Global Arbitration Review | 守护人、守门人、引路人：仲裁机构的作用

01

Spain was just hit with horrific floods. A ferocious cyclone struck the Philippines and other Asian countries. Salomon started by discussing the loss caused by recent extreme weather events: a ferocious cyclone in the Philippines; Hurricane Helene in Florida and North California; Hurricane Milton, which struck just as Florida was recovering from Helene; and the horrific floods in Valencia, Spain.

萨洛蒙首先谈到了最近极端天气事件造成的损失： 菲律宾的一场猛烈的飓风； 佛罗里达州和加利福尼亚北部的飓风海伦； 飓风米尔顿再次袭击了正从飓风海伦的损失中恢复的佛罗里达州； 以及西班牙巴伦西亚的可怕洪灾。

In the wake of these disasters, some of the survivors have been surprised to find that damage caused by flooding and extreme are not covered by standard insurance policies, she said.

她说，在这些灾难之后，一些幸存者惊讶地发现，洪水和极端天气造成的损失并不在标准保险政策的覆盖范围之内。

Salomon continued that an effective dispute resolution clause is like an insurance policy: something we hope we’ll never need and too often haven’t got in place when disaster strikes. “A company might think they have an avenue of recourse, only to find that they don’t, or believe a process is fair and impartial, only to find out that it isn’t”.

萨洛蒙继续说道，有效的争议解决条款就像一份保险单：是我们希望永远不需要，但在灾难发生时又往往没有准备的东西。“公司可能会认为自己有求助渠道，结果却发现没有，或者认为自己有公平公正的程序，结果却发现没有。”

When parties make arrangements for dispute resolution, it’s often through a “midnight” or “11th hour clause” negotiated as an “afterthought” when they are “tired and emotional”, she said. They are no better placed to consider what should happen if the relationship doesn’t work out than someone presented with a pre-nuptial agreement during a marriage proposal.

她说，在当事人就争议解决事宜进行安排时，往往会通过“午夜条款”或“第 11 小时条款”达成协议，而这些条款往往是在“双方都疲惫不堪、情绪激动”的情况下“临时添加”的。他们在考虑如果这段关系破裂后应该发生什么的问题上，还不如在求婚时被要求签署婚前协议的人更有利。

In these circumstances, she highlighted the importance of choosing an arbitral institution that can be trusted, alongside a competent arbitrator.

在这种情况下，她强调了选择可信赖的仲裁机构和有能力的仲裁员的重要性。

Salomon spoke of the ways disputes have been resolved through history, from “violent and all-out war” to “legally sanctioned” duelling and random coin tosses.

萨洛蒙谈到了历史上解决争端的方式，从 “暴力和全面战争 ”到 “法律认可的”决斗和随机掷硬币。

For a dispute over a commercial contract, she said there are only two choices of dispute resolution: national courts or the “private justice” of arbitration. For international disputes, parties choose arbitration because they want a neutral process that does not take place in the courts of either country; decision makers with specialised knowledge; flexibility to tailor the process; confidentiality; and, above all, an enforceable award.

她说，对于商业合同纠纷，只有两种解决纠纷的选择：国家法院或仲裁的 “私人司法。对于国际争端，各方之所以选择仲裁，是因为他们想要一个不在两国法院进行的中立程序、拥有专业知识的决策者、量身定制程序的灵活性、保密性、以及最重要的，一个可执行的裁决。

After opting for arbitration, parties must choose between ad hoc or institutional arbitration, she said. The first has been around “since arbitration itself” and is the norm in places like Australia, Canada and India, with growing acceptance in China. Institutional arbitration is part of the modern history of arbitration, a key development in which was the creation of the ICC Court in 1923.

如果选择仲裁，当事人就需要在临时仲裁和机构仲裁之间做出选择。前者“自仲裁诞生”以来就一直存在，是澳大利亚、加拿大和印度等地的常态，在中国也日益被接受。机构仲裁是现代仲裁史的一部分，其中一个重要的发展就是 1923 年国际商会仲裁院的成立。

In ad hoc arbitration, only the tribunals and parties to the dispute are participants and are responsible for organising the process, Salomon said. Institutional arbitration has three defining features: proceedings conducted under pre-formulated rules; the participation of the body that has issued these rules; and the administration of the arbitration by that body as a contractual duty arising from a service contract with the parties.

萨洛蒙说，在临时仲裁中，只有仲裁庭和争议各方是参与者，并负责组织仲裁程序。而机构仲裁有三个显著特点：根据预先制定的规则进行仲裁；发布这些规则的机构参与仲裁；该机构基于与当事人签订的服务合同，作为合同义务方对仲裁进行管理。

She stressed, however, that arbitral institutions such as the London Maritime Arbitrators Association, the Federation of Oils, Seeds and Fat Associations, the UN Compensation Commission and the Iran-US Claims Tribunal all operate very differently, some of them on a non-permanent basis in the wake of specific events. Arbitrations conducted under their auspices may differ significantly, with far-reaching implications for the integrity of the process and enforceability of the award.

然而，她强调，伦敦海事仲裁员协会（LMAA）、油料种子和油脂协会联合会(FOSFA)、联合国赔偿委员会和伊朗-美国索赔法庭等仲裁机构的运作方式都非常不同，其中一些是非永久性的，只在特定事件发生后运作。不同机构主持的仲裁可能大相径庭，尤其在仲裁程序的完整性和裁决的可执行性的方面可能产生深远影响。

Later in her lecture, Solomon considered the expense of ad hoc and institutional arbitration, seeking to “debunk a pervasive myth” that the latter is more pricey because the institution has to be paid as handsomely as the arbitrators.

在讲座的后半段，萨洛蒙探讨了临时仲裁和机构仲裁的费用问题，想要“打破一个无处不在的误解”，即后者的费用更高，因为仲裁机构需要和仲裁员的报酬一样丰厚。

In fact, a study of ICC arbitration shows that institutional fees typically account for less than 2% of the costs of arbitration, while lawyers account for about 85% and arbitrators for 14%, she said.

她说，事实上，对ICC仲裁的研究表明，机构费用通常只占仲裁成本的不到2%，而律师费用约占85%，仲裁员费用占14%。

She argued that it is wrong to assume that ad hoc arbitration will be cheaper, as the lack of institutional support can lead to expensive delays. Fee negotiations with the tribunal to determine how much the individual arbitrators should be paid can also be “awkward and unfair” for the parties.

她认为觉得临时仲裁会更便宜的想法是错误的，因为缺乏机构支持会导致更高昂的延误。与仲裁庭进行费用谈判，以确定仲裁员个人应得的报酬，这对当事方来说也可能是“尴尬和不公平的”。

In India, she said, ad hoc arbitrators often charge on a per hearing basis, even if the hearing only lasts a couple of hours, and have no incentive to operate efficiently.

她说，在印度，临时仲裁员往往按听证次数收费，即使听证只持续几个小时，他们也没有动力去高效运作。

Institutional arbitration with an ad valorem fee structure offers “more certainty and predictability” as to the costs of arbitration and no risk of an arbitrator “padding their hours” to get more fees, she said.

她说，采用从价收费结构的机构仲裁在仲裁费用方面具有“更高的确定性和可预见性”，而且不会出现仲裁员为获得更多费用而“增加工作时间”的风险。

While the term “guardian” conjures up the Marvel movie Guardians of the Galaxy, institutional arbitration cannot save the world, conceded Salomon. It can, however, prevent the arbitral process from being “derailed”.

萨洛蒙说，虽然“守护人”一词让人联想到漫威电影《银河护卫队》，然而机构仲裁并不能拯救世界。不过，它可以防止仲裁程序“脱轨”。

In ad hoc arbitration, which is dependent on cooperation between parties and their lawyers and has no book of rules, she said it is easy for a party to delay proceedings by simply refusing to appoint an arbitrator. Even when the respondent cooperates with the arbitral process, there may be genuine procedural disagreements that require resolution by the tribunal, if already in existence, or by the courts. This is time consuming and costly, especially where the contractual provisions in the ad hoc arbitration agreement are ambiguous.

萨洛蒙说，临时仲裁依赖于当事各方及律师之间的合作，没有任何规则，当事一方很容易通过拒绝指定仲裁员来拖延仲裁程序。即使被申请人配合仲裁程序，也可能存在实质上的程序分歧，需要由仲裁庭（如果已经存在）或法院来解决。这既费时又费钱，特别是在临时仲裁协议的合同条款含糊不清的情况下。

In sharp contrast, she said the tried and tested rules of arbitral institutions offer a procedural “safety net”. The ICC Court’s first rules were enacted in 1923 and have been amended over a century, with each revision seeking to bring more clarity based on the institution’s experience of managing thousands of cases.

与此形成鲜明对比的是，久经考验的仲裁机构规则提供了一个程序“安全网”。国际商会仲裁院的第一部规则于1923年颁布，经过一个多世纪的改进，每次修订都是根据该机构管理成千上万案件的经验，力求更加明确。

Salomon said submitting a dispute to an arbitral institution avoids lengthy court fighting if there is a lack of clarity over whether a dispute can be arbitrated or the form the process should take; if the parties cannot agree an arbitrator; or if one side refuses to appoint.

萨洛蒙说，如果当事双方对争议是否可以仲裁有分歧，或对仲裁程序应采取的形式不明确，双方若不能就仲裁员达成一致，或者一方拒绝指定仲裁员，将争议提交仲裁机构可以避免漫长的法庭争斗。

Institutions can also step in if the parties have failed to include key information in their dispute resolution clause, such as the number of arbitrators or place or language of the arbitration, without having agreed on a mechanism to address these questions.

如果当事人未能在争议解决条款中纳入关键信息，如仲裁员人数、仲裁地点或语言，而又未商定解决这些问题的机制，仲裁机构也可以介入。

In ad hoc arbitration, such problems can take years to solve, she said. In institutional arbitration, they take just days.

她说，在临时仲裁中，此类问题可能需要数年才能解决。 而在机构仲裁中，这些问题只需要几天时间。

Despite the risks surrounding arbitrator appointment, in ICC arbitration, 75% of arbitrators are nominated by a party or jointly by the parties or co-arbitrators, Salomon said. During the confirmation process that follows, they have to provide information to the ICC Court about their availability to hear the dispute.

萨洛蒙说，尽管仲裁员任命存在风险，但在ICC仲裁中，75%的仲裁员由一方当事人提名，或由当事人或共同仲裁员联合提名。在随后的确认过程中，仲裁员必须向国际商会仲裁院提供他们的信息，说明他们是否可以审理争议。

She considered how interventionist the ICC or other arbitral institutions should be in this scenario and whether they should refuse to confirm a party-nominated arbitrator who appears to have an excessive number of cases or a full calendar.

她考虑了ICC或其他仲裁机构在这种情况下应采取何种干预措施，以及它们是否应拒绝当事人提名的某位案件数量过多或日程表排得过满的仲裁员。

“What if the arbitrator isn’t nominated by only one party but jointly nominated by the parties as a sole arbitrator or president of the tribunal?” she asked. “Should an arbitral institution override party choice in that situation?”

她问道：“如果仲裁员不是由一方当事人提名，而是由各方当事人共同提名为独任仲裁员或仲裁庭首席仲裁员呢？”在这种情况下，仲裁机构是否应该优先于当事人的选择？

The head of litigation at one of the world’s largest energy firms had told her “absolutely not”, she revealed. The party or parties may have nominated an arbitrator who is extremely busy on purpose and would not want the decision overridden.

她透露，全球最大的能源公司之一的诉讼负责人表示“绝对不行”。一方或双方可能专门提名了一位仲裁员，并且不想被推翻，即便这位仲裁员的业务很繁忙。

She also asked whether the ICC Court should be able to override the choice of a party or both parties if they knew the arbitrator selected was a poor performer and regularly delivered inadequate or late awards.

她还询问，如果一方当事人或双方当事人知道所选仲裁员表现不佳，经常做出不适当或延迟的裁决，国际商会仲裁院是否应能够推翻他们的选择。

Again, she said the response from in house counsel was “absolutely not”. “The choice made by a party is valued and nobody wants the institution to quash that decision – even if we know better. Clearly, the role of the guardian protector has its limits”.