《国际仲裁简讯》2024年9月号 International Arbitration Newsletter Sep. 2024

2024年9月9日，最高人民法院发布《最高人民法院商事仲裁司法审查年度报告（2023）》（以下简称“年度报告”）。

2023年，全国法院审结商事仲裁司法审查案件1.6万余件。其中，审结申请确认仲裁协议效力案件3800余件，申请撤销仲裁裁决案件1.08万余件，申请承认（认可）与执行境外仲裁裁决75件；申请不予执行仲裁裁决案件1700余件。另全国法院还办结仲裁保全案件5100余件。

本年度报告共分为三大部分。第一部分重点介绍2023年我国商事仲裁司法审查工作新发展概况，系统展示本年度仲裁法律法规、国际商事仲裁中心建设、仲裁司法审查典型案例、“一站式”国际商事纠纷多元化解决平台、国际交流等各方面取得的新成绩、新突破、新进展。第二部分是2023年度全国仲裁司法审查案件综述，介绍了2023年我国商事仲裁案件、仲裁司法审查案件基本数据以及仲裁司法审查案件的特点和趋势。第三部分是仲裁司法审查案例与裁判规则，主要根据2023年度最高人民法院办理的仲裁司法审查报核案件，结合全国各高级人民法院选报的案例，对审查思路与裁判标准进行了归纳总结。

On September 9, 2024, the Supreme People's Court released the "Annual Report on Judicial Review of Commercial Arbitration by the Supreme People's Court (2023)" (hereinafter referred to as the "Annual Report").

In 2023, courts across the country concluded over 16,000 cases related to judicial review of commercial arbitration. Among these, more than 3,800 cases involved applications for the confirmation of the validity of arbitration agreements, over 10,800 cases were applications to revoke arbitration awards, and 75 cases involved applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards; there were over 1,700 cases concerning applications for non-enforcement of arbitration awards. Additionally, courts nationwide handled over 5,100 arbitration preservation cases.

This Annual Report is divided into three main parts. The first part focuses on new developments in judicial review of commercial arbitration in China in 2023, systematically showcasing new achievements, breakthroughs, and progress in various areas, including arbitration laws and regulations, the construction of international commercial arbitration centers, typical cases of judicial review of arbitration, the "one-stop" diversified resolution platform for international commercial disputes, and international exchanges. The second part provides an overview of national arbitration judicial review cases for 2023, presenting basic data on commercial arbitration cases and judicial review cases, along with characteristics and trends of these cases. The third part includes arbitration judicial review cases and adjudication rules, summarizing the review approaches and adjudication standards based on arbitration judicial review cases handled by the Supreme People's Court in 2023, along with selected cases from various high people's courts across the country.

2024年9月5日，最高人民法院发的6件支持香港仲裁典型案例。本次发布的6件典型案例既包括申请确认涉港仲裁协议效力案件、协助香港仲裁的保全案件，也包括申请认可和执行香港仲裁裁决案件，生动展现了人民法院依法支持香港仲裁、推进国际仲裁高质量发展的司法立场。

一是以便捷高效的保全协助保障香港仲裁的顺利进行。仲裁保全对于保障仲裁程序顺利进行以及仲裁裁决的最终执行具有重要作用。

二是支持和鼓励当事人选择香港仲裁解决纠纷。仲裁协议是仲裁制度的基石，是仲裁机构取得管辖权、启动程序的前提性条件。

三是便利香港仲裁裁决跨境执行。人民法院依据最高人民法院《关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的安排》（以下简称《安排》）及《关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的补充安排》（以下简称《补充安排》）公正高效认可和执行香港仲裁裁决，有力促进香港建设亚太地区国际法律及争议解决服务中心。

On September 5, 2024, the Supreme People's Court issued six typical cases supporting Hong Kong arbitration. These cases include applications for the confirmation of the validity of arbitration agreements involving Hong Kong, preservation cases assisting Hong Kong arbitration, and applications for the recognition and enforcement of Hong Kong arbitration awards. They vividly demonstrate the judiciary's stance of supporting Hong Kong arbitration and promoting high-quality development of international arbitration.

First, efficient preservation assistance ensures the smooth progress of Hong Kong arbitration. Arbitration preservation plays a crucial role in safeguarding the arbitration process and the eventual enforcement of arbitration awards.

Second, the court supports and encourages parties to choose Hong Kong arbitration for dispute resolution. Arbitration agreements are the cornerstone of the arbitration system and a prerequisite for arbitration institutions to gain jurisdiction and initiate procedures.

Third, the court facilitates the cross-border enforcement of Hong Kong arbitration awards. The People's Court recognizes and enforces Hong Kong arbitration awards fairly and efficiently based on the Supreme People's Court's "Arrangements for Mutual Enforcement of Arbitration Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" (hereinafter referred to as the "Arrangement") and the "Supplementary Arrangement on Mutual Enforcement of Arbitration Awards between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" (hereinafter referred to as the "Supplementary Arrangement"), effectively promoting Hong Kong's role as an international legal and dispute resolution service center in the Asia-Pacific region.

2024年9月26日，2024中国仲裁高峰论坛暨中国-中东北非仲裁高峰论坛在北京成功举办。本次论坛由中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（CIETAC，简称“贸仲”）与联合国国际贸易法委员会（UNCITRAL，简称“联合国贸法会”）、国际商事仲裁机构联合会（IFCAI）、中华全国律师协会（ACLA）共同主办。

为应和时代需求，迎接国际仲裁格局变革的新机遇和新挑战，促进国际仲裁合作发展，在贸仲积极倡导下，开罗区域国际商事仲裁中心、沙特商事仲裁中心、阿联酋迪拜国际仲裁中心、非洲仲裁促进协会、利比亚国际商事仲裁中心等29家具有区域影响力的国际仲裁机构积极响应，凝聚共识，共同发布《2024国际仲裁合作倡议》（以下简称“《倡议》”），就深化交流、扩大合作、推进国际仲裁高质量发展达成广泛共识。

《倡议》指出，国际仲裁是跨境商事争议不可替代的纠纷解决机制。为深化国际仲裁合作，应持续坚守公平正义，保障仲裁透明独立；深化仲裁文化交流，倡导开放共赢合作；积极争取司法支持，强化裁决跨国执行；携手善用科技创新，聚力实现绿色仲裁；凝聚多元解纷合力，提升仲裁服务水平；协力开展人才培养，牢筑未来发展基础。

本次论坛为中外仲裁界共谋国际仲裁发展之策、共商国际仲裁合作大计搭建了高规格平台，与会各方在共同推动国际仲裁交流互鉴、合作发展等方面达成了广泛共识，取得了务实成效，对进一步深化区域间仲裁法律合作、推动国际仲裁事业发展、维护全球经贸秩序具有重要意义。

On September 26, 2024, the 2024 China Arbitration Summit and the China-Middle East North Africa Arbitration Summit were successfully held in Beijing. The forum was jointly organized by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), the International Federation of Commercial Arbitration Institutions (IFCAI), and the All China Lawyers Association (ACLA).

In response to the demands of the times and to embrace new opportunities and challenges in the changing landscape of international arbitration, as well as to promote the development of international arbitration cooperation, CIETAC actively advocated for collaboration among 29 influential regional international arbitration institutions, including the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, the Saudi Commercial Arbitration Centre, the Dubai International Arbitration Centre, the African Arbitration Association, and the Libyan International Commercial Arbitration Centre. Together, they issued the "2024 Initiative for International Arbitration Cooperation" (hereinafter referred to as the "Initiative"), achieving broad consensus on enhancing communication, expanding cooperation, and advancing the high-quality development of international arbitration.

The Initiative emphasizes that international arbitration is an irreplaceable mechanism for resolving cross-border commercial disputes. To deepen international arbitration cooperation, it calls for a steadfast commitment to fairness and justice, ensuring transparency and independence in arbitration; enhancing cultural exchange in arbitration while advocating for open and win-win cooperation; actively seeking judicial support to strengthen the enforcement of awards across borders; collaboratively leveraging technological innovation to achieve green arbitration; uniting efforts to improve arbitration service levels; and working together to cultivate talent, solidifying the foundation for future development.

This forum provided a high-level platform for the arbitration community, both domestic and international, to discuss strategies for the development of international arbitration and to deliberate on major plans for international arbitration cooperation. Participants reached broad consensus on promoting international arbitration exchange and cooperation, achieving practical results that are of significant importance for deepening regional legal cooperation in arbitration, advancing the development of international arbitration, and maintaining global economic and trade order.

法律依据：

《中华人民共和国仲裁法》

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：

2023年5月19日，某公司与某银行华林支行签订编号为XXXX（高保）2019001-16的《最高额保证合同》（以下简称“《最高额保证合同》”）。《最高额保证合同》第12.2条约定，“甲乙双方因履行本合同而发生的争议，应协商解决；协商不成的，双方选择按下列方式解决：向某某委员会申请仲裁。”《最高额保证合同》第14.3条约定，“如提交仲裁，各方同意选用简易程序审理，且相关法律文书（含仲裁法律文书）的送交以邮件快速专递送达本合同记载的对方当事人住所地（如有变更，应书面通知对方及仲裁委员会），即视为送达。”

某公司向上海金融法院（以下简称“法院”）申请《最高额保证合同》第12.2、14.3约定的仲裁协议无效。因为《最高额保证合同》第12.2条、14.3条均为格式合同条款。某银行华林支行采用格式条款约定仲裁条款，未对某公司尽到明显的提示、注意义务，同时格式条款第14.3条“如提交仲裁，各方同意选用简易程序审理”排除了某公司选择使用普通程序的权利，应当依法确认为无效条款。

某银行华林支行辩称，案涉合同为双方自愿签订，系双方真实意思表示，合法有效。案涉合同中约定的仲裁条款并未免除或者限制某某银行华林支行责任，亦未加重某公司责任或排除其主要权利，且约定仲裁条款明确具体，从理解上并无争议，且某银行华林支行已经进行充分提示和说明。案涉合同中约定争议事项由某某委员会管辖，该约定并不违反法律、行政法规的规定，合法有效。

法院观点：

首先，案涉合同系双方自愿签订，系双方真实意思表示，内容合法有效。根据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第十六条规定，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。本案中，某公司与某银行华林支行签署编号为XXXX（高保）2019001-16的《最高额保证合同》约定了仲裁条款，该条款具有明确的请求仲裁的意思表示、仲裁事项及选定的仲裁委员会，故该仲裁条款合法有效。

其次，某公司以该仲裁条款为格式条款，某银行华林支行没有尽到合理提示义务为由，要求确认无效的主张，不符合《中华人民共和国仲裁法》中规定的仲裁协议无效的情形，故缺乏事实根据和法律依据，法院不予采信。

最后，对于某公司认为案涉合同第14.3条仲裁条款排除了其选择使用普通程序的权利的主张，案涉仲裁条款系双方对纠纷解决方式的约定，诉讼与仲裁是两种不同的纠纷解决机制，选择仲裁方式解决纠纷，对合同双方主体均是平等的，不能认定是对一方当事人主要权利的排除，案涉仲裁条款并未免除或者限制某银行华林支行责任，亦未加重某公司责任或排除其主要权利，故对某公司该项主张，法院不予支持。

综上，某公司主张案涉《最高额保证合同》第12.2条、第14.3条对其无效或不生效的理由不能成立，法院不予支持。依照《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第二十条之规定，裁定驳回申请人某公司的申请。

Legal Basis:

"Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China"

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：

On May 19, 2023, a company signed a "Maximum Guarantee Contract" (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract") with the Hualin Branch of a certain bank, numbered XXXX (High Guarantee) 2019001-16. Article 12.2 of the Contract stipulates, "Disputes arising from the performance of this Contract between Party A and Party B shall be resolved through negotiation; if negotiation fails, both parties choose to resolve the dispute by applying for arbitration to a certain committee." Article 14.3 states, "If arbitration is submitted, both parties agree to use the simplified procedure for hearing, and relevant legal documents (including arbitration legal documents) shall be delivered by express mail to the domicile of the other party recorded in this Contract (if there is a change, written notice shall be given to the other party and the arbitration committee), which shall be deemed as delivery."

The company applied to the Shanghai Financial Court (hereinafter referred to as the "Court") for the invalidation of the arbitration agreement stipulated in Articles 12.2 and 14.3 of the Contract, arguing that these articles are standard contract terms. The company claimed that the Hualin Branch of the bank, by using standard terms to set the arbitration clause, failed to fulfill its obligation to provide clear notifications and warnings. Furthermore, the clause in Article 14.3, stating "If arbitration is submitted, both parties agree to use the simplified procedure," excluded the company’s right to choose the ordinary procedure and should therefore be legally confirmed as invalid.

The Hualin Branch of the bank argued that the Contract was voluntarily signed by both parties and reflected their true intentions, making it legal and valid. The arbitration clause did not exempt or limit the bank's liability, nor did it increase the company's liability or exclude its main rights. Moreover, the arbitration clause was clear and specific, leaving no room for misunderstanding, and the bank had provided ample notification and explanation. The jurisdiction of the disputes to be handled by a specific committee did not violate laws or administrative regulations and was thus legal and valid.

Court's View:

First, the Court recognized that the Contract was voluntarily signed by both parties and reflected their true intentions, making its content legal and valid. According to Article 16 of the "Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China," an arbitration agreement includes arbitration clauses established in contracts and agreements to request arbitration reached in written form before or after a dispute arises. In this case, the company and the bank's Hualin Branch signed the Contract, which included a clear expression of the intention to arbitrate, the arbitration matters, and the designated arbitration committee, thus making the arbitration clause legal and valid.

Second, the company's assertion that the arbitration clause is a standard term and that the Hualin Branch failed to fulfill its reasonable notification obligation does not meet the conditions for invalidity of arbitration agreements as specified in the "Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China." Therefore, this claim lacks factual basis and legal grounds, and the Court does not accept it.

Finally, regarding the company’s claim that Article 14.3 of the arbitration clause excludes its right to choose the ordinary procedure, the Court stated that the arbitration clause represents an agreement on the dispute resolution method between both parties. Litigation and arbitration are two distinct mechanisms for dispute resolution, and the choice of arbitration is equally binding on both parties. Therefore, it cannot be considered an exclusion of a party's main rights. The arbitration clause does not exempt or limit the bank's liability, nor does it increase the company’s liability or exclude its main rights, so the Court does not support this claim.

In summary, the company’s reasons for asserting that Articles 12.2 and 14.3 of the Contract are invalid or unenforceable are not established, and the Court does not support these claims. Based on Article 20 of the "Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China," the Court ruled to dismiss the company's application.

案情简介：

William Richard Clayton、Douglas Clayton、Daniel Clayton和Bilcone of Delaware Inc.等（以下简称“Clayton”）计划在新斯科舍省开发一个采石场，这一项目需要联邦和省环境部长的批准。作为审批过程的一部分，联邦和省政府的联合审查小组（JRP）进行了环境评估。JRP得出结论认为，该项目将导致重大且不可逆转的变化，对社区的核心价值观产生不利影响，并建议拒绝批准该项目。随后，联邦和省环境部长均拒绝批准该项目。

Clayton依据《北美自由贸易协定》（NAFTA）启动了仲裁程序。在仲裁的第一阶段，仲裁庭认定加拿大违反了NAFTA第1102和1105条的义务，因为其进行了有缺陷的环境评估。加拿大联邦法院驳回了加拿大试图撤销该决定的申请。在仲裁的第二阶段，Clayton就因NAFTA违约造成的损害寻求赔偿，声称如果项目获得批准，他们将在50年内获得4.4亿美元的利润。然而，仲裁庭认为，Clayton未能证明NAFTA违约与其所主张的损害之间存在因果关系。仲裁庭最终裁定，Clayton只能获得700万美元的赔偿，因为他们失去了公平和非任意的环境评估机会。

Clayton向安大略省高等法院申请根据《联邦商业仲裁法》第34条撤销赔偿裁决，理由包括仲裁庭在国际法下未能正确适用证明标准，超越了其管辖权，并且裁决与加拿大的公共政策相冲突。2022年11月24日，安大略省高等法院驳回了申请，认为不存在真正的管辖权问题，也没有足够的公共政策顾虑。Clayton随后向安大略省上诉法院（以下简称“法院”）提出上诉。

Clayton主要提出两项争议：仲裁庭在确定因果关系时未能适用国际法要求的“优势证据”（balance of probabilities）标准，而是采用了类似于“排除合理怀疑”的更高标准，从而超越了其管辖权。仲裁庭的决定与加拿大的公共政策相冲突，因为其未能公正行事，忽略了Clayton的专家证据。

法院观点：

仲裁庭明确识别并引用了国际法中要求的“优势证据”（balance of probabilities）标准，并没有采用Clayton所主张的更高标准。因此，仲裁庭在其管辖范围内正确适用了法律标准。法院解释说，Clayton的论点实际上是在试图将法律适用错误转变为管辖权问题。然而，法院强调，仲裁庭在其管辖范围内的法律适用错误并不等同于超越管辖权。只有在仲裁庭完全未能适用法律，或作出与提交仲裁的问题无关的裁决时，才会构成超越管辖权的问题。法院引用了之前的案例，强调司法干预仲裁裁决的范围是非常有限的。法院不应轻易干预仲裁庭在其管辖范围内作出的裁决，除非存在真正的管辖权问题。

关于Clayton的第二个争议点，法院解释了公共政策的高标准，指出只有在裁决严重违背加拿大人的道德感和基本正义观念时，才会被认定为与公共政策相冲突。法院引用了以往的案例，强调公共政策的适用范围是非常狭窄的。法院强调，以公共政策为由撤销仲裁裁决的权力是“狭窄和例外的”，不应成为对裁决进行实质性审查的后门。法院明确指出，公共政策并不是为了纠正仲裁庭在裁决中可能存在的任何错误，而是为了防止裁决严重背离加拿大的基本正义和道德观念。法院认为，本案中没有任何证据表明仲裁庭的裁决严重违背加拿大人的道德感。Clayton未能证明他们有权获得所要求的赔偿，而只是证明他们失去了获得公平和非任意环境评估的机会。法院认定，这正是仲裁庭裁决的内容，并且Clayton对此没有提供足够的理由进行干预。

综上，安大略省上诉法院裁定驳回上诉。

Case Description：

William Richard Clayton, Douglas Clayton, Daniel Clayton, and Bilcone of Delaware Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Clayton") planned to develop a quarry in Nova Scotia, which required approvals from both federal and provincial environment ministers. As part of the approval process, a Joint Review Panel (JRP) conducted an environmental assessment. The JRP concluded that the project would result in significant and irreversible changes, adversely impacting core community values, and recommended that the project be denied approval. Subsequently, both the federal and provincial environment ministers refused to approve the project.

Clayton initiated arbitration proceedings under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In the first phase of arbitration, the tribunal found that Canada violated its obligations under NAFTA Articles 1102 and 1105 due to a flawed environmental assessment. The Federal Court of Canada dismissed Canada's application to set aside that decision. In the second phase of arbitration, Clayton sought damages for the breach of NAFTA, claiming they would have earned $440 million in profits over 50 years had the project been approved. However, the tribunal concluded that Clayton failed to demonstrate a causal link between the NAFTA breach and the damages claimed. Ultimately, the tribunal awarded Clayton only $7 million for the loss of a fair and non-arbitrary environmental assessment opportunity.

Clayton applied to the Ontario Superior Court  to set aside the damages award under Section 34 of the Federal Arbitration Act, arguing that the tribunal had incorrectly applied the burden of proof under international law, exceeded its jurisdiction, and issued a decision contrary to Canadian public policy. On November 24, 2022, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no genuine issue of jurisdiction and insufficient public policy concerns. Clayton subsequently appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal (hereinafter referred to as the "Court").

Clayton raised two main issues: first, that the tribunal failed to apply the "balance of probabilities" standard required by international law when determining causation, instead adopting a higher standard akin to "beyond a reasonable doubt," thereby exceeding its jurisdiction. Second, Clayton contended that the tribunal's decision conflicted with Canadian public policy because it failed to act fairly, disregarded Clayton's expert evidence.

Court's View：

The Court noted that the tribunal explicitly identified and cited the "balance of probabilities" standard required by international law and did not adopt the higher standard asserted by Clayton. Therefore, the tribunal correctly applied the legal standard within its jurisdiction. The Court explained that Clayton's argument essentially attempted to transform a legal error into a jurisdictional issue. However, the Court emphasized that a legal error made by the tribunal within its jurisdiction does not equate to exceeding that jurisdiction. Only if the tribunal completely failed to apply the law or issued a ruling unrelated to the issues submitted for arbitration would it constitute a jurisdictional problem. The Court referenced previous cases to highlight that judicial intervention in arbitration awards is extremely limited, and the Court should not lightly intervene in decisions made by the tribunal within its jurisdiction unless there is a genuine issue of jurisdiction.

Regarding Clayton's second contention, the Court clarified the high standard for public policy, stating that an award is only deemed contrary to public policy if it seriously violates Canadian moral sensibilities and fundamental notions of justice. The Court cited past cases emphasizing that the scope of public policy is very narrow. It underscored that the power to set aside an arbitration award on public policy grounds is "narrow and exceptional" and should not serve as a backdoor for substantive review of the award. The Court made it clear that public policy is not intended to correct any errors that the tribunal may have made in its ruling but rather to prevent decisions that severely deviate from Canada’s fundamental notions of justice and morality. The Court concluded that there was no evidence indicating that the tribunal’s decision severely violated Canadian moral sensibilities. Clayton failed to demonstrate entitlement to the requested damages, having only proven the loss of a fair and non-arbitrary environmental assessment opportunity. The Court determined that this was precisely the content of the tribunal's award, and Clayton did not provide sufficient grounds for intervention.

In summary, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled to dismiss the appeal.