克服TMT行业不愿将争议提交仲裁

近年来，科技、媒体和电信行业（TMT）的发展突飞猛进。随着这些行业的迅速发展（有时跨境）以及对科技的投资和依赖不断增加，在交易失败、伙伴关系恶化或事情无法按计划进行时，纠纷将不可避免地产生。全球已经存在大量与TMT有关的争议，许多涉及大额资金。根据2016年伦敦玛丽女王大学的一项调查，即《国际争议解决调查——科技、媒体和电信纠纷的避免和解决》（“QMU调查”），23％的受访者在过去5年曾经历超过20个TMT争议。超过1/3的受访者表示他们至少卷入过一项价值超过1亿美元的争议。该调查还显示，尽管科技、媒体和电信行业产生的争议类型不同，但最常遇到的TMT争议类型包括：知识产权、许可、监管、供应链和消费者争议。

2017年，硅谷仲裁和调解中心（SVMAC）进行一项调查，以确定科技公司所认为的仲裁优势。

尽管该调查表明TMT行业的争议解决市场正不断扩大，但仍有观点认为当事人不愿使用仲裁。本文研究该观点是否有依据以及仲裁团体应如何回应。

态度与实践的分歧

在TMT行业，对待仲裁的态度与仲裁在实践中的运用之间似乎存在分歧。

一方面，QMU调查中超过4/5的受访者相信将有更多人通过仲裁解决TMT争议，其中“绝大多数”受访者（92%）认为仲裁非常适合解决TMT争议。

另一方面，2016年，伦敦国际仲裁院仅有4.36%的案件与TMT有关，其中仅有0.4%的案件与媒体和娱乐产业有关。在TMT行业，调解是最受鼓励的用于解决争议的方式，尽管调查没有明确当调解失败时应使用何种方式解决争议（若有）。

对这三个行业的深入调查表明，作为首选方式，仲裁落后于其他争议解决方式。在电信行业，专家鉴定被认为是最受鼓励使用的方式，没有一个受访者认为应积极鼓励使用仲裁。在科技行业，50％的受访者认为诉讼是最受鼓励使用的方式，而鼓励使用仲裁的受访者仅为27%。

虽然调查未关注媒体行业，但实例研究表明该行业可能更适合仲裁。在2017年6月的特许仲裁员协会研讨会上，英国商业调解员Andrew Hildebrand表示，“50％的电影和电视合同约定通过仲裁解决纠纷。”

鉴于仲裁的保密性，对于当争议为公众所知时可能造成损害的合同，仲裁的使用可能更加普遍，这一点或许并不令人惊讶。

为何不愿使用仲裁？

就仲裁为何可能不适合解决TMT行业争议的问题，QMU调查提供了一系列可能的原因。

首先，许多常见TMT争议主要为非合同事项（与知识产权、竞争、数据保护和数据安全相关的事项）。当双方未达成协议时，诉讼将成为默认的争议解决机制。在争议产生后，任何行业都很难同意将争议提交仲裁。

此外，QMU调查的受访者认为禁令救济在仲裁中难以获得。这不是一个毫无根据的担忧。尽管紧急仲裁员和快速程序正在吸引人们的注意，但仲裁庭通过合同被授予的权力不可避免地受到限制。然而，担忧不仅与救济的取得有关，而且与救济的及时性有关：QMU调查中57％的受访者认为，在仲裁中取得禁令救济比向国内法院提出申请耗费更多时间。

另一个限制在于标准条款的限制使用。QMU调查的受访者表示，其标准合同中默认的争议解决方式通常为诉讼。虽然不会过于复杂，但负责合同谈判的人表示，在谈判期间，他们经常被阻止偏离默认立场或未对争议解决条款给予足够重视。在一种不喜诉讼，将资源优先用于增长和发展而非正式争议解决的文化中，这是一个艰难的现实。

有趣的是，QMU调查表明，选择哪种争议解决机制通常由高级管理人员决定（根据57％受访者的观点），而非由公司法律顾问。这些决策者可能不一定了解仲裁的机制或优势。

QMU调查显示不愿使用仲裁的最后一个原因可能是该领域缺乏TMT专家。一些人认为需要更专业的仲裁员以及具有TMT专业知识的从业者，而另一些人认为该行业只需对当前仲裁员的能力建立更大的信心。总体而言，19％的受访者认为专门法院能更好地处理该行业的争议。

不愿仲裁的行业原因

尽管QMU调查未解决为何每个特定行业的公司可能不愿选择仲裁，但上述某些原因可能与某些行业更加相关。

电信行业的争议似乎更多集中在行业的监管框架上。如果这种说法成立，那么不鼓励仲裁的一个原因可能是难以达成仲裁所需的合意：私人公司与监管机构（或国家）之间的监管争议不太可能因合同谈判而产生。在没有条约的情况下，可能无法直接对国家实体提起仲裁。法律实施也可能产生固定（或优先）的争议解决方式。

就其本质而言，科技行业正在迅速发生变化。知识产权和许可争议在该行业不可避免地变得更为常见。因此，禁令救济的可得性可能是选择争议解决方式的重要因素。在SVMAC调查中只有3％的受访者认为禁令救济的可得性是仲裁的一项优势。

在某些情况下，复杂的科技争议可能需要具有相应专业技术的专家和仲裁员。接受QMU调查的一些受访者认为需要一本专门的仲裁员名册。SVAMC调查的受访者认为仲裁需要更专业的决策者，尽管6％的受访者将专家决策作为仲裁现有的三大优势之一。

同样，实例研究表明，媒体行业可能存在与科技领域类似的担忧。此外，速度可能是一个特别的担忧，尤其是当媒体制作过程中出现争议时；媒体行业的长期关系维护尤其值得重视。这些因素也可以解释为何人们不愿采用任何正式的争议解决方式。

对感知弊端的回应

调查罗列的一些问题不易反驳——非合同争议中可能根本无法达成仲裁合意，而且即使迅速组建仲裁庭或紧急仲裁员，下达某些禁令的权力将超出其授权范围。但是，仲裁从业者可以通过一系列举动对仲裁的其他感知弊端（perceived drawbacks）进行辩护或回应。

尽管调解不具有约束力，需要维护长期关系可能是调解被三个行业视为最受鼓励的争议解决机制的原因。但这并不意味着失去仲裁机会。在正式程序不可避免的情况下，可以认为仲裁的优劣与任何其他约束性争议解决程序一样都涉及对关系的担忧，实际上这些担忧也出现在习惯使用仲裁的许多其他行业中。

此外，鉴于调解的成功与一方当事人威胁通过约束性争议解决程序进行有效制裁的能力有关，人们可能鼓励同时使用调解和仲裁，或作为不断升级的争议解决条款的一部分。事实上，争议解决律师建议在合同中仅规定调解而不上升为诉讼或仲裁的情况非常罕见。

最近修订的《世界知识产权组织关于电影和媒体的调解和快速仲裁规则》可能鼓励使用这种方式，该规则规定当事人可以选择使用调解或快速仲裁程序。

这些调查进一步突出对更多的行业信心和行业专家的需求。或许这两者相互关联——仲裁员中在TMT领域的专业知识越丰富，当事人就越有信心。

这种专业化应如何实现？作为例证，我们只需观察能源行业，仲裁在该领域一直受到青睐，并且有许多专业仲裁员和律师。伦敦仲裁俱乐部的金融行业分支近期也有增长，包括推出针对金融服务争议的新快速程序。TMT争议的专业化可按照相似线路发展。SVAMC调查中少数受访者对仲裁中专家决策的信心表明这种专业化已经开始发展。

公司法律顾问还应注意到他们在培训TMT公司高级管理人员关于仲裁的作用时所扮演的角色。随着时间的推移，公司法律顾问可能在以下方面发挥关键作用，即最有效地制定合同的争议解决条款并在适当时规定将争议提交仲裁。

在仲裁中取得禁令救济可能更耗时的观点或许正确，但不应一成不变。2016年完成国际商会紧急程序的平均时间为18天，而SIAC统计数据表明，紧急仲裁员作出裁决的平均时间为8至10天，最短为2天。这些数据表明，紧急仲裁程序的完成时间可以与法院完成诉讼的时间相当，在某些司法管辖区，仲裁可能是更快的选择。

不考虑禁令救济的问题，仲裁可以通过快速程序很好地满足快速解决纠纷的要求。

仲裁程序也可以更加高效，并且已经朝着这个方向前进。近期举措包括电子披露和文件审查、电子案件管理甚至网络开庭。这些建议中的大多数都为QMU调查的受访者所接受。随着从业者和仲裁机构更多地成为科技的消费者，创新可能得到科技行业本身的支持。

总之，除了具有被大肆吹捧的保密性和可执行性的优势外，仲裁已经能够很好地解决调查中提出的许多担忧。但是，克服TMT行业长期以来不愿使用仲裁的困难是一个循序渐进的过程。幸运的是，仲裁程序的灵活性意味着它能够适应该行业的需求，并为国际合同争议提供谨慎、快速、具有技术支持的约束性争议解决方案。

【英文原文】

Overcoming reluctance to arbitrate in the TMT sector

Drawing on two surveys on the use of arbitration in technology, media and telecoms disputes, Susan Field, a senior associate and solicitor advocate at Herbert Smith Freehills in London, considers whether parties in the TMT sector are moving away from their traditional reluctance to use international arbitration.

The technology media and telecoms (TMT) sector has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years. With rapid, sometimes cross-border, development and the increasing spend and dependency on technology, comes the unavoidable pain of disputes as deals go wrong, partnerships turn sour, or things do not go to plan. There are already a large number of TMT-related disputes globally, many involving significant sums. According to a survey of the TMT sector conducted by Queen Mary University of London in 2016 (International Dispute Resolution Survey – Pre-empting and Resolving Technology, Media and Telecoms Disputes), 23% of participants had experienced more than 20 TMT disputes over the past five years. More than a third said that they had been involved in at least one dispute valued in excess of US$100 million. The QMU survey also identified the types of TMT disputes most commonly encountered: these included IP, licensing, regulatory, supply chain and consumer disputes, though there was of course variation in the type of disputes encountered in the individual technology, media and telecoms industries.

More recently, in 2017, the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Centre (SVMAC) conducted its own survey identifying among other things the top perceived benefits of arbitration among technology companies.

While the surveys suggest there is a growing market for dispute resolution in the TMT sector, there remains a perception that parties are reluctant to use it. This article looks at whether there is any basis for this and how the arbitration community should respond.

A divergence between attitudes and practice

When it comes to the TMT sector, it appears there is a divergence between attitudes to arbitration and the use of it in practice.

On one hand, more than four-fifths of the participants in the QMU survey believed that there would bean increase in the use of arbitration for TMT disputes, with a “striking majority” (92%) agreeing that it is well suited to resolving them.

On the other hand, just 4.36% of LCIA cases in 2016 were TMT-related, with only 0.4% relating to the media and entertainment industry. Across the TMT sector, mediation is the most encouraged tool for dispute resolution within companies, though the survey does not identify what, if any, method is encouraged when mediation fails.

Closer examination of the three sectors by the survey showed that arbitration lags behind other forms of dispute resolution as the preferred method. In the telecoms sector, expert determination was found to be the most encouraged method, with not a single participant saying that arbitration was positively encouraged. In the technology sector, litigation was the most encouraged, according to 50% of participants. Arbitration fell behind at 27%.

While the survey did not focus on the media industry, anecdotal evidence suggests that it may be more arbitration friendly. At a Chartered Institute of Arbitrators seminar in June 2017, Andrew Hildebrand, a leading UK commercial mediator, remarked that “50% of film and television contracts stipulate the use of arbitration to resolve disputes.”

Given the confidentiality that arbitration often offers, it is perhaps unsurprising that its use might be more prevalent in relation to contracts where damage may be caused if the dispute become public knowledge.

Why is there a reluctance to use arbitration?

The QMU survey offered a number of possible reasons why arbitration might not be well suited to disputes in the TMT sector as a whole.

First, many of the common TMT disputes are primarily non-contractual matters (issues relating to IP,competition, data protection and data security come to mind). In the absence of agreement between the parties, litigation will be the default mechanism for resolving the dispute. It will be rare in any sector to agree to arbitration after a dispute has arisen.

In addition, participants in the QMU survey considered that injunctive relief is difficult to obtain in arbitration. This is not a baseless concern. While emergency arbitrators and expedited procedures are gaining traction, there are inevitable limits to atribunal’s contractually bestowed powers. However, concern relates not just to the availability of relief but the promptness of that relief: 57% of participants in the QMU survey were of the view that injunctive relief is more time-consuming to obtain in arbitration than making an application to domestic courts.

A further limitation is the often restrictive use of model clauses. Participants in the QMU survey remarked that the default position for dispute resolution in their model contracts is often litigation. While it would not be unduly complex, those responsible for negotiating contracts said they were often discouraged from deviating from the default position or paid insufficient attention to the dispute resolution provisions during negotiations. That is a hard reality in a culture which is not litigious and prioritises resources for growth and development over formal dispute resolution.

Interestingly, the QMU survey indicated that the decision as to which dispute resolution mechanism to choose rests generally with senior management (according to 57% of participants), rather than in-house counsel. It may be that such decision-makers may not necessarily be aware of the mechanics or advantages of arbitration.

A final possible reason for reluctance to use arbitration that emerged from the QMU survey was a perceived lack of TMT specialists in the field. Some suggested that there was a need for more specialised arbitrators and practitioners with TMT expertise, while others thought the sector simply had to develop greater confidence in the abilities of current arbitrators. Overall, 19% of participants thought that specialised judicial courts were better equipped to deal with disputes in this sector.

Sector-specific reasons for reluctance

While the QMU survey does not address the reasons why companies in each specific sector may be reluctant to choose arbitration, some of the reasons outlined above may be more relevan tto some industries than others.

Disputes in the telecoms industry appear to centre more on the industry’s regulatory framework. If this is true, then one reason why arbitration is not encouraged may be the difficulty in obtaining the consent necessary to commence arbitration: are gulatory dispute between a private company and the regulator (or the state) is less likely to arise out of a negotiated contract. It may not always be possible to commence arbitration directly against state entities in the absence of a treaty. There may also be a fixed (or preferred) method of dispute resolution arising by operation of law.

By its very nature, the technology sector is rapidly changing. IP and licensing disputes are inevitably more common in this sector. The availability of injunctive relief is therefore likely to be a significant factor in choosing a dispute resolution method. The availability of injunctive relief was identified as a benefit of arbitration by only 3% of respondents to the SVMAC survey.

Complex technological disputes may in some circumstances require experts and arbitrators with a corresponding degree of technological expertise. Some of those interviewed for the QMU survey remarked that a specialised roster of arbitrators would be welcomed. Participants in the SVAMC survey indicated that there is a need for more specialised decision-makers in arbitration, though 6% listed expert decision- making as one of the top three existing benefits of arbitration.

Again, anecdotal evidence suggests that the media industry is likely to share similar concerns to the technology sector. In addition, speed may be a particular concern, especially if disputes arise in the midst of a media production, and preservation of the long-term relationship is particularly valued. These factors too may explain why there is a disinclination to adopt any form of formal dispute resolution.

Responding to perceived drawbacks

A number of the concerns outlined by the surveys are not easily countered – consent to arbitrate may simply not be available in non-contractual disputes, and certain injunctive powers will be beyond the gift of even a promptly formed tribunal or emergency arbitrator. However, there is much that arbitration practitioners can do to defend or respond to other perceived drawbacks of arbitration.

The need to preserve long-term relationships may be the reason mediation is reported to be the most encouraged dispute resolution mechanism across all three sectors, despite its non-binding nature. But this does not mean that the opportunity for arbitration is lost. Where formal proceedings are unavoidable, arbitration is arguably as well orill-equipped as any other binding dispute resolution procedure to address relationship concerns, and indeed these arise in many other sectors that traditionally use arbitration.

Moreover, given that success in mediation is related to a party’s ability to threaten effective sanction through a binding dispute resolution process, one might encourage the use of mediation and arbitration in parallel or as part of an escalating dispute resolution clause. Indeed, it would be unusual for a disputes lawyer to recommend providing for mediation in a contract without the option to escalate to litigation or arbitration.

The recently updated World Intellectual Property Organization Mediation and Expedited Arbitration Rulesfor Film and Media, which provide for parties to choose to use either mediation or an expedited arbitration procedure, may encourage such an approach.

The surveys further highlight the need for more industry confidence and an increased number of sector specialists. Perhaps the two are interlinked – and the greater the expertise in TMT among arbitrators, the more confidence parties will have.

As an example of how such specialism can be achieved, we need look no further than the energy sector, in which arbitration has long been favoured and which has many special is tarbitrators and counsel. The financial sector branch of the London Arbitration Club has also seen recent growth, including launching new expedited procedures tailored towards financial services disputes. Specialism in TMT disputes couldbe developed along similar lines. The confidence that a minority of participants in the SVAMC survey place in expert decision-making in arbitration suggests that this specialism has started to develop.

In-house counsel should also note their role in educating senior managers in TMT companies of the role of arbitration. In time, in-house counsel might also play a critical role in tailoring dispute resolution clauses most effectively to the contract in hand and providing for arbitration where appropriate.

The perception that securing injunctive relief may be more time-consuming in arbitration may be a fair one but should not be set in stone. The average time to complete ICC emergency proceedings in 2016 was 18 days, while SIAC statistics suggest that the average time taken by an emergency arbitrator to issue an award ranges from eight to 10 days, with the shortest period being two days. These figures suggest that emergency arbitration proceedings can be completed within a timeframe comparable to the courts and, in some jurisdictions, may be the faster option.

Setting aside the issue of injunctive relief, arbitration has always been well placed to meet the demand for speedy dispute resolution through expedited procedures.

Arbitral procedures can also be made more efficient and effective and are already heading in that direction. Recent initiatives include e-disclosure and document review, e-case management and even e-hearings. Most of these suggestions were well received by participants in the QMU survey. Innovations may be supported by the technology sector itself – with practitioners and arbitral institutions increasingly becoming the consumers of further technology.

In conclusion, arbitration is already well placed to meet many of the concerns raised in the surveys, in addition to offering the much-vaunted advantages of confidentiality and enforceability. But overcoming the lingering reluctance to use it in the TMT sector is a work in progress. Fortunately, the flexible nature of arbitration procedure means that it is capable of adapting to the demands of the sector and providing discreet, speedy, technology-supported binding dispute resolution for international contractual disputes.

By Susan Field

                                                                                                              来源：微信公众号 临时仲裁ADA