国际仲裁中的证据开示：有利还是有弊？

证据开示是国际仲裁中最重要、最具争议的话题之一。一些执业人员认为证据开示是“司法公正的一个基本要素”，而另一些执业人员则认为这是在“浪费时间和金钱”。那么,真理何在？

一、普通法系是否比大陆法系提供更好的司法，或是反之亦然？

在普通法系国家，开示的基本原理表明，司法公正只有在双方都尽可能获得同样材料的情况下才能建立。因此，一方当事人不仅必须开示他打算依赖的证据，也要开示可能对其案件产生不利影响的证据。在普通法系国家，证据开示被认为是调查事实过程中不可或缺的工具。

然而在大陆法系国家，法官在当事人的协助下调查事实。当事人仅提交它们希望依赖的证据，但肯定不会提交任何会损害他们利益的证据。因此，大多数大陆法系国家的律师认为证据开示加重了程序的拖延和费用，但对结果几乎不会有什么影响。

普通法系的司法公正是否优于大陆法系，或是反之亦然？美国的司法比法国或德国更好，还是相反情况？不能说普通法系国家或大陆法系国家谁提供了更好的司法质量。这些法律制度也未被要求进行改革，以便更好的服务于司法。此外, 这两个法系的客户似乎都满足于本国的这一进程。因此, 这两种制度在本质上都不能说是有问题的, 但对证据开示的不同做法仍然使试图向不同法律制度的国家法院提出索赔的诉讼当事人困难重重。

在这一背景下, 国际仲裁的概念成为在国内法院诉讼的一个选择, 被视为国际争端的最佳选择。因此, 国际仲裁必须满足不同法律制度当事人的期望, 那么证据开示应如何在国际仲裁中进行？

正如马尔科姆•威尔基(Malcolm Wilkey)在《跨文化仲裁的实践性》，《商业仲裁中的法律文化冲突:旧问题与新趋势》中所指出的：“一个强有力的仲裁庭应该尽力让双方当事人都感到自在。”对国际仲裁的挑战是为了满足双方当事人的期望：以合理的成本，获得对案件结果至关重要的证据披露。

在国际仲裁中，没有统一的证据开示适用标准。在复杂的建筑案例中需要什么样的证据开示，可能与试图在案件的商业协议中确定一个词的含义大不相同。这就是仲裁的内在优势：能够针对每个案件的需要制定一个程序。

二、《IBA规则》或《布拉格规则》？

如今，当事人通常同意受《国际律师协会国际商事仲裁取证规则》（“《IBA规则》”）的管辖或至少受其指引。《IBA规则》的主要目标是弥合不同法律制度之间的差距，这一点“在当事人来自不同的法律文化时尤其有用”。为实现这一目的，《IBA规则》提供了对仲裁结果具有关联性和重要性的证据进行有限搜查的工具。这种提法普遍被认为是一种折中冲突的做法，因为它允许在证据开示请求中“区分优劣”（“wheat from the chaff”）。

然而，现在一些仲裁执业者对《IBA规则》提出质疑，认为《IBA规则》的适用导致了国际仲裁的美国化。这一批评引发了对另一套规则的提议，即《国际仲裁取证规则》（《布拉格规则》），该规则将于2018年12月发布。《布拉格规则》的拥护者认为，《IBA规则》的特点不为大陆法系所知晓，因此在国际仲裁中造成普通法的主导地位。他们进一步主张，采用调查程序将有助于国际仲裁，特别是在减少时间和费用方面。

假设《IBA规则》的适用确立了普通法在国际仲裁中的主导地位，那么，《布拉格规则》是否因规定了普通法系中所不常见的调查方式而不应受到普通法系执业人员同样的批评？换言之，《布拉格规则》的适用是否不会导致国际仲裁以一种更具大陆法系风格的方式进行？

如果当事人希望根据某些法律制度的规则解决其纠纷，就不会产生进行国际仲裁的需要，因为国家法院就足够了。国际争端的有效解决不能通过在普通法系和大陆法系之间建立虚幻的鸿沟来维持，而只能通过弥合这些文化差距来维持。

除了上述以《IBA规则》和《布拉格规则》的目的为基础进行的讨论外，它们之间有许多相似之处。这两项规则都将证据开示的最终控制权留给了仲裁庭。仲裁庭最终会确保以适当成本来开示对案件结果有实质性影响的证据，从而满足双方当事人的预期。

然而，当《布拉格规则》建议“一般而言，仲裁庭应避免大量证据开示，包括任何形式的电子开示”（第4条第2款）时，就会出现差异。考虑到目前交易主要是通过电子方式进行的，为了调和本世纪商业的需求而禁止电子证据开示似乎有些过分。

三、最终裁决可能在证据开示命令的基础上被成功提出质疑

在败诉一方当事人分析案件为何不成功时，他通常会提及证据开示命令，并可能会说：“如果仲裁庭没有拒绝我的证据开示申请，我本可以证明对方的请求没有正当理由”。

不同法律制度在证据开示上的不同做法也体现在撤销、承认以及执行仲裁裁决的诉讼中。在许多大陆法系国家，禁止“非法调查”（fishing expedition）是程序法的一项基本原则。另一方面，在许多普通法系国家，相对广泛的证据开示被视为程序公正的一项基本要求。因此产生的问题是，仲裁庭对证据开示过度限制或允许非法调查，是否会因违反公共政策而导致对最终裁决提出质疑。

在法兰克福高等地方法院作出判决之后，这个问题变得更加复杂。纠纷起因于一次失败的并购交易。美国买方指控德国供应商操纵内部债务，并启动仲裁程序，要求赔偿损失。按照程序令，当事人同意提交当事各方任命的专家考虑到的所有证据。后来，申请人提交了两份财务专家报告，但在被专家考虑在内的1,200条证据中仅提交了110条。虽然被申请人要求出示其余的证据，但仲裁庭拒绝了这一请求，声称下令证据开示属于仲裁庭的自由裁量权。

最后，仲裁庭根据案情作出了有利于申请人的裁决，被申请人于2010年6月在法兰克福高等地区法院对该裁决提出了质疑。申请人声称，仲裁庭拒绝下令出示申请人向其指定专家提供的证据，违反了双方在程序令中的约定。法院撤销该裁决，指出只有在当事人的协议不限制仲裁庭的自由裁量权的情况下，仲裁庭才有权下令开示证据。然而，在本案中，仲裁庭受当事各方协议的约束。尽管败诉方就该裁决向德国联邦法院提出了上诉，但法院认为上诉不可受理并予以驳回。

对于每一个仲裁庭来说，完成仲裁程序并作出可执行的裁决是至关重要的。如果违反公共政策或当事人协议的问题源于证据开示命令，那么就会对根据《纽约公约》执行最后裁决的能力产生担忧。为避免引起担忧，仲裁庭在确定对开示证据是否有自由裁量权时应当谨慎；如果有自由裁量权，可避免拒绝充分的证据开示或过于繁重的证据开示。

 【英文原文】

Document Production in international Arbitration:

The Good or the Evil?

Document production is one of the most important and controversial topics in international arbitration. Some practitioners consider the document production as “an essential element of justice”, whereas some others consider it as “a waste of time and money”.So, where does the truth lie?

Does Common Law Provide Better Justice than Civil Law or Vice Versa?

In common law countries, the rationale for discovery suggests that justice can only be established if both sides have access, as far as possible, to the same materials. Thus, a party must not only produce documents that it intends to rely upon but also those which might have an adverse effect on its case.In common law countries, the discovery of documents is regarded as an indispensable tool in the factfinding process.

In civil law countries, however, judges enquire into the facts with the assistance of the parties. The parties only present the documents that they wish to rely upon, but certainly do not present anything that would damage their own case. Further more,large document production proceedings can be a costly and time-consuming process. Accordingly, most civil lawyers suggest that the discovery adds significant delay and costs to the proceedings, yet rarely contributes much to the outcome.

Is common law justice better than civil law, or vice versa? Is American justice better than, French or German, or is it the other way around? It cannot be said that either common law or civil law countries produce a better quality of justice. Also, these legal systems do not call for a change to serve better justice. Further, the users of both systems seem content with the process in their country. Thus, neither system can be said to be inherently problematic, but still the divergent approaches to document production make life difficult for a litigant who is trying to pursue a claim before the national court of a different legal system.

Against this background, the concept of international arbitration emerged as an alternative to litigation before domestic courts and is perceived as the best forum of choice for international disputes. Thus, international arbitration has to accommodate the expectations of the parties from different legal systems.How then should document production be conducted in international arbitration?

As Malcolm Wilkey pointed out: “an emphatic tribunal should do its best to make both litigants feel at home.”[fn]Malcolm Wilkey, The Practicalities of Cross-Cultural Arbitration, in Conflicting Legal Cultures in Commercial Arbitration: Old Issues and New Trends 79.[/fn] The challenge in international arbitrationis to satisfy both expectations: Obtaining the disclosure of documents that are material to the outcome of the case, but at moderate costs.

There is no standard “one size fits all” application of document production in international arbitration.What document production is required in a complex construction case might be quite different from a case seeking to determine the meaning of a word in a commercial agreement. This is the inherent advantage of the arbitration: being able to craft a procedure in relation to the needs of each case.

The IBA Rules or the Prague Rules?

Today parties often agree to be governed or at least guided by the International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence (“IBA Rules”).The IBA Rules main goal was to bridge the gap between different legal systems,which is “particularly useful when the parties come from different legal cultures”.To this purpose, the IBA Rules offer the tools for a limited search of evidence that is relevant and material to the outcome of the arbitration. This formulation is generally accepted as compromising the conflicting approaches as it allows the separation of the “wheat from the chaff “among the document production requests.

Nevertheless,nowadays some arbitration practitioners challenge the IBA Rules by arguing that the application of the IBA Rules is leading to the Americanisation of international arbitration. This criticism gave rise to the proposal of a different set of rules, Inquisitorial Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (“Prague Rules”), which is to be launched in December 2018 [fn] Draft of 1 September 2018[/fn](for related posts on the Prague Rules on Kluwer Arbitration Blog clickhere,here and here).The defenders of the Prague Rules suggest that the features of the IBA Rules are unknown to the civil law systems and, therefore, causing dominance of common law in international arbitration.They further argue that the application of inquisitorial procedure would contribute to international arbitration particularly by reducing time and costs.

Assuming that the application of the IBA Rules establishes the dominance of the common law approach to international arbitration, should the Prague Rules not receive the same criticism from common law practitioners given that they provide for the inquisitorial approach which is uncommon for common law? In other words,would the application of the Prague Rules not cause international arbitration being played in a more civil law style?

If the parties wanted to resolve their dispute by the rules of the certain legal system, the need for international arbitration would not arise, as the national courts would suffice. The effective resolution of the international disputes could not be sustained by building an illusory divide between common law and civil law, but could only be sustained by bridging those cultural gaps.

Leaving aside the above discussion that is based on the purposes of the IBA Rules and the Prague Rules, there are numerous similarities between them. Both rules leave the ultimate control of the document production to the tribunal. It is the tribunal who will eventually satisfy both parties’ expectations by ensuring the production of those documents that are material to the outcome of the case and at a moderate cost.

Nonetheless,the difference arises where the Prague Rules suggest that “Generally, the Arbitral Tribunal shall avoid extensive production of documents, including any form of e-discovery” (cf. Article 4.2).Considering that transactions are conducted predominantly via electronic means nowadays, it seems that prohibiting the production of e-documents is excessive to reconcile the needs of the businesses in this century.

Final Awards May Be Successfully Challenged Based on Document Production Orders

When a losing party is analysing why it was unsuccessful in a case, it generally refers to the document production orders and might say that “if the tribunal had not rejected my document production request, I could have proven the other party’s meritless claims”.

Different legal systems’ different approaches to document production also show itself in actions for setting aside and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. In many civil law countries, the prohibition of a “fishing expedition” constitutes a fundamental principle of procedural law. On the other hand, in many common law countries, a relatively extensive document production is considered as an essential requirement for a fair proceeding. Therefore, the issue arises as to whether a tribunal’s excessively limited document production or allowance of the fishing expedition, would result in the challenge of the final award due to the violation of public policy.

The issue got even more complicated after the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt’s decision. The dispute arose out of a failed M&A transaction. The American purchaser accused the German vendor of having manipulated the internal debts and initiated arbitration proceedings to claim damages. In the procedural order, the parties agreed to submit all documents that the party-appointed experts had taken into consideration. Afterwards, the claimant submitted two financial expert reports but only submitted 110 out of 1,200 documents that were taken into consideration by those experts. Although the respondent requested the remaining documents to be produced, the tribunal rejected the request by arguing that it was in the tribunal’s discretion to order document production.

At the end, the tribunal decided in favour of the claimants on the merits, and the respondent challenged the award before the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurtin June 2010.[fn]Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt,17.02.2011, 26 Sch 13/10[/fn] The applicant argued that the tribunal violated the parties’ agreement in the procedural order by refusing to order the production of the documents that the claimant made available to its party-appointed experts. The court set aside the award by stating that it is only in the discretion of the arbitral tribunal to order document production only when the parties’ agreements do not restrict the arbitral tribunal’s discretion. In the present case, however, the arbitral tribunal was bound by the parties’ agreement. Although the losing party appealed the decision before the German Federal Court of Justice, the court considered the appeal inadmissible and rejected it.[fn]BGH, 2 Oct. 2012, III ZB8/11[/fn].

It is crucial for every arbitral tribunal to conclude arbitration proceedings with an enforceable award. If questions of a breach of public policy or parties’ agreement stem from document production orders,then concerns as to the ability to enforce the final award under the New York Convention arise. To avoid raising concerns, the tribunals should be cautious when it comes to determining whether they have the discretion to order document production or not; and if yes, to avoid the refusal of sufficient document production or excessively onerous document production.

By Pelin Baysal, Bilge Kağan Çevik

                                                                                                              来源：微信公众号 临时仲裁ADA