早期裁定程序可否达到提高仲裁效率的目的？

2018年11月1日，修订后的《香港国际仲裁规则》正式生效。近期香港国际仲裁中心在国际仲裁方面采取了一种惯常做法，并借鉴了一项规定“早期裁定程序”的条款。根据新的第43条的规定，当事方可请求仲裁庭对事实或法律问题早日作出裁定。第四十三条(1)内容如下：

仲裁庭应有权应任何一方的请求，并在与所有其他各方协商后，在下列情况下，通过早期裁定程序，决定一项或多项法律或事实:

（a）明显缺乏依据的法律或事实问题

（b）明显在仲裁庭管辖权之外的法律或事实问题

（c）即便该法律或事实问题可被认定为正确的，仲裁庭仍无法做出支持某主张的裁决。

什么是早期裁定程序?

对于仲裁程序时间和成本效益的长期诟病，一些仲裁机构已着手颁布一些授予使仲裁庭能够及早作出裁定的规则。在所谓的简易或早期裁定程序中，即使尚未充分提交所有证据或争议事实，仲裁庭有权就问题作出早期裁定。理想状态下，这种早期裁定应能够早日解决或驳回索赔要求，或至少缩小争议范围。

备受争议的是，即使仲裁规则中没有明文规定，仲裁庭是否有权作出早期裁定。可以认为，对于仲裁程序的有效开展，仲裁庭有充分的自由裁量权，因此对于一些特殊问题，也有单独确定的自由裁量权。然而，在实践中，仲裁庭不愿意这样做主要是出于一个原因:他们担心他们的裁决可能会因违反正当程序或公共政策而受到质疑。

规定早期裁定程序的仲裁机构正与日俱增:

早在2006年，国际投资争端解决中心(ICSID)就在其最新的仲裁规则中实施了第41(5)条。规则41(5)规定：“当事人可在不晚于仲裁庭组成的30天后，以及仲裁庭的首次开庭前,对于明显缺乏法律依据的请求提出异议，仲裁庭给双方充分的机会对此异议提出陈述申辩之后,应当首次开庭后或随后立即将对异议的裁定送达当事人。

10年后，新加坡国际仲裁中心(SIAC)也效仿这一做法，在2016年的SIAC仲裁规则中增添了第29条。第29条引入简易程序，一方可根据下列情况向仲裁庭申请早日驳回索赔或答辩:a.请求或答辩意见明显无法律依据;b.请求或答辩意见明显超出仲裁庭的管辖权。

仅在一年后，斯德哥尔摩商会(Stockholm Chamber of Commerce)的仲裁机构也出台了类似的规定。根据《2017年斯德哥尔摩商会仲裁规则》第39(1)条，一方可以向仲裁庭申请对一个或多个事实或法律问题适用简易程序，而不必按部就班地进行仲裁。”

香港国际仲裁中心现在是一个不断完善的仲裁机构，在某些情况下，为快速进行仲裁提供明确的权限。

HKIAC仲裁规则第43条有何特点?

香港国际仲裁中心仲裁规则第四十三条(1)规定，对于明显缺乏依据的事实或法律问题（a），明显超出仲裁庭的管辖权(b),即便该法律或事实问题可被认定为正确的，仲裁庭仍无法做出支持某主张的裁决（c）,仲裁庭可作出早期裁定。

第43条的范围相当广泛，在允许就任何法律或事实问题作出早期裁定方面，借鉴了斯德哥尔摩商会仲裁规则的做法。相比之下，SIAC的仲裁规则只允许提前驳回请求或答辩意见。

根据HKIAC规则第43条的规定，作出早期裁定程序如下:

1，一方当事人，申请人或被申请人，必须提出早期裁定程序的请求(第43(2)条)。为了提高效率，应尽早提出这一请求(第43(3)条)，并按照第43(4)条规定提供材料。

2，仲裁庭将给另一方当事人就该项请求陈述意见的机会，然后决定是否驳回或同意早期裁定程序的请求。应自当事人提出申请之日起30日内作出决定。

3，如果同意早期裁定程序的请求，仲裁庭庭应在60天内作出决定。该决定应以命令或裁定的形式(第43(6)条)。在仲裁庭作出早期裁定之前，仲裁庭可以中止仲裁程序(第43(7)条)。

根据SIAC仲裁规则和SCC仲裁规则，作出早期裁定的程序类似。在这两种规则下， 必须有一方提出请求，并听取另一方的陈述申辩。仲裁庭将以命令或裁决的形式作出决定，根据《纽约公约》的规定，该决定可以强制执行。

早期裁定程序有效果吗？

早期裁定程序的固有风险是，与其目背道而驰，即延长了仲裁程序而不是缩短。风险在于，有关早期裁定的争议可能会在仲裁中变成一种独立的仲裁，有几轮简要的案情陈述，甚至可能开庭审理。

然而，早期裁定或简易程序规定将这些风险降至最低。根据SIAC，SCC和HKIAC的规定，将早期裁定或简易程序分为两个阶段。在第一阶段，仲裁庭将必须决定是否允许早期裁定程序。仲裁庭必须在某一期限内作出此裁定，根据HKIAC的规定，在当事方提出申请早期裁定程序后的30天内，作出相应的决定。在作出这一决定之前，仲裁庭必须在30天内听取另一方的意见，这一程序会限制关于早期裁定的争论上耗费的时间。显然对于早期裁定的无理要求甚至不会进入第二阶段。第二阶段，即实际的早期裁定程序，原则上应不超过60天。

最后，案例统计表明，早期裁定在实践中是可行的。根据国际投资争端解决中心的统计数字表明，自从第41(5)条实施以来，在过去12年里，只有25个申请对明显缺乏法律依据的案件作出早期裁决。[1]这表明，各方并没有使用早期裁定申请作为游击战术，以拖延仲裁程序。此外，成功申请早期裁定的数量可观。已公布了12项早期裁定的决定;有一半的早期裁定申请获得批准。

根据SIAC、SCC和HKIAC规则，可预计早期裁定程序也同样适用。

【英文原文】

Fast, faster, Early Determination Procedures?

By Dr. Markus Altenkirch and Malika Boussihmad

On 1 November 2018, the revised HKIAC Arbitration Rules entered into force. HKIAC has followed a recent trend in international arbitration and has introduced a provision providing for “Early Determination Procedures”. Under the new Article 43 a party may seek an early decision of the tribunal on factual or legal issues. Article 43(1) provides:

The arbitral tribunal shall have the power, at the request of any party and after consulting with all other parties,to decide one or more points of law or fact by way of early determination procedure, on the basis that:

(a) such points of law or fact are manifestly without merit; or

(b) such points of law or fact are manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction; or

(c) even if such points of law orfact are submitted by another party and are assumed to be correct, no award could be rendered in favour of that party.

What are Early Determination Procedures / Summary Procedures?

In reaction to continuing criticism that arbitral proceedings were not time- and cost-efficient enough, some arbitration institutions have started issuing provisions which enable arbitral tribunals to make early decisions. In so-called summary or early determination procedures, the tribunal is empowered to render an early decision on issues without having to allow the submission of full evidence or all arguments. In abest case, such early decisions shall lead to an early settlement or dismissa lof claims or at least to a limitation of the issues in dispute.

It is debated whether tribunals are empowered to make an early determination even if there is no express provision in the arbitration rules allowing for it. It could be argued that the tribunal has a wide discretion to conduct the arbitration proceedings efficiently, and therefore also has the discretion to determine distinct issues separately.However, in practice tribunals have been reluctant to do so mainly for one reason: they fear that their award might be challenged based on a violation of due process or public policy.

The number of arbitration institutions which provide for an early determination procedure is growing: Asearly as 2006, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID) implemented Rule 41(5) in its latest Arbitration Rules. Rule 41(5) provides that “a party may, no later than 30 days after the constitution of the Tribunal, and in any event before the first session of the Tribunal, file an objection that a claim is manifestly without legal merit” and that “[t]he Tribunal, after giving the parties the opportunity to present their observations on the objection, shall, at its first session or promptly thereafter, notify the parties of its decision on the objection.” Ten years later, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) followed this example and implemented Rule 29 in the 2016 SIAC Arbitration Rules. Rule 29 introduces summary proceedings in which “[a] party may apply to the Tribunal for the early dismissal of a claim or defence on the basis that: a. a claim or defence is manifestly without legal merit; or b. a claim or defence is manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.” Only a year later,the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce introduced asimilar provision. According to Article 39(1) of the 2017 SCC Arbitration Rules“[a] party may request that the Arbitral Tribunal decide one or more issues of fact or law by way of summary procedure, without necessarily undertaking every procedural step that might otherwise be adopted for the arbitration.”The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre is now a further arbitration institution that provides an express competence for fast proceedings in certain situations.

What are the characteristics of Article 43 HKIAC Arbitration Rules?

According to Article 43(1) HKIAC Rules a tribunal may make an early decision on any point of law or fact that might be manifestly without merit (a), that might be manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction (b) or if the tribunal cannot render an award in favour of the party relying on the point of law or fact, even if the alleged point of law or fact is assumed to be correct (c).

The scope of Article 43 is rather broad and follows the example of the SCC Arbitration Rules in allowing early decisions on any point of law or fact. In contrast, the SIAC Arbitration Rules only allow an early dismissal of a claim or defence.

The early determination procedures under Article 43 HKIAC Rules will be conducted as follows:

1.  One of the parties, i.e. the claimantor the respondent, has to make a request for early determination procedures (Article 43(2)). In order to promote efficiency, this request shall be made asearly as possible (Article 43(3)) and with the content listed in Article 43(4).

2.  The tribunal will give the other party an opportunity to comment on the request and will then decide whether to dismiss or allow the request for early determination procedures. This decision shall be made within 30 days after the party filed its request.

3.  In case the request for early determination procedures was allowed, the tribunal shall make a decision within 60 days. The decision shall take the form of an order or award (Article 43(6)).Until the tribunal issues its early decision, the tribunal may stay the arbitration proceedings (Article 43(7)).

Procedures for an early decision under the SIAC Arbitration Rules and SCC Arbitration Rules are conducted similarly. Under both rules, a party has to make a request, the other party will be heard and get the opportunity to comment on the request. The tribunal will make a decision in the form of an order or award which can be subject toe nforcement under the New York Convention.

 Are early determination procedures working?

The inherent risk of an early determination procedure is that the opposite happens of what is intended, i.e. that the arbitration proceedings are prolonged and not shortened. The risk is that the dispute about the early determination becomes an arbitration within the arbitration with separate rounds of briefs and possibly even an oral hearing.

The provisions on early determination/ summary procedures, however, minimize these risks. Under the SIAC, SCC and HKIAC Rules early determination / summary procedures are divided in two phases.In a first phase, the tribunal will have to decide whether to allow early determination procedures at all. The tribunal has to make this decision in a certain time period, under the HKIAC Rules within 30 days after the party requested early determination procedures. Before making this decision the tribunal has to hear the other party, but has to do so within the 30 day period. This procedure will limit the time that is spent on the dispute about the early determination. Clearly unmeritorious requests for an early determination will not even reach the second phase. The second phase, i.e. the actual early determination procedure, shall in principle not take longer than 60 days.

Finally, case statistics show that anearly determination can work in practice. According to ICSID statistics, there have been only 25 applications for a decision on manifest lack of legal meritin the past twelve years since the introduction of Rule 41(5).[1] This shows that parties do not use an application for early determination as a guerrilla tactic in order to delay the proceedings. Moreover, a reasonable number of applications are successful.Twelve early determination decisions have been published; half of the applications for an early determination were granted.

It can be expected that the same will hold true for early determination / summary procedures under the SIAC, SCC and HKIAC Rules.

[1]https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/Process/Decisions-on-Manifest-Lack-of-Legal-Merit.aspx#.

                                                                                                          来源：微信公众号 临时仲裁ADA