•the freight and all other costs resulting from A3 a), including the costs of loading the goods on board;

•and the costs of insurance resulting from A3 b);and

•any charges for unloading at the agreed port of discharge which were for the sellers account un-der the contract of carriage;and

•where applicable,the costs of customs formalities necessary for export as well as all duties,taxes and other charges payable upon export,and for their transit through any country if they were for thesellers account under the contract of carriage.” Respondent fulfilled its obligation to pay the relevant costs agreed in the Contract and under CIF terms,including carriage costs and insurance premium. Since Claimant does not give any comment on this matter in its Request for Arbitration,it shall be regarded as its tacit approval. Moreover,Article 4.1 of the Contract also stated that the FIO term,which means“Free In and Out”,shall also be applied to the delivery.Therefore,Respondent,as the seller,shall not be responsible for the loading and unloading of the ordered products.

[34段]支付其他相关费用。合同里和CIF下都规定了其他需要卖方承担的相关费用。很显然,卖方已经支付完成了。这里有一个非常内在的技巧,就是不要被对方的仲裁请求书牵着鼻子走,对方说一点,己方就反驳这一点,而是要有自己的思路,从自己的角度出发,并且为下文进行铺垫。虽然申请人并没有指出这个支付义务有什么问题,但是鉴于这个支付义务是卖方的全部义务,完成了这一义务意味着不需要对支付以外的其它事情负责。

35.In conclusion,based on all facts provided above,Respondent has already fulfilled its obligations to deliver the goods in conformity with the Contract,to arrange contracts of insurance and of carriage at its own expenses and to pay relevant costs according to CIF Incoterms 2000.

ii.Transfer of risks

36.Since Claimant and Respondent expressly chose CIF(Incoterms 2000) in their Contract,rules of transfer of risks under CIF shall apply:

“A-THE SELLER'S OBLIGATIONS; B-THE BUYERS OBLIGATIONS

A5 Transfer of risks

The seller must,subject to the provisions of B5,bear all risks of loss of/or damage to the goods until such time as they have passed the ships rail at the port of shipment.

B5 Transfer of risks

The buyer must bear all risks of loss of or damage to the goods from the time they have passed the ships rail at the port of shipment.”

[36段]风险转移无疑是本案中被申请方最有利的武器,也是CIF术语下的一大特色。

CIF术语下,货物越过船舷后,货物毁损、灭失的风险就由卖方转移给了买方。也就意味着,风险转移后,即使货物由任何损毁和灭失,卖方一概不负责任,由买方自己向保险公司或者向侵权方进行索赔。

37.Respondent has already fulfilled all its obligations under the rule of CIF including preparing the qualified goods,purchasing the insurance for the goods,paying all relevant costs and paying freight for delivery of goods.Therefore,Claimant shall bear all the risks of loss and damage when the ordered products passed the ships rail.

38.Furthermore,an exception clause was inserted in Article 10.1 of the Contract:“In case the weight or quality is found by the Buyer to be not in conformity with the Contract after arrival of the Goods at the port of destination,the Buyer may lodge a claim with the Seller supported by survey report issued by an inspection organization agreed up-on by both parties,with the exception,however,of those claims for which the insurance company and/or the shipping company are to be held responsible (…)”.

This provision in the Contract clearly states that the Goods damage and loss that are not caused by the quality of the products shall be resolved between the insurance company or shipping company and the buyer. Thus,if the Goods were damaged or lost after the passing of the ships rail,such as during the sailing or in the destination port,Claimant shall negotiate with and file a claim against the insurance company or shipping company,instead of against Respondent.

39.In Claimants Request for Arbitration,it is stated that“the goods were to be transported to Respondents stock field and unloaded pursuant to the Contract(one-by-one and without any damage,in accordance with Article 4.1 of the Contract).”

40.In Respondents opinion,Article 4.1 of the Contract shall not be considered as a conflict to CIF term chosen in the same article.

41.Pursuant to Article 4.1:

“For the purpose of this Contract,the Buyer and the Seller agree that the Goods shall be delivered on the terms CIF FIO port F(…) according to Incoterms 2000.The truck expenses between port and sellers storage area and the expenses for pulling out the nested pipes will be paid by the Seller. The Goods which are nested will be prepared separately and without any damage on the storage are of Seller for shipment to digging area of Buyer in a reasonable time period. The truck expenses between Sellers storage area and Buyers digging area will be paid by the Buyer.”

[41段]结合合同,CIF 条款规定在合同的4.1条中,但是由于合同4.1条由两部分组成,因此对其解释就显得尤为重要。这里抽丝剥茧地对本条款进行解释,阐述哪些是被申请方的义务,哪些是申请方的义务,如何证明被申请方已经充分完成了合同义务。

42.Article 4.1 is composed of different parts:one part concerning the Incoterms 2000 chosen by the parties;one part concerning the expense attribution after the Goodsarrival at destination port.

43.First of all,the part concerning expenses in Article 4. 1 means that,on the basis of CIF terms,Respondent shall bear additional costs:

(i).of the transportation fees between destination port and its storage place;and

(ii).of the expenses of pulling out the pipes.

Since Respondent and Claimant have already agreed upon CIF term in the Contract, this provision shall be interpreted without prejudice to the rule of transfer of risks under CIF Incoterms 2000. In other words,Respondents obligation under this provision is only pecuniary,and cannot be regarded as an extension to the scope of transfer-of-risk-rule under CIF terms.

44.Second of all,the provision concerning separate preparation “without any damage to the goods” is merely a description of the Goods conditions when they are in the storage place and ready for shipment to buyers digging area. The provision does not clarify which party shall bear the obligation to maintain the good conditions of the Goods.

45.In the light of CIF(Incoterms 2000) terms logic,the transfer of risks occurred when the goods pass the ships rail at departure port. It is reasonable to conclude that the obligation to maintain the good condition of the Goods shifted also at this time:Respondent bore such obligation before the Goods passed the ships rail and Claimant bore such obligation thereafter.

46.Since the Goods were in good condition without any damages after they were loaded on board,Respondent had already fulfilled its obligation to ensure the good conditions of the goods during phase 1. After the Goods passed the ships rail,Claimant shall bear the obligation to maintain the good conditions of the Goods. Should there be any damages and losses caused to the Goods during phase 2,such risks shall be borne by Claimant.

[46段]同理,这里被申请方使用了一个图表来解释CIF下风险转移的情况。其实,不论是仲裁员、申请方律师还是被申请方律师,都是非常有经验也是非常了解CIF的法律规定的。那么为什么还要“多此一举”用图表的形式体现出来呢? —因为这样既可以体现被申请方的专业性,又可以强调“风险转移”这一规定。因此我们建议,在抓到对己方特别有利的法律规定的时候,一定不要轻描淡写,要在有限的篇幅里面给仲裁员留下最深刻的印象。

47.Therefore,in this case,Respondent strongly believes that it did not breach Articles 4.1 and 1.2 of the Contract,and it shall have no liability regarding any damage or loss to the ordered products and such risks shall be completely borne by Claimant.

C.THE FIRST SHIPMENT IS ADEQUATELY DE-LIVERED

48.Claimant in its Request for Arbitration states that Respondent did not deliver USD9,000,000 worth of goods as well as the fittings, which is a breach of Article 1.1 of the Contract.Respondent objects to this statement and believes that Respondent has already fulfilled its obligation to ship the goods in accordance with Article 1.1 of the Contract.Moreover,although there is no obligation in the Contract requiring Respondent to include the fittings in the first shipment,Respondent has already delivered enough fittings within the first shipment.In fact,the amount of pipes and fittings included in the first lot manufactured and shipped by Respondent greatly exceeded the requirement in the Contract,which is an overfulfilment of its obligation.

[48段]解释为什么对方说货物的数量短缺,抨击申请方的错误理解。申请方认为,开具了900万美金的银行保函,卖方就要在第一批运送价值900万美金的货物,这肯定是胡搅蛮缠。首先银行保函只是起到担保作用,在买方违约拒绝支付货款的情况下,才会使用银行保函进行兑现,并且兑换保函是会影响到买方的信誉的。其次合同中只规定来要分两批货物进行运送,却没有规定每批要运送多少货物。鉴于一切以合同为准,那么不论第一批货物运送了多少数量的货物,只要运送了一批,都是符合合同要求的。况且事实上,卖方在第一批货物中已经运送了充足的管子,可以保证买方所需要的工程建设的开工。

49.Regarding the incomplete delivery of goods,Claimant states that the first shipment is incomplete and only worth USD 7,500,000. 00, which is USD1, 500,000.00 less than USD 9,000,000.00.However,such statement is proposed on a wrong basis and Claimant ignored the fact that the value of USD9, 000,000. 00 shall only apply to the Letters of Guarantee,but not to the value of the first shipment.

50.According to Article 3. 1 of the Contract,

“3.1 …After this Contract is signed,the Buyer should open two letter(s) of guarantees in amount of 6,000,000.00 US Dollars and3,000,000.00 US Dollars…Then the Seller arrange the production. The buyer should pay 6,100,000. 00 U. S. Dollars by T/T to the Buyer on/before 85 days of B/L date of the first shipment…”Clearly,Letters of Guarantee in amount of USD 9,000,000. 00 shall not be considered as the first payment,but only a method of guarantee to safeguard the financial interest of Respondent.It is explicitly stated in the provision of the Contract mentioned above that the first payment to be made by Claimant shall be the amount of USD 6,100,000. 00 by Telegraphic Transfer(T/T). Taking into account that the total price of the Contract amounts to USD 12,100,000.00,it would be reasonable to conclude that each of the two shipments shall be in the amount of USD 6 million approximately.

51.Respondent,in consideration of Claimants needs and to express its good faith of business cooperation, has already sent enough pipes and fittings in the first shipment in amount of USD 7,500,000,vastly exceeding the Claimants reasonable expectation for the value of products within the first shipment.

52.Hence,Claimants statement concerning the incomplete delivery of goods shall not be supported since Respondent has already fulfilled its obligation to ship the first lot of productsvalued USD 7,500,000,which is more than the amount of the first due payment.

53.With respect to the matter of fittings,Claimant states that Respondent shall be liable for the failure to deliver the fittings.In Respondents opinion,it is a total disregard of facts and the Contracts.

[53段]关于配件的问题。申请人仍以数量问题作为攻击点,根本不堪一击。首先,与上一争议问题同理,合同并没有明确约定第一批货物运送配件的数量,甚至连第一批货物是否需要运送配件都没有规定。其次,事实上证据清楚表明,卖方已经交付了73多公吨的配件,完全足够申请人进行施工。第三,申请人所谓的数量缺少,只是700这个型号的配件缺少了,而且缺少的原因是由于买方没有提供目的港的吃水限制的特殊信息,导致货物运到了装运港却无法装上船。因此,基于以上种种原因,配件这一问题根本就不能作为索赔理由。

54.Firstly,there is no provision,along with the Annexes,under the Contract,clarifying which fittings are to be included in the first shipment. It means that the two Parties have not reached an agreement regarding the specific fittings that shall be shipped firstly.Thus,under this situation,Respondent bears no obligation to include particular fittings in the first shipment,but only needs to ship all the products within two shipments according to the Contract.

55.Secondly,based on the obtained proof of Bill of lading, Mates Receipt and all recording documents, Respondent has already delivered enough fittings in the first shipment, which is in the amount of 157 packages and 73.754 Mt.

56.Thirdly,all the pipes in the first shipment were delivered with corresponding fittings, except the fittings for size 700 pipes. It is because Respondent received crucial information that the destination port,Port F, has a draft depth limitation. If Respondent uploaded more goods in the first shipment,the freight will absolutely not be allowed to enter the harbor but can only return to the departure port. In order to avoid such severe losses to the both Parties, Respondent had no choice but to agree to deliver the fittings for size 700 pipes in the second shipment with the rest of products.

57.Thus,Respondent has fulfilled its obligation to deliver the fittings along with the ordered pipes.

58.In conclusion, based on the grounds mentioned above,Respondent did not breach Article 1. 1 of the Contract and the Claimants wrongful statement shall not be supported by the Tribunal. Respondent strongly believes that the first shipment was a complete delivery of goods, since Respondent has duly arranged it exceeding the amount of the first due payment,and even there is no contractual provision specified quantity of products or items to be included in the first shipment,Respondent still endeavored to deliver enough pipes as well as corresponding fittings based on the practical situation.

D.REBUTTAL OF CLAIMANT S DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

59.In Respondents opinion,all the damage assessments included in Part VI of Claimants Request for Arbitration are based on biased conclusions and shall not be supported by the Tribunal,specifically rebutted as following:

[59段]本段开始一一反驳申请人的请求, 如果有相应证据材料的,需要一同在答辩书里附上。

60.As established previously,Respondenthas fulfilled its obligation to arrange the first shipment according to the Contract. Therefore,the subjects “Conventional Penalty arose from late delivery” and “Constant construction site expenses arose from latedelivery”shall be rejected by the Tribunal.

61.As establishedsupra,should there be any losses and damages to the goods after crossing over the ships rail,Respondent shall take no responsibility for such losses and Claimant shall seek remedy from insurance company and/or shipping company.In addition,the inspection arranged by Claimant was significantly after the time limit set out in Article 10.1 of the Contract,without previous agreement or presence of representatives on the part of Respondent.Therefore,subject “Consideration of damages goods,inspection and other expenses” shall be borne by Claimant alone and shall be rejected by the Tribunal.

62.Respondent objects to the ambiguous concept of subject “Cost” and strongly believes that such claim shall be rejected by the Tribunal.

63.According to the Contract,Respondent has the obligation to pay for services of pulling out of the nested pipes. Respondent has already contracted a Company in Switzerland(Company K) to fulfill its obligations. (It should be noticed that such pecuniary obligation shall not affect the transfer of risks rule under CIF terms.) Since Respondent,not Claimant,paid the expenses for pulling out the pipes,subject “Expenses for pulling out the nested pipes” shall be rejected by the Tribunal.

64.It is common knowledge that in international trade,the risks of currency exchange are borne by each party to the contract. There is no reason should currency exchange difference be borne solely on the part of Respondent and subject “Currency exchange difference” shall be rejected by the Tribunal.

65.As establishedsupra.,opening workable and acceptable Letters of Guarantee is

Claimants contractual obligation.Thus,any costs and fees in opening such Letters of Guarantee shall be borne by Claimant and subject “Interest on the credit obtained to pay the warranty”shall be rejected by the Tribunal.

66.Respondenthas fulfilled all of its contractual obligations in good faith. Any further losses and damages caused to the Goods after they passed the ships rail shall be borne by Claimant.In the absence of proof establishing Respondent's breach of the Contract,subject “General interest on damages” shall be rejected by the Tribunal.

67.Given by the reasons mentioned above,the damage assessments proposed by Claimant are completely unreasonable.Respondent refuses to compensate any of the proposed damages and firmly believes that such damages shall be solely borne by Claimant.

V.RESPONDENTS REQUEST FOR RELIEF:ANSWER PART

68.Respondent respectfully requests the Tribunal to issue an award:

(i)declaring that CISG shall be the applicable law in this case;

(ii)declaring that Respondent has not breached the Contract and has already fulfilled all its contractual obligations;

(iii)rejecting the damage assessment and request for compensation of damages and losses to be paid by Respondent in Claimants Request for Arbitration;

(iv)rejecting the request for payment of all arbitration costs in Claimants Request for Arbitration;

(v)rejecting the request forpayment of interest in Claimants Request for Arbitration;

(vi)rejecting the request for payment of post-award interest in Claimants Request for Arbitration.

[68段]列出被申请人的请求。一般情况下,在此内容之后还会有对仲裁员的选择的评论。但是由于被申请方另外写了一份评论申请更换仲裁员,因此这里不再赘述。

PART B. COUNTER-CLAIMS FOR ARBITRATION

I.CLAIMANTS SUBSTANTIVE BREACHES UNDER THE CONTRACT

69.On the contrary to Claimants allegation in its Request for Arbitration, Claimant has substantially breached several contractual obligations from the very beginning after signing the Contract. It is reasonably concluded that, noticing the steel price has decreased dramatically in the context of global economic depression,Claimant unilaterally ceased to implement the rest of the Contact and intended to avoid the liability for its breaches by raising fallacious claims against Respondent.

[69段]在答辩书的后面紧接着就可以继续开始反请求书的内容了。首先概括一下反请求的原因和事实。

70.Under such circumstances,Respondent has reasons to believe that Claimant is not acting in good faith and the business cooperation between the two Parties is beyond retrieval.Thus,Respondent has no choice but to claim that Claimant substantially breached the Contract,specifically as following:

A.INCOMPLETE AND DELAYED LETTERS OF GUARANTEE

71.Pursuant to Article 3.1 of the Contract:

“…After this Contract is signed,the Buyer should open two letter(s) of guarantees in amount of 6,000,000.00 US Dollars and 3,000,000.00 US Dollars through the first class bank accepted both by the Seller and by the Buyer within 5 days. Then the Seller arrange( s) the production.”Claimant's contractual obligation to open Letters of Guarantee constitutes the very first and crucial step in implementation of the Contract before Respondents obligation to arrange production.Claimants obligation to open Letters of Guarantee would be fulfilled when:

a).the Letters of Guarantee were opened in the total amount of USD 9,000,000. 00;and

b).the Letters of Guarantee were opened within 5days after the Contract is signed;and

c).the Letters of Guarantee were opened through first class bank;and

d).the Letters of Guarantee were workable and acceptable for Respondent.

[71段]列举买方违约在先的事实和合同依据。

72.Only when all these four requirements were met,the implementation of the Contract could move forward to the next step:the arrangement of production and the first shipment by Respondent.

[72段]首先分析合同条款的规定:买方开具银行保函的义务包括四点:

(a)开具一共800多万美金的保函;

(b)合同签订后5日内开具,

(c)必须在一级银行开具,

(d)保函必须有效且被卖方认可。

(e)只有这四个要件全部满足的情况下,买方才是完成了先合同义务,然后,才到卖方完成生产并装运的义务。然后阐释事实与合同不符,指出申请人的违约之处。

73.After the Contract was signed on 29th May 2014,a Letter of Guarantee of USD 3,000,000.00 was opened by Claimant to Respondent on 30th May 2014. However,Claimant failed to fulfill its obligation to open two complete Letters of Guarantee within 5 days from the Contract signing date,which shall be in amount of USD 6,000,000.00 and USD 3,000,000.00 respectively as clearly stated in Article3.1 of the Contract. It is explicitly demonstrated by Article3.1 of the Contract that Claimant should open full amount Letters of Guarantee before 3rd June 2014.

74.Despite Respondents repeated notices,Claimant still delayed in opening Letters of Guarantee for the rest amount of USD6,000,000.00.On 3rd July 2014,38 days after the Contract was signed,Claimant eventually opened full amount Letters of Guarantee to Respondent,which severely impeded Respondent from fulfilling its obligation to ship the first lot and caused huge losses to Respondent including dead freight and etc.

75.In accordance with the Contract,opening complete Letters of Guarantee within the stipulated time limit is Claimant's substantial contractual obligation. Therefore,Claimant breached Article3.1 of the Contract due to its severe delay in opening complete Letters of Guarantee,at the very early stage in implementation of the Contract.

B.DELAYED AND INCOMPLETEPAYMENT BY T/T

76.According to Article 3.1 of the Contract:

“…The Buyer should pay 6,100,000.00 US Dollars by T/T to the Buyer(Seller) on/before 85 days of B/L date of the first shipment.The Seller return the L/G in price of 3,000,000.00 US Dollars to the Buyer after receive the money of 6,100,000.00 US Dollars and make the second shipment within 30 days.The Buyer should pay the rest amount of the total Price specified in this Contract by T/T on/before 85 days of B/L date of the second shipment.…”,

77.In the light of Bill of Lading,the date of the first shipment duly arranged by Respondent is 7th August 2014.Claimant should make the first payment of USD 6,100,000. 00 by Telegraphic Transfer(T/T) within 85 days after the B/L date,which means the deadline of payment for the first shipment shall be 31st October 2014.

[77段]第一,事实上,申请人本身就已经延迟付款了,在卖方再三催促下,才付了一部分货款。其次,申请人把银行保函兑付和支付货款混为一谈,认为只要卖方拿到货款了,就等于是买方完成付款义务了。实则不然。银行保函只是一个担保作用,通过银行保函兑付已经是建立在买方违约的基础上,所以才要找银行进行付款。因此这更好地从反面证明了申请人的违约行为。

78.However,Claimant refused to make payment after Respondent has duly fulfilled its obligation to ship the first lot.Moreover,Respondents proposal to meet and discuss on this matter were alsorejected by Claimant.During this period of time,Respondent has been actively involved in preparing the products for the upcoming shipment,but Claimants intentional default in payment has left Respondent in extreme uncertainty. Considering the sharp fall of steel price since the Contract was signed, there was a huge doubt whether Claimant would keep the performance of the Contract.

79.After repeated requests of Respondent,Claimant finally paid the amount of USD 5, 700,000 on the 10th November 2014.According to Article 3.1 of the Contract,the first payment amount should be USD 6,100,000. 00 and the first shipment s actual price was USD 7,500,000. Not only such payment was later than the contractual deadline,the amount was also incomplete. Such delayed and incomplete payment by Claimant should be considered as substantive breach of contract.

80.On the 12th January 2015,Respondent recovered the unpaid price of the first shipment in amount of USD 1,600,000 through Letter of Guarantee. The Letters of Guarantee were only a safeguard to ensure that Claimant would fulfill its obligation, but not the way of making payment.Instead,as clearly demonstrated in the Contract provision mentioned above,the payment shall be made through T/T. It means that even Respondent recovered its financial losses later by the redemption of Letters of Guarantee,it shall be only considered as an act of self-remedy and protecting its justified rights.Consequently,such self-remedy cannot change the fact that Claimant has not fulfilled its obligation to make full payment on time.

81.In addition,under the Article 53 of CISG which is applicable to the Contract,it is the buyers obligation to pay the price of the Contract:

“CHAPTER III.OBLIGATIONS OF THE BUYER

Article 53

The buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract and this Convention.”

82.Such reasoning is also confirmed under CIF(Incoterms 2000):“B1 Payment of the price The buyer must pay the price as provided in the contract of sale.”

82.Therefore,by not making the payment for the full price of the Contract,Claimant constituted a fundamental and substantial breach of Article 3. 1 of the Contract and violated Article 53 of CISG for late and incomplete payment of the Contract price.

C.PURCHASEOF THE REST PRODUCTS FROM AN UNKNOWN THIRD PARTY

84.Pursuant to Article 1.1 of the Contract:“1.1…and the Buyer,with full power agrees to buy the pipes and fittings and accessories manufactured/supplied by the Seller.”

As the Contract was signed on 29th May 2014,it means that the two Parties mutually agreed to implement the Contract for the sales of pipes and corresponding fittings.Claimant,as the Buyer,shall have the obligation to purchase allordered products from Respondent,the Seller.

85.However,in order to avoid its obligation to make the payment for the ordered products considering that the steel price greatly dropped after the Contract signing date,Claimant ceased to perform the Contract and made absurd claims against Respondent.On 20th October 2014,Claimant sent an email to Respondent and clearly expressed that it would not purchase the rest of the Goods from Respondent.This email proves that Claimant had already given up the execution of the Contract. Then, Claimant turned to purchase the pipes from the third party manufacturers tocontinue the construction of its water distribution line project. From the pictures taken in the construction site,Claimant has already completed half of the whole project by using part of Respondents manufactured pipes and pipes purchased from an unknown third party.Under this circumstance,Respondent believes that Claimant has no intention to,and in fact cannot,continue implementing the Contract because the project has already been paved with pipes from other manufacturers.The refore,by unilateral termination of the Contract and purchasing the ordered products from an unknown third party,Claimantbreached Article 1.1 for giving up the execution of the Contract,and caused huge financial losses to Respondent including the production costs for rest of the pipes and etc.

[85段]在写这份反请求申请时,被申请人并没有实质的证据证明申请人已经向第三方公司另行购买了本合同项下的货物这一根本违约行为,但是为了让对方自己承认这一事实,便在这里也一并提出了。这其实也是一个技巧,就是“请君入瓮”。

D.FAILURE TO ENABLE RESPONDENT TO MAKE DELIVERY

86.According to Article 60 of CISG:

“CHAPTER III.OBLIGATIONS OF THE BUYER

Section II.Taking delivery Article 60

The buyers obligation to take delivery consists:

(a)in doing all the acts which could reasonably be expected of him in order to enable the seller to make delivery;(…)”

Under the CISG,one of the buyers most important obligations is to enable the seller to make delivery. However,Claimant failed to fulfill such obligation.

[86段]如何仔细的找出对方所有违约行为?不仅要对照合同,还要对照适用法律一条一条比对,只要能证明买方是违反法律规定的,也是违约行为。这里的买方“配合卖方完成交付”也是CISG公约里面规定的买方的一个义务,虽然是很小的义务,但只要没有完成并导致了损失,那么就要索赔。

87.Under CISG Article 60-(a),it is reasonable for Respondent to expect notice from Claimant about potential difficulties and restriction on the delivery that Claimant could or should foresee. As a Swiss company undertaking international trading,Claimant should have knowledge of restrictions at destination port in Switzerland.However,during the long period of three months since the Contract was signed, Claimant never notified Respondent about such restriction. In fact,when the quantity of shipment exceeds the limitation at destination port in Claimants country,the ship will not be allowed to enter the port. Thus,Respondent was entitled to be notified with such restrictions.

88.In conclusion,Claimant breached Article 60-(a) of CISG by failure to take necessary acts in order to enable Respondent to make delivery.

II.RESPONDENTS DAMAGES

A. PENALTY FEE

89.Penalty fee for nonfulfilment of the contractual obligations is stipulated according to Article10.7 of the Contract as following:

“10.7 After signing of this Contract by the Parties, in case the Buyer or Seller one of the party do not fulfilled the agreed Contract conditions and or give up the execution of this Contract or withholds this Contract without providing the international acceptable reasons for his refusal,he is obliged to pay the penalty fee with an amount equal the 10% (ten percent) of the total Contract value within 20 days after receiving the notification from the other party.”

In this case,Claimant,as the Buyer,substantially breached the Contract by not opening adequate Letters of Guarantee within the stipulated time limit and unilaterally ceased executing the Contract by purchasing the products from an unknown third party,Claimant shall be liable for the breaches and pay penalty fee to the Seller,Respondent.

[89段]列举所有的损失。这里要条理清晰,分项分类地进行计算损失。最好用表格或者脚注的方式标明计算过程,以免仲裁员无法理解。

90.On 15th October 2014,Respondent sent a notification to Claimant stated that Claimant shall be liable for its breach of Contract and the Contract could not be executed further due to Claimants breach. Therefore,Claimant should pay 10% of the total Contract value as the penalty fee to Respondent within 20 days after the date issuing notification.The latest date for Claimant to pay penalty fee in this case shall be 4th November 2014.According to Article 2.1 of the Contract,“the total amount of the Contract is USD12,100,000.00”.Thus,Claimant shall pay penalty fee to Respondent due to its breach of Contract,specifically as following:

B.INTEREST

91.As mentioned above,the latest date for Claimant to pay penalty fee shall be 4th November 2014.However,Claimant has no intention to pay the penalty fee and in fact failed to make the payment.Thus,interest for the late payment of penalty fee shall be charged on Claimant since the date of 4th November 2014.

92.According to Article 78 of CISG, “If a party fails to pay the price or any other sum that is in arrears,the other party is entitled to interest on it,without prejudice to any claim for damages recoverable under article 74.”Although this provision explicitly demonstrates Claimants liability to pay the interest for breach of Contract,the applicable interest rate is no stipulated under this provision.Thus,the CISG Advisory Council Opinion shall be considered in the determination of the interest rate,as following:

“8.The rate of interest may be determined by the agreement of the parties.

9.In the absence of such agreement,the applicable rate of interest is the rate which the court at the creditors place of business would grant in a similar contract of sale not governed by the CISG.”

Therefore,the Interest Rate for Loan regulated by the Peoples Bank of China shall be applied in this case,specifically as following:

C.FIRST SHIPMENT

(a)DEAD FREIGHT

93.Respondent had the Goods ready for the first shipment long before Claimant opened the full amount Letter of Guarantee. Due to the late performance of contractual obligations by Claimant, the first shipment was not able to departure as the original plan. Respondent suffered significant losses arising from dead freight for the Goods of the first shipment in the total amount of USD.

D.SECOND SHIPMENT

(a)PRODUCTION COSTS

94.Respondent,acting in good faith,had already arranged for production of the second shipment as required by the Contract. Claimant has given up executing the Contract and purchased the rest of the products from an unknown third party,causing significant damages to Respondent.Respondent shall be entitled to compensation for the costs of production for the second shipment in total amount of USD.

(b)TRANSPORTATION FEES

95.Respondent had transportedGoods for the second shipment to the departure port as scheduled. Since Claimant suddenly decided not to buy the rest products from Respondent,such transportation costs for second shipment shall be compensated by Claimant in total amount of USD .

E.SUMMARY OF DAMAGES

III.RESPONDENTS REQUEST FOR RELIEF:COUNTER-CLAIMS PART

94.Respondent respectfully requests the Tribunal to issue an award:

(a)declaring that Claimantsubstantively breached the Contract;

(b)declaring that the Contract is terminated and relieving Respondent from its contractual obligations;

(c)ordering Claimant to pay Respondents damages and losses,plus the interest on delayed payment of penalty fee,currently estimated to be USD;

(d)ordering Claimant to pay all costs arising out of this arbitration,including Respondents counsels fees and expenses;

(e)ordering Claimant to pay post-award interest in case of refusal toexecute the award at a rate to be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal.

PART C.EXHIBITS FOR ANSWER AND COUNTER-CLAIMS

LIST OF EXHIBITS(略)

本章小结

本章中,申请人向秘书处递交仲裁申请,被申请人递交答辩书及反请求。

至此,双方当事人第一回合的“正面交锋”即告结束。由于这一回合多少有些类似于“热身赛”,被申请人的准备时间相对较短,双方也有意或无意地,并未将所有论点全盘托出,或许还称不上“短兵相接”。

然而,第一回合中,仍有不少地方能够体现双方策略:比如,根据申请人在仲裁申请书中罗列出的基本观点,以及被申请人在答辩书中的逻辑,双方的大致战略布 局已经明确。此外,被申请人提交了反请求这一事实,日后也可能被申请人拿来说事。当然,这种策略是否高明,另当别论。

当然,由于国际仲裁独特的程序规定,双方此后还有第二回合、第三回合的正面交锋。双方还会进一步分析对方论据,调整己方观点,继续博弈。本案中谁会占上风?谁能扳回一局?且看本书后面几章的介绍。

1.国际商会ICC 2012仲裁规则第5-1条。关于这一规定,2017新规则中并无本质修改。

2.国际商会ICC 2012仲裁规则第5-5条。

仲裁程序管理事项

审理范围书

何为“审理范围书”?

制定“审理范围书(Terms of Reference)”可谓国际商会ICC的特色之一。在国际商会、贸仲委、香港国际仲裁中心、新仲四大仲裁机构中,只有国际商会规定,仲裁庭必须准备这份文件。^[1]

如前所述,仲裁庭组建后的首要任务之一,就是制定审理范围书。根据国际商会2012规则及2017新规则第23条,仲裁庭从秘书处接收案卷材料之后,须尽快制订审理范围书。这份文件包括:

1—双方当事人,以及仲裁案件中代表当事人参与仲裁案件的所有人的称谓、基本情况、地址、其他通讯信息;

2—仲裁进行过程中的通知、通讯可送达的地址;

3—当事人双方各自的请求及其所请求的救济概要,包括具体请求具体数额、估算数额;

4—待决事项清单;

5—仲裁员姓名、地址、其他联系方式;

6—仲裁地;

7—可适用的程序规则说明。

意义何在?

有些观点认为,审理范围书在国际商事仲裁中没有存在的必要,属于官僚作风的体现。[1]然而,事实果真如此吗?

笔者认为,即便制订审理范围书需花费一定时间和财力,但无论从程序角度,还是从实体角度来看,制订审理范围书都具有相当的意义。

程序顺利进行的保障

审理范围书可以有效保障仲裁程序顺利进行。这一点,从审理范围书的内容就可以看出:

主要内容

1–双方当事人,以及仲裁案件中代表当事人参与仲裁案件的所有人的称谓、基本情况、地址、其他通讯信息;

这项信息是为了仲裁程序中方便双方当事人和仲裁庭工作而收集的。当仲裁程序持续时间超过六个月时,双方当事人更换律师,或者律师团内部人员变更时,相关人员的通讯信息就显得非常重要。

2–仲裁进行过程中的通知、通讯可送达的地址;

通讯地址在文书交换上具有举足轻重的地位。为了避免程序瑕疵,不令仲裁裁决的效力因此受影响,需要收集各方有效的送达地址。

3–当事人双方各自的请求及其所请求的救济概要,包括具体请求具体数额、估算数额;

国际仲裁案件中,未必所有的请求数额都已经被量化。最简单的情况,就是计算损失的关键数据不在受损方自己的手里,需要对方当事人披露相关信息,才能继续计算。因此,无论是已经量化的具体数额,还是估算数额,都需要明确写入审理范围书。其实,这一内容同时体现了国际商会对于实体审理范围的严格规定。

4–待决事项清单;

罗列须决定的事项。

5–仲裁员姓名、地址、其他联系方式;

对于提交文书和三方通讯都极为重要的信息。

6–仲裁地;

关于仲裁地确认的重要性,参见本书第二章第四节“仲裁地”。

7–可适用的程序规则说明

国际仲裁是高度尊重双方当事人意愿的争议解决方式。当事人可以达成合意,选择适用某一种、甚至某一类程序规则。这也是国际仲裁相对于刚性极强的国内诉讼而言的优点之一。

如果当事人双方同意授权仲裁庭充当友好调解人(amiable compositor[2]), 或有权以公平合理原则(ex aequo et bono[3]) 作出裁决,则须在审理范围中明确记录。

值得注意的是,2017新规则中,为了确保仲裁庭更高效的工作,制订审理范围书的时间,从两个月缩短至一个月;在快速裁决程序(Expedited Procedure)中,仲裁庭甚至无须制订审理范围书。此举不失为针对“官僚主义”观点的有力回应。

实体问题审理的限定

除了程序方面的保障,审理范围书还有另一个重要作用—针对仲裁庭需要审理的实体问题,进行严格的限定。

其实,审理范围书的制订,大约在申请人提交仲裁申请、被申请人提交答辩书之后,因此内容中才会包含“当事人双方各自的请求及其所请求的救济概要”。此时需要固定双方当事人的请求、救济并确立仲裁庭的审理范围,这样,才能有效防止当事人提出新请求。

当然,在审理范围书确定之后提出新请求,亦非不可能。国际商会仲裁规则第23条第4款规定[4],仲裁庭应当充分考虑新请求的性质、仲裁审理的阶段等有关事项之后,决定是否准许当事人提出超出审理范围的请求。

由此可见,无论是在某一个时间点上固定双方请求内容,还是允许当事人提出新的请求,仲裁规则的制订,都是为了实践而服务的。如果说,固定请求内容是为了提高双方当事人和仲裁庭针对案件的可预测性,那么,允许提出新请求则是实践中的柔性条款,由仲裁庭自由裁量而定。

方便仲裁庭管理案件

通过以上介绍,读者应该已经了解,审理范围书其实是国际仲裁某一特定案件中,最常用到的信息的汇总和固定。因此,有经验的仲裁庭/仲裁员/秘书处,就算没有明确规定,也会制订类似的信息汇总。

而对于经验相对不足的仲裁庭而言,国际商会仲裁规定作出这一要求,则可大大缩减仲裁庭的行政管理负担、提高效率,为仲裁员节约出更多时间来关注实体问题。

根据国际商会公布的数据[5],自2016年1月1日来,国际商会仲裁院受理的仲裁案件中,仲裁员较之以往,逐渐体现出低龄化、国籍多样化的趋势。在这种背景下,如何确保在世界各地范围内,仲裁程序高效推进,很大程度上,恐怕还要仰仗仲裁规则的规定和实务指引。

1.加里•博恩:《国际仲裁法律与实践》(2015),第218页。

2.Amiable compositor,“友好调解人”,系国际法中的概念,一般指由独立第三方进行调解,向发生争议的各方提出调停方案,由争议各方选择是否接受。

3.Ex aequo et bono,“公平合理原则”,亦作“公允及善良原则”。一旦被授权从公平与争议的角度作出决定,国际法中则不再受严格的法律规则约束、应遵循衡平原则。由于如此裁决,赋予国际法庭极大的自由裁量权,甚至可以突破法律规则,因此需要各方当事人明示同意。

4.在这一点上,2017新规则并未改变。

5.数据来自国际商会官方网站:www.iccwbo.org/。

审理范围书示例

在新加坡仲裁中心SIAC2016年秋于上海举办的宣传会上,笔者对新仲理事叶渌女士的发言印象极为深刻:

“刚参加工作不久,我有幸参加了涉及国内当事方的第一起国际仲裁案件。(……)当时看到‘审理范围书,terms of reference,几个英文单词分开都认识,可合在一起是什么意思呢?”^[1]

叶渌女士系国际仲裁业务资深律师,屡获争议解决领域权威法律专业媒体最高评价,上述发言当属自谦之词,也大大拉近了当时与各位听众的距离。然而,对于刚接触国际仲裁的人士而言,审理范围书的确是一个相对较为陌生的概念。

实践中,审理范围书由仲裁庭秘书处拟定,以草稿(draft)的形式发送至各方当事人审阅。在最终确立之前,各方当事人都可以发表意见。

实践中,以电邮发送草稿,可以免去双方当事人和仲裁庭的实地会面,节省大量经济成本和时间成本。

当各方针对草稿发表了修改意见之后,双方当事人和仲裁员需要在审理范围书上签名,提交国际商会仲裁院。

这一流程,与本章后两节要介绍的“程序时间表”、“案件管理会议”有着非常密切的联系。

下附审理范围书示例—

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.THE PARTIES

A.The Claimant

B.The Respondent

II.THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL

III.NOTIFICATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS

IV.FILE TRANSMITTED TO THE TRIBUNAL BY THE ICC COURT

V.THE PROCEDURE TO DATE

VI.SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES CLAIMS AND RELIEF

A.Summary of the Claimant s Position and Relief Sought

1.Summary of the Claimant s Position

2.The Claimant s Request for Relief

B.Summary of the Respondent s Position and Relief Sought

1.Summary of the Respondent s Position

2.The Respondent s Request for Relief

VII.THE ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED

VIII.THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

IX.THE APPLICABLE SUBSTANTIVE LAW

X.THE APPLICABLE PROCEDURAL RULES

XI.THE LANGUAGE OF THE ARBITRATION

XII.THE PLACE OF THE ARBITRATION

XIII.THE PROVISIONAL PROCEDURAL TIMETABLE

XIV.PROCEDURAL ORDERS AND AWARD S

XIV.ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY

XVI.VALUE ADDED TAX CHARGEABLE ON THE SOLE ARBITRATOR’S FEES

1.此为笔者根据记忆整理,如与叶渌女士当日发言有任何出入,应以叶渌女士实际发言为准。

程序令与程序时间表

程序令

虽然国际商会仲裁规则中并未作出规定,但实践中,仲裁庭一般会制作一部“程序令”( Procedural Order),针对仲裁进行中的程序事项进行定义和规范。

和审理范围书一样,程序令也会以“草稿”(draft)的形式发送给各方当事人。一方面,仲裁庭秘书处拟定程序令之时,未必已经举行了案件管理会议;另一方面,根据每个独立案件具体需要,仲裁庭或许会进行特殊的规定。

程序令一旦确立,双方当事人和仲裁庭均应依照程序令进行活动。因此,如果一方当事人或仲裁庭违反程序令,也可以构成程序上的瑕疵,另一方当事人有权提出异议。

程序令之所以必要,原因仍然是国际商事仲裁中双方当事人的主导地位—仲裁规则并不会向一国国内法一样,针对程序进行全方位的规定;更不会根据仲裁庭的工作习惯作出统一规定:与国内法院系统、检查系统不同,国际机构仲裁的仲裁庭,本来就不是固定的。

当然,程序令并不只有一部,这里为大家介绍的,是为了管理案件,规定程序细则而制定的程序令。在后续程序中,仲裁庭还会针对需要,就针对文件披露、保密信息等内容,制作第二号、第三号等多部程序令。

下附程序令示例—

程序令(示例)

Procedural Order(Example)

Following consultations with the Parties and the Case Management Conference held on,during which the Arbitral Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) heard both Parties on their respective positions,the Arbitral Tribunal issues the following Procedural Order.

In this Procedural Order,“Party” may also refer to Claimant or Respondent,as the case may be.Claimant and Respondent are jointly referred to as “Parties”.

1.Decisions of the Tribunal

1.1.The Sole Arbitrator is authorized to issue Procedural Orders in order to address procedural matters in the course of the arbitration proceedings. He may sign these Procedural Orders electronically.

1.2.The Tribunal’s rulings on procedural matters may be communicated to the Parties in the form of letters or emails.

2.Submissions on the Merits

2.1.The Parties shall file comprehensive submissions on the merits(i)a Statement of Claim,(ii)a Statement of Defense to Claimant’s Claim and Statement of Counterclaim,if any,(iii)a Reply and Statement of Defense to Respondent’s Counterclaim if any,(iv) a Rejoinder and Reply on Counterclaim if any,and(v) a Rejoinder on Respondent’s Counterclaim if any. The Statement of Claim the Statement of Counterclaim if any the Statement of Defense and the Statement of Defense to Respondent s Counterclaim if any shall set out full state ments of the case including a statement of the relief sought a full presentation of the factual and contractual and/or legal basis for each claim counterclaim and defense as well as the evidence relied upon in accordance with the rules set out in the present Procedural Order and/or subsequently decided by the Tribunal.

2.2.The Parties shall endeavor to produce all documents on which they rely during the first round of exchanges on Claimant’s Claim and Respondent’s Counter claim if any.

2.3.In their replies and rejoinders,subject to documents obtained in the course of the document production phase if any the Parties shall include only additional witness statements expert reports documents or other evidence that respond to or rebut matters raised by the opposing Party s prior submission.

2.4. Each submission will have the following format:

-titles and subtitles shall be inserted whenever appropriate

-pages shall be numbered

-paragraphs shall be numbered in the left hand side margin in a sequential and uninterrupted manner throughout the brief.

2.5.Each Party shall attach the documentary evidence in support of the allegations set forth in each submission by way of exhibits.

2.6.Any time a reference to evidence is made in a submission the Parties shall clearly identify the corresponding exhibit/legal authority/witness statement/expert report. If a piece of evidence consists of more than one page the Parties must refer to the specific page or pages on which they rely.

2.7.Each Party shall include copies of all witness statement(s) and/or expert report (s) with the submission in which those witness statement(s) and/or expert report ( s) are relied upon.

3.Procedural Timetable and compliance with time limits

3.1.Submissions shall be filed in accordance with the Procedural Timetable agreed by the Parties or decided by the Tribunal.The Parties shall abide by the time limits fixed by the Tribunal.The Tribunal is authorized to disregard any submission.

filed in an untimely manner by either Party unless the variation is motivated by exceptional circumstances and agreed by the Tribunal or otherwise agreed between the Parties.

3.2.A time limit shall be deemed observed if the written submission accompanied by exhibits legal authorities witness statements and expert reports in soft copy or the corresponding communication reaches the Tribunal before midnight CET.

3,3.All requests for extension of a time limit if any shall be filed as reasonably in advance of the expiry of such time limit as possible under the circumstances and shall contain the reasons or circumstances relied upon. The Parties may also decide between themselves to accept short extensions of time on the basis of mutual courtesy as long as these extensions do not materially affect the timetable and that the Tribunal is informed of such extensions.

3.4.Time limits,except for hearing dates may be adjusted by the Sole Arbitrator at his discretion.

3.5.All communications and submissions between the Tribunal and the Parties shall be validly made by email,using the email addresses set out in the Terms of Reference.All documents memorials exhibits witness statements expert reports and translations shall be submitted in their electronic form as text searchable documents OCR PDF when possible. When documents are too large to be attached to a single email a link from which they may be downloaded shall be provided in lieu of separate attachments. Communications that exceed pages and submissions referred to at point above as well as the documents attached thereto should in addition be sent in hard copy in A format. The submit -ting Party shall send the entire submission in hard copy A format via courier to the Tribunal and the opposing Party by the end of the second business day following the day on which a deadline for the submission occurs

4.Documentary Evidence

4.1.Any time a document is referred to in a written submission witness statement or expert report it shall be identified by its exhibit number as well as by sufficient additional information when it is mentioned for the first time.

4.2.Each of the written submissions referred to in at point above shall be accompanied by a cumulative index specifying the nature of each document its date and its author filed by the submitting Party during the proceedings. The cumulative index shall indicate to which written submission each exhibit/witness statement/expert report is attached. The Tribunal may ask the Parties to submit a joint chronological list of the documentary evidence produced during the proceedings in advance of the hearing.

4.3.All documentary evidence submitted to the Tribunal shall be deemed authentic and complete including evidence submitted in the form of copies unless its au thenticity or completeness is challenged. The Tribunal shall decide on any objection to the authenticity or completeness of the exhibits.

4.4.Each piece of documentary evidence produced in the present proceedings shall be stamped with the corresponding exhibit/witness statement/expert report number. As to hard copies each piece of documentary evidence shall have a divider with the exhibit number on the corresponding tab.

4.5.The Parties shall number documentary evidence in a consecutive manner throughout the proceedings.

4.6.In the situation where a Party submits corrections to its pleadings and/or the documents attached thereto witness statements experts reports factual or legal exhibits this Party shall provide hard copies and electronic copies of any document that was amended. The re submitted corrected pleading or document shall supersede the previously submitted one to which no further reference shall be made.

4.7.All evidence written in a language other than English shall be accompanied by translations. Translations of documents may be limited to the relevant extracts including those specific -ally relied upon and/ or those that are relevant to understanding those relied upon . In case of disagreement the Tribunal shall determine the extent of the translation required.In principle all exhibits must be filed within two business days from the electronic filing including translations.

4.8 . Translations do not need to be certified. Should there be a dispute as to the content of a translation the Parties shall work jointly and in good faith reach an agreed wording. Failing agreement the Party or Parties submitting the initial unofficial translation shall pro -vide a certified translation of the relevant parts to be translated.

4.9.Where Parties refer to legal materials legal texts commentaries judgments and awards etc.the corresponding exhibit shall include the first page of the relevant book or journal in which the text appears. The materials exhibited should allow the Tribunal to read and understand any cited passages in their context.

4.10.Neither Party shall be permitted to submit additional nor responsive documents after the filing of its respective last written submission save at the discretion of the Tribunal and upon a motivated written request followed by comments from the other Party. Should a Party request leave to submit additional or responsive documents such Party may not annex the documents that it seeks to introduce to its request.

4.11.The use of demonstrative exhibits such as charts tabulations etc. is allowed at the hearing provided that copies of such demonstrative exhibits are provided at the latest to the opposing Party two working days in advance and to the Tribunal during the hearing and the demonstrative exhibits refer only to evidence already on the record with citations to such evidence and not to new evidence. The Tribunal may allow the inclusion of any or all of such demonstrative exhibits into the record.

5.Production of Documents

5.1.Upon notice by either Party that documents within the possession custody or control of the other Party are relevant to prove a fact in dispute and material to the outcome of the case they shall be produced by the other Party according to the provisions of the present section.

5.2.This section applies only to requests for production of documents made by the Parties. The Tribunal may order the production of documents at any time provided however that reasonable notice is given to the Party requested to produce such documents.

5.3.The requesting Party shall address its request to the other Party with the observance of the time limits set forth in the Procedural Timetable Request for Production of Documents . The Request for Production of Documents shall be presented in the form of a “Redfern Schedule”, a model of which is herein attached as Annex.The Parties shall not address copies of their Requests for Production of Documents to the Tribunal.

5.4.A request for Production of Documents shall contain the following:

a.a description of the document the production of which is requested sufficient to identify such document or the description in sufficient detail including the subject matter of a narrow and specific category of documents;

b.a brief explanation of the reasons why such documents are relevant to the outcome of the case;

c.a statement whereby the documents are not in the possession custody or control of the requesting Party and the reasons why such Party assumes that such documents are in the possession or custody or under the control of the other Party.

5.5.The Party to whom the Request for Production of Documents is addressed shall produce the requested documents to the extent it has no objection. In case of objections the requested Party shall file an Answer to the opposite Party s Request for Production of Documents by filling in the “Redfern Schedule” pursuant to the Procedural Timetable.

5.6.In case of objections the requesting Party will have the possibility pursuant to the Procedural Timetable to comment on the other Party’s objections in the “Redfern Schedule”and to submit this “Redfern Schedule” to the Tribunal seeking an order for the production of the relevant documents (“Application for Production of Documents”.)

5.7. The Tribunal shall rule as soon as feasible on the Applications for Production of Documents taking into account but not being bound by the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (2010 version).

5.8.Before making its decision the Tribunal may decide to hear oral submissions by telephone conference.

5.9.When the relevance of a document can be determined only upon a perusal of the document itself the Tribunal may order the production of this document to the Sole Arbitrator only in order for him to decide on the production to the requesting Party.

5.10.Documents produced pursuant to a Request and/or Application for Production of Documents shall not be considered on record unless and until the requesting Party submits them to the Tribunal as regular exhibits complying with the presentation and indexing requirements set forth in section above.

5.11.If a Party fails without satisfactory explanation to comply with an order for production of documents issued by the Tribunal the Tribunal may infer that such evidence would be adverse to the interests of that Party.

5.12.Further requests for the production of documents,if any,shall be permitted only at the discretion of the Tribunal. The request must be substantiated with reasons.If leave is granted,the procedure detailed above will be applicablemutatis mutandis.

6.Witness Evidence

Witnesses

6.1.If a Party wishes to adduce witness evidence, witness statements shall be provided with and cited in that Party’s submissions filed in accordance with the Procedural Timetable.

6.2.Any person may present evidence as witness including a Party’s officer employee or other representative.

6.3.This section 6 applies only to witnesses called by either Party, the Tribunal may order the appearance of any witness who has produced a witness statement at anytime, subject to reasonable notice.

6.4.It shall not be improper for a Party,its officers,employees, legal advisors,or other representatives to meet and interview its witnesses or potential witnesses, to establish facts,prepare the witness(es) for examination provided however that the effect of such interviews is not the exercise of undue influence on the prospective witness.

Witness Statements

6.5.As provided for in above section6.1 each Party shall file written witness statements for all witnesses presented by that Party.

6.6.Each witness statement shall contain:

a)the name and address(whether private or professional)of the witness;

b)indications as to the relationship(past and current o)f the witness or expert with any of the Parties or Counsel (in particular whether the witness is or was an employee or other representative of a Party or a counsel/consultant to such Party);

c)description of the background qualifications training professional experience and present position of the witness curriculum vitae with a photograph provided that such description is relevant to the dispute or to the con-tents of the statement;

d)indications as to whether the witness is regarded as a witness of fact or an ex-pert witness by the Party calling such witness;

e)a full description of the facts and the source of the information provided by the witness in relation to those facts sufficient to serve as that witness s evidence in the matter in dispute a full description for the purposes of this provision means that the witness statement must be sufficiently detailed so as to stand in lieu of examination in chief of the witness in question;

f)the signature of the witness as well as the date and place of signature;

g)the indication of the translator’s name and address ,if applicable (and only in cases,where the witness statement in its original language has not been submitted into the record);

h)a statement by the witness that he/she believes that the matters stated are true.

6.7.Each witness statement shall comply with the following requirements

a)it shall be as concise as the circumstances of the dispute allow without omitting any significant matters;

b)it shall not contain lengthy quotations from documents;

c)it shall not engage in any legal argument except if the witness is a legal expert;

d)it shall indicate which of the statements made in it are made from the witness’s own knowledge and which are made on the basis of information or belief giving the source of this information or belief;

e)it shall use the witness’s own words as its function is to set out in writing the evidence in chief of the witness.

6.8.Witness statements may be drafted in a language other than English provided however that such other language is the witness mother tongue. In such a case the witness statement shall be filed together with a translation into English. Such translation shall be filed within working days/a week from the submission by email of the corresponding memorial.

6.9.The Parties may not annex documents that are not otherwise on record to witness statements of factual witnesses. If necessary documents that are part of the record and which have been filed in accordance with section above may be referred to in the witness statement.

6.10.The experts appointed by the Parties may to the extent necessary annex documents to their reports. Such evidence should be limited to the documents used by the expert to reach its conclusion s and/or demonstrative documents that illustrate its report.

Witness Oral Testimony

6.11.Each Party may call witnesses for cross-examination at the hearing. The Tribunal may also call, upon the motivated request of either Party or on its own motion a witness whose witness statement has been filed in the proceedings but who is not called for cross-examination. The Tribunal may under exceptional circumstances call witnesses who have not submitted witness statements during the proceedings.

6.12.Counsel shall be in charge of ensuring that the witnesses whose evidence has been adduced by that Counsel are present at the time and place indicated by the Tribunal for their examination.

6.13.If a witness fails to appear at the hearing the witness statement filed on behalf of such witness may be disregarded unless a Party expressly waives its right to cross examine the witness or in exceptional circumstances if the Tribunal has decided otherwise after having heard the Parties.

6.14.If a witness is unable to attend the hearing the Tribunal may exceptionally and in its discretion decide that such witness is to be examined by video conference or reschedule the examination of such witness to a later date upon receipt of a short statement setting out the reasons why the witness is unavailable to appear in person. The logistics and procedure for the examination by video conference shall be decided by the Tribunal after consultation with the Parties.

6.15.Each witness shall be invited to confirm the content of his or her witness statement at the hearing,to make corrections thereto(if any),and briefly to explain important aspects of his or her testimony or to comment on the other Partys Submissions and supporting evidence to the extent relevant to his or her testimony.

6.16.Witnesses shall in principle be examined separately, in the order determined by the Tribunal upon a proposal which the Parties are encouraged to submit jointly to the Tribunal. However,the Tribunal may decide to hear two or more witnesses together,upon a request made by either Party or on its own motion and after consultation with the Parties.

6.17.Witnesses who are Party representatives shall in principle be examined first in particular if they wish to remain in the hearing room following their examination.

6.18.A Party whose witness or expert intends to present oral evidence in a language other than English and therefore requires interpretation shall procure an independent professional interpreter to be approved by the Tribunal (bearing in mind that the interpretation shall be simultaneous), The interpreter’ scurriculum vitae and declaration of independence shall be submitted to the Tribunal two weeks before the hearing at the latest.

6.19.Each Party shall advance the costs related to the evidence of its own witnesses without prejudice to the decision of the Tribunal as to which Party shall ultimately bear those costs.

7.Expert Witnesses

7.1.Each Party shall have the opportunity to file reports or statements by expert witnesses. The provisions applicable to Witness Evidence shall apply to expert evidence in particular above section .

7.2.The expert will indicate the documents that he or she relies on.

7.3.The expert shall be impartial and independent from the Parties,their Counsel and all the participants to the Arbitration proceedings (Arbitrator, Experts, Witnesses,etc.) and shall provide a statement of independence and impartiality in this regard.

7.4.If the Tribunal is of the opinion that a tribunal appointed expert is required such matter shall first be raised with the Parties. If the Tribunal decides to appoint an expert after hearing the Parties,a Procedural Order relating to the determination sought from the expert shall be submitted to the Parties in draft prior to the appointment of the expert.

7.5.If either Party seeks the appointment of a tribunal-appointed expert,a motivated request shall be addressed to the Tribunal,setting forth the issues to be determined by the tribunal-appointed expert.

8.Hearing

8.1.The hearing shall be preceded by a telephone conference among the Parties and the Tribunal during which the conduct of the hearing shall be discussed.

8.2.The venue for the hearing and the hearing duration shall be agreed among the Parties. In case of disagreement the Tribunal shall decide on these issues during or after the pre hearing telephone conference. The costs related to the reservation of the hearing room shall be settled in equal shares by each Party to be apportioned later with the decision of the Tribunal as to which Party shall ultimately bear those costs with the costs of the arbitration.

8.3.Each Party shall provide the Tribunal with a complete attendance list containing the names of the persons attending the hearing on its behalf in addition to the witnesses names and positions. Such list shall be sent to the Tribunal and to the other Party in accordance with the Procedural Timetable.

8.4.The hearing shall in principle proceed as follows:

a)Discussion between the Tribunal and Counsel on procedural matters or other issues which need to be dealt with from the outset,if any;

b)Opening statements by the Parties;

c)Examination of Claimant’s witnesses;

d)Examination of Respondent s witnesses;

e)Examination of both Parties experts,if any;

f)The allocation of time shall be decided by the Tribunal,after consultation withthe Parties during the pre-hearing telephone conference.

8.5.The procedure for the examination of witnesses shall in principle be the following:

a)Each witness may be examined by Counsel acting for the Party which presented such witness, (examination in chief). This examination in chief should be brief not more than twenty minutes .

b)Each witness shall then be examined by Counsel acting for the Party which did not present such witness cross examination .The cross examination shall be limited to issues arising from the witness statement’s the examination in chief all documents on record as well as oral evidence of the witnesses of the other Party

c)Counsel acting for the Party which presents such witness shall then have the opportunity to briefly re-examine the witness(“re-direct”). The re-direct shall be limited to matters arising from the cross-examination;

d)The Tribunal shall have the right to ask questions at any time;

e)The Tribunal shall at all times have complete control over the procedure in relation to a witness giving oral evidence,including the right to limit or deny,on its own motion or at the request of either Party,the right of a Party to cross-examine or re examine a witness,if it appears that such examination or evidence is unlikely to serve any further relevant purpose

8.6.The hearing shall be transcribed by court reporters,chosen by the Parties,or appointed by the Tribunal in case of divergence.The verbatim transcripts shall be available in real time using LiveNote or similar software and electronic transcripts shall be provided to the parties and the Tribunal on a same-day basis. The court reporters invoices shall be settled in equal shares by each Party to be apportioned later with the decision of the Tribunal as to which Party shall ultimately bear those costs with the costs of the arbitration.

9.Final Steps

9.1.The Tribunal shall decide after the exchange of written submissions and after consultation with the Parties:

—whether any closing arguments will be made at the end of the Hearing;

—whether a Final Hearing is necessary.

9.2.At the end or after the Hearing,and after consultation with the Parties

,the Tribunal shall decide whether Post Hearing Briefs will be filed and in the affirmative which requirements they should comply with.

9.3.Indications and evidence as to the costs incurred by either Party in this arbitration shall be filed simultaneously within a time limit to be set by the Tribunal at the end of the hearing. With respect to determination of the arbitration costs the Tribunal shall take into account amongst other matters any unjustified failure to comply with the procedural rules and the Parties conduct throughout the proceedings.

9.4.The Tribunal will declare the closing of the arbitral proceedings. Thereafter no further submissions or arguments may be made or evidence produced unless so requested or authorized by the Tribunal.

10.Amendments

The Tribunal is authorized to set and vary procedural rules including but not limited to this Procedural Order No.1.The Tribunal may set cut off dates and take other procedural measures in order to ensure the efficiency of the proceedings.

Place of Arbitration:

Date:

程序时间表

一般的国际商事仲裁程序,本书第三章第一节“仲裁程序时间轴”已有介绍。

程序事项虽然相对明确,但在实务操作中,仍需确立日程表,规定各环节中,各方当事人及仲裁庭的实际工作期限。

由于绝大多数仲裁协议并不会针对仲裁程序的时间进行详细规定,仲裁规则的框架性规定和仲裁庭组建后拟定的程序时间表,才显得尤为重要。

国际商会仲裁规则第24条规定^[1],仲裁庭需要在完成审理范围书之时或之后不久,拟定“程序时间表”(Procedural Timetable)。明确的时间约束,一方面可以提高程序效率,另一方面,也为双方当事人主张程序权利提供了可靠的保障。

实践中,仲裁庭会拟定暂行时间表,在下一节介绍的“案件管理会议”(Case Management Conference)中,要求双方当事人针对程序时间发表意见;综合考量当事人的偏好、诉求性质\预期的证据等等因素之后,确定最终的程序时间表。

当然,具体案件中,考虑到案件事实、各方当事人工作量、仲裁庭工作量等等客观因素,仲裁庭也可能针对程序时间表进行调整。

本案中,由于申请方律师屡次延迟交付文书,被申请方向仲裁庭申请延长提交书面答辩陈述的期限一个半月,最终获得了两周的延长。这也是仲裁庭维护仲裁权威性、平衡程序公平公正与效率的极大体现。

附:程序时间表示例^[2]