作者 |王昊東 UNSW LLB
一審 |趙逸之 北京大學
編輯 | 蘇 桐 華中科技大學本科
責編 | 馮雨萱 北京大學J.D.&J.M.
劉一賢 國際關係學院本科
一、引入
獨立性原則（Separability Principle）是國際仲裁中的基本原則，這一原則指出仲裁協議（Arbitration Agreement）和主合同（Underlying Contract）是“可分割的”且“相互獨立的”。具體來說，這一原則有兩方面的應用，第一，主合同和仲裁協議和可以適用不同的準據法，第二，主合同無效並不會導致仲裁協議無效。這一原則在《聯合國國際貿易法委員會仲裁示範法》（UNCITRAL Model Law）[1]、《紐約公約》（New York Convention）[2] 中都得到了承認。[3] 這一原則能夠防止當事人透過策略性論點來挑戰仲裁的管轄權，試圖以主合同無效或可撤銷為由來阻撓仲裁的行為是不現實的，從而保障了仲裁的高效進行。然而，仲裁條款獨立性原則的適用範圍一直存在爭議，爭論的焦點在於該原則是否存在適用的限制或例外情形。本文介紹的案例DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v Gemini Ocean Shipping (以下簡稱“Newcastle Express案”) [4] 明確了這一原則的適用範圍，法院認為仲裁協議的獨立性原則僅適用於合同成立後的情形，而不適用於合同訂立階段（尚未達成合意）。
二、案件背景介紹
在Newcastle Express案中，租船人DHL與船東Gemini圍繞從澳大利亞紐卡斯爾到中國舟山的租船合同進行談判。雙方透過經紀人就合同的主要條款達成一致，但合同附加了“託運人/收貨人批准”的條件。由於未透過相關檢查，租船人通知船東安排替代船隻，並宣佈不再使用“Newcastle Express”號船。然而，船東認為仲裁條款已經生效，啟動了仲裁程式，並且仲裁作出了不利於租船人的裁決。
（圖片源於網路）
隨後，租船人提起上訴，對仲裁員的管轄權提出質疑，主張仲裁員無權裁定本案，因為“託運人/收貨人批准”條款是整個合同生效的前提條件（法官在判決中認定這一條款為合同成立的前提條件），這一條件未被滿足，導致整個合同包含仲裁協議都沒有生效（儘管租船人主張合同沒有生效，最後法院判決的理由是合同沒有成立）。船東則援引獨立性原則，主張仲裁協議獨立於主合同，應屬有效。
三、爭議焦點
仲裁條款獨立性原則是否適用。具體來說，雙方爭議在於，租船合同中附加的“託運人/收貨人批准”條款是否阻止了合同及仲裁條款的成立/生效。船東主張即使主合同未生效，仲裁條款仍應獨立存在；而租船人則認為，由於該批准條件未滿足，整個合同，包括仲裁條款，都不具約束力。
四、判決摘要
43.The separability principle, holding that an arbitration agreement is, or must be treated as, a contract which is separate from the main contract of which it forms part, is widely accepted internationally. It is an important concept for arbitration lawyers, although it may be questioned how many business people who include an arbitration clause in their contracts are aware that it exists.
仲裁條款獨立性原則指出，仲裁協議必須被視為一個獨立於主合同的合同，這一原則在國際被廣泛接受。這對於仲裁律師來說是一個極其重要的概念，然而，對於包含仲裁條款的合同，可能許多當事人都不知道仲裁條款的存在。
44.The application of the separability principle to the initial validity of a main contract in English law was confirmed by the important case of Harbour v Kansa. In that case the parties entered into a reinsurance contract containing an arbitration clause. However, the reinsurer contended that, because the reinsured was not registered or approved to carry on reinsurance business in Great Britain under the Insurance Companies Act 1974 and 1981, the contract was void for illegality. The question was whether an arbitrator appointed pursuant to the arbitration clause had jurisdiction to determine this issue.
在Harbour v Kansa [5] 這一重要案件中，英格蘭法律對主合同初始有效性適用獨立 性原則的規定予以確認。在該案中，雙方簽訂了一份包含仲裁條款的再保險合同。然而，再保險人辯稱，由於再保險人未根據《1974年保險公司法》和《1981年保險公司法》在英國註冊或獲准提供再保險業務[6]，因此合同因違法而無效。核心問題是，在英格蘭法律項下，由仲裁條款所指定的仲裁員是否具有裁決此類爭議的管轄權。
45.At first instance Mr Justice Steyn held that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction, but his reasoning is important for an understanding of this case and the later case of Fiona Trust. He said this ([1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 81, 86 col 2):
在Harbour v Kansa案一審中，Steyn法官 [7] 認為仲裁員沒有管轄權，但他的論證對於理解本案及後來的Fiona Trust v Privalov案 [8] 非常重要。他是這樣說的（[1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 81, 86 col 2）：
“The foundation of an arbitrator’s authority is the arbitration agreement. If the arbitration agreement does not in truth exist, the arbitrator has no authority to decide anything. Similarly, if there is an issue as to whether the arbitration agreement exists, that issue can only be resolved by the Court. For example, if the issue is whether a party ever assented to a contract containing an arbitration clause, the issue of lack of consensus impeaches the arbitration agreement itself. ”
“仲裁員權力的基礎是仲裁協議。如果仲裁協議實際上並不存在，仲裁員就無權決定任何事情。因此，如果就“仲裁協議是否存在”存在爭議，該爭議不能有仲裁員裁定，而只能由法院解決。例如，如果爭議的關鍵在於，一方當事人是否曾對包含仲裁協議的合同整體表示同意，那麼缺乏一致的意思表示就會影響仲裁協議本身。”
Similarly, the arbitration agreement itself can be directly impeached on the ground that the arbitration agreement itself is void for vagueness, void for mistake, avoided on the ground of misrepresentation, duress, and so forth. All such disputes fall outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, no matter how widely drawn, and are obviously outside the arbitrator’s jurisdiction. The scope of the principle of the separability of the arbitration agreement only arises for consideration where the challenge is directed at the contract, which contains an arbitration clause. This fundamental distinction requires the Court to pay close attention to the precise nature of each dispute.”
“同樣，如果仲裁協議本身因表意不清、錯誤、虛假陳述、脅迫等原因而無效，仲裁協議本身也會直接受到質疑。無論仲裁協議的範圍有多大，上述原因都不屬於仲裁協議的範圍，顯然也就不屬於仲裁員的管轄範圍。只有當爭議針對的是包含仲裁協議的合同整體時，仲裁協議獨立性原則的範圍才需要被考慮。這一根本區別要求法院準確識別每一項爭議的確切性質。”
（圖片來源於網路）
46.This passage appears to be the origin in English law of the concept of an issue which “impeaches” an arbitration agreement. It is an important passage, which needs to be unpacked. Mr Justice Steyn distinguished between two situations. The first is where the dispute is whether a party ever assented to a contract containing an arbitration clause, that is to say where the argument is that “I never agreed to that” or “our negotiations never got as far as a binding contract”. That is an issue of contract formation, concerned with issues such as offer and acceptance and intention to create legal relations.
上述這段表述似乎是英格蘭法律中“‘質疑’仲裁協議”這一概念的起源。這段話非常重要，需要加以解讀。Steyn法官區分了兩種情形。第一種情形是，爭議的焦點是一方當事人是否曾經同意過包含仲裁條款的合同，也就是說，一方可能辯稱“我從未同意過”或“我們的談判還沒到訂立合同的地步”，這是合同成立的問題，涉及要約、承諾以及建立法律關係的意圖等問題。
The second situation is where the parties did assent to the terms of the contract containing an arbitration clause, but their agreement is invalidated on some legal ground which renders the contract void or voidable. That is an issue of contract validity. The parties did agree, but one of them is contending that the agreement is invalidated.
第二種情形是，當時人確實同意了包含仲裁協議的合同，但他們的合意因為某些法律原因存在瑕疵，從而導致合同無效或可撤銷，這是合同生效的問題，即雙方當事人的確成功訂立了合同，但其中一方聲稱合同無效。
47.The passage makes clear that, where the issue is one of contract formation, it will generally impeach the arbitration clause: the argument “I never agreed to that” applies to the arbitration clause as much as it does to any other part of the contract. But where the issue is one of contract validity, that is not necessarily so. It is necessary “to pay close attention to the precise nature of each dispute” in order to see whether the ground on which the main contract is attacked is one which also impeaches the arbitration clause.
這段話清楚地表明，如果爭議焦點涉及合同的成立，一般會對仲裁條款的效力產生影響，具體來說“我從未同意過”這樣的論點就像適用於合同的其他部分一樣適用於仲裁條款。但如果問題涉及合同生效，則不一定如此。因此，有必要“準確識別每一項爭議的確切性質”，以確定影響主合同效力的因素是否也會影響仲裁協議的效力。
（圖片來源於網路）
48. Harbour v Kansa was a case where the issue was one of contract validity, not contract formation. There was no doubt that the parties had in fact agreed the reinsurance contract, which included an arbitration clause. In those circumstances Mr Justice Steyn would have wished to hold that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the parties’ dispute. The particular issue of illegality (the fact that the reinsured was not registered) did not impeach, and in fact had nothing to do with, the validity of the separate arbitration agreement contained in the reinsurance contract. But he held that he was constrained to hold otherwise by the decision of this court in David Taylor & Son Ltd v Barnett Trading Co [1953] 1 WLR 562.
在Harbour v Kansa案中，爭議焦點在於合同的是否生效，而非合同是否成立。毫無疑問，雙方當事人事實上已就再保險合同達成合意，顯然合意的內容包括仲裁條款。在此情形下，Steyn法官認定仲裁員有權裁決雙方的爭議，其認為再保險人未註冊這一非法性問題與仲裁協議的有效性無關，因此對仲裁協議不會產生任何影響。但是同時他認為，本案[9]法院在David Taylor & Son Ltd v Barnett Trading案中作出過判決對其具有約束力，因此他不得不做出相反的裁決。
49. An appeal to this court was allowed, on the ground that the earlier decision in the David Taylor case did not require the conclusion that an arbitrator had no jurisdiction to determine an issue of contractual illegality. Two points should be noted. First, all three members of the court approved the reasoning of Mr Justice Steyn in all respects, save for his view that he was bound by the David Taylor case. Second, all three members of the court emphasised that Harbour v Kansa was a case of what I have called contract validity, not contract formation.
綜上，本法院允許上訴，理由是David Taylor案並未規定仲裁員無權裁定合同非法性的相關爭議。最後，需要注意兩點，首先，本案的三位法官均認可Steyn法官的所有論證，但並不認可他認為自己受David Taylor案約束的那部分觀點。其次，三位法官都強調，Harbour v Kansa案涉及的是合同生效問題，而不是合同成立問題。
五、總結與分析
本案進一步明確了仲裁條款獨立性原則的適用範圍，其適用有一個很大的限制，即合同是否已經形成訂立的合意。如果合同未能形成有效的合意，則主合同和仲裁協議均不能成立，除此之外，在實踐中如果就合同是否成立存在爭議（如雙方對是否達成合意存在爭議），必須交由法院解決，仲裁員無權作出裁定。
本案明確了仲裁條款獨立性原則適用中合同成立（contract formation）和合同生效（contract validity）之間的分界線，如果問題出現在合同成立前，則仲裁協議會因為根本沒有成立而受到質疑，例如，一方主張“從未達成合意”，這不僅適用在主合同上，也同樣適用在仲裁協議上。但是，如果問題出現在合同成立後（生效階段），則需要考慮問題是否會直接影響仲裁協議的效力，例如，一方主張“因受到欺詐/脅迫才簽訂了這份合同”，這隻會讓主合同的效力存在瑕疵，處於可撤銷狀態（violable），主合同被撤銷並不會導致仲裁協議被撤銷，因為仲裁協議的效力並不存在瑕疵（除非能夠證明欺詐/脅迫是針對仲裁協議的）。
（圖片來源於網路）
本案認為仲裁員無權裁決是因為合同附加了“託運人/收貨人批准”的條款，法院認為這一條款是合同成立的“先決條件”（contingent condition to formation），即如果這一條件未被滿足則合同未成立（在本案中包括仲裁協議和主合同）。而因為缺乏有效的仲裁協議，仲裁員對這一爭議沒有管轄權。
作者注：
[1] See Article II and Article V(1)(a).
[2] See Art 16 (1).
[3] Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2021) §3.03.
[4] 判決原文見https://knyvet.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/1555.html.
[5] See [1992] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 81; [1993] QB 701; and [1994] Arbitration International at p. 194.[6] See Section 6 of the Insurance Companies Act 1974 and Section 3 (2) of the Insurance Companies Act 1981.[7] Steyn法官並不是本案法官，但其在Harbour v Kansa案中相關的論證對本判決非常重要.[8] 判決原文見https://knyvet.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/20.html. [9] 指Harbour v Kansa.