仲裁实践课堂笔记

第一节 导论

I. Dispute Resolution and the Role of Arbitration

Dispute resolution broadly refers to the methods through which parties attempt to resolve disputes and disagreements. The mechanisms can be categorized into Common ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) and Exotic ADR methods:

争议解决通常指的是各方试图解决争议和分歧的方法。这些机制可以分为常见的替代性争议解决（ADR）和异国 ADR 方法：

A. Common ADR

• Negotiation: A voluntary process where parties communicate directly to resolve disputes without involving third parties. Often seen as the most cost-effective and informal option.

  谈判：一种自愿的过程，各方直接沟通以解决争议，不涉及第三方。通常被视为最经济、最非正式的选项。

• Mediation: Involves a neutral third party (the mediator) who facilitates discussions between disputing parties to help them reach a mutually beneficial agreement. The mediator does not impose a decision.

  调解：涉及一个中立的第三方（调解员），该调解员促进争议各方之间的讨论，帮助他们达成互利协议。调解员不做出决定。

• Arbitration: A private dispute resolution process where parties agree to submit their dispute to one or more independent arbitrators who deliver a final and binding decision.

  仲裁：一种私下的争议解决程序，当事人同意将争议提交给一个或多个独立的仲裁员，由仲裁员做出最终且具有约束力的裁决。

B. Exotic ADR

While less commonly used, these methods provide unique ways of dispute resolution:
虽然使用较少，但这些方法提供了独特的争议解决方式：

• Expert Determination: A neutral expert renders a binding or non-binding decision based on their expertise in the subject matter.
  专家决定：一位中立的专家根据其在主题领域的专业知识做出具有约束力或非约束力的裁决。
• Early Neutral Evaluation: A neutral evaluator provides a non-binding assessment of the dispute’s merits, often used to help parties understand the strength of their cases.
  早期中立评估：中立评估员对争议的实质进行非约束性评估，通常用于帮助各方了解其案件的优势。
• Adjudication: Common in construction disputes, this process delivers a binding, interim decision by an adjudicator, which is enforceable until the dispute is resolved by arbitration or court.
  仲裁：在建筑争议中很常见，该程序由仲裁员作出具有约束力的临时决定，在争议通过仲裁或法院解决之前具有执行力。
• Dispute Boards (DAB/DRB): Typically used in long-term contracts such as construction projects, dispute boards consist of impartial members who issue recommendations or decisions throughout the project to avoid disputes escalating.
  争议委员会（DAB/DRB）：通常用于长期合同，如建设项目，争议委员会由公正的成员组成，在整个项目过程中发布建议或决定，以避免争议升级。
• Mini-Trials: A structured and expedited process where parties present their cases as they would in court, often to senior executives or a neutral panel, leading to settlement negotiations.
  小型审判：一种结构化和加速的程序，各方以他们在法庭上呈现的方式提出他们的案件，通常向高级管理人员或中立小组提出，导致和解谈判。

These various methods allow parties to select dispute resolution processes that best fit their needs, based on specific factors related to cost, speed, flexibility, enforceability, and other considerations.
这些各种方法使各方能够根据与成本、速度、灵活性、可执行性和其他相关因素相关的特定因素，选择最适合其需求的争议解决程序。

II. Deciding Between Different Forms of Dispute Resolution

The choice of dispute resolution mechanism often hinges on various common and exotic factors:

选择争议解决机制通常取决于各种常见和罕见的因素：

A. Common Factors

These factors influence most dispute resolution decisions:

影响大多数争议解决决策的因素包括：

1. Cost: Arbitration is usually less expensive than litigation but more costly than negotiation or mediation. Exotic forms may vary in cost depending on complexity.

   成本：仲裁通常比诉讼成本低，但比谈判或调解成本高。不同形式的仲裁成本可能因复杂程度而异。

2. Speed / Time: Arbitration, though faster than litigation, often takes more time than ADR methods like mediation or expert determination.

   速度/时间：虽然仲裁比诉讼快，但通常比调解或专家决定等 ADR 方法花费更多时间。

3. Outcome / Justice: Arbitration ensures a final, binding decision (akin to court judgments), whereas negotiation and mediation focus on agreement rather than adjudication.

   结果/正义：仲裁确保最终、有约束力的裁决（类似于法院判决），而谈判和调解则侧重于达成协议而非裁决。

4. Enforceability: Arbitration awards can be easily enforced internationally under treaties like the New York Convention, whereas mediation agreements may lack such global enforceability unless converted into an arbitral award.

   可执行性：仲裁裁决可以在纽约公约等条约下轻松地在国际上执行，而调解协议可能缺乏这种全球可执行性，除非转换为仲裁裁决。

5. Privacy and Confidentiality: Arbitration is conducted privately and protects sensitive commercial information, unlike court cases, which are public.

   隐私和保密性：仲裁是私下进行的，并保护敏感的商业信息，与公开的法庭案件不同。

B. Exotic Factors 异常因素

Exotic factors are more situational and often guide the choice of less traditional ADR methods:

异常因素更具情境性，通常指导选择更不传统的替代争议解决方法：

1. Control: Clients may wish for greater control over the process, particularly in negotiation or expert determination.

   客户可能希望对流程有更大的控制权，尤其是在谈判或专家决定方面。

2. Flexibility: Methods like mediation allow parties to adjust procedures and timelines, maintaining flexibility.

   灵活性：调解等方法允许各方调整程序和时间表，保持灵活性。

3. Perceived Fairness: Ensuring all parties feel heard may influence the choice of mediation or dispute boards.

   感知到的公平性：确保所有各方都感到被听到可能会影响选择调解或争议委员会。

4. Creative Remedies: Exotic ADR methods, particularly mediation, allow parties to explore creative solutions beyond what is permitted in arbitration or litigation.

   创意补救措施：与仲裁或诉讼相比，独特的 ADR 方法，尤其是调解，允许各方探索创造性的解决方案。

5. Relationships: Maintaining and preserving business relationships may favor cooperative methods like mediation, rather than adversarial processes like arbitration.

   关系：维护和保持商业关系可能有利于采用调解等合作方法，而不是仲裁等对抗性程序。

Understanding these factors ensures that parties choose the most effective and practical method for resolving their disputes.

理解这些因素可以确保各方选择最有效和实用的方法来解决他们的争端。

III. Arbitration

A. Definition

A comprehensive definition of arbitration, as provided by Gary Born in International Commercial Arbitration (3rd Edition, 2021), is as follows:

如 Gary Born 在《国际商事仲裁》（第 3 版，2021 年）中提供的仲裁的全面定义如下：

“International commercial arbitration is a means by which international business disputes can be definitively resolved, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, by independent, non-governmental decision-makers, selected by or for the parties, applying neutral adjudicative procedures that provide the parties an opportunity to be heard.”

国际商事仲裁是国际商业纠纷得以最终解决的一种方式，根据当事人的协议，由当事人选定或代表当事人选定的独立、非政府决策者，适用中立的裁决程序，为当事人提供陈述意见的机会。

Let’s break this definition into key components:

1. “Means by which international business disputes… are definitively resolved”: Arbitration provides parties with a binding resolution to their disputes, emphasizing finality.

   “国际商业纠纷得以最终解决的方式”：仲裁为当事人提供具有约束力的纠纷解决方案，强调最终性。

2. “Pursuant to the parties’ agreement”: Arbitration is based on party consent, typically through arbitration agreements or clauses in contracts.

   “根据当事人的协议”：仲裁基于当事人同意，通常通过仲裁协议或合同中的条款。

3. “Independent, non-governmental decision-makers”: Arbitrators are neutral, impartial, and independent of public judicial institutions.

   “独立、非政府决策者：仲裁员是中立的、公正的，独立于公共司法机构。”

4. “Selected by or for the parties”: Parties typically nominate their arbitrator(s) or agree on appointment procedures.

   “由当事人选定或代表当事人选定：当事人通常提名其仲裁员或同意任命程序。”

5. “Neutral adjudicative procedures”: Arbitration provides a fair and equitable process, free from bias or undue influence.

   “中立的裁决程序：仲裁提供了一个公平、公正的程序，不受偏见或不当影响。”

6. “An opportunity to be heard”: Parties have the right to present their case, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

   “陈述意见的机会：当事人有权陈述其案件，遵守自然正义的原则。”

This definition underscores the core principles of arbitration, making it distinct from other dispute resolution processes.

本定义强调了仲裁的核心原则，使其与其他争议解决程序区别开来。

B. Elements

1. 概述

Arbitration is defined by its key elements, which distinguish it from other forms of dispute resolution. These elements include being consensual, resolving a dispute, involving a non-governmental decision-maker, delivering a final and binding decision, and adhering to adjudicatory procedures.

The essential elements of arbitration can be summarized as follows:

Element	Description
Consensual	Arbitration is based on the consent of parties, either expressed within a contract (arbitration clause) or agreed after the dispute arises.
	The doctrine of separability ensures that the arbitration agreement is treated independently of the main contract. Even if the main contract is deemed invalid, the arbitration clause typically survives.
Resolving a Dispute	Arbitration fundamentally exists to resolve disputes. There must be a clear legal disagreement between the parties for arbitration to proceed.
Non-Governmental Decision-Maker	Arbitrators are private individuals, unlike public judges or courts. They are appointed either directly by the parties or by an appointing institution/body.
Chosen by or for the Parties	Arbitration is highly party-driven. Parties may choose their arbitrators directly or agree procedures for institutional appointment (e.g., via ICC or SIAC).
To Render a Final and Binding Decision	Arbitration concludes with an award, which is final and binding on the parties. The award can only be challenged or refused enforcement in limited circumstances (e.g., under the New York Convention, Article V).
Using Adjudicatory Procedures	Arbitration follows a structured process resembling court proceedings but with flexibility and efficiency emphasized. Procedures often include:
	- Presentation of evidence
	- Oral hearings
	- Deliberation and issuance of an arbitral award

These elements highlight arbitration as a distinct and robust form of dispute resolution. While consensual and flexible, it guarantees enforceable outcomes backed by international legal frameworks.

这些元素突出了仲裁作为一种独特且稳健的争议解决方式。它在协商和灵活性的同时，保证了由国际法律框架支持的具有可执行性的结果。

2. Arbitration is Consensual

Arbitration relies on the concept of party autonomy—the parties must agree to arbitrate. This agreement forms the foundation of the arbitration process, ensuring it is voluntary and mutually agreed upon. The legal basis for this element is outlined in multiple sources:

仲裁依赖于当事人自治的概念——当事人必须同意仲裁。这一协议构成了仲裁程序的基础，确保它是自愿和双方同意的。这一要素的法律依据在多个来源中有所阐述：

（1）Relevant Legal Provisions

• UNCITRAL Model Law, Article 7(1) (reflected in Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, Section 19)联合国国际贸易法委员会示范法，第七条第一款（反映在香港仲裁条例，第十九条）:

  “An arbitration agreement is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes… in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not.”

  仲裁协议是当事人同意将所有或某些争议提交仲裁的协议……关于定义的法律关系，无论是否为合同关系。”

  This provision defines the scope of arbitration agreements, allowing disputes arising not only from contracts but also from broader legal relationships to be arbitrated.

  本条款定义了仲裁协议的范围，不仅允许因合同产生的争议进行仲裁，还允许因更广泛的法律关系产生的争议进行仲裁。

• New York Convention, Article II(1) 纽约公约，第二条第（1）款:

  “[An] agreement under which the parties undertake to submit [a dispute] to arbitration.”

  “[一项]协议，根据该协议，各方同意将[争议]提交仲裁。”

  This ensures an international standard for recognizing arbitration agreements globally, reinforcing their enforceability in signatory states.

  这确保了全球范围内承认仲裁协议的国际标准，加强在签约国中的可执行性。

（2）Implications

1. An arbitration agreement can exist as a standalone agreement or as a clause incorporated into a broader contract.

   仲栽协议可以作为一个独立的协议存在，或者作为纳入更广泛合同中的条款。

2. The doctrine of separability ensures the arbitration agreement remains valid even if the main contract is invalidated.

   独立性原则确保即使主合同被无效化，仲栽协议仍然有效。

（3）Critical Considerations

• The arbitration agreement must clearly define:
  • The scope of disputes subject to arbitration. 适用仲裁的争议范围
  • Rules and procedures that will govern the arbitration. 仲裁将适用的规则和程序

This element reinforces that arbitration cannot proceed without clear and mutual consent from the parties involved.

**3. Arbitration Resolves a Dispute **

At its core, arbitration addresses and resolves existing disputes, not other legal issues like contract formation or future hypothetical scenarios.

核心而言，仲裁解决现有争议，而不是其他法律问题，如合同成立或未来假设情景。

（1）Key Distinction

Arbitration is dispute-centric: Its purpose is to resolve real disagreements between parties.

仲裁以争议为中心：其目的是解决当事人之间的真实分歧。

It is not a process for:

• Determining the formation of a contract, unless such formation is directly disputed.

  确定合同的成立，除非这种成立直接受到争议。

• Addressing vague or uncertain claims unrelated to any legal controversy.

  处理与任何法律争议无关的模糊或不明确的索赔。

（2）Example: HKIAC Model Arbitration Clause (HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules)

“Any dispute, controversy, difference or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, including the existence, validity, interpretation, performance, breach or termination thereof or any dispute regarding non-contractual obligations arising out of or relating to it… shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration administered by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) under the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules in force when the Notice of Arbitration is submitted.”
任何因本合同而产生或与本合同有关的争议、纠纷、分歧或索赔，包括其存在、有效性、解释、履行、违约或终止，或因本合同而产生的任何关于非合同义务的争议，均应提交香港国际仲裁中心（HKIAC）根据当时有效的 HKIAC 管理仲裁规则进行仲裁，并由其最终解决。

This clause:

1. Clearly outlines the scope of disputes, including issues related to the existence, validity, performance, and even non-contractual obligations associated with the agreement.

   明确界定争议范围，包括与协议存在、有效性、履行以及甚至与协议相关的非合同义务相关的问题。

2. Demonstrates how arbitration is tailored to resolve actual controversies comprehensively and conclusively.

   展示仲裁如何量身定制以全面、彻底地解决实际争议。

（3）Importance

• Arbitration’s purpose is limited to dispute resolution within the boundaries agreed upon by parties in the arbitration clause or agreement.

  仲裁的目的仅限于在仲裁条款或协议中当事人同意的范围内解决争议。

• Clear, broad phrasing of the scope in arbitration clauses prevents jurisdictional challenges or ambiguities.

  仲裁条款中关于范围的表述清晰、广泛，可以防止管辖权挑战或歧义。

4. Arbitration Involves a Non-Governmental Decision-Maker

Unlike litigation, arbitration is administered by private individuals—the arbitrators—who are independent and not part of any governmental authority or court system.

与诉讼不同，仲裁是由私人——仲裁员——管理的，他们是独立的，不属于任何政府机构或法院系统。

| 特点 | 描述 |
| - | |
| Selection | Parties have the autonomy to select their arbitrators, ensuring expertise, neutrality, and impartiality. 当事人有权自主选择仲裁员，确保专业、中立和公正。 |
| | Where parties cannot agree, arbitrators may be appointed by: 1）Pre-selected arbitral institutions (e.g., HKIAC, ICC, SIAC) . 2）National courts, as a fallback. |
| Role | Arbitrators act as impartial adjudicators and do not perform any governmental or judicial office. They derive their power and authority from the arbitration agreement, not the state. 仲裁员作为公正的裁判者，不担任任何政府或司法职务。他们的权力和权威来源于仲裁协议，而非国家。 |
| Relationship with National Laws | While arbitrators act independently, their powers, duties, and role are often regulated by national legislation (e.g., the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance). Courts may intervene to support, not control, the arbitral process (e.g., appointment of arbitrators in deadlock situations). |
| | 虽然仲裁员独立行动，但他们的权力、职责和角色通常受国家立法（例如，香港仲裁条例）的规范。法院可以介入以支持而非控制仲裁程序（例如，在僵局情况下任命仲裁员）。 |

This feature highlights arbitration’s independence from government control while ensuring its process and outcomes are supported by legal frameworks.

这一特性突出了仲裁独立于政府控制的特点，同时确保其程序和结果得到法律框架的支持。

5. Arbitration Results in a Final and Binding Decision

The outcome of arbitration is a legally enforceable arbitral award, which is:

仲裁的结果是具有法律执行力的仲裁裁决，它：

1. Final: It typically cannot be appealed on the merits, except under limited circumstances (e.g., procedural irregularities under the New York Convention or Arbitration Ordinance).

   最终裁决：通常不能就实质问题提起上诉，除非在有限情况下（例如，根据纽约公约或仲裁条例的程序不规则）。

2. Binding: The decision is obligatory for the parties, akin to a court judgment.

   绑定性：裁决对当事人具有约束力，类似于法院判决。

（1）Legal Basis:

• Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, Section 73 香港仲裁条例，第七十三条:

  “Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an award made by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to an arbitration agreement is final and binding both on— (a) the parties; and (b) any person claiming through or under any of the parties.”
  “除非当事人另有约定，仲裁庭根据仲裁协议作出的裁决是终局的，对以下各方均有约束力——（a）当事人；（b）通过或代表任何一方主张权利的任何人。”

This provision ensures that:

1. The arbitral award has conclusive and binding force on all involved parties.

   仲裁裁决对所有相关当事人具有确定性和约束力。

2. It can be enforced against assets of the losing party in jurisdictions that recognize the award (e.g., under the New York Convention).

   在承认该裁决的司法管辖区（例如，根据纽约公约）中，可以对败诉方的资产执行该裁决。

（2）Why Final and Binding?

• Arbitration is intended to provide a definitive resolution to disputes, avoiding prolonged litigation or appeal proceedings.

  仲裁旨在为争议提供最终解决方案，避免长期诉讼或上诉程序。

• Parties consent to arbitration because of this efficiency and finality.

  各方同意仲裁，正是因为这种效率和最终性。

6. Arbitration Uses Adjudicatory Procedures

Arbitration ensures parties are treated equitably through adjudicatory procedures, promoting fairness and due process.

仲裁确保通过裁决程序公平对待各方，促进公平和正当程序。

1. Impartiality:

   • Arbitrators must act independently and impartially.

     裁判员必须独立公正地行事。

   • Any actual or perceived bias can lead to challenges against an arbitrator’s appointment.

     任何实际或感知到的偏见都可能引发对仲裁员任命的挑战。

2. Equality of Parties:

   • UNCITRAL Model Law, Article 18 (Arbitration Ordinance, Section 46):

     联合国国际贸易法委员会示范法，第 18 条（仲裁条例，第 46 条）：

     “The parties must be treated with equality.”
     “当事人必须受到平等对待。”

   • All parties have an equal opportunity to present their case and respond to the opposing party’s case.

     所有当事人都有平等的机会陈述自己的案件并回应对方的案件。

3. Reasonable Opportunity to Be Heard:

   • Arbitrators must:

     • Provide sufficient opportunity for parties to submit evidence, arguments, and rebuttals.

       为当事人提供充分的机会提交证据、论点和反驳。

     • Base their decisions solely on evidence and submissions provided during the hearing.

       仅根据听证会期间提供的证据和提交材料作出决定。

4. Efficiency:

   • Procedures must avoid unnecessary delays and minimize costs:
     程序必须避免不必要的延误并尽量降低成本：

     • Flexibility allows parties to adopt procedures suited to their specific case.

       灵活性允许各方采用适合其特定案件的程序。

     • Proportionality ensures the scope of the process aligns with the dispute’s complexity and value.

       比例原则确保程序的广度与争议的复杂性和价值相一致。

This procedural adaptability helps arbitration cater to parties’ needs while maintaining fairness, impartiality, and finality.

这种程序适应性有助于仲裁满足当事人的需求，同时保持公平、公正和终局性。

7. Conclusion

The elements of arbitration—its consensual basis, focus on resolving disputes, reliance on non-governmental decision-makers, delivery of final and binding awards, and use of adjudicatory procedures—create a balanced and structured mechanism for resolving disputes. These principles distinguish arbitration from litigation and alternative dispute resolution methods, making it a highly preferred option in international commercial dispute resolution.

仲裁的要素——其基于合意的基础、专注于解决争议、依赖非政府决策者、提供最终和有约束力的裁决以及使用裁决程序——创造了一个平衡和结构化的争议解决机制。这些原则将仲裁与诉讼和替代争议解决方法区分开来，使其成为国际商业争议解决中高度首选的选项。

C. The Advantages of Arbitration

Arbitration is an increasingly popular dispute resolution mechanism, particularly in international and commercial contexts. Its distinct advantages over litigation and other forms of ADR include flexibility, confidentiality, impartiality, enforceability, and availability of interim remedies, making it a preferred choice for resolving complex cross-border disputes. The following table summarizes these advantages, supported by examples and practical implications:

| Advantage 优势 | Explanation 说明 | Practical Example 实际案例 |
| —– | | |
| Flexibility 灵活性 | Arbitration is highly customizable, allowing parties to agree on procedural rules, language, governing law, and choice of arbitrators. 仲裁具有高度的可定制性，允许各方就程序规则、语言、管辖权等达成一致 | In a cross-border supply chain dispute, parties may select arbitration in Hong Kong and English law to govern the process. 在跨境供应链纠纷中，各方可以选择在香港进行仲裁，并适用英国法律来规范程序。 |
| | Arbitrators can be chosen based on expertise, nationality, or field of specialization, ensuring the process is tailored to suit the dispute. 仲裁员可以根据专业知识、国籍或专业领域进行选择，确保过程是 | Construction industry disputes often involve arbitrators with technical knowledge such as engineering or project management. 建筑行业纠纷通常涉及具有工程或项目管理等技术知识的仲裁员。 |
| | Parties can also agree on simplified procedures to reduce costs and save time. 当事人还可以就简化程序达成一致，以降低成本和节省时间。 | For disputes over limited financial claims, they may limit document production or conduct expedited hearings. 对于有限财务索赔的争议，他们可能限制文件制作或进行加速审理。 |
| Confidentiality 保密性 | Arbitration ensures the privacy of proceedings, hearings, and awards, making it ideal for sensitive commercial disputes. 仲裁确保程序的隐私，包括听证会和裁决，使其成为处理敏感商业争端的理想选择。 | Two pharmaceutical companies disputing over proprietary drug formulas can resolve their issue without disclosing their trade secrets publicly. 两种制药 |
| | Hearings are not open to the public, and arbitral awards are not published unless parties agree or enforcement requires disclosure. 听证会不对公众开放，除非当事人同意或执行需要公开，否则仲裁裁决不予以公布。 | Parties involved in arbitration avoid reputational risks, especially in disputes that may impact their market position. 仲裁当事人避免声誉风险，尤其是在可能影响其市场地位的争议中。 |
| | Certain jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong, provide statutory guarantees of confidentiality for arbitration proceedings. 某些司法管辖区，如香港，为仲裁程序提供法定保密保障。 | The Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance explicitly protects parties from having confidential information disclosed. 《香港仲裁条例》明确保护各方免受其机密信息被披露。 |
| Impartiality 公正性 | Arbitrators are independent and impartial, and parties can select professionals suited to the dispute’s complexities. 仲裁员是独立的且公正的，各方可以自行选择 | A French company and a Chinese company may appoint a neutral arbitrator from Singapore to ensure fairness. 一家法国公司和一家中国公司可以指定一位 |
| | Arbitration avoids potential bias that may arise in local courts, especially in disputes involving foreign parties or governments. 仲裁避免了在地方法院可能出现的潜在偏见 | Selecting foreign arbitrators ensures neutrality in disputes involving politically sensitive issues or cross-border controversies. 选择外国仲裁员可以确保涉及政治敏感问题或跨境争议的中立性。 |
| | Institutional rules provide mechanisms for challenging arbitrators if there is evidence of bias or conflicts of interest. 机构规则提供了挑战仲裁员的机制，如果存在…… | For example, a party can challenge an arbitrator under ICC rules for undisclosed ties to one party. 例如，一方可以根据 ICC 规则对仲裁员与一方未公开的联系提出质疑。 |
| Enforceability 可执行性 | Arbitration awards are enforceable worldwide under the New York Convention, signed by 168 countries. 根据纽约公约，仲裁裁决在全球范围内具有执行力，该公约由 168 个国家签署。 | A Hong Kong arbitration award can be enforced against assets of a party located in the United States or Canada. 香港的仲裁裁决可以对位于美国或加拿大的当事人的资产进行执行。 |
| | Courts in member states recognize arbitration agreements and awards unless specific exceptions apply (e.g., procedural irregularities). 成员国法院承认仲裁协议和裁决，除非存在特定例外情况（例如程序上的不规则性）。 | Enforcement of awards is simpler and less prone to jurisdictional litigation compared to foreign court judgments. 执行裁决比外国法院判决简单且更不易发生管辖权诉讼。 |
| | This enforceability is particularly valuable for international businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions. 此可执行性 | An award obtained in Hong Kong can be enforced against assets of a Chinese company located in Mainland China or Europe. 香港获得的裁决可以在中国大陆或欧洲的中国企业资产上执行。 |
| Availability of Interim Remedies 临时救济的可用性 | Arbitration allows parties to preserve rights or assets during proceedings, granting measures like injunctions or evidence preservation. 仲裁允许 | A claimant can request an injunction to freeze assets of the opposing party to prevent asset dissipation before an award is issued. 申请人可以申请冻结被申请方资产的禁令，以防止在作出裁决前资产流失。 |
| | Since October 2019, Hong Kong-seated arbitrations permit parties to apply for interim relief directly from PRC courts. 自 2019 年 10 月起，香港仲裁案件 | A claimant in Hong Kong arbitration against a Mainland Chinese company can seek PRC court measures, such as asset preservation. 香港仲裁的申请人 |

Arbitration stands out as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism due to its flexibility in tailoring procedures, language, and the choice of arbitrators based on the case’s unique requirements. Parties benefit from greater control over the process, which is particularly vital in cross-border commercial disputes that require efficient and customized frameworks.

仲裁因其程序、语言和仲裁员的选择可根据案件独特需求灵活调整而成为首选的争议解决机制。各方从更大的控制权中受益

Another key advantage is confidentiality, as arbitration proceedings, hearings, and awards are private. This helps businesses protect sensitive proprietary information and avoid reputational risks. For instance, in disputes over intellectual property or trade secrets, arbitration ensures the details of the case are not disclosed to the public or competitors. Jurisdictions such as Hong Kong bolster this privacy through specific statutory provisions safeguarding confidentiality.

另一个关键优势是保密性，因为仲裁程序、听证会和裁决都是保密的

The impartiality of arbitration guarantees fairness and neutrality. Parties can appoint arbitrators with domain-specific expertise and avoid concerns about bias, particularly in disputes involving foreign parties or governments.

仲裁的公正性保证了公平和中立。当事人可以任命具有特定领域专业知识的仲裁员，避免对外国当事人或政府涉及纠纷中的偏见问题。

Furthermore, procedures under institutional rules, such as ICC and HKIAC, support transparency and provide mechanisms to challenge alleged arbitrator bias or conflict of interest.

此外，根据国际商会（ICC）和香港国际仲裁中心（HKIAC）等机构规则制定的程序，支持透明度并提供挑战涉嫌仲裁员偏见或利益冲突的机制。

One of arbitration’s most significant advantages is enforceability on a global scale. Thanks to the New York Convention, arbitration awards are enforceable in 168 member states, facilitating business resolutions across international borders. This makes arbitration particularly valuable for multinational corporations where disputes arise between entities operating in different jurisdictions.

仲裁最重要的优势之一是全球范围内的执行力。得益于纽约公约，仲裁裁决在 168 个成员国中具有执行力，促进了跨国界的商业解决。这使得仲裁对于在不同司法管辖区运营的实体之间出现争议的多国公司尤其有价值。

For example, an arbitration award rendered in Hong Kong can be enforced against the assets of a party located in Europe or the United States.

例如，在香港作出的仲裁裁决可以对位于欧洲或美国的当事人的资产进行执行。

Lastly, arbitration offers interim remedies that protect parties’ rights and interests during proceedings. Hong Kong-seated arbitrations have a unique advantage, as parties can apply directly for relief from PRC courts, enabling asset preservation or injunctions against Mainland Chinese entities.

最后，仲裁提供临时救济，以保护当事人在诉讼过程中的权利和利益。香港仲裁具有独特优势，因为当事人可以直接向中国法院申请救济，从而实现资产保全或对大陆实体发出禁令。

This measure is particularly critical in high-stakes disputes where assets might otherwise be dissipated before a final award is issued.

这项措施在高风险争议中尤为重要，在这些争议中，资产可能会在最终裁决发布之前被消耗殆尽。

Arbitration excels as an international dispute resolution method by offering unprecedented flexibility, confidentiality, neutrality, global enforceability, and interim protections. These advantages make arbitration not only effective but also an indispensable tool for businesses navigating disputes in an increasingly globalized world.

仲裁作为一种国际争端解决方法，凭借其前所未有的灵活性、保密性、中立性、全球可执行性和临时保护等特点而脱颖而出。这些优势使仲裁不仅有效，而且成为企业在日益全球化的世界中解决争端的不可或缺的工具。

IV. 诉讼

A. Elements of Litigation

Litigation is a formal process whereby legal disputes are resolved in courts of law.

诉讼是一种正式的程序，通过法院解决法律纠纷。

1. Compulsory Resolution 强制决议

At its core, litigation involves a compulsory resolution of disputes. This means that parties involved in a lawsuit do not have the freedom to opt out of the court system if the law establishes the court’s jurisdiction. Courts have the statutory or historical authority to hear cases and decide them with binding outcomes.

在本质上，诉讼涉及对纠纷的强制解决。这意味着诉讼当事人如果法律确立了法院的管辖权，就没有选择退出法院系统的自由。法院拥有法定或历史性的权力审理案件并作出具有约束力的裁决。

For instance, in accordance with Hong Kong’s High Courts Ordinance (Cap 4), the Court of First Instance has been granted jurisdiction by both statute and legal traditions.

例如，根据香港高等法院条例（第 4 章），原讼法庭已根据成文法和法律传统获得管辖权。

Specifically, Section 12 of Cap 4 outlines the scope of the court’s civil jurisdiction, including original jurisdiction comparable to English courts such as the Chancery or Family divisions, and any other authority explicitly provided for in the law.

具体来说，第 4 章第 12 条概述了法院的民事管辖范围，包括与英国法院如大法官法院或家事法庭相媲美的原审管辖权，以及法律中明确规定的任何其他权力。

High Courts Ordinance (Cap 4)
12. Jurisdiction of Court of First Instance

(1)The Court of First Instance shall be a superior court of record.

(2)The civil jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance shall consist of—

(a)original jurisdiction and authority of a like nature and extent as that held and exercised by the Chancery, Family and Queen’s Bench Divisions of the High Court of Justice in England; and

(b)any other jurisdiction, whether original or appellate jurisdiction, conferred on it by any law.

Essentially, once the court has jurisdiction over a matter, individuals are bound to participate in the process as required by law.

也就是说，一旦法院对某一事项拥有管辖权，个人就必须依法参与诉讼过程。

Thus, the compulsory nature of litigation ensures that disputes are funneled toward resolution through the legal system, even if one or more parties might prefer to avoid that system.

因此，诉讼的强制性确保了争议将通过法律系统得到解决，即使一方或多方可能更愿意避免该系统。

2. Legal Disputes

Courts are designed to resolve legal disputes—not social, moral, or ethical questions that lack a legal basis. Legal disputes refer specifically to disagreements over rights, obligations, and remedies codified in the law.

法院旨在解决法律纠纷——不是缺乏法律依据的社会、道德或伦理问题。法律纠纷特指关于权利、义务和救济的法律规定的争议。

Judges apply established statutes, case law, and principles of equity to determine the outcome.

法官适用既定法规、判例法和公平原则来确定结果。

This contrasts with disputes resolved ex aequo et bono, where a neutral arbitrator can resolve disputes based on what they believe is fair or equitable, disregarding strict rules of law. Courts, however, must strictly adhere to the law when resolving disputes.

这与基于公平和正义原则解决的纠纷形成对比，其中中立的仲裁员可以根据他们认为公平或公正的原则解决纠纷，而无需严格遵循法律规则。然而，法院在解决纠纷时必须严格遵循法律。
For example, a court will not determine whether a particular action was morally “right” or “wrong,” but rather whether it violated contractual obligations, statutory requirements, or common law principles.

例如，法院不会判断某一特定行为是否在道德上是“正确”或“错误”，而是判断其是否违反了合同义务、法定要求或普通法原则。

This focus on legal disputes ensures consistency and predictability in judicial outcomes and distinguishes litigation from other dispute resolution processes like mediation or arbitration, which can be more flexible.

这种对法律纠纷的关注确保了司法结果的连贯性和可预测性，并将诉讼与其他纠纷解决程序（如调解或仲裁）区分开来，后者可能更加灵活。

3. State Appointed Decision-Makers 国家任命的决策者

Another defining feature of litigation is the involvement of impartial decision-makers appointed by the government.

另一个诉讼的显著特征是政府任命的不偏不倚的决策者的参与。

Judges, as state-appointed decision-makers, are tasked with overseeing the process, applying the law, and rendering decisions that are binding on all parties involved.

法官作为由州任命的决策者，负责监督程序、适用法律并作出对所有相关方具有约束力的裁决。

According to Section 4 of the High Courts Ordinance (Cap 4), the decision-makers in the Court of First Instance include the Chief Judge of the High Court, judges appointed by the Governor, and various recorders and deputy judges also appointed as per the statute.

根据《高等法院条例》（第 4 章）第 4 条，初审法院的决策者包括高等法院首席法官、由总督任命的法官以及根据法规任命的记录员和副法官。

High Courts Ordinance (Cap 4)

4.Constitution of Court of First Instance

(1)The Court of First Instance shall consist of—

(a)the Chief Judge of the High Court; (Amended 79 of 1995 s. 50)

(b)such judges as the Governor may appoint; (Amended 80 of 1994 s. 3)

(ba)such recorders as the Governor may appoint; and (Added 80 of 1994 s. 3)

(c)such deputy judges as the Chief Justice may appoint. (Added 52 of 1987 s. 4)

Parties to litigation have no role in choosing these judges, which ensures impartiality and helps avoid any appearance of bias.

诉讼当事人无权选择这些法官，这确保了公正性并有助于避免任何偏见的表象。

Furthermore, the government not only appoints these judges but also funds their salaries and ensures their independence, safeguarding their ability to make decisions without undue influence from any party.
此外，政府不仅任命这些法官，还支付他们的薪水并确保他们的独立性，保护他们不受任何一方不当影响的裁决能力。

4. Binding Decision

Litigation results in a binding decision rendered by the court following an adjudicatory process. The final judgment or order is legally enforceable, which means the parties must comply with it, regardless of whether they agree with the outcome.

诉讼结果产生由法院在裁决程序中作出的具有约束力的裁决。最终判决或命令具有法律执行力，这意味着各方必须遵守它，无论他们是否同意结果。

This aspect of litigation ensures the disputes are definitively resolved, bringing legal certainty and finality to the parties.

此诉讼方面确保争议得到最终解决，为各方带来法律确定性和最终性。

However, decisions are typically subject to procedural safeguards, including the right to appeal (which will be covered in a subsequent element), to allow for review if errors in the legal process or interpretation of the law are alleged.

然而，裁决通常受程序性保障措施约束，包括上诉权（将在后续元素中介绍），以便在法律程序或法律解释中存在错误的情况下进行审查。

5. Adjudicatory Procedures

Litigation relies on structured and formalized adjudicatory procedures. The process typically involves strict adherence to procedural rules, including the filing of pleadings, discovery of evidence, examination of witnesses, and legal arguments.

诉讼依赖于结构化和正式化的仲裁程序。该过程通常涉及严格遵守程序规则，包括提交诉状、发现证据、审查证人以及法律辩论。

These procedures ensure transparency, fairness, and equality between parties in presenting their case.

这些程序确保了各方在陈述案件中的透明度、公平性和平等性。

The adjudicatory nature of courts differentiates litigation from other dispute resolution mechanisms. Unlike arbitration, which allows flexibility in shaping procedures, courts are bound by procedural rules set forth in statutory frameworks or court rules.

法院的仲裁性质将诉讼与其他争议解决机制区分开来。与允许灵活塑造程序的仲裁不同，法院受制于在法定框架或法院规则中规定的程序规则。

6. Subject to Further Review

One important feature of litigation is that decisions made by lower courts are typically subject to further review in higher courts, either as a matter of right or discretion.

诉讼的一个重要特点是，下级法院作出的裁决通常会受到上级法院的进一步审查，这可能是基于权利或自由裁量。

The appellate process provides an opportunity to correct errors, clarify complex areas of law, and ensure that justice is served.

上诉程序提供了纠正错误、阐明复杂法律领域和确保正义得到伸张的机会。

Under the High Courts Ordinance (Cap 4), Section 14 grants individuals a right of appeal in civil matters from the Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeal. However, not all appeals are automatic; some are limited to matters of law or require permission, depending on the jurisdiction and specific case circumstances.

根据《高等法院条例》（第 4 章），第 14 条赋予个人从原讼法庭上诉至上诉法庭就民事案件提出上诉的权利。然而，并非所有上诉都是自动的；有些上诉仅限于法律问题或根据司法管辖权和具体案件情况需要获得许可。

High Courts Ordinance (Cap 4)

14. Appeals in civil matters

(1) Subject to subsection (3) and section 14AA, an appeal shall lie as of right to the Court of Appeal from every judgment or order of the Court of First Instance in any civil cause or matter. (Amended 25 of 1998 s. 2; 3 of 2008 s. 24)

This review mechanism plays a crucial role in building public trust by ensuring accountability in the judicial system.

该审查机制在确保司法系统问责制方面发挥着至关重要的作用，从而在建立公众信任方面发挥着关键作用。

B. Advantages of Litigation

Litigation is one of the most widely recognized methods for resolving disputes due to its structured nature and the significant benefits it offers in terms of enforceability, procedural safeguards, and public oversight.

诉讼由于其结构化性质以及在可执行性、程序保障和公众监督方面提供的显著好处，是解决争议最广泛认可的方法之一。

1. Enforceability

One of the key advantages of litigation is the enforceability of court judgments. When a court issues a judgment in favor of one party, that party has the legal right to rely on the coercive power of the state to enforce the decision.

诉讼的关键优势之一是法院判决的可执行性。当法院作出有利于一方的判决时，该方有权依法依赖国家的强制力来执行该决定。

This means that if the losing party refuses to comply voluntarily with the judgment, mechanisms such as seizure of property, garnishment of wages, or other court-enforced remedies can be employed to compel compliance.

这意味着如果败诉方拒绝自愿遵守判决，可以采取诸如财产扣押、工资扣押或其他法院强制措施等机制来强制执行。

For example, if a court awards monetary compensation to a plaintiff, the defendant may be required to pay the amount through enforcement actions such as freezing bank accounts or confiscation of assets.

例如，如果法院判决被告向原告支付赔偿金，被告可能需要通过强制措施，如冻结银行账户或没收资产，来支付这笔金额。

Such enforcement mechanisms are a key aspect of the legal system and ensure that court decisions are carried out effectively, making litigation a reliable process.

这种执行机制是法律体系的关键方面，确保法院判决得到有效执行，使诉讼过程可靠。

Crucially, this enforceability is not subject to negotiation or voluntary participation, as is sometimes the case in alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation.

关键在于，这种可执行性不受协商或自愿参与的影响，这在像调解这样的替代争议解决方法中有时是这种情况。

The binding nature of court judgments backed by state power is therefore a primary reason individuals and companies choose litigation.

因此，依靠国家权力支持的法院判决的约束力是个人和公司选择诉讼的主要原因。

2. Interim Relief

Litigation also allows parties to seek interim relief, a form of temporary relief granted by courts before the final resolution of a dispute. Interim relief is a vital tool to protect the rights or interests of a party during the pendency of a case.

诉讼还允许当事人寻求临时救济，即在争议最终解决前，法院授予的一种临时性救济措施。临时救济是保护当事人在案件审理期间权利或利益的重要工具。

Importantly, this relief can apply not only to the parties directly involved in the case but also to third parties (non-parties) if necessary.

重要的是，这种救济不仅适用于直接参与案件当事人，在必要时也可适用于第三方（非当事人）。

For example, courts can issue injunctions to prevent a party from taking certain actions, such as selling disputed property or transferring funds, until the case is fully resolved.

例如，法院可以发布禁令，防止一方采取某些行动，如出售争议财产或转移资金，直到案件完全解决。

Another form of interim relief is a court order requiring one party to maintain the status quo during litigation, ensuring that no irreparable harm occurs before a final decision is made.

另一种临时救济措施是法院命令一方在诉讼期间维持现状，确保在最终裁决作出之前不发生不可弥补的损害。

Interim relief underscores the court’s authority to manage disputes efficiently and equitably, providing protections that alternative processes like arbitration may not always offer to the same extent.

3. Public Nature

Litigation is a public process, meaning that court proceedings are generally open for public observation and scrutiny. This transparency fosters confidence in the judicial system by demonstrating that cases are handled fairly, openly, and in accordance with the law.

The public nature of litigation also provides broader societal benefits, as it ensures that judicial decision-making is subject to observation, analysis, and criticism. This helps to hold judges accountable and ensures that proceedings align with principles of justice.

Additionally, the public records generated during litigation create a repository of precedents (case law), which are often used by judges, lawyers, and scholars to interpret and develop the law.

These records make the outcomes of litigation more predictable, as parties can rely on previous rulings to guide their conduct and understand the likely outcome of similar disputes.

这些记录使诉讼结果更具可预测性，因为各方可以依赖以前的裁决来指导他们的行为，并了解类似纠纷的可能结果。

However, while the public nature of litigation promotes accountability, it can also pose privacy concerns for some parties. This contrasts with other dispute resolution processes, like arbitration, which are typically private and confidential.

4. Certainty

Litigation provides certainty in two ways: procedural certainty and substantive certainty.

诉讼以两种方式提供确定性：程序上的确定性和实质上的确定性。

First, the litigation process itself is highly structured, adhering to well-established rules of civil procedure and evidence. This structure ensures that disputes are resolved in a consistent and predictable manner.

首先，诉讼过程本身高度结构化，遵循既定的民事诉讼和证据规则。这种结构确保争议以一致和可预测的方式得到解决。

Both lawyers and judges are highly trained experts who apply these rules impartially, helping to foster confidence in the fairness of the process.

律师和法官都是经过高度训练的专家，他们公正地应用这些规则，有助于增强人们对程序公平性的信心。

Both lawyers and judges are highly trained experts who apply these rules

律师和法官都是经过高度训练的专家，他们公正地应用这些规则

Second, litigation relies on established legal principles, statutes, and precedents to determine outcomes. Parties entering litigation can therefore anticipate specific procedures and possible outcomes based on prior rulings.

其次，诉讼依赖于既定的法律原则、法规和先例来确定结果。因此，进入诉讼的各方可以根据之前的裁决来预期能够采取的具体程序和可能的后果。

This predictability provides valuable guidance and stability in legal and commercial relationships.

这种可预测性为法律和商业关系提供了宝贵的指导和稳定性。

For example, in a contract dispute, a party can rely on established contract law principles to argue their case. These principles ensure that similar cases are treated similarly, reducing uncertainty and unpredictability.

例如，在合同纠纷中，一方可以依靠既定的合同法原则来为自己的案件辩护。这些原则确保类似案件得到类似处理，从而减少不确定性。

5. Review and Appeal 审查与上诉

An additional advantage of litigation is the system of review (appeal) that allows for the correction of judicial errors. When a party believes a judge has made a mistake, whether procedural or substantive, they can seek review by a higher court.

诉讼的另一个优势是审查（上诉）制度，允许纠正司法错误。当一方认为法官犯了错误，无论是程序上的还是实质上的，他们可以向上一级法院寻求审查。

The availability of appeals provides an essential safeguard against errors or injustices that might occur in the initial adjudication.

上诉的可用性为可能出现在初步裁决中的错误或不公正提供了基本保障。

Appellate courts have the authority to review lower court decisions and, if necessary, reverse or modify them to ensure fairness and adherence to the law.

For example, if a trial judge applies the wrong legal principle to a case, the appellate court can correct the error, ensuring that justice is ultimately served.

例如，如果一名审判法官对一个案件适用了错误的法律原则，上诉法院可以纠正错误，确保最终实现正义。

This multi-tiered review system reinforces public confidence in the legal process, as it demonstrates that mistakes can be rectified.

这种多级审查制度加强了公众对法律程序的信心，因为它表明错误可以得到纠正。

It’s important to note that the availability of appeals is often limited in other methods of dispute resolution, such as arbitration, which typically provide very narrow grounds for challenging an arbitrator’s decision.

需要注意的是，在其他争议解决方式中，如仲裁，通常对上诉的可用性有限，仲裁通常只提供非常狭窄的挑战仲裁员决定的理由。

Litigation, in contrast, offers broader opportunities for review, making it a more dependable process in complex or high-stakes cases.

Summary of Advantages

1. Enforceability: Court judgments carry the full force of the law and can be enforced through state mechanisms.
   可执行性：法院判决具有法律的全部效力，可以
2. Interim Relief: Courts provide temporary protections to safeguard parties’ rights during the litigation process.
   临时救济：法院在诉讼过程中提供临时保护，以保障各方权利。
3. Public Nature: Transparency of court proceedings ensures fairness and accountability, while also contributing to the development of legal precedent.
   公共性质：法庭程序的透明度确保了公平和问责制，同时也促进了法律先例的发展
4. Certainty: Litigation is governed by consistent procedural rules and legal principles, making outcomes more predictable.
   确定性：诉讼受一致的程序规则和法律原则的管辖，使结果更具可预测性。
5. Review and Appeal: Appellate systems ensure that errors in judgment can be corrected, reinforcing trust in the judicial system.
   审查与上诉：上诉系统确保可以纠正判断错误，从而加强人们对司法制度的信任。

Contextual Insights and Practical Importance

While litigation has notable advantages, it’s also important to recognize its potential challenges, such as high costs, delays, and the public nature of proceedings, which may deter certain parties.

虽然诉讼有显著的优势，但也要认识到其潜在的挑战，如高成本、延误和诉讼的公开性质，这可能会阻止某些当事人。

Nevertheless, for those seeking enforceability, interim protections, and access to a robust appellate system, litigation remains a preferred option.

然而，对于那些寻求执行力、临时保护和进入强大上诉系统的当事人来说，诉讼仍然是一个首选方案。

V. Litigation & Arbitration: Statistics and Context

A. 年度报告

• Litigation Efficiency: Hong Kong courts demonstrate relatively high disposal rates (82% overall), especially in bankruptcy and personal injuries cases, indicating efficient judicial administration for many types of disputes.

  诉讼效率：香港法院表现出相对较高的处理率（总体为 82%），特别是在破产和个人伤害案件中，这表明许多类型纠纷的司法管理效率较高。

  However, some categories, such as High Court actions, show slower resolution rates, which may be due to the complexity of cases or limited judicial resources.

  然而，一些类别，如高等法院诉讼，显示出更慢的解决速度，这可能是由于案件复杂性或司法资源有限所致。

• Arbitration Usage: Arbitration institutions vary widely in caseloads, with international bodies like ICC and LCIA handling significant cross-border disputes, while domestic Chinese institutions like CIETAC and BAC dominate regional arbitration landscapes.

  仲裁应用：仲裁机构在案件量上差异很大，国际机构如 ICC 和 LCIA 处理大量的跨境争端，而国内的中国机构如 CIETAC 和 BAC 则主导着区域仲裁市场。

  Hong Kong’s arbitration caseload remains comparatively small, reflective of its focus on specialized cases or competition with litigation.

  香港的仲裁案件量相对较小，这反映了其专注于专业案件或与诉讼竞争的定位。

• China’s Litigation vs Arbitration Divide: Despite the growth of arbitration usage, litigation still dwarfs arbitration in China, showing that parties generally prefer the certainty and enforceability offered by courts.

  中国诉讼与仲裁的分歧：尽管仲裁的使用量增长，但在中国，诉讼仍然远超仲裁，显示出当事人普遍更倾向于法院提供的确定性和执行力。

  The sheer volume of court cases (45.3 million) illustrates the scale at which China’s judicial system operates.

  中国司法系统运作的规模可见一斑，法院案件数量（4530 万）巨大。

B. World Bank – Doing Business Project

1. World Bank – Time Required to Enforce a Contract: Hong Kong SAR, China

The chart from the World Bank’s Doing Business Project provides insight into the average time required to enforce a contract in Hong Kong through litigation, showing consistent data between 2008 and 2019:

世界银行《营商环境报告》中的图表揭示了在香港通过诉讼执行合同所需平均时间，显示了 2008 年至 2019 年间的数据一致性：

• The enforcement of a contract in Hong Kong courts takes approximately 380 days (or ~12.7 months), based on the most recent data available.

  香港法院执行合同大约需要 380 天（或约 12.7 个月），根据最新数据。

• The steady increase from 240 days (~8 months) in the early 2000s to the current 380 days (~12.7 months) indicates that contract enforcement has become more time-consuming, possibly due to a heavier caseload or greater procedural complexity.

  从 2000 年代初的 240 天（约 8 个月）到目前的 380 天（约 12.7 个月）的稳步增长表明，合同执行变得更加耗时，这可能是由于案件负担加重或程序复杂性增加所致。

This timeline provides a helpful benchmark when comparing litigation with arbitration, as both methods differ greatly in efficiency, timelines, and processes.

这份时间线为比较诉讼与仲裁提供了有价值的基准，因为这两种方法在效率、时间表和流程上差异很大。

2. Arbitration Timelines: Comparing Institutions

The table comparing arbitration timelines outlines the median and mean durations (in months) for resolving disputes across leading arbitration institutions globally. Here is the breakdown:

仲裁时间线比较表概述了解决案件的平均和中等持续时间（以月为单位）。

1. Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC):

   香港国际仲裁中心（HKIAC）

   • Median duration: 15 months, mean duration: 17.7 months

     中位数时长：15 个月，平均时长：17.7 个月

     Arbitration at HKIAC takes longer than court enforcement of contracts in Hong Kong but offers procedural flexibility and confidentiality, which are often prioritized for commercial disputes.

     香港国际仲裁中心（HKIAC）的仲裁比香港法院执行合同所需时间更长，但提供了程序灵活性和保密性，这些通常在商业纠纷中被优先考虑。

2. Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC):
   新加坡国际仲裁中心（SIAC）

   • Median duration: 11.7 months, mean duration: 13.8 months

     中位数持续时间为 11.7 个月，平均持续时间为 13.8 个月
     SIAC performs better in terms of efficiency compared to HKIAC, often appealing to parties seeking quicker resolutions for international disputes.

     与香港国际仲裁中心（HKIAC）相比，新加坡国际仲裁中心（SIAC）在效率方面表现更佳，通常吸引寻求更快解决国际争端的当事人。

3. London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA):

   伦敦国际仲裁法庭（LCIA）：

   • Median duration: 16 months, mean duration: 20 months

     中位数时长：16 个月，平均时长：20 个月
     LCIA has longer timelines compared to other institutions, reflecting the complexity and multi-jurisdictional nature of many disputes it handles.

     与其他机构相比，LCIA 的期限更长，反映了它处理的许多争议的复杂性和多司法管辖区性质。

4. Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC):
   斯德哥尔摩商会（SCC）：

   • Median duration: 13.5 months

     平均持续时间：13.5 个月

     SCC’s efficiency positions it as a competitive arbitration venue, particularly for parties involved in European and cross-border disputes.

     SCC 的效率使其成为具有竞争力的仲裁场所，尤其是涉及欧洲和跨境争端的当事人。

5. International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR):

   国际争议解决中心（ICDR）

   • Median duration: 13.1 months, mean duration: 15.4 months

     中位持续时间：13.1 个月，平均持续时间：15.4 个月

     ICDR demonstrates relatively efficient timelines for international arbitration, balancing complexity with procedural flexibility.

     ICDR 展示了相对高效的仲裁时间表，在复杂性与程序灵活性之间取得平衡。

3. Key Comparisons: Timeline Analysis

1. Litigation (Average 12.7 Months):

   诉讼（平均 12.7 个月）：

   • The enforcement of contracts via litigation in Hong Kong courts aligns relatively closely with timelines at leading arbitration centers such as SIAC and ICDR.

     香港法院通过诉讼执行合同的时间表与领先仲裁中心如 SIAC 和 ICDR 的时间表相对接近。

   • However, litigation offers greater procedural certainty and the coercive power of the state for enforceability, which makes the extra legal stability worth the time investment for many parties.

     然而，诉讼提供了更大的程序确定性以及国家强制力以确保执行力，这使得额外的法律稳定性对于许多当事人来说值得投入时间。

2. Arbitration (Average 13.86 Months Median):

   仲裁（平均 13.86 个月中位数）：

   • Arbitration institutions provide comparable or longer timelines for final resolution of disputes, with most institutions taking 12–15 months on average (median).

     仲裁机构提供可比或更长的最终解决争端时间表，大多数机构平均需要 12-15 个月（中位数）。

   • While arbitration does not follow rigid court procedures, it typically incorporates detailed evidentiary phases and tailored proceedings, which contribute to the extended timeline.

     虽然仲裁不遵循严格的法院程序，但它通常包含详细的证据阶段和定制程序，这导致了延长的时间表。

   • However, arbitration provides flexibility and confidentiality that litigation does not, as well as the ability to select arbitrators who specialize in commercial disputes.

     然而，仲裁提供了诉讼所不具备的灵活性和保密性，以及能够

3. Broad Impact:

   广泛影响：

   • When comparing litigation and arbitration, litigation in Hong Kong courts (380 days or ~12.7 months) seems slightly faster on average than arbitration in institutions like LCIA or HKIAC, which range from 15 to 20 months.

     与诉讼相比，香港法院的诉讼（平均 380 天或约 12.7 个月）似乎比 LCIA 或 HKIAC 等机构的仲裁快一些，这些机构的仲裁时间从 15 到 20 个月不等。

   • Arbitration timelines depend on the complexity of the dispute, the scope of evidence required, and procedural flexibility, meaning institutions like SIAC and ICDR generally perform better for simpler cases compared to those needing multi-jurisdictional analysis.

     仲裁的时间表取决于争议的复杂性、所需证据的范围以及程序灵活性，这意味着 SIAC 和 ICDR 等机构通常在处理简单案件方面表现更好，而对于需要跨国界分析的案件则不然。

Factors Contributing to Timeline Differences Between Litigation and Arbitration

1. Rigid Procedural Rules in Litigation:

   Courts in Hong Kong follow strict procedural rules, which may cause delays in enforcing contracts but also ensure precision, transparency, and fairness. Every step must follow established law and involves oversight from court-appointed judges.

2. Flexibility in Arbitration:

   Arbitration centers, while flexible, may involve more tailored and party-specific procedures that can become time-consuming. For example, arbitrators may allow extensive discovery or detailed submissions if both parties agree, extending the timeline.

3. Caseload Differences:

   Litigation handles extraordinary amounts of cases (e.g., 45.3 million court cases in China in 2023) compared to arbitration (607,000 arbitration cases in China), so congestion and delays in courts can lengthen the timeline despite procedural efficiency.

   Arbitration centers like HKIAC operate on smaller caseloads, enabling arbitrators to focus more closely on complex commercial disputes.

4. International vs Domestic Complexity:

   Arbitration centers like ICC and LCIA consistently take longer due to their focus on international commercial disputes involving multiple jurisdictions, cross-border trade, and diverse legal systems. Domestic litigation in Hong Kong or China is more straightforward due to standardized legal rules within a single jurisdiction.

Key Takeaways

1. Efficiency:

   For straightforward disputes, litigation in Hong Kong courts is highly efficient, with timelines comparable to or shorter than arbitration institutions. In other words, parties seeking faster enforceability of contracts may benefit from pursuing litigation locally.

   Arbitration institutions provide efficiency for international, multi-jurisdictional disputes but can take longer than litigation in some cases (e.g., LCIA with a mean duration of 20 months).

2. Flexibility vs Certainty:

   Arbitration provides more flexibility in dispute resolution, allowing parties to structure the process to their needs, include confidential proceedings, and appoint specialized arbitrators.

   Litigation, on the other hand, offers rigorous procedural and substantive certainty but may increase time demands for complex cases.

   Litigation, on the other hand, offers rigorous procedural and substantive certainty but may

3. Enforceability:

   While arbitration has comparable resolution timelines to litigation, enforceability remains one of litigation’s key advantages.

   The coercive power of the courts ensures contract enforcement efficiently, whereas arbitration outcomes must often comply with treaty enforcement frameworks like the New York Convention, potentially introducing hurdles across jurisdictions.

VI. 调解

A. Mediation: Elements (Based on the Mediation Ordinance, Cap 620)

Mediation, as defined under the Mediation Ordinance (Cap 620), is a structured and voluntary process that aims to resolve disputes with the assistance of an impartial third party, known as the mediator. Unlike litigation or arbitration, mediation does not involve adjudication or the determination of who is legally “right” or “wrong.” Instead, it focuses on facilitating communication and collaboration between the parties in dispute.

Here are the key elements of mediation as defined in Section 4 of the Ordinance:

1. Structured Process

Mediation is not an informal negotiation but follows a structural approach. This means that the mediator organizes and oversees a defined process that includes one or more sessions to guide the parties toward resolution. The structure allows for an organized exploration of issues and ensures that the process moves systematically toward a solution.

The mediator facilitates this process but does not exercise decision-making power, unlike a judge or arbitrator.

2. Impartial Mediator

A key component of mediation is the role of the impartial individual (or individuals) responsible for facilitating the process. Mediators must remain neutral and cannot favor one party over the other. Their goal is to assist the parties in exploring solutions rather than deciding the outcome.
Mediators are typically selected jointly by the parties, based on their trust in the mediator’s neutrality and their belief in the mediator’s ability to handle the matter professionally.

3. Focus on Assisting Parties

Mediation aims to assist the parties in working together to resolve their dispute. The mediator helps with various key tasks:

• (a) Identifying the Issues:
  The mediator assists in clarifying the specific issues that are causing disagreement between the parties. This step ensures that both parties have a shared understanding of what needs to be addressed.
• (b) Exploring and Generating Options:
  Once the issues are identified, the mediator helps brainstorm possible resolutions. The focus is on creating options that accommodate the interests of all parties involved.
• (c) Facilitating Communication:
  The mediator encourages effective communication between parties, especially in situations where emotions may be high or where past disagreements have hindered constructive dialogue.
• (d) Reaching Agreement:
  Ultimately, the goal of mediation is to assist the parties in reaching a mutual agreement. This agreement may resolve the entire dispute or settle part of it. The agreement reached is non-binding unless the parties formalize it in writing.

4. Non-Adjudicative

A critical feature of mediation is that it is non-adjudicative, meaning the mediator does not issue a binding decision on the dispute. This stands in contrast to litigation and arbitration, where the outcome is imposed on the parties by a third-party authority (a judge or arbitrator).
In mediation, the outcome is entirely determined by the parties themselves, which preserves their autonomy and ability to control the resolution.

Summary of Elements

To summarize, at its core, mediation is:

1. A structured process facilitated by an impartial mediator.
2. Focused on assisting the parties in identifying issues, exploring solutions, improving communication, and reaching mutual agreements.
3. Non-adjudicative, meaning that resolution is voluntary and not imposed by the mediator.

B. Advantages

Mediation offers numerous benefits compared to formal dispute resolution mechanisms such as litigation or arbitration. Here are the key advantages, with an expanded explanation of each:

1. Flexibility

Mediation is a highly flexible process, allowing the parties to control how it is conducted. Unlike litigation or arbitration, which are constrained by rigid procedural rules, mediation offers considerable latitude, including the following choices:

• Choice of Mediator:
  Parties can jointly select the mediator based on their preferences, ensuring both trust in the mediator’s neutrality and confidence in their ability to manage the dispute effectively.
• Customized Process:
  The parties, in consultation with the mediator, can decide how the proceedings will unfold. This might include how sessions will be structured, the timeline for resolution, and the level of formality.

The flexibility of mediation makes it particularly appealing in disputes where traditional procedures might not address the parties’ needs or where the dispute involves unique or complex circumstances.

2. Time and Cost Savings

Mediation is generally faster and cheaper compared to litigation or arbitration. Some key factors contributing to these savings include:

• Efficiency:
  Mediation focuses on reaching a resolution more quickly by cutting through procedural delays. Many mediations are concluded in weeks or months compared to the years litigation often takes.
• Lower Costs:
  Mediation’s reduced timeline translates into significant cost savings, as parties avoid prolonged legal fees, court fees, and expert witness expenses associated with litigation or arbitration.
• Reduced Resource Drain:
  Mediation minimizes the amount of time and resources the parties must devote to resolving the dispute, enabling them to focus on their core activities, whether personal or business-related.

For example, while litigation in Hong Kong averages 380 days for contract enforcement (as per the World Bank data), mediation could resolve the same dispute in a fraction of that time.

3. Privacy

Mediation offers confidentiality, which can be invaluable to parties concerned about reputational harm or the disclosure of sensitive information. Key aspects include:

• Private Proceedings:
  Mediation sessions are not open to the public, unlike court hearings, which are conducted in open court.
• Confidentiality of Settlement:
  Any settlement reached is similarly confidential, meaning it is known only to the parties and the mediator. This privacy is particularly important in commercial disputes where sensitive business information is at stake.

Confidentiality in mediation makes it more appealing than litigation for parties who value discretion.

4. Preserves Relationships

One of the most significant advantages of mediation is its ability to preserve or even improve relationships between parties. Unlike the adversarial nature of litigation or arbitration, mediation focuses on collaboration:

• Mutual Outcomes:
  Mediation enables the parties to work together to craft solutions that are acceptable to both sides. This shared ownership of the outcome reduces resentment and fosters goodwill.
• Focus on Interests, Not Positions:
  Mediation encourages the parties to go beyond their stated positions and focus on deeper interests, which can pave the way for compromise and understanding.
• Non-Adversarial Process:
  With the mediator facilitating communication and reducing tension, parties are less likely to feel attacked, which reduces animosity and helps maintain relationships.

For example, in family disputes or long-term commercial partnerships, mediation often enables parties to resolve conflicts while preserving their ability to work or co-exist collaboratively in the future.

Summary of Advantages

Mediation’s key advantages can be summarized as follows:

1. Flexibility: Parties have control over the process, mediator, and structure of discussions.
2. Time/Cost Savings: Mediation is significantly faster and cheaper than litigation or arbitration.
3. Privacy: Proceedings and settlements remain entirely confidential, protecting sensitive information.
4. Relationship Management: Mediation fosters goodwill by emphasizing collaboration and preserving relationships, making it an attractive option in disputes where long-term coexistence is essential.

C. Contrasting Mediation with Litigation and Arbitration

• Mediation vs. Litigation: Mediation avoids the adversarial and public nature of litigation, making it faster, more cost-efficient, and more private. However, mediation lacks the enforcement power and finality offered by court judgments.
• Mediation vs. Arbitration: Mediation provides complete flexibility and control to the parties, while arbitration involves a binding award decided by the arbitrator. Arbitration may take longer and involve higher costs, though it retains confidentiality similar to mediation.

Mediation is particularly advantageous in disputes where ongoing relationships, efficiency, and confidentiality are paramount, while litigation or arbitration may be preferred for disputes requiring enforceable outcomes backed by state power.

VII. 裁决 Adjudication

A. 要素

Adjudication is a unique dispute resolution method primarily used in specific sectors like construction. It differs from litigation, arbitration, and mediation by emphasizing speed, efficiency, and temporality. Here are the essential elements expanded upon:

裁决是一种独特的争议解决方法，主要用于特定行业，如建筑。它不同于诉讼、仲裁和调解，强调速度、效率和时效性。以下是详细阐述的必要要素：

1. Compulsory Resolution 强制决议

Adjudication involves compulsory resolution of disputes aligned with statutory rules or a contract. This means parties cannot opt out of the process if adjudication is imposed by legal frameworks, such as Hong Kong’s Construction Adjudication Scheme (effective December 2024). Unlike mediation or arbitration, adjudication is mandatory when applicable.

裁决涉及根据法定规则或合同强制解决争议。这意味着如果裁决由法律框架（如香港的建设裁决方案，自 2024 年 12 月生效）强制执行，则各方不能选择退出该程序。与调解或仲裁不同，当适用时，裁决是强制性的。

This compulsory element ensures disputes are resolved without delay, avoiding prolonged negotiations or stalling tactics that would otherwise hinder resolution.

这个强制性的要素确保争议能够及时解决，避免因拖延谈判或采取阻碍解决的策略而导致的长期谈判。

2. Specific Type of Disputes

Adjudication is limited to specific types of disputes, such as payment claims in construction projects or other technical disputes dictated by industry-specific statutes or contracts. This focus allows the process to remain streamlined and efficient.

仲裁仅限于特定类型的争议，例如建筑项目中的付款索赔或其他由行业特定法规或合同规定的技术争议。这种专注使流程保持简化和高效。

For example, Hong Kong’s Construction Adjudication Scheme focuses predominantly on disputes related to payment claims during construction projects. These disputes often require rapid resolution to preserve cash flow and avoid project disruptions.

例如，香港的建设仲裁方案主要关注与建筑项目中的付款索赔相关的争议。这些争议通常需要迅速解决，以保护现金流并避免项目中断。

3. Party-Appointed Decision Maker

Unlike litigation, where judges are appointed by the state, adjudication involves a party-appointed decision-maker. Parties can select an adjudicator based on their expertise and qualifications that align with the industry or dispute in question.

与诉讼不同，诉讼中的法官由国家任命，而裁决涉及当事人指定的裁决人。当事人可以根据其专业资格选择裁决人，这些资格与争议或行业相符。

For example, construction adjudicators might be civil engineers, quantity surveyors, or other professionals with technical expertise rather than lawyers.

例如，建筑裁决人可能是土木工程师、数量审计师或其他具有技术专长的专业人士，而不是律师。

This feature allows adjudication to address complex industry-specific disputes quickly and efficiently using decision-makers who understand the nuances of the relevant field.

这一特性使得裁决能够快速有效地解决复杂行业特定争议，使用了解相关领域细微之处的裁决人。

4. Abbreviated Procedures

Adjudication uses abbreviated procedures compared to litigation or arbitration, significantly reducing time and costs. Procedural rules in adjudication are designed to avoid unnecessary delays, focusing only on dispute resolution without prolonged hearings or elaborate discovery processes.

专业仲裁相较于诉讼或仲裁，采用简化程序，显著减少时间和成本。仲裁的程序规则旨在避免不必要的延误，只关注争议解决，而不进行漫长的听证或复杂的发现程序。

For example, Hong Kong requires payment claims to be responded to within 30 days, with the adjudicator’s determination issued within 55 days unless extended.

例如，香港要求在 30 天内对付款索赔作出回应，除非延期，否则仲裁员的裁决应在 55 天内发布。

This streamlined approach ensures disputes are handled quickly and avoids the slow pace associated with traditional litigation.

这种简化的方法确保争议得到快速处理，避免了传统诉讼的缓慢节奏。

5. Interim Binding Decision 临时约束性裁决

A crucial part of adjudication is that it results in an interim binding decision. While the decision is enforceable immediately, it is subject to review by litigation or arbitration if either party disputes it.

仲裁的一个关键部分是它产生一个临时约束性裁决。虽然该裁决可以立即执行，但如果任何一方对此提出异议，它将受到诉讼或仲裁的审查。

This interim nature is especially important in industries like construction, where immediate action is often required to preserve cash flow or maintain project schedules.

这种临时性质在建筑等行业尤为重要，在这些行业中，通常需要立即采取行动以保持现金流或维护项目进度。

For example, if a contractor disputes the payment amount determined by the adjudicator, they can pursue further review in court or arbitration. However, until overturned, the adjudicator’s decision remains binding.

例如，如果承包商对裁决员确定的付款金额提出异议，他们可以在法院或仲裁中寻求进一步审查。然而，除非被推翻，裁决员的裁决仍然具有约束力。

6. Subject to Further Review 须进一步审查

Adjudication decisions are subject to review, meaning parties can challenge them through litigation or arbitration. This is why adjudication is often referred to as a “temporary or provisional” resolution method—it provides an enforceable outcome quickly while preserving the right to seek a more detailed resolution later.

仲裁裁决可进行审查，这意味着当事人可以通过诉讼或仲裁来挑战它们。这就是为什么仲裁通常被称为“临时或临时”的解决方案方法——它能够快速提供可执行的裁决，同时保留日后寻求更详细解决方案的权利。

This dual feature balances speed with fairness, preventing rushed decisions from being the final word in complex disputes.

这种双重特性在速度与公平性之间取得平衡，防止了在复杂的争议中匆忙的决定成为最终裁决。

Summary of Elements

Adjudication can be summarized as:

1. Compulsory resolution where applicable by statute or contract.

   适用于法律或合同规定的强制决议。

2. Focused on specific types of disputes (e.g., payment claims in construction).

   专注于特定类型的争议（例如，建筑中的付款索赔）。

3. Involves party-appointed decision-makers with industry expertise.

   涉及具有行业专业知识的当事人指定的决策者。

4. Operates with abbreviated procedures to promote speed and efficiency.

   采用简化的程序以促进速度和效率。

5. Produces an interim binding decision, enforceable but revisable.

   产生一个临时约束性裁决，可执行但可修订。

6. Allows decisions to be reviewed through litigation or arbitration.

   允许通过诉讼或仲裁审查裁决。

B. Advantages

Adjudication provides significant benefits that make it particularly useful in time-sensitive industries.

1. Time and Cost Savings

Adjudication is designed to resolve disputes quickly and cheaply, often in a matter of weeks or months. Unlike litigation or arbitration, adjudication avoids lengthy procedures like document discovery or hearings, allowing parties to receive a decision in as little as 55 days under Hong Kong’s Construction Adjudication Scheme (or faster, in certain cases).

仲裁旨在快速且低成本地解决争议，通常在几周或几个月内完成。与诉讼或仲裁不同，仲裁避免了像文件发现或听证会这样的漫长程序，使各方能够在香港建筑仲裁方案（或在某些情况下更快）下，在最短 55 天内收到裁决。

Another key feature is that the other party cannot claim representation costs, further reducing financial risks for the claimant. For businesses operating on tight margins, this cost-effective approach is a major advantage.

另一个关键特点是，对方不能要求代表费用，这进一步降低了索赔人的财务风险。对于利润微薄的商业来说，这种成本效益的方法是一个主要优势。

2. Cash Flow

In industries like construction, securing payments quickly is vital for maintaining cash flow and ensuring a company can fund ongoing or future projects. Quick adjudication decisions allow unpaid parties (e.g., contractors, subcontractors) to enforce payment claims without waiting years for litigation.

在建筑等行业，快速获得付款对于维持现金流和确保公司能够资助正在进行或未来的项目至关重要。快速的裁决决定允许未付款方（例如，承包商、分包商）在等待多年诉讼之前强制执行付款索赔。
This immediate injection of funds can prevent project delays and insolvency risks.

这种即时的资金注入可以防止项目延误和破产风险。

For example, a contractor can use a successful adjudication decision to demand payment immediately, even while the decision is under review by a court or arbitrator.

例如，承包商可以使用成功的裁决决定立即要求付款，即使该裁决正在由法院或仲裁员审查。

3. Mandatory Process

Adjudication is often mandatory under statutory schemes, meaning parties cannot contract out or refuse to participate.

仲裁通常在法定方案中是强制性的，这意味着各方不能通过合同排除或拒绝参与。

In Hong Kong, for example, the Construction Adjudication Scheme applies automatically to payment disputes, ensuring that contractors and employers cannot delay resolution by rejecting the process.

例如，在香港，建筑仲裁方案自动适用于付款争议，确保承包商和雇主不能通过拒绝程序来延迟解决。

This mandatory nature reduces disputes over procedural fairness and compels parties to address claims promptly.

这种强制性质减少了关于程序公平性的争议，并迫使各方及时处理索赔。

4. Early Communication

Adjudication encourages early communication between parties, preventing lengthy stalling or avoidance tactics. Statutes typically impose strict timelines for filing payment claims, responding, and progressing through adjudication. This avoids situations where entitlement claims are ignored or delayed indefinitely.

仲裁鼓励当事人之间尽早沟通，防止出现长期拖延或回避策略。法规通常对提交付款索赔、回应和仲裁进展设定严格的时限。这避免了权益主张被忽视或无限期延迟的情况。

For example, Hong Kong’s Construction Adjudication Scheme requires a payment response within 30 days, ensuring the respondent engages with the dispute early rather than delaying accountability.

例如，香港的建筑工程仲裁方案要求在 30 天内作出付款回应，确保被诉方尽早参与争议，而不是拖延责任。

5. Confidentiality

Adjudication proceedings are confidential, protecting sensitive business information and reputational concerns. Decisions are not published, and hearings are not open to the public. This privacy appeals to commercial entities that wish to resolve disputes discreetly.

仲裁程序保密，保护敏感的商业信息和声誉问题。裁决不公开，听证会不对公众开放。这种隐私保护吸引了希望秘密解决争议的商业实体。

For example, a contractor seeking payment for disputed invoices can avoid public scrutiny of their financial situation by handling the issue through adjudication rather than litigation.

例如，寻求支付有争议发票的承包商可以通过仲裁而不是诉讼来处理问题，从而避免其财务状况受到公众审查。

6. Impartiality

Adjudication provides access to a wide range of qualified adjudicators with diverse expertise, including industry professionals and foreign nationals. Parties can mutually agree to appoint an adjudicator suited to the specific dispute, ensuring impartiality and competence in the process.

仲裁提供了接触广泛合格仲裁员的机会，包括行业专业人士和外国公民。各方可以协商一致，任命适合特定争议的仲裁员，以确保过程的公正性和专业性。

For example, in a construction dispute involving complex technical issues, the parties might select an adjudicator with engineering qualifications, rather than a lawyer, to ensure fair assessment of the claims.

例如，在涉及复杂技术问题的建筑争议中，各方可能会选择具有工程资格的仲裁员，而不是律师，以确保对索赔的公平评估。

Summary of Advantages

Adjudication’s advantages can be summarized as:
仲裁的优点可以概括为：

1. Time/Cost Savings: Abbreviated procedures and restrictions on claiming costs save time and money.

   时间/成本节约：简化的程序和对索赔成本的限制可以节省时间和金钱。

2. Cash Flow: Quick decisions provide payments that keep businesses operational.

   现金流：快速的决定可以提供维持企业运营的付款。

3. Mandatory Process: Statutes compel parties to engage without the ability to contract out.

   强制性程序：法律强制各方参与，不能通过合同外包。

4. Early Communication: Timelines prevent stalling and encourage prompt accountability.

   早期沟通：时间表防止拖延并鼓励及时问责。

5. Confidentiality: Proceedings protect sensitive commercial details.

   保密性：程序保护敏感的商业细节。

6. Impartiality: Specialized adjudicators ensure fair and competent decision-making.

   公正性：专业仲裁员确保公平和有能力的决策。

C. Hong Kong’s Construction Adjudication Scheme

Hong Kong’s newly enacted Construction Adjudication Scheme, effective December 18, 2024, establishes statutory procedures for resolving payment disputes in construction projects. Key features of the scheme include:

香港新实施的《建筑争议解决方案》自 2024 年 12 月 18 日起生效，为建筑工程中的付款争议建立了法定程序。该方案的主要特点包括：

1. Payment Framework:

   • Contractors may submit a payment claim under Section 18.

     承包商可以根据第 18 条提交付款索赔。

   • Employers or other parties must respond to the claim within 30 days under Section 20.

     根据第 20 条，雇主或其他相关方必须在 30 天内对索赔作出回应。

   • Adjudication begins within 28 days under Section 24.

     仲裁应在第 24 条规定的 28 天内开始。

   • Determination is issued within 55 days, unless extended by mutual agreement (Section 42(5)).

     除非经双方协商延期，否则决定应在第 55 天内作出（第 42(5)条）。

2. Determinations:

   • Cover payment claims and reasonable costs of adjudication (but exclude representation costs, Section 42(1)).

     覆盖支付索赔和裁决的合理费用（但排除代表费用，第 42(1)条）。

   • Must be in writing with reasons provided (Section 42(6)).

     必须以书面形式提供理由（第四十二条第六款）。

   • Delivered to the Authorised Nominating Body (ANB) and then to parties (Sections 42(5) & (7)).

     交付给授权提名机构（ANB）然后交付给各方（第四十二条第五款和第七款）。

   • Binding unless set aside or reviewed (Section 44).

     除非被撤销或审查，否则具有约束力（第四十四条）。

This scheme is designed to address payment-related disputes quickly, ensuring cash flow preservation while allowing dissatisfied parties to pursue review through litigation or arbitration.

本方案旨在快速解决与付款相关的争议，确保现金流保持，同时允许不满意的各方通过诉讼或仲裁寻求审查。

Conclusion: Why Choose Adjudication?

Adjudication offers significant advantages for industries like construction, where timelines are critical and disputes often require fast, confidential resolution. It provides enforceable interim decisions while remaining flexible and cost-effective.

仲裁为建筑等行业提供了显著优势，这些行业的时间表至关重要，争议通常需要快速、保密的解决。它提供了可执行的临时裁决，同时保持灵活和成本效益。

The introduction of Hong Kong’s Construction Adjudication Scheme promises to streamline payment disputes and protect contractors’ financial stability.

香港建设仲裁方案的引入有望简化支付争议，并保护承包商的财务稳定。

VIII. 各类争议解决方式比较

A. 维度

1. Jurisdiction

• Litigation: Jurisdiction is determined by local law and subject to conflicts of law rules. Courts have limited discretion and must operate within the bounds of their statutory authority, territorial reach, and subject matter jurisdiction.
  诉讼：管辖权由当地法律决定，并受冲突法规则约束。法院的裁量权有限，必须在法定权限、地域管辖和案件管辖范围内运作。

  • Example: Hong Kong courts must follow the High Courts Ordinance and local laws.

    示例：香港法院必须遵守高等法院条例和当地法律。

• Arbitration: Jurisdiction depends on party agreement, often via an arbitration clause in contracts. Parties select the venue (e.g., HKIAC, SIAC, ICC) and can agree on the scope of jurisdiction, which gives arbitration flexibility in addressing cross-border disputes.
  仲裁：管辖权取决于当事人协议，通常通过合同中的仲裁条款。当事人选择地点（例如，HKIAC、SIAC、ICC）并可以就管辖范围达成一致，这使仲裁在解决跨境争端方面具有灵活性。

• Mediation: Jurisdiction is also determined by party agreement. Mediation can occur voluntarily, but in Hong Kong, court-mandated mediation may be imposed for certain cases to encourage settlement before litigation proceeds.

• Adjudication: Jurisdiction is typically contractual or statutory. For example, Hong Kong’s Construction Adjudication Scheme explicitly mandates adjudication for disputes like payment claims, preventing parties from contracting out once the process is invoked.
  裁决：管辖权通常是合同或法定。例如，香港的建设裁决方案明确规定了对于支付索赔等争议的裁决，一旦启动程序，各方不得规避。

2. Governing Procedure / Rules of Evidence 管辖程序/证据规则

• Litigation: Procedural rules are based on local civil procedure laws, which are rigid and formal. Rules of evidence and pleadings are strictly followed to ensure fairness and transparency.
  诉讼：程序规则基于当地民事诉讼法律，这些法律严格且正式。严格遵循证据规则和诉讼规则以确保公平和透明。
  • Example: Parties must submit pleadings within strict timelines and comply with court rules on disclosure.
• Arbitration: Procedures are flexible and determined by the parties or the arbitral institution rules. This flexibility promotes efficiency, but parties must still adhere to the chosen procedural framework (e.g., HKIAC Rules).
  仲裁：程序灵活，由当事人或仲裁机构规则决定。这种灵活性提高了效率，但当事人仍需遵守所选的程序框架（例如，HKIAC 规则）。
• Mediation: Mediation is also flexible, as parties decide how sessions are conducted. There are no rigid evidentiary rules, since mediators focus on collaboration and interest-based negotiation rather than legal adjudication.
  仲裁：仲裁也具有灵活性，因为各方决定如何进行会议。由于调解员专注于合作和基于利益的谈判，而不是法律裁决，因此没有固定的证据规则。
• Adjudication: Procedures are prescribed by contract or statutory rules, particularly in industries like construction. Rules ensure disputes are resolved swiftly, such as the 55-day determination window under Hong Kong’s Construction Adjudication Scheme.
  裁决：程序由合同或法定规则规定，尤其是在建筑等行业。规则确保争议得到迅速解决，例如香港建筑裁决方案的 55 天裁决窗口。

3. Governing Law 适用的法律

• Litigation: The governing law is by default the local law of the jurisdiction. Foreign law can sometimes be applied, but it requires expert evidence to support its interpretation. This approach ensures uniformity but may be challenging in cross-border cases.
  诉讼：默认情况下，管辖权法律是当地法律。有时可以适用外国法律，但需要专家证据来支持其解释。这种方法确保了统一性，但在跨境案件中可能具有挑战性。
• Arbitration: The governing law is flexible, as parties can agree on applicable legal principles (e.g., international commercial law, CISG, or local laws). Arbitrators interpret foreign laws based on the contractual choice, furthering globalization of arbitration practice.
  仲裁：管辖权法律是灵活的，因为当事人可以就适用的法律原则达成一致（例如，国际商业法、CISG 或当地法律）。仲裁员根据合同选择解释外国法律，进一步推动仲裁实践全球化。
• Mediation: Governing law is similarly flexible, but mediators are not bound by legal principles when guiding parties to resolution. The focus is on mutually acceptable outcomes rather than strict adherence to law.
  调解：管辖权法律同样灵活，但调解员在引导当事人达成解决方案时不受法律原则的约束。重点是达成双方都能接受的解决方案，而不是严格遵循法律。
• Adjudication: Governing law is flexible, but adjudicators follow contractual or statutory rules explicitly laid out for specific disputes. For example, payment disputes under Hong Kong’s Construction Adjudication Scheme are adjudicated based on agreed contract terms and statutory protections.
  裁决：管辖权法律是灵活的，但裁决员会明确遵循针对特定争议的合同或法定规则。例如，根据香港建设仲裁方案，支付争议是根据约定的合同条款和法定保护进行裁决的。

4. Confidentiality

• Litigation: Court proceedings are not confidential. Hearings are public, and judgments are published, ensuring transparency but exposing sensitive details of the case to wider scrutiny.
  诉讼：法院审理不保密。听证会公开，判决公开，确保透明度，但也暴露了案件敏感细节给更广泛的审查。
• Arbitration: Arbitration is confidential, protecting sensitive information about the parties and their commercial disputes. Confidentiality applies to proceedings and awards unless the parties agree otherwise or enforcement in court requires disclosure.
  仲裁：仲裁是保密的，保护当事人及其商业纠纷的敏感信息。除非当事人另有约定或法院执行需要披露，否则保密性适用于程序和裁决。
• Mediation: Confidentiality is a hallmark of mediation. Sessions and outcomes are private and cannot be disclosed without the parties’ consent. Confidentiality is ideal for preserving reputations in sensitive disputes.
  调解：保密性是调解的标志。会议和结果都是私密的，未经当事人同意不得披露。保密性适用于保护敏感纠纷中的声誉。
• Adjudication: Adjudication is also confidential, preventing the publication of hearings or decisions. This confidentiality advantage appeals to construction industry disputes where business relationships need protection.
  仲裁：仲裁同样具有保密性，防止听证会或裁决的公开。这种保密优势对需要保护商业关系的建筑行业纠纷具有吸引力。

5. Appealability

• Litigation: Courts generally allow appeals, offering multiple layers of review. Parties dissatisfied with a judgment have a clear path to higher courts for correction of errors. This safeguard ensures fairness but often delays finality.
  诉讼：法院通常允许上诉，提供多级审查。对判决不满的当事人有明确的途径向高级法院寻求纠正错误。这一保障措施确保了公平性，但往往导致最终判决的延迟。
• Arbitration: There is no right of appeal in arbitration. The arbitral award is final and binding unless irregularities arise, such as procedural misconduct or breach of natural justice. In such cases, awards can be set aside by courts.
  仲裁：仲裁中不存在上诉权。仲裁裁决是最终且具有约束力的，除非出现不正常情况，例如程序不当或违反自然正义。在这种情况下，法院可以撤销裁决。
• Mediation: Mediation does not provide appealability, since it produces mutually agreed settlement terms rather than a binding adjudication. If no agreement is reached, parties are free to pursue other dispute resolution methods.
  调解：调解不提供可上诉性，因为它产生的是双方同意的和解条款，而不是具有约束力的裁决。如果未能达成协议，各方可以自由选择其他争议解决方法。
• Adjudication: Decisions from adjudication are interim and subject to further review, usually through litigation or arbitration. Parties can seek a more permanent judgment but must comply with the adjudicator’s decision in the meantime.
  裁决：裁决的决定是临时性的，需进一步审查，通常通过诉讼或仲裁。各方可以寻求更永久的判决，但在此期间必须遵守裁决者的决定。

6. Enforceability

• Litigation: Judgments are enforceable within the local jurisdiction and internationally under various treaties, but enforcement abroad (e.g., in a foreign jurisdiction) can face procedural challenges.
• Arbitration: Awards are enforceable under the New York Convention, with most jurisdictions globally recognizing and enforcing arbitration awards. This international enforceability is a major advantage of arbitration.
• Mediation: Settlement agreements arising from mediation can be enforceable under the Singapore Convention on Mediation for international cases, as well as binding contracts under local law.
• Adjudication: Adjudication decisions are binding as interim resolutions under contract or statute. They provide enforcement mechanisms to maintain cash flow but can later be overturned by courts or arbitration.

7. Interim Relief

• Litigation: Courts provide interim relief, such as injunctions or asset freezing orders. However, limits exist for obtaining interim relief in support of proceedings abroad (e.g., ensuring foreign assets are preserved).

  诉讼：法院提供临时救济，例如禁令或资产冻结令。然而，在支持海外诉讼获得临时救济方面存在限制（例如，确保外国资产得到保留）。

• Arbitration: Arbitrators can grant interim relief, and advantageously, Hong Kong and PRC cooperation under the Arrangement for Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitration offers broad enforcement mechanisms within China.

  仲裁员可以在《仲裁程序中临时措施安排》下，有优势地将香港和中华人民共和国的合作提供在中国广泛执行机制。

• Mediation: Mediation does not include interim relief, as it focuses on voluntary settlement rather than adjudicating claims or granting substantive remedies.

  仲裁：仲裁不包括临时救济，因为它侧重于自愿和解，而不是裁决索赔或授予实质性补救。

• Adjudication: Adjudication similarly does not offer interim relief, since the process provides binding interim resolutions rather than preliminary remedies.

  仲裁：仲裁同样不提供临时救济，因为该程序提供的是具有约束力的临时决议，而不是初步救济。

B. Key Insights and Comparison

1. Efficiency 效率

• Adjudication and mediation focus on speed and efficiency, making them ideal for preserving relationships, resolving disputes quickly, and maintaining cash flow.

  仲裁和调解注重速度和效率，因此它们是维护关系、快速解决争端和保持现金流的最佳选择。

• Litigation is often the slowest process, but it provides procedural certainty for disputes requiring long-term enforceability. Arbitration strikes a balance, offering quicker timelines than litigation with enforceability under the New York Convention.

  诉讼通常是速度最慢的过程，但它为需要长期执行的争议提供了程序上的确定性。仲裁找到了平衡点，提供了比诉讼更快的期限，并在纽约公约下具有执行力。

2. Confidentiality 保密性

• Mediation, arbitration, and adjudication prioritize confidentiality, giving them significant advantages over litigation for sensitive disputes.

  调解、仲裁和裁决优先考虑保密性，这使得它们相对于其他方式具有显著优势，

3. Finality vs Interim Relief 最终裁决 vs 临时救济

• Litigation provides final judgments with appeal mechanisms, excellent for complex disputes that require definitive rulings.

  诉讼提供具有上诉机制的最终裁决，非常适合复杂的

• Adjudication, however, delivers interim decisions that can serve as a stopgap before final litigation or arbitration takes place.

  仲裁然而，会作出临时决定，这可以作为最终诉讼或仲裁之前的一个权宜之计。

• Arbitration awards are final, with limited grounds for challenge.

  仲裁裁决是终局的，挑战的依据有限。

Conclusion 结论

Understanding the distinctions between litigation, arbitration, mediation, and adjudication is essential for choosing the right dispute resolution mechanism.

理解诉讼、仲裁、调解和裁决之间的区别对于选择合适的争议解决机制至关重要。

Litigation remains the gold standard for enforceability and appealability, while arbitration offers confidentiality and flexibility in international disputes.

诉讼仍然是强制执行和可上诉性的黄金标准，而仲裁则在国际争端中提供了保密性和灵活性。

Mediation prioritizes collaboration and relationship preservation, while adjudication shines in its speed and interim binding decisions, especially for industries like construction.

调解优先考虑合作和关系维护，而仲裁在速度和临时具有约束力的裁决方面表现出色，尤其是在建筑等行业。

IX. 仲裁机构

A. Institutional Arbitration vs. Ad Hoc Arbitration

1. Definitions

• Ad Hoc Arbitration refers to arbitration proceedings organized entirely by the parties. The parties select the arbitrator(s), agree on the rules and procedures, and manage the process themselves without relying on an external institution.
• Institutional Arbitration is conducted under the administration of an arbitral institution (e.g., HKIAC, ICC, SIAC), which provides pre-formulated arbitration rules, procedural support, and administrative oversight.
  机构仲裁是在仲裁机构的行政管理下进行的（例如，香港国际仲裁中心 HKIAC，国际商会 ICC，新加坡国际仲裁中心 SIAC），该机构提供预先制定的仲裁规则、程序支持和行政监督。

2. Procedural Rules and Structure

• Ad Hoc Arbitration:

  • Flexibility: Parties have full control over the arbitration process, including determining procedural rules and appointing arbitrators.

    灵活性：当事人对仲裁程序拥有完全控制权，包括确定程序规则和指定仲裁员。

  • Requires Cooperation: Successful ad hoc arbitration depends heavily on the willingness of the parties to cooperate and adequately arrange legal and procedural matters.

    需要合作：临时仲裁的成功高度依赖于当事人合作的意愿以及妥善安排法律和程序事宜。

  • Potential Challenges: The absence of institutional support may result in inefficiency or procedural complications, especially if the parties lack legal expertise or disagree on procedural issues.

    潜在挑战：缺乏机构支持可能导致效率低下或程序复杂化，尤其是如果当事人缺乏法律专业知识或对程序问题存在分歧。

• Institutional Arbitration:

  • Established Rules and Structure: Administered according to the institution’s established rules (e.g., ICC Rules, HKIAC Rules), ensuring procedural certainty and reducing the chance of disputes over process.

    确立规则与结构：根据机构的既定规则进行管理（例如，ICC 规则、HKIAC 规则），确保程序确定性并降低对程序产生争议的可能性。

  • Administrative Support: Institutions provide logistical and administrative assistance, such as appointing arbitrators if parties fail to agree, managing timelines, and resolving procedural deadlocks.

    行政支持：机构提供后勤和行政协助，例如在当事人未能达成一致时指定仲裁员，管理时间表，以及解决程序僵局。

  • Bureaucracy: Institutional arbitration can involve additional layers of administrative formalities, which may slow proceedings.

    官僚主义：机构仲裁可能涉及额外的行政程序，这可能会减缓程序。

3. Costs

• Ad Hoc Arbitration:

  • Cost Efficiency: Without institutional fees, ad hoc arbitration tends to be cheaper. However, unexpected procedural challenges may negate cost savings.

    成本效益：由于没有机构费用，临时仲裁通常更便宜。然而，意外的程序挑战可能会抵消成本节约。

  • Hidden Risks: If cooperation fails, unresolved procedural disputes may drag the case into litigation, increasing overall costs.

    隐藏风险：如果合作失败，未解决的程序争议可能会将案件拖入诉讼，增加整体成本。

• Institutional Arbitration:

  • Fixed Costs: Institutions charge administrative fees, but the procedural safeguards they offer reduce the likelihood of disputes over process, potentially saving long-term costs.

    固定成本：机构收取行政费用，但他们提供的程序保障减少了关于程序的争议可能性，可能节省长期成本。

  • Predictability: Costs are transparent and predictable under institutional rules.

    预测性：在机构规则下，成本是透明和可预测的。

4. Flexibility

• Ad Hoc Arbitration:
  • Maximum Customization: Parties have the freedom to tailor every aspect of the arbitration process to meet their specific needs, from the rules to the scheduling.
    最大定制化：各方有权根据自身需求调整仲裁过程的各个方面，从规则到日程安排。
  • Risk of Inefficiency: Without clear institutional rules, disputes over process or delays can arise if one party is uncooperative.
    效率风险：如果没有明确的机构规则，如果一方不合作，可能会出现关于程序或延迟的争议。
• Institutional Arbitration:
  • Structure with Limited Flexibility: Institutions balance structure with some degree of flexibility, allowing parties to modify procedural rules within the institution’s framework (e.g., opting for expedited arbitration).

5. Confidentiality

• Ad Hoc Arbitration: Confidentiality depends entirely on the agreement between the parties and the arbitrator. It can be highly confidential, but without institutional enforcement mechanisms, breaches may be harder to address.

  临时仲裁：保密性完全取决于当事人和仲裁员之间的协议。它可以非常保密，但没有机构执行机制，违约可能更难解决。

• Institutional Arbitration: Confidentiality is often guaranteed by institutional rules, which enforce strict codes regarding non-disclosure of proceedings and awards.

  机构仲裁：保密通常由机构规则保证，这些规则强制执行有关非公开的严格准则

6. Administrative Assistance

• Ad Hoc Arbitration:

  • Decentralized: Parties must coordinate and organize the entire arbitration process without external support.

    分散化：各方必须协调和组织整个仲裁过程，无需外部支持。

  • Risk of Procedural Deadlock: If disagreements arise over scheduling or arbitral rules, ad hoc arbitration can falter without a neutral institution to help resolve difficulties.

    程序性僵局风险：如果就日程安排或仲裁规则出现分歧，临时仲裁可能会在没有中立机构帮助解决困难的情况下失败。

• Institutional Arbitration:

  • Centralized Support: Institutions manage procedural responsibilities, such as arranging hearing dates, appointing arbitrators, and resolving initial procedural disputes.

    集中支持：机构管理程序性责任，如安排听证日期、任命仲裁员和解决初步程序性争议。

  • Reliance on Institutional Expertise: This support minimizes delays and ensures compliance with established arbitration practices.

    依赖机构专业知识：这种支持最小化了延误并确保符合既定的仲裁实践。

7. Enforcement

Both ad hoc and institutional arbitration benefit from enforceability under the New York Convention. However, institutional arbitration awards may face fewer challenges during enforcement due to the structured processes and pre-formulated rules.

8. Advantages and Disadvantages

• Ad Hoc Arbitration:

  • Advantages

    • Greater flexibility for parties to design the process.

      当事人设计程序具有更大的灵活性。

    • Cost savings due to lack of administrative fees.

      由于缺乏行政费用，节省成本。

  • Disadvantages

    • Procedural uncertainty; parties may struggle if disagreements arise.

      程序不确定性；如果出现分歧，各方可能会感到困难。

    • Heavy reliance on cooperation, which can fail if one party obstructs the process.

      严重依赖合作，如果一方阻碍程序，可能会失败。

• Institutional Arbitration:

  • Advantages

    • Established procedural rules ensure certainty and efficiency.

      建立起来的程序规则确保了确定性和效率。

    • Administrative support mitigates risks of delay and procedural deadlocks.

      行政支持有助于减轻延误和程序僵局的危险。

    • Reputation of institutions may enhance validity and enforceability of awards.

      机构的声誉可能增强裁决的有效性和执行力。

  • Disadvantages

    • Increased costs from institutional fees.

      机构费用增加导致成本上升。

    • Bureaucracy may reduce flexibility or speed.

      官僚主义可能会降低灵活性或速度。

B. Drivers of Change

1. Definition of an Arbitral Institution

Arbitral institutions are permanent organizations created to administer arbitration proceedings. They offer procedural certainty and logistical support, taking responsibility for facilitating arbitration according to the institution’s established rules.

仲裁机构是永久性组织，旨在管理仲裁程序。它们提供程序确定性和后勤支持，负责根据机构的仲裁便利化。

According to Rémy Gerbay (2016):

“…a permanent organization to which parties to a dispute reserve some decisional authority in order to facilitate an arbitration conducted in accordance with a set of arbitration rules…”

“……一个永久性机构，争议各方在其中保留一定的决策权，以便根据一套仲裁规则进行仲裁……”

2. Functions of Arbitral Institutions

1. Provision of Arbitration Rules:

   • Institutions publish established rules tailored to arbitration processes. Examples include HKIAC Rules, ICC Rules, and SIAC Rules, which set clear procedural frameworks for resolving disputes.

2. Administration of Proceedings:

   • Institutions oversee the procedural elements of arbitration, such as:
     仲裁机构负责监督仲裁的程序性要素，例如：
     • Appointing arbitrators (if parties fail to agree). 任命仲裁员
     • Scheduling hearings. 安排听证会。
     • Reviewing awards for procedural compliance. 审查裁决是否符合程序规定

3. Expertise and Neutrality:

   • Institutions offer access to arbitrators with specific qualifications or industry expertise.

     机构提供具有特定资格或行业专长的仲裁员。

   • They serve as neutral bodies ensuring fairness and procedural integrity throughout.

4. Support for Enforcement:

   Institutional awards are issued based on standardized processes that minimize risks of procedural defects, improving enforceability under the New York Convention.

   机构裁决是根据标准化的程序发布的，这些程序最大限度地减少了程序缺陷的风险，提高了在纽约公约下的可执行性。

3. Impact of Arbitral Institutions

Arbitral institutions play a crucial role in driving change in arbitration by:

• Promoting efficiency and reliability through comprehensive procedural rules.

  通过全面的程序规则促进效率和可靠性。

• Facilitating cross-border dispute resolution by acting as hubs for international arbitration.

  通过作为国际仲裁的中心枢纽，促进跨境争端解决。

• Innovating to meet market needs, such as expedited arbitration processes for smaller disputes or online arbitration mechanisms.

  创新以满足市场需求，例如为小额争议提供加速仲裁程序或在线仲裁机制。

Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, Emmanuel Gaillard and John Savage (1999)

The characteristic features of institutional arbitration, and hence its advantages and disadvantages, are in direct contrast to those of ad hoc arbitration. The involvement of an institution and the application of its rules undoubtedly help in constituting the arbitral tribunal, because although the parties retain a role in that process everything is geared to ensure that they cannot obstruct it. However, the greater efficiency of this form of arbitration is gained at the expense of a certain weakening of the relationship of trust which the parties and the arbitrators are supposed to share. It may also entail a more laborious process for setting up the arbitral tribunal, and yet it does not always provide the parties with the procedural guarantees that they expect from the courts. That may be the case, in particular, with some of the newer organizations, the founders of which do not necessarily have extensive experience of international business and arbitration.

机构仲裁的特征及其优势与劣势，与临时仲裁形成鲜明对比。机构的介入及其规则的适用无疑有助于仲裁庭的组成，因为尽管各方仍在这一过程中扮演角色，但这一切都旨在确保他们无法阻挠该过程。然而，这种仲裁形式的更高效率是以一定程度上削弱了各方与仲裁员之间应该共享的信任关系为代价的。它可能还需要一个更为繁琐的仲裁庭设置过程，而它并不总是为各方提供他们期望从法院获得的程序保障。特别是对一些较新的组织来说，其创始人可能并不具备国际商业和仲裁的丰富经验。

4. Conclusion

The choice between Ad Hoc Arbitration and Institutional Arbitration depends on the priorities of the parties. Ad hoc arbitration offers flexibility and cost savings but relies heavily on cooperation and party expertise, making it best suited for simpler disputes or cases with highly cooperative parties.

临时仲裁与机构仲裁的选择取决于当事人的优先考虑。临时仲裁提供灵活性和成本节约，但高度依赖合作和当事人专业知识，因此最适合简单争议或高度合作的当事人。

Institutional arbitration provides procedural certainty, administrative support, and enhanced safeguards, making it ideal for complex or high-value disputes where reliability and enforceability are paramount.

机构仲裁提供程序确定性、行政支持和增强保障，使其成为复杂或高价值争议的理想选择，其中可靠性和执行力至关重要。

Arbitral institutions, as permanent organizations and drivers of change, continue to develop arbitration standards globally, providing parties with the tools to resolve disputes efficiently, fairly, and collaboratively.

C. The Role of Arbitral Institutions

Arbitral institutions play an integral part in shaping and administering arbitration processes. Their functions can be categorized into three distinct roles:

1. Guardian

• Ensuring Independence and Impartiality:

  • Arbitral institutions act as the protectors of fairness by meticulously ensuring the independence and impartiality of selected arbitrators. This role is vital, as arbitrator neutrality is the cornerstone of a credible arbitration process.

    仲裁机构通过细致地确保所选仲裁员的独立性和公正性，充当公平的守护者。这一角色至关重要，因为仲裁员的中立性是可信仲裁过程的基础。

  • Institutions screen potential arbitrators to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure they meet the professional and ethical standards required to hear disputes.

    机构筛选潜在的仲裁员，以避免利益冲突并确保他们符合所需的专业和道德标准。

• Monitoring the Proceedings:

  • Institutions oversee the arbitration process to ensure compliance with the agreed procedural rules and timelines.

    机构负责监督仲裁程序，以确保遵守约定的程序规则和时间表。

  • For example, institutions like HKIAC, ICC, and SIAC impose stringent deadlines for submissions, issuance of awards, and responses to procedural objections.

    例如，HKIAC、ICC 和 SIAC 等机构对提交、裁决的发布和程序异议的回应设定了严格的截止日期。

The “Guardian” role protects the legitimacy and fairness of arbitral proceedings, especially in complex disputes or multi-party cases.

“监护人”角色保护仲裁程序的合法性和公平性，尤其是在复杂的争议或多

2. Gatekeeper

• Determining Whether a Case Can Proceed:

  • Institutions serve as gatekeepers, assessing whether a dispute falls within the scope of arbitration clauses and ensuring procedural compliance with institutional rules before arbitration begins.
  • They also resolve threshold issues (e.g., prima facie jurisdiction) and decide if the arbitration can proceed.
    他们还解决门槛问题（例如，初步管辖权）并决定仲裁是否可以继续。

• Example:

  • Under Article 6(4) of the ICC Arbitration Rules, the ICC Court has the authority to decide, prima facie, whether an arbitration agreement exists. This prevents unwarranted delays at the start of the case.

    根据《国际商会仲裁规则》第六条（4）款，国际商会法庭有权初步决定是否存在仲裁协议。这防止了案件开始时的不必要延误。

This gatekeeper role eliminates procedural disputes early on, enabling arbitration to move forward efficiently while preventing misuse of the system by obstructive parties.
此守门人角色在早期消除程序争议，使仲裁能够高效进行，同时防止阻碍方滥用系统。

3. Guide

• Providing Guidance to the Parties:

  • Institutions advise and support the parties on procedural matters, helping them navigate the arbitration process effectively.

    机构就程序事项向当事人提供建议和支持，帮助他们有效地进行仲裁程序。

  • This includes facilitating administrative support, educating parties on how best to utilize rules, and tailoring procedures to meet the unique needs of the dispute (e.g., expedited arbitration or consolidation requests).

    这包括提供行政支持、教育各方如何最佳利用规则，以及调整程序以满足争议的独特需求（例如，快速仲裁或合并请求）。

The “Guide” role acts as a bridge between parties, arbitrators, and procedural rules, fostering efficient and streamlined dispute resolution.

“指南”角色在各方、仲裁员和程序规则之间充当桥梁，促进高效和简化的争议解决。

D. The Rise of Arbitral Institutions

1. Historical Development

Arbitral institutions have grown significantly since the late 19th century, as demonstrated by the timeline provided in the slides:

• Institutions such as the LCIA (1892), PCA (1899), and ICC (1923) were pioneers, establishing foundational rules and frameworks for arbitration.

  机构如 LCIA（1892 年）、PCA（1899 年）和 ICC（1923 年）等

• By the mid-20th century, regional institutions like CIETAC (1956) and ICSID (1966) emerged to expand arbitration’s reach into new jurisdictions, covering both commercial disputes and investor-state arbitration.

  到 20 世纪中叶，区域机构如和 ICSID（1966 年）出现，以扩大仲裁的适用范围至新的司法管辖区，涵盖商业争端和投资者与国家间的仲裁。

• The late 20th and early 21st centuries saw the rise of new regional hubs like HKIAC (1985) and SIAC (1991), as arbitration spread to Asia to accommodate expanding international trade.

  20 世纪末和 21 世纪初，新的区域中心如香港国际仲裁中心（1985 年）和新加坡国际仲裁中心（1991 年）崛起，仲裁业务扩展到亚洲，以适应不断扩大的国际贸易

2. Modern Impact

The growth of arbitral institutions reflects the globalization of disputes and the increasing preference for arbitration as a flexible and enforceable form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR):

• Modern institutions like HKIAC and SIAC focus on innovating processes to accommodate growing caseloads, complex cross-border disputes, and emerging industries such as tech and ESG disputes.

  现代机构如香港国际仲裁中心（HKIAC）和新加坡国际仲裁中心（SIAC）专注于创新流程以适应案件数量的增长

• The popularity survey in the 2021 Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey highlights the dominance of leading institutions like ICC (57%), SIAC (49%), and HKIAC (44%) in the global arbitration market.

The growth and success of these institutions demonstrate the centrality of institutions in standardizing arbitration practice and making it more accessible globally.

这些机构的成长和成功证明了机构在标准化仲裁实践和使其在全球范围内更具可及性方面的重要性。

E. Hard and Soft Power of Arbitral Institutions

Arbitral institutions exert both “hard power” and “soft power” in arbitration. These two types of influence are complementary but distinct in how they drive procedural efficiency and influence systemic change.

仲裁机构在仲裁中既行使“硬实力”也行使“软实力”。这两种类型的影响力是互补的，但在推动程序效率和影响系统变革方面是不同的。

1. Hard Power

Hard power refers to the binding authority institutions exercise through procedural rules and case management obligations. Key aspects include:
硬实力是指通过程序规则和案例所行使的约束性权力机构

• Appointment of Arbitrators:

  • Institutions step in to appoint arbitrators when parties cannot agree or when appointments are challenged based on bias or conflict of interest.

    当各方无法达成一致或基于偏见或利益冲突对任命提出质疑时，机构介入任命仲裁员。

  • This decisive role ensures impartiality, efficiency, and continuity.

    这一决定性角色确保了公正、效率和连续性。

• Procedural Decisions:

  • Institutions make essential procedural rulings, including decisions on joinder (joining of parties), consolidation (combining related disputes), and prima facie jurisdictional issues.

    机构作出重要的程序性裁决，包括关于合并（当事人合并）、合并（相关争议合并）和初步管辖权问题的决定。

  • Example: The ICC Rules prioritize efficiency by authorizing the Secretariat to address procedural challenges quickly.

    例如：国际商会规则优先考虑效率，授权秘书处解决程序性挑战

• Scrutiny of Draft Awards:

  • Institutions like ICC scrutinize arbitral awards before issuance to ensure compliance with procedural rules. This added layer of oversight boosts the enforceability of awards under the New York Convention.

    机构如国际商会（ICC）在颁发仲裁裁决前对其进行审查，以确保符合程序规则。这一额外的监督层提高了纽约公约下裁决的可执行性。

• Time and Cost Management:

  • Institutions enforce expedited procedures, cost control measures, and fee caps to prevent unnecessary delays and excessive costs. For instance, SIAC provides expedited arbitration rules for disputes requiring swift resolution.

    机构实施加速程序、成本控制措施和费用上限，以防止不必要的延误和过高的成本。例如，SIAC 为需要迅速解决的争议提供了加速仲裁规则。

2. Soft Power

Soft power refers to the non-binding influence and values-based initiatives institutions use to foster systemic change and shape the future of arbitration. Key aspects include:
软实力是指机构用来促进系统变革和塑造仲裁未来的一种非约束性影响和价值基础型倡议。主要方面包括：

• Advancing Standardization through Practices & Initiatives:

  Institutions influence global arbitration culture through pledges and initiatives, such as:
  机构通过承诺和倡议影响全球仲裁文化，例如：

  • Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge: Promotes gender diversity in arbitrator appointments.

    仲裁平等代表承诺：促进仲裁员任命中的性别多样性。

  • Green Arbitration Pledge: Encourages sustainable practices, including virtual hearings and digitization to reduce environmental impact.

• Thought Leadership:

  Institutions guide the evolution of arbitration by hosting conferences, publishing arbitration guidelines, and fostering collaboration with scholars and practitioners. 机构引导

• Promoting Diversity and Inclusion:

  Many institutions actively promote diversity in arbitrator appointments, participant representation, and hearing structures, making arbitration more inclusive.

  许多机构积极促进在仲裁员任命、参与者代表和听证会中的多元化

F. Should Institutions Influence Social Change?

The slides raise a thought-provoking question: Should arbitral institutions limit their influence on broader policy and social change? While ethically motivated soft power initiatives (e.g., gender balance and sustainability pledges) are widely supported, excessive institutional activism may dilute arbitration’s reputation as a neutral and apolitical process.

1. Critical Reflections: Independence and Variability of Institutions

The slides highlight the alphabet soup of institutions (ICC, SIAC, HKIAC, LCIA, etc.), emphasizing a fundamental issue:

幻灯片突出了众多机构（ICC、SIAC、HKIAC、LCIA 等）的字母汤，强调了一个基本问题：

• While many institutions are well-established and highly effective, variation exists in their expertise, independence standards, and neutrality.

  虽然许多机构已经建立并非常有效，但它们在专业能力、独立标准和中立性方面存在差异。

• Parties must carefully research and choose institutions that are best suited to their specific needs and the nature of their dispute.

  当事人必须仔细研究和选择最适合的机构

2. Statutory Authority (Hard Power in Statutory Arbitration)

In jurisdictions like Hong Kong:

• Arbitration legislation, such as Cap. 609 and Cap. 609C, often incorporates institutional rules into statutory frameworks, further enhancing their binding authority.

  仲裁立法，如第 609 章和第 609C 章，通常将机构规则纳入法定框架，从而进一步增强其约束力。

• This reflects a fusion of institutional hard power with legislative mandates.

  这反映了机构硬实力与立法命令的融合。

Conclusion

Arbitral institutions are central to the arbitration ecosystem, playing diverse roles as Guardians of fairness, Gatekeepers of efficiency, and Guides for parties and the process. Their evolution from niche organizations into global standard-setters underscores their continued importance.

仲裁机构是仲裁生态系统的核心，在多个方面扮演着角色，如，，并为当事人和程序提供指南。它们从 niche 组织发展到全球标准制定者，凸显了它们持续的重要性。

With both “hard power” (binding authority) and “soft power” (values-based influence), these institutions enforce procedural rigor while also serving as drivers of systemic change (e.g., sustainability, diversity).

仲裁机构是仲裁生态系统的核心，扮演着公平的守护者、效率的把关者和指南的角色。

However, institutions must balance efficient case management with careful governance of their growing cultural influence, ensuring arbitration remains a trusted and neutral forum for resolving disputes.

然而，机构必须在高效案件管理与其日益增长的文化影响力之间取得平衡，确保仲裁始终是解决争端的受信任和中立论坛。

X. Interrogating Arbitration: Fact or Fiction?

A. Arbitration is Flexible?

Claim: Arbitration is considered more flexible than litigation as parties have control over procedural rules, timelines, and even the choice of arbitrators.

声称： 仲裁被认为比诉讼更灵活，因为当事人可以控制程序规则、时间表，甚至仲裁员的选定。

Reality:

• True: Arbitration allows parties to customize the process by agreeing on procedural rules (e.g., expedited arbitration) and choosing arbitrators with specific expertise.

  仲裁允许当事人通过同意程序规则（例如，加速仲裁）和选择具有特定专业知识的仲裁员来自定义程序。

  Institutions like HKIAC and SIAC even offer options for virtual hearings or tailored procedural timelines to accommodate parties’ needs.

  机构如香港国际仲裁中心（HKIAC）和新加坡国际仲裁中心（SIAC）甚至提供虚拟听证会或定制程序时间表，以满足各方需求。

• Qualified Limits: In institutional arbitration, such as ICC or LCIA, the flexibility is constrained by established institutional rules, particularly during procedural disputes or delays caused by uncooperative parties.

  合格限制：在机构仲裁中，如国际商会仲裁院（ICC）或伦敦国际仲裁院（LCIA），灵活性受到既定机构规则的约束，尤其是在程序争议或由不合作的当事人造成的延误期间。

Verdict: Fact—arbitration is significantly more flexible than rigid litigation frameworks, especially in ad hoc arbitration or institutional rules permitting customization.

裁决：事实——仲裁比僵化的诉讼框架具有显著更大的灵活性，尤其是在临时仲裁或允许定制的机构规则中。

B. Arbitration is Cheaper and Quicker than Litigation?

Claim: Arbitration is widely believed to reduce costs and expenses compared to litigation while offering quicker resolutions.
声称： 仲裁普遍被认为比诉讼降低成本和费用，同时提供更快的解决方案。

Reality:

• Cheaper?

  • Fact in concept: Arbitration avoids prolonged court procedures (e.g., appeals, discovery battles), making it theoretically cheaper. Costs may be reduced further in ad hoc arbitration (no administrative fees).

    仲裁避免了漫长的法院程序（例如，上诉、发现战），从理论上讲，这使得它更便宜。在临时仲裁中（无行政费用），成本可能进一步降低。

  • Fiction in practice: In complex disputes, arbitration costs (e.g., arbitrator fees, institutional fees, document discovery) can rival or exceed litigation expenses. Institutional arbitration often avoids hidden costs due to clearly defined fee schedules.

    复杂的争议中，仲裁费用（例如，仲裁员费用、机构费用、文件发现）可能等同于或超过诉讼费用。机构仲裁通常由于费用表明确而避免了隐藏费用。

    However, tribunal delays or excessive procedural steps increase expenses.

    然而，法庭延误或过多的程序步骤会增加费用。

  • Investment disputes or multiparty arbitration often require additional procedural expenses, impacting costs.

    投资争议或多方仲裁通常需要额外的程序费用，影响成本。

• Quicker?

  • Fact: Abbreviated timelines in institutional arbitration (e.g., expedited procedures at SIAC or HKIAC) make arbitration faster than litigation, which often drags on for years.
  • Qualified Fiction: Arbitrators may grant frequent delays or require additional submissions, especially in complex international disputes, leading arbitration timelines to rival litigation (at least in length).

Verdict: Partly fact, partly fiction—it depends on the complexity of the case and the cooperation of parties.
裁决：部分事实，部分虚构——这取决于案件复杂性和各方合作程度。

C. Arbitrators Are Better Suited to Deal with International/Highly Technical Disputes?

Claim: Arbitrators, as experts often chosen directly by the parties, are better equipped to handle international disputes and technical matters than generalist judges.

Reality:

• True: Parties can choose arbitrators with specialized knowledge, such as technical expertise (engineering, finance, IP law) or experience in international business. Judges, by contrast, may lack familiarity with cross-border issues like conflicts of law and trade practices.

  事实：当事人可以选择具有专门知识（如技术专长，如工程、金融、知识产权法）或国际商务经验的仲裁员。相比之下，法官可能缺乏对跨境问题（如法律冲突和贸易惯例）的熟悉程度。

  • Example: Arbitrators handling maritime disputes might have expertise in shipping contracts, making them more effective than a court with limited maritime caseload exposure.

    例子：处理海事争议的仲裁员可能对航运合同有专业知识，这使得他们比海事案件量有限的法院更有效。

• Limits: Arbitrators are not always impartial, especially if chosen unilaterally or selected based on industry familiarity. Additionally, parties may select arbitrators whose technical expertise outweighs their procedural fairness or conflict resolution skills.

  局限性：仲裁员并不总是公正的，尤其是如果他们被单方面选择或基于行业熟悉度选择。此外，当事人可能会选择那些技术专长超过其程序公平性或冲突解决技能的仲裁员。

Verdict: Fact—arbitrators are generally better suited for international and highly technical disputes due to their specialization and experience.

裁决：事实——仲裁员通常更适合处理国际和高度技术性的争议。

D. Arbitration is More Convenient?

Claim: Arbitration provides greater convenience than litigation due to more relaxed rules, private proceedings, and flexibility for international businesses.
声称： 由于规则更宽松、程序私密以及为国际企业提供的灵活性，仲裁比诉讼更方便。

Reality:

• Convenience (Geographical and Procedural):

  • True: Arbitration can accommodate parties across jurisdictions, enabling hearings to occur in neutral locations or remotely through virtual arbitration tools. Unlike courts, arbitration rules are inherently adaptable to cross-border disputes.

    真实：仲裁可以容纳跨越司法管辖权的各方，使听证会可以在中立地点或通过虚拟仲裁工具远程进行。与法院不同，仲裁规则内在地适应跨境争端。

  • Example: HKIAC or SIAC hearings often allow businesses from Europe and Asia to agree on neutral venues and governing law without concerns about jurisdictional conflicts.

    示例：香港国际仲裁中心（HKIAC）或新加坡国际仲裁中心（SIAC）的听证会通常允许欧洲和亚洲的企业在没有管辖权冲突的担忧下就中立地点和管辖法达成一致。

• Privacy and Confidentiality:

  • Arbitration proceedings are private, and awards are confidential, minimizing reputational harm and protecting sensitive business data. Litigation, conversely, is public in most jurisdictions.

    仲裁程序是私密的，裁决是保密的，这有助于减少声誉损害并保护敏感的商业数据。相反，在大多数司法管辖区，诉讼是公开的。

Verdict: Fact—arbitration is far more convenient when international businesses require cross-border problem-solving or private forums. However, delays due to procedural disputes can reduce perceived convenience.

裁决：事实——当跨国企业需要跨境问题解决或私人论坛时，仲裁要方便得多。然而，由于程序争议导致的延误可能会降低感知的便利性。

E. Arbitration is Greener?

Claim: Arbitration is a “greener” dispute resolution method, promoting environmental sustainability through reduced travel and digitization.
声称： 仲裁是一种“更绿色”的争议解决方法，通过减少旅行和数字化来促进环境可持续性。

Reality:

• Fact (With Institutional Initiatives): Institutions like ICC, HKIAC, and SIAC promote green arbitration by encouraging virtual hearings, digital filings, and reduced reliance on paper filings and in-person meetings. The Green Arbitration Pledge and institutional guidelines align arbitration with contemporary ESG (environmental, social, governance) goals.

• Fiction (Practical Complexity): Large disputes requiring physical hearings, substantial evidentiary submissions, and multiple arbitrators may still result in travel emissions or excessive administrative logistics that rival litigation’s environmental impact.

  需要实体听证、大量证据提交和多名仲裁员的重大争议，仍可能导致旅行排放或过度的行政物流，其环境影响与诉讼相当。

Verdict: Increasingly fact—the arbitration community is pushing for “greener” practices, though large disputes may still require traditional resource-heavy approaches.

裁决：随着事实的增多——仲裁界正在推动“绿色”实践，尽管大型争议可能仍然需要传统的资源密集型方法。

Conclusion

While arbitration carries distinct advantages, many of its perceived strengths require qualification:
虽然仲裁具有独特的优势，但其中许多被感知到的优势需要加以限定：

• Arbitration is more flexible, suited for technical disputes, and convenient than litigation, making it ideal for cross-border matters.

  仲裁更加灵活，适用于技术纠纷，并且比诉讼更方便，使其成为理想的选择

• Institutions are advancing initiatives for green arbitration, making this an increasingly accurate claim.

  机构正在推进绿色仲裁的倡议，这使得这一说法越来越准确。

• Arbitration may be cheaper or quicker, but this depends on the complexity of the dispute, party cooperation, and the type of arbitration (ad hoc vs institutional). High-value international cases often result in significant fees and prolonged timelines rivaling litigation costs.

  仲裁可能更便宜或更快，但这取决于争议的复杂性、当事人的合作程度

International commercial arbitration offers a tailored approach to resolving disputes in global business contexts, but parties must carefully evaluate its promises against practical realities, particularly costs and efficiency.

国际商事仲裁为解决全球商业环境中的争议提供了一种定制化的方法，但当事人必须仔细评估其承诺与实际情况。

XI. What Is International Commercial Arbitration?

International commercial arbitration is a method of resolving disputes between enterprises engaged in cross-border business activities. It differs from other forms of arbitration and ADR in important ways:

国际商事仲裁是解决从事跨境商业活动企业之间争议的方法。它在重要方面与其他形式的仲裁和替代争议解决（ADR）不同：

1. Distinguishing Commercial Matters vs Non-commercial/Criminal Matters:

   • Commercial Matters include disputes over contracts, intellectual property, trade practices, joint ventures, or distribution agreements.

     商事纠纷包括合同、知识产权、贸易惯例等方面的争议，

   • Non-commercial/Criminal Matters, such as crimes or public law issues, fall outside arbitration’s focus and into traditional litigation or criminal proceedings.

     非商业/刑事事项，如犯罪或公法问题，不属于仲裁的焦点，而是属于传统的诉讼或刑事诉讼。

2. International Commercial Arbitration vs Other Arbitration:

   • Investment Arbitration: Deals with disputes between foreign investors and host states, often under treaty frameworks like ICSID.

     外国投资者与东道国之间的投资仲裁，通常在条约框架下进行

   • State-to-State Arbitration: Focuses on intergovernmental disputes, often under the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).

     国家间仲裁：关注政府间争端，通常在常设仲裁法院（PCA）下进行

   • International commercial arbitration directly addresses commercial disputes between profit-driven private enterprises, making it distinct from broader public-interest arbitration processes.

     国际商事仲裁直接解决盈利驱动型私营企业之间的商业争端，使其与更广泛的公共利益仲裁程序区分开来

3. Arbitration vs ADR/Settlement:

   • Arbitration differs from ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) methods like mediation or conciliation. ADR encourages collaborative dialogue toward mutual agreement, while arbitration imposes binding decisions based on evidence and party submissions.

     仲裁与调解或和解等方法不同。替代性争议解决（ADR）鼓励通过协作对话达成共识，而仲裁则基于证据和当事人提交的文件做出具有约束力的裁决。

   • Arbitration awards are enforceable under frameworks like the New York Convention, whereas ADR outcomes only gain enforceability through voluntary agreements between parties.

     仲裁裁决在纽约公约等框架下具有执行力，而 ADR 结果只有通过当事人之间的自愿协议才能获得执行力。

XII. What do Companies / Users say about Arbitration?

The slides provide significant insights regarding the preferences and views of companies and users toward arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in the post-COVID-19 era. Below is a detailed analysis of the survey results, emphasizing the key findings and what they reveal about the advantages of arbitration in the context of cross-border disputes.

幻灯片提供了关于公司在后 COVID-19 时代对仲裁作为争议解决机制偏好的重要见解。以下是调查结果的详细分析，强调关键发现以及它们关于跨境争议背景下仲裁优势的揭示。

The data from the 2021 International Arbitration Survey by Queen Mary University of London reveals the following preferences:

1. Combining Arbitration and ADR (59%)

   • A majority (59%) of respondents prefer international arbitration combined with ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution).

     大多数（59%）受访者更喜欢国际仲裁与替代争议解决（ADR）相结合。

   • Why this preference?

     • Flexibility: ADR mechanisms such as mediation or conciliation alongside arbitration allow parties to try collaborative solutions before resorting to binding decisions.
     • Time and Cost Efficiency: ADR can potentially resolve disputes quickly, with arbitration serving as a fallback if no settlement is reached.
     • Relationship Preservation: Combining ADR with arbitration is often seen as an effective way to resolve disputes amicably while retaining the enforceability of arbitration as a safeguard.

2. International Arbitration Only (31%)

   • A significant portion (31%) of respondents prefer relying solely on arbitration for cross-border disputes.

     31%的受访者表示，他们更倾向于仅依靠仲裁来解决跨境争端。

   • Why this preference?

     • Enforceability: Arbitration is supported by the New York Convention, ensuring awards are enforceable internationally.

       可执行性：仲裁得到纽约公约的支持，确保裁决在国际上具有执行力。

     • Neutrality: Arbitration offers a neutral forum to resolve disputes between parties from different jurisdictions, avoiding potential biases in foreign courts.

       中立性：仲裁为不同司法管辖区的当事人提供了一个中立的争端解决平台，避免了外国法院可能存在的偏见。

     • Expertise: Parties can choose arbitrators with technical knowledge relevant to their disputes.

       专业知识：当事人可以选择仲裁员

3. ADR Only (6%)

   ADR alone is preferred by a much smaller number of respondents (6%). While ADR is valuable for fostering dialogue and reducing costs, it lacks the finality and enforceability of arbitration.

   独立争议解决（ADR）仅被少数受访者（6%）所青睐。虽然 ADR 对于促进对话和降低成本很有价值，但它缺乏仲裁的终局性和执行力。

   As a result, it is typically seen as a complement to arbitration rather than a standalone solution.

   因此，它通常被视为仲裁的补充而非独立解决方案。

4. Litigation-Based Approaches (4%)

   • Cross-border litigation (2%) and cross-border litigation combined with ADR (2%) are the least preferred options.

   • Why does litigation rank so low?

     • Costly and Time-Consuming: Litigation in courts often involves lengthy appeals and expensive legal fees, making it less attractive for international disputes.

       成本高昂且耗时：在法院进行诉讼往往涉及漫长的上诉和昂贵的律师费，这使得国际争端对其吸引力降低。

     • Uncertainty: Enforcing foreign court judgments can be complicated, with no universal treaty similar to the New York Convention for arbitration.

       不确定性：执行外国法院判决可能很复杂，没有类似于纽约公约的普遍条约。

     • Public Nature: Court proceedings lack the confidentiality that arbitration offers, making them unappealing for sensitive commercial disputes.

       公开性：法院诉讼缺乏仲裁提供的保密性，这使得敏感的商业争端对其缺乏吸引力。

Concerns re Cross Border Litigation	International Arbitration
Neutrality of local courts	Arbitrators with neutral nationalities
Lack of expertise / familiarity with international commercial practices and/or very technical disputes	Technical experts / senior commercial arbitrators to be selected as arbitrators
Costs and delay	Freedom to adopt specific procedural restraints to limit time / costs
Lack of convenience	Flexible venue / broad adoption of online hearings
Jurisdictional issues / forum selection	Very limited grounds for local courts to interfere with jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals
Enforceability of judgments	Awards broadly enforceable due to New York Convention

The five most preferred seats for arbitration are London, Singapore, Hong Kong, Paris, and Geneva. This ranking reflects the influence of well-established legal frameworks, experienced professionals, and global accessibility. Here’s why these seats are favored:

仲裁最受欢迎的前五把椅子是伦敦、新加坡、香港、巴黎和日内瓦。这个排名反映了知名仲裁机构的影响力。

1. London

   • Longstanding reputation as a hub for sophisticated commercial disputes.

     长期以来作为复杂商业纠纷中心的良好声誉。

   • The UK’s Arbitration Act 1996 supports party autonomy while providing clear procedural rules.

     英国 1996 年仲裁法支持当事人自治，同时提供明确的程序规则。

   • Strong judiciary that is pro-arbitration and enforces awards efficiently.

     强有力的支持仲裁并有效执行裁决的司法体系。

2. Singapore

   • Emerging as a global arbitration hub, particularly for Asia-Pacific disputes.

   • Singapore’s SIAC Rules and the state’s pro-arbitration stance make it a popular choice.

     新加坡的 SIAC 规则和国家的亲仲裁立场使其成为热门选择。

   • Neutrality and geographical convenience for cross-border disputes in Asia.

     亚洲跨境争端的中立性和地理便利性。

3. Hong Kong

   • The HKIAC’s innovative rules, combined with Hong Kong’s access to China under the Arrangement for Mutual Assistance in Interim Measures, attract parties dealing with mainland Chinese disputes.

     香港国际仲裁中心（HKIAC）的创新规则，结合香港根据《安排》对内地提供的临时保全措施协助，吸引了处理内地事务的各方。

   • Legal stability under the Arbitration Ordinance and robust judicial support for arbitration.

     仲裁条例下的法律稳定性和对仲裁的强大司法支持。

4. Paris

   • Home to the ICC, Paris has a long history of hosting arbitration under the ICC Rules.

     巴黎是 ICC 的所在地，拥有根据 ICC 规则举办仲裁的悠久历史。

   • Parties value France’s arbitration-friendly environment and neutrality.

     当事人重视法国友好的仲裁环境和中立性。

5. Geneva

   • Switzerland is known for its neutrality, strong enforcement mechanisms, and efficient arbitration-related legal frameworks.

     瑞士以其中立性、强大的执行机制和高效的仲裁相关法律框架而闻名。

   • Geneva’s prominence in international commercial and state-to-state arbitration contributes to its favorability.

     日内瓦在国际商业和州与州之间的仲裁中的突出地位，使其更具吸引力。

The top five arbitral institutions listed (ICC, SIAC, HKIAC, LCIA, and CIETAC) highlight global preferences for institutions that offer high-quality arbitration services. Let’s break down what makes them attractive:

全球排名前五的仲裁机构（ICC、SIAC、HKIAC、LCIA 和 CIETAC）凸显了全球对提供高质量仲裁服务的机构的偏好。让我们分析一下它们吸引人的原因：

1. ICC (International Chamber of Commerce)

   Most preferred institution (57% preference).

   最受欢迎的机构（57%的偏好率）。

   Offers uniform rules, global reach, and expertise in managing highly complex commercial disputes.

   提供统一的规则、全球影响力和处理高度复杂商业争端的专业知识。

   The ICC Secretariat heavily scrutinizes awards, ensuring quality and credibility.

   国际商会秘书处对裁决进行严格审查，确保质量和可信度。

2. SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre)

   SIAC’s rules, including the Expedited Procedure and its focus on tech-savvy approaches like virtual hearings, appeal to companies seeking quick and effective arbitration in Asia.

3. HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre)

   HKIAC’s flexible rules, cost-effective procedures, and strategic importance in disputes involving Chinese companies make it highly popular.

   It offers advanced case management systems (e.g., e-Bundles) and innovative joinder/consolidation procedures.

   它提供先进的案件管理系统（例如，电子文件包）和创新的合并/合并程序。

4. LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration)

   Renowned for its customizability and application of English law, LCIA is the go-to institution for parties in Europe and common law jurisdictions.

5. CIETAC (China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission)

   The top institution in mainland China, CIETAC is popular for disputes involving Chinese companies due to its deep understanding of domestic business practices.

   中国大陆顶尖的仲裁机构，CIETAC 因其对国内商业实践的深入了解，而在中国公司涉及争端中广受欢迎。

   Focuses predominantly on commercial cases, offering language flexibility (e.g., Mandarin and English).

   主要专注于商业案件，提供语言灵活性（例如，普通话和英语）。

In the Queen Mary University energy arbitration study (2023), stakeholders emphasized the following advantages of arbitration:

在玛丽皇后大学能源仲裁研究中（2023 年），利益相关者强调了以下仲裁的优势：

1. Suitability for Cross-Border Disputes (72% rated 4/5):

   • Arbitration consistently outperforms litigation for international disputes due to its enforceability, neutrality, and flexibility.

2. Neutrality (63%):

   • Arbitration provides a neutral forum, insulating parties from potential biases in local courts.

3. Choice of Arbitrators / Industry Expertise (60%):

   • The ability of arbitration to allow parties to select highly specialized arbitrators was highlighted as a significant advantage, particularly in sectors like energy, construction, and shipping.

     仲裁允许当事人选择高度专业化的仲裁员的能力

4. Enforceability of Awards (60%):

   • The New York Convention ensures reliable enforcement of arbitration awards across more than 170 jurisdictions.

     纽约公约确保了在 170 多个国家可靠地执行仲裁裁决。

The survey findings also suggest that arbitration has adapted well to the challenges and opportunities presented by the global pandemic:

调查结果还表明，仲裁已经很好地适应了全球大流行带来的挑战和机遇：

1. Virtual Hearings and Technological Integration:

   The success of virtual hearings during COVID-19 has reinforced arbitration’s reputation for adaptability and efficiency.

   COVID-19 期间虚拟听证会的成功进一步巩固了仲裁在适应性和效率方面的声誉。

   Institutions like SIAC and HKIAC have fully embraced digital tools, ensuring minimal disruptions to proceedings.

   如 SIAC 和 HKIAC 等机构已全面拥抱数字工具，确保程序中的最小干扰。

2. ADR Synergy:

   The preference for combining arbitration with ADR (59%) reflects growing trends in hybrid dispute resolution, allowing parties to explore settlement options before arbitration proceedings.

   将仲裁与 ADR 相结合的偏好（59%）反映了混合争议解决领域日益增长的趋势，允许当事方在仲裁程序之前探索和解选项。

3. Sustainability and Cost Efficiency:

   Arbitration is increasingly viewed as a “greener” option, particularly compared to litigation, due to reduced travel requirements and reliance on virtual hearings.

XIII. Strategy in Cross-Border Disputes: Key Considerations 跨境争议策略：关键考虑因素

The process of resolving cross-border disputes requires strategic planning to ensure the chosen dispute resolution mechanism is effective and enforceable. As outlined, the options available at the time of a dispute usually depend on the dispute resolution or arbitration clause agreed upon in the contract. Therefore, parties should prioritize the following considerations before or at the time a contract is entered into:

解决跨境争端的过程需要战略规划，以确保选定的争端解决机制有效且可执行。如概述所示，在争端发生时可供选择的方式通常取决于合同中约定的争端解决或仲裁条款。因此，在签订合同之前或之时，各方应优先考虑以下因素：

A. Important Points to Consider: Selecting the Most Appropriate Mechanism

1. Counterparties and Their Structures

• What are the available counterparties?

  • Understanding the corporate structure of the parties involved is crucial. Are the counterparties holding companies? Operational entities? Is there a parent company that can provide guarantees?

    理解涉及各方的公司结构至关重要。这些当事人是控股公司？运营实体？是否有可以提供担保的母公司？

  • Example: In many cross-border cases, counterparties may have offshore legal structures (e.g., Holdcos), which may complicate access to their assets for enforcement.

    许多跨境案件中，对方当事人可能拥有离岸法律结构（例如，控股公司），这可能使执行过程中对其资产进行访问变得复杂。

2. Asset Location

• Where are the assets of counterparties located?

  • Carefully identify the jurisdiction in which counterparties’ assets are located. Selecting a dispute resolution mechanism that is enforceable in the relevant jurisdiction ensures the ability to recover monetary or specific remedies.

    仔细确定对方资产所在的司法管辖区。选择在相关司法管辖区具有可执行性的争议解决机制，确保能够追回货币或特定救济。

  • Example: In the case outlined, assets were located in mainland China, making the use of interim relief under PRC-HK mechanisms a strategic advantage.

    例如：在所讨论的案例中，资产位于中国大陆，这使得在 PRC-HK 机制下使用临时救济成为战略优势。

3. Contract or Dispute Value 合同或争议价值

• What is the value of the contract or dispute?

  • High-value disputes often require more robust mechanisms like institutional arbitration under ICC or HKIAC, which provide procedural integrity and enforceability.

    高价值争议通常需要更稳健的机制，如 ICC 或 HKIAC 的机构仲裁，这提供程序完整性和执行力。

  • Lower-value disputes can benefit from faster, cost-efficient mechanisms such as expedited arbitration or mediation.

    低价值争议可以从更快速、成本效益更高的机制中受益，如加速仲裁或调解。

4. Enforcement

• How/where would an award or judgment have to be enforced?

  • Evaluate the enforcement mechanisms available in the relevant jurisdictions:
    评估相关司法管辖区可用的执行机制：

    • Is the country a signatory to the New York Convention?

      该国是否是《纽约公约》的签约国？

    • Are there bilateral agreements or arrangements for enforcing judgments (as in the PRC-HK Interim Measures Arrangement)?

      是否存在双边协议或安排用于执行判决（如内地与香港特别行政区关于执行仲裁裁决的安排）？

5. Availability of Interim Relief 临时救济的可用性

• Can interim relief be secured, and how?

  • Interim relief can prevent counterparties from dissipating assets or taking actions that might undermine the enforceability of an award.

    临时救济可以防止对方当事人分散资产或采取可能损害裁决可执行性的行动。

  • It’s important to ensure that the institution administering the arbitration can provide adequate tools for interim relief.

    确保仲裁机构能够提供足够的临时救济工具是很重要的。

B. Timing of Planning: Critical Considerations

• Dispute Resolution Clauses in Contracts:

  • The options available to resolve disputes after they arise often depend entirely on the contract’s dispute resolution clause. These clauses dictate the applicable jurisdiction, governing law, and arbitral rules, narrowing parties’ flexibility after the dispute arises.

    产生争议后可供选择的解决方式通常完全取决于合同的争议解决条款。这些条款规定了适用的管辖权、适用的法律和仲裁规则，限制了争议发生后各方的灵活性。

• Preemptive Planning:

  Parties should carefully negotiate and draft dispute resolution clauses at the contract inception

  Considerations might include:

  • Consolidation clauses to ensure disputes arising from interconnected agreements can be addressed jointly.

    合并条款，以确保因相互关联的协议产生的争议可以共同解决。

  • Opting for neutral jurisdictions and internationally recognized arbitral institutions for greater enforceability.

    选择中立司法管辖区和国际公认的仲裁机构以提高执行力。

  • Including interim relief mechanisms and asset preservation clauses if counterparties have assets in jurisdictions vulnerable to dissipation.

    如果交易对手方在易受资产流失的司法管辖区拥有资产，包括临时救济机制和资产保全条款。

XIV. Case Study

A. RMB 550M Arbitration Case: Put-Option Breach and PRC Enforcement

1. Facts

The client is an offshore Holdco with a Hong Kong-listed company and operations in mainland China. The counterparty has a similar structure.

客户是一家在香港上市并在中国大陆运营的离岸控股公司。对方当事人拥有类似的架构。

The dispute arose from a share purchase agreement (SPA) between the Holdcos regarding a target company, intended for an eventual IPO.

争议源于持有公司之间关于目标公司的股份购买协议（SPA），该目标公司旨在进行 IPO。

The client secured a put-option, guaranteed by the domestic parent company of the counterparty in mainland China, enabling withdrawal of the investment if plans failed.

客户获得了一项由对方在中国大陆的国内母公司担保的看跌期权，如果计划失败，可以撤回投资。

Failure to list the target company eventually led to a dispute over unwinding the investment.

目标公司未能上市最终导致了关于投资清算的争议。

2. Challenges

1. Lack of Access to Assets:

   Contracting parties under the SPA were offshore Holdcos with no direct assets, making enforcement against the counterparties difficult.

   在 SPA 下的合同方是离岸的控股公司，没有直接资产，这使得对交易对手方的执行变得困难。

2. Asset Distribution:

   Assets were held by the parent entities of the Holdcos in mainland China, complicating enforcement due to jurisdictional barriers.

   资产由控股公司的母公司在大陆中国持有，由于司法管辖权障碍，这使得执行变得复杂。

3. Conflicting Arbitration Clauses:

   Arbitration clauses in the SPA and related agreements were incompatible, making consolidation impossible. Disputes arising from related agreements required separate proceedings.

   SPA 及其相关协议中的仲裁条款不兼容，导致无法合并。相关协议产生的争议需要单独诉讼。

3. Solution: Strategic Arbitration and Enforcement

Step 1: Identify Strategic Agreements and Jurisdiction

• Commence arbitration under the HKIAC Rules:

  The dispute resolution mechanism was selected based on the guarantee agreement, involving the PRC-based parent companies directly. This was critical as the parent companies owned the enforceable assets located in China.

  争议解决机制是根据保证协议选择的，涉及中国境内的母公司直接参与。这对母公司拥有位于中国的可执行资产至关重要。

Step 2: Leverage Interim Relief to Preserve Assets

• Freeze assets under the PRC-HK Interim Relief Arrangement:
  根据《中华人民共和国-香港特别行政区临时救济安排》冻结资产

  This arrangement provides access to interim measures in mainland China during Hong Kong-seated arbitration.

  这项安排为在香港仲裁的仲裁中提供了在内地采取临时措施的机会。

  Leveraging HKIAC arbitration, the client successfully froze assets worth over RMB 550 million, preventing dissipation and forcing the counterparty to the negotiation table.

  利用香港国际仲裁中心（HKIAC）的仲裁，客户成功冻结了价值超过 5.5 亿元人民币的资产，防止了资产流失并迫使对方回到谈判桌前。

Step 3: Strategic Negotiation 第 3 步：战略谈判

• Asset protection brought parties back to negotiation:

  By preserving substantial assets through interim relief, a favorable settlement was reached, avoiding prolonged arbitration or litigation.

  通过保全大量资产，通过临时救济达成有利和解，避免了长期仲裁或诉讼。

4. Key Lessons from the Case

1. Plan Ahead by Targeting Enforceable Assets:

   Ensure that dispute resolution clauses cover entities with locally enforceable assets. Offshore Holdcos usually lack tangible assets, so involving parent entities and guarantees early in contract negotiation is essential.

   确保争议解决条款涵盖具有本地可执行资产的实体。离岸控股公司通常缺乏有形资产，因此在合同谈判早期涉及母公司和担保至关重要。

2. Streamline Arbitration Clauses:

   Avoid drafting incompatible arbitration clauses across interconnected agreements, as this prevents consolidation and adds procedural complexity.

   避免在相互关联的协议中制定不兼容的仲裁条款，因为这会阻碍合并并增加程序复杂性。

3. Harness Interim Measures:

   The ability to freeze assets under PRC-HK arrangements demonstrates the value of selecting institutions and jurisdictions that allow proactive interim relief, especially when dealing with counterparties in regions like China.

   在内地与香港安排下冻结资产的能力展示了选择允许主动采取临时救济措施机构和司法管辖区的重要性，尤其是在与中国地区交易对手进行交易时。

4. Use Institutional Arbitration:

   Institutions like HKIAC provide specialized tools for multi-jurisdictional disputes, including cost-effective interim relief and procedural flexibility.

   诸如 HKIAC 等机构为跨国争端提供专业工具，包括成本效益的临时救济和程序灵活性。

Cross-border disputes require foresight in structuring agreements and dispute resolution clauses. As demonstrated in the case example:

• Identifying the correct jurisdiction and enforceable agreements at contract negotiation stages is critical.

  在合同谈判阶段确定正确的管辖权和可执行协议至关重要。

• Leveraging interim relief mechanisms can substantially strengthen a party’s position during arbitration, ensuring asset preservation and encouraging early settlement.

  利用临时救济机制可以在仲裁过程中显著增强一方地位，确保资产保全并鼓励早日和解。

When disputes arise, the strategic use of resources, including interim measures, consolidated arbitration, and enforceable jurisdictions, can mitigate challenges and shift power dynamics, as shown by the RMB 550 million asset freeze example.

当争议发生时，战略性地使用资源，包括临时措施、合并仲裁和可执行管辖权，可以减轻挑战并改变权力动态，如 55 亿元人民币资产冻结案例所示。

B. Lessons from a Cross-Border Arbitration Dispute

1. Facts

The client was a large multinational corporation that had invested in an offshore company.

客户是一家大型跨国公司，已在离岸公司进行了投资。

Ownership of key operating subsidiaries in mainland China was held through a Hong Kong-listed company (HK Listco), creating a multi-tiered corporate structure.

关键运营子公司的所有权通过一家在香港上市的控股公司（HK Listco）持有，形成了一个多层级的公司结构。

The dispute arose due to allegations that the counterparty had mismanaged the target company and embezzled assets, resulting in financial losses for the multinational client.

由于对方被指控，导致跨国客户遭受财务损失，因此产生了争议。

The client engaged a Singapore-based law firm to commence arbitration under SIAC rules and obtained a favorable arbitration award several years later.

The client only engaged Hong Kong and mainland China-based legal support at the enforcement stage, delaying enforcement-related preparations for years after arbitration had commenced.

客户仅在执行阶段聘请了香港和内地法律支持，导致执行相关准备工作延迟。

2. Difficulties Faced

The case highlights several problems that arose due to lack of strategic asset monitoring and enforcement-planning during the arbitration proceedings:

该案例突出了在仲裁程序中由于缺乏战略资产监控和执行规划而出现的问题：

（1）Lack of Asset Searches 资产调查不足

• Issue: During the arbitration, no contemporaneous asset searches were conducted on the counterparty.
  • Without timely asset discovery, the client missed the opportunity to identify and freeze enforceable assets during the arbitration process.
  • Counterparties with significant financial liabilities often anticipate enforcement attempts and intentionally dissipate or shield their assets before the award is rendered.
• Impact: By the time the award was issued, the counterparty’s traceable PRC entities had been stripped of assets, leaving “empty shell” structures that had no enforceable value.

（2） Asset Transfers to a New Structure

• Issue: During arbitration, the counterparty had created a parallel corporate structure in mainland China and transferred significant assets, including:

  • Tangible assets, intellectual property (IP), and other key resources.
    有形资产、知识产权（IP）和其他关键资源。
  • Key employees, ensuring continuity of operations at the new structure.

• Impact: The client was unable to enforce the award against the transferred assets because they were no longer owned by the entities named in the arbitration.

（3）Delay in Enforcement Planning

• Issue: The client engaged legal support in Hong Kong and mainland China only after the arbitration award was issued, rather than preparing enforcement strategies during arbitration.

  Delaying enforcement planning can lead to significant asset dissipation risks, especially in jurisdictions like mainland China, where enforcement proceedings often require significant preparation (e.g., filing for interim relief or securing guarantees during arbitration).

  延迟执行规划可能导致重大资产流失风险，尤其是在内地等执行程序通常需要大量准备（例如，在仲裁过程中申请临时救济或提供担保）的司法管辖区。

• Impact: By the time enforcement was initiated, the counterparties’ PRC entities were empty, offshore entities had minimal resources, and access to records was obstructed.

  影响：在执行开始时，对方的中国内地实体已空，离岸实体资源有限，且访问记录受到阻碍。

（4）Expensive and Time-Consuming Asset Recovery Efforts

• The client was forced to undertake costly recovery measures, with uncertain outcomes:

  • Criminal Complaints in PRC: A criminal complaint was initiated, blacklisting the counterparty’s director/shareholder within China. However, this only imposed reputational sanctions without immediate recovery of assets.

    中国内地刑事投诉：启动了刑事投诉，将对方在中国境内的董事/股东列入黑名单。然而，这仅实施了声誉制裁，并未立即追回资产。

  • Appointment of Liquidators: Offshore and Hong Kong-based liquidators were appointed to investigate and trace the counterparty’s assets. While this provided access to books and records, liquidation is often a long and expensive process with limited guarantees of success.

    破产清算人任命：任命了离岸和香港的清算人调查和追踪对方的资产。虽然这提供了查阅账簿和记录的途径，但清算通常是一个漫长且昂贵的流程，成功率有限。

  • Complex Asset Tracing: Comprehensive asset searches and investigations were launched across jurisdictions to track down the embezzled assets. This proved both costly and uncertain.

    复杂资产追查：在多个司法管辖区开展了全面的资产搜索和调查，以追踪被挪用的资产。这既昂贵又充满不确定性。

C. Solutions Attempted

1. Criminal Complaint and Blacklisting

• Filed criminal complaints in mainland China to highlight fraudulent asset transfers and embezzlement.

  在中国大陆提起刑事投诉，以突出欺诈性资产转移和挪用公款。

• Resulted in blacklisting of the director/shareholder involved, restricting their business activities within the PRC.

  导致涉事董事/股东被列入黑名单，限制其在中国的商业活动。

• Limitations: Criminal complaints are punitive measures and rarely resolve the client’s primary aim: financial recovery of the award.

  局限性：刑事投诉是惩罚性措施，很少能解决客户的主要目标：追回裁决的财务。

2. Appointing Liquidators Offshore and in Hong Kong

• Liquidators gained access to corporate records, enabling the client to track historical transfers of assets to the parallel corporate structures.

  清算人获得了公司记录的访问权限，使客户能够追踪资产向平行公司结构的转移历史。

• Limitations: Investigations of this nature are lengthy, expensive, and often follow complex asset transfer trails involving multiple jurisdictions.

  限制：此类调查耗时、昂贵，通常涉及多个司法管辖区，资产转移路径复杂。

3. Costly Asset Searches and Investigations

• International asset investigations were commissioned in an attempt to trace and recover hidden or transferred assets.

  国际资产调查被委托以追踪和追回隐藏或转移的资产。

• Uncertainty: The success of such searches is highly dependent on the availability of clear records and cooperation from regulators and courts. There was no guarantee of meaningful recovery, given the significant delays and counterparty’s efforts to shield assets.

D. Key Lessons Learned

This case underscores critical steps that parties should take during arbitration proceedings to avoid similar enforcement challenges:

本案例强调了当事人在仲裁程序中应采取的关键步骤，以避免类似的执法挑战：

1. Conduct Regular Asset Monitoring and Searches

• Parties must conduct contemporaneous asset tracing during arbitration proceedings to identify enforceable assets early on. Tools to achieve this include:

  当事人必须在仲裁程序中进行同期资产追踪，以尽早识别可执行资产

  • Monitoring corporate activities: E.g., checking for restructuring or asset transfers.

    监控企业活动：例如，检查重组或资产转让。

  • Requesting public and private asset verification filings.

    请求公开和私人资产验证登记。

  • Engaging professional investigators early in the arbitration process, particularly in regions where corporate transparency may be limited (e.g., mainland China).

    在仲裁程序早期就聘请专业调查员，尤其是在企业透明度可能有限的地区（例如中国大陆）。

2. Leverage Interim Relief Mechanisms 利用临时救济机制

• Use mechanisms like freezing orders to secure assets before they can be dissipated:

  • Under the PRC-HK Interim Measures Arrangement, assets in China can be frozen when arbitration is seated in Hong Kong.

    根据《内地与香港关于执行仲裁裁决的安排》，当仲裁在香港进行时，中国境内的资产可以被冻结。

  • Other jurisdictions, such as Singapore through SIAC, also offer strong interim relief frameworks globally.

    其他司法管辖区，如新加坡通过 SIAC，也提供全球性的强有力的临时救济框架。

3. Strengthen Dispute Resolution Clauses

Ensure that arbitration clauses cover related entities or parent companies that hold valuable assets, not just offshore holding structures.

确保仲裁条款涵盖持有有价值资产的相关实体或母公司，而不仅仅是离岸控股结构。

Including guarantees or direct responsibilities for onshore entities ensures access to enforceable assets in local jurisdictions.

4. Start Enforcement Planning Early

Planning for enforcement should begin during arbitration proceedings, not after the award. This includes actions such as:

• Securing interim relief where available.

  尽可能获得临时救济。

• Pre-verifying where the award may need to be enforced, ensuring the jurisdiction is a signatory to the New York Convention or has bilateral enforcement agreements.

  预先核实裁决可能需要执行的地点，确保该司法管辖区是纽约公约的签署国或具有双边执行协议。

• Monitoring counterparties for potentially fraudulent transfers of assets.

  监控对方可能涉及资产欺诈性转让的行为。

5. Engage Multijurisdictional Legal Counsel Early

In cross-border disputes, it is crucial to engage legal support across relevant jurisdictions from the outset.

在跨境争端中，从一开始就聘请相关法域的法律支持至关重要。

For example, engaging Hong Kong and mainland China counsel during arbitration could have prevented delays in freezing assets and identifying fraudulent activity.

Conclusion

This case highlights how neglecting proactive enforcement planning, especially in cross-border disputes, can completely undermine the practical value of an arbitration award. While the client eventually pursued mechanisms such as liquidation and criminal complaints, these measures were costly, slow, and uncertain, largely due to the counterparty’s ability to shield assets through a parallel structure.