翻譯｜張奧傑 新南威爾士大學法學院 LL.M.

一審｜郝林樺 西南政法大學

二審｜胡婧卓 UCLA LL.M.

編輯｜林   薇 西南政法大學本科

Edward Lu, Dimitri Phillips, Jingyi Hu

The advantages and disadvantages of arbitration in general are well known, at least among lawyers, but what about in the eyes of Chinese parties specifically? While caseloads are steadily increasing for arbitral institutions in China,[1] notably among major institutions such as the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC), the Shanghai International Arbitration Center (SHIAC), and Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA)[2], such statistics do not necessarily show a preference in China for this form of dispute resolution. Setting to one side the preferences of foreign parties who end up arbitrating in China and the circumstances in which arbitration is not available to resolve certain commercial disputes, there are distinct pros and cons for Chinese commercial parties seeking to decide whether and when to choose arbitration over litigation to resolve disputes.

（圖片來源於網路）

Arbitration has long been lauded as superior to litigation, at least by some and in certain circumstances, boasting privacy and confidentiality, greater flexibility and better finality and enforceability.

仲裁長期以來被一些人認為優於訴訟，在某些情況下，仲裁具有隱私性、保密性、更大的靈活性以及終局性和更好的可執行性。

First, while court cases are, at least usually, partly public, commercial arbitrations are almost always private. This can protect disputants’ interests in several respects- often, both sides are happy to keep cases in confidence. Second, party autonomy means that parties can generally tailor the arbitration process to an extent and choose arbitrators with expertise in relevant fields. Third, arbitral awards are generally final and binding, with limited possibilities for appealing against or setting them aside. Recognition and enforcement of awards internationally benefit from the New York Convention 1958, which provides exclusive and limited grounds for resisting enforcement.

首先，雖然法院案件至少在通常情況下是部分公開的，但商業仲裁幾乎完全是保密的。這在多方面保護了爭議雙方的利益，因為通常雙方都樂於對案件保密。其次，當事人的自主權意味著雙方通常可以在一定程度上調整仲裁程式，並選擇在相關領域具有專業知識的仲裁員。第三，仲裁裁決通常是終局性的且具有約束力，針對裁決本身上訴或撤銷仲裁裁決的可能性有限。國際上對裁決的承認和執行得益於1958年《紐約公約》的規定，該公約明確了拒絕執行的排他且有限的抗辯理由。

Other purported advantages of arbitration are less clear or common. Although it was advertised (and likely was in reality) as having been more economical, many parties now deem arbitration more expensive; some say the same about the time it takes to resolve a dispute through arbitration, particularly when factoring in the time for enforcing an award. 

仲裁所謂的其他優勢則不那麼明顯或常見。雖然仲裁曾被宣傳為成本更低（實際上大多也確實如此），但現在仍有許多當事人認為仲裁的費用比訴訟更高。相似地，一些人認為將執行裁決所需的時間考慮在內時，仲裁解決爭議所需的時間比訴訟更長。

Even confidentiality, flexibility and enforceability are questionable. Enforcing an award often (if not usually) calls for court proceedings, rendering the dispute at least partly public after all. Arbitral institutions’ rules have grown more elaborate while, on the other hand, parties sometimes complain about arbitrators taking too many liberties with procedural ‘flexibilities’. Court judgments are increasingly becoming more widely enforceable across borders,[3] either via treaties or the principle of reciprocity. Furthermore, the greater ambit and efficiency of litigation in relation to certain types of case is difficult to gainsay – for example, in resolving disputes involving a web of parties and contracts(particularly if some of the relevant parties are not directly bound by contracts or some relevant contracts do not contain arbitration clauses).

此外，仲裁的保密性、靈活性和可執行性也存在爭議。執行裁決通常需要透過法院程式進行，這使得爭議在某種程度上被公開。另一方面，仲裁機構的規則日益複雜，當事人時常會抱怨仲裁員在仲裁程式的“靈活性”方面上太過自由。而與之相對，法院判決透過條約和互惠原則在國際上的可執行性日益增強。[3]此外，就某些型別的案件而言，訴訟的範圍更廣、效率更高，這點難以否認。例如，在解決涉及多方當事人和多份合同的爭議中，特別是如果某些相關當事人並未直接受合同約束，或某些合同不包含仲裁條款時。

（圖片來源於網路）

Before delving deeper into the perspectives of Chinese parties to arbitration, the limitations of this dispute resolution method under PRC law need to be considered.

在深入探討中國當事人對於仲裁的觀點之前，需要考慮中國法律下這一爭議解決方式的限制。

First, except in maritime disputes, ad hoc arbitration is generally not permitted or recognised in China, although there have been a number of developments in this regard relatively recently. [4] In other words, if the seat of arbitration is to be China, the arbitration usually has to be administered by an arbitral institution. Traditionally, only a Chinese arbitral institution may administer a China-seated arbitration, but this appears to be changing now, with PRC courts supportive of foreign institutions administering arbitrations within China. [5]

首先，在中國，除海事爭議外，儘管最近在這方面取得了一些進展，然而臨時仲裁一般仍不被允許或承認。[4] 換句話說，如果仲裁地點設在中國，仲裁通常必須由一個仲裁機構管理。一般來說，只有中國法項下的仲裁機構可以管理在中國進行的仲裁，但這一情況似乎正有所改變，中國法院對外國機構在中國管理仲裁持支援態度。[5]

Second, as in many other jurisdictions, certain types of dispute are not arbitrable. Under PRC law, the most common types of non-arbitrable dispute include those involving marriage, adoption, guardianship and inheritance, as well ascertain aspects of disputes relating to intellectual property (IP), [6] bankruptcy, [7] and antitrust (competition law). [8] If a party seeks to arbitrate such a dispute in China, either an arbitral institution will refuse the application, or a PRC court will (1) refuse to recognise the arbitration agreement, or (2) set aside and refuse to recognise a resulting award.

其次，與許多其他司法管轄區一樣，某些特定型別的爭議在中國是不可仲裁的。根據中華人民共和國法律，最常見的不可仲裁爭議型別包括婚姻、收養、監護和繼承相關的爭議，以及某些涉及智慧財產權（IP）[6]、破產[7]和反壟斷（競爭法）[8]方面的爭議。如果一方當事人試圖在中國仲裁此類爭議，仲裁機構要麼會拒絕該申請，要麼中華人民共和國法院會拒絕承認仲裁協議，或者撤銷並拒絕承認仲裁裁決。

Third, under PRC law and court practice, if a dispute does not genuinely have one of a prescribed set of foreign-related elements, it is not permitted to be arbitrated outside China by local parties, (9) unless at least one of them is domiciled in a designated free trade zone. (10) Such disputescan, however, be arbitrated domestically. If a foreign arbitral award is obtained in relation to such a non-foreign-related dispute, a PRC court will likely refuse to enforce it.

第三，根據中華人民共和國法律和法院實踐，如果一項爭議無涉外因素，則不允許本地當事人在中國境外進行仲裁，(9)除非至少有一方當事人註冊於指定的自由貿易區。(10) 沒有涉外因素的爭議仍可以在國內仲裁。如果在此類沒有涉外因素的爭議獲得了外國仲裁裁決，中華人民共和國法院很可能會拒絕執行該裁決。

All of the above are limiting factors for Chinese parties considering whether to arbitrate or litigate a dispute. Setting these to one aside, Chinese parties generally do or can consider a number of pros and cons in attempting to resolve disputes by arbitration instead of litigation.

（圖片來源於網路）

By comparison with most (if not all) other countries, differences as to the law, businesses models, general practice and culture in China generate unique factors which affect the calculations of Chinese parties considering whether to arbitrate or to litigate.

與大多數其他國家相比，中國在法律、商業模式、一般實踐和文化等方面的差異產生了獨特的因素，這些因素影響著中國當事人在考慮仲裁或訴訟時的決策。

First, while the common pros and cons of arbitration discussed above apply to a certain extent in China, there are some important differences. For example, most court cases in China are less public than in jurisdictions such as those of the US and Europe. While the filing of a case is usually on the record, the parties’ submissions usually are not, and a relatively small proportion of decisions are made public. That said, image is arguably more important in China than in many other places, so that Chinese parties may choose arbitration in an attempt to avoid even the least degree of ‘bad press’. Similarly, arbitration may appear less confrontational, which accords better with Chinese sensibilities, though this difference may be fading over time. Of course, a Chinese party considering the option of litigation in a foreign court is likely, for these reasons, to prefer arbitration (whether in China or abroad).

首先，雖然上文討論的仲裁普遍的優缺點在一定程度上適用於中國，但也存在一些重要差異。例如，中國的大多數法院案件的公開程度低於美國和歐洲等司法管轄區。雖然案件的立案通常是公開的，但當事方的陳述則不然，而且公開的判決比例相對較小。儘管如此，由於形象在中國比許多其他地方更為重要，中國當事人可能會選擇仲裁，以避免即使是最輕微的“負面報道”。同樣，仲裁可能顯得沒有那麼強的對抗性，這更符合中國人的人情觀念，儘管這種差異可能會隨著時間的推移而減弱。當然，出於這些原因，將在外國法院進行訴訟作為備選項的中國當事人可能更傾向於選擇仲裁（無論是在大陸還是在其他地區）。

Flexibility may be less of an advantage in China-seated arbitration because, on the one hand, court proceedings are usually less elaborate than in jurisdictions such as the US, while on the other hand, arbitrations (usually administered through arbitral institutions) can face uncommon procedural strictures. Another key difference between China and many other countries is the availability of or method for obtaining interim relief. PRC courts will not recognise or enforce interim relief measures ordered by arbitral tribunals (though foreign courts may enforce such measures); instead, parties must apply to the PRC courts(through the relevant arbitral institution) for interim measures in aid of arbitration proceedings, and the procedure may take longer than that for obtaining interim relief in a typical litigation proceeding. [11] When the choice is between a foreign court and arbitration, however, Chinese parties may prefer the latter, precisely because the proceedings may be more convenient (and, in arbitrations seated abroad, interim measures may be available directly from arbitral tribunals).

在中國的仲裁中，靈活性可能並不是一個顯著的優勢。因為一方面，法院程式通常比美國等司法管轄區更為簡便；另一方面，仲裁（通常由仲裁機構管理）可能會面臨不常見的程式限制。中國與許多其他國家之間的另一個關鍵區別在於是否存在臨時救濟或獲得臨時救濟的方法。中華人民共和國法院不承認或執行仲裁庭下達的臨時救濟措施（儘管外國法院可能會執行此類措施）；相反，當事人必須向中華人民共和國法院（透過相關的仲裁機構）申請臨時措施以協助仲裁程式，而這一程式比在訴訟中獲取臨時救濟所需的時間更長。[11]然而，當選擇在外國法院與仲裁之間時，中國當事人可能更傾向於後者，因為仲裁程式可能更為便利（並且在設於國外的仲裁中，臨時措施可能可以直接從仲裁庭獲得）。

Second, the difference in fees payable to a Chinese court and a Chinese arbitral institution (including to the arbitrators, and assuming the same disputed amount) is not significant to most parties. However, in China, legal costs(mostly being lawyers’ fees) can generally be recovered in arbitration (following the ‘costs follow the event’ principle), where as the courts tend to order that each party shall bear its own legal costs, except in limited circumstances or where the parties have agreed otherwise.

其次，在爭議金額一定的情況下，在法院進行訴訟與在仲裁機構提起仲裁所需支付的費用差異對大多數當事人來說並不明顯。然而，在中國，仲裁中一般可以依據“仲裁費用由敗訴方承擔”的原則追討主要是律師費的法律費用，而法院則傾向於讓各方自行承擔法律費用，除非在有限情況下或雙方另有約定。

（圖片來源於網路）

On the other hand, in some situations, the costs of going to litigation versus arbitration may be significant, and some parties may seek arbitration precisely to leverage the economics against adversaries. [12] For example, an ordinary consumer may have agreed to arbitration in a standard form contract with a big business, only to be discouraged from bringing a relatively small claim (say, for a few hundred renminbi) because the arbitral institution will charge five or even ten times the amount claimed (even if there is the prospect of recovering this expense upon victory), whereas a court might have charged a small fraction of this. For foreign arbitrations, the fees of the arbitral institution or the arbitrators may be much greater than what Chinese parties are accustomed or content to bear.

另一方面，在某些情況下，訴訟與仲裁的費用差異可能會很顯著，有些當事人可能正是為了利用經濟因素來針對對方而選擇仲裁。[12]例如，普通消費者可能在與大型企業的格式合同中同意仲裁，但由於仲裁機構會收取相當於索賠金額五倍甚至十倍的費用。即使消費者在勝訴後能追討這些費用，但依然會被大型企業勸阻接受相對較小的索賠（例如，幾百元人民幣）。而在這種情況下，法院可能只會收取索賠金額的一小部分。對於外國仲裁，仲裁機構或仲裁員的費用可能遠高於中國當事人習慣於接受或願意承擔的水平。

Third, differences in business models and culture may make some Chinese parties reluctant to opt out of the traditional dispute resolution method. For example, a significant proportion of business in China is carried out by State-owned entities (SOEs), which operate in accordance with special rules and practices, and under the close supervision of, if not ‘management’ by, government organs(in particular, the State-owned Asset Supervision and Administration Commission, or SASAC). On account of a large variety of PRC regulations and ‘guidelines’ [13] as well as long-standing practices, personnel at SOEs are particularly vulnerable or sensitive to serious consequences if they are found to have performed their duties‘improperly’. Arbitration may be suspected of having been ‘irregular’ and thus‘improper’ if an unfavourable award has been rendered against the SOE, since there is no chance of appeal and there are only minute chances of success in setting aside the award. SOEs are therefore generally more likely to resolve disputes through litigation, which is better known to them and subject to greater possibilities of review or appeal.

另外，商業模式和文化的差異可能使一些中國當事人不願意放棄傳統爭議解決方式。例如，中國的商業活動中，相當一部分是由國有企業（SOEs）進行的，這些企業有特定的規則和運作方式，並受到政府機關（特別是國有資產監督管理委員會，SASAC）的管理或監督。由於中華人民共和國法規、“指導方針”[13] 以及長期以來的慣例種類繁多，國有企業的工作人員在被發現“不當”履行其職責時，有比較嚴重的後果。在這種情況下，如果仲裁機構對國有企業作出了不利裁決，機構可能會被懷疑“不正規”或“不正當”。因為仲裁沒有上訴機制，撤銷裁決的成功機率也微乎其微。因此，國有企業通常更傾向於透過訴訟來解決爭議，因為他們更加熟悉訴訟，並且訴訟提供了更大的重審或上訴的可能性。

That said, arbitration has increasingly been encouraged by the PRC government recently. For example, even the SASAC, since issuing its Measures for the Administration of Cases Involving Legal Disputes with Central Enterprises in 2023, [14] has encouraged SOEs to handle cases through diversified dispute resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration, mediation and ‘reconciliation’ (viz, conciliation), in addition to litigation. As such, therefore, a greater number of SOEs may opt for arbitration in the coming years: this may have the effect of indirectly encouraging more private parties to do the same, even if they have previously refrained from doing so for reasons different from those applicable to SOEs.

儘管如此，中國政府近來越來越鼓勵透過仲裁解決爭議。例如，自2023年釋出《中央企業法律糾紛案件管理辦法》(14)以來，國有資產監督管理委員會（SASAC）鼓勵國有企業採用多元化的爭議解決機制來處理案件，如仲裁、調解和和解，而不僅僅是訴訟。因此，未來幾年可能會有更多的國有企業選擇仲裁，這可能會間接鼓勵更多的私有企業採取同樣的做法，即使他們之前出於與國有企業不同的考量而避免仲裁。

（圖片來源於網路）

The discussion above summarises some of the factors and limitations that may be involved in the choice between arbitration and litigation by Chinese parties. At present, there is no direct evidence about preferences but, of course, many more disputes are resolved in court. There are indications that arbitration is(or will become) more popular – even with encouragement from parts of the PRC government apparatus(including for SOEs) – but prevailing rules and practices in China (which differ greatly from many (if not all) other jurisdictions) mean that any preference for arbitration over litigation will likely remain limited to particular situations and circumstances.

上述討論總結了中國當事人在選擇仲裁與訴訟時可能涉及的一些因素和限制。目前，沒有直接證據證明偏好的存在，但更多爭議是在法院解決的。有跡象表明，在包括國有企業在內的一些中國政府部門的鼓勵下，仲裁正在（或將會）變得更受歡迎，但中國與許多其他法域不同的現行規則和實踐意味著，與訴訟相比更偏好於仲裁的選擇很可能仍將限於特定情況和環境。

（圖片來源於網路）

First, in some business dealings, the common considerations of confidentiality and flexibility may still sway Chinese parties. As previously mentioned, relatively little ‘disclosure’ as such occurs through PRC court proceedings(at least by comparison with cases decided in common law jurisdictions), and arbitration does not guarantee complete confidentiality. However, Chinese parties’ concern for loss of ‘face’ – not to mention the practical consequences of word getting out about a dispute where regulators, banks and others are concerned – may lead them to try arbitration in some cases.

首先，在某些商業交易中，常見的對於保密性和靈活性的考慮仍可能影響中國當事人的選擇。如前所述，至少與普通法法域中的案件相比，中國法院程式中發生的“披露”相對較少，而仲裁也不能保證完全的保密性。然而，中國當事人對“面子”丟失的擔憂和爭議的資訊被相關的監管機構和銀行知悉帶來的實際後果，可能會促使他們在某些情況下選擇嘗試仲裁。

Moreover, in some kinds of case, Chinese parties may believe they will get a ‘better deal’ from an arbitrator than a judge in China. Aside from issues of subject-matter expertise and experience, arbitrators- even if they are among the large section of those who are lawyers solely trained in Chinese law – may take more ‘liberal’ views of business disputes compared to conservative judges. In the authors’ experience, for example, PRC courts tend to reject making high or punitive awards of damages, perhaps more in the spirit of maintaining ‘social harmony’, whereas arbitrators are likelier to base their decisions more on law, micro-economics and pragmatism. Similarly, arbitration may seem a safer choice than litigation if the dispute involves novel legal issues.

此外，在某些型別的案件中，中國當事人可能認為他們能從仲裁員那裡獲得比從法官那裡更有利的裁決。除了相關專業領域知識和經驗外，仲裁員即使大多數是僅受過中國法律訓練的律師，在處理商業爭議時可能會持有比保守法官更“寬鬆”的觀點。例如，根據作者的經驗，中國法院往往傾向於拒絕作出高額或懲罰性賠償的裁決，這或許是出於維護“社會和諧”的精神，而仲裁員則更傾向於根據法律、微觀經濟學和實用主義來做出裁決。同樣，如果爭議涉及前沿的法律問題，仲裁可能是比訴訟更安全的選擇。

In light of the above, it is no surprise that arbitration takes a greater share of certain types of dispute, while others are left to litigation (apart, that is, from disputes that are not arbitrable). For example, most financial and IP-related disputes in China are traditionally resolved through litigation, [15] whereas energy companies tend to resolve

their disputes, particularly those involving long-term supply contracts which include price review clauses, through arbitration, mostly out of concern that court litigation may disclose business models and other sensitive information. [16]

鑑於上述情況，仲裁在某些型別爭議中佔據更大比例並不令人驚訝，而其他型別的爭議和那些無法仲裁的爭議則交由訴訟解決。例如，中國的大多數金融和智慧財產權相關爭議通常透過訴訟解決[15]，而能源公司則傾向於透過仲裁解決其爭議，特別是涉及長期供應合同及價格審查條款的爭議，這主要是出於對法院訴訟可能披露商業模式和其他敏感資訊的擔憂。[16]

（圖片來源於網路）

Second, if a Chinese party deals with a foreign business, particularly one without assets in China, it may choose arbitration as the dispute resolution method, and not only because the foreign party is likely to prefer it. Even in such cases, however, the Chinese party may push for arbitration through a Chinese institution and/or in the Chinese language. A further consideration, which some may be reluctant to mention, is difficulty or risk involved in finding legal counsel to compete with foreign counsel in certain types of international arbitration, though more and more PRC lawyers are successfully going head to head with their peers around the world these days.”

第二，中國企業與外國企業進行交易，尤其是與在中國境內沒有資產的外國企業交易時，中國企業可能會選擇仲裁作為爭議解決方式，不僅是因為外國企業更傾向於這種方式。在這種情況下，中國企業可能會傾向於透過中國仲裁機構和/或使用中文進行仲裁。還有一個一些人可能不願提及的考慮因素，在某些型別的國際仲裁中，儘管如今越來越多的中國律師能夠與全球同行旗鼓相當，然而找到這樣的律師存在一定困難。

Third, some types of Chinese party may try to use potential cons of arbitration as a dispute resolution strategy. For example, as explained above, relatively large companies may try to impose arbitration, either generally (such as under a standard form contract) or even in a far-away arbitral institution as a way to raise the bar against counter parties making claims.

第三，某些型別的中國企業可能會試圖將仲裁的潛在缺點作為爭議解決的策略。例如上面所提到的，大公司可能會嘗試強制適用仲裁程式，無論是普遍地寫在格式合同中，或者是在偏遠的仲裁機構提起仲裁，以提高對方當事人提出索賠的門檻。

（圖片來源於網路）

In summary, arbitration is well established in China as one of the tools for dispute resolution. Although it may still generally be preferred only by those Chinese parties who are relatively sophisticated or have special considerations or needs, the growing number of such players may lead to the increased popularity of arbitration in China.

總而言之，仲裁在中國已經確立為爭議解決的工具之一。雖然它通常可能只受到相對複雜或有特殊考慮和需求的中國企業的青睞，但隨著這類企業增長，仲裁程式很可能在中國日益普及。

來源：《亞洲爭議評論》第26卷第2期，85-91頁，https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Asian+Dispute+Review/26.2/ADR2024013