KEYNOTE SPEECH AT UCL COMMERCIAL MARITIME LAW CONFERENCE

伦敦大学学院海商法论坛主旨发言（一）

By Clive Aston, London May 2016

Clive Aston，伦敦，2016年5月

Ladies and Gentlemen,

女士们先生们：

It is a privilege to be invited here to give one of the keynote speeches today.

今天，我很荣幸能被邀请作其中之一的主旨发言。

The topic on which I would like to speak this afternoon is one that is particularly close to my heart as a maritime arbitrator and arises from questions raised recently as to whether the confidentiality of arbitration awards coupled with the relatively restrictive rights of appeal under the Arbitration Act 1996 are stifling the development of English common law. While I shall focus primarily on the position under common law, many of the observations made apply also to leading civil law jurisdictions with a tradition of maritime arbitration.

While these issues have been the subject of debate for some time they have come to the fore most recently following the Bailli Lecture 2006 delivered by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Thomas.

今天下午我的发言主题是作为一名海事仲裁员极为关心的，并且是由最近产生的问题——1996年仲裁法案（Arbitration Act 1996）所规定的仲裁裁决保密与相对限制的上诉权是否阻碍了英国普通法的发展——引发的。尽管我主要聚焦于普通法，许多结论依然适用于那些有着海事仲裁传统的民法法系国家。

尽管这些问题作为争论对象已存在一段时间，随着英格兰及威尔士首席大法官（Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales ）Thomas在2006年的Bailli（英国和爱尔兰法律信息学院，British and Irish Legal Information Institute）演讲，这些问题在最近已成热点。

I propose to give some time to a consideration of the comments made by Lord Thomas as these provide the clearest (and most forceful) submission of the arguments raised against the confidentiality of awards and, more particularly, the restrictive rights of appeal under the Arbitration Act 1996.

In his speech, Lord Thomas described how the common law has played a very significant role in the development of a framework for international commerce through its strength, vitality and agility in applying and adapting its principles to changes in trade, commerce and the relevant markets. Clarity and predictability in the law, as well as its ability to develop in a principled manner, is, he said, the bedrock upon which businesses, just as much as individuals, order their affairs and enter into binding agreements. As a result of the Arbitration Act Lord Thomas said that there have been fewer developments of the law in areas where cases begin in arbitration. The consequence of this has been to undermine the development of the common law.

我想先花一些时间在Thomas大法官的评论上，因为Thomas大法官的这些评论是针对仲裁裁决保密，更确切地说是1996仲裁法案规定的受限制的上诉权最清晰（并且最有力）的反对意见。

在他的演说中，Thomas大法官描述了普通法如何在国际商事框架发展过程中扮演重要角色，这主要通过其对贸易、商业以及相关市场交易方面发挥其应用及原则性适用上有力、关键、灵活的一面来实现。他讲到，法律上的明确性和可预见性，以及原则化发展能力是商业（和个人一样）运作和缔结有效合同的基石。Thomas大法官认为仲裁法案（Arbitration Act）导致，阐述，关于案件仲裁领域的法律发展渐缓，最终阻碍了普通法的发展。

To recap briefly, under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, leave to appeal can only be given in respect of the determination of questions of law that substantially affect the rights of one of the parties and on which the tribunal was asked to make a determination. Even then, leave may only be given if the decision of the tribunal on the question is obviously wrong, or, if the question is one of general public importance, if the decision of the tribunal on the question is open to serious doubt.

In exercising its discretion to grant leave to appeal the court must also consider whether it is just and proper in all the circumstances for the Court to determine the question.

简要概括，1996仲裁法案第69节规定，仅在实质影响一方当事人的权利的法律问题的决定且仲裁庭被要求就该问题进行决定的情形下，才允许上诉。即便如此，仅在仲裁庭对该问题的决定存在明显错误，或者该问题对整体公共利益产生重要影响、且仲裁庭对该问题的决定非常值得怀疑的情形下，上诉才被允许。

法院在行使是否允许上诉的判断时，也必须考虑法院决定该问题时涉及的所有事项是否公平合理。

A consequence of the imposition of this test by the Act is, Lord Thomas said, that far fewer appeals from arbitral awards come before the Courts as only a small number satisfy the tests for the grant of permission to appeal. In the years before 1979 (the year of the Arbitration Act preceding that of 1996) 300 special cases had been referred to the Court each year for consideration on appeal. Figures for the last three years show an average of about 70 applications per year with leave being given in under 20 cases each year (i.e. about 30%) and appeals being granted in about six cases. Interestingly, it is estimated that 75% of these applications concern shipping cases. To put these figures in context they should be compared with an average of approximately 520 awards issued each year by the LMAA alone.

It is, therefore, only the very tip of the iceberg of cases that is considered by the Courts, something that Lord Thomas said reduced the potential for the courts to develop and explain the law.

施行该法案所规定的检验的后果是，Thomas大法官说，由于只有一小部分上诉请求被批准，法院审理仲裁裁决上诉的案件数量明显减少。1979年以前（1996仲裁法案之前），法院每年有300件关于仲裁上诉的特殊案件。近三年数据显示，平均每年法院接收大约70件申请，其中每年不到20件被审查（即大约30%），大约6件被批准。这些数据应当与年均大约520件仲裁裁决（单就伦敦海事仲裁协会（LMAA）而言）进行比较。

因此，被法院所审理的案件仅是冰山一角，这印证了Thomas大法官所说的减少了法院发展、解释法律的可能性。

Lord Thomas also pointed to another issue that arose from this situation, namely the fact that because disputes in arbitration are resolved behind closed doors, this limits the public understanding of the law and scope for public debate over its application. This lack of openness, Lord Thomas suggested, denudes the ability of individuals and lawyers (apart from the few who are instructed in arbitrations) to access the law to understand how it has been interpreted and applied. It reduces the degree of certainty in the law that comes through the provision of authoritative decisions of the Courts and so reduces companies’ abilities to understand their rights and obligations and to properly plan their affairs accordingly.

Thomas大法官也指出该情况所导致的另一结果，即由于仲裁中的争议以非公开形式解决，公众对法律的认知以及对法律应用的争论被限制。这种公开性的缺失，Thomas大法官提到，剥夺了公民个人及律师（除被指派参与仲裁的少部分人以外）接触该法律以了解其解释及运用方式的能力。它减少了法律的确定性程度（这种确定性来源于法院权威决定），因此减少了公司的了解其权利义务，并且据此合理安排事务的能力。

Lord Thomas’s solution to this was for more disputes to be referred to the Courts or, failing this, at least to apply a more flexible test for permission to appeal so that the Courts could more readily develop the law whilst leaving arbitration as an important means of dispute resolution. He also suggested a greater use of Section 45 of the Arbitration Act which enables the Court to give decisions on points of law which arise after the commencement of an arbitration but before the publication of the award (a procedure that I have yet to see used in practice).

对此，Thomas大法官的解决办法是把更多的争议引至法院，如果不这样做的话，至少也应对准许上诉适用更加灵活的检验标准，以使法院在保留仲裁作为争议解决的一种重要方式的同时更容易发展法律。他同时建议更多适用仲裁法案的第45节，该节赋予法院对于仲裁开始后、裁决公布前（一种实践中我尚未见到的程序）的法律事项的决定权。

Lord Thomas went on to consider the question of confidentiality of awards which, he said, is often cited as one of the most valued components of international commercial arbitration. The strength of this perceived benefit is not, he said, as clear cut as it might seem and was “overrated” because, in his words, the market tends to know which parties are involved in which arbitrations and what the arbitration is about.

接着，Thomas大法官思考了关于仲裁裁决保密的问题。他说，该问题经常以“国际商事仲裁中最有价值的部分之一”的方式被提及。这种“可感知的益处”的优点，他说，并不如它所看上去那般清晰，而且是被高估的，因为，按照他的说法，市场趋向于去知晓哪些当事人被卷入哪个仲裁，以及仲裁的内容是什么。

Lord Thomas’s comments have prompted a number of critical responses from fellow members, or former members, of the judiciary. In an article in The Times, Lord Saville (who it must be said has something of a vested interest having been closely involved in the drafting of the Arbitration Act 1996) criticised the comments of Lord Thomas quoting from Lord Devlin who at an earlier stage of the debate on rights of appeal had said “So there must be an annual tribute of disputes to feed the minotaur. The next step would, I suppose, be a prohibition placed on the settlement of cases concerning interesting points of law”.

Thomas大法官的评论引来一些司法界现任或前任成员的批判声。在时代杂志（Times）的一篇报道中，大法官Saville（不得不说是一位既得利益者，因其紧密参与1996仲裁法案的起草）批判了Thomas大法官的评论。他引用大法官Devlin在早期关于上诉权争论的言论：“每年总会有那么一些争议要被献祭给法院这头巨兽（So there must be an annual tribute of disputes to feed the minotaur）。我认为，下一步应当禁止就重要的法律争点有关的案件进行和解解决。”

In the key note address to the AGM of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in April, Sir Bernard Eder also expressed support for the regime of the 1996 Act and expressed surprise at the critical comments of Lord Thomas, particularly because England is the only country in the world which allows an appeal on a question of law in the case of an international arbitration, the UNCITRAL model law not permitting any such rights of appeal.

在四月份的英国皇家御准仲裁员协会（Chartered Institute of Arbitrators）年度会议（AGM）主题发言中，Bernard Eder爵士表达了对1996仲裁法案的支持，并且对Thomas大法官的评论表示诧异，尤其是因为英格兰是世界上唯一允许针对国际仲裁中的法律问题上诉的国家。《联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》（the UNCITRAL model law）并不准许这种上诉权的存在。

I appreciate of course that, as a maritime arbitrator, I have a vested interest in preserving a status quo that sees more than 2000 new arbitrations commenced in London under LMAA Terms each year. Nevertheless, I see no reason to believe that the facts that (i) the vast majority of maritime disputes are referred to arbitration in London and (ii) rights of appeal are limited, has in any way stifled the development of the common law, and in particular maritime law.

我当然赞同，作为一名海事仲裁员，维持现状对我更为有利（每年有超过2000件新的仲裁案件进入伦敦海事仲裁协会）。尽管如此，我并无理由相信：(i)大部分海事争议被提交至伦敦仲裁，以及(ii)有限的上诉权无论如何已阻碍了普通法的发展，特别是对海商法而言。

To the contrary, there seem to have been as many decisions of primary importance in recent years as at any time before the 1979 and 1996 Acts. Examples of this are the “Golden Victory” the “Achilleas”, the “New Flamenco”, most recently, the “MTM Hong Kong” and of course the OW Bunkers cases. These are all cases whose relevance extends far beyond the maritime field and into general contract law.

相反，近些年重要决定的数量相比1979和1996法案前的任何时间并没有更少。例如“金色胜利案”（the “Golden Victory”）、“Achilleas案”（the “Achilleas”）、 “新弗拉曼柯案”（the “New Flamenco”），以及最近的, “香港MTM案”（the “MTM Hong Kong”），当然还有OW Bunkers系列案件。这些案件突破了海商法领域，延伸到了普通合同法领域。

I see no reason, either, to believe that any greater certainty would be promoted by the wider involvement of the Courts in arbitration cases.

One merely has to consider the directly contradictory decisions of the cases of the “Astra” and Spar Shipping on the issue of repudiation to appreciate that there is no inherent consistency in the decisions of judges any more than those of arbitrators.

我也没有理由相信法院更多地涉入仲裁案件会带来更大的确定性。

人们只要想到“Astra”和Spar运输系列案件（the cases of the “Astra” and Spar Shipping）关于毁约（repudiation）的明显矛盾的决定，就可以知道法院对于判决的一致性并不比仲裁员更高。

Clearly, it is an advantage of arbitration under English law that the Courts do exercise some supervisory role and this is often cited to us by users of maritime arbitration as an advantage that arbitration in London enjoys over that in other venues where there is no such right of appeal.

显然，英国法下的仲裁有其优势，因为法院确实起到了监管的作用。我们也经常听说，海事仲裁的使用者认为这是一种优势，因为在伦敦仲裁能享有其他地方仲裁所不能享有的上诉权。

I believe it is right, though, that the appeal process should only be applied sparingly and not in the way it once was as an almost automatic second, and perhaps third and fourth, round of dispute resolution in any dispute. Commercial parties in my experience seek finality as much as anything else and any process that promotes the prolongation of the dispute resolution process to periods of two or three years and increases costs substantially cannot serve those needs.

我认为这是正确的。当然，上诉程序应当谨慎适用，且不应像以往一样几乎可以自由地进入二审、第三次甚至第四次程序，并且针对任何纠纷的任何事项。就我的经验判断，商人寻求终局性，就像他们寻求其他事务一样，任何延长争议解决程序，使得争议被拖至两到三年并且潜在增加成本的程序不能满足他们的要求。

Translated by Andy Zhu from Guanghua Law School, Zhejiang University

本文由浙江大学光华法学院朱安迪翻译