发布时间： Fri Jul 03 11:35:20 CST 2020
2019年10月1日，由北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心（北仲）制定的《北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心国际投资仲裁规则》正式开始实施。
作为规则最大的亮点，北仲投资仲裁规则在第四十六条和附录5中规定了上诉机制，允许当事人基于合意提起上诉。本文将简要介绍与上诉机制有关的几点程序设置。需要说明的是，本文仅为作者个人在参与规则制定工作中形成的观察与思考，在任何意义上均不构成对北仲投资仲裁规则的解释，亦不代表北仲的官方立场。
启动上诉程序的前提条件。北仲投资仲裁规则的上诉机制采取选择性适用（Opt-in）的原则，即上诉应当基于双方当事人的同意。因此，除非当事人明确同意适用上诉程序，否则附录5的上诉程序不能自动适用。
根据北仲投资仲裁规则第四十六条第（二）款的规定，当事人不应晚于仲裁庭确定的、当事人就裁决稿提交评论意见的截止日期将上诉的书面同意通知北仲。此处的“通知”仅是告知北仲双方同意适用上诉程序，并不意味着当事人开始启动上诉程序，或者之后一定会启动上诉程序。如果当事人需要启动上诉程序，应当自裁决作出之日起60日内向北仲书面提交上诉通知，上诉程序自当事人成功提交上诉通知之日起视为启动。
理论上，投资者和东道国可以在任何时间点达成上诉的合意，但规则要求当事人尽早通知北仲其上诉合意，且通知时间应不晚于仲裁庭确定的、就裁决稿提交评论意见的截止日期，这意味着当事人最晚应当在仲裁庭确定的、就裁决稿提交评论意见之前达成上诉的书面合意。其目的是为了在当事人合理利用上诉程序和避免滥用上诉程序而拖延之间寻求平衡。而认为该时间点合理的背后逻辑则在于，当事人在收到仲裁裁决稿提交评论意见时，可能已大致明确案件的结果，应该能够就是否同意上诉做出决定。此外，上诉程序对于当事人而言意味着额外的时间和经济成本，尽早达成上诉合意并通知仲裁机构，对于上诉程序的顺利推进和整个争端的高效解决亦可起到积极作用。
上诉事由。北仲投资仲裁规则附录5第三条规定，上诉可基于三类事由提起:（1）仲裁裁决对于适用法律或法律规则的适用或解释存在错误；（2）仲裁裁决对于事实的认定存在明显且严重错误；（3）北仲或仲裁庭对于案件缺乏管辖权，或仲裁庭超越其权限。
原则上，当事人只能基于以上三类事由提起上诉，但是规则第四十六条第（四）款允许当事人另行约定上诉事由。在这种情形下，规则没有直接规定北仲应当受理依照约定事由提出的上诉，而是规定由北仲来决定“是否受理”。这一方面体现了仲裁制度中“尊重当事人意思自治”的基本原则，另一方面，将是否受理的决定权授予仲裁机构，可以避免当事人约定的上诉事由与仲裁地的法律规定存在不兼容的情况，从而尽量避免给裁决的执行造成风险。
上诉裁决与裁决的效力。根据规则第四十二条的规定，仲裁裁决是终局的，自作出之日起对双方当事人具有拘束力，但是当事人已经向北仲提交双方同意进行上诉的通知除外。同时，规则附录5第八条第（二）款规定，上诉裁决取代仲裁裁决，并应采取以下方式之一作出:（1）维持仲裁裁决；（2）对仲裁裁决作出实质性修改；（3）作出新裁决。
鉴于仲裁裁决作出之后至提起上诉申请期间，乃至上诉程序终结之前存在不同的可能，有必要就上诉裁决与裁决的效力进行说明。
如果当事人就上诉达成了书面合意，并已经通知北仲，则仲裁裁决作出之后，将暂不发生法律效力，并可能出现以下三种情形:
1.在裁决书作出届满60日后，双方均未提出上诉，此时裁决书始发生效力，即裁决书自作出之日起第61日发生效力；
2.当事人提起上诉，但上诉程序因当事人撤回上诉通知或上诉庭作出不具管辖权的决定而终止，裁决书自上诉程序终止之日发生效力；
3.当事人提起上诉，上诉庭作出上诉裁决，并最终取代裁决书，则裁决书自始不发生效力，但上诉庭最终裁决维持仲裁裁决的除外。在上诉庭维持裁决书的情况下，裁决书自上诉裁决作出之日起发生效力。
北仲投资仲裁规则作为全球首个引入上诉机制的投资仲裁规则，相关的程序设置更多的是从研究角度为当前国际社会针对投资仲裁机制改革的讨论提供一种可行方案。当然，作者仍乐观期待这套机制被实践检验的一刻早日到来。
作者：北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心业务拓展处（国际案件处）高级顾问章曦。
Focus on BAC/BIAC rules appeal mechanism
On 1 October 2019, the Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Centre Rules for International Investment Arbitration formulated by the Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Centre (BAC/BIAC) became effective.
A highlight of the BAC/BIAC investment arbitration rules is that they provide an appeal mechanism under article 46 and appendix E, allowing the parties to appeal by consent. This article introduces several procedural settings related to the appeal mechanism.
It should be noted that the article reflects the author’s own observations from her participation in making the rules, and is not endorsed by the BAC/BIAC officially, nor does it constitute an interpretation of the rules in any sense.
Preconditions for the initiation of appeal proceedings. The BAC/BIAC investment arbitration rules adopt the “opt-in” model, meaning that the appeal shall be based on both parties’ consent. Therefore, the appeal proceedings stipulated in appendix E shall not apply automatically unless the parties expressly agree on this.
According to article 46.2 of the BAC/BIAC investment arbitration rules, the parties shall notify the BAC/BIAC of their agreement to appeal in writing, no later than the deadline fixed by the arbitral tribunal for the party’s submission of comments on the draft award.
The notification referred to here only shows that the parties have reached the agreement to appeal. It does not mean that the parties have initiated the appeal proceedings, nor that the parties will initiate the appeal proceedings later for sure.
If the parties wish to initiate the appeal proceedings, they shall, within 60 days from the date on which the award is made, submit a written notice of appeal to the BAC/BIAC, and the appeal proceedings shall be deemed to commence on the date on which the notice of appeal is validly submitted.
Theoretically speaking, the investor and the host state could reach agreement to appeal at any time, but nevertheless the rules require the parties to notify the BAC/BIAC of their agreement to appeal as soon as possible, and no later than the deadline fixed by the arbitral tribunal for the party’s submission of comments on the draft award, which means that the parties must reach agreement in writing on the appeal no later than the time for submitting comments on the draft award as fixed by the arbitral tribunal.
The rationale behind this is to strike a balance between the parties’ reasonable use of the appeal procedure, and the possible abuse of process to cause delay. The parties should be able to determine whether to agree to appeal, as they can roughly ascertain the result of the case when receiving the draft award for their comment.
In addition, the appeal proceedings mean extra time and financial costs for the parties, therefore reaching agreement on appeal as soon as possible, and notifying the arbitration institution, can play an active role in the smooth conduct of the appeal proceedings later, and encourage the efficient settlement of the dispute.
Grounds of appeal. Article 3 of appendix E of the BAC/BIAC investment arbitration rules provides that an appeal may only be initiated based on three grounds: (1) that the arbitral award contains errors in the application or interpretation of the applicable law or rules of law; (2) that the arbitral award contains manifest and material errors of fact; or (3) that the BAC/BIAC or the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction, or the arbitral tribunal exceeded its power.
In principle, the parties can appeal only based on the above-mentioned three grounds, but article 46.4 of the rules allows the parties to agree on other grounds for appeal. Under such circumstances, the rules do not directly stipulate that the BAC/BIAC shall accept appeals submitted pursuant to grounds agreed upon, but require the BAC/BIAC to determine whether to accept such appeal.
On one hand, this embodies the basic principle of “party autonomy” in arbitration, and on the other hand, by granting the power to accept such appeal to the arbitration institution, it could avoid the potential incompatibility between the grounds of appeal agreed by the parties and the law of the seat of arbitration, and diminish the risk for challenging the award.
Effect of the arbitral award and appeal award. According to article 42 of the rules, the arbitral award shall be final and binding upon the parties as of the date it is made, except where an agreement that the award may be appealed has been notified to the BAC/BIAC. Meanwhile, article 8.2 of appendix E of the rules provides that the appeal award shall substitute the arbitral award and shall be made in one of the following forms: (1) upholding the arbitral award; (2) making material modifications to the award; or (3) making a new award.
Considering that, from the date on which the arbitral award is made to the initiation of the appeal proceedings, and to the termination of the appeal proceedings, there might exist different possibilities, it is necessary to illustrate the effectiveness of the arbitral award and the appeal award.
If the parties have reached agreement on appeal in writing and notified the BAC/BIAC, the arbitral award, after being rendered, shall not take effect immediately and may fall into the following three circumstances:
1. Where neither party has summited a notice of appeal within 60 days after the award was made, then the award shall become effective on the 61st day since the date on which it was made; or
2. The party appeals, but the appeal proceedings are terminated because the party withdraws the appeal, or the appellate tribunal decides that it does not have jurisdiction over the case, then the award takes effect as of the date of termination of the appeal proceedings; or
3. The party appeals, and the appellate tribunal renders the appeal award and substitutes the arbitral award, then the arbitral award shall not take effect, unless it is upheld by the appellate tribunal. Where the appellate tribunal upholds the arbitral award, the award shall take effect from the date on which the appeal award is made.
As the first specialized investment arbitration rules that introduce an appeal mechanism, the BAC/BIAC rules are more of a research attempt to provide a feasible solution to address the current debate over the reform of the investment arbitration system.
Nevertheless, the author remains optimistic to see this appeal mechanism tested by practice in the future.
Zhang Xi is a senior counsel of the International Case Management & Business Development Division of Beijing Arbitration Commission/ Beijing International Arbitration Centre (BAC/BIAC/BIAC)
