廈門大學(xué)2020年國(guó)際商事仲裁法習(xí)題及參考答案

PAGEPAGE1廈門大學(xué)2020年國(guó)際商事仲裁法習(xí)題及參考答案Comparativestudyonthearbitration,conciliationandlitigationComparativestudyonadhocandinstitutionalarbitration;Ontherelationshipbetweenthepartiesandthepermanentarbitrationinstitutionandarbitraltribunal;OnthemethodforsettlementoftheconflictofjurisdictionbetweenthecourtandarbitraltribunalComparativestudyontheChineseArbitrationLawandUNCITRALModelLawonInternationalCommercialArbitration.Onthedoctrineofcompetence-competence,separabilitydoctrineApplicablelawanditsdeterminationfortheinternationalarbitrationagreementApplicablelawanditsdeterminationfortheinternationalarbitrationprocedureApplicablelawanditsdeterminationforthesettlementofthemeritsofthedisputebyarbitrationHowtodeterminetheseatofarbitrationininternationalarbitrationpractices?Dueprocessinarbitrationpractice;Nationalityoftheinternationalarbitralawardandauthoritytodetermine;CriteriatodistinctthedomesticandforeignawardRemediesonthearbitralawardsYourcommentsonparticularcase:Zueblin,Parklito,Norsolar,Cardegna…….Question1YourclientiscurrentlynegotiatingacontractforthesaleofcomputerstoaChinesecompany,whoseplaceofbusinessisinShenzhen.Theyprovidedwithyouadraftarbitrationclauseandaskfroyouradvice:“AnydisputearisingoutoforinconnectionwiththiscontractshallbesettledbyarbitrationinShanghaiinaccordancewiththeArbitrationLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChina.”Youareasked:Pointdefectsofthearbitrationclauseandgiveamendmentoftheclause（根據(jù)中國(guó)仲裁法第16條，仲裁協(xié)議必須規(guī)定仲裁委員會(huì)的名稱，鑒于北京有兩個(gè)仲裁委員會(huì)，應(yīng)當(dāng)明確規(guī)定在上海仲裁委員會(huì)還是中國(guó)國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易仲裁委員會(huì)上海分會(huì)仲裁）.Explainreasonsforyouramendmenttoyourclient.Question2YourclientHongKongCorporationhasalreadyenteredintoacontractwithaJapaneseCorporationforthesaleofcomputers.ThepartieshaveagreedtosettletheircontractdisputebyarbitrationinChinaInternationalEconomicandTradeArbitrationCommission(CIETAC)inaccordancewithCIETACRules(2005)iftheycouldnotsolveitbythemselves.Duringperformancethecontract,theJapanesesellerfailedindeliveryofgoodsintime,TWOmonthslaterthanitshouldhavedeliveredthegoodstoyourclient.Thiscauseddirectlossof20000RMBtoyourclient.Inaddition,thereweresomeindirectdamagesforwhichyourclientcouldnotperformdutyfordeliveryofsuchcomputerstothepartners,withwhomtheysignedthesimilarcontractsbasedonthecontractwiththeJapaneseCorporation.YourclientintendstosubmitthedisputetoCIETACaskedyoutowriteanapplicationforarbitration.Pointsforanswer:(items1-5compulsory,6-7excellent,答題要點(diǎn)，供教師改卷時(shí)用)NamesandaddressesofthepartiesReferencetothearb.AgreementDisputecoveredbythearb.AgreementFactssupportingtheclaimsRelieforremediessoughtProposalastothenumberofarbitratorsProposalastotheseatofarbitrationQuestion3DiscussthefollowingissuesontheNewYorkConventionontheRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwards:Itsscopeofapplication（外國(guó)裁決和非內(nèi)國(guó)裁決）;HowdoyouunderstandthephaseunderNYCthat“arbitralawardsnotconsideredasdomesticawardsintheStatewheretheirrecognitionandenforcementaresought”?（裁決在裁決地國(guó)作出，但是裁決地國(guó)法院根據(jù)當(dāng)?shù)胤捎植徽J(rèn)為該裁決為當(dāng)?shù)夭脹Q的情況）Groundsforrefusingrecognitionandenforcementofforeignarbitralawards（公約第5條規(guī)定的情況）;RelationshipbetweenthemainlandChinaandNYC（中國(guó)于1987年成為公約的正式締約國(guó)，在加入公約時(shí)作了兩點(diǎn)保留聲明：互惠保留聲明和商事保留聲明）.Question4YourcommentsontheAmendmentofUNCITRALModelLawonInternationalCommercialArbitrationin2006.（包括第1條（2）款關(guān)于該法的適用、第7條關(guān)于仲裁協(xié)議的書面形式、第17條關(guān)于臨時(shí)性保全措施的條款、第36條（2）款關(guān)于裁決在申請(qǐng)撤銷期間一方當(dāng)事人向執(zhí)行地法院申請(qǐng)執(zhí)行裁決時(shí)，執(zhí)行地法院如果認(rèn)為適當(dāng)，可以暫緩作出決定，也可以令被申請(qǐng)執(zhí)行人提供適當(dāng)?shù)膿?dān)保。此外，還增加了第2A條關(guān)于解釋《示范法》和處理該法未規(guī)定事項(xiàng)應(yīng)當(dāng)遵循的基本原則。其中第17條是修改最大的條文，由原來(lái)的一個(gè)條款（第17條仲裁庭命令采取臨時(shí)措施的權(quán)力）擴(kuò)展為一章（臨時(shí)措施和初步命令）五節(jié)（臨時(shí)措施、初步命令、適用于臨時(shí)措施與初步命令的規(guī)定、臨時(shí)措施的承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行、法院發(fā)布的臨時(shí)措施），共11個(gè)條款）。Question5WhytheChinesecourtrefusedenforceZueblinAwardrenderedbytheICCarbitraltribunal?What’sareyourcomments?MainPoints:TheChinesecourtrefusedtoenforcethisICCawardbasedonArt.5(1)(a)oftheNewYorkConvention.TheawardwasmadeontheinvalidarbitrationagreementconfirmedbytheChinesecourtinaccordancewiththeChineseArbitrationLaw.Art.16oftheCALprovidedthethreerequirementsforthevalidityofthearbitrationagreement:theparties’intentionforarbitrationthedispute;matterstobearbitratedandthedefinitearbitrationinstitution.Sincetheagreementfailedtospecificallyprovidethenameofthearbitrationinstitution,butICCRules,thecourtconsideredthearbitrationagreementinvalid.Freecommentsfromthestudentsastothedevelopmentontheconfirmationofthevalidityoftheinternationalarbitrationagreementintheglobaleconomy:Thenationalcourtshouldeffectthearbitrationagreementaspossibleasitcan.ThearbitrationagreementshouldbeconsideredvalidifitisvalidaccordingtothelawoftheStateofanycontractingparty;thatoftheplaceofarbitrationandthatofthecourt.Question6Discusstheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofadhocarbitrationascomparedwithinstitutionalarbitration.Give5examplesfortheinternationalarbitrationinstitutions.AnswerforreferenceAdhocarbitrationtribunalisspeciallyestablishedforthesettlementofaparticulardispute.Onceawardismade,itnolongerexisted.Institutionalarbitrationhasspecialname,articlesofassociation,businessplace,personnelforthesecretariat,aswellastheappliedarbitrationrules.Theinstitutionisitselfnotfunctionedasthetribunalforthesettlementofdispute,butsupervisionontheimplementationofitsarbitrationrules.Examplesoftheinternationalarbitrationinstitution:ChinaInternationalEconomicandTradeArbitrationCommission,LondonCourtofInternationalArbitration,InternationalChamberofCommerceCourtofInternationalArbitration,AmericanArbitrationAssociation,SingaporeInternationalArbitrationCenter,HongKongInternationalArbitrationCenter.Question7Whichaspectsdoesalegalcounselneedtotakeintoconsiderationwhenadvisingaclientonchoosingtheseatofthearbitration?Reference：Theseatofinternationalarbitrationisveryimportantforthearbitration.Becausemostinternationalarbitrationagreementhasnospecialprovisionontheapplicablelawfortheagreement.Thepartiesusuallyagreedontheseatofarbitrationwheretheawardisconsideredtobemade.Ifthepartiesdisputedonthevalidityofthearbitrationagreementordissatisfiedonthearbitralaward,partiesmayapplytothecourtofthearbitrationseatforenforcementofthearbitrationagreement,orforsettingasideaward.Asaresult,whenyouadviceyourclienttochoosetheseatofarbitration,specialconsiderationshouldbetakenonthefollowingmatters:whethertheStateisamemberofNewYorkConvention;whethertheStateadoptedUNCITRALModelLawonInternationalCommercialArbitration;whethertheStatehasitsownArbitrationLaw,andsoon.Question8-10ZueblinCaseDiscussionBasicFacts:On22December2000,ZueblinInternationalGmbH,Germany(“Zueblin”),enteredintoanagreement(the“Agreement”)withWuxiWoco-TongyongRubberEngineeringCorporation,awholly-foreign-ownedenterpriseinWuxi,JiangsuProvince,China(“Woco”),underwhichZueblinagreedtoconstructafactoryforWocoinWuxi,JiangsuProvinceofChina.ThetwoAgreementincorporatedtheFIDICGreenBookGeneralConditionsbyreferenceinitsappendix.ThelastlineofthesecondpageoftheappendixtotheAgreementprovides:“Arbitration15.3ICCRulesShanghaishallapply”(the“ArbitrationClause”).Thepartiesdisagreedonthepaymentofconstructionwork.WocobroughtthedisputetothePeople’sCourtofHigh-NewTechnologyDevelopmentZoneofWuxi,JiangsuProvinceofChina(the“WuxiDistrictCourt”)on10October2002.ZueblinchallengedthejurisdictionoftheWuxiDistrictCourtbasedontheArbitrationClause.Wocolaterchangeditscontractclaimstothetortclaims.TheWuxiDistrictCourtdecidedthatithadjurisdictionoverthecase,whichwasconfirmedbytheWuxiIntermediatePeople’sCourtinJiangsuProvince(the“WuxiIntermediateCourt”)on20February2003.Inthemeantime,ZueblinfileditsrequestforarbitrationwiththeICCCourton23April2003.Oneweeklater,on29April2003,ZueblinappliedtotheWuxiDistrictCourtfortheconfirmationofthevalidityoftheArbitrationClause.TheICCCourtdecidedthatthematterwouldproceedinaccordancewiththeICCRules.TheICCArbitratorrenderedaPartialAwardonjurisdictionon10November2003,findingthatithadjurisdictionoverZueblin’sclaims.AndtheFinalAwardNo.12688/TE/MWwasmadeinShanghaion30March2004,infavorofZueblin(the“ICCAward”).On2September2004,WuxiDistrictCourtdecidedtheArbitrationClauseinvokedbyZueblinwasinvalidinaccordancewiththeReplyoftheSupremePeople’sCourt(the“SupremeCourt)dated8July2004.On30August2004,ZueblinappliedtoWuxiIntermediateCourtforenforcementoftheICCAward.TheWuxiIntermediateCourtreportedthecasetotheHigherPeople’sCourtofJiangsuProvice,whichinturnreportedtotheSupremeCourtinconformitywiththereportingsysteminmainlandChina.AftertheSupremeCourt’sapproval,WuxiIntermediateCourtrendereditsdecisionon19July2006,refusingtheenforcementoftheICCAwardbecauseitwasmadebasedontheinvalidArbitrationClauseundertheChineselaw(the“Decision”).TheCourtdecisionpointedoutthat,afterajudicialreviewoftheZueblinCase,theWuxiIntermediateCourtconfirmedthattheZueblinCaseconcernedtherecognitionandenforcementofaforeignawardundertheNewYorkConventionontheRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwards(the“NewYorkConvention”).Simultaneously,theWuxiIntermediateCourtalsoheldthattheICCAwardoftheZueblinCasewasanawardnotconsideredasdomesticundertheNewYorkConvention.Questionsfordiscussion:Whatisthenatureoftheawardinthiscase?IsitaChinese,Frenchaward?Whetherthetribunalisentitledtodecidethevalidityofthearbitrationagreement?WhytheChinesecourtrefusedenforcementoftheaward?References:TheawardinthecaseisanICCawardmadetheICCArbitratorinChina.ItshouldhavebeenconsideredasChineseawardaccordingtothebasicprinciplesofinternationalarbitrationtheoriesandpractices.ButaccordingtotheChineselawtheawardisnotaChineseawardbecauseitwasmadeundertheadministrationoftheICCCourtbytheapplicationofICCRules.ItisbetterbetheawardnotconsideredasdomesticunderArticle1oftheNewYorkConvention.ItisnotaFrenchawardbecausetheplaceofarbitrationinthecaseisnotinFrance.FortheCourtsinChina,wheretheICCAwardwasmadeanditsrecognitionandenforcementaresought,theICCAwardontheZueblinCasewasneitheraChineseawardinmainlandChinanoraforeignaward,butanawardnotconsideredasdomesticundertheNewYorkConvention.ThelegalreasonisnotthatitwasmadeundertheICCRulesandtheadministrationoftheICCCourt,butbecauseofthestipulationsofcurrentChineseLaw.IntheZueblincase,boththeICCArbitratorandtheChineseCourtswereentitledtodecideonthevalidityofthearbitrationagreementandontheirjurisdiction:ThepowerofICCArbitratorwasgrantedbytheArbitrationClauseandtheapplicableICCRules,whilethepoweroftheChineseCourtsinMainlandChinawasbaseduponlocallaw.TheWuxiIntermediateCourtdidrefusedenforcingtheICCAwardbasedontheNewYorkConvention.TheNewYorkConventionpermitthenationalcourttorefuseenforcingarbitralawardrenderedbasedontheinvalidarbitrationagreement.SincetherespondentpresentedevidencetoprovethattheawardwasmadebasedontheinvalidarbitrationagreementconfirmedbytheChineseCourt,wheretheenforcementissought.ExamonInternationalCommercialArbitrationLawI.Choosetherightanswer(1pointeach,15points)ADRreferstothefollowingbut(D)ConciliationB.GoodofficesC.MediationD.LitigationModelLawontheInternationalCommercialArbitrationisdraftedby(C)ICCB.LCIAC.UNCITRALD.CIETACNewYorkConventionwasadoptedintheyearof(C)1945B.1948C.1958D.1952AccedingtheNewYorkConvention,Chinamadethefollowingreservation:(B)Stateimmunityreservationreciprocityandcommercialreservation.Tortclaimreservation.Adhocarbitrationreservation.AccordingtoICCRules,thetermsofreferenceshouldbedrawnby(A)thearbitraltribunal.C.thepartiestothearbitrationagreement.theCourt.D.BothAandC.TheArbitrationRulesofICCCourtofInternationalArbitrationapplyonlyto(D)Theadhocarbitration.Theinstitutionalarbitration.Thearbitrationattheparties’choice.TheICCCourtoftheInternationalArbitration.ThedoctrineofCompetence-Competencereferstothat(B)Thenationalcourtmayruleonthevalidityofthearbitrationagreement.Thearbitrationtribunalmayruleonitsownjurisdiction.BothAandB.NeitherAandB.AccordingtotheArbitrationLawinChina,thepartymayapplyforsetasideCIETACawardintheIntermediatePeople’sCourt(B)WheretherespondenthasplaceofbusinessWhereCIETACislocated.Wheretherespondenthasproperty.Wheretherespondentcorporationisincorporated.Thearbitrabblemattersininternationalarbitrationisgovernedbythe(D)NewYorkConvention.ModelLawontheInternationalCommercialArbitration.ArbitrationRules.Nationallaw.WhenonepartyseeksenforcementunderNewYorkConvention,thecourtmayrefusetoenforcetheawardnotcapableofsettlementbyarbitrationbythelawofthecountry(B)wheretheawardismade.wheretheenforcementissought.BothAandB.NeitherAandB.TheChineseArbitrationLawbegantoimplementintheyear(B)1994C.19901995D.1996AccordingtotheChineseArbitrationLaw,thechairmanarbitratorshouldbedecidedby(A)bythepartiescommonchoice.bythearbitratorsappointedbytheparties.NeitherAandBBothAandC.AwardmadebythearbitraltribunaladministeredbyICCCourtofInternationalArbitrationisconsideredastheawardofthecountry(A)wheretheplaceofarbitrationislocates.wheretheheadquarteroftheICCCourtis.Wherethechairmanarbitratorcamefrom.Wherethehearingistakenplace.UnderNewYorkConvention,thenationalcourtmayrefusetoenforceforeignawardbasedonthefollowingconditionsexcept(D)Oneofthepartiestothearbitrationagreementhassomeincapacity.Thepartywasnotgivenproperopportunitytopresenthiscase.Thearbitraltribunalawardedmattersbeyondthescopeofthesubmissiontoarbitration.Thefactsfoundbythearbitraltribunalwerewrong.Termsofreferencearespeciallyrequiredby(B)A.AAAB.ICCC.CIETACD.ICSIDII.Multiplechoice(1pointeach,15points)1.AccordingtotheArbitrationRulesofICCCourtofInternationalArbitration,theplaceofarbitrationcouldbedeterminedonlyby(AD)Theparties’agreement.C.Thearbitrationtribunal.ICCCourt.D.ICCCourtunlessagreedbytheparties.E.BothBandC2.Thedifferencebetweenadhocarbitrationandinstitutionalarbitrationis(AC)Whetherthereisanybusinessplace.Whetherparticulararbitrationrulesapplied.Therearespecialpeopletoadministratethecase.Whetherthepartiesarefromdifferencecountries.WhetherthepartiesagreedonADR.Accordingtointernationalcommercialarbitrationlegislationandpractices,thevalidityofthearbitrationagreementmaydecidebythenationalcourtofaState,(ABCD)wherethearbitrationistakenplace.wheretheenforcementissought.wherethearbitrationagreementismade.Wherethearbitrationagreementisperformed.AccordingtotheChineseArbitrationLaw,thefollowingdisputescouldbearbitratedbythearbitrationcommissionssetundertheArbitrationLaw(DE)thedisputesconcerningmarriage,adoption,guardianship,inheritance.theadministrativedisputeswhichshouldbehandledbyadministrativeagencies.Labordisputes.disputesbetweentheChineseandforeigninvestors.Patentandtrademarklicensingagreement.5.AccordingtoNewYorkConvention,thenationalityoftheawardcouldbedeterminedby:(AB)theplaceoftheStatewheretheawardwasmade.thelawunderwhichtheawardwasmade.Thenationalityofthechairmanarbitrator.Thelocationofthedisputedsubjectmatters.Theplaceofbusinessoftherelevantarbitrationinstitution.6.AccordingtotheChineseArbitrationLaw,thecourtmaysetasideforeignrelatedawardupontheparty’sapplication:(ABC)A.Theapplicantwasnotgivenproperopportunitytopresenthiscase;Thecompositionofthearbitrationtribunalwasnotinconformitywiththeappliedarbitrationrules.Theawardwasmadebasedonthearbitrationagreement.Theawardwasnotviolatingthepublicpolicy.Theawardwasappliedwronglaw.III.Rightorwrongofthefollowingstatement(1pointeach,20points)Ininternationalarbitration,theconceptofarbitrationplaceisthesameastheplaceofhearing.(w)NewYorkConventionappliesonlytoawardsmadeunderthesupervisionofthepermanentinstitution.(w)Theterm“arbitralawards”includenotonlyawardsmadebythearbitratorsappointedforeachcasebutalsothosemadeunderthesupervisionofthepermanentarbitralbodiestowhichthepartieshavesubmitted.(R)Thesubmissiontoarbitrationhasthesamelegalmeaningasthatofthearbitrationclauseinthecontract.(R)Oneparty’sbreachofthearbitrationagreementresultsindamages.(w)ICCisagovernmentalorganization.(w)UNCITRALisanon-governmentalorganization.(w)ThejudgeinhispositioncouldnotbeservedasanarbitratorinChinacurrently.TheChinesearbitrationcommissionsareindependenteachother.(R)TheChinesearbitrationcommissionmay,attherequestofaparty,orderanyinterimorconservatorymeasureitdeemsappropriate.(w)ThedomesticarbitrationcommissionsinChinahavenoauthoritytodealwithcasesinvolvingforeignelements.(R)TheChinesecourtmaysetasideawardsmadeinforeigncountriesinaccordancewithitsArbitrationLaw.(w)ThearbitrationtribunalmayruleonitsjurisdictioninaccordancewiththeChineseArbitrationLaw.(R)Thepartiestoanarbitrationagreementmaychooseanyone,inwhomitbelieves,asarbitratorinChina.(w)ThearbitrationagreementisinvalidifthepartiesfailedtoreachagreementontheparticulararbitrationcommissioninaccordancewiththeArbitrationLawinChina.(R)ThepartiestoajointventurecontractcouldnotsubmittheirdisputestoforeignarbitrationinstitutionsbuttheChinesearbitrationcommission.(w)ConditionsarethesamefortheChinesecourttosetasidearbitralawardswithorwithoutforeignelements.(w)ADRcouldnotbeusedinthearbitrationandlitigationprocedureinChina.(R)Thearbitrationclausecouldnotbeenforcediftheunderlyingcontractwasterminated.(w)Thearbitralawardbecamebindingonthepartiesfromthedatewhenbothpartiesgottheaward.(w)IV.PleaseanalyzetheZueblinCaseandanswerthequestionsbellow(50points)BasicFacts:On22December2000,ZueblinInternationalGmbH,Germany(“Zueblin”),enteredintoanagreement(the“Agreement”)withWuxiWoco-TongyongRubberEngineeringCorporation,awholly-foreign-ownedenterpriseinWuxi,JiangsuProvince,China(“Woco”),underwhichZueblinagreedtoconstructafactoryforWocoinWuxi,JiangsuProvinceofChina.ThetwoAgreementincorporatedtheFIDICGreenBookGeneralConditionsbyreferenceinitsappendix.ThelastlineofthesecondpageoftheappendixtotheAgreementprovides:“Arbitration15.3ICCRulesShanghaishallapply”(the“ArbitrationClause”).Thepartiesdisagreedonthepaymentofconstructionwork.WocobroughtthedisputetothePeople’sCourtofHigh-NewTechnologyDevelopmentZoneofWuxi,JiangsuProvinceofChina(the“WuxiDistrictCourt”)on10October2002.ZueblinchallengedthejurisdictionoftheWuxiDistrictCourtbasedontheArbitrationClause.Wocolaterchangeditscontractclaimstothetortclaims.TheWuxiDistrictCourtdecidedthatithadjurisdictionoverthecase,whichwasconfirmedbytheWuxiIntermediatePeople’sCourtinJiangsuProvince(the“WuxiIntermediateCourt”)on20February2003.Inthemeantime,ZueblinfileditsrequestforarbitrationwiththeICCCourton23April2003.Oneweeklater,on29April2003,ZueblinappliedtotheWuxiDistrictCourtfortheconfirmationofthevalidityoftheArbitrationClause.TheICCCourtdecidedthatthematterwouldproceedinaccordancewiththeICCRules.TheICCArbitratorrenderedaPartialAwardonjurisdictionon10November2003,findingthatithadjurisdictionoverZueblin’sclaims.AndtheFinalAwardNo.12688/TE/MWwasmadeinShanghaion30March2004,infavorofZueblin(the“ICCAward”).On2September2004,WuxiDistrictCourtdecidedtheArbitrationClauseinvokedbyZueblinwasinvalidinaccordancewiththeReplyoftheSupremePeople’sCourt(the“SupremeCourt)dated8July2004.On30August2004,ZueblinappliedtoWuxiIntermediateCourtforenforcementoftheICCAward.TheWuxiIntermediateCourtreportedthecasetotheHigherPeople’sCourtofJiangsuProvice,whichinturnreportedtotheSupremeCourtinconformitywiththereportingsysteminmainlandChina.AftertheSupremeCourt’sapproval,WuxiIntermediateCourtrendereditsdecisionon19July2006,refusingtheenforcementoftheICCAwardbecauseitwasmadebasedontheinvalidArbitrationClauseundertheChineselaw(the“Decision”).TheCourtdecisionpointedoutth