商事审判 (The Adjudication Business - Chinese Translation)

Abstract

摘要

国际商事法庭近年来在世界各地的蓬勃发展正在改变全球的裁决业务。这些法庭的兴起也对传统观念上法庭和仲裁庭之间的竞争关系提出了挑战。长期以来，伦敦和纽约一直被视为国际商业合同的首选管辖地——无论当事方选择诉讼还是仲裁。然而，最近，对英语友好的国际商事法庭已在中国（2018年）、新加坡（2015年）、卡塔尔（2009年）、迪拜（2004年）、荷兰（2019年）、德国（2018年）、法国（2010年）等地建立起来。

针对这些新法庭的新兴学术研究倾向于认为它们通过与彼此以及与仲裁之间进行全球竞争来创建最有效的争议解决机制。然而，这种解释过于简化。这些法庭的建立是由多重、不同因素驱动的。


本文做出了四点贡献。首先，根据推动国际商事法庭建立的驱动力量的不同， 对它们进行分类。其次，批判在法律和经济学框架内外的“竞争逐优” (race to the top) 理论，引导人们关注推动这些法庭兴起的各种国内和国际力量。因此，这些法庭的成功不一定取决于其提供的裁决的卓越性，而可能取决于其他指标，如案件数量或吸引的投资金额，这些指标反映了最初驱使各国创立国际商事法庭的动机。第三，这些法庭打破了仲裁和诉讼是对立的传统美国观念。国际商事法庭从仲裁中借鉴了许多特点，如专业裁决者、保密性和可定制化的程序。因此，这些法庭引发了究竟仲裁和诉讼的哪些特征分别是它们的基本特征，以及当事方更倾向于哪种特征的问题。第四，本文赞颂程序创新，但同时提醒国际商事法庭不要成为主权或私人利益的俘虏

English Abstract: The traditional account of the competitive relationship between and among courts and arbitral tribunals for the business of adjudication includes three familiar narratives: First, this competition is a positive force, driving a “race to the top” for the most efficient dispute resolution. Second, litigation and arbitration are two very different alternatives. Third, parties prefer arbitration to resolve disputes arising from international commercial contracts.

This Article argues that the recent proliferation of international commercial courts around the world challenges all three of these common narratives. London and New York have long been competing to be designated the forum of choice in international commercial contracts—whether parties opt for litigation or arbitration. More recently, English-language-friendly international commercial courts have been established in China (2018), Singapore (2015), Qatar (2009), Dubai (2004), the Netherlands (2019), Germany (2018), France (2010), and beyond. These jurisdictions are embracing litigation at the same time that they are making their laws favorable to arbitration.

A closer look at the rise of these courts suggests first that the “race to the top” narrative is an odd fit. A desire to create the best possible dispute resolution mechanism is not the only or the primary driving force behind these courts, and will not be the metric against which their success is measured domestically. Second, despite the common U.S. rhetoric that litigation and arbitration are opposite methods of dispute resolution, or that a preference for one would indicate a disdain for the other, many governments look to attract both. New international commercial courts borrow some of arbitration’s most attractive features, like expert adjudicators, confidentiality, and customizable procedures. These courts thus raise questions about what characteristics of arbitration and litigation are fundamental and the public/private divide that they are assumed to represent. Third, while the future popularity of these new courts remains to be seen, their proliferation undermines accounts that parties “always” do or will prefer arbitration for international commercial disputes. The Article concludes by exploring the normative implications of this phenomenon and setting forth research questions for examining the future of these courts.

The English version of this paper can be found at http://ssrn.com/abstract=3338152.

Keywords: Courts, Specialty Courts, International Commercial Courts, Litigation, Arbitration, International Commercial Arbitration, Contracts, Civil Procedure, the Market for Contracts, Law Markets, ADR

JEL Classification: K00, K10, K12, K33, K41