北京仲裁委员会

发布时间： Wed Mar 20 15:27:41 CST 2019   供稿人：姜秋菊

本文原载于《商法》2019年2月|第10辑2期，北京仲裁委员会授权转发。

所谓仲裁地，目前主流观点认为应将其界定为国际商事仲裁法律意义上的所在地，在当事人没有特别约定的情况下，仲裁程序应受该地法律的管辖，并受该地法院的监督以及获取相应的司法支持。可见“仲裁地”是一个法律概念而非地理概念，其重要意义在于其决定了仲裁协议效力的适用法律、仲裁程序的适用法律以及裁决的国籍。

仲裁地的法律意义决定了它在很多方面对仲裁实践的发展发挥着至关重要的作用。第一是仲裁协议的有效性:当事人选择仲裁为争议解决方式，意味着其希望保证仲裁协议的有效性。因此，对仲裁协议效力认定和对仲裁条款解释采取较为宽松政策的国家或地区，历来是当事人乐于选择的仲裁地。第二是仲裁程序的高效进行:仲裁地的法院或者其他机构，在其法律体系下为当事人进行仲裁程序提供各种协助或支撑，必然有利于仲裁程序的高效推进。

第三是裁决的可执行性:在涉及裁决的撤销或不予执行的情况下，仲裁地的法院会对仲裁裁决进行司法监督。在司法审查中采取较为支持仲裁之态度的仲裁地，无疑更受当事人的青睐。因此，仲裁地的选择决定了当事人能否顺利开始仲裁程序、能否高效进行仲裁程序以及仲裁的结果能否得到足够的保障和执行。

鉴于仲裁地的重要法律意义，仲裁地的确定历来是各界关注的话题。根据英国伦敦玛丽王后大学(Queen Mary University of London)和美国威凯律师事务所(White & Case)共同发布的《2018国际仲裁调查》(The 2018 International Arbitration Survey)，常被选择的仲裁地包括伦敦、巴黎、新加坡、中国香港、日内瓦、纽约等。

中国内地虽然没有城市上榜，但从规范性法律文件的角度来看，《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国仲裁法>若干问题的解释》《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》均赋予仲裁地以重要意义。

从内地司法实践的情况看，2013年“龙利得案”和“北仑利成案”、2016年“富力南京案”等案例，均体现出中国内地法院在确认仲裁协议效力、认定裁决国籍或者法律适用时，逐步意识到仲裁地这一概念的重要性，并在实践中尝试适用，展示了对国际商事仲裁裁决持有越来越开放和包容的态度。

但是，由于立法原因，外国仲裁机构或者国际仲裁机构以中国内地作为仲裁地时，仲裁裁决的国籍问题依然是一个有争议的问题。例如，在“德高钢铁公司案”中，宁波市中级人民法院认为国际商会仲裁院在北京作出的仲裁裁决，构成《纽约公约》第1条第1款的非内国裁决，但从仲裁地看，该裁决应该是一个国内裁决。

之所以会出现这样的矛盾，主要是因为我国在《中华人民共和国仲裁法》等相关法律立法的过程中，仅承认了机构仲裁的形式，在确定仲裁裁决国籍时，仲裁机构的国籍成为立法区分国内裁决和涉外裁决(国际裁决)的标准。

虽然从目前的司法实践看，我国法院在司法审查中已经逐步形成了较明确的思路，即和国际上通行的仲裁地决定裁决国籍理论相一致，但由于立法层面还缺乏明晰的界定与充分的依据，仍难免争议甚至混乱。笔者认为，有必要在《仲裁法》修改时明确仲裁地的重要作用，即将仲裁地作为确定仲裁裁决国籍的唯一标准。

国际商事仲裁中涉及到复杂的法律互动，起草仲裁条款时，除了解仲裁地的重要法律意义之外，还应考虑尽量简化选择适用的法律、减少平行管辖。

同时，也需要考虑相应争议可能会受到哪一国家法院的司法监督，尽量减少相应国家法律的特别规定对于仲裁裁决可能造成的风险，从而有效地运用国际商事仲裁程序来解决当事人之间的争议。

作者：北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心案件一处处长姜秋菊。北仲仲裁秘书刘念琼、杨雨菲对文章亦有贡献

The seat of arbitration is a concept referring to location in the legal significance of international commercial arbitration. In the absence of parties’ agreement, the arbitration procedure shall be governed by the law of the seat of such proceeding, and supervised by the court of such seat, and receive relevant judicial support.

It is clear that the seat of arbitration is a legal concept, not a geographical one. The significance of the seat of arbitration is that it determines the applicable law when deciding the validity of the arbitration agreement and the arbitration procedure, as well as the nationality of the award.

The seat of arbitration plays a vital role in the development of arbitration practice in many aspects including: (1) Validity. The respect to parties’ autonomy in choosing arbitration as their dispute resolution means the validity of the arbitration agreement may not be easily negated. The relatively pro-arbitration policies in determining the validity of an arbitration agreement and interpreting arbitration clauses make a country or a region a popular seat of arbitration; (2)

Efficiency. Under a specific legal framework, the assistance or support that a court or an institution can provide to the arbitration procedure determine the efficiency of arbitration proceedings; (3) Predictable enforcement. In the proceeding of challenging an arbitral award or non-enforcement, the court at the seat will carry out judicial review over the arbitration award. In that way, a pro-arbitration judicial attitude in the judicial review is undoubtedly a plus for the popularity of the seat.

In sum, to better choose a seat of arbitration is to determine whether the parties can start the arbitration procedure smoothly, whether the arbitration procedure can be carried out efficiently, and whether the arbitration results can be fully enforced.

In view of the important legal significance of the seat of arbitration, the competition among popular seats of arbitration is always a topical matter. According to the 2018 International Arbitration Survey, jointly released by Queen Mary University of London and law firm White & Case, the seats of arbitration often chosen include London, Paris, Singapore, Hong Kong, Geneva and New York.

Although none of the cities in main- land China is on the list, several laws and judicial interpretations of mainland China are worthy tries in acknowledging the important legal significance to the seat of arbitration. The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court concerning Some Issues on Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, and the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relationships, are two examples.

In judicial practice of mainland China, the Longlide Packaging Co Ltd v BP Agnati SRL case in 2013, the Ningbo Beilun Licheng Lubricating Oil Company v Formal Venture Corp case in 2013, and the Ennead Architects International LLP v R&F Nanjing Real Estate Development Co Ltd case in 2016 reflect that Chinese mainland courts place a great importance to the seat of arbitration, and try to apply an open and inclusive attitude regarding international commercial arbitration to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement, the nationality of the award, or the application of law.

However, for legislative reasons the nationality of an arbitral award is still a controversial issue when a foreign arbitration institution or an international arbitration institution is involved and mainland China is the seat of arbitration. For example, in the case of Duferco AS v Ningbo Art & Craft Import and Export Co Ltd, the arbitral award made in Beijing by the International Chamber of Commerce was not considered as a domestic award by Ningbo Intermediate People's Court, according to the New York Convention, article 1. However, considering the seat of arbitration, it should be a Chinese domestic award.

This contradiction arises mainly from the fact that China only recognizes the form of institutional arbitration in the process of legislation such as the Arbitration Law. Therefore, when determining the nationality of an arbitral award, the nationality of the arbitration institution shall become the standard for distinguishing the domestic award from the foreign-related/international award.

In spite of the fact that the courts in mainland China have gradually formed a comparatively clear train of thought in the judicial review at present — to take the seat of arbitration as the determinant when deciding the nationality of an arbitral award, which is in line with international mainstream theory – disputes have not disappeared because of the lack of clear definition and sufficient basis in legislation.

The author believes it is necessary to clarify the legal significance of the seat of arbitration when the Arbitration Law is revised, namely, the seat of arbitration shall be taken as the sole standard for determining the nationality of an arbitral award.

The legal complication and interactions in international commercial arbitration brings risk when drafting arbitration clauses. In addition to understanding the important legal significance of the seat of arbitration, one should also consider simplifying the choice of applicable laws as much as possible, and reducing parallel jurisdiction.

One should also consider which court of a certain country may impose judicial supervision on the corresponding dispute, and assure the certainty of the arbitral award under the special provisions of the relevant laws of the country. After all, to effectively use international commercial arbitration is to resolve the dispute between the parties efficiently.

Jiang Qiuju is a division chief at Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Centre (BAC/BIAC). BAC/BIAC case managers Liu Nianqiong and Yang Yufei also contributed to the article