克劳迪娅 · 萨洛蒙 | GAR Live主旨演讲——如何在国际仲裁中获胜：七加一大关键策略转述

2025年2月24日， ICC主席克劳迪娅·萨洛蒙 于GAR Live Riyadh顺利发表主旨演讲—— 如何在国际仲裁中获胜：七加一大关键策略 ，提出了以下7+1点建议：

1. Know your theme 确定核心明主题

2. Know the principles of contract interpretation 建立框架析合同

3. Know your proofs 举证责任定目标

4. Diagram the case 案件结构分格局

5. Focus on the issues in dispute 聚焦争议夺胜机

6. Do not speak as you write 照本宣科误论辩

7. Do not use visual aids if they are not needed 冗杂展示落俗手

8. Read the rules 基础扎牢方偶得

First, she said counsel must know what the case is about , saying that her husband – a poet – would call this a “theme”. For example, describing a case as a breach of contract case was not specific enough, and that counsel should talk about what makes the case interesting or unique – perhaps by explaining the case in one sentence that tees up the basis of their argument.

She recommended practising describing a favourite movie or book in one sentence , to find a way to engage a listener.

Salomon noted that analysing the framework of contract interpretation was a key part of making a case to a tribunal, but one she had seen parties “skip over” many times before scrambling to fit their case into the principles at the end of proceedings. She said counsel should always start from the principles to structure their arguments as “coherently and persuasively as possible” .

For example, Salomon said that under New York law, arbitrators have to determine whether the contract is ambiguous or unambiguous. Where it is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be considered – otherwise it cannot be included. She said she often sees lawyers forget this framework, and that these issues have to be decided before the tribunal can assess the weight of the evidence.

Third, Salomon said counsel must know which party has the burden of proof, and what the standard is – which is dependent upon the jurisdiction.

She said that knowing which party has the burden is not enough , because the standard concerns the degree of conviction the arbitrator must have to be satisfied the burden has been met.

Salomon pointed to a current “hot button issue” of the appropriate standard of proof for allegations of corruption in international arbitration, which the ICC’s corruption taskforce is considering.

Salomon’s next recommendation was to create a chart with all the elements of a client’s claims and defences , including the supporting evidence. She said this “diagramming” of a case should include the specific witness testimony, expert testimony and exhibits supporting those testimonies.

In this way, she said counsel could structure arguments in a coherent way and determine whether any evidence in support of the claim was missing – helping them to submit additional evidence or drop that claim and focus on the best arguments.

Salomon said the ICC Court frequently sees parties setting out all of the elements of claims for interest but not how they satisfy each element: such as the applicable interest rate, or whether it should be simple or compound. Without proper substantiation, she said a tribunal would “easily reject” a claim .

Salomon said it was “crucial to remember that a well-drafted list of issues in dispute helps ensure you are laser-focused” on the important elements to win the case. She added that this could avoid spending too much time and money on documents, experts or arguments that could turn out to be irrelevant for resolving the dispute.

Recently, she said she had sat as arbitrator and heard a counsel talking about steps taken by the other side, which seemed to Salomon to be irrelevant. She asked the counsel whether the argument was addressing the issues in dispute or merely adding colour – and was told it was the latter.

A poorly-drafted list of issues can lead to a poorly-drafted award , she warned.

Too often, Salomon said parties’ initial submissions were too general and that many lawyers just skip drafting a list of issues. She suggested they drill down into the details of the case and describe the divergences in the parties’ opinions of points of facts and law, and then consider whether these were “germane to the case”. In this way, with refinement during the proceedings, a lawyer could increase the likelihood of an arbitrator drafting the award in their favour .

Salomon’s sixth point was that counsel should use “shorter, punchier sentences” and “words and phrases that are direct and clear” when engaged in oral advocacy , and that “beautiful sentences on paper don’t always flow so smoothly when speaking”.

She noted the use of alliteration on paper , which can translate to stumbling on spoken sentences, recommending Michael Chad Hoeppner’s book Don’t Say Um. The book sets out a series of physical exercises to improve spoken communication skills.

While slides, photos or maps can help the tribunal see what counsel is describing, Salomon said “visual aids should aid”. She recalled a counsel describing a client’s ownership structure with a slide featuring flags pointing to the name of the client’s company. She said that the slide was distracting, because the flags did not matter to the case and the ownership structure was not even at issue.

When documentary evidence is summarised on slides, counsel should make sure the type is big enough to be easily read , she added.

Salomon also said that reading slide after slide was “boring and ultimately not very effective ”. The goal should be for the tribunal to listen to and understand the arguments.

Finally – and as a “ bonus tip ” - Salomon urged counsel to read the applicable arbitration rules . It was “odd to have to reiterate this” because they were so fundamental, but that she said she frequently saw counsel make mistakes because they have not read the rules.

While noting a degree of harmonisation among various arbitration rules, she said there are some important differences, and without knowing them a lawyer may miss a deadline or an opportunity to raise procedural arguments .

We are the world business organization