中国法下仲裁保全和临时措施制度之研究:现状、问题及新发展

Interim Measures in Chinese Arbitral Proceedings under Chinese Law:Status Quo,Problems,and Recent Developments

围绕涉及我国内地仲裁程序的临时措施,本文主要讨论了三个主要问题。第一,依据我国法律规定,仅人民法院有权力作出保全措施,但该现状有可能通过仲裁机构制定仲裁规则进行突破:依据当事人选定的仲裁规则,仲裁庭和紧急仲裁员有权力在仲裁程序中作出临时措施。这种权力来源于当事人对仲裁规则的同意,这一意思表示包含当事人对仲裁员作出临时措施的默示同意和间接授权。这是对当事人意思自治原则的贯彻,也是私法领域“法无禁止即允许”法律原则的体现。因此,仲裁临时措施原则上对当事人应具有约束力,除非当事人以明确的合意排除仲裁规则中关于仲裁临时措施的适用。同时,因为我国法律没有授权或要求法院执行此类仲裁临时措施,由仲裁庭或紧急仲裁员作出的临时措施目前尚不具有可执行性,难以申请法院强制执行。故这种仲裁临时措施的有效性并不完整,主要依赖于当事人的主动履行。第二,内地仲裁程序中,仲裁庭或紧急仲裁员裁定作出临时救济有可能得到境外法院的承认和执行。此外,当事人还可以向境外法院直接申请临时救济。本文的讨论以香港法院近期涉内地仲裁的司法案例展开,总结、分析、梳理了这方面的最新发展。第三,对境外仲裁程序,长期以来,我国内地法院原则上不会提供关于保全措施的司法协助,但《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院就仲裁程序相互协助保全的安排》对此传统规则予以突破,让符合条件的香港仲裁程序的当事人可以直接向内地法院申请保全措施。这见证了“一国两制”下跨境司法协助的创新与重要发展,有利于实现“内地-香港”跨境商事争议解决的司法正义,进一步增强香港在国际仲裁领域的竞争力,让香港仲裁为涉内地的跨境商事争议解决发挥更加不可替代的重要作用。

This article addresses three major questions with respect to interim measures in arbitral proceedings seated in Mainland China.First,under applicable Chinese law,it is only Mainland courts that have the legal authority to order preservation measures.But this status quo may be changed by the arbitration rules made by Mainland arbitration institutions.Based on arbitration rules authorizing arbitral interim measures and selected by disputing parties,arbitral tribunals and emergency arbitrators could be granted with the arbitral authority to issue these remedies in arbitral proceedings.Notably,when selecting these arbitration rules,the disputing parties have implicitly consented to arbitrators’authority to render interim measures.In this way,this arbitral authority on interim measures is grounded on party autonomy,a fundamental principle of arbitration,and is a manifestation of an overarching legal principle—“everything which is not forbidden is allowed by the law”.Therefore,arbitral interim measures,in principle,should bind disputing parties,unless they expressly indicate that they would not consent to arbitrators’authority to grant these measures.Meanwhile,given Chinese law’s silence on this matter,arbitral interim measures thus far remain unenforceable via Chinese courts.This makes the effectiveness of arbitral interim measures incomplete,which primarily relies on the parties’voluntary compliance.Second,this legal dilemma of unenforceable arbitral interim measures could be partly resolved by seeking enforcement through an offshore court.Moreover,a party may also directly apply for interim measures from an offshore judiciary.Focused on the recent judicial practices of Hong Kong courts with respect to Mainland-seated arbitral proceedings,this article provides a comprehensive review of these notable developments.Third,it has long been the rule that a party to an offshore arbitral proceeding is unable to apply for preservation measures from Mainland courts.However,this traditional rule has been substantially changed by the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.By virtue of this instrument,a party to an eligible Hong Kong-seated arbitration is empowered to directly apply for court-ordered preservation measures from Mainland courts.A manifestation of innovative cross-border judicial assistance under the structure of“One Country,Two Systems”,this instrument is conducive to achieving transnational justice in Mainland-Hong Kong context,and could contribute to Hong Kong’s competitiveness in the arena of international arbitration,thereby enabling Hong Kong to play a more indispensable role in resolving cross-border commercial disputes.