国际商事仲裁早期处置机制的价值平衡和制度构建
|
摘要
为降低当事人的仲裁成本、防止商事仲裁领域的滥诉,早期处置机制在国际商事领域应运而生。通过该机制,仲裁庭得以在仲裁程序早期对当事人的仲裁请求进行评估,并对明显缺乏法律依据的仲裁请求驳回或者启动适用简易程序,从而提高仲裁效率。实践中,驳回当事人仲裁请求和作出简易裁决是早期处置机制的两种实现路径。早期驳回规则直接将明显缺乏法律依据的仲裁请求驳回,具有更强的确定性;简易裁决程序则赋予仲裁庭更宽泛的自由裁量权。一个理想的仲裁早期处置机制需要结合两种不同路径,在防范滥诉与保障当事人获得救济的权利、仲裁庭权力与程序正当原则、快速程序与程序冗余三对相互关联又相互矛盾的价值取向中寻求平衡。因此,未来仲裁机构在构建早期处置机制时应设立更加明确的适用标准,为当事人提供充分表达意见的机会,并对早期处置程序的每一个具体环节设置明确的时间界限。
Recently, early disposition mechanism has been incorporated into international commercial arbitration to lower arbitration cost and defend against the frivolous claim. By this mechanism, arbitral tribunal can assess the claims at the early stage and dispose of them by early dismissal or summary judgment to improve the efficiency of arbitration. In practice, early dismissal rules and summary procedure are the two optional paths, the former can dismiss meritless claims clearly and the latter can dispose meritless claims more flexible. A hybrid model may be the ideal choice because it can achieve a better balance between defending against frivolous claims and access to justice,the discretion of the arbitral tribunal and due process, summary procedures and delay of proceedings. In order to achieve this goal, arbitration institute should set early disposition rules that would give each party sufficient opportunity to present his case with explicit standard and set out procedural time limit.
Recently, early disposition mechanism has been incorporated into international commercial arbitration to lower arbitration cost and defend against the frivolous claim. By this mechanism, arbitral tribunal can assess the claims at the early stage and dispose of them by early dismissal or summary judgment to improve the efficiency of arbitration. In practice, early dismissal rules and summary procedure are the two optional paths, the former can dismiss meritless claims clearly and the latter can dispose meritless claims more flexible. A hybrid model may be the ideal choice because it can achieve a better balance between defending against frivolous claims and access to justice,the discretion of the arbitral tribunal and due process, summary procedures and delay of proceedings. In order to achieve this goal, arbitration institute should set early disposition rules that would give each party sufficient opportunity to present his case with explicit standard and set out procedural time limit.
引文
(1)参见石现明:《国际商事仲裁当事人权利救济制度研究》,人民出版社2011年版,第61页。
(1)See Nigel Blackaby et al.,Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration 44(Oxford University Press 2015).
(2)See Joseph A.Demkin,The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice 353(John Wiley&Sons 2008).
(3)See Emmanuel Gaillard,Abuse of Process in International Arbitration,32 ICSIDReview 1(2017).
(4)See ICC Case No.18215/GZ/MHM,CRCICA Case No.829/2012.
(1)See Phillipe Fouchard,Ou va l’arbitrage international,34 McGill Law Journal436(1989).
(2)See Cedric Harris,Abuse of the Arbitration Process-Delaying Tactics and Disruptions:A Respondent’s Guide,9 Journal of International Arbitration 89-93(1992).
(3)参见徐树:《国际投资仲裁中滥诉防范机制的构建》,《法学》2017年第5期,第152页。
(4)See Syed Zubair Ahmed,Access to Justice:Litigation Financing and the New Developments,4 International Academic Journal of Accounting and Financial Management 90(2017).
(1)See William Kirtley&Koralie Wietrzykowski,Should an Arbitral Tribunal Order Security for Costs When an Impecunious Claimant Is Relying upon Third-party Funding,30 Journal of International Arbitration 23-26(2013).
(2)参见2012年ICC仲裁规则第22条,2014年英国伦敦国际仲裁院仲裁规则第33条也有类似规定。
(3)参见2017年SCC仲裁规则第39(1)-(2)条。
(1)参见2017年SCC仲裁规则第39(3)-(6)条。
(2)参见2016年SIAC仲裁规则第29.1条。
(3)参见2016年SIAC仲裁规则第29.2条。
(4)参见2016年SIAC仲裁规则第29.3条。
(5)参见2016年SIAC仲裁规则第29.4条。
(1)参见唐太飞:《试论我国仲裁简易程序之建构》,《重庆工学院学报》2006年第12期,第151页。
(1)See Philip Chong&Blake Primrose,Summary Judgment in International Arbitrations Seated in England,33 Arbitration International 69(2017).
(1)参见张文显:《法哲学范畴研究》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版,第219页。
(2)参见石现明:《国际商事仲裁当事人权利救济制度研究》,人民出版社2011年版,第64页。
(3)See Lauran San Roman GuiJarro,Summary Disposition:The Only Way Out Is Through,66 University of Miami Law Review 890(2012).
(4)See Philip Chong&Blake Primrose,Summary Judgment in International Arbitrations Seated in England,33 Arbitration International 69(2017).
(5)See Judith Gill,Application for the Early Disposition of Claim in Arbitration Proceedings,14 ICCA International Arbitration Conference,ICCA Congress Series 524(2009).
(1)参见王猛:《民事诉讼滥诉治理的法理思考》,《政治与法律》2016年第5期,第137页。
(2)参见联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法第18条。
(3)参见法国巴黎上诉法院判决,Courd’appel Paris,First Chamber,17 November2011,n 09/24158。Peter Stone&Youseph Farah,Research Handbook on EU Private International Law 137(Edward Elgar Publishing 2015).
(4)See Elodie Dulac&Alex Lo,The SIAC Rules 2016:New Features,5 Indian Journal of Arbitration Law 145(2017).
(5)See Trans-Global Petroleum,Inc.v.Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,ICSID Case No.ARB/07/25,Award of 12 May 2008,para.19.
(1)See Trans-Global Petroleum,Inc.v.Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,ICSID Case No.ARB/07/25,Award of 12 May 2008,para.92.
(2)See Trans-Global Petroleum,Inc.v.Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,ICSID Case No.ARB/07/25,Award of 12 May 2008,paras.88-91.
(3)See Eric De Brabandere,The ICSID Rule on Early Dismissal of Unmeritorious Investment Treaty Claims:Preserving the Integrity of ICSID Arbitration,9 Manchester Journal of International Economic Law 42(2012).
(4)See Judith Gill,Application for the Early Disposition of Claim in Arbitration Proceedings,14 ICCA International Arbitration Conference,ICCA Congress Series 520(2009).
(5)参见汪进元:《论宪法的正当程序原则》,《法学研究》2001年第2期,第51页;曾尔恕:《评美国宪法中的“正当法律程序”条款》,《政法论坛》1990年第1期,第92页。
(1)See Black’s Law Dictionary 610(West Publishing 2015).
(2)参见王珺:《论仲裁中的正当法律程序--兼评我国〈仲裁法〉的完善》,《理论月刊》2008年第4期,第92页。
(3)美国、英国、荷兰、德国、瑞士、瑞典等国的仲裁法均有类似规定。
(4)See Gary Born&Kenneth Beale,Party Autonomy and Default Rules:Reframing the Debate over Summary Disposition in International Arbitration,21 ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin 23(2010).
(5)See Travis Coal Restructured Holdings LLC v.Essar Global Fund Limited,[2014]EWHC 2510.
(6)See Travis Coal Restructured Holdings LLC v.Essar Global Fund Limited,[2014]EWHC 2510.
(7)参见2012年ICC仲裁规则第22条。
(1)See Weirton Medical Center Inc.v.Community Health Systems Inc.,N.D.W.Va.12 December 2017.
(2)参见2009年AAA仲裁规则第L-4条。
(3)值得注意的是,2013年AAA仲裁规则已经对2009年AAA仲裁规则作出修改,其第R-33规定:只有在提出动议方表明动议是有可能成功的情形下,仲裁员才能允许提出或作出处置动议。
(4)See Philip Chong&Blake Primrose,Summary Judgment in International Arbitrations Seated in England,33 Arbitration International 71(2017).
(5)See Elodie Dulac&Alex Lo,The SIAC Rules 2016:New Features,5 Indian Journal of Arbitration Law 146(2017).
(1)参见2016年SIAC仲裁规则第29条。
(2)See Guidelines on Early Disposition of Issues in Arbitration from International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution,https://www.cpradr.org/resource-center/protocol s-guidelines/guidelines-on-early-disposition-of-issues-in-arbitration,visited on 20 October 2017.
(3)See Joanna C.Schwartz,Gateways and Pathways in Civil Procedure,60 UCLALaw Review 1694(2013).
(4)See Brock Hornby,Summary Judgment without Illusions,13 Green Bagd 274(2010).
(1)See D.Theodore Rave,Questioning the Efficiency of Summary Judgment,81New York University Law Review 888(2006).
(2)See RSM Production Corporation and Others v.Grenada,ICSID Case No.ARB/10/6;Global Trading Resource Corp.&Globex International,Inc.v.Ukraine,ICSID Case No.ARB/09/11.
(3)See Global Trading Resource Corp.&Globex International,Inc.v.Ukraine,IC-SID Case No.ARB/09/11,Award of 23 November 2010,para.34.
(4)根据美国联邦司法中心的调查,简易裁决动议被驳回的案件数量比例总体在40%,而在部分类型案件中,驳回比例超过60%,https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/sujufy06.pdf,2017年10月20日访问。
(5)驳回的案件包括Eskosol S.p.A.in liquidazione v.Italian Republic,ICSID Case No.ARB/15/50;Alvarez y Marín Corporación S.A.and Others v.Republic of Panama,IC-SID Case No.ARB/15/14;Lion Mexico Consolidated L.P.v.United Mexican States,IC-SID Case No.ARB(AF)/15/2;Venoklim Holding B.V.v.Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,ICSID Case No.ARB/12/22;Elsamex,S.A.v.Republic of Honduras ICSID Case No.ARB/09/4;Brandes Investment Partners,LP v.Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ICSIDCase No.ARB/08/3。
(1)See Aisatou Diop,Objection under Rule 41(5)of the ICSID Arbitration Rules,25 ICSID Review 313(2010).
(2)See Ucheora Onwuamaegbu,Using Treaties to Define Rules of Procedure in Investor-State Arbitration:The CAFTA Example,23 ICSID Review 36-56(2008).
(3)参见2015年中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁规则第13条;中国(上海)自由贸易试验区仲裁规则第12条;2018年武汉仲裁委员会(武汉国际仲裁中心)仲裁规则第13条。
(1)参见2015年中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁规则第13条。
(2)参见2015年中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁规则第13(3)条。
(3)See The Statutes of the Republic of Singapore International Arbitration Act,Chapter 143a,Section 12.
(1)See Kimberley Chen Nobles,Emerging Issues and Trends in International Arbitration,43 California Western International Law Journal 85(2012).
(1)See Nigel Blackaby et al.,Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration 44(Oxford University Press 2015).
(2)See Joseph A.Demkin,The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice 353(John Wiley&Sons 2008).
(3)See Emmanuel Gaillard,Abuse of Process in International Arbitration,32 ICSIDReview 1(2017).
(4)See ICC Case No.18215/GZ/MHM,CRCICA Case No.829/2012.
(1)See Phillipe Fouchard,Ou va l’arbitrage international,34 McGill Law Journal436(1989).
(2)See Cedric Harris,Abuse of the Arbitration Process-Delaying Tactics and Disruptions:A Respondent’s Guide,9 Journal of International Arbitration 89-93(1992).
(3)参见徐树:《国际投资仲裁中滥诉防范机制的构建》,《法学》2017年第5期,第152页。
(4)See Syed Zubair Ahmed,Access to Justice:Litigation Financing and the New Developments,4 International Academic Journal of Accounting and Financial Management 90(2017).
(1)See William Kirtley&Koralie Wietrzykowski,Should an Arbitral Tribunal Order Security for Costs When an Impecunious Claimant Is Relying upon Third-party Funding,30 Journal of International Arbitration 23-26(2013).
(2)参见2012年ICC仲裁规则第22条,2014年英国伦敦国际仲裁院仲裁规则第33条也有类似规定。
(3)参见2017年SCC仲裁规则第39(1)-(2)条。
(1)参见2017年SCC仲裁规则第39(3)-(6)条。
(2)参见2016年SIAC仲裁规则第29.1条。
(3)参见2016年SIAC仲裁规则第29.2条。
(4)参见2016年SIAC仲裁规则第29.3条。
(5)参见2016年SIAC仲裁规则第29.4条。
(1)参见唐太飞:《试论我国仲裁简易程序之建构》,《重庆工学院学报》2006年第12期,第151页。
(1)See Philip Chong&Blake Primrose,Summary Judgment in International Arbitrations Seated in England,33 Arbitration International 69(2017).
(1)参见张文显:《法哲学范畴研究》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版,第219页。
(2)参见石现明:《国际商事仲裁当事人权利救济制度研究》,人民出版社2011年版,第64页。
(3)See Lauran San Roman GuiJarro,Summary Disposition:The Only Way Out Is Through,66 University of Miami Law Review 890(2012).
(4)See Philip Chong&Blake Primrose,Summary Judgment in International Arbitrations Seated in England,33 Arbitration International 69(2017).
(5)See Judith Gill,Application for the Early Disposition of Claim in Arbitration Proceedings,14 ICCA International Arbitration Conference,ICCA Congress Series 524(2009).
(1)参见王猛:《民事诉讼滥诉治理的法理思考》,《政治与法律》2016年第5期,第137页。
(2)参见联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法第18条。
(3)参见法国巴黎上诉法院判决,Courd’appel Paris,First Chamber,17 November2011,n 09/24158。Peter Stone&Youseph Farah,Research Handbook on EU Private International Law 137(Edward Elgar Publishing 2015).
(4)See Elodie Dulac&Alex Lo,The SIAC Rules 2016:New Features,5 Indian Journal of Arbitration Law 145(2017).
(5)See Trans-Global Petroleum,Inc.v.Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,ICSID Case No.ARB/07/25,Award of 12 May 2008,para.19.
(1)See Trans-Global Petroleum,Inc.v.Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,ICSID Case No.ARB/07/25,Award of 12 May 2008,para.92.
(2)See Trans-Global Petroleum,Inc.v.Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,ICSID Case No.ARB/07/25,Award of 12 May 2008,paras.88-91.
(3)See Eric De Brabandere,The ICSID Rule on Early Dismissal of Unmeritorious Investment Treaty Claims:Preserving the Integrity of ICSID Arbitration,9 Manchester Journal of International Economic Law 42(2012).
(4)See Judith Gill,Application for the Early Disposition of Claim in Arbitration Proceedings,14 ICCA International Arbitration Conference,ICCA Congress Series 520(2009).
(5)参见汪进元:《论宪法的正当程序原则》,《法学研究》2001年第2期,第51页;曾尔恕:《评美国宪法中的“正当法律程序”条款》,《政法论坛》1990年第1期,第92页。
(1)See Black’s Law Dictionary 610(West Publishing 2015).
(2)参见王珺:《论仲裁中的正当法律程序--兼评我国〈仲裁法〉的完善》,《理论月刊》2008年第4期,第92页。
(3)美国、英国、荷兰、德国、瑞士、瑞典等国的仲裁法均有类似规定。
(4)See Gary Born&Kenneth Beale,Party Autonomy and Default Rules:Reframing the Debate over Summary Disposition in International Arbitration,21 ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin 23(2010).
(5)See Travis Coal Restructured Holdings LLC v.Essar Global Fund Limited,[2014]EWHC 2510.
(6)See Travis Coal Restructured Holdings LLC v.Essar Global Fund Limited,[2014]EWHC 2510.
(7)参见2012年ICC仲裁规则第22条。
(1)See Weirton Medical Center Inc.v.Community Health Systems Inc.,N.D.W.Va.12 December 2017.
(2)参见2009年AAA仲裁规则第L-4条。
(3)值得注意的是,2013年AAA仲裁规则已经对2009年AAA仲裁规则作出修改,其第R-33规定:只有在提出动议方表明动议是有可能成功的情形下,仲裁员才能允许提出或作出处置动议。
(4)See Philip Chong&Blake Primrose,Summary Judgment in International Arbitrations Seated in England,33 Arbitration International 71(2017).
(5)See Elodie Dulac&Alex Lo,The SIAC Rules 2016:New Features,5 Indian Journal of Arbitration Law 146(2017).
(1)参见2016年SIAC仲裁规则第29条。
(2)See Guidelines on Early Disposition of Issues in Arbitration from International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution,https://www.cpradr.org/resource-center/protocol s-guidelines/guidelines-on-early-disposition-of-issues-in-arbitration,visited on 20 October 2017.
(3)See Joanna C.Schwartz,Gateways and Pathways in Civil Procedure,60 UCLALaw Review 1694(2013).
(4)See Brock Hornby,Summary Judgment without Illusions,13 Green Bagd 274(2010).
(1)See D.Theodore Rave,Questioning the Efficiency of Summary Judgment,81New York University Law Review 888(2006).
(2)See RSM Production Corporation and Others v.Grenada,ICSID Case No.ARB/10/6;Global Trading Resource Corp.&Globex International,Inc.v.Ukraine,ICSID Case No.ARB/09/11.
(3)See Global Trading Resource Corp.&Globex International,Inc.v.Ukraine,IC-SID Case No.ARB/09/11,Award of 23 November 2010,para.34.
(4)根据美国联邦司法中心的调查,简易裁决动议被驳回的案件数量比例总体在40%,而在部分类型案件中,驳回比例超过60%,https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/sujufy06.pdf,2017年10月20日访问。
(5)驳回的案件包括Eskosol S.p.A.in liquidazione v.Italian Republic,ICSID Case No.ARB/15/50;Alvarez y Marín Corporación S.A.and Others v.Republic of Panama,IC-SID Case No.ARB/15/14;Lion Mexico Consolidated L.P.v.United Mexican States,IC-SID Case No.ARB(AF)/15/2;Venoklim Holding B.V.v.Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,ICSID Case No.ARB/12/22;Elsamex,S.A.v.Republic of Honduras ICSID Case No.ARB/09/4;Brandes Investment Partners,LP v.Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ICSIDCase No.ARB/08/3。
(1)See Aisatou Diop,Objection under Rule 41(5)of the ICSID Arbitration Rules,25 ICSID Review 313(2010).
(2)See Ucheora Onwuamaegbu,Using Treaties to Define Rules of Procedure in Investor-State Arbitration:The CAFTA Example,23 ICSID Review 36-56(2008).
(3)参见2015年中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁规则第13条;中国(上海)自由贸易试验区仲裁规则第12条;2018年武汉仲裁委员会(武汉国际仲裁中心)仲裁规则第13条。
(1)参见2015年中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁规则第13条。
(2)参见2015年中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁规则第13(3)条。
(3)See The Statutes of the Republic of Singapore International Arbitration Act,Chapter 143a,Section 12.
(1)See Kimberley Chen Nobles,Emerging Issues and Trends in International Arbitration,43 California Western International Law Journal 85(2012).