LCIA喜迎第125周年——LCIA规则的过去、现在和未来

在LCIA125周年庆典即将结束之际，我非常荣幸地最后致辞。LCIA以业守成、改革进取，向世人昭示着其蓬勃朝气。站在庆祝周年的时间节点上，我们必然会回首过去，诚如大家所见，LCIA取得了让人引以为豪的累累硕果，在时代发展的今天仍然意义重大，同时我们也有幸在当代科技发展的洪流中看见自己的未来。

对于LCIA来说，一系列的仲裁规则贯通了其过去、现在和未来，为其注入了源源不断的活力。当然，如果没有杰出的工作团队将规则付诸实施，如果没有频仍的工作会议将其价值广泛传播，或许这些规则仅是一些黑白文字。不管如何，仲裁规则是LCIA的实质要素，也是必要条件。

那些应邀出席本年度Tylney大会堂专题讨论会的读者可能会回想起周年庆典中绚烂缤纷的烟花秀、夜幕中的舞姿，以及晚宴后场外演说家带来的轻松又不失深刻的娱乐活动。在周六下午的工作会议上我们重点讨论了在当前LCIA规则生效的5年后，是否需要在2019年重新修订此规则。绝大多数人的意见是，应高度重视这一规则，并立足于更好地实现其目的，尽管肯定会有一些修改建议认为能够从更深入的审议中受益。

当然我们不能为了修改而修改，且须谨记“不破不补”的忠告，审查修改的目的是为了确保这些规则不仅在目前，而且在未来几年都能够适应实践的需要、行之有效且立足于机构的宗旨。回顾当前LCIA规则的演变历程，为如何实现这一点提供了重要的经验教训。当前并不是适合深入审查的契机，但是我们也许可以简略探究这些规则如何逐步演变的。

现代LCIA规则始于1981年1月1日生效，连同示范条款和一份列明仲裁管辖权和仲裁员职权的安排表在内共计14款条文，总共不到五页半。与此相反，现行的规则，有序言、目录、附则长达26页。与1981年的规则相比，对当今的规则已经做了很多的修改。例如，删除了当事人和仲裁员之间的通信需由LCIA书记官传达，也不再明确授权那些在某一领域的有专业知识或经验的人为仲裁员，以及限制或排除当事人在这样做时引用专家证据的权利。然而，有些规则仍然保持下来了。1981年规则第3条规定“所有仲裁员（不论是否由双方提名）”，根据本规则进行仲裁，应始终保持完全独立和公正，不得为任何一方辩护。“这项规定的内涵，甚或是大部分条文，不管是在1981年还是在今天都同样适宜。

至少还有另外两个特征足以表明1981年规则在当时是多么先进。首先，它们规定在参加庭审之前交换书面证言。在当代我们认为这是理所当然的事情，但在1981年，鲜有此种做法。事实上，在英国高等法院的一些（并非全部）部门中，甚至过了五年才开始在诉讼程序中引入命令证人陈述书的自由裁量权。第二，1981年规则规定仲裁员有权指定顾问或专家辅助某些事项。此条款在《规则》之后的每一版本中都有修改和阐述，载于现版本的第21条。然而，该条款自1981年起被纳入《仲裁规则》，强调《仲裁规则》的起草者一直乐于吸收不同法律文化的特点，以促进仲裁的效率和效力，从而确保《仲裁规则》不仅适用于普通法系也适用于大陆法系下的仲裁。

1985年1月1日新的规则生效，取代了1981年的版本，一位生活在巴黎的美国人，同时也是一个以其名字命名的公司创始人的评论员CarlF. Salans，评论道，“坚定了当事人和律师寻求严格的仲裁程序的信心。他将其描述为“旨在设计一个没有困扰其它仲裁体系漏洞的国际仲裁框架的一腔热忱”，并警告称，“那些认为自己很可能在任何仲裁中都是不情愿的被申请人的合同当事人，可能……希望规避这些新规则。”

幸运的是，LCIA似乎没有太多这样的当事人，因为证实了新版本的规则是非常成功的。规则共计有20个“条款”，现在每个编号的条款都被称为“条款”，超过11页，其中包括针对将来和现有争端修改的“建议仲裁条款”，以及新的费用明细表。1985年规则体现了新颖性，这一特点仍被当今LCIA仲裁规则所沿袭。例如，第1条是关于仲裁请求的，紧随其后的一条是明确规定允许被申请人提交答辩意见。大大增加了关于委任仲裁员的条款，并首次纳入了“在对仲裁员的公正性或独立性产生正当的怀疑的情况下”明确规定了有对仲裁员提出质疑的权利。

根据1985年规则，当事各方可以自由选择仲裁地，但除非仲裁庭裁定其他地方更为适宜，否则默认伦敦为仲裁地。其他现在已为人熟知的特征也已显现，包括仲裁庭增加九项附加职权的清单、关于确定管辖权的具体规定（包括规定提出异议的期限）以及根据仲裁费用支付预付款的机制。重要的是，这些规则引入了一项新的“提出或停止”条款，如果一方当事人知道对方没有按照规则遵守某一要求，而没有提出异议，继续进行仲裁，那么将视为他放弃了提出异议的权利。

13年后，LCIA规则的下一版于1998年1月1日出台。它以当今版本的规则为基础，内容上又有实质的增加，现在已有32款条文。对规则的修改是为了处理现在存在的主要问题，例如多方当事人在仲裁中如何选任仲裁员、保密性以及防止顽固的仲裁员拒绝参加而阻碍仲裁程序的进行。这些规则也符合最近的仲裁立法，特别是一年前生效的《1996年仲裁法》。仲裁庭基本职责的修改，反映了对其要求（i）保持中立和公正，给当事人合理的机会提出答辩意见，（ii）采用与案件相适应的仲裁程序，避免不必要的延误或费用，提供一个公平、有效的方式解决双方的争端。LCIA规则几乎一字不落地使用了1996年《法案》的措辞，《法案》本身就是经过艰苦工作和广泛咨询，字斟句酌的产物。重新再用一套措辞没有什么意义。然而，创新的机会再次被抓住，在我看来，没有一项规定比在当时的第9条中加速成立一个仲裁庭庭更能反映这一点。这已经成为LCIA仲裁的一个显著特征。它反映出LCIA认识到，在某些情况下需要迅速、有效的救济，以致它不能等待仲裁庭的正常组成过程。结合第25条授予仲裁庭采取临时有效措施的职权，为处理需要紧急救济的案件提供了明确的机制。解决这一需要的其他机制也应运而生，当然包括ICDR在历经几年后的2006年首次提出任命一名紧急仲裁员，在当前LCIA第9B条的规则中始有规定。然而，在1998年，加速成立的仲裁庭改变了游戏规则。

1998年版的规则再次经受住了时间的考验，但也被2014年10月1日生效的现行规则取而代之。期间仲裁格局历经沧桑，折射出世界经济的全球化。争端的规模、种类和复杂性、所涉当事各方的多样性以及代理律师不同的法律文化背景改变了国际仲裁。无论是大型仲裁的演变，或者仅仅是律师策略的升级，涉及大规模披露、繁杂的诉状和冗长听证会的仲裁数量成倍增加，该影响力似乎已经渗透到到小规模的案件。这遭到了强烈的反对，今天仍然可以感觉到，要求仲裁员和机构采取控制、积极管理诉讼程序和制裁过分行为的要求日益增加。

2014年的LCIA规则仍有32条（但有第9条的分则），其中至少部分是为了解决这些担忧而作出的重大修改。特别值得注意的是，第9A、9B和9C条保留了加速组成仲裁庭的方法，但增加了一个紧急仲裁员机制和加速任命替代仲裁员的规定。还要求仲裁庭留出足够的时间进行审议，并将审议时间以及和作出裁决的时间予以通知。修订后的规则还新增了在线提交仲裁请求，以及合并仲裁的职权，以及要求仲裁员声明他们能够到庭处理本案。一个重大的创新点是新增了规则附件A，其为对方代理人的行为标准提供了准则。此外，这也是一个反映LCIA的价值观及其关切确保尽可能合理开展仲裁以及各方代理人在LCIA仲裁所熟知的标准的大胆创新。

因此，该规则以渐进的方式逐步发展，每一版规则都建立在以前的基础上。鉴于这些规则在过去几十年里的成功应用，不仅不需要大范围的改变，而且此举可能会造成巨大的损害。历史经验表明，如果LCIA改进了流程或有助于满足用户的需求，它不必羞于新增新颖性的规定。这并不是说LCIA应该采用每一种最新的风尚，而是应该以实用主义为基础，并考虑仲裁市场规则的实际经验。

着眼于当代，仲裁目前面临的挑战在许多方面与它多年来一直致力解决的问题相呼应，但一场技术革命带来了更多的要求。包括网络安全，以及在许多仲裁选择电子邮件这一通信方式的时代，如何保护硬件、软件和数据免受恶意势力的攻击这些问题。欧盟《全面数据保护条例》（GeneralData Protection Regulation，简称GDPR）强加于各国的严格监管制度，具有领土外效应，是另一个雷区。许多人会称赞它的宗旨，但实际执行GDPR使许多人感到震惊，因为他们难以理解强加于他们的义务的性质，也难以理解为满足这项影响深远但相当不透明的法律的要求所必须采取的实际步骤。这些不仅是LCIA面临的紧迫问题，也是国际仲裁中所有仲裁员、代理人和当事人面临的紧迫问题。它们是国际仲裁界十分关心的问题，LCIA正在努力找出对应措施，例如设立一个工作组，以便为仲裁员拟订准则，列出与GDPR有关的问题，供他们审议。

在这种背景下，现在似乎是审查LCIA规则的适当契机，审议这些规则在当今以及将来若干年是否为LCIA仲裁庭以及解决这些仲裁问题的机构提供了权利制衡的工具。我们将着眼于法律和实践已经取得进展的领域，看看是否需要作出改变。我们将研究LCIA提供的指导，例如关于使用仲裁庭秘书的指导，是否应成为规则本身的一部分。我们将研究仲裁庭是否拥有开展最有效以及最经济的仲裁所需要的所有职权，我们是否能够做更多的工作来确保仲裁庭更好地行使职权，以及是否能够做更多的工作来帮助当事各方解决其争端。我们将审议在Tylney会议中以及在后续通信中所表达的所有意见和评论，我们欢迎尚未有机会贡献其经验的其他人进一步提供意见。将没有改变只是为了它，没有不必要的干预，但LCIA1981年的第一个规则以来取得了极大的成功，事实上在过去的125年里，通过不断地慎重修改以适应仲裁的实际需要，在我看来，这将是未来125年的美好蓝图。

【英文原文】

LCIA Perspectives Happy 125th Anniversary ---LCIA Rules Past, Present and Future

 Itis a great privilege to provide the last of these ‘Perspectives’ as we come to the end of the 125th anniversary celebrations of the LCIA. Prior contributions have provided insights into topical issues and a wonderful portrait of the LCIA as a dynamic institution, reflecting key aspects of its evolution and development from a range of view points. Perhaps inevitably when celebrating an anniversary, it is tempting to look back at the achievements attained and, as we have seen, there have been many of which to be proud. Reflections of where we are today have also featured in the series, and we have been treated to a glimpse of the future amidst the current technological revolution.

For the LCIA what links its past, present and future, and provides the lifeblood of the institution, is its set of arbitration Rules. Of course the Rules are of little value without a first-class casework team to administer them, and a busy conference function to spread word of their excellence. However, its arbitration Rules are the essence– the sine qua non – of the LCIA.

Those readers who were able to attend either of this year’s Tylney Hall symposia will recall being treated to anniversary celebrations entailing stunning firework displays, late night dancing and, in a first for the LCIA, entertainment by external after dinner speakers who brought insight and levity in equal measure. We focused the discussion during our Saturday afternoon working sessions on whether there was a need for revision of the LCIA Rules in 2019, some 5 years after the introduction of the present edition. The overwhelming response was that the Rules are held in high regard and serve their purpose well, although inevitably there are some proposals for change that would benefit from further consideration.

Whilst resisting change for change’s sake,and mindful of the admonition that ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’, the aim of any review must be to ensure that the Rules are modern, efficient and fit for purpose - not just now, but in years to come. Looking back at the evolution of the current LCIA Rules provides important lessons in how that can be achieved. This is not the occasion for an in-depth review, but we can perhaps indulge in a brief canter through the development of the Rules into their current form.

The first iteration of the modern LCIA Rules came into force on 1st January 1981 and the 14 numbered clauses, together with model clauses and a schedule setting out the jurisdiction and powers of the arbitrator, ran to just under five and a half pages. In contrast the present Rules, with Preamble, Index and Annex, run to 26 pages. Much has changed between the 1981 Rules and the current version. We have, for example,dispensed with the need for all communications between the parties and the arbitrator to be made through the LCIA’s Registrar. Nor is the arbitrator any longer expressly empowered to “rely on his own expert knowledge or experience in any field” and to limit or exclude the right of any party to adduce expert evidence if he does so. However some things have remained strikingly consistent. Article 3 of the 1981 Rules provided that “All arbitrators (whether or not nominated by the parties) conducting an arbitration under these Rules shall be and remain at all times wholly independent and impartial and shall not act as advocates for any party.” The essence of this provision, and indeed much of the text, remains as fitting today as it was in 1981.

At least two other features of the 1981 Rules demonstrate how advanced they were for their time. First, they provided for the exchange of written witness statements prior to an oral examination at a hearing. This is something we now take for granted, but in 1981 it was far from commonplace. Indeed, it was another five years before even a discretionary power to order witness statements was introduced for proceedings in some (butnot all) Divisions of the English High Court. Secondly, the 1981 Rules empowered the arbitrator to appoint advisors or experts to assist on any matter. This provision has been adapted and elaborated in each subsequent edition of the Rules and is presently to be found in Article 21. However, its inclusion in the Rules since 1981 emphasises that the LCIA’s drafters have always been ready to embrace features derived from different legal cultures where they contribute to efficient and effective arbitration, ensuring that the Rules are suitable for arbitrations under both common law and civil law systems.

The 1981 Rules were replaced on 1st January 1985 with a new edition that one commentator, Carl F. Salans, an American living in Paris and founder of the firm which bore his name (now merged into Dentons), commented would “warm the hearts of parties and lawyers who seek a rigorous arbitral process.”1 He described them as “an ambitious effort to design an international arbitration framework free of loopholes that plague other arbitration systems” and warned that “parties to contracts who assume that they are likely to be reluctant defendants in any arbitration might…wish to avoid these new Rules.”

Fortunately for the LCIA there did not seem to be too many such parties, because the new version of the Rules proved agreat success. They ran to 20 “articles” - as each numbered clause was now termed - over eleven pages, including revised “Recommended Arbitration Clauses” for future and existing disputes and a new Schedule of Costs. The 1985 Rules introduced features which were innovative and which remain features of LCIA arbitration today. For example, the first article, dealing with the request for arbitration, was now followed by an article expressly permitting the Respondent to submit a response. The provisions dealing with the appointment of arbitrators were greatly expanded and included, for the first time, the express right to challenge an arbitrator “if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence.”

Under the 1985 Rules the parties were free to choose the place of arbitration, but London was introduced as the default seat unless the tribunal determined another place to be more appropriate. Other now familiar features appeared, including a list of nine Additional Powers of the tribunal, specific provisions on determining jurisdiction (including imposing a timelimit for raising objections) and the introduction of a mechanism for payment of deposits on account of the costs of the arbitration.Importantly the Rules introduced a new ‘put up or shut up’ provision such that if a party knew any requirement under the Rules had not been complied with but proceeded with the arbitration without objection, they would be deemed to have waived the right to object.

It was 13 years before the next edition ofthe LCIA Rules was introduced on 1st January 1998. They built on the existing Rules but were substantially expanded, running now to 32 articles. They were updated to tackle topical issues of the day, such as appointment of the tribunal in multiparty arbitrations, confidentiality and preventing are calcitrant arbitrator from thwarting the proceedings by refusing to participate. The Rules were also brought into conformity with recent arbitration legislation, in particular the Arbitration Act 1996 which had entered into force a year previously. The tribunal’s general duties were amended to reflect the requirement for the tribunal (i) to act fairly and impartially as between all parties, giving each a reasonable opportunity of putting its case and dealing with that of its opponent, and (ii) to adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the arbitration, avoiding unnecessary delay or expense, so as to provide a fair and efficient means for the resolution of the parties’ dispute. The language used in the LCIA Rules was lifted almost verbatim from the 1996 Act, which had itself been the product of much hard work and a broad consultation exercise. There was little point reinventing the wheel. Again, however, the opportunity for innovation was seized and no provision better reflects this in my view than the expedited formation of a tribunal in what was then article 9. This has become a distinguishing and defining feature of LCIA arbitration. It reflected the LCIA’s recognition that in some cases the need for fast, effective relief was such that it could not await the normal process for constitution of the tribunal. Combined with tribunal powers to grant interim and conservatory measures under Article 25,the LCIA Rules now provided an explicit mechanism for tackling cases requiring urgent relief. Other mechanisms addressing this need have followed, includingof course the appointment of an emergency arbitrator which was first introduced by the ICDR several years later in 2006 and appears in the current LCIA Rulesat Article 9B. In 1998, however, expedited formation of the tribunal was a game--changer.

The 1998 edition of the Rules again stood the test of time, but they too were revised and replaced by the current version which came into force on 1st October 2014. Reflecting the globalisation of the world economy, the arbitration landscape had gone through great changes in the intervening period. The size, variety and complexity of disputes, the diversity of parties involved and the range of legal cultures of the counsel conducting them, had transformed international arbitration. Whether it was a result of the evolution of mega-arbitrations or simply an escalation in lawyer tactics, the number of arbitrations involving huge disclosure exercises, massive pleadings and lengthy hearings had multiplied and even appeared to infect much smaller cases. This was met with a backlash that is still being felt today, withever-increasing demands for arbitrators and institutions to take control,proactively manage proceedings, and sanction against excesses.

The 2014 LCIA Rules, still comprising 32 Articles (but with sub-divisions of Article 9), introduced a number of important changes aimed in part at least to meet these concerns. Notably articles 9A, 9B and 9C preserved the expedited formation of the tribunal, but added an emergency arbitrator mechanism and provision for the expedited appointment of replacement arbitrators. A requirement for tribunals to setaside adequate time for deliberations and to notify both this and the timetable for producing the award were added. The revised Rules also introduced the online filing of requests for arbitration, as well as powers to consolidate arbitrations and a requirement for arbitrators to declare their availability to deal with the case, among many other changes. A key innovation was the introduction of Annex A to the Rules, providing guidelines on the standards of behaviour expected from parties’ legal representatives. It was a bold addition but one which reflects the values of the LCIA and its concern to ensure notjust that arbitrations are conducted so far as possible in a constructive and appropriate manner, but also that parties’ counsel know the standards that are expected of them in LCIA arbitrations.

The manner in which the Rules have evolved has therefore been a progressive exercise, with each edition of the Rules building on what has gone before. Given the successful application of the Rules over several decades, wholesale changes are not only unnecessary but potentially hugely damaging. History shows us that the LCIA need not be shy about introducing innovative provisions if they enhance the process or help meet the demands of users. That is not to say the LCIA should adopt every latest fad, but changes should be based on pragmatism and take account of practical experience with the Rules in the arbitration market place.

This brings us to the present day. The challenges that arbitration now faces are in many respects similar to those with which it has been grappling for many years, but with an additional set of demands delivered by a technological revolution. These include cybersecurity and the question of how, in an era where email is the communication of choicein many arbitrations, hardware, software and data can be protected from attack by malignant forces. The demanding regulatory regime imposed by the EU’s  General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), with its extra-territorial effect,is another minefield. Many would applaud its aims but the practical implementation of GDPR causes alarm for many as they struggle to comprehend both the nature of the obligations imposed upon them and the practical steps necessary to fulfil the requirements of this far reaching but rather opaque law. These are pressing issues not just for the LCIA but for all arbitrators,counsel and parties involved in international arbitration. They are subjects of intense interest within the international arbitration community, and the LCIA is endeavouring to respond, for example by establishing a working group to draft guidelines listing issues for arbitrators to consider in relation to the GDPR.

Against this backdrop now seems an appropriate time for a review of the LCIA Rules to consider whether they provide the right balance of tools to allow both LCIA tribunals and the institution to address the challenges of arbitration, now and in the years to come. We shall look at areas where law and practice have moved on, to see if changes are needed. We shall look at whether guidance given by the LCIA, for example with regard to the use of tribunal secretaries, should become part of the Rules themselves. We shall look at whether the tribunal has all the powers it needs to conduct the most efficient and cost-effective arbitrations, whether we can do more to ensure tribunals perform at optimum levels and whether more can be done to help parties resolve their disputes. We shall consider all the views and comments expressed during our Tylney discussions and in follow up communications, and we welcome further input from others who have not yet had the opportunity to contribute their experiences. There will be no changes just for the sake of it and no unnecessary meddling, but the LCIA has achieved great success since the first Rules of 1981, and indeed in the last 125 years, by responding dynamically to the needs of the arbitration community, albeit in acareful and measured way. This seems to me to be an excellent blueprint for the next 125 years.

By Judith Gill QC 

                                                                                                                来源：微信公众号 临时仲裁ADA