岁末回音：哪些问题值得进行法律研究?
Santa Claus Heard: What Questions Deserve Legal Research?
岁末回音：哪些问题值得进行法律研究?
December 31, 2021
By Dr. Jerry Zhang
Three Big Questions
三个主要问题：
什么是法律研究？
Beyond common sense, there is a limit that drives people’s conduct to certain legal consequences. Mr. Edward Chow, a senior barrister from Hong Kong SAR, who wrote the chapter on Legal Research in the Foreign Related Laws and Practice Book, explained in some detail what is legal research, i.e. understanding the purpose of the legal research, knowing what problems need to be solved before the research and the process of collecting and analyzing the facts, spotting the issues and researching the law.
除了常识，法律后果也会引导人们的行为。来自中国香港特别行政区（“中国香港”）的周立新大律师在《涉外法律与实务》中撰写了关于法律研究的一章，他详细地介绍了什么是法律研究，包括了解法律研究的目的，在开始研究前需要明确解决什么问题，以及收集和分析事实、发现问题和研究法律的过程。
The first step is to collect all facts by way of the “expand method”. Then “distill the facts”, to summarize the core facts in the simplest language. The weight of evidence is contractual provisions; contemporaneous documents; contemporaneous records; circumstantial evidence and inherent probability; experts evidence; witness testimony. The legal research should first consider the governing law, then what constitutes the law in that jurisdiction, and should follow the order from primary to subordinate importance. Finally, he introduced a useful link for Hong Kong precedents: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju-/judgment.jsp and some commercial platforms such as Westlaw, Wolters Kluwer.
法律研究的第一步是通过“拓展法”收集所有事实；第二步是通过“提炼事实”，用最简单的语言概括出核心事实。由高到低的证据效力排序是：合同规定、同期文件、同期记录、间接证据和内在可能性、专家证据和证人证言。法律研究应首先考虑管辖地的法律，然后是该地的法律构成，并应遵循从主要到次要的顺序。最后，他介绍了查询中国香港判例的链接：https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju-/judgment.jsp 和一些商业平台，如Westlaw和Wolters Kluwer。
In studying the Supreme People’s Court’s Measures on the Implementation of the Uniform Application of Laws in China, Mr. Zhang Yulin, director of Linli Law Office, highlighted the traditional Chinese philosophy, 和而不同, 同则不继, and 求同存异 that supports the flooring theories of uniform application of the law. In his view, the SPC’s Measures guides the judiciary in researching into similar cases in the past to keep consistency of the application of law in the grand theory of building the rule of law in the country.
在学习《最高人民法院统一法律适用工作实施办法》（“《实施办法》”）时，北京霖理律师事务所主任张玉林先生首先强调了中国传统的哲学思想，包括和而不同、同则不继、求同存异，并支持统一法律适用的基础理论。他认为，最高人民法院的《实施办法》引导司法机关对过去的类案进行研究，有利于在国家法治建设中保持法律的统一司法适用。
Similar cases in nine circumstances under the SPC’s Measures require legal research. They include cases where submissions need to be made to the Adjudication Committee, cases that lack adjudication rules, and cases that are major, difficult, complex and sensitive, etc. Guiding cases of the SPC are to be researched in the process, and to be cited in the reasoning of the judgments.
最高人民法院《实施办法》规定，在九种情况下需要对类案进行法律研究。其中包括需要向审判委员会提交的案件，缺乏裁判依据的案件，以及重大、疑难、复杂和敏感的案件等。这个过程中，应当适用最高人民法院的指导性案例，并在判决书的说理部分加以引用。
RCEP, a multilateral agreement in Asia, will become effective from January 1, 2022. According to Ms. Liu Leyang, Hubei Sub-Commission of CIETAC, the Agreement has provided the following dispute resolution mechanisms in comparison with WTO rules:
亚洲区域的多边协议RCEP将于2022年1月1日生效。据中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会湖北分会的刘乐阳女士介绍，与WTO规则相比，该协定提供了以下争端解决机制。
The RCEP has set up a chapter specifically on the dispute settlement mechanism. Chapter 19 "Dispute Settlement" provides for the procedures for dispute settlement.
1. Mechanisms for consultation, good offices, reconciliation or mediation;
2. Review of facts and liability by the Panel;
3. Effectiveness and implementation of the Panel's reports;
4. Compensation and suspension of concessions or other obligations
5. Special and differential treatment of least developed country Parties
RCEP专章规定了争端解决机制。第十九章“争端解决”详细规定了争端解决的程序。
1.磋商、斡旋、调解或调停机制；
2.专家组对事实和责任的审查；
3.专家组报告的效力与执行；
4.赔偿和中止减让或其他义务；以及
5.最不发达缔约方的特殊和有差别的待遇。
Mediation appears to be a preferred method of dispute resolution in Asia, as reflected from the provisions of RCEP. This will further promote China’s practice of mediation combined with the arbitration, and enhance the practice of party autonomy and efficiency of dispute resolution in cross border matters in China. RCEP will likely promote better collaboration between the countries and regions in Asia. In particular, RCEP may promote the consummation of more bilateral agreements between the parties within the RCEP region.
从RCEP的规定中可以看出，调解是亚洲首选的争端解决方式。这将进一步推动中国的调解与仲裁相结合的实践，并提高中国跨境事务中当事人自治的实践和解决争端的效率。RCEP将会促进亚洲国家和地区之间的合作。特别是RCEP可能促进区域内各方达成更多的双边协议。
In this regard, Mr. Jiang Weipeng, who graduated from King’s College London master program, explained the current practice of judicial assistance between China and Singapore. Although there is no bilateral treaty yet, there are plenty of positive legal practices and interactions between judicial divisions of these two states. Judgements made in one state regarding commercial money disputes as well as company and insolvency law are recognized and enforced in another state.
在这方面，硕士毕业于英国伦敦国王学院的蒋伟鹏先生介绍了目前中国和新加坡之间的司法协助实践。虽然目前还没有双边条约，但这两个国家的司法部门之间有很多积极的法律实践和互动。在一国做出的有关商业资金纠纷以及公司法和破产法的判决可以在另一国得到承认和执行。
Based on the current practice of judicial assistance and collaboration between countries such as China and Singapore, a question was put forward whether China and Singapore can have a bilateral agreement on the recognition and enforcement of courts judgments in the near future. The interaction between common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions in the region will for sure help build the level playing field of the countries under the RCEP framework.
基于目前中国和新加坡等国家之间的司法协助和合作实践，有人提出中国和新加坡是否能在不久的将来就法院判决的承认和执行达成双边协议。本地区普通法系和大陆法系的互动，无疑有助于建立RCEP框架下各国的公平竞争环境。
Along with these three big questions, a number of other interesting views and perspectives were presented and shared during the workshop.
除了以上三个主要问题，研讨会期间，与会嘉宾还提出并分享了一些其他的观点和看法。
From Ms. Ma Chen, who opened the workshop on behalf of CAAL, CAAL started the journal Commercial Arbitration and Mediation in May 2020. This is the first national specialized journal in the field of dispute resolution. Writers are called to publish your articles in the Journal. Both theoretical and practical papers are welcomed. Speakers who have practiced writing before the speech during the workshop may well take the initiative to publish your articles in the Journal.
马琛女士代表中国仲裁法学研究会宣布研讨会开幕。中国仲裁法学研究会于2020年5月开始发行《商事仲裁与调解》期刊。这是国内第一份争议解决领域的专业期刊。她欢迎各位作者在该期刊上发表文章。理论和实务文章均可。研讨会上的发言者，也可以尝试在该期刊上发表文章。
She thinks there are two approaches which are bringing good foreign experience in and going out with good Chinese experience. Comparative law study is widely used in Chinses arbitration and the Chinese system is built based on the “Bring In” experience. Now it’s time to “Go Out”. Foreign examples need to be integrated with Chinses conditions and we need to show our credibility and friendly environment to the international world. Arbitration organizations also need to promote their reputation and neutrality.
她认为现在有两条路径，即把国外的好经验引进来和让中国的好经验走出去。比较法研究在中国的仲裁中被广泛使用，中国的制度是建立在“引进来”的基础上的。现在是“走出去”的时候了。外国案例需要与中国实际情况相结合，我们需要向国际社会展示我国的信誉和友好的环境。仲裁机构也需要提高他们的声誉和中立性。
From Dr. David Fu, assistant professor of IIL of CASS, a well-researched article on the semiotics of international arbitration was discussed. He introduced the arbitration from an interdisciplinary view, the Symbology. The traditional theatricalized judicial and arbitral activities face serious challenges in the modern days, particularly in the present pandemic period where online activities are increasingly used instead of physical hearings.
中国社会科学院国际法研究所助理研究员傅攀峰博士对法律符号学视野下的商事仲裁进行了深入讨论。他从跨学科，即符号学的角度研究了国际商事仲裁。传统的剧场化司法和仲裁活动在现代面临着严重的挑战，特别是在目前的疫情时期，越来越多地使用在线活动来代替线下听证。
A more informal conduct of arbitral hearings emerges as a trend in perspective, a de-theatrical feature is well noted in the global context. Compared with traditional theatrical judicial activities, de-theatrical arbitration has the following advantages: avoiding high costs for theatrical judicial activities; providing external incentives for state justice and alternative options for parties as well as highlighting the neutrality of commercial arbitration in the international field.
更加非正式的仲裁审理方式出现在人们的视野中，在全球范围内，越来越多人注意到了这一趋势。与传统的剧场化司法相比，非戏剧性的仲裁有以下优点：避免剧场化司法的高昂成本、外部鞭策剧场化的司法、凸显仲裁中立性。
From Dr. Chen Jian, who brought to the workshop a detailed discussion of the concept of transparency in arbitration, the concept of confidentiality of arbitration, and how these concepts co-exist in practice. The procedures of arbitration are open to the public at the website of many institutions of arbitration such as CIETAC, BAC and SCIA and HKIAC etc. The parties may avail themselves of these procedures to resolve their disputes. The business information and how the disputes are settled are matters within the private hands of the parties, so such information is not left open to the public. The transparency requirements in investment arbitration are higher as investment arbitration involves more degrees and higher levels of public interests.
陈建博士在研讨会上详细讨论了仲裁的透明性和保密性概念，以及这些概念如何共存的实践。仲裁的程序在许多仲裁机构的网站上都是公开的，如中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会、北京仲裁委员会、新加坡国际仲裁中心和香港国际仲裁中心等。当事人可以利用这些程序来解决他们的纠纷。商业信息和争端解决方式属于当事人的隐私，因此这些信息不会对公众开放。投资仲裁的透明度要求更高，因为投资仲裁涉及到更多程度和更高层次的公共利益。
Dr. Chen holds a compromised or harmonized position on this question. He thinks that confidential information should keep secret while general information excluding sensitive information should be disclosed in case reports. The names of arbitrators should be disclosed unless parties refuse to do so.
在这个问题上，陈建博士持折中融合的立场。他认为，机密信息应该保密，而一般信息（不包括敏感信息）应该在案件报告中披露。仲裁员的名字应该被公开，除非当事人拒绝这样做。
From Ms. Jade Wang, a MTI Graduate Student of UIBE, who compared the data of court cases from China’s Supreme People’s Court Yearbooks with US Federal Courts, there was an interesting brief that a mere number of cases comparison does not reflect the full picture and further research needs to be done to compare other aspects of the ADR systems. In 2020, Courts in China totally concluded over 30,000,000 cases which are tripled since 2008. The Supreme People’s Court itself concluded 35,000 cases compared with 20,000 in 2016. In the past 5 years, the US federal Courts concluded 1,150,000 cases annually and the Supreme Court of the US concluded about 6000 cases each year.
对外经济贸易大学的硕士研究生王文倩女士将中国最高人民法院年度工作报告中的法院案件数据与美国联邦法院的数据进行了比较。她提出了一个观点，即单纯的案件数量比较并不能反映全貌，需要进一步研究比较替代性争议解决系统的其他措施。2020年，中国的法院共审结了超过3000万起案件，比2008年增加了两倍。最高人民法院本身就审结了35,000个案件，而2016年是20,000个。在过去5年中，美国联邦法院每年审结115万件案件，美国最高法院每年审结约6000件案件。
Regarding the number of lawyers in the two states, the number in China appears to be only less than half of the number of lawyers in the US (about 1.3 million).
从律师人数来看，中国律师人数不到美国律师人数（约130万）的一半。
From Ms. Hailin Cui of Baker McKenzie Fenxun, the topic of the US Federal Arbitration Act and its differences with UNCITRAL Model Law is presented. The US does not adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law at the federal level. Eight states have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law at the state level, including California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon and Texas. At the federal level, the key legislation is the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The FAA mainly focuses on the enforcement of arbitration agreements and arbitral awards, while the UNCITRAL Model Law also provide guidance for the arbitration proceeding. Other differences include the default number of arbitrators; the competence-competence principle; the power of tribunal regarding interim measures; the ground for setting aside awards; and measures after awards are set aside. Regarding the question of which law will prevail in case of discrepancies, it depends on whether the Model Law is enacted in the state. It is a complex question, but in general, if there is conflict, the FAA will prevail.
来自奋迅·贝克麦坚时律师事务所的崔海琳女士介绍了《美国联邦仲裁法》（FAA）及其与《联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》（以下简称“《示范法》”）（UNCITRAL Model Law）的区别。美国在联邦层面并未采用《示范法》，而在州的层面，共八个州采用了《示范法》，包括加利福尼亚州、康涅狄格州、佛罗里达州、佐治亚州、伊利诺伊州、路易斯安那州、俄勒冈州和德克萨斯州。在联邦层面，《美国联邦仲裁法》是最为重要的立法，该法主要关注仲裁协议和仲裁裁决的执行，而《示范法》也为仲裁程序提供指导。《美国联邦仲裁法》和《示范法》还存在其他差异，如默认的仲裁员人数、仲裁庭的自裁管辖权原则、仲裁庭采取临时措施的权力、撤销裁决的理由，以及裁决被撤销后的措施。在规定存在差异时，应以哪部法律为准，这取决于《示范法》是否在所在州适用。这是一个复杂的问题。一般而言，如果发生冲突，主要以《美国联邦仲裁法》为准。
From Mr. Andrew Rigden Green, partner of Stephenson Harwood Hong Kong, enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Hong Kong SAR and England and Wales are distinguished. Hong Kong and England have a more or less identical way to treat arbitration and awards enforcement. Hong Kong and England shared the common law jurisdiction background and Hong Kong applied English law wholesale without much modification in commercial affairs for a long time until the Handover in 1997. Although there is development later, Hong Kong is still strongly influenced by the decisions made in the UK and across the common law area.
香港罗夏信律师事务所合伙人林瑞杰先生指出，外国仲裁裁决在中国香港和英格兰及威尔士的执行是有区别的。中国香港和英国对待仲裁和裁决执行的方式大致相同。两地有共同的普通法背景。在1997年回归之前的很长一段时间里，中国香港在商事领域主要适用英国法，且未对英国法有太多修改。尽管后来有新的发展，但中国香港的商事法律体系仍然深受英国和其他普通法法域的裁决的影响。
However, there are some differences. In the UK, there is the Arbitration Act 1996 and the UK did not incorporate the Model Law, but Hong Kong applied the Model Law with some modifications. The judicial cooperation between the mainland central government and Hong Kong SAR provides HK with a unique advantage that England may not have. Also, in recent years, arbitration organizations in Hong Kong developed rapidly, bringing changes and new possibilities for arbitration.
但是，中国香港和英国在仲裁和裁决执行上也有一些区别。英国适用《1996年仲裁法》，且并未纳入《示范法》；但中国香港在细微修改的基础上基本适用《示范法》。中国内地和中国香港之间的司法合作也为中国香港提供了英国所不具备的独特优势。此外，近年来，香港的仲裁机构发展迅速，为国际仲裁带来了变化和新的可能性。
From the keynote concluding session, Ms. Fu Ying, lawyer and partner of Jingsh Canada, spoke at the end of the workshop. She highlighted a number of interesting legal development, such as online hearings, digitalization of arbitration, AI involvement in the dispute resolution processes.
在闭幕发言环节，京师蒙特利尔办公室合伙人付英女士提及了一些有趣的法律发展，如在线听证、仲裁的数字化趋势、人工智能参与争端解决程序等等。
Faced with a new law from the US against products involving Xinjiang, Ms. Fu voiced rational views from the local perspective to discard ideological mentality from US politicians, and open up minds to embrace the Chinese mentality of seeking great commonalities (while reserving small differences). The final note was presented to strive for modern governance of state affairs, by way of making arbitration its headway.
面对美国针对我国新疆出台的新国内立法，付律师从本土角度分享了理性的观点，希望美国政客摒弃意识形态思维，敞开心扉，接受中国人求大同、存小异的思维方式。最后，她提出要通过仲裁的方式，努力实现国家事务的现代化管理。
With special thanks to CAAL, CIETAC, and Hubei Sub-Commission, and many friendly lawyers and law firms, Linli Law closes the workshop and highlighted a short scheduling alert for the next chapter in the second half of January 2022 on client engagement and professional conduct as we read the next chapter of the book Foreign Related Laws and Practice.
特别感谢中国仲裁法学研究会、中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会湖北分会，以及各位关注本次研讨会的律师同仁和律师事务所。本次研讨会圆满落下帷幕。我们提请各位关注拟于2022年1月下旬举办的关于《涉外法律实务教程》第四章客户委托和律师职业操守的研讨会。
