国际商会2021仲裁规则：若机构可以自行组成仲裁庭，当事人意思自治又从何谈起

2021-01-25 17:26:16 388

The New ICC 2021 Arbitration Rules: What is Party Autonomy if Institutions can Constitute the Tribunal by Themselves? (1)*

国际商会2021仲裁规则：若机构可以自行组成仲裁庭，当事人意思自治又从何谈起（一）

Background

背景

In the context of a globalized world and increasing investment attractiveness, the issue of selecting a relevant international arbitration institution as a dispute settlement mechanism has been discussed many times. Since its creation, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has proved itself as being one of the most respected institutions for international arbitration. Moreover, it gained worldwide recognition as an independent, depoliticized, and self-contained institution.

在世界全球化及投资吸引力日益增长的背景下，选择一个相关的国际仲裁机构作为争端解决机制的话题已被多次讨论。国际商会自成立以来，已被证明是最受尊重的机构之一。此外，它作为一个独立的、非政治化的、自成一体的机构得到了全世界的认可。

Recently the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC released the new ICC Arbitration Rules 2021. The Rules entered into force on January 1, 2021, and applies to cases filed from that date. Any cases submitted to the ICC prior to that date will be governed by the ICC Rules 2017 unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

近日，国际商会国际仲裁院发布了最新2021《国际商会仲裁规则》（以下简称“《规则》”或“《仲裁规则》”）。《规则》于2021年1月1日起生效，此日期后立案的案件均适用。此日期之前提交国际商会的案件仍将适用2017国际商会仲裁规则，除非当事人之间另有约定。

Although the updated version is not a breakthrough modification[2], it is rather a major milestone in improving the existing system of international arbitration and “mark[s] another step towards even more efficient, flexible and transparent ICC Arbitrations offering"[3].

尽管此次更新版本没有突破性改变，但却是改善现有国际仲裁制度的一个重要里程碑，“标志着国际商会提供的仲裁服务向着更高效、灵活与透明的方向更近了一步”。

图片关键词

Issues of debate in the appointment of the tribunal in arbitration

仲裁中组成仲裁庭问题的争议

However, many experts are concerned about the ineffectiveness of the new ICC Rules 2021. Here is a question. Will the new Rules be better and more efficient than the previous version? During recent years, there has been a heated debate about these amendments. Still, the amendments have both opportunities and threats. Particularly, the amendment to the composition of the arbitral tribunal may receive special attention and controversial opinions. What is party autonomy if institutions can do the constitution of the tribunal by themselves? “The integrity of the proceedings will be further protected by[…] allowing the Court to disregard unconscionable arbitration agreements that may pose a risk to the validity of the award”.[4]

然而，很多专家担心新的2021《国际商会仲裁规则》效果不佳。问题是：新《规则》是否比此前的版本更好，更高效。近年来，关于这些修订一直存在激烈的讨论。这些修订仍然还是机会与风险共存。尤其对仲裁庭组成的修订受到特别关注和众多争议。若机构可以自行组成仲裁庭，当事人自治又从何谈起？“通过[......]允许法院无视可能对裁决的有效性构成风险的不合情理的仲裁协议，将进一步保护程序的完整性”。

Generally, Article 12.9 of the 2021 Rules provides that “notwithstanding any agreement by the parties on the method of constitution of the arbitral tribunal, in exceptional circumstances the Court may appoint each member of the arbitral tribunal to avoid a significant risk of unequal treatment and unfairness that may affect the validity of the award”.[5]

总体而言，2021《仲裁规则》中的12.9条规定“即使当事人对仲裁庭的组成方式已有约定，在特殊情况下仲裁院可以任命仲裁员，以避免出现可能影响裁决有效性的不平等待遇和不公平现象的重大风险”。

The new amendment focuses to ensure fairness, integrity and equality, and at the same time, to grant tribunals more powers to carry out the complicated cases. On the other hand, it could also create concerns to a party’s right to appoint its own arbitrator, which is one of the basic elements of party autonomy, the pillar of international arbitration.[6]

新的修订着重确保公平性、完整性和平等待遇，同时赋予仲裁庭更多权力处理复杂案件。另一方面，对当事人有权任命仲裁员的问题也将引起人们更多关注。这是当事人自治原则的基本要素之一，也是国际仲裁的支柱。

In addition, the provisions are made to reduce the possibility of domestic courts to annul arbitral awards on the grounds of lack of equal treatment of the parties and fairness. While this may encourage and speed up proceedings, it could also be viewed as an infringement of the autonomy of the parties, which is a key element of the process.[7]

此外，制定这些规定是为了减少国内法院以当事人待遇不平等和不公平为由而撤销仲裁裁决的可能性。尽管这可能会促进和加速了进程，但仍可能被视为违背了当事人自治原则，而这个原则正是仲裁程序中的关键要素。

It should also be borne in mind that Article 12.9 facilitates the ICC Court to appoint all three members of the tribunal “in exceptional circumstances” in the case of lack of joint nomination and “to avoid a significant risk of unequal treatment and unfairness that may affect the validity of the award”. The article is complementary to Article 12.6 and Article 12.7 of the Rules, which allow the parties to appoint the members of the tribunal in multi-party arbitrations. It is an exception to the rule when the parties appoint the arbitrators and the ICC Court intervenes only in cases of inability to appoint them. Moreover, one of the main aims of the Article is to avoid jeopardizing the validity of the award.

此外，还应当注意，12.9条允许国际仲裁院在缺乏当事人联合提名的“特殊条件下”指定仲裁庭全部三名仲裁员，以“避免出现可能影响裁决有效性的不平等待遇和不公平现象的重大风险”。这一条是对《规则》中12.6、12.7两条的补充，这两条允许当事人在多方仲裁中任命仲裁员。当事人指定仲裁员是基本规则，而国际商会法院仅在当事人不能指定仲裁员的情况下进行指定，该条是规则的例外。此外，本条的主要目的之一是避免损害裁决的有效性。

The Rules 2021 adopted under the auspices of the ICC Arbitration Court are even more complex compared to the 2017 Rules. Even if they weren’t amended significantly, they have provisions that parties to ICC arbitration should be aware of. There is a number of changes on the promotion of arbitration in a new environment, such as holding virtual hearings and making electronic submissions, which is necessary during pandemic times.

在国际商会国际仲裁院支持下通过的2021《仲裁规则》比2017《规则》更加复杂。即使不做重大修订，其中还是有很多规定值得当事人留意。在新形势下进行了很多促进仲裁的修改，比如举行在线庭审、提交电子文件。这在新冠疫情期间是必要的。

Since its creation, the ICC has played one of the most important roles in international trade and business. The ICC has a positive impact on the development of international arbitration in general, due to the widespread incorporation of various legal cultures and the formation of common standards of practice.

从成立以来，国际商会一直在国际贸易与商务中起着至关重要的作用。总的来说，国际商会广泛吸收了各种法律文化，形成了共同的实践标准，对整个国际仲裁的发展产生了积极的影响。

In a globalized world, dispute resolution institutions have become a significant tool in the global market. In order to stay an attractive place for arbitration, the arbitral institutions should be flexible, impartial, transparent and fair. That is why the ICC revised and amended Rules 2021 to meet the challenges of dynamic trends in arbitration.

在一个全球化时代，争议解决机构在全球市场已经成为一个重要工具。为了保持仲裁地的吸引力，仲裁机构应该是灵活、中立、透明和公正的，这就是为什么国际商会修订2021《仲裁规则》，以迎合仲裁发展变化趋势的挑战。

One of the most noteworthy issues involves its questionable efficiency of the provision on the composition of the arbitral tribunal. The amendments to the limitation on the right of the parties to nominate their own arbitrator may put party autonomy at risk. In the new ICC Rules 2021, the principle of party autonomy is opposed to the principle of equal treatment and fairness. Fairness is a necessary element in the system of resolving disputes in order to comply with public interests. It remains to be seen how the ICC Court will interpret, in practice, the undefined “exceptional circumstances” to justify deviating from the parties’ agreement on the method of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, without exposing the resulting award to enforceability hurdles.[8]

最值得注意的问题之一涉及有关仲裁庭组成效率的条款。对当事人指定自己仲裁员的权利进行限制的修订会不利于当事人自治。在2021《规则》中，当事人自治原则与平等待遇、公平原则互相对立。为符合公众利益，在争议解决体系中公正是必要因素。国际商会仲裁院在实际操作中如何解释未阐明的“特殊情况”，尚待观察。它需解释清楚，如何在不依照当事人组庭协议的同时，还能令最终裁决得到执行。

Case study review

案例研究

We should mention the famous case Siemens v. BKMI and Dutco of the French Cour de Cassation.[9] In1981 BKMI contracted to build a cement factory and entered into a consortium agreement with Siemens and Dutco. The three companies had to perform different parts of the construction work and the agreement contained a clause referring all disputes to ICC arbitration. However, in 1986, Dutco applied for the arbitration alleging the failure of performance of the contract. In the case, ICC appointed a joint arbitrator for two respondents, while allowing the claimant to appoint its own arbitrator, but respondents challenged the joint appointment and requested for appeal at the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request reasoning that from the multilateral nature of the agreement, the multi-party arbitration was generally admissible and the appointment of the arbitrators for the respondents did not violate their right to equal treatment. At the same time, in 1992, French Cour de Cassation decided that these provisions constitute contradiction to public policy and enforceability of awards. Thus, this decision is significant from the point of balancing party autonomy and equal treatment of the right of the parties to appoint arbitrators in multi-party cases. After this case, many arbitral institutions changed their approach.

我们应该讲一讲法国最高法院西门子诉BKMI和Dutco的著名案例。1981年BKMI建立一家水泥厂，并与西门子和Dutco签订联合承揽协议。三家公司须各自完成建筑工程中的不同部分。协议中包含一条关于所有争议交由国际商会仲裁院仲裁的条款。但是1986年Dutco指控合同未履行而提出仲裁。在此案中国际商会仲裁院为两被申请人联合指定了一名仲裁员，同时让申请人选定其自己的仲裁员。但是被申请人对联合指定提出质疑，并因此到上诉法院提起上诉。上诉法院未受理此案，认为协议为多方签署，通常多方仲裁是可以接受的，替被申请人指定仲裁员没有违背当事人平等待遇权利。与此同时，1992年法国最高法院认为这些规定与公共政策和裁决执行相违背。因此，从平衡当事人自治和平等对待多方仲裁案件当事人指定仲裁员的权利的角度来看，这一裁决具有重要意义。此案之后，很多仲裁机构改变了其此类案件指定仲裁员的做法。

One more interesting case on party autonomy and appointment of the arbitral tribunal is AQZ v ARA [2015] SGHC 49 [10]. The claimant, a Singapore-incorporated supplier and the respondent, a Singaporean subsidiary of an Indian trading and shipping conglomerate came into the contract on sale and purchase of Indonesian coal. The main issue aroused in the dispute was whether, in addition to the first purchase contract of coal in 2009, the parties’ negotiations had also resulted to the second purchase contract in 2010. The terms of the contract provided for arbitration “in accordance with the rules of conciliation and arbitration of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) by three arbitrators”. Later in 2013, the arbitration appointed of a sole arbitrator under the Expedited Procedure to resolve the dispute. The claimant protested against the composition of the arbitral tribunal arguing that the arbitral procedure on appointment of a sole arbitrator violated the arbitration agreement between the parties. However, Singapore High Court considered a challenge to an award made under the above-mentioned SIAC Rules. The Court held that the arbitration clause in the agreement of the parties could be overridden with the SIAC Court President discretion to appoint a sole arbitrator with application of the Expedited Procedure.

一个关于当事人自治与仲裁庭任命更有趣的案例是AQZ v ARA [2015] SGHC 49 。申请人是新加坡注册的供应商，被申请人是一家印度贸易海运集团在新加坡的分公司，双方达成买卖印尼煤炭的协议。争议焦点为2009年第一次煤炭采购之后，双方于2010年的协商是否构成第二份协议。合同中仲裁条款约定仲裁“须符合新加坡国际仲裁中心（以下简称“SIAC”）调解与仲裁规则，由三名仲裁员组成仲裁庭”。之后2013年在快速仲裁程序中只由一名被指定的仲裁员进行裁决。申请人对仲裁庭的组成提出异议，认为仲裁程序中仅指定一名仲裁员违背了当事人之间的仲裁协议。然而，新加坡最高法院依据上述SIAC规则认定其为对裁决的挑战。最高院认为适用快速仲裁程序时，SIAC仲裁院院长有指定独任仲裁员的自由裁量权而推翻双方协议中的仲裁条款。

At the same time, a significant case Noble Resources International v. Shanghai Good Credit International Trade Co[11] has similar circumstances but different result. The dispute arose in 2015 between Noble Resources International Pte Ltd, a Singapore-based supplier, and Shanghai Good Credit International Trade Co Ltd, a Chinese importer, due to failure of the contract performance. According to the agreement of the parties the arbitration procedure should be held by three arbitrators, however, the SIAC conducted an Expedited Procedure before a sole arbitrator appointed by the President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration. The respondent refused to participate in the hearing and the final award was made in the absence of the respondent, what lead the claimant to apply for enforcement of the award in China. However, the Shanghai Court refused to enforce a SIAC award. The Court held that the SIAC’s appointment of a sole arbitrator ‘contravened’ the parties’ agreement and resulted in the final award being denied recognition and enforcement on the ground that ‘the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties’ as prescribed in Article V of the New York Convention[12].

同时还有一个重要案例，Noble Resources International诉Shanghai Good Credit International Trade Co，本案情况类似但结果不同。2015年，以新加坡供应商Noble Resources International和中国进口商上海Shanghai Good Credit International Trade Co，因未履行合同产生争议。根据双方协议，应由三名仲裁员进行仲裁，然而在SIAC仲裁院院长指定独任仲裁员之前，SIAC适用了快速仲裁程序。被申请人缺席庭审，最终仲裁员做出缺席裁决，随后申请人到中国申请执行裁决。然而，上海法院拒绝执行SIAC的裁决。法院认为SIAC仅指定一名仲裁员违反了双方协议，进而以《纽约公约》第五条“仲裁庭的组成与双方协议不符”为由拒绝承认和执行SIAC最终裁决。

SIAC has amended its latest rules 6th Edition 2016 in order to prevent the same conflict from arising. Article 5.3 of the new rules provides: “[B]y agreeing to arbitration under these Rules, the parties agree that, where arbitral proceedings are conducted in accordance with the Expedited Procedure under this Rule 5, the rules and procedures set forth in Rule 5.2 shall apply even in cases where the arbitration agreement contains contrary terms”[13].

为了避免类似争议，SIAC在2016第6版规则中修订了该规定。新规则5.3条规定：“同意此仲裁规则的仲裁当事人亦当同意符合本规则第5条关于快速仲裁程序中的仲裁程序；即使当事人仲裁协议包含相反条款，5.2条中的规则和程序仍将适用。”

Therefore, these decisions and the new ICC Rules 2021 extending the principle of equal treatment to appoint the tribunal is significant and needs a special attention of the international legal community. As a result, we can see a developing trend of arbitration institutions to empower themselves and get a discretionary power in appointing the tribunal members. That’s why companies should clearly consider the selecting arbitration institution and arbitration rules while concluding an agreement in order to choose the relevant and efficient forum for resolving disputes.

这些判决和新的国际商会2021《仲裁规则》将平等待遇原则扩大到指定仲裁员，意义重大，并应引起国际法律界的特别关注。因此，我们可以看到仲裁机构在任命仲裁庭成员时，有自我赋能、获得自由裁量权的发展趋势。所以，企业在签订合同时要考虑清楚仲裁机构和仲裁规则，以选择适合且高效的争议解决机构。

图片关键词

Conclusion

结论

While Rules 2021 have become more transparent and flexible on one hand, they cause many risks from another. The effectiveness of such an amendment is more than controversial.

2021仲裁规则变得更透明和灵活的同时，也带来很多风险。该修订的有效性引起诸多争议。

Conflict situations related to the fairness of equal treatment showed that in the future these provisions should be substantially modified and supplemented. What are the risks and challenges facing today and how to avoid them in the future?

关乎平等待遇公正性的冲突情形表明，这些规定在将来应会进行实质性的修改和补充。今天面对的风险和挑战是什么？未来又如何避免它们呢？

In addition to the difficulties in enforcement of arbitral awards and risk of inequality of tribunal appointment, there is a serious problem for contradictions between the principle of party autonomy and equal treatment in the constitution of the tribunal as the right to nominate the members of the arbitral tribunal is a cornerstone and a very essence of arbitration. The lack of fairness and efficiency in arbitration leads parties to lose the faith in the legitimacy of the system and thus, to become more reluctant to pursue their endeavors. However, some scholars like Lew, Mistelis and Kröll argue with this and state that “by agreeing to arbitrate under the rules of an institution providing for a special appointment procedure in a multiparty situation this procedure becomes part of the parties’ agreement”[14].

除了仲裁裁决执行困难和仲裁庭任命的不平等风险，还有一个严重问题，即当事人自治原则和仲裁庭组成的平等待遇之间的矛盾。因为任命仲裁庭成员的权利是仲裁的基石和精髓。脱离了公正和高效的仲裁，会导致当事人失去对仲裁制度的信任，并使其不愿继续努力。然而一些学者如Lewis，Mistelis和Kröll等并不同意，他们认为“同意某一机构规则下的仲裁，亦应接受其在多方当事人局面下特殊任命这一程序，此程序即变为当事人之间协议的一部分”。

The expansion of arbitration cases shows the significance of this system, yet, it uncovers that there are various issues. Consequently, this issue will get deeper attention. This is why both tribunals and the ICC Court need to exercise their expanded powers with caution in order to balance efficiency in handling complex cases. It remains to be seen how tribunals and the ICC Court will apply the new provisions and whether similar rules will be adopted by other arbitral institutions. Paragraph 40 clarifies that, where the parties have not agreed upon the number of arbitrators “the Court will normally decide in favor of a sole arbitrator where the amount in dispute is less than US$ 10,000,000 and in favor of three arbitrators where the amount in dispute exceeds US$ 30,000,000″. [15]

仲裁案件的增加显示这一制度的重要性，然而也出现不少的问题。因此，这个问题将受到更深入的关注。所以仲裁庭和国际商会仲裁院需要谨慎使用其扩大的权力以平衡处理复杂案件中的效率。仲裁庭和国际商会仲裁院如何适用新的《规则》以及其他仲裁机构是否也采用类似规则，还有待观察。《规则》第40段阐明，如当事人未就仲裁员人数达成协议，“如果争议金额少于一千万美元，仲裁院通常会指定独任仲裁员；如果争议金额超过三千万美元，通常指定三名仲裁员”。

Overall, we should note that the development of institutions of international arbitration is a complex issue. Nevertheless, the trust and confidence in the quality of their services, as well as impartial and fair settlement of disputes by arbitrators, is largely the concern of the legal community.

总的来说，我们应注意到，国际仲裁机构的发展是一个复杂问题，不过服务质量的信任，以及对仲裁员公平公正地解决争议的信心，是法律界较为关注的问题。

When drafting an arbitration clause there is a need to analyze the issue of the rights of the parties to equal treatment in the appointment of arbitrators and take into account the overall factual and legal circumstances and possible consequences. Article 18 of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides that "the parties shall be treated with equality and each party shall be given a full opportunity of presenting his case"[16]. Standard ICC Arbitration Clause is: “All disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules”[17]. A faulty and defective arbitration clause may result in a party losing a lot of money and time depending on the scale of the mistake. An arbitral award issued by improperly constituted tribunal has risks of being annulled or recognized as unenforceable. So here are some tips for drafting an effective arbitration clause:

1) Avoid vague references;

2) Specify the seat of arbitration and know the approach of the courts of that seat;

3) Institutional arbitration should be preferred and model clause of that institution should get a specific understanding and analysis;

4) Analyze the contents of the institutional rules in order to verify whether the appointment of an arbitrator may lead to an imbalance between the parties to the proceedings; analyze other possible overriding provisions of the rules;

5) Specify the method of selection and replacement of arbitrators, and select an appointing authority, do not restrict the clause by adding too many qualifications for appointment of arbitrator;

6) Take into account the needs of the parties, the particular circumstances of their relationship, the potential nature of future disputes;

7) Choose a governing law, and convenient venue and language;

8) Try not to limit the scope of disputes subject to arbitration and define this scope broadly. Phrases that expand the jurisdiction of the tribunal must be used like “any dispute arising out of, or, in relation to this contract” which would ensure a one-stop adjudication and help in avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

在起草仲裁条款时，有必要分析各方当事人在指定仲裁员时受到平等对待的权利问题，并全面考虑事实、法律情况以及可能的结果。《联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》第18条规定“当事人应当受到平等待遇，并应当被给予充分的机会陈述其案情”。国际商会标准仲裁条款是：“所有由当前合同引发或与当前合同相关的争议应根据国际商会国际仲裁院仲裁规则由一名或多名仲裁员最终解决。”一个错误且有缺陷的仲裁条款会给当事人带来很多金钱和时间的损失，大小取决于错误的程度。由不正当的仲裁庭作出的仲裁裁决有可能被撤销或被认定为不可执行。因此，我们提出一些起草有效仲裁条款的技巧：

1. 避免模糊用语。

2. 明确仲裁地且了解仲裁地法院的做法。

3. 应首选机构仲裁并对该机构的示范条款进行具体了解和分析。

4. 分析机构规则的内容以确定是否仲裁员的任命会破坏当事人和程序间的平衡；分析其它规则中潜在的霸王条款。

5. 明确仲裁员任命和更换的方法，选择指定机构，避免在条款中限定太多对仲裁员的资质要求。

6. 考虑到当事人的需求及当事人之间相互关系的特殊情形，还有未来潜在争议的性质。

7. 选好适用法律和方便的仲裁地和语言。

8. 请勿限制仲裁争议适用的范围，将范围定义得宽泛些。必须使用扩大仲裁院管辖权范围的词句，如“由此合同引发或与之相关的任何争议”，会确保一站式裁决并有助于避免重复程序。

The arbitration agreement between parties may confer party autonomy to appoint the tribunal members; however, this may be limited by rules of chosen arbitral institution that parties agreed in the agreement. It means that drafting an arbitration clause should get a special attention of drafters, especially in multi-party arbitration; otherwise, it will be problematic for parties to rely on party autonomy principle and enforce the award.

当事人之间的仲裁协议可以赋予当事人指定仲裁员的权利；但是这个权利也会受到当事人协议所选仲裁机构仲裁规则的限制。这意味着起草仲裁条款应特别注意，特别是在多方仲裁案件中；否则，当事人依据意思自治原则执行裁决就会产生问题。

Arbitration institutions across the globe, including the ICC, are facing new increasing demands of parties and the international community such as transparency, predictability, efficiency and flexibility in resolving international disputes. Consequently, the ICC follows an institutional self-empowering trend in international commercial arbitration. There are rising concerns that the ICC has given itself the authority to override an arbitration agreement in case that it perceives an unequal treatment and unfairness. It is important how the ICC will interpret Article 12.9 “exceptional circumstances” provisions, which empower itself to override parties’ agreement on composition of the tribunal. Thus, new amendments to ICC Rules 2021 concerning restrictions on unequal treatment in the appointment of the arbitral tribunal will certainly become a topic of further discussions.

全球的仲裁机构，包括国际商会仲裁院，面临当事人和国际社会对国际争议日益增长的新要求，如透明度、可预测性和灵活性。因此，国际商会仲裁院在国际商事仲裁中顺应机构自我赋能的发展趋势。越来越多人担心，国际商会仲裁院在认为存在不平等待遇和不公平的情况下，赋予了自己推翻仲裁协议的权力。重要的是，国际商会将如何解释第12.9条 "特殊情况 "的规定，该条规定授权国际商会推翻当事人关于仲裁庭组成的协议。因此，对2021国际商会《规则》中关于限制组成仲裁庭时出现不平等待遇的新修订一定会成为进一步讨论的议题。

图片关键词

References

* We thank Amina Akperlinova, SJD Candidate from Zhejiang University, for her legal writing contribution in English.

[1] ICC Arbitration Rules 2017 and 2021 compared version, ICC official website: https://iccwbo.org/content/uploads/sites/3/2020/12/icc-2021-2017-arbitration-rules-compared-version.pdf (accessed on 13.01.2021).

[2] ICC unveils revised Rules of Arbitration, ICC official website: https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/icc-unveils-revised-rules-of-arbitration/ (accessed on 13.01.2021).

[3] Ibid.

[4] 2021 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 12 (9).

[5] Nigel Blackaby, Constantine Partasides et al, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2015), para. 1.100.

[6] George Vlavianos and Stavros Michalopoulos, The 2021 ICC Rules: Presentation and commentary, https://www.dlapiper.com/en/oman/insights/publications/2020/10/the-2021-icc-rules-presentation-commentary/ (accessed on 13.01.2021).

[7] Revised 2021 ICC Arbitration Rules: Key Changes, https://www.acerislaw.com/revised-2021-icc-arbitration-rules-key-changes/(accessed on 14.01.2021).

[8] BKMI Industrienlagen GmbH et Siemens AG v. Dutco, French Cour de Cassation, 7 January 1992.

[9] AQZ v ARA (2015) SGHC 49: how the court’s power to hear questions of jurisdiction de novo is exercised, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1ad6e647-7ca1-4c71-a662-37a598b4d3ae (accessed on 15.01.2021).

[10] Shanghai Intermediate People’s Court refuses to enforce SIAC arbitral award, https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=3DD55527-0EB5-44B4-AE45-18BB588BE8D2 (accessed on 15.01.2021).

[11] Ibid.

[12] SIAC Rules 2016, https://www.siac.org.sg/our-rules/rules/siac-rules-2016 (accessed on 15.01.2021).

[13] Lew, Julian D. M. / Mistelis, Loukas A. / Kröll, Stefan M., Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2003.

[14] New ICC rules 2021 and new ICC note to parties and arbitral tribunals come into force, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=da2dfac8-2c32-4a35-b0a7-16d46dc828c9 (accessed on 14.01.2021).

[15] UNCITRAL Model Law, https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/modellaw/commercial_arbitration#:~:text=adopted%20in%202006-,UNCITRAL%20Model%20Law%20on%20International%20Commercial%20Arbitration%20(1985)%2C%20with,needs%20of%20international%20commercial%20arbitration. (accessed on 16.01.2021).

[16] Standard ICC Arbitration Clauses, https://iccwbo.org/publication/standard-icc-arbitration-clauses-english-version/ (accessed on 15.01.2021).

国际商会2021仲裁规则： 若机构可以自行组成仲裁庭，当事人意思自治又从何谈起

国际商会2021仲裁规则：若机构可以自行组成仲裁庭，当事人意思自治又从何谈起