发布时间： Wed Mar 14 15:51:12 CST 2018
中国最高人民法院（最高法）最近发布了有关仲裁的两项新的司法解释（新规）。这是 2006 年迄今，最高法发布的有关仲裁的最重要的司法解释，填补了现已颁布 20 多年的中国仲裁法中的某些空白。
新规侧重中国法院在对仲裁案件进行司法审查时经常遇到的问题，填补了《仲裁法》及相关法律中的若干重大空白。以下是新规中的一些关键的改动。
仲裁协议的适用法律
新规明确规定，如当事人拟选择特定法律来判定涉外仲裁协议效力，应当作出明确的意思表示。当事人约定了基础合同所适用的法律，并不必然意味着该法律将适用于判定仲裁协议效力。
如当事人未选择涉外仲裁协议的适用法律，法院将选择仲裁机构所在地的法律或仲裁地的法律。新规进一步阐明，如果对适用法律的选择会导致不同结果，法院将采用确认仲裁协议有效的法律。
区分仲裁协议的适用法与基础合同的适用法，这与不少其它司法辖区的做法一致。而且，鉴于法院采纳确认仲裁协议有效的法律，新规支持仲裁的立场很明显。
扩大“报核制度”
中国仲裁制度众所周知的一个特色是“报核制度”，从 1995 年起适用于执行外国仲裁裁决（即仲裁地为中国境外的仲裁庭作出的裁决）和涉外仲裁裁决（即仲裁地为中国的仲裁庭作出，但有涉外因素的裁决）的案件，以及质疑相关仲裁协议效力和撤销于中国判决的涉外裁决的案件。简言之，根据“报核制度”，未经事先向上级人民法院和最高法报核后核准，下级法院不得拒绝承认和执行裁决。
新规在两个主要方面对“报核制度”作出新规定
首先，新规现将这一“报核制度”扩大到内地仲裁，即包括任何确定仲裁协议无效、撤销裁决或不予执行裁决的裁定。
但是，内地仲裁“报核”有一项重要限制：与适用于外国或涉外裁决的“报核制度”不同的是，高级人民法院仅在以下两种情况下需向最高法报核：（1）当事人住所地跨省级行政区域，或（2）不予执行或者撤销裁决的理由是“违背社会公共利益”。因此，虽然新规提升了执行裁决的保障力度，但较之外国和涉外裁决，内地裁决受到的保护仍然较少，因为后者并非无一例外地需要最高法核准。
其次，新规规定，如果上级法院认为相关事实不清，“可询问”当事人或要求下级法院补充查明事实。当事人因而有机会通过应对法院的事实调查参与“报核”进程。然而，鉴于新规并未明确赋予当事人充分陈述意见的权利，这一变化究竟重要与否仍有待观察。
新规的其他规定
除此之外，新规还包含超过 20 条有关各种事项的条款，譬如：规定了在内地已有相关的诉讼或仲裁的情况下，中国内地法院对承认某项外国裁决具有管辖权；列明了承认和执行外国裁决时应提交的文件和资料；并阐明，对法院在仲裁司法审查案件中作出的裁定一般不得上诉。
朝着正确方向迈出了一步，新规是最高法近期为改进仲裁制度而作出的努力的一部分。
2017 年 5 月，最高法下发了一份通知，要求各级法院指定专职部门办理仲裁案件的司法审查。这一措施有可能培养出一批精通仲裁事务的核心法官，由此确保法院裁判的一致性。
此外，就在最高法下发新规的当日，最高法还原则上通过了对执行仲裁裁决的另一项司法解释。这一新的司法解释的文本尚未公开。
虽然对最高法推动仲裁改革的步子能否再大一些可能见仁见智，但新规显然是朝着正确的方向迈出了一步，表明了中国法院支持仲裁的立场。举例而言，明确仲裁协议的适用法律强调了新规下支持仲裁的立场，而且部分扩大“报核制度”，将内地仲裁包括在内的做法，可能有利于其合同中并无涉外成分，故只能选择中国内地仲裁的外国公司。
钟津翰是富而德律师事务所驻香港合伙人及该所中国大陆及香港国际仲裁业务负责人
陈振宇是富而德律师事务所国际仲裁团队驻香港高级律师
The Supreme People’s Court(SPC) has recently released two judicial interpretations on arbitration. The new rules are the most important SPC judicial interpretations on arbitration issued since 2006, addressing gaps in the more than 20-year old Arbitration Law.
The new rules focus on issues frequently encountered by the PRC courts in the judicial review of arbitration cases, and fill a number of significant gaps in the Arbitration Law and related laws.
Applicable law of an arbitration agreement
The new rules clarify that if the parties intend to choose a particular law to govern the validity of a foreign-related arbitration agreement, they should do so expressly. An agreement on the law governing the underlying contract will not necessarily mean that the same law will be applied to decide the validity of the arbitration agreement itself.
If the parties do not choose the applicable law of a foreign-related arbitration agreement, the court will apply either the law at the place of the arbitration institution, or the law at the seat of the arbitration. The new rules further clarify that if the choice of law leads to different results, the court will apply the law that results in a valid arbitration agreement.
The drawing of a distinction between the law governing the arbitration agreement and the law governing the underlying contract is consistent with the approach taken in a number of other jurisdictions. In addition, the pro-arbitration stance of the new rules is clear, given that the court will apply the law that upholds the validity of the arbitration agreement.
Extending the ‘reporting procedure’
A well-known feature of the PRC’s arbitration regime is its “reporting procedure”, which has applied since 1995 to the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards (awards made by tribunals seated outside the PRC) and foreign-related arbitration awards (awards made by tribunals seated in the PRC but involving a foreign element), as well as to applications to challenge the validity of arbitration agreements and to set aside foreign-related awards made in the PRC.
Under the reporting procedure, in general, lower courts cannot refuse to recognize and enforce an award without first referring their decision to the higher people’s court, followed by the SPC, for approval.
The new rules build on the reporting procedure in two ways
First, they extend the reporting procedure to domestic arbitrations – including any decision to invalidate an arbitration agreement, to set aside an award or to refuse to enforce an arbitral award. There is, however, an
important limitation: Unlike the reporting procedure, which applies to foreign or foreign-related awards, in the case of domestic arbitrations the higher people’s court only needs to report to the SPC for approval in the following two scenarios: (1) if the case involves parties from different provinces; or (2) if the ground for refusing enforcement or setting aside of the award is “infringement of public interest”. As a result, while the new regime provides greater safeguards than before, domestic awards still enjoy less protection than foreign-related and foreign awards, since it is not essential that the SPC’s approval is obtained in all cases.
Second, the new rules provide that if the higher court finds that the relevant facts are not clear, it can question the parties, or require the lower court to conduct further fact finding.
The parties may therefore have an opportunity to participate in the reporting procedure by way of answering the court’s enquiries on the facts. However, it remains to be seen whether this change is significant, given that the new rules do not expressly grant parties the unfettered right to make full submissions.
Other provisions in the new rules
The new rules contain more than 20 articles addressing a variety of matters, including: stipulating the PRC court that has jurisdiction to recognize a foreign arbitration award where there is a related litigation or arbitration in the PRC; setting out the documents and information required for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award; and clarifying that court decisions in cases involving the judicial review of arbitration are generally not appealable.
In addition, on the same day that the new rules were released, the SPC in principle also passed another judicial interpretation concerning the enforcement of arbitral awards. The text of this new judicial interpretation has not yet been made public.
Although there may be debate as to whether the SPC could have gone further, it is clear that the new rules are a step in the right direction, and indicate an arbitration-friendly approach by the PRC courts. For example, the clarification of the law governing an arbitration agreement underscores the pro-arbitration bias under the new rules, and the partial extension of the reporting procedure to cover domestic arbitrations may benefit foreign companies in situations where their contracts have no foreign element, and they have no option but to agree to PRC arbitration.
John Choong is a partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Hong Kong and the firm’s head of international arbitration for mainland China and Hong Kong.
Eric Chan is a senior associate in the international arbitration group at Freshfields in Hong Kong
