仲裁地的故事：在上海仲裁

2020-06-05 15:48:23 278

图片关键词

The Story of Place of Arbitration：Arbitration in Shanghai

仲裁地的故事：在上海仲裁

法律英语写作

【中文附后】

Long Li De, a company from Anhui Province, had an agreement with BP Agnati S. R. L., an Italian company in 2010.[1] It was an arbitration agreement in the form of a clause in a sales contract.

Advance Technology, a Hong Kong company had an agreement with Klockner Pentaplast, a German company, in 2006.[2] It was also an arbitration agreement in the form of a clause in a commercial contract distributing products in the Mainland.

The commonality of these arbitration agreements is International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration to take place in Shanghai, in case a dispute arising out of the contract is not settled amicably.

While the clauses have the same concept of arbitration, they received different treatment in different courts of different jurisdictions. What happened? When Europeans prefer ICC arbitration in Shanghai, what does that really mean to Shanghai, and to China?

This article discusses what “arbitration in Shanghai” stands for, what the phrase “arbitration in Shanghai” means in practice, and the possibilities and benefits to arbitrate in Shanghai.

What does the Arbitration Agreement say?

In the Long Li De case, the agreement says that any disputes arising out of or in connection with the contract shall be referred to arbitration by one or three arbitrators appointed in accordance with the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. The place of jurisdiction shall be Shanghai and the language of the proceedings shall be English.

The Klockner case has similar wording in the arbitration agreement. The arbitration venue shall be in Shanghai. In addition, the presiding arbitrator shall be admitted to practice law in Germany. The governing law of the entire contract shall be the law of Germany.

Klockner litigated in Hong Kong

Klockner filed a writ with a statement of claim for costs of the goods against Advance Technology (AT) in Hong Kong. AT disputed on the jurisdiction of the HK Court of First instance (HKCFI), with the arbitration clause in the contract. The Court found that Klockner successfully proved that under PRC law the arbitration clause was invalid, pursuant to expert opinion based on articles 16 and 18 of the PRC Arbitration Law[3]. HKCFI refused to stay the legal proceedings, despite the arbitration clause in the contract. AT had to conduct the litigation in Hong Kong. No arbitration in Shanghai ultimately happened.

Supreme People’s Court View on ICC’s Arbitration Clause

Hefei Intermediate People’s Court, when requested in the Long Li De case, opined that the agreement was invalid, because it did not entail the designation of an arbitration commission according to Chinese law.

Under the Arbitration Law of the PRC, Article 16 requires an arbitration agreement to have: 1) the intention of the parties to refer to arbitration; 2) the scope of matters for arbitration; and 3) a designated arbitration commission.

The Higher People’s Court of Anhui Province sought reply of the Supreme People’s Court with divided views. The majority view is that the clause is valid because it has referred to the name of the arbitration institution, ICC. SPC replied to confirm agreement with the majority view of the Higher People’s Court of Anhui Province.

This case changed the course from rejecting to welcoming ICC arbitration clause in Shanghai, China, from the top level court in China.

Arbitration in Shanghai in BNA v BNB

In a more recent case involving a Korean company (and its subsidiary) and a Shanghai company, the parties agreed to have disputes submitted to Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) for arbitration in accordance with its Arbitration Rules in Shanghai. When the dispute arose, the Korean company went to SIAC in Singapore for arbitration. SIAC decided by majority of the Tribunal that the seat of arbitration is Singapore and hence Singapore law applies to the arbitration agreement, but not Chinese law, even though the parties agreed arbitration in Shanghai. Shanghai is considered as agreed to be the venue for hearing of the case, but not the place of arbitration that determines the applicable law of the arbitration procedure. The majority decision was first affirmed by the Singapore High Court and was afterwards reversed by the Singapore Court of Appeal, which recognized Shanghai as the seat of arbitration, not Singapore.[4]

In this case, one of the issues is to distinguish two terms – “seat of arbitration” and “venue of arbitration”. They are essential to understand this case. The seat of arbitration, unlike the venue of arbitration, is not merely a geographical location. It determines the territorial link between the law of the arbitration (lex arbitri) and the place of arbitration (locus arbitri). When we refer to a city as the place of arbitration, it does not solely mean the arbitration is physically conducted in that place. Rather, it indicates that the arbitration is conducted within the framework of the law of arbitration of that place. In other words, the procedural rights and obligations between the parties and the arbitrators will be governed by the law of the place of arbitration.

In practice, not all the proceedings of arbitration take place in the “seat of arbitration”. Sometimes the physical meetings or hearings are held in another place out of convenience, yet the “seat” that parties agreed in the arbitration agreement and the lex arbitri remains the same. In that circumstance, the geographic place where the hearings take place is deemed as the “venue of arbitration”.

These cases show that as a matter of fact, the parties, whether they are from Europe or Far East, appear to prefer to have arbitration done in Shanghai. Why was the Klockner case litigated in Hong Kong, and why did the Tribunal in BNA v BNB case not find Shanghai as the seat of arbitration?

All these questions boil down to the restriction of PRC Arbitration Law on arbitration agreement in Article 16 discussed above.

When the law is very restrictive, and when the judicial interpretation keeps a restrictive approach of interpretation, Shanghai, although preferred by foreign companies to have arbitration done in the city, could not actually allow arbitration to take place in the city. What a huge pity?

Party Autonomy

Arbitration is a matter of consent of the parties based on party autonomy. The General Provisions of the Civil Law[5] provides in Article 143, and the New Civil Code[6] provides in Article 134 that the civil legal act is valid if 1) the person has civil legal capacity; 2) the expression of intent is genuine; and 3) there is no violation of mandatory rule of laws and administrative regulations, no breach of public order. In a private transaction, if the parties agree arbitration in Shanghai, there is no breach of mandatory rules or public order in practice. The parties simply want to have arbitration done in Shanghai, and they have the autonomy to do so.

Possibilities & Benefits of Arbitration in Shanghai

Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution service. It follows certain set of arbitration rules published by the institutions. It follows the arbitration procedure and finally have the arbitrators render an award to dispose of the rights and obligations of the parties in the contractual or non-contractual relationship involving property interest.

In 2015, Plan for Further Deepening the Reform and Opening-up of China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone[7] was issued, in which the entry of international arbitration institutions is encouraged, opening up a new era for the development of international commercial dispute resolution in China. Furthermore, Measures for the Administration of Overseas Arbitration Institutions' Establishment of Business Departments in the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone Lin-Gang Special Area[8], effective as of January 1, 2020 was issued by Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Justice in 2019, stipulating that overseas arbitration institutions are entitled to establish business departments and conduct foreign-related arbitration activities in the Special Area under certain conditions. It serves as a strong policy in support for foreign-related arbitration activities to take place in Shanghai and is a breakthrough in the area of international commercial dispute resolution. Up to now, well-known institutions like HKIAC, ICC, LCIA, and SIAC have made the applications and submitted related materials. It is expected that Shanghai will become an Asia-pacific arbitration center in the future and will attract more parties to arbitrate in Shanghai.

Ad Hoc Arbitration

When the arbitration procedure takes place in Shanghai, the institution that administers the procedure could be a domestic arbitration commission or an international arbitration institution appointed by the parties. Ad hoc arbitration also sees a bright future in China as Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Providing Judicial Guarantee for the Building of Pilot Free Trade Zones[9] was issued in 2016, in which Article 9 Paragraph 3 provides that “[I]f two enterprises registered in FTZ agree that relevant disputes shall be submitted to arbitration at a particular place in Chinese mainland, according to particular arbitration rules, or by particular personnel, the arbitration agreement may be determined as valid”. It shows Supreme People’s Court’s respect for party autonomy and provides a legal basis for ad hoc arbitration to be conducted in China, especially Pilot Free Trade Zones.

Governing Law

When arbitration takes place in Shanghai, the procedure is governed under Chinese law. Chinese court will have jurisdiction over the matters arising from the procedure at the place of arbitration. Chinese and international law firms operating in Shanghai will be happily assisting the parties to deal with the procedural matters during the arbitration. The parties may conduct the procedural meetings or hearing in facilities of arbitration institutions or in hotels in Shanghai or through online means. It will create a lot of associated services like hotel service, meeting room services, telecom services, travel services and other local logistics services. It helps the local service industry in real and solid terms.

The legal effect is that the Arbitration Law and other relevant laws in China will govern, and the award will likely be determined to be an award from China. Such award will likely be recognized and enforced in other countries under the New York Convention.

With all these benefits and legal effect, why do we not uphold clauses such as arbitration in Shanghai by ICC or AAA or other well-known arbitration institutions?

Conclusion

When arbitration agreement is made, it is an intention of the parties to have dispute settled in a place of their choice. Such place of choice shows the confidence of the parties on such place, and the system associated with the place, such as Shanghai and the system of arbitration law in China. It is practically useful and legally justified to uphold the choice of the parties and open the door to international institutions to conduct arbitrations in Shanghai, China, particularly those institutions that have representative offices or branches in Shanghai. Article 16 of the Arbitration Law discussed above needs to be amended to allow parties to select arbitrators, arbitration commissions and arbitration institutions to conduct arbitrations in China. A grant of authorization for international arbitration institutions to have branches and conduct arbitrations in Shanghai will be warranted in the market economy and meaningful to the community with shared future at this time.

中文版

仲裁地的故事：在上海仲裁

安徽省龙利得包装印刷有限公司与意大利公司BP Agnati S R L于2010年签订了销售合同，该合同包含一条仲裁条款。

香港公司Advance Technology公司与德国公司Klockner Pentaplast于2006年签订一份有关在中国大陆进行货物经销的合同，其中也包含了仲裁条款。

这两份仲裁协议均约定因合同发生的纠纷提交由国际商会仲裁院根据其规则指定的一名或三名仲裁员在上海仲裁。

尽管这两份仲裁协议均约定“在上海仲裁”，但它们受到了来自不同法域的法院的不同对待。为什么这两个案件会出现了不同的结果？当欧亚当事人更倾向于国际商会仲裁院在上海进行仲裁，这对上海、对中国意味着什么？

本文着眼于从实践角度对“在上海仲裁”条款的理解适用，以及在上海进行仲裁带来的积极影响。

仲裁协议的内容

在“龙利得案”中，仲裁协议约定因合同发生的纠纷由国际商会仲裁院根据其规则指定的一名或三名仲裁员在上海进行仲裁，仲裁语言为英文。

“Klockner案”的仲裁协议包含相似的文字。仲裁地点在上海。除此之外，双方约定首席仲裁员应具有德国法执业资格，合同的准据法为德国法。

“Klockner案”在香港的诉讼

在此案中，Klockner就已交付货物成本在香港提起诉讼，要求索赔货款，而AT根据仲裁条款对香港原讼法院的管辖权提出异议。Klockner称，根据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第16条、18条，该仲裁条款无效。此观点有相关专家意见作为支持。香港原讼法院采纳该观点，拒绝停止诉讼程序的审理。尽管双方在仲裁条款中约定了在上海进行仲裁，AT却须在香港参加诉讼程序，仲裁未能在上海发生。

最高人民法院对ICC仲裁条款的相关意见

关于龙利得的案件，合肥市中级人民法院认为，国际商会仲裁院并非符合《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第16条规定的仲裁院。

根据该条规定，仲裁协议应当具有下列内容:（一）请求仲裁的意思表示；（二）仲裁事项；（三）选定的仲裁委员会。

合肥中级人民法院就仲裁协议有效性请示安徽省高级人民法院，安徽高院对该问题合议庭经讨论形成两种意见，多数意见认为，该仲裁协议明确约定仲裁机构为国际商会仲裁院，符合第16条规定，因此有效。安徽高院请示最高人民法院，最高院在复函中支持了安徽高院多数意见，确认该仲裁协议有效。

此案改变了原来认为ICC在上海仲裁条款无效的观念，认可ICC在上海仲裁的条款的法律效力。

图片关键词

“BNA v BNB”案中的“在上海仲裁”

在最新的一个案件中，来自韩国的公司（及其子公司）与中国上海的一家企业，双方当事人在仲裁协议中约定，合同双方同意将争议交由新加坡国际仲裁中心根据其仲裁规则在上海仲裁。争议发生后，韩国公司将争议提交新加坡国际仲裁中心，在新加坡进行仲裁。仲裁庭多数意见认为，尽管双方约定在上海进行仲裁，但由于本案仲裁地为新加坡，本案应适用新加坡法律而非中国法律。可见，在本案中，上海只是作为开庭地/仲裁进行地，而不是判断法律适用的仲裁地。新加坡高等法院对该多数裁决作出支持，但被新加坡上诉法院后来推翻了一审判决。新加坡上诉法院认定上海为本案仲裁地，而不是新加坡。

在本案中的关键争议点之一在于如何认定“仲裁地”。将“仲裁地”与“仲裁进行地”进行区分，对于理解本案至关重要。与仲裁进行地不同的是，仲裁地不仅仅是地理上的概念，更重要的是决定了仲裁地法律。在某地仲裁不仅仅是在某地进行开庭，更重要的是决定了约束该仲裁的法律，即当事人、仲裁员在仲裁过程中的权利义务由该仲裁程序法规制。换言之，当事人及仲裁员在程序上的权利和义务是由仲裁地的法律规定的。

在实践中，为了方便当事人、仲裁员、证人等，也会选择在当事人约定的仲裁地以外的地点进行仲裁，但仲裁地与仲裁地法并不随之改变。在这种情况下，仲裁听证等会面实际举行的地点被称为“仲裁进行地”。

以上几个案例表明，事实上，来自欧亚的当事人倾向于在上海进行仲裁。然而，“Klockner案”中，香港法院最终享有司法管辖权；“BNA v BNB”案的仲裁中，仲裁庭和一审法官否认了上海作为仲裁地的地位。为什么会出现这样的裁判/裁决结果呢？

究其原因，我们更应该注意到《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第16条的规定。当法律和司法解释都采用了较为严格和谦抑的立场，那么即使外国公司倾向于在上海进行仲裁，结果也将背道而驰。这岂不是天大的遗憾？

当事人意思自治

仲裁的原则之一是基于当事人意思自治原则的当事人合意。《中华人民共和国民法总则》第143条与新颁布的《中华人民共和国民法典》第134条规定，具备下列条件的民事法律行为有效：（一）行为人具有相应的民事行为能力；（二）意思表示真实；（三）不违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定，不违背公序良俗。在商事活动中，如果双方约定在上海进行仲裁，实践中并没有违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定，也没有违背公序良俗，应尊重当事人意思自治。

在上海仲裁的机遇

仲裁是一种替代性争议解决机制，仲裁的过程应遵循具体仲裁机构制定的程序规则。仲裁一般解决合同纠纷与非合同的其他财产权益纠纷，仲裁员作出的裁决对当事人之间的权利义务关系进行调整。

2015年，国务院发布《进一步深化中国(上海)自由贸易试验区改革开放方案》，支持国际知名商事争议解决机构入驻，为国际商事仲裁在中国的发展开启了新的篇章。2019年，上海市司法局发布《境外仲裁机构在中国（上海）自由贸易试验区临港新片区设立业务机构管理办法》，该办法规定，2020年1月1日起，符合条件的境外仲裁机构可在上海自贸区临港新片区设立业务机构，并开展相关领域的仲裁业务。这无疑为境外仲裁机构在中国的仲裁活动提供了强有力的政策支持，也是中国国际商事争议解决领域一项重大突破。迄今为止，香港国际仲裁中心、国际商会、伦敦国际仲裁院、新加坡国际仲裁中心等知名国际仲裁机构已经提出申请并提交相关材料。在不久的将来，上海将成为亚太地区仲裁中心，并将吸引更多境外当事人前来进行仲裁。

图片关键词

临时仲裁

如果在上海进行仲裁，仲裁可以由当事人约定的仲裁员、国内的仲裁委员会、国际仲裁机构进行。未来，临时仲裁拥有良好的发展前景。最高人民法院于2016年发布《最高人民法院关于为自由贸易试验区建设提供司法保障的意见》，其中第九条第三款规定“在自贸试验区内注册的企业相互之间约定在内地特定地点、按照特定仲裁规则、由特定人员对有关争议进行仲裁的，可以认定该仲裁协议有效”。这表示了最高人民法院对当事人意思自治的尊重，并且为临时仲裁在中国自贸区的进行提供了法律依据。

适用法

若仲裁在上海进行，仲裁程序应遵循中国法律，中国法院对于程序性事项具有管辖权。在上海进行仲裁将为身在上海的中国律师事务所与其他国际律所带来一系列机遇。在上海进行开庭，同时也将实质性地带动当地服务业的发展，例如酒店服务、会议室租赁、电信服务、旅游业与其他相关的服务业。

从法律上看，在上海进行仲裁将适用中国仲裁法与其他相关法律，做出的裁决将被认定为中国裁决。裁决作出后，其他国家的法院可以根据《纽约公约》进行承认与执行。

考虑到上述的积极的效益和影响，我们还有什么理由不支持当事人约定将争议提交国际商会仲裁院、美国仲裁协会等知名国际仲裁机构在上海仲裁的仲裁协议呢？

结语

签订仲裁协议时，当事人具有将争议提交其所选择地方的合意。这样的合意表明了当事人对仲裁地和所在国当地的法律体系的信任，对上海和中国仲裁法的信心。从实践上来看，尊重当事人意思自治并向其他国际仲裁机构敞开大门是必要的，尤其是对那些已经在上海设立代表处或设立分支机构的国际仲裁机构。在如今的环境下，上述仲裁法第16条应该修改为允许当事人选定仲裁员、仲裁委员会或仲裁机构进行仲裁。准予国际仲裁机构在上海设立分支机构并进行仲裁活动具有重大的市场经济价值和深远的命运共同体的意义。

图片关键词

References

[1] Reply of the Supreme People's Court to the Request for Instructions on Application for Confirming the Validity of an Arbitration Agreement in the Case of Anhui Long Li De Packaging and Printing Co., Ltd. v. BP Agnati S. R. L., No. 13 [2013] of the Civil Division IV of the Supreme People's Court on March 25, 2013.

[2] Klöckner Pentaplast GmbH & Co. KG v Advanced Technology (H.K.) Limited HCA 1526/2010.

[3] Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China 1994, as amended in 2017.

[4] BNA v BNB and another [2019] SGCA 84.

[5] General Provisions of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, effective from October 1, 2017.

[6] Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, effective from January 1, 2021.

[7] Notice of the State Council on Issuing the Plan for Further Deepening the Reform and Opening-up of China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone, No. 21 [2015] of the State Council.

[8] Measures for the Administration of Overseas Arbitration Institutions' Establishment of Business Departments in the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone Lin-Gang Special Area, No. 5 [2019] of the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Justice.

[9] Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Providing Judicial Guarantee for the Building of Pilot Free Trade Zones, No. 34 [2016] of the Supreme People's Court.

北京霖理律师事务所是北京市司法局批准设立的律师事务所，主要业务覆盖国际仲裁、知识产权和商事投资合同争议解决。霖理法律英语是“为了法律的目的学习简洁英语”而开创的公众号，是霖理律师事务所涉外业务的研发平台，旨在促进法律英语和中文法律语言的应用和普及，努力打造中文社区内生的法律英语的多元生态，促进复合型法律职业人士交流经验互动学习。

长按下方二维码关注我们

图片关键词

仲裁地的故事： 在上海仲裁

仲裁地的故事：在上海仲裁