《国际仲裁简讯》2024年7月号 International Arbitration Newsletter July 2024

2024年7月18日，上海宝山邮轮法律合作发展共同体在星旅远洋·鼓浪屿号上正式成立，目标打造全球邮轮争议解决中心，提升涉外邮轮法律建设水平。

上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会邮轮运输仲裁中心作为该共同体的配套争议解决机制，将致力于处理涉邮轮运输纠纷，保障邮轮经济高质量运行，并推动邮轮产业长远发展。作为上海最早开展国际仲裁业务的机构，上海国仲在处理航运仲裁案件方面有丰富经验，包括国际贸易中的多式联运合同纠纷、船舶和运输设备制造供应链合同纠纷、港口码头基础设施建造合同纠纷、海上运输保险纠纷等，这为邮轮运输仲裁中心的设立和运作奠定了坚实基础。

未来，上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会邮轮运输仲裁中心将借鉴已有的专业仲裁中心建设经验，进一步丰富其实践，发挥功能，扩大影响力，助力上海抓住全球邮轮产业布局变革的历史机遇，全力支持上海建设国际航运中心的目标。

On July 18, 2024, the Shanghai Baoshan Cruise Legal Cooperation and Development Community was officially established aboard the "Xingluoyang·Gulangyu" cruise ship, with the goal of creating a global center for cruise dispute resolution and enhancing the legal framework for foreign-related cruise operations.

As the dispute resolution mechanism supporting this community, the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Cruise Transport Arbitration Center will focus on handling disputes related to cruise transport, ensuring the high-quality operation of the cruise economy, and promoting the long-term development of the cruise industry. With its extensive experience in handling maritime arbitration cases, including multimodal transport contract disputes in international trade, ship and transport equipment supply chain contract disputes, port and terminal infrastructure construction contract disputes, and marine transport insurance disputes, the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (SHIAC) is well-equipped to establish and operate the Cruise Transport Arbitration Center.

In the future, the Cruise Transport Arbitration Center will draw on the existing experience of specialized arbitration centers to further enrich its practice, enhance its functions, and expand its influence. This will support Shanghai in seizing the historical opportunity presented by the global restructuring of the cruise industry and in fully supporting Shanghai's goal of becoming an international shipping center.

为保障《上海市推进国际商事仲裁中心建设条例》有效实施，提升新类型仲裁司法案件办理的程序规范和适法统一，根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》《中华人民共和国仲裁法》及相关司法解释，上海市高级人民法院印发了《上海市高级人民法院关于涉“三特定”临时仲裁及“境外仲裁业务机构”仲裁司法案件集中管辖的规定》，规定自2024年6月24日起实施。内容如下：

一、本规定所称“三特定”临时仲裁指约定在上海、按照特定仲裁规则、由特定人员进行的临时仲裁；本规定所称“境外仲裁业务机构”仲裁指境外仲裁及争议解决机构经登记和备案在本市设立的业务机构进行的仲裁。

二、本规定所称涉仲裁司法案件包括：

（一）申请确认仲裁协议效力案件；

（二）申请撤销仲裁裁决案件；

（三）申请执行仲裁裁决案件；

（四）仲裁程序中向人民法院申请保全案件；

（五）仲裁程序中向人民法院申请支持调查取证案件。

三、针对本规定第一、二条所列情形，当事人向本市人民法院提出申请的，指定由下列法院管辖：

（一）属于金融民商事纠纷的，由上海金融法院管辖；

（二）属于海事海商及其他民商事纠纷的，由上海海事法院管辖。

法律法规、司法解释和最高人民法院另有特别规定的除外。

四、本市各级人民法院在受理、审理案件中发现存在涉及“三特定”临时仲裁、“境外仲裁业务机构”仲裁的仲裁协议，或当事人向受诉法院提出主管异议的，由受诉法院审查处理。

五、涉及自由贸易试验区内注册的企业相互之间约定在特定地点、按照特定仲裁规则、由特定人员进行仲裁的案件，当事人向本市人民法院提出相关申请的，参照本规定的“三特定”临时仲裁确定管辖法院。

To ensure the effective implementation of the "Shanghai Regulations on Promoting the Construction of an International Commercial Arbitration Center," and to improve the procedural norms and legal consistency in handling new types of arbitration-related judicial cases, the Shanghai High People's Court issued the "Regulations of the Shanghai High People's Court on Centralized Jurisdiction over Judicial Cases Involving 'Three Specific' Ad Hoc Arbitration and 'Foreign Arbitration Business Institutions' Arbitration," which came into effect on June 24, 2024. The full text is as follows:

Article 1 For the purpose of the present Provisions, "Three-Specific" ad hoc arbitration refers to the ad hoc arbitration agreed to be conducted in Shanghai by specific personnel in accordance with specific arbitration rules; and arbitration by "overseas arbitration business agencies" refer to the arbitration conducted by the business bodies of overseas arbitration and dispute resolution agencies established in Shanghai upon registration and record-filing.

Article 2 For the purpose of the present Provisions, "arbitration-related judicial cases" include:

(1) a case of application for confirming the validity of an arbitration agreement;

(2) a case of application for setting aside of an arbitral award;

(3) a case of application for enforcement of an arbitral award;

(4) a case of application to a people's court for preservation in arbitration proceedings; and

(5) a case of application to a people's court for support of evidence collection through investigation in arbitration proceedings.

Article 3 Where a party applies to a people's court in Shanghai for circumstances listed in Articles 1 and 2 hereof, the following courts are designated for jurisdiction:

(1) The Shanghai Financial Court shall have jurisdiction over civil and commercial financial disputes; and

(2) The Shanghai Maritime Court shall have jurisdiction over maritime as well as other civil and commercial disputes.

Exceptions shall be applied to those otherwise specially provided by laws, regulations, judicial interpretations and the Supreme People's Court.

Article 4 Where a people's court at any level in Shanghai finds that there is an arbitration agreement involving the "Three Specific" ad hoc arbitration or arbitration by an "overseas arbitration business body" in accepting and hearing a case, or the party files a competent objection with the court that accepts the case, the court that accepts the case shall review and handle the case.

Article 5 Where enterprises registered in a Pilot Free Trade Zone agree with each other to arbitrate by specific personnel at a specific location in accordance with specific arbitration rules, and the parties file relevant applications with a people's court in Shanghai, the court with jurisdiction shall be determined according to the provisions on "Three Specific" ad hoc arbitrations mutatis mutandis.

2024年 7月12日，中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（贸仲）和德国仲裁院（DIS）在德国柏林联合举办“中德贸易及仲裁国际研讨会”（GERMAN-CHINA TRADE & ARBITRATION DAY)，并在会上签署了更新合作协议。

研讨会上，中德仲裁专家围绕贸易争端解决、程序效率与仲裁裁决等国际仲裁热点问题进行了深入探讨。贸仲和德国仲裁院作为各自国家的代表性仲裁机构，通过此次会议旨在推动中德经贸合作。会上，贸仲与德国仲裁院签署了更新合作协议，进一步加强在仲裁制度推广、举办活动、互荐仲裁员及开展研究等方面的合作，促进国际仲裁发展，推动中德及国际经贸合作。此次研讨会参会者普遍认为会议有助于增进对中德仲裁法律制度的了解，促进两国仲裁法律交流与合作，对国际经贸的稳定发展具有积极意义。

On July 12, 2024, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and the German Institution of Arbitration (DIS) jointly held the "Sino-German Trade and Arbitration International Seminar" (GERMAN-CHINA TRADE & ARBITRATION DAY) in Berlin, Germany, where they also signed an updated cooperation agreement.

At the seminar, Chinese and German arbitration experts conducted in-depth discussions on hot topics in international arbitration such as trade dispute resolution, procedural efficiency, and arbitration awards. As representative arbitration institutions of their respective countries, CIETAC and DIS aimed to promote Sino-German economic and trade cooperation through this meeting. During the event, CIETAC and DIS signed an updated cooperation agreement to further strengthen cooperation in promoting arbitration systems, hosting events, recommending arbitrators to each other, and conducting research, thereby fostering the development of international arbitration and promoting Sino-German and international economic and trade cooperation. Participants widely agreed that the seminar contributed to a better understanding of the arbitration legal systems of China and Germany, enhanced legal exchanges and cooperation between the two countries, and had positive implications for the stable development of international trade and economics.

法律依据：

《中华人民共和国仲裁法》

第十六条

仲裁协议包括合同中订立的仲裁条款和以其他书面方式在纠纷发生前或者纠纷发生后达成的请求仲裁的协议。

仲裁协议应当具有下列内容:

    （一）请求仲裁的意思表示；

    （二）仲裁事项；

（三）选定的仲裁委员会。

第十七条   

有下列情形之一的，仲裁协议无效:

（一）约定的仲裁事项超出法律规定的仲裁范围的；

（二）无民事行为能力人或者限制民事行为能力人订立的仲裁协议；

（三）一方采取胁迫手段，迫使对方订立仲裁协议的。

案情简介：

天津路某有限公司（以下简称“天津路某公司”）与乌鲁木齐市盛某有限公司（以下简称“盛某公司”）之间因《国道216线提升改造（东二环）管线迁改项目三标段施工合同》的仲裁条款发生纠纷。天津路某公司认为合同中的仲裁条款不明确，请求法院确认该仲裁条款无效。盛某公司同意确认仲裁条款无效。

法院观点：

法院认为，《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第十六条第二款规定，仲裁协议应当具有请求仲裁的意思表示、仲裁事项和选定的仲裁委员会。本案中，天津路某公司与乌鲁木齐市市政某处签订的《国道216线提升改造（东二环）管线迁改项目三标段施工合同》中明确约定了争议解决方式为向项目所在地仲裁委员会申请仲裁，满足了法律规定的仲裁协议的有效要件。

2019年7月15日，盛某公司、天津路某公司与乌鲁木齐市市政某处签订了补充协议，明确盛某公司承继乌鲁木齐市市政某处的全部权利、义务与责任，并且该补充协议与原施工合同具有同等效力。

根据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》和最高人民法院的相关解释，如果某地仅有一个仲裁机构，则该仲裁机构视为约定的仲裁机构。本案中，合同签订时，乌鲁木齐市内仅有乌鲁木齐仲裁委员会一个独立仲裁机构，因此双方约定的仲裁机构明确且唯一。天津路某公司认为合同签订时乌鲁木齐市存在两家仲裁机构的理由不符合实际情况，法院不予采信。

根据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第十七条规定的仲裁协议无效情形，天津路某公司未提交证据证实涉案仲裁协议存在这些情形。因此，天津路某公司主张该仲裁协议无效的意见不成立，法院不予支持。

综上，法院依照《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第十六条和第二十条的规定，裁定驳回天津路某有限公司的申请。

Legal Basis:

"The Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China"

Article 16

An arbitration agreement shall include arbitral clauses stipulated in the contract and other written agreements which request arbitration to be made prior to or following the occurrence of a dispute.

An arbitration agreement shall include the following:

(1) the expression of an application for arbitration;

(2) items for arbitration;

(3) the chosen arbitration commission.

Article 17 

An arbitration agreement shall be deemed invalid in any of the following circumstances:

(1) items provided for arbitration exceed the legally regulated scope of arbitration;

(2) the arbitration agreement has been concluded by persons without civil capacity or with limited civil capacity;

(3) one party has forced conclusion of the arbitration agreement through coercive means.

Case Description：

Tianjin Lu Some Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tianjin Lu Some”) and Urumqi Sheng Some Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sheng Some”) are in dispute over the arbitration clause in the "National Road 216 Upgrading and Renovation (East Second Ring) Pipeline Relocation Project Section III Construction Contract." Tianjin Lu Some requests the court to confirm the invalidity of the arbitration clause in the contract, arguing that the clause is unclear. Sheng Some agrees to confirm the arbitration clause's invalidity.

Court's View:

The court holds that Article 16, Paragraph 2 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that an arbitration agreement must include: (1) the intent to request arbitration; (2) the matters to be arbitrated; and (3) the chosen arbitration institution. In this case, the "National Road 216 Upgrading and Renovation (East Second Ring) Pipeline Relocation Project Section III Construction Contract" specifies that disputes arising from the contract will be resolved by arbitration at the project location's arbitration committee. The contract and the supplementary agreement both clearly state that disputes will be resolved by the arbitration committee at the project location in Urumqi. At the time of the contract and supplementary agreement signing in 2016 and 2019, there was only one independent arbitration institution in Urumqi, namely the Urumqi Arbitration Commission. Therefore, the agreed arbitration institution was clear and unique. Tianjin Lu Some's claim that there were two arbitration institutions in Xinjiang at the time of contract signing does not align with the actual situation at that time and is not accepted by the court.

Furthermore, according to Article 17 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, an arbitration agreement is invalid under the following conditions: (1) the arbitration matters exceed the legal scope of arbitration; (2) the agreement was made by someone with no or limited civil capacity; or (3) one party was coerced into agreeing to arbitration. Tianjin Lu Some has not provided evidence proving that the arbitration agreement in question meets any of these invalidation criteria. Therefore, Tianjin Lu Some's claim of the arbitration agreement's invalidity does not conform to the provisions of the Arbitration Law and is not supported by the court.

In conclusion, in accordance with Articles 16 and 20 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, the court rules to dismiss Tianjin Lu Some's application.

案情简介：

Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd（以下简称“PIMD”）是东南亚最大的石油产品卖家之一，能够为P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc（又名Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc）（以下简称“Phoenix”）提供可靠的石油产品供应。Phoenix在菲律宾的石油燃料和液化石油气市场上非常活跃，对石油产品有强劲需求。双方签订了合作谅解备忘录（Memorandum of Understanding，以下简称为“MoU”），作为后续买卖协议的框架协议，MoU中约定了争议在新加坡国际仲裁中心进行仲裁。

从2019年11月到2021年6月，PIMD通过Phoenix的招标过程获得了26批石油产品的买卖协议，并完成了交付。然而，买卖协议中未约定准据法和争议解决条款。由于Phoenix未按约定付款，PIMD向新加坡国际仲裁中心提起仲裁。在仲裁过程中，Phoenix提出管辖权异议后不再参与仲裁程序。仲裁庭在没有Phoenix参与的情况下做出仲裁裁决，裁定Phoenix和第三方担保人Udenna Corporation（以下简称“Udenna”）对PIMD的索赔负有连带责任。

2023年12月2日，Phoenix在菲律宾第11司法区审判法院（以下简称“菲律宾法院”）提起诉讼，请求确认仲裁裁决无效并发布永久禁令，禁止PIMD和Udenna执行裁决。同时，Phoenix申请诉前临时禁令和初步禁令，禁止PIMD和Udenna在法院判决前执行裁决。

2023年12月12日，PIMD向新加坡高级法院（以下简称“法院”）申请执行仲裁裁决并获准（以下简称“ORC 69”）。2024年1月12日，PIMD向新加坡法院申请永久禁诉令（以下简称“OA 1”）和临时禁诉令并获准，但Phoenix没有暂停在菲律宾的诉讼。2024年5月13日，Phoenix向新加坡法院提出申请，要求撤销ORC 69（以下简称“SUM 21”）。

法院观点：

关于SUM 21部分的争议，法院认为根据新加坡1994年国际仲裁法（IAA）第3条第1款，示范法在新加坡具有法律效力。Phoenix根据IAA第19条认为法院在是否执行裁决上有裁量权，法院表示认同，并根据示范法第36条第1款行使裁量权。然而，IAA第19条也说明即使存在示范法36条第1款的情形，法院仍享有裁量权决定是否拒绝执行裁决。PIMD主张根据法院先前判决（[2024] SGHC(I)13），Phoenix因一事不再理或禁反言原则被排除提出SUM 21。本院认为，由于判决中没有涉及是否存在相关仲裁协议的问题，也没有涉及法院是否应当承认或拒绝承认和执行裁决的问题，因此一事不再理或禁反言原则不适用于SUM 21。买卖协议中没有约定争议解决条款，但作为框架协议的MoU则详细约定了争议解决条款。法院认为，MoU的仲裁条款应作宽泛和扩张解释，涵盖买卖协议项下的争议。此外，Phoenix主张每一份买卖协议都是独立协议，但法院认为买卖协议遵循MoU框架订立，因而受其仲裁条款约束。尽管买卖协议未提及MoU，法院认为缺少提及并不影响其适用。法院不同意仲裁裁决超出仲裁条款范围，裁定驳回SUM 21。

关于OA 1部分的争议，法院认为根据示范法第34条第3款，鉴于Phoenix在3个月期限内没有申请撤销裁决，裁决是终局、有效和有约束力的。Phoenix认为法院无权批准永久性反起诉禁令，法院认为本案属于国际商事仲裁，因此法院有管辖权并拥有高等法院的所有权力，可以授予适当救济，包括永久性反起诉禁令。Phoenix主张其在菲律宾的诉讼是防御性诉讼，仅在菲律宾境内产生效力，且菲律宾法院应判断其适当性。法院认为Phoenix在菲律宾提起的诉讼不仅是试图抵制执行，还寻求宣布仲裁及其裁决无效，这违背了示范法第34条，因此在新加坡法律上不可接受。

综上，新加坡高等法院裁定驳回SUM 21并批准PIMD申请的永久禁诉令。

Case Description：

Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "PIMD") is one of Southeast Asia's largest vendors of petroleum products and can provide reliable petroleum product supplies to P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc (also known as Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc) (hereinafter referred to as "Phoenix"). Phoenix is highly active in the oil fuel and liquefied petroleum gas market in the Philippines and has a strong demand for petroleum products. The parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) as a framework agreement for subsequent sales agreements, with the MoU stipulating arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.

From November 2019 to June 2021, PIMD obtained sales agreements for 26 batches of petroleum products through Phoenix’s tender process and completed delivery. However, the sales agreements did not specify the governing law or dispute resolution clauses. As Phoenix failed to make payments as agreed, PIMD initiated arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. During the arbitration process, Phoenix raised a jurisdictional objection and ceased participating. The arbitral tribunal issued an award in Phoenix’s absence, holding Phoenix and the third-party guarantor, Udenna Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Udenna"), jointly liable for PIMD’s claims.

On December 2, 2023, Phoenix filed a lawsuit in the Regional Trial Court of the 11th Judicial District of the Philippines (hereinafter referred to as "Philippine Court"), requesting the court to declare the arbitral award invalid and issue a permanent injunction to prevent PIMD and Udenna from enforcing the award. Phoenix also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent PIMD and Udenna from enforcing the award pending the court's decision.

On December 12, 2023, PIMD applied to the Singapore High Court (hereinafter referred to as "the Court") to enforce the award and was granted permission (hereinafter referred to as "ORC 69"). On January 12, 2024, PIMD also applied for a permanent anti-suit injunction (hereinafter referred to as "OA 1") and a preliminary anti-suit injunction, which was granted, but Phoenix did not suspend its litigation in the Philippines. On May 13, 2024, Phoenix applied to the Singapore High Court to set aside ORC 69 (hereinafter referred to as "SUM 21").

Court's View：

Regarding the dispute over SUM 21, the Court noted that under Section 3(1) of Singapore's International Arbitration Act (IAA) of 1994, the model law has legal effect in Singapore. Phoenix argued under Article 19 of the IAA that the Court has discretion on whether to enforce the award. The Court agreed and exercised its discretion under Article 36(1) of the model law. However, Article 19 of the IAA also states that even in the presence of conditions under Article 36(1) of the model law, the Court still has the discretion to refuse enforcement. PIMD argued that Phoenix was precluded from raising SUM 21 under the principle of res judicata or estoppel due to a prior ruling ([2024] SGHC(I)13). The Court held that since the judgment did not address the existence of the relevant arbitration agreement or whether the Court should recognize or refuse to recognize and enforce the award, the principles of res judicata or estoppel do not apply to SUM 21. Although the sales agreements did not specify dispute resolution clauses, the MoU, which serves as the framework agreement, detailed the dispute resolution clauses. The Court considered that the arbitration clause in the MoU should be interpreted broadly and expansively to cover disputes under the sales agreements. Additionally, although Phoenix argued that each sales agreement was a separate agreement, the Court found that the agreements were made under the MoU framework and thus bound by its arbitration clause. The Court disagreed with Phoenix’s claim that the arbitration award exceeded the scope of the arbitration clause and rejected SUM 21.

Regarding the dispute over OA 1, the Court found that under Article 34(3) of the model law, the award is final, effective, and binding since Phoenix did not apply to set aside the award within the 3-month period. Phoenix argued that the Court lacked the authority to grant a permanent anti-suit injunction, but the Court ruled that the case involved international commercial arbitration and thus had jurisdiction and the power of the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including a permanent anti-suit injunction. Phoenix contended that its litigation in the Philippines was defensive and only had effect within the Philippines, with the Philippine court being the proper venue to assess its appropriateness. The Court held that Phoenix’s litigation in the Philippines was not only an attempt to resist enforcement but also sought to declare the arbitration and its award invalid, which contravened Article 34 of the model law and was therefore unacceptable under Singapore law.

In summary, the Singapore High Court ruled to deny SUM 21 and granted PIMD's application for a permanent anti-suit injunction.