发布时间： Wed Mar 08 18:35:45 CST 2017 供稿人：杨睿
来源：《商法》（第8辑第2期）
亚洲基础设施投资银行（Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank,以下简称“亚投行”）于2015年正式设立，致力于支持亚太地区基础设施建设，建立区域多边开发机构。亚投行在开展投资、贸易等业务，履行相关合同时，发生争议的风险是无法避免的，因此应当足够重视争议解决条款的设置，以控制风险。
一、国际投资、贸易中争议解决所面临的难题
首先，各国的法律制度差异较大。亚投行重点业务所覆盖的国家间法律体系不尽相同，涉及大陆法系、英美法系、伊斯兰法系；亚投行重点业务领域，特别是基础设施、投资等领域，各国法律的差异更为明显。
其次，各国司法框架下的争议解决结果很难被他国承认和执行。在跨国性争端解决中，即便投资者在诉讼中获得对其有利的判决，强制执行也需要外国法院协助，这不仅受制于不同国家之间司法体系的差异性，也将取决于两国之间的涉外执行协助安排，因此判决是否能够得到执行存在极大不确定性。
最后，投资、贸易争议解决对专业性的要求越来越高。跨国投资、贸易争议，所涉及的法律关系复杂、专业性强，以及存在跨语种审理等诸多实践难题，给争议解决带来了极大的挑战。
仲裁以其对意思自治的尊重、程序灵活、专家断案、一裁终局、裁决具有域外执行力等特点而备受国际民商事主体青睐。基于能够更好地缓解上述争议解决中所面临困难的考虑，国际投资、贸易主体大多将仲裁作为争议解决的首选方式。
二、世界银行、亚洲开发银行在争议解决条款设置上的经验
世界银行、亚洲开发银行同样需要应对跨国投资争端解决所带来的各种法律难题，通过多年的发展，已经在争议解决条款的设置上形成了相对稳定的模式，为亚投行在争端解决问题上提供了经验。
一是，争议解决方式基本采用仲裁。从世界银行及亚洲开发银行公布的招标文件及合同范本中绝大部分都选择将仲裁作为争议解决方式。
二是，倾向于通过常设仲裁机构解决争议。在跨国投资、贸易争议项下，常设机构仲裁较临时仲裁具有更多的优势。首先，机构仲裁能够实现有序地程序管理。仲裁机构成熟完备的程序规则以及有经验的程序管理人员，使得仲裁的效率性和专业性得以保证。其次，机构仲裁的仲裁员选任制度更为合理。当事人可以从机构提供的仲裁员名册中选择仲裁员，同时也有权利根据现实要求从名册外选择仲裁员。再次，机构仲裁的裁决更易于执行。有声望的仲裁机构作出的裁决可能会因为仲裁机构的良好声誉和影响力更容易得到承认和执行。
三是，在仲裁机构的选择上，合同范本推荐了多个机构以供选择，且选择范围均为国际知名的仲裁机构。以《世界银行标准招标文件--货物采购合同》为例，其推荐选择的机构主要是国际商会仲裁院、伦敦国际仲裁院、斯德哥尔摩商会仲裁院等国际商事仲裁机构。上述仲裁机构均在国际上有较高知名度和声誉。
综上，世界银行、亚洲开发银行在对争议解决条款设置上，采用国际通用的仲裁方式，选择国际知名的仲裁机构。
三、对亚投行标准合同文本争议解决条款设置的建议
根据对世界银行、亚洲开发银行已有经验的分析，建议亚投行起草标准合同文本争议解决条款时，可以选择将中国仲裁机构作为推荐机构。首先，常设仲裁机构有系统的管理制度，有利于投资者对仲裁程序和结果有更好的预期。其次，作为提供范本的一方，亚投行可利用对仲裁机构的具有充分的选择权来维护自身利益。再次，中国仲裁机构经过不断发展，已经有较为成熟的机构能够在海外投资的背景下，满足解决投资争端需要。
在选择国内仲裁机构时，建议亚投行充分考虑以下因素。第一，仲裁机构是否有一套先进的、与国际接轨的仲裁规则。第二，是否拥有专业精通、道德高尚的仲裁员。第三，能否享受到周到的仲裁管理服务。第四，仲裁机构是否具有调解、评审等多元争议解决机制。第五，是否相对更经济。
综上，建议亚投行对国内的仲裁机构进行充分的考察，并与之磋商仲裁条款，以期更好地发挥起草合同的主导权，以利于将来在争议解决中更好地保证合法权益。
Dispute Resolution Provisionswithin AIIB Contracts
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) was created in 2015 with clear aims to support the building of infrastructure and establishment of multilateral developing agencies in the Asia-Pacific region. For stakeholders with the AIIB, the risks of entering into disputes in the course of investing, trading and fulfilling contracts are inevitable. This calls for ample attention when drafting dispute resolution provisions.
International investment and trade challenges. First, legal systems among AIIB member states vary drastically. The jurisdictions of AIIB member states run from civil law to common law and Islamic law. The difference are exacerbated in areas which the AIIB focuses on: infrastructure and investment.
Second, member states may not recognize and enforce foreign judicial awards. After undergoing a torturous litigation process in the investing state, a transnational investor may find the enforcement of the judicial award completely dependent upon the assistance of a foreign court, which further hinges on the differences between the judicial systems and the existence of a Foreign Assistance Arrangement between the two states. The enforceability of judicial awards is therefore subject to immense uncertainty.
Finally, a greater than ever level of expertise is expected in resolving investment and trade disputes. Cross-border investment and trade disputes are increasingly touching upon complex legal relationships and matters concerning specialized knowledge. Together with the prevalence of practical hindrances such as language barriers in trials, dispute resolution is becoming more challenging than ever.
Arbitration has established itself as the leading process for dispute resolution for the international civil and commercial community. Owing to its respect for party autonomy, flexibility of procedures, expertise of arbitrators, finality of awards and universal enforceability, arbitration is more likely to overcome the challenges brought by international investors and traders, and is preferred by most international investment and trade entities.
World Bank and Asian Development Bank. Challenges arising from international investment disputes are not unique to the AIIB, and are also encountered by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Yet, with years of experience, the World Bank and ADB have relatively stable models in respect of the dispute resolution provisions. For AIIB stakeholders, the issue is worthy of thorough examination.
The first observation is that arbitration is the dispute resolution mechanism by default. The vast majority of tender documents and model contracts published by the World Bank and ADB have indicated arbitration as their dispute resolution mechanism.
Another observation is that arbitration via a permanent arbitration institution is preferred. When it comes to resolving transnational investment and trade disputes, permanent arbitration institutions have a few advantages over the ad hoc. With well established procedural rules and experienced case managers, permanent arbitration institutions can ensure an orderly advancement of the arbitral process in an efficient and professional manner. They also provide a more reasonable selection of arbitrators, and parties can choose from an entire list of approved arbitrators, or when the circumstance requires, any appropriate arbitrators outside this list. The process aside, an arbitral award is more likely to be enforceable when it is delivered by a reputable, influential, permanent arbitration institute.
It is also observed that model contracts usually provide for a number of internationally renowned arbitration institutes for parties to choose from. As an example, the “World Bank Model Bidding Document for Procurement of Goods” has recommended a list of arbitration institutions for dispute resolution that includes the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration, the London Court of International Arbitration, and the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. They are all reputable.The World Bank and ADB have adopted arbitration – an internationally preferred method – administered by internationally renowned arbitration institutions, to resolve disputes.
AIIB model contract clause. Based on the experience of the World Bank and ADB, it is suggested that the AIIB would list Chinese arbitration institutions as recommended dispute resolving agencies in the standard dispute resolution clause in the AIIB model contract. The systematic management systems of Chinese arbitration institutions allows investors to forecast more precisely the arbitral process and the arbitration result. The abundance of arbitration institutions provided in the model contract will allow the AIIB – the drafter of the model contract – to better defend its own interest. In addition, with the rapid development of Chinese arbitration, a number of top-notch arbitration institutions have emerged in China. They can meet the respective standards for handling international investment disputes effortlessly.
While selecting Chinese arbitration institutions, the AIIB should consider the following: (1) whether the arbitration institution has a set of advanced arbitration rules that are in line with international standards; (2) are arbitrators professional and ethical;(3) whether the respective arbitration institution can provide an up-to-standard arbitration management service; (4) whether the arbitration institution has incorporated mediation and negotiation into their dispute resolution mechanism; and (5) how much does the arbitration service cost.
The importance of the AIIB researching Chinese arbitration institutions is obvious. By consulting with the prospective institutions about arbitration clauses, not only can the AIIB better protect its own legitimate rights and interests, but it can bolster its leading role in the drafting of contracts as the key financial institute in the region.
