法律翻譯|ICC仲裁院作出的仲裁裁決的撤銷應當適用《美國聯邦仲裁法》

譯者 | 丁宇欣國際關係學院本科

一審 | peipei 布里斯托大學

二審 | 左亦惟康奈爾大學LL.M.

編輯 | Loca 中國社會科學院大學碩士

lzzy. 美國西北大學LL.M

責編 | 扎恩哈爾新疆農業大學

ICC仲裁院作出的仲裁裁決的撤銷應當適用《美國聯邦仲裁法》

案件介紹

2022年，美國第十一巡迴上訴法院在Corporacion AIC, SA v. Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A.一案中首次回應：對於ICC仲裁院作出的、仲裁地在美國的仲裁裁決，此種裁決的撤銷應當適用《美國聯邦仲裁法》第一章的規定，而非《紐約公約》的規定，因為上述裁決並非《紐約公約》意義上的“國際仲裁裁決”，而是《美國聯邦仲裁法》意義上的“美國仲裁裁決”，應當受《美國聯邦仲裁法》的約束。本案中，“撤銷仲裁裁決”法律依據的改變，將會深刻影響之後由ICC仲裁院作出的、仲裁地在美國的仲裁裁決。

一、背景

Background

This matter involves both a petition to confirm an international arbitration award by Petitioner HSR and a motion to vacate that award by Respondent AICSA. AICSA originally moved to vacate the award in 2019 in a separate action, and this Court denied the motion to vacate under the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' then-applicable standards. HSR then filed its petition to confirm the award in this action.

本案涉及原告 HSR 申請確認一項國際仲裁裁決的訴狀和被告 AICSA 申請撤銷該裁決的動議。AICSA 於 2019 年的另案訴訟中首次提出撤銷裁決的動議，本法院根據當時第十一巡迴上訴法院適用的標準駁回了撤銷動議。HSR 隨後提出申請，要求在本訴訟中確認裁決。

The Court stayed both cases during the pendency of AICSA's appeal. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled its prior precedent and determined that the domestic standards for vacatur in the Federal Arbitration Act govern vacatur of international arbitration awards under the New York Convention. Following the Eleventh Circuit's remand, the Court consolidated both cases and now considers both HSR's petition for confirmation of the award and AICSA's motion to vacate the award.

法院在 AICSA 的上訴期間中止了兩起案件的審理。在上訴中，第十一巡迴上訴法院對本案重新審理，並一致同意推翻先例，確定《聯邦仲裁法》中關於撤銷的國內標準同樣適用於《紐約公約》國際仲裁裁決的撤銷的情形。在第十一巡迴上訴法院發回重審後，法院將兩案合併審理，現在同時審理 HSR 要求確認裁決的請求和 AICSA 要求撤銷裁決的請求。

The international arbitration award itself relates to the parties' contract for the construction of a hydroelectric power plant in Guatemala. HSR “engaged AICSA for the full turnkey design, engineering, procurement, construction, start-up and commissioning of a power plant”. HSR stopped AICSA's work in 2013 under a force majeure notice and later terminated that construction contract (the “EPC Contract”) in 2015. HSR then initiated an international arbitration proceeding in accordance with the parties' contract.

該國際仲裁裁決與雙方在瓜地馬拉建造水電站的合同有關。HSR “委託 AICSA 進行發電廠的全包設計、工程、採購、施工、啟動和試執行”。HSR 於 2013 年由於不可抗力通知停止了 AICSA 的工作，隨後於 2015 年終止了該施工合同（“EPC 合同”）。隨後，HSR 根據雙方合同啟動了國際仲裁程式。

The arbitral panel (the “Tribunal”) eventually issued an 80-page award addressing HSR's and AICSA's claims in full, awarding HSR $7,017,231.52 but declaring neither party to be the “clear winner” in light of all the claims and issues that the Tribunal resolved.

仲裁小組（“仲裁庭”）最終釋出了一份長達 80 頁的裁決書，全面解決了 HSR 和 AICSA 的索賠要求，裁決 AICSA 向HSR 支付 7,017,231.52 美元，但鑑於仲裁庭解決的所有索賠要求和問題，仲裁庭認為任何一方都不是 “明顯的贏家”。

AICSA challenges the award on the grounds that the arbitral panel purportedly “exceeded their powers” by failing to follow the terms of the EPC Contract and by failing to follow Guatemalan law in determining the award. HSR, in turn, contends that AICSA seeks an improper “second bite at the apple” by asking the Court to “dig into the facts” and “reconsider the decision of the Tribunal.”With the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Corporacion AIC in mind, the Court reviews AICSA's arguments for vacatur of the award in full.

AICSA 對裁決提出異議，理由是仲裁小組 “越權”，在決定裁決時沒有遵循 EPC 合同的條款，也沒有遵循瓜地馬拉法律確定裁決。HSR 則認為，AICSA 要求法院 “重新調查事實 ”並 “重新審議仲裁庭的裁決”，是在尋求不正當的 “第二次獲利”。考慮到第十一巡迴上訴法院對AIC公司案的判決，本院全面審查了AICSA撤銷裁決的主張。

（圖片來源於網路）

二、法律標準

Legal Standard

The parties do not dispute that the arbitration at issue here is governed by the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration. With respect to enforcement matters and interpretation, the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the Panama Convention are substantially identical. Thus, the case law interpreting provisions of the New York Convention are largely applicable to the Panama Convention and vice versa.

雙方當事人對本案所涉仲裁受《美洲國際商事仲裁公約》管轄這一點沒有爭議。在執行事項和解釋方面，《承認及執行外國仲裁裁決紐約公約》和《巴拿馬公約》在實質上是相同的。因此，適用於《紐約公約》條款的判例在很大程度上也適用於《巴拿馬公約》，反之亦然。

To determine whether an international; arbitration award may be vacated, courts in the Eleventh Circuit now look to Section 208 of the FAA.Section 208, in turn, “contemplates that the grounds for vacatur are the ones set out in Chapter 1 of the FAA.” In Section 10 of Chapter 1 of the FAA, the following grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award are identified:

為了確定是否可以撤銷國際仲裁裁決，第十一巡迴上訴法院現依據《聯邦仲裁法》第 208 條規定進行審查。第208條規定， “撤銷裁決的依據應參照《聯邦仲裁法》第一章中的相關規定”。在《聯邦仲裁法》第 1 章第 10 節中，列明瞭以下撤銷仲裁裁決的理由：

where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;

裁決是以腐敗、欺詐或不正當手段獲得的；

where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;

仲裁員或者仲裁員之一存在明顯的偏袒或腐敗行為;

where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or

仲裁員行為不當，在有當事人有充分理由的情況下拒絕延期審理，或拒絕聽取與爭議有關的重要證據；或有任何其他不當行為，致使任何一方當事人的權利受到損害；或

where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

仲裁員超越其許可權，或在執行權力時存在嚴重瑕疵，以致未能就所提交的事項作出雙方一致同意的、最終的和明確的裁決。

（圖片來源於網路）

三、分析

Analysis

AICSA fails at every step to overcome the “high hurdle” to meet the standard required for vacatur of an arbitration award on the basis that the arbitrators exceeded their powers. Rather, AICSA seeks to relitigate each issue it raises and to have the Court second-guess the decisions of the Tribunal with which AICSA disagrees.

AICSA 在各個方面均未能克服撤銷仲裁裁決的“高門檻”，這一標準要求證明仲裁員超越了其許可權。相反，AICSA 試圖對其提出的每一個問題都重新審理，並讓法院對 AICSA 不同意的仲裁庭裁決進行重新評估。

Even if AICSA is correct that the Tribunal erred in some of its decisions, the Court may not disturb those decisions here. Each of the Tribunal's decisions is based on the terms of the parties' EPC Contract or is otherwise not reviewable here, so the Court cannot find that the Tribunal “dispense[d] [its] own brand of industrial justice.” Accordingly, the Award must be confirmed.

即使AICSA 正確地指出仲裁庭的某些裁決確實有誤，法院也不能干預這些裁決。仲裁庭的每項裁決都基於雙方的 EPC 合同條款，或者在此不具備可審查性，因此法院不能認定仲裁庭 “實施了[其]自定的正義”。因此，裁決必須得到確認。

A. The Tribunal did not exceed its powers by requiring AICSA to maintain the advance payment bonds or, if those bonds had expired, to obtain new bonds.

A. 仲裁庭要求 AICSA 維持預付款保函，或在保函到期時取得新的保函，這並沒有超越其許可權。

B. The Tribunal did not exceed its powers by denying AICSA's claim that HSR breached the EPC Contract's anti-corruption provisions.

B. 仲裁庭駁回 AICSA 關於 HSR 違反 EPC 合同反腐敗條款的主張並未超越其許可權。

C. The Tribunal did not exceed its powers by refusing to join a subcontractor to the arbitration proceeding.

C. 仲裁庭拒絕分包商加入仲裁程式並沒有超越其許可權。

D.The Tribunal did not exceed its powers by denying AICSA's claim for lost profits or by awarding HSR interest on advance payments.

D. 仲裁庭駁回 AICSA 的利潤損失索賠，或判定 HSR 支付預付款利息，並未超越其許可權。

E. The Tribunal did not exceed its powers by denying AICSA's claim for attorneys' fees and costs where AICSA was not the clear winner in the underlying arbitration.

E. 仲裁庭沒有超越其許可權拒絕AICSA對律師費和訴訟費的索賠，因為AICSA在基礎仲裁中並不是明顯的贏家。

（圖片來源於網路）

四、結論

Conclusion

In sum, because the Court has found no grounds upon which to refuse to recognize or enforce the arbitration award, and no grounds on which to vacate the award, the Court must confirm the award. The Court grants the Petitioner's Petition to Confirm and Enforce the Arbitration Award. The Court will separately enter final judgment in favor Hidroelectrica Santa Rita, S.A. and against Corporation AIC, S.A, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Court directs the Clerk to close this case. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

總之，由於法院未發現拒絕承認或執行仲裁裁決的理由，也沒有發現撤銷裁決的理由，法院必須確認該裁決。法院准許原告關於確認和執行仲裁裁決的請求。根據《聯邦民事訴訟程式規則》第 58 條的規定，法院將分別作出有利於 Hidroelectrica Santa Rita, S.A.公司（HSR）和不利於 Corporation AIC, S.A.公司（AICSA）的終審判決。法院駁回本案，原告不得再以同一事由重新提起訴訟。法院指示書記員結案。任何未決的動議都被視為沒有實際意義而不予受理。