公约》没有明确处理第二条关于国际仲裁协议实质和形式有效性的国际标准与第五条第(1)款(a)项法律选择规则之间的关系,显然是设想对这类协议适用国内法规则。但很明显,第 II 条和第 V 条的目的是加强国际商事仲裁协议的有效性和可执行性。正如下文所详细讨论的,这些条款保证了国际仲裁协议的推定有效性,并寻求最大限度地减少关于此类协议的订立和有效性的狭隘的国家法律选择和实体规则的影响。 ^(30){ }^{30} 就目前而言,最重要的一点是,《公约》的这些规定所依据的前提是,国际仲裁协议是可分离的合同,受专门的、自成一类的国际法律制度管辖,而这种制度不适用于其他合同。
法国法律还强调承认,可分离的国际仲裁协议可以--事实上也必须--由不同于管辖基础合同的法律管辖,并就此类协议的实质有效性规定了专门的法律选择规则。正如在其他地方所讨论的,法国法院认为国际仲裁协议 "独立于 "任何国家的法律体系,而是直接受制于国际法的一般原则;这种方法公开表示 "支持仲裁",旨在赋予仲裁协议最大的法律效力。 ^(44){ }^{44} 因此,法国最高法院在 Municipalité de Khoms El Mergeb v. Société Dalico 一案中做出了具有里程碑意义的裁决:
1957年和1959年国际法学会(Institut de Droit International)通过的决议反映了 "程序性 "仲裁协议法律方法的高潮。通过这些决议的依据是,"将私人仲裁所引起的法律冲突交由单一的国际私法体系处理似乎最有用"。259 除其他外,该决议(1957 年首次通过,1959 年重申)规定:
同样,在 Rhone Mediterranee Compagnia Francese di Assicurazioni e Riassicurazioni v. Lauro 案中,美国上诉法院驳回了根据意大利法律(仲裁地法律)对一项国际仲裁协议提出的质疑,理由是据称该协议无效。 ^(476){ }^{476} 意大利的相关立法否认了规定仲裁员人数为偶数的仲裁协议的效力,而当事人的协议可以说是考虑到了这一点。法院再次依据《公约》第 II(3)条,认为
承认协议的程序(根据第 II 条)和承认裁决的程序(根据第 V 条)。如上所述,在争议过程的不同阶段对国际仲裁协议适用不同的法律选择规则,从而适用不同的实体法,是没有意义的,而且会产生严重的低效率。 ^(677){ }^{677} 相反,同样的法律选择规则和实体法规则应适用于第二条和第五条规定的国际仲裁协议的有效性。
重要的是,如前所述,第 V(1)(a)条和第 II 条都规定缔约国有义务在特定情况下承认仲裁协议,而没有规定任何拒绝承认仲裁协议的义务。因此,这两条中都没有禁止缔约国适用当事人选择的法律以外的法律使仲裁协议生效;第二条和第五条第(1)款(a)项只禁止缔约国适用当事人选择的法律以外的法律拒绝仲裁协议生效。 ^(678){ }^{678}
一般而言,根据《联邦仲裁法》的判例法,当事人可自由约定管辖其仲裁协议的法律(在国内和国际环境下)。 ^(706){ }^{706} 例如,在 Volt Information Sciences, Inc. 诉斯坦福大学案中,美国最高法院认为,由于"《联邦仲裁法》下的仲裁是一个同意而非强制的问题,当事人通常可以自由地按照他们认为合适的方式订立仲裁协议",当事人可以自由地 "同意他们的仲裁协议受加利福尼亚州法律管辖",而不是受联邦(或其他)法律管辖。 ^(707){ }^{707} 或者,正如一家美国下级法院得出的结论:
第 V(2)(a)条的公式不能直接照搬到仲裁协议的执行阶段,而有别于仲裁裁决。特别是,一个国家在裁决执行阶段可以依据第 V(2)条例外情况下的当地公共政策/不可仲裁性规则,但这绝不意味着其他国家应该--或可以依据同样的规则拒绝执行原本有效的仲裁协议。也就是说,如果 A 国和 B 国的当事人同意在 C 国就 A 国和 B 国产生的争端进行仲裁,那么 D 国可能会认为该争端在仲裁程序中不可仲裁。
这种方法并不意味着司法执行地的特定实质性不可仲裁性规则应机械地适用于不可仲裁性问题。例如,如果 A 国和 B 国的当事人同意在 C 国进行的仲裁中对涉及 A 国和 B 国行为的争议进行仲裁,那么 C 国法院通常没有理由对当事人的争议适用 C 国法律下适用的不可仲裁性规则。如果当事人的基本诉求是根据 A 国或 B 国的法律提出的,并涉及在这些国家的活动,那么适用 C 国的法律使当事人的争议不可仲裁通常是没有意义的。尤其是
如果 A 国和 B 国的法律允许对争议进行仲裁,那么与基本争议有重要联系的每个国家不仅允许而且要求对争议进行仲裁。
事实上,如果仔细研究司法执行地(这里是 C 国)的不可仲裁规则,根据其本身的规定,这些规则不太可能适用于本示例中的争议行为。通常情况下,C 国没有理由将根据其实体立法和公共政策有争议的国家的法律可以仲裁的事项列为不可仲裁事项。如果 C 国的法律意图使争议不可仲裁,其他国家也没有理由承认这种选择或使其生效(这将涉及 C 国提出过高的管辖权要求)。
更困难的情况涉及司法执行地(C 国)是否应执行其立法在特定争议中引起争议的国家(A 国或 B 国)的不可仲裁规则。在这种情况下,较好的办法是司法执行地不执行外国的不可仲裁规则,而是承认本来有效的仲裁协议。 ^(783){ }^{783} 这就允许不可仲裁规则有争议的国家允许诉讼在当地法院进行(受《公约》的限制),而其他国家可以自由决定是否执行由此产生的判决或仲裁裁决。这与不可仲裁原则作为例外的 "逃生阀 "的性质是一致的,缔约国可在当地援引,但对其他国家不具约束力。
A 国和 B 国的当事人同意对涉及在 A 国和 B 国的行为的争议进行仲裁的例子(如上所述)说明了上述批评。
806 假定随后在 C 国和 D 国都产生了执行关于法定请求的仲裁协议的程序,并明确指出在 E 国执行任何裁决的可能性。在这种情况下,很难理解为什么(a) 作为司法执行论坛的 C 国或 D 国的实质性不可仲裁规则应适用于根据 B 国法律提出的请求、涉及 A 国和 B 国交易的请求或在 C 国进行的仲裁;或 (b) 为什么作为仲裁地的 C 国的实质性不可仲裁规则应适用于根据 A 国法律提出 的请求和涉及 A 国和 B 国的交易;(c) 为什么应适用 C 国的实体法不可仲裁性规则,因为仲裁协议可能受 C 国的法律管辖;或(d) 为什么在执行仲裁协议阶段应适用 E 国的实体法不可仲裁性规则,因为裁决可能在 E 国执行。
具体来说,如果 B 国的法律允许(根据 B 国的法律)对有关索赔进行仲裁,那么几乎不可能理解为什么其他国家不允许这样做。当然,如果根据 A、C、D 和 E 国各自的国内法,这些国家的实体不可仲裁性规则不允许对此类索赔进行仲裁,但这一事实与如何处理根据 B 国法律提出的法定索赔无关:如果 B 国允许(甚至可能鼓励或要求)对此类法定索赔进行仲裁,那么根据 A、C、D 或 E 国的法律采取另一种方法几乎是不可想象的。
另一方面,如果 B 国法律规定(根据 B 国法律)相关的法定请求不可仲裁,那么分析就会变得更加困难(和有趣)。尽管在这个例子中最终可能有充分的理由不适用 B 国的不可仲裁规则,但肯定应该考虑这些规则--这是适用仲裁地法律或仲裁协议的传统冲突规则所没有规定的结果。应适用 B 国法律的理由是
将这一分析应用于上述假设,将允许 B 国法院适用 B 国的不可仲裁性标准,以确定在 C 国进行的仲裁中 B 国成文法申诉的可仲裁性;它不要求而允许 B 国法院适用 C 国的不可仲裁性标准。同时,传统的冲突规则将规定 A、C、D 和 E 国的法院根据争端与 B 国之间的联系考虑 B 国的不可仲裁性标准,而不是它们自己的不可仲裁性标准(如上所述,适用这些标准毫无意义)。
这种方法有一个重要的好处,即它不要求基于没有(也不可能)任何理由产生这种结果的法律制度提出的主张不可仲裁。也就是说,在上面的例子中,C 国的法律制度和不可仲裁标准几乎没有兴趣使 B 国的法定申诉不可仲裁,因为 B 国本身就允许对这些申诉进行仲裁。
反之,如果 B 国的法律规定某些索赔只能诉讼而不能仲裁,那么在其他法域试图对这些问题进行仲裁时,至少应在一定程度上参考 B 国的法律,而不是完全依赖 A、C、D 或 E 国的法律。适用传统的法律选择分析法,A、C、D 和/或 E 国的法院在确定 B 国法律下的法定索赔是否可仲裁时,至少应考虑 B 国的公共政策和强制性法律。
如果外国的不可仲裁规则与法院地本身的强制性法律或公共政策相冲突,包括特别是与法院地有利于国际仲裁的公共政策相冲突,法院地法院也完全有权拒绝该规则的效力。因此,即使 B 国法律规定根据 B 国法律提出的特定法定申诉不得通过仲裁解决,C 国法院也可以适当地裁定 C 国的公共政策是赋予国际仲裁协议广泛的效力,包括
与此同时,还可以假设一些案例,说明法院在哪些情况下适用外国不可仲裁规则。例如,如果设在 A 国的仲裁庭被请求
如果仲裁庭根据 B 国法律批准 B 国两家公司的合并,或根据 B 国法律颁发专利,那么仲裁庭就有充分理由以不可仲裁为由拒绝这些要求,或 A 国法院有充分理由废除由此产生的裁决(或拒绝为仲裁程序提供司法协助)。A 国即使以仲裁地这一微不足道的身份参与仲裁庭据称根据外国法律作出的影响第三方权利的行政决定,也会在 A 国的公共政策中提供足够的理由,拒绝允许进行所请求的救济。
[4] 对有关不可仲裁性申诉的中间裁决的限制
除上述观点外,还有一个有力的论点是,在执行仲裁协议的程序中,法院应简单地执行国际仲裁协议,而不管外国的不可仲裁性标准是否会提出相反的建议。例如,在前述假设中,有一个有力的论点是,C 国和 D 国法院在决定是否承认一项规定在 C 国仲裁 B 国法定索赔的仲裁协议时,不应考虑 B 国的不可仲裁性标准。较好的办法是 C 国和 D 国法院执行仲裁协议(驳回或中止受该协议约束的任何诉讼),而将 B 国的不可仲裁性规则留给仲裁庭和 B 国法院以及裁决执行阶段适用。
如下文所述,一些美国法院在国内和国际案件中采用了后一种方法。 ^(824){ }^{824} 美国最高法院的一项主要判决--PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. 诉 Book 案--认为,在国内案件中,某些《反黑客影响和腐败组织法》("RICO")索赔的不可仲裁性问题应首先由仲裁庭审议。 ^(825){ }^{825} 法院的理由是,"由于我们不知道仲裁员将如何解释补救限制,因此......这些限制是否导致当事人的协议无法执行的问题 "最好留给仲裁庭进行初步审议。826
虽然这种方法有其政策上的说服力,但将第 II 条解释为确立不可仲裁性的统一国际标准并没有什么直接的文本依据。特别是,第 II 条第(1)款除了 "不能通过仲裁解决的 "这一简短短语外,未作任何规定。要从这一简短的提法中推导出具体的国际不可仲裁性规则(例如,关于消费者或竞争争端等特定主题的规则)并不简单。
也就是说,在一项影响到 A 国和 B 国的交易中,仲裁地在 C 国,如果 A 国、B 国或 C 国的任何一国的法律会得出这样的结果,则应支持当事人签订仲裁协议的能力。举个具体(尽管不太可能)的例子,如果 A 国 18 岁的人签订了一份国际仲裁协议,而 A 国的法定成年年龄是 21 岁,那么只要 B 国或 C 国将法定成年年龄定为 18 岁或更低,该仲裁协议就应生效。这种做法与法国法律的做法大致相同,根据一般的法律选择分析,法国法院将国际法直接适用于权力和行为能力问题。 ^(925){ }^{925} .
1 评论见 Arzandeh & Hill, Ascertaining the Proper Law of An Arbitration Clause Under English Law, 5 J. Private Int'1 L. 425 (2009);Bansal, The Efficacy of French Law on International Arbitration:Bansal, The Efficacy of French Law on International Arbitration: An Analysis in Light of Art.Bansal, The Efficacy of French Law on International Arbitration: An Analysis in Light of Art.Rev. 206; Bantekas, The Proper Law of the Arbitration Clause:Bantekas, The Proper Law of the Arbitration Clause: A Challenge to the Prevailing Orthodoxy, 27 J. Int'l Arb.1 (2010);Bernardini, Arbitration Clauses:Achieving Effectiveness in the Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 197 (1999);Blessing, The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause and Arbitrability, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 168 (1999); Born, The Law Governing International Arbitration Agreements:Born, The Law Governing International Arbitration Agreements: An International Perspective, 26 Sing.26 Sing.L.J. 814 (2014);Chan & Teo, Ascertaining the Proper Law of an Arbitration Agreement:37(5) J. of Int'l Arb. 635 (2020) Choi & Teo, The Artificiality of Inferring Intention When There is None, 37(5) J. of Int'l Arb.635 (2020) Choi, Choice of Law Rules Applicable for International Arbitration Agreements, 11 Asian Int'l Arb.105 (2015);Choi, The Tension Between Validation and Implied Intent Approaches in Finding the Law for the Agreement to Arbitrate , 19(5) Int'l Arb.L. Rev. 121 (2016);O. Chukwumerije, Choice-of-Law in International Commercial Arbitration (1994);L. Collins et al. (eds.), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 9916R-0019916 \mathrm{R}-001 , 16-008, 16.011-28 (15th ed. 2012 & Update 2018);di Pietro, Applicable Laws Under the New York Convention, in F. Ferrari & S. J. (eds.). Kröll (eds.), Conflict of Laws in International Arbitration 63 (2011); Dimolitsa, Issues Concerning the Existence, Validity and Effectiveness of the Arbitration Agreement , 7(2) ICC Ct. Bull.14 (1996);Emanuele, Molfa & Marvasi, International Arbitration Agreements, in C.-F. Emanuele & M. Molfa.Emanuele, Molfa & Marvasi, International Arbitration Agreements, in C.-F. Emanuele & M. Molfa (eds.), Selected Issues in International Arbitration:18 (2014); Friedland & Hornick, The Relevance of International Standards for U. S. Courts in the Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements Under the New York Convention, 6 Am.Rev. Int'l Arb.149 (1995);E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 9 T 985 741 (1999);Gertz, The Selection of Choice of Law Provisions in International Commercial Arbitration:Gertz, The Selection of Choice of Law Provisions in International Commercial Arbitration: A Case for Contractual Dépeçage, 12 Nw.J. Int'l L. Bus.163 (1991);Giammarco & Grimm, CISG and Arbitration Agreements:Giammarco & Grimm, CISG and Arbitration Agreements: A Janus-Faced Practice and How to Cope with It , 25 J. Arb.Stud.33 (2015);Glick & Venkatesan, Choosing the Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement, in N. Kaplan & M. Moser (eds.), Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Choice of Law in International Arbitration:Liber Amicorum Michael Pryles , 131 (2018);Graffi, The Law Applicable to the Validity of the Arbitration Agreement, in F. Ferrari & S. Kröll (eds.), Conflict of Laws in International Arbitration 19 (2011);Grigera Naón, Choice-of-Law Problems in International Commercial Arbitration, 289 Recueil des Cours 9, 39 (2001);Hanotiau, What Law Governs the Issue of Arbitrability?12 Arb.12 Arb. Int'l 391 (1996);Heiskanen, Forbidding Dépeçage:Heiskanen, Forbidding Dépeçage: Law Governing Investment Treaty Arbitration, 32 Suffolk Trans.L. Rev. 367 (2009);Hook, Arbitration Agreements and Anational Law:A Question of Intent?,28 J. Int'l Arb.175 (2011); D. Joseph, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements and Their Enforcement 172-202 (2d ed. 2010);Jhangiani, Conflicts of Law and International Commercial Arbitration:
2(1) BCDR Int'l Arb.Rev. 99 (2015); Karrer, The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement, 26 Sing.Acad.L.J. 849 (2014);Leong & Tan, The Law Governing Arbitration Agreements:BCY v. BCZ and Beyond, 30 Sing.Acad.L.J. 70 (2018); Lew, The Law Applicable to the Form and Substance of the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 114 (1999); Miles & Goh, A Principled Approach Towards the Law Governing Arbitration Agreements , in N. Kaplan & M. Moser (eds.), Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Choice of Law in International Arbitration:Liber Amicorum Michael Pryles , 385 (2018);G. Moss, International Commercial Arbitration 279-99 (3d ed. 2013);Nazzini, The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement:Nazzini, The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement: Towards Transnational Principles , 65 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 681 (2016).L.Q. 681 (2016);Oliveira, The English Law Approach to Arbitrability of Disputes, 19 Int'l Arb.Rev. 155 (2016);Ortolani, Article 34:Ortolani, Article 34: Application for Setting Aside as Exclusive Recourse Against Arbitral Award, in I. Bantekas et al . (eds.), UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. A Commentary 870 (2020):870 (2020);Pearson, Sulamérica v. Enesa:Pearson, Sulamérica v. Enesa: The Hidden Pro-Validation Approach Adopted by the English Courts with respect to the Proper Law of the Arbitration Agreement, 29 Arb.Int'l 115 (2013);Petsche, International Commercial Arbitration and the Transformation of the Conflict of Laws Theory, 18 Mich.J. Int'l L. 453 (2010);Polkinghorne et al :拒绝承认或执行的理由,载于 I. Bantekas et al . Razumov, The Law Governing Capacity to Arbitrate, in A. van den Berg (eds.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements:943 (2020);Razumov, The Law Governing the Capacity to Arbitrate, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 260 (1996);Schwenzer & Tebel, The Word Is Not Enough:Schwenzer & Tebel, The Word Is Not Enough: Arbitration, Choice of Forum and Choice of Law Clauses Under the CISG, 31 ASA Bull.741 (2013);Silberman, The New York Convention After Fifty Years:Some Reflections on the Role of National Law, 38 Ga.J. Int'l & Comp.(2009); Thorn & Grenz, The Effect of Overriding Mandatory Rules on the Arbitration Agreement, in F. Ferrari & S. Kröll (eds.), Conflict of Laws in International Arbitration 187 (2011); Thrope, A Question of Intent:Choice of Law and the International Arbitration Agreement, 54 Disp.Resol.16 (1999);Trukhtanov, The Proper Law of Arbitration Agreement:A Farewell to Implied Choice?,2012 Int'l Arb.Rev. 140; Tzeng, Favoring Validity:The Hidden Choice of Law Rule for Arbitration Agreements , 27 Am.Rev. Int'l Arb.327 (2016); Yang, The Proper Law of the Arbitration Agreement:The Proper Law of Arbitration Agreement: Mainland Chinese and English Law Compared, 33 Arb.Int'1 121 (2017)。 2 见§1.02[B]。 3 见第 3 章。
6 见§4.03。 这与其他情况下的法律选择分析并无明显不同,在其他情况下,不同的法律可能适用于合同关系中产生的不同问题。例如,见《罗马公约》第3(1)条("当事人可以根据自己的选择,选择适用不同的法律。3(1) ("By their choice the law the parties can select the law
3(1); Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §188 (1971) ("The rights and duties of the parties with respect to an issue in contract are determined by the local law of the state which, respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties"); Gertz, The Selection of Choice of Law Provisions in International Commercial Arbitration. A Case for Contractual Dépeçage, 12 Nw:Gertz, The Selection of Choice of Law Provisions in International Commercial Arbitration: A Case for Contractual Dépeçage, 12 Nw.J. Int'1 L. Bus.163 (1991); Heiskanen, Forbidding Dépeçage:Heiskanen, Forbidding Dépeçage: Law Governing Investment Treaty Arbitration , 32 Suffolk Trans.Rev. 367, 395-97 (2009) (discussing dépeçage in international arbitration agreements); Jayme, Betrachtungen zur "Dépeçage" im Internationalen Privatrecht , in K. Kegel, H.-J. Musielak & K. Schurig (eds.), Festschrift für Gerhard Kegel zum 75 Geburtstag 253 (1987); Reese, Dépeçage:法律选择中的常见现象》,73 Colum.L. Rev. 58 (1973).
7 见 §5.02[A][2][d] ; §25.04[A][5] 。
8 见§4.04[A][2][j][iv];2009 年 7 月 8 日判决,D'Etudes et Représentations Navales et Industrielles 诉 Air Sea Broker 有限公司,2009 Rev. Arb.529 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1); Judgment of 30 March 2004 , Rado v. Painewebber, 2005 Rev. Arb.115 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1); Judgment of 21 May 1997 , Renault v. V 2000 , 1997 Rev. Arb.537 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1); Judgment of 20 December 1993 , Municipalité de Khoms El Mergeb v. Dalico , 1994 Rev. Arb.116 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1); Judgment of 7 April 2011 , 2011 Rev. Arb.747 (Paris Cour d'Appel); Judgment of 18 November 2010, République de Guinée Équatoriale v. SA Bank Guinea Équatorial , 2010 Rev. Arb.980 (Paris Cour d'Appel); Judgment of 25 November 1999 , SA Burkinabè des Ciments et Matériaux v. Société des Ciments d'Abidjan, 2001 Rev. Arb.165 (Paris Cour d'Appel); Judgment of 17 December 1991, Gatoil v. Nat'l Iranian Oil Co.281 (Paris Cour d'Appel).
9 见§4.02[A][2][d];Rhone Mediterranee Compagnia Francese di Assicurazioni e Riassicurazioni v. Lauro, 712 F.2d 50, 53-54 (3d Cir. 1983);Ledee v. Ceramiche Ragno, 684 F.2d 184, 187 (1st Cir. 1982)。同样的标准也适用于《美洲公约》。
10 见 §4.04[B][3][d];《瑞士国际私法》第 178(2)条;《西班牙仲裁法》第 178(2)条。178(2); Spanish Arbitration Act, Art.9(6) ("When the arbitration is
如果当事人选择的管辖仲裁协议的法律、适用于争端实质的法律或西班牙法律规定的要求得到满足,则仲裁协议有效,争端可进行仲裁");《阿尔及利亚民事和行政诉讼法》,第 458 条之二第 1 款,第 93 条(同上)。458 bis 1, 93 (同上)。另见 2008 年 8 月 26 日判决,XXXIV Y.B. Comm.Arb.404-05 (Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof) (2009) ("If the wording of the declaration of intent allows for two equally plausible interpretations, the interpretation which favourable the validity of the arbitration agreement and its applicability to a certain dispute is to be preferred").
15 国际商会第 1507 号案件的终局裁决,引自 S. Jarvin & Y. Derains(编),《1974-1985 年国际商会仲裁裁决汇编》215、216(1990 年)。Derains (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1974-1985 215, 216 (1990) (emphasis added).另见 Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SAv.See also Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SAv. Enesa Engenharia SA [2012] EWCA Civ 638, 911\mathbf{9 1 1} (English Ct. App.) ("It has long been recognised that in principle the proper law of an arbitration agreement which itself forms part of a substantive contract may differ from that of the contract as a whole").
16 BNA v. BNB, [2019] SGHC 142, 917(e)(新加坡高等法院)(着重部分由作者标明)。
292, 318 (2018)(鉴于 "仲裁条款的自主性......不能简单地假定 "基础合同的法律适用于仲裁协议);1995 年 3 月 21 日的判决, XXII Y.B. Comm.Arb.800, 803 (Swiss Fed. Trib.) (1997) ("arbitration agreement and the main contract can be subject to different laws") (emphasis added).
18 见§3.03[B];§4.04[B][6];国际商会第 6850 号案件的最终裁决,XXIII Y.B. Comm.Arb.37 (1998) (将基础合同中的法律选择条款适用于仲裁协议); Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.54, 55-56 (1993) (将一般法律选择条款适用于仲裁条款); Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.212, 215 (1992)(将管辖基础合同的法律适用于仲裁协议);Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.137, 140-41 (1989)(将瑞士法律适用于仲裁协议和基础合同);国际商会第 3572 号案件的终局裁决,XIV Y.B. Comm.Arb.111 (1989)(将当事人选择的管辖基础合同的法律适用于仲裁协议)。
25 一些评论家将公约的法律选择条款称为其 "基本成就"("la grande conquête")。Bredin, La Convention de New York du 10 Juin 1958 pour la Reconnaissance et l'Exécution des Sentences Arbitrales Étrangères , 87 J.D.I. (Clunet) 1003, 1020, 1029 (1960).
29 见§4.04[A][1][b][ii];§4.04[B][1]。另见 Schramm, Geisinger & Pinsolle, Article II, in H. Kronke et al. (eds.), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards:见 Schramm, Geisinger & Pinsolle, Article II, in H. Kronke et al.
31 《欧洲公约》,第 VI(2)条。31 《欧洲公约》,第 VI(2)条。如下所述,这些规则规定适用当事人选择的法律,否则适用仲裁地的法律。参见
§
; Hascher, European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 1961:Commentary , XX Y.B. Comm.Arb.1006 (1995).
32 《欧洲公约》,第 VII 条。VII.下文将讨论这些规则。见第 4.04[A][1][c]节。 33 见第 3.02[A][3]节。
34 见§2.01[A][2];§5.01[C][1]。
35 见第 2.02[B]节;第 4.06[B][1]节。
34(2)(a)(i), 36(1)(a)(i); §3.02[B][3][e]; §25.03[A][2]; §26.03[D][1] .见 P. Binder,《贸易法委员会示范法管辖区的国际商事仲裁和调解》,《贸易法委员会年鉴》,第二卷,第 74-78 页。
449 (4th ed. 2019); H. Holtzmann & J. Neuhaus, A Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration:915-16, 1058-59 (1989).
37 见 §4.02[A][2][a]。该规则适用于当事人对法律的选择,如果没有这种选择,则适用仲裁地的法律。见 Ortolani, 第 34 条:见 Ortolani, Article 34: Application for Setting Aside as Exclusive Recourse Against Arbitral Award, in I. Bantekas et al . (eds.), UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. A Commentary 870 (2020):870 (2020);Polkinghorne et al :拒绝承认或执行的理由,同上,第 943 页。
38 例如,见 BNAB N A 诉 BNB,[2019] SGHC 142, 117 (e)(新加坡高等法院); BCYB C Y 诉 BCZB C Z , [2017] 3 SLR 357, 144(新加坡高等法院);Recyclers of Australia Pty Ltd 诉 Hettinga Equip. Inc.Inc.,[2000] 175 ALR 725, 922 (Australian Fed. Ct.) (applying Iowa law, selected by choice-of-law clause in underlying contract, to validity of arbitration clause); Nirma Ltd v. Lurgi Energie und Entsorgung GmbH, XXVIII Y.B. Comm.Arb.790, 803 (Gujarat High Ct. 2002) (2003).另见 Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SAS A v. Enesa Engenharia SAS A [2012] EWCA Civ 638、
𝟙
(英国上诉法院);AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLC 诉 Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2011] EWCA Civ 647 (英国上诉法院);XL Ins. Ltd 诉 Owens Corning [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 500, 508 (QB) (英国高等法院)。
40 见 B. Berger & F. Kellerhals, International and Domestic Arbitration in Switzerland 9399-400\mathbf{9 3 9 9 - 4 0 0} (2d ed. 2010); P. Lalive, J.-F. Poudret & C. Reymond, Le Droit de l'Arbitrage Interne et International en Suisse Art.P. Lalive, J.-F. Poudret & C. Reymond, Le Droit de l'Arbitrage Interne et International en Suisse Art.178, 915\mathbf{9 1 5} (1989); Wenger, in S. Berti et al. (eds.), International Arbitration in Switzerland Art.178, 922 (2000).
45 1993 年 12 月 20 日的判决,Municipalité de Khoms El Mergeb 诉 Dalico,1994 Rev. Arb.116, 117 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1) (emphasis added).
46 见§4.04[A][4];§4.04[B][3][e];2011 年 4 月 7 日判决,2011 Rev. Arb.747, 750 (Paris Cour d'Appel) ("according to a substantive rule of international arbitration law applicable to an arbitration seated in France, the arbitration clause is legally independent from the main contract in which it is included, and subject to public international policy, its existence and validity depends only on the common intention of the parties, without it be necessary to make reference to national law"); Judgment of 8 July 2009 , Société d'Etudes et Représentations Navales et Industrielles v. Air Sea Broker Ltd , 2009 Rev. Arb.529 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1); Judgment of 30 March 2004, Uni-Kod v. Ouralkali, 2005 Rev. Arb.959 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1); Judgment of 21 May 1997, Renault v. V 2000 , 1997 Rev. Arb.537 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1); Judgment of 25 November 1999 , SA Burkinabe Des Ciments et Matériaux v. Société des Ciments d'Abidjan, 2001 Rev. Arb.165 (Paris Cour d'Appel); Judgment of 3 March 1992 , Sonetex v. Charphil, 1993 Rev. Arb.273 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1)。
47 U.S. FAA, 9 U.S.C. §2; §1.04[B][1][e]; §2.01[A][2]; §5.01[C][2] 。
48 见§1.04[B][1][e];§4.04[A][3];§4.04[B][3][b];AT&T Mobility LLC诉Concepcion案,563 U.S. 333, 343 (U.S. S.Ct. 2011);Preston诉Ferrer案,552 U.S. 346, 359 (U.S. S.Ct. 2008);Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc.v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 444-48 (U.S. S.Ct. 2006);AlliedBruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (U.S. S.Ct. 1995);Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (U.S. S.Ct. 1984)。
49 见§1.04[B][1][e];§4.04[B][3][b]。美国最高法院在 GE Energy Power Conversion France sas, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC , 590 一案中对仲裁协议(在非签署方争议的情况下)的适用法律问题保持开放态度。
U.S. 590, - (U.S. S.Ct.2020)(不涉及 "哪个法律体系管辖该裁定 "衡平法禁止反言对非签署方的约束力的适用性问题)。
50 见§4.04[A][2][j][v];§4.04[B][3][b];Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2015);Quilloin v. Tenet HealthSystem Philadelphia, Inc ., 673 F.3d 221, 228 (3d Cir. 2011);Sourcing Unlimited, Inc. v. Asimco Int'l, Inc.诉 Asimco Int'l, Inc., 526 F.3d 38, 41-42 (1st Cir. 2008) (applying federal common law even though the parties' underlying contract selected Chinese law); Bridas SAPIC v. Turkmenistan, 447 F.3d 411, 416 (5th Cir. 2006); Int'l Paper Co. v. Schwabedissen Maschinen & Anlagen GmbH, 206 F.3411, 417 n. 4 (4th Cir. 2000) (FAA and New York Convention "create a body of federal substantive law of arbitrability, applicable to any arbitration agreement within the coverage of the Act"); Campaniello Imps.Arb.Ass'n,64 F.3d 773 (2d Cir. 1995);Masefield AGA G v. Colonial Oil Indus., Inc.,2005 WL 911770 (S.D.N.Y.).
一些美国法院认为,至少在某些情况下,当事人基础合同中的一般法律选择条款适用于相关的仲裁协议。例如,见 Cape Flattery Ltd v. Titan Maritime, LLC, 647 F.3d 914, 921 (9th Cir. 2011)("如果没有'明确无误的证据'证明双方同意适用非联邦仲裁法,法院应适用联邦仲裁法");GAR Energy & Assocs. v. Ivanhoe Energy Inc., 2011 WL 6780927 (E.D. Cal.) (适用法律选择条款,规定仲裁协议适用加州法律)。
51 见§4.04[A][2][j][v](4);Karaha Bodas Co.诉 Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 364 F.3274, 292 n. 43 (5th Cir. 2004); Nissho Iwai Corp . v. MV Joy Sea, 2002 A.M.C. 1305, 1311 (E.D. La.) (applying English law where "parties did choose an English forum, which is at least some evidence that English law was meant to govern"); Bergesen v. Lindholm, 760 F.Supp. 976, 981 n. 9 (D. Conn. 1991). 52 见 §4.04[B][3][b] 。
53 见第 4.04[A][2][j][v](2)节。
54 《法律冲突重述》(第二版)第 218 条评注 b(1971 年)(着重部分由作者标明)。
55 见 Samenow 诉 Citicorp Credit Serv., 253 F.Supp.3d 197, 202-03 n. 5 (D.D.C. 2017)(适用哥伦比亚特区法律确定仲裁协议的有效性和可执行性,尽管事实上合同受南达科塔州法律管辖,因为 "仲裁协议是可分割的");Ulbrich v. Overstock.com, Inc.887 F.Supp.2d 924, 930 n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 2012)("因此,法院对有关仲裁协议可执行性的法律选择问题的裁决与哪个州的法律将适用于基本索赔没有关系");Authenment v. Ingram Barge Co、878 F.Supp.2d 672, 679-80 (E.D. La. 2012)(对仲裁协议的有效性适用联邦海事法,对争议的实质适用英国法);Siglain v. Trader Publ'g Co、2008 WL 3286974 (N.D. Cal.) (对仲裁协议的可执行性适用弗吉尼亚州法律,对争议的实质适用加利福尼亚州法律);Joseph L. Wilmotte & Co.d 317, 326 (Iowa 1977)("可以认为纽约与合同中仲裁条款的有效性和效力问题有着最重要的关系",尽管艾奥瓦州与基础合同有着最重要的关系);Marchant v. Mead-Morrison, 169 N.E. 386 (N.Y. 1929)(仲裁条款受不同于基础合同的法律管辖)。
57 Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v. Balfour Beatty Constr.Ltd [1993] AC 334, 357-58(上议院)。另见 Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SAS A v. Enesa Engenharia SAS A [2012] EWCA Civ 638, [[11\llbracket 11 (英国上诉法院)("长期以来,人们一直认为,原则上,与合同有关的适当法律应是......")。)("长期以来,人们一直认为,原则上,构成实质性合同一部分的仲裁协议的适当法律可能不同于整个合同的适当法律");C 诉 D [2007] EWCA Civ 1282, T24\mathbb{T} 24 (英格兰上诉法院);Naviera
Amazonica Peruana SA v. Compania Internacional de Seguros del Peru [1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 116, 119 (English Ct. App.); Deutsche Schachtbau- und Tiefbohrgesellschaft mbH v. Ras Al Khaimah Nat'l Oil Co .[1987] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 246, 250 (English Ct. App.) (arbitration clause "need not be governed by the same law" as the underlying contract), rev'd on other grounds , [1988] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 293 (House of Lords); Abuja Int'l Hotels Ltd v. Meridien SAS [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 246, 250 (English Ct. App.)Meridien SAS [2012] EWHC 87, โศ20, 22 (Comm)(英国高等法院)("法庭正确地认为,尼日利亚法律与仲裁协议的有效性无关,因为该协议受英国法律管辖。......管理协议受尼日利亚法律管辖这一事实并不意味着可分离的、不同的仲裁协议也受尼日利亚法律管辖");Black Clawson Int'l Ltd 诉 Papierwerke Waldhof Aschaffenburg AG [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 446, 483 (QB) (English High Ct.);L. Collins et al.(虽然在许多情况下,主合同的适用法律对仲裁协议的适用法律有很大影响,但并非在所有情况下都是如此")。
58 M.S. Dozco India Pvt Ltd v. MS Doosan Infracore Co. , [2010] INSC 839, 9 T12-13 (Indian S.Ct.)(引用 Naviera Amazonica Peruana SAS A v. Cia Internacional de Seguros del Peru [1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 116, 119 (English Ct. App.))。另见 Nat'l Thermal Power Corp. v. Singer Co.XVIII Y.B. Comm.Arb.403, 406 (Indian S.Ct. 1992) (1993) ("仲裁协议的适当法律通常与合同的适当法律相同。只有在特殊情况下,即使当事人明确选择了合同的适当法律,情况也并非如此。但是,如果没有明确选择管辖整个合同或仲裁协议本身的法律,则可能产生一种推定,即约定进行仲裁的国家的法律是仲裁协议的适当法律。但这只是一个可反驳的推定。)
59 例如,见 Thyssen Canada Ltd v. Mariana Maritima SA, [2000] 3 FC 398, 122 (Canadian Fed. Ct. App.)("关于仲裁协议的适当法律,有必要询问当事人是否明确选择了适用于协议的法律。如果是,即使所选择的法律不同于基础合同的法律或裁判法,法律选择也将优先。"); BNAB N A 诉 BNBB N B 案,[2019] 3, 3FC98,122(加拿大联邦上诉法院)("关于仲裁协议的适当法律,有必要询问当事人是否明确选择了适用于协议的法律。
SGHC 142, 117 (e) (Singapore High Ct.) ("The parties' choice as the proper law of an arbitration agreement is not necessarily the same law which is their choice to be the proper law of their substantive contract"); Klöckner Pentaplast GmbH & Co.KG诉Advance Tech.(H.K.) Co. , [2011] 4 HKLRD 262, बा23-24 (H.K. Ct. First Inst.) ("毫无疑问,合同的适当法律和[管辖仲裁协议的法律]可能不同")。比较 Comandate Marine Corp. v. Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd , [2006] FCAFC 192 (Australian Fed. Ct.)(表明,如果没有相反的选择,司法法庭的法律管辖仲裁协议的有效性);BHP Billiton Ltd v. Oil Basins Ltd , [2006] VSC 402 (Victoria Sup. Ct.)。另见 Nottage & Garnett, Top Twenty Things to Change in or Around Australia's International Arbitration Act , 6 Asian Int'1 Arb.1, 9 n. 26 (2010).
63 Judgment of 27 October 2000 , Bulgarian Foreign Trade Bank, Ltd vv .A.I. Trade Fin.XXVI Y.B. Comm.Arb.291, 293 (Swedish S.Ct.) (2001).
64 同上。(着重部分由作者标明)。
65 1980 年 4 月 26 日的判决,VII Y.B. Comm.Arb.340, 341 (Venice Corte di Appello) (1982) (recognizing award rendered in London).
66 例如,见 1993 年 8 月 4 日的判决,Owerri Commercial Inc.诉 Dielle Srl,XIX Y.B.Comm.Arb。Arb.703 (Hague Gerichtshof) (1994); Judgment of 19 February 2004, 2005 SchiedsVZ 54 (Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof); Judgment of 22 September 1994, 2 Ob 566/94 (Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof)。另见 J.-F.Poudret & S. Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration 9179\mathbf{9 1 7 9} (2d ed. 2007)。
67 《土耳其国际仲裁法》,第 4 条("仲裁协议的有效性受当事各方选定的适用于仲裁协议的法律管辖,如无任何选择,则受土耳其法律管辖")。4 ("The validity of an arbitration agreement is governed by the law chosen to be applicable to the arbitration agreement, or failing any choice, by Turkish law")。另见 Balssen & Kınıkoğlu, Drafting Arbitration Agreements and Arbitrability, in A. Yesilirmak & I. Esin (eds.), Arbitration in Turkey 43 (2015) ("According to Article 4, in case parties have not chosen a law to be applied to the arbitration agreement, the arbitration agreement shall be valid only if it is compliance with Turkish law"). 68 见 §4.04[B][3][g] 。
70 国际商会第 1507 号案件的最终裁决,引自 S. Jarvin & Y. Derains (eds), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1974-1985 215, 216 (1990)。Derains (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1974-1985 215, 216 (1990).
71 Interim Award in ICC Case No.Arb.131, 133 (1984).另见 ICC 第 20686/RD 号案件的最终裁决,Arb.Intell.9||157-58 ("T]The doctrine of separability does not mean that an arbitration agreement will necessarily be governed by a different law from the law governing the main contract. The doctrine of separability merely calls for the arbitration agreement to be governed by the law.可分离性理论只是要求将仲裁协议作为独立于主合同的协议对待。");国际商会第 7453 号案件的最终裁决,XXII Y.B. Comm.Arb.
5505 , XIII Y.B. Comm.Arb.110, 116-17 (1988) ("Parties may submit an arbitration agreement to a law which is not the substantive law of the main contract"); Interim Award in ICC Case No. 4504,113 J.D.I. (Clunet) 1118 (1986); Final Award in CAM Case No.Arb.292, 318 (2018)(鉴于仲裁协议的 "自主性",意大利法律选择条款不适用于仲裁协议)。
72 国际商会第 4381 号案件裁决,113 J.D.I. (Clunet) 1102, 1104 (1986)。另见 ICC 第 9987 号案件部分裁决,Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co.诉巴基斯坦宗教事务部,2(4) Int'l J. Arab Arb.337, 352 (2010) ("By reason of the International character of the Arbitration Agreement coupled with the choice, under the main Agreement, of institutional arbitration under the ICC Rules without any reference in such Agreement to any national law, the Tribunal will decide on the matter of its jurisdiction and on all issues relating to the validity and scope of the Arbitration Agreement ... by reference to those transnational general principles and usages reflecting the fundamental requirements of justice in international trade and the concept of good faith in business")。
73 Derains, Observation on Final Award in ICC Case No. 4381, in S. Jarvin, Y. Derains & J.-J. Arnaldez (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1986-1990 268 (1994).
81 Bernardini, 仲裁条款:81 Bernardini, Arbitration Clauses: Achieving Effectiveness in the Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:40
Years of the Application of the New York Convention 197, 200-02 (1999) ("the international arbitrator may take at least three different approaches in order to determine the substantive law of the arbitration clause"); Blessing, The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause , in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards. 40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 168-69 (1999) ("I]I]besides the above four approaches [mentioned other commentators], five further solutions have been advocated in international arbitration practice:40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 168-69 (1999)("除了[其他评论者提到的]上述四种方法外,国际仲裁实践中还提出了另外五种解决方法。......关于可仲裁性,所有这九种解决办法也都得到了提倡(实际上也得到了实践)。......我们是否因此面临着巨大的混乱?");Lew,《适用于仲裁条款的形式和实质的法律》,载于 A. van den Berg(编辑),《提高仲裁协议和裁决的效率:40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 114, 141-44 (1999) ("There are four main conflict rules for determining the applicable law to govern the arbitration agreement").另见§4.04[A][2][g]。 82 见第 4.04[A][2][j]节。
83 见同上;§4.04[A][3] 。
84 见 1995 年 3 月 21 日的判决,XXII Y.B. Comm.Arb.800, 804 (Swiss Fed. Trib.) (1997) (warning of danger that, due to application of different choice-of-law rules, "an arbitration agreement may, when relied upon [in a request for referral], cause the lack of jurisdiction of the courts under certain circumstances according to the lex fori, whereas the arbitral award based on that arbitration agreement may be denied recognition because the agreement is invalid according to a foreign law").另见 M. Bühler & T. Webster, Handbook of ICC Arbitration:Ferrari & S. Kröll (eds.), Conflict of Laws in International Arbitration 19, 53 (2011) ("To simply put it, in no way a uniform criterion can be, or has been, found to assess the substantive validity of an arbitration agreement and each jurisdiction tends to adopt a unique and rather unpredictable approach to this issue")。
85 见第 1.02[B]节。
86 见 §4.04[A][2] ; §4.04[B][3] 。
87 不同的权威机构确定了可能受管辖国际仲裁协议的法律制约的不同类别的问题。见 2001 年 7 月 23 日的判决,XXXI Y.B. Comm.Arb.825, 830 (Spanish Tribunal Supremo) (2006)(确定仲裁协议的适用法律 "有些复杂,因为适用法律分为特定方面的特定适用法律:能力、效力等");Nat'l Thermal Power Corp. v. Singer Co.XVIII Y.B. Comm.Arb.403, 406 (Indian S.Ct. 1992) (1993)("仲裁协议的有效性、效力和解释由其适当的法律管辖。这些法律将决定仲裁条款的范围是否足以涵盖当事人之间的争议。这些法律通常还将决定仲裁条款是否对双方当事人具有约束力,即使其中一方当事人声称合同无效、可撤销或非法,或该合同已因违约或合同落空而解除......适当的仲裁法还将决定仲裁条款是否同样适用于相同当事人之间或其中一方当事人与第三方之间的不同合同");Bernardini, Arbitration Clauses:Bernardini, Arbitration Clauses: Achieving Effectiveness in the Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards: Chukwumerije,Choice-of-Law in International Commercial Arbitration 34 (1994)("管辖仲裁协议的法律适用于有限的同意问题(例如协议是否由欺诈、虚假陈述或不当影响诱导),以及仲裁协议的解释、效力和范围");L.Collins et al. (eds.), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 916R-001916 \mathrm{R}-001 (15th ed. 2012 & Update 2018)("仲裁协议的实质有效性、范围和解释受其适用法律的管辖")。 88 见第 8.02[D]节。 89 见§4.08;§10.02[A]。
104 G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements:Drafting and Enforcing 29 (5th ed. 2016).另见§19.04 .
105 涉及现有争端的提交协议也是如此。G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements:G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing Appendix H (5th ed. 2016)。
106 见 In re Salander O'Reilly Galleries, 453 B.R. 106, 111 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011)("海峡群岛法律将适用于本协议,包括 1998 年《仲裁(泽西)法》");2000 年 9 月 14 日判决书,XXVII Y.B. Comm.Arb.265, 265 (German Bundesgerichtshof) (2002).代表性的例子见 G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements:起草和执行 73 (5th ed. 2016)。
107 例如,见 Bond, How to Draft An Arbitration Clause (Revisited), 1(2) ICC Ct. Bull.14 (1990).
108 见§19.04。另见 G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements:Drafting and Enforcing 138 (5th ed. 2016)(提供典型的法律选择条款)。
139 《纽约公约》第 V(1)(a)条。V(1)(a) 条。见 Nacimiento, Article V(1)(a), in H. Kronke et al. (eds.), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. A Global Commentary on New York Convention 205 (2010); Schramm, Geisinger & Pinsolle, Article II, in id:见 Nacimiento, Article V(1)(a), in H. Kronke et al. (eds.), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on the New York Convention 205 (2010); Schramm, Geisinger & Pinsolle, Article II , in id. at 37, 54; A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 282-83 (1981) (describing drafting history of choice of law rule in Article V(1)(a)).
140 见 §§4.04[B][2][b][ii] -[iii] 。
141 见第 4.04[B][2][b][iii]节。
142 见第 4.04[B][2][b][iii]节。 143 见第 11.03[A]节。
144 见第 2.03[C][1][a][ii](2)节。另见 K.V.C. Rice Intertrade Co.Ltd v. Asian Mineral Res. Pte Ltd , [2017] SGHC 32, 918\mathbf{9 1} 8 (新加坡高等法院)。
在《公约》中,第 II 条关于国际仲裁协议推定有效的规则以及《公约》支持执行的目标都是有效的。参见
§
.如果似乎有合理的前景表明仲裁将在所产生的适用法律将支持协议有效性的地方进行,则没有理由不允许仲裁进行。这使当事人的仲裁协议生效,并避免假设当事人和仲裁庭将无法以确保仲裁协议有效性的方式进行仲裁。 148 见第 14.07 节。
149 Bernardini, 仲裁条款:149 Bernardini, Arbitration Clauses: Achieving Effectiveness in the Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards. 40 Years Application of the New York Convention 197, 200 (1999):40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 197, 200 (1999).另见《美国国际商事仲裁和投资者与国家间仲裁法重述》第 2.13 条报告人注释 e (2019)("《纽约公约》和《联邦仲裁法》均未规定仲裁[原文如此]协议在执行时的适用法律")。
150 见,例如,常州 AMEC E. Tools & Equip.Co. v. E. Tools & Equip.,2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106967, at *39 (C.D. Cal.) (在根据第 V(2)(b)条确定适用法律时,参考第 II(3)条的分析,并指出 "一些地区法院已适用国内州法确定有效性问题");Ferrara SpA v. United Grain Growers, Ltd, 441 F.Supp. 778, 780-81 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (dicta that forum's laws should apply, on grounds that New York Convention's legislative history contemplates this and that it "is consistent ... with the view that enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate relates to the law of remedies and is therefore governed by the law of the forum"), aff'd mem、580 F.2d 1044 (2d Cir. 1978)。另见 Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd, 652 F.3d 1257, 1281 (11th Cir. 2011)("本巡回法院还在仲裁执行阶段统一引用或讨论了第二条,在裁决执行阶段统一引用或讨论了第五条")。
151 Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §§1, 6(2) (1971); B. Audit, Droit International Privé 9\mathbf{9} T157 et seq . (8th ed. 2018); L. Collins et al. (eds.), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 94-034 (15th).
编辑。2012 & Update 2018); M. Giuliano & P. Lagarde, Report on the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations O.J. C 282 31/10/1980, 11 ("The object [of the Convention] was to eliminate the inconvenities arising from the diversity of rules of conflict, notably in the field of contract law"); M. Reimann, Conflict of Laws in Western Europe. A Guide Through the Jungle 109-12 (1995); E. Scoles et al:M. Reimann, Conflict of Laws in Western Europe: A Guide Through the Jungle 109-12 (1995); E. Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws 93.57\mathbf{9 3 . 5 7} (4th ed. 2004); S. Symeonides, Private International Law and the End of the 20th Century:43-45 (2000).43-45 (2000). 152 见§1.02[B]。
153 见§1.04[A][1];A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958286 (1981)("必须认为公约的条款是相互关联的,因为其根本目的是尽可能实现国际商事仲裁法律制度的统一;原则上,必须认为公约的案文构成一个整体")。
154 Silberman, The New York Convention After Fifty Years:Some Reflections on the Role of National Law, 38 Ga.J. Int'l & Comp.42 (2009)(根据第二条和第五条适用不同的法律 "可能导致仲裁协议得到法院的尊重,即使随后的裁决最终可能无法执行")。
155 例如,见 Bülow, Das UN-Übereinkommen über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung Ausländischer Schiedssprüche, Zeitschrift für Konkurs-, Treuhand- und Schiedsgerichtswesen 1, 3-4 (1959);Contini, International Commercial Arbitration:Contini, International Commercial Arbitration: The United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards , 8 Am.8 Am. J. Comp.L. 283, 296 (1959)(法院将适用本国法律,包括冲突规则);Pisar, The United Nations Convention on Foreign Arbitral Awards , 33 S. Cal.L. Rev. 14, 16 (1959) (Article II(3) refers to national conflict of laws rules only as last resort); T. Rüede & R. Hadenfeldt, Schweizerisches Schiedsgerichtsrecht 231 (2d ed. 1993); Silberman, The New York Convention After Fifty Years:关于国内法作用的一些思考》,38 Ga.J. Int'l & Comp.42 (2009) ("disadvantage with the application of forum law is that it might also lead to litigation maneuvering by the respective parties in order to secure a choice of law advantage on the issue of validity")。 156 见第 1.04[A][1]节。
157 见同上;§5.01[B][2] 。
158 另见 L. Collins 等(编),Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 916-114\mathbf{9 1 6 - 1 1 4} (第 15 版,2012 年和 2018 年更新)(第五(1)(a)条中的法律选择规则 "有力地表明 "法律选择规则更普遍地适用于仲裁协议)。
159 例如,见 1995 年 3 月 21 日的判决,XXII Y.B. Comm.Arb.800, 804-05 (Swiss Fed. Trib.) (1997); Judgment of 3 February 1990 , Della Sanara Kustvaart:Bevrachting & Overslagbedrijf BV v. Fallimento Cap.Giovanni Coppola Srl, XVII Y.B. Comm.Arb.542, 543 (Genoa Corte di Appello) (1992) ("Considering the eadem ratio and the close connection between [Articles II(3) and V], the criteria for the evaluation of the arbitration clause which are to be applied in enforcement proceedings must also be applied when the clause is invoked in order to derogate from the jurisdiction of the national courts")。
160 例如,见 Emanuele, Molfa & Marvasi, International Arbitration Agreements, in C. F. Emanuele & M. Molfa (eds.), Selected Issues in International Arbitration:K. Kröll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 996-32, 655 (2003) ("Though [Article V(1) of the New York Convention and Article 36(1)(a)(i) of the UNCITRAL Model Law] addresses the issue only from the perspective of the annulment or enforcement judge, there is a strong argument in favor of applying the same criteria at the pre-award stage"); McMahon, Implementation of the United Nations Convention on Foreign Arbitral Awards in the United States, 2 J. Mar.L. & Comm. 735, 757 (1971) (same); A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 126-28, 291-95 (1981) (Article II(3) should be read to incorporate Article V(1)(a)'s choice-of-law rule: "A systematic interpretation of the Convention, in principle, permits the application by analogy of the conflicts rules of Article V(1)(a)\mathrm{V}(1)(\mathrm{a}) to the enforcement of the agreement")。比较 Haas,《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》,纽约,1958 年 6 月 10 日,载于 F.-B.魏根德(编),《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》,纽约,1958 年 6 月 10 日。Weigand (ed.), Practitioner's Handbook on arbitral, New York, June 10, 1958, in F. -B.
International Arbitration (2d ed. 2009); Martiny, in K. Rebmann, F. Säcker & R. Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Einfuehrungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch Vorbem.Art.3, 951\mathbf{9 5 1} (5th ed. 2010); J. Robert, L'arbitrage, Droit Interne, Droit International Privé 9280\mathbf{9 2 8 0} (5th ed. 1983); van Houtte, Parallel Proceedings Before State Courts and Arbitral Tribunals, in P. Karrer (ed.), Arbitral Tribunals or State Courts:P. Karrer (ed.), Arbitral Tribunals or State Courts: Who Must Defer to Whom ?35 (2001).
161 这一结论得到第 V(1)(a)\mathrm{V}(1)(\mathrm{a}) 条承认条款中提及第二条的支持,反映了这些条款之间的相互关系。A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958127 (1981) ("As Article V(1)(a) incorporates Article II - '... the agreement referred to in Article II ...' - Article II can be deemed to incorporate Article V(1)(a)\mathrm{V}(1)(\mathrm{a}) ").
165 《纽约公约》第 V(1)(a)条。165 《纽约公约》,第五(1)(a)条。见 Nacimiento, Article V(1)(a), in H. Kronke et al. (eds.), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards:见 Nacimiento, Article V(1)(a), in H. Kronke et al. (eds.), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on the New York Convention 205 (2010); Schramm, Geisinger & Pinsolle, Article II , in id. at 37, 54; A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 282-83 (1981) (describing drafting history of choice of law rule in Article V(1)(a)).
167 例如,见 1931 年 10 月 2 日判决,DFT 57 I 295(瑞士联邦法庭);1994 年 11 月 24 日判决, XXI Y.B. Comm.Arb.635,
638 (Rotterdam Rechtbank) (1996);Citation Infowares Ltd v. Equinox Corp.(2009) 7 SCC 220, 115 (Indian S.Ct.);Nat'l Thermal Power Corp. v. Singer Co.XVIII Y.B. Comm.Arb.403, 405 (Indian S.Ct. 1992) (1993); Judgment of 30 May 1994 , XX Y.B. Comm.Arb.745, 747 (Tokyo High Ct.) (1995).另见 W. Craig, W. Park & J. Paulsson, International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration 95.05\mathbf{9 5 . 0 5} (3d ed. 2000) ("Most national court decisions under the New York Convention have applied the law of the country where the award was rendered" to arbitration agreement);A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958124 (1981) ("law governing the arbitration agreement is in practice almost always the same law as the law governing the arbitral procedure");§11.01[C]。 168 见第 4.04[A][2][d]节。 169 见第 4.04[A][1][c]节。 170 见 §4.04[A][2][a]。
200 见§2.01[A][2];Escobar 诉 Celebration Cruise Operator, Inc.805 F.3d 1279, 1286 (11th Cir. 2015) ("The null-and void clause encompasses only those defenses grounded in standard breach-ofcontract defenses - such as fraud, mistake, duress, and waiver - that can be applied neutralrally before international tribunals"); Bautista vv .Star Cruises , 396 F.3d 1289, 1302 (11th Cir. 2005); Rhone Mediterranee v. Lauro , 712 F.2d 50, 53 (3d Cir. 1983) (applying federal common law rules and international principles derived from New York Convention); Wior v. BellSouth Corp.,2016 WL 11528970, at *4 (N.D. Ga.) ("在仲裁执行阶段,根据《纽约公约》,唯一可用的肯定性抗辩是证明仲裁协议'无效、无法执行或无法履行'的抗辩");Hodgson 诉 Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd, 706 F.Supp.2d 1248, 1256-61 (S.D. Fla. 2009)("无效条款只包括'欺诈、错误、胁迫和放弃等可在国际范围内中立适用的情况'")(引用 Bautista v. Star Cruises , 396 F.3.1289, 1302 (11th Cir. 2005)); Apple & Eve, LLC v. Yantai N. Andre Juice Co.
201 案文中的分析与一些评论家的分析不同,他们认为第二条规定了一种国际标准,在协议执行阶段取代或替代 V(1)(a)\mathrm{V}(1)(\mathrm{a}) 条的法律选择规则。Friedland & Hornick, The Relevance of International Standards in the Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements Under the New York Convention, 6 Am.6 Am. Rev. Int'l Arb.149, 154 (1995)("《公约》案文和工作文件都强烈表明,第五条的法律选择规则不应被理解为第二条,第二条下的争议应根据可能不同的国际标准解决")。正确的分析是,《公约》禁止歧视性和特异性规则的规定同样适用于第二条和第五条,这是从 《公约》的宗旨和结构中衍生出来的实质性法律规则,而不是说第二条和第五条适用不同的法 律选择和实质性规则。 202 见第 4.04[A][3]节。
214 《罗马公约》第 1(2)(d)条。1(2)(d); Rome I Regulation, Art.1(2)(e).另见 H. Gaudemet-Tallon,JurisClasseur Europe Traité,Fasc.3200, T55 (2016); M. Giuliano & P. Lagarde, Report on the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations , O.J. C 282 31/10/1980, Art.1, 95; Le Vay Lawrence & Shakinovsky, Selecting A Forum and System of Law in International Transactions:Le Vay Lawrence & Shakinovsky, Selecting A Forum and System of Law in International Transactions: A UK Perspective on the Rome and Brussels Conventions, 2 Int'1 Co.L.R. 189, 192 (1991); McGuiness, The Rome Convention:1 San Diego Int'l L.J. 127, 139 (2000);R. Plender & M. Wilderspin, The European Contracts Convention:R. Plender & M. Wilderspin, The European Contracts Convention: The Rome Convention of the Choice of Law for Contracts 94-19\mathbf{9 4 - 1 9} (2d ed. 2001).
215 E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 9422\mathbf{9 4 2 2} (1999 年)。
216 M. Giuliano & P. Lagarde, Report on the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations , O.J. C 282, 31/10/1980, Art.1, I5\boldsymbol{I} 5 ;R. Plender & M. Wilderspin, The European Contracts, O.J. C 282, 31/10/1980, Art.
公约》:合同法律选择罗马公约》- 4-20 (2001 年第 2 版)。
217 见 §4.02[B] ; §4.04[A] 。
218 见 Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS 诉 OOO Ins.Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, 9 T/27-28 (U.K. S. Ct.) ("Because the Rome I Regulation does not apply to arbitration agreements, an English court ... must apply the rules developed by the common law. Those rules are that the contract (or relevant part of it is governed by:(i) the law express or implied.这些规则是,合同(或其相关部分)受以下法律管辖:(i) 当事人明示或默示选择的法律;或 (ii) 在没有这种选择的情况下,与合同关系最密切的法律。Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SAS A v Enesa Engenharia SAS A [2012] EWCA Civ 638, [[9\llbracket 9 (English Ct. App.) ("仲裁协议的适当法律应根据确定任何合同适当法律的既定普通法规则确定。这些规则要求法院承认当事人明示或默示的适当法律选择并使其生效,否则有必要确定与合同有最密切和最真实联系的法律体系");Sonatrach Petroleum Corp. (BVI) v. Ferrell Int'l Ltd [2002] 1 All ER 627, 932\mathbf{9 3 2} (Comm)(英国高等法院)(最密切关系)。另见 2005 年 9 月 21 日的判决,XXXI Y.B. Comm.Arb.679, 683 (German Bundesgerichtshof) (2006) (closest relationship); Judgment of 28 November 1963, 1964 NJW 591, 592 (German Bundesgerichtshof) (party autonomy); Judgment of 2 April 1992 , 1992 NJW 3107 (Landgericht Kassel) (party autonomy); Judgment of 4 August 1993, Owerri Commercial Inc. v. Dielle Srl , XIX Y.B. Comm. Arb.Arb.703, 705 (Hague Gerechtshof) (1994)(关于在没有明确选择的情况下适用于仲裁协议的法律:"法院认为......与英国法律的联系最为密切"); BCYB C Y 诉Asia. Blackaby et al. (eds.), Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration 993.97-110 (6th ed. 2015); L. Collins et al. (eds.), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws.
T16R-001(15th ed. 2012 & Update 2018)("仲裁协议的实质有效性、范围和解释受其适用法律管辖,即:(a) 当事人明示或默示选择的法律;或者,(b) 在没有这种选择的情况下,与仲裁协议关系最密切的法律");§4.04[A][3] 。219 见§1.04[F][2];§3.02。罗马公约》的起草历史也很有启发性。见 M. Giuliano & P. Lagarde, Report on the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, O.J. C 282 31/10/1980, ब5("[英国代表]强调,仲裁协议在合同方面与其他协议并无不同,某些国际公约没有规定适用于仲裁协议的法律,而其他公约在这方面则不足。其他代表团......反对[英国]的建议。其他代表团......反对[英国]的建议,特别强调应避免增加这方面的公约数量,草案中原 则上接受了可分割性,仲裁条款是独立的,'最密切联系'的概念[很难]适用于仲裁协 议,程序方面和合同方面很难分开,这个问题很复杂,专家们的建议显示出很大的分歧; 由于程序问题和与争端是否可以仲裁有关的问题无论如何都将被排除在外,唯一需要规范 的问题将是同意;......。众所周知,[国际商会]在这一问题上经验丰富,它认为没有必要作进一步的规定。......专家组......将仲裁协议排除在统一规则的范围之外。)
1(1) ("This Convention applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States"); M. Bridges, The Sale of Goods (3d ed. 2014); S. Kröll et al . (eds.), The United Nations Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods (2d ed. 2018); I. Schwenzer (ed.), Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (4th ed. 2016).
1998 年 2 月 17 日的判决,案件号 ATS 1332/1998,第 4 号法律依据(西班牙最高法院)(在承认诉讼中适用《销售公约》,裁定仲裁协议未有效成立)。另见 Giammarco & Grimm, 《销售公约》与仲裁协议:A Janus-Faced Practice and How to Cope with It , 25 J. Arb.Stud.33, 49 (2015).
222 Giammarco & Grimm, CISG and Arbitration Agreements:A JanusFaced Practice and How to Cope with It, 25 J. Arb.Stud.33, 51 (2015)(根据《销售公约》适用更宽松的形式要求与《纽约公约》并无不符之处);Walker, Agreeing to Disagree:Can We Just Have Words?CISG Article 11 and the Model Law Writing Requirement, 25 J. L. & Comm.153, 163 (2005-2006)(受《销售公约》管辖的国际销售合同中的仲裁协议受《销售公约》管辖,包括无形式要求)。
223 B. Piltz, Internationales Kaufrecht 106 (2d ed. 2008) (arbitration agreements in international sales contracts governed by CISG are subject to CISG, but not including issue of formal validity); U. Schroeter, UN-Kaufrecht und Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht:Verhältnis und Wechselwirkungen 6, 40 (2005) (同上);Schwenzer & Tebel, The Word is Not Enough:Schwenzer & Tebel, The Word is Not Enough: Arbitration, Choice of Forum and Choice of Law Clauses Under the CISG, 31 ASA Bull.741, 745 (2013)(根据《销售公约》第 1(4)条,仲裁协议不属于销售合同)。
224 Koch, The CISG as the Law Applicable to Arbitration Agreements , in C. Andersen & U. Schroeter (eds.), Sharing International Commercial Law Across National Boundaries. Festschrift for Albert H. Kritzer on Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday 267, 276, 286 (2008):Festschrift for Albert H. Kritzer on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday 267, 276, 286 (2008).
225 Kröll, 《关于〈销售公约〉适用范围的若干问题》,25 J. L. & Comm.39, 43-46 (2005-06) (CISG does not govern arbitration clauses in international sales contracts, because of separability presumption). 226 见第 4.04[A][2][d]节。
227 见§4.04[A][1][b];§4.04[A][3]。
228 见 G. Graham, To Validate Certain Agreements for Arbitration, H.R. Rep. No.
而不是实体法问题,应由合同签订地的法律来决定")。另见 §1.05[A] .
229 Theofano Maritime Co. v. 9,551.19 Long Tons of Chrome Ore , 122 F.Supp. 853, 858 (D. Md. 1954)。
230 关于对仲裁协议采用历史性的普通法法律选择方法的美国权威,见 Robert Lawrence Co.271 F.2d 402, 405 n. 3 (2d Cir. 1959) ("For choice-of-law purposes it has been generally held that the forum is free to apply its own 'remedy' and is not compelled to enforce an arbitration agreement by applying the law of the State with the controlling contracts"); Sinva, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 253 F.Supp. 359, 364 (S.D.N.Y. 1966); Theofano Maritime Co. , 122 F.Supp. at 858; The Eros , 241 F. 186, 191 (E.D.N.Y. 1916) ("general arbitration clause ... goes to the remedy, not to the rights, of the parties, and ... its effect is to be determined by the law of the forum"), aff'd , 251 F. 45 (2d Cir. 1916).45 (2d Cir. 1918);Aktieselskabet Korn-Og Foderstof Kompangniet v. Rederiaktiebolaget Atlanten, 232 F. 403, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 1916) (Hand, J.) (仲裁条款 "不影响当事人的权利")。)(仲裁条款 "不影响触及当事人的义务,因为它们肯定不会;它们规定了当事人必须如何为其错误获得任何补救,这只包括救济"),被维持原判,252 U.S. 313 (U.S. S.Ct. 1920);Meacham 诉 Jamestown, Franklin & Clearfield R.R. , 211 N. Y. 346, 352 (U.S. S.Ct. 1920);Meacham 诉 Jamestown, Franklin & Clearfield R.R. , 211 N. Y. 346, 352 (U.S. S.Ct. 1920)。Y. 346, 352 (N.Y. 1914) ("An agreement that ... differences arising under a contract shall be submitted to arbitration relates to the law of remedies, and the law that governs remedies is the law of the forum"); Gantt v. Felipe Y. Carlos Hurado & Cia, 297 N.Y. 433, 438-39 (N.Y. 1948) (following Meacham ); Elec.Res.Inc. 诉 Vitaphone Corp.171 A. 738, 747-48 (Del. Ch. 1934) (following Meacham ); Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §218, Reporters' Note (1971) (citing cases); G. Graham, To Validate Certain Agreements for Arbitration , H.R. Rep. No. 68-96, 1 (1924).
231 Sinva, Inc. v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.253 F.Supp. 359, 364 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)。
232 比较 Hamlyn & Co. v. Talisker Distillery [1894] AC 202, 210(上议院)("有人争辩说,将争议提交仲裁的协议涉及的是补救措施,而不是当事人的权利、
234 对传统观点的批评,见 Foerster, Arbitration Agreements and the Conflict of Laws:A Problem of Enforceability , 21 Arb.129, 132 (1966);Lorenzen, Commercial Arbitration:Lorenzen, Commercial Arbitration: International and Interstate Aspects , 43 Yale L.J. 716, 751-57 (1934)。比较 Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §218 (1971)。
裁决");1954 年 3 月 27 日的判决,45 Rev. Critique de Droit Int'l Privé 511(意大利最高法院)(1956 年)。另见 1994 年 5 月 30 日判决,XX Y.B. Comm.Arb.745, 747 (Tokyo High Ct.) (1995) ("extent to which an arbitration agreement barits litigation shall be determined in principle by the law governing the arbitration agreement"); P. Schlosser, Das Recht der Internationalen Privaten Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit 9T249\mathbf{9} \boldsymbol{T} \mathbf{2 4 9} et seq. (2d ed. 1989). 240 见 §4.04[A][2][c]。
243 1994 年 5 月 26 日的判决,XXIII Y.B. Comm.Arb.754, 757 (Bezirksgericht Affoltern am Albis) (1998) (emphasis added).另见 Balkan Energy Ltd v. Ghana, 302 F.Supp.3d 144, 152-53 (D.D.C. 2018) ("because the parties designated in the arbitral clause that The Hague, Netherlands was to serve as the seat of the arbitration, Dutch law supplied the law applicable to the arbitration agreement"), appeal dismissed, 2018 WL 5115572 (D.C. Cir.); Judgment of 2 October 1931 , DFT 57 I 295 (Swiss Fed. Trib.); Judgment of 24 November 1994 , XXI Y.B. Comm. Arb.Arb.635, 638 (Rotterdam Rechtbank) (1996) ("law applicable to the arbitration agreement is the law of the place of arbitration"); FirstLink Inv. Corp.Ltd v. GT Payment Pte Ltd, [2014] SGHCR 12, $16\$ 16 (新加坡高等法院)("在没有相反迹象的情况下,在所选实体法与所选仲裁地法之间的直接竞争中,当事人已默示选择仲裁地法作为管辖仲裁协议的适当法律。在所有条件都相同的情况下,仅仅在主合同中明示实体法的事实本身并不足以取代当事人将所在地法律作为仲裁协议的适当法律的意图"),在 BCYvB C Y v .BCZ , [2017] 3 SLR 357 (Singapore High Ct.); Citation Infowares Ltd v. Equinox Corp.,(2009) 7 SCC 220, 115 (Indian S.Ct.)("在没有任何相反意图的情况下,可以推定当事人的意图是[该]合同的适当法律以及管辖[该]仲裁协议的法律与同意进行仲裁的国家的法律相同");Nat'l Thermal Power Corp. v. Singer Co.XVIII Y.B. Comm.Arb. 403, 406 (Indian S.Ct. 1992) (1993) ("Where ... there is no express choice of the law
管辖整个合同或仲裁协议本身的[可反驳的]推定可能产生,即约定进行仲裁的国家的法律是仲裁协议的适当法律");2015 年 10 月 29 日判决,案件号 2013 Da 74868, - 138 (S. Korean S.Ct.) (2015)("如《纽约公约》第五条第㈠款(a)项所规定,仲裁协议的成立和有效性应受有关当事人指定作为仲裁协议管辖法律的法律管辖。纽约公约》第五(1)(a)条规定,仲裁协议的成立和有效性应受相关当事人指定的管辖仲裁协议的法律管辖。如果未指定,则应适用仲裁地所在国的法律......");W. Craig, W. Park & J. Paulsson, International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration §5.05 (3d ed. 2000)("根据《纽约公约》作出的大多数国家法院裁决都对仲裁协议适用作出裁决的国家的法律");A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958124 (1981)。
246 例如,见国际商会第 14046 号案件的最终裁决,XXXV Y.B. Comm.Arb.241, 245 (2010) ("Given the generally recognized principle of the autonomy of the arbitration clause on the one hand, and the fact that the law applicable to the arbitration clause is rarely the subject of a specific stipulation, on the other, most national courts' decisions under the New York Convention have applied the law of the country where the award was rendered. ... In the case at hand, arbitration clause not contain any reference to the law.......在本案中,仲裁条款并未提及适用的法律。......在本案中,仲裁条款并未提及适用的法律,因此,仲裁条款的有效性必须根据仲裁地的法律,即瑞士法律进行审查。Arb.41, 44-45 (1995); Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.137, 140 (1989) (arbitration clause is "governed by ... lex fori of the arbitrator"); Interim Award in ICC Case No. 4504, 113 J.D.I. (Clunet) 279, 280-81 (1986); Final Award in ICC Case No. 1507 , cited in S. Jarvin & Y. Derains (eds.).Derains (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1974-1985 215, 216 (1990) ("As a matter of principle, because ICC Arbitral Awards 1974-1985 215, 216 (1990).
249 See, e.g. , Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.145, 158 (2019) ("the Sole Arbitrator holds that the law applicable to arbitration agreement is lex arbitri "); Final Award in CAM Case No.Arb.292, 318 (2018)("一般认为--仲裁员也同意这一观点--在当事方没有明确选择的情况下,适用仲裁地所在国的法律(lex arbitri)");国际商会第 14046 号案件的终局裁决,XXXV Y.B. Comm.Arb.241, 245 (2010);Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.153, 162 (1992)(将瑞士法律作为仲裁地法律适用于仲裁协议;拒绝适用管辖基本协议的实体法);ICC Case No. 5730, 117 J.D.I. (Clunet) 1029, 1034 (1990)(法国法律适用于仲裁协议,"首先因为它是仲裁地的法律");Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.137, 140-41 (1989)(适用仲裁地法律,而非管辖基础合同的法律,以确定 "仲裁协议是否具有约束力");Preliminary Award in ICC Case No.Arb.110, 117 (1988) ("law governing the arbitration clause itself ... is mostly thought to be governed either by the selected law or by the 'lex fori' (the law of the place of arbitration)"); Interim Award in ICC Case No. 4472 , 111 J.D.I. (Clunet) 946, 947 (1984) (same).
250 见,例如,Hamlyn & Co. v. Talisker Distillery [1894] AC 202, 208(上议院)("如果......双方同意,他们的合同所产生的任何争议应'由伦敦玉米交易所的两名成员或他们的公断人以通常的方式仲裁解决',在我看来,他们已经尽可能清楚地表明了他们的立场。
作为他们之间合同的一部分,该特定规定应根据苏格兰法律而非英格兰法律解释并受其管辖");孟加拉国化学工业公司(Bangladesh Chem.Indus.Corp. v. Henry Stephens Shipping Co. [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 389, 392 (English Ct. App.) (Lord Denning) ("It seems to me as plain as possible be that under the typed clause the arbitration was to be in London: and arbitration is to be in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1950: together with the usual consequence that [the arbitration clause] is to be governed by English law"); Halpern v. Halpern [2006] EWW.Halpern [2006] EWHC 603, 955 (Comm)(英国高等法院),因其他理由被推翻,[2007] EWCA Civ 291(英国上诉法院);Egon Oldendorff 诉 Liberia Corp.[1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 64, 67, 69-70, 76 (QB)(英国高等法院)(仲裁条款和基础合同均受英国法律管辖,其中仲裁条款规定:仲裁条款规定:"根据宪章产生的任何争议应提交伦敦仲裁")。另见 FirstLink Inv.Ltd v. GT Payment Pte Ltd, [2014] SGHCR 12, [[15\llbracket 15 (新加坡高等法院)("此外,当事人选择中立地必然意味着默示接受所选地的仲裁法管辖其仲裁。这也意味着当事人默示选择了该仲裁地的仲裁法来管辖包括监督法院有权裁定与仲裁协议有效性有关的管辖权争议等事项"),在 BCY v. BCZ , [2017] 3 SLR 357(新加坡高等法院)一案中受到质疑。
254 一些法院似乎采纳了这一理由。例如,见 1933 年 10 月 7 日判决,Tobler 诉 Justizkommission des Kantons Schwyz, DFT 59 I 177, 179(瑞士联邦法庭)("根据瑞士联邦法庭的既定判例法,仲裁条款不是实体法协议,而是程序性协议");1915 年 5 月 28 日判决,Jörg 诉 Jörg, DFT 41 II 534(瑞士联邦法庭)(仲裁条款是程序性合同);1994 年 5 月 30 日判决,XX Y.B. Comm.Arb.745, 747 (Tokyo High Ct.) (1995) ("it is the nature of arbitration agreements to provide for given procedures in a given place, that the parties intend that the law of the place of the arbitration proceedings are held"); Judgment of 10 April 1990 , XVII Y.B. Comm. Arb.Arb.568, 570 (S. Korean S.Ct.)(1992)("由于仲裁条款规定根据伦敦仲裁法院的《仲裁规则》进行仲裁,上述书面协议没有必要具体到明确规定仲裁机构和仲裁地点以及适当的法律")。比较 1993 年 8 月 4 日的判决,Owerri Commercial Inc.Arb.703, 706 (Hague Gerechtshof) (1994) ("it is usual to make a connection with the socalled lex fori of the arbitrators")。
257 例如,见国际商会第 5832 号案件裁决,115 J.D.I. (Clunet) 1198, 1198-99 (1988);国际商会第 5294 号案件最终裁决,XIV Y.B. Comm.Arb.137, 140 (1989);Interim Award in ICC Case No. 4504, 113 J.D.I. (Clunet) 279, 280-81 (1986);Partial Award in Hamburg Chamber of Commerce Case of 21 March 1996, XXII Y.B. Comm.Arb.35, 36 (1997) ("choice of German law can be inferred ... from the agreement to refer disputes to a German arbitral tribunal").
258 国际商会第 1507 号案件的最终裁决,引自 S. Jarvin & Y. Derains (eds), 国际商会 1974-1985 年仲裁裁决汇编 215, 216 (1990)。Derains (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1974-1985 215, 216 (1990).
259 国际法研究所,II Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International,Resolutions on Arbitration in Private International Law (Amsterdam) 491 (1957)。另见 J. Lew, L. Mistelis & S. Kröll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 99-72\mathbf{9} \mathbf{9} \mathbf{- 7 2} (2003 年)。
260 国际法研究所,II Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International,Resolutions on Arbitration in Private International Law (Neuchâtel),394 (1959)(着重部分由作者标明)。
262 见 E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 9424 (1999) ("The Institute thus implicitly characterized the arbitration agreement as procedural and applied a supposed principle that the arbitral procedure is necessarily governed by the law of the country where the arbitration was held")。
264 见§4.04[A][2][c];Blessing, The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and 裁决:40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 174 (1999) ("There is a strong tendency (also strengthened by the New York Convention) that the substantive validity of the arbitration clause should be governed by the law of the place of arbitration"); E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 9430\mathbf{9 4 3 0} (1999) ("In earlier decisions, some courts considers that where the parties had chosen the seat of the arbitration, it could be inferred that they intended to subject the arbitration agreement to the law of that place").比较 L. Collins 等人 (eds.), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 916-019\mathbf{9 1 6 - 0 1 9} (15th ed. 2012 & Update 2018) ("如果没有明确选择管辖整个合同或仲裁协议的法律,但当事人选择了仲裁地,则合同经常(但不一定)受该国法律管辖,理由是仲裁地的选择被视为对管辖合同的法律的默示选择")。另见 §4.04[A][2][e];Trukhtanov, The Proper Law of Arbitration Agreement:A Farewell to Implied Choice?, 2012 Int'1 Arb.L. Rev. 140, 144(从默示选择法转向强力选择法)。
英国法院 "默示......正在进行 "有利于所在地法的推定)。
265 见第 4.04[B][2][b][iii]节。
266 Judgment of 27 October 2000 , Bulgarian Foreign Trade Bank, Ltd v. A.I. Trade Fin., Inc.XXVI Y.B. Comm.Arb.291, 293 (Swedish S.Ct.) (2001).另见 1984 年 5 月 10 日判决书,1984 NJW 2763,2764(德国联邦法院);1980 年 3 月 20 日判决书,1980 NJW 2022,2024(德国联邦法院);1971 年 1 月 7 日判决书,1971 NJW 986(德国联邦法院);2009 年 2 月 18 日判决书,11 Sch 07/08(德累斯顿高等法院);Geimer, in R. Zöller (ed.), Zivilprozessordnung §1029, 9T17a et seq . (31st ed. 2016); J.-P.Lachmann, Handbuch für die Schiedsgerichtspraxis 9 T269 et seq. (4th ed. 2016); Münch, in G. Lüke & P. Wax (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung §1029, ब32 (5th ed. 2016).
267 见§1.02[B][6];§4.04[B]。
268 见 Hamlyn & Co.Talisker Distillery [1894] AC 202, 208(上议院)("凡在我看来,他们已经尽可能清楚地表明了他们的意图,即作为他们之间合同一部分的这一特定规定应根据苏格兰法律而非英格兰法律来解释和管辖");Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v. Enesa Engenharia SA [2012] EWCA。Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA 诉 Enesa Engenharia SA [2012] EWCA Civ 638, ศ||17-18, 32(英格兰上诉法院)("通过诉讼解决争议的协议")。)("在伦敦通过仲裁解决争端的协议,因此根据英国仲裁法,与管辖保险单的法律体系没有密切的司法联系,其目的与解决争端无关;相反,它与仲裁地的法律有最密切和最真实的联系,仲裁地将行使必要的支持和监督管辖权以确保程序有效");Bangladesh Chem.Indus.Corp. v. Henry Stephens Shipping Co. [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 389, 392 (English Ct. App.) (Lord Denning) ("It seems to me as plain as possible be that under the typed clause the arbitration was to be in London: and arbitration is to be in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1950: together with the usual consequence that [the arbitration clause] is to be governed by the Law, 1950");孟加拉国化学工业公司诉亨利-斯蒂芬斯航运公司[1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep.
英国法律");Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal 诉 VSC Steel Co.Ltd [2014] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 479, 1101 (3)(英国高等法院)(在基础合同没有明确选择法律的情况下,所在地选择对仲裁协议适用法律具有 "压倒性 "意义)。另见 L. Collins 等人 (eds.), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 916-019\mathbf{9 1 6 - 0 1 9} (15th ed. 2012 & Update 2018); Pearson, Sulamérica v. Enesa:Pearson, Sulamérica v. Enesa: The Hidden Pro-Validation Approach Adopted by the English Courts with respect to the Proper Law of the Arbitration Agreement, 29 Arb.International 115, 118-21 (2013).
269 见第 4.04[A][1][b][iv]节。
270 见§4.04[A][2][d];Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS诉OOO Ins.Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, 9170\mathbf{9 1 7 0} (英国最高法院);Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA 诉 Enesa Engenharia SA [2012] EWCA Civ 638,9/927-29(英国上诉法院);Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal 诉 VSC Steel Co.Ltd [2014] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 479。ब101(2) (English High Ct.); Arsanovia Ltd v. Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings [2012] EWHC 3702, T/T17-21 (Comm) (English High Ct.) (choice of law clause in underlying contract (selecting Indian law) was implied choice of law governing arbitration agreement despite London seat).
271 见,例如,Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v. Kout Food Group [2020] EWCA Civ 6, 962\mathbf{9 6 2} (English Ct. App.); Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal v. VSC Steel Co.Ltd [2014] 1 Lloyd's Rep 479, ศ101(2) (English High Ct.); Arsanovia Ltd v. Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings [2012] EWHC 3702, बा17-21 (Comm) (English High Ct.).
272 例如,见 Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA 诉 Enesa Engenharia SAS A [2012] EWCA Civ 638,ศ|929-31(英格兰上诉法院);C 诉 D [2007] EWCA Civ 1282, 926\mathbf{9 2 6} (英格兰上诉法院)。
273 这一点在上文有详细讨论。见第 4.04[A][3]节。
274 见§4.04[A];§19.04。
275 见 G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements:160 (4th ed. 2013)。另见 Brown, Choice of Law Provisions in Concession and Related Contracts , 39 Modern L.R. 625, 638 (1976);P. Friedland, Arbitration Clauses for International Contracts 183-84 (2d ed. 2007);Jaffey, Limitations in Choice of Law Provisions:评注,40 Modern L.R. 440 (1977);J. Paulsson, N. Rawding & L. Reed, The Freshfields,《法律选择条款中的限制:评注》,40 Modern L.R. 440 (1977)。
Guide to Arbitration and ADR: Clauses in International Contracts 1112 (3d ed. 2011).
277 例如,见 1976 年 2 月 12 日的判决,II Y.B. Comm.Arb.242 (German Bundesgerichtshof) (1977) (assuming without analysis that law of underlying contract governed arbitration clause); Judgment of 28 November 1963, 1964 NJW 591-92 (German Bundesgerichtshof) (parties typically intend to subject arbitration clause to same law as main contract).1989 年 4 月 7 日判决,1990 RIW 585、586(慕尼黑高等法院)。比较 2003 年 7 月 8 日的判决,DFT 129 III 675,679(瑞士联邦法庭)("根据[瑞士国际私法]第 178(2)条,仲裁协议只要符合当事人选择的法律、争议适用的法律,特别是主合同适用的法律或瑞士法律,即为有效。只有当双方当事人为其仲裁协议选择的法律偏离了主合同适用的法律时,第一种选择才起作用。由于本案中不存在这种情况,而且根据当事人选择的法律,主合同适用瑞士法律,因此后者适用于仲裁协议的有效性")。
279 见,例如,Recyclers of Australia Pty Ltd 诉 Hettinga Equip.Inc.,[2000] 175 ALR 725(澳大利亚联邦法院)(对仲裁条款的有效性适用基础合同中的法律选择条款所选择的爱荷华州法律);Aastha Broadcasting Network v. Thaicom Public Co.[2011]O.M.P.528/2011,931(德里高等法院)("如果当事人明确选择了适当的合同法,在没有明确无误的相反意图的情况下,仲裁协议必须以这种法律为准")。另见 R. Merkin, Arbitration Law 97.12 (1991 年及 2019 年 8 月更新)("整个协议[即包括基础合同]的法律选择条款很可能被解释为扩展至仲裁条款")。
280 Sonatrach Petroleum Corp. (BVI) v. Ferrell Int'l Ltd [2002] 1 All ER 627, 932\mathbf{9 3 2} (Comm)(英国高等法院)。
281 英吉利海峡隧道集团有限公司诉 Balfour Beatty Constr.Ltd [1993] AC 334, 357-58(上议院)。
282 Nat'l Thermal Power Corp. v. Singer Co.XVIII Y.B. Comm.Arb.403, 406-07 (Indian S.Ct. 1992) (1993).另见 MS Indtel Tech.Servs.Pvt Ltd v. W.S. Atkins Rail Ltd , [2008] 10 SCC 308, 924 (Indian S.Ct.) ("it is fairly well-settled that when an arbitration agreement is silent as to the law and procedure to be followed in implementing the arbitration agreement, the law governing the said agreement would generally be the same as the law governing the contract itself").
283 See, e.g. , Final Award in ICC Case No.Intell.Mat.โ9157-58(将当事人对基础合同的巴西法律选择适用于仲裁协议);Award in ICC Case No. 14617 , cited in J.-J. Arnaldez, Y. Derains & D. Hascher (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 2012-2015 119 (2018)(将当事人对基础合同的德国法律选择适用于仲裁协议);Award in ICC Case No. 11869 , XXXVI Y.B. Comm.Arb.47, 52-53 (2011)(将当事人对基础合同和仲裁协议的英国法律选择适用于仲裁协议,其中法律选择条款紧随仲裁条款之后:"无论其可分性如何,没有迹象表明本案中的当事人希望将仲裁协议置于与主合同不同的法律之下");ICC Case No.10579, discussed in Grigera Naón, Choice-of-Law Problems in International Commercial Arbitration, 289 Recueil des Cours 9, 45-46 (2001) (alternative holding that choice-of-law clause in underlying contract applies to arbitration agreement); Award in ICC Case No.Arb.37, 38 (1998) (将基础合同中的法律选择条款适用于仲裁协议); Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.54, 55-56 (1993) (将一般法律选择条款适用于仲裁条款); Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.212, 215 (1992)(对仲裁条款适用管辖基础合同的法律,而非仲裁地法律);ICC Case No.
284 例如,见 M. Bühler & T. Webster, Handbook of ICC Arbitration:Jarvin, The Sources and Limits of the Arbitrator Powers, in J. Lew (ed.), Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration 52 (1987) (law chosen by parties to govern underlying contract applies to arbitration agreement, including interpretation); Nacimiento, Article V(1)(a)V(1)(a) , in H. Kronke et al. (eds.), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards:纽约公约全球评注》205, 223 (2010)("如果没有对仲裁协议做出特别选择,则推定管辖主合同的法律也适用于仲裁条款");J.-F. Poudret & S. Bess.Poudret & S. Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration 9178\mathbf{9 1 7 8} (2d ed. 2007) ("several authors and courts presume that the parties also intended to submit the arbitration agreement to the law chosen for the contract").
285 N. Blackaby et al. (eds.), Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration 93.12\mathbf{9} 3.12 (6th ed. 2015).
286 Restatement of the U.S. Law of International Commercial and InvestorState Arbitration §4-14 comment b (2019)("如果当事人未约定管辖仲裁协议的法律体系(明示或默示),则包括仲裁协议在内的合同中的一般法律选择条款决定适用法律。如果双方当事人未选择任何法律管辖仲裁协议或管辖合同的一般法律,则提交仲裁的事项受仲裁地法律管辖,无需诉诸其法律选择规则。)见 §4.04[A][1][b][iv] 。
287 例如,见 Nacimiento, Article V(1)(a)V(1)(a) , in H. Kronke et al. (eds.), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. A Global Commentary on New York Convention 205, 223 (2010) ("If no particular choice made as to the arbitration agreement, will presumption that the law governing main contract applies to the arbitration:如果对仲裁协议未作特别选择,则推定管辖主合同的法律也适用于仲裁条款");J.-F. Poudret & S. Bess.Poudret & S. Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration 9178\mathbf{9 1 7 8} (2d ed. 2007) ("several authors
法院推定双方当事人也有意将仲裁协议提交给为合同选择的法律")。
288 Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SAS A v. Enesa Engenharia SAS A [2012] EWCA Civ 638, 929\mathbf{9 2 9} (English Ct. App.) ("虽然有一些强有力的因素支持默示选择巴西法律作为仲裁协议的准据法,但有两个重要因素指向另一个方向。第一个因素是 Toulson J. 在 XLX L Insurance v Owens Corning 一案中指出的。双方当事人一定知道,选择另一个国家作为仲裁地必然意味着接受该国与仲裁的进行和监督有关的法律将适用于仲裁程序"); CC 诉 DD [2007] EWCA Civ 1282, 126(英国上诉法院);FirstLink Inv. Corp.Ltd v. GT Payment Pte Ltd, [2014] SGHCR 12、
𝟙
(Singapore High Ct.)("在没有相反迹象的情况下,在所选实体法与所选仲裁地法直接竞争的情况下,当事人默示选择仲裁地法作为管辖仲裁协议的适当法律"),在 BCY v. BCZ, [2017] 3 SLR 357 (Singapore High Ct.)一案中受到质疑。 289 见第 4.04[A][2][c]节。
292 例如,见 2011 年 4 月 7 日判决书,2011 Rev. Arb.747 (Paris Cour d'Appel); Judgment of 27 October 2000 , Bulgarian Foreign Trade Bank, Ltd v. A.I. Trade Fin., Inc.XXVI Y.B. Comm.Arb.291 (Swedish S.Ct.) (2001).
293 参见,例如,Rhone Mediterranee v. Lauro, 712 F.2d 50, 52-54 (3d Cir. 1983) (意大利法律,适用于基础合同,不适用于仲裁协议无效); Ledee v. Ceramiche Ragno , 684 F.2d 184, 186-87 (1st Cir. 1982) (波多黎各法律,适用于合同,不适用于仲裁协议无效); Farrell vv .Subway Int'l, BV, 2011 WL 1085017 (S.D.N.Y.) (refusing to apply choice-of-law provision of underlying contract where doing so would invalidate arbitration agreement); Westbrook Int'l, LLC v. Westbrook Techs.17 F.Supp.2d 681, 684 (E.D. Mich. 1998)(拒绝适用基础合同中的一般法律选择条款来影响仲裁协议的有效性,除非有明确声明表明有此意图;
适用所选择的法律会使适用于有关争议的仲裁条款无效);Prograph Int'l, Inc. v. Barhydt, 928 F.Supp. 983, 989 (N.D. Cal. 1996);Technetronics, Inc. v. LeyboldGeaeus GmbH , 1993 WL 197028, at *6 (E.D. Pa.); W. of England Ship Owners Mut.保险协会(卢森堡)诉 Am.Marine Corp.,1992 WL 37700, at *4 (E.D. La.);Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v. Enesa Engenharia SA [2012] EWCA Civ 638, 9/929-31 (English Ct. App.)(基础合同的巴西法律选择不适用于使仲裁协议无效,仲裁协议受英国法律管辖)。
295 例如,见国际商会第 16655 号案件裁决,4(2) Int'1 J. Arab Arb.125, 185 (2012) ("双方未明确选择管辖仲裁条款的法律。即使双方在《分销协议》第 19 条中选择了法国法律管辖争议标的,但根据国际仲裁的实体规则,仲裁条款在法律上独立于包含该条款的主协议(仲裁条款的自主性),法国法律并不自动适用于上述仲裁条款。J. Arnaldez, Y. Derains & D. Hascher (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 2012-2015 177 (2018)(适用作为仲裁地法律的西班牙法律,而不适用作为基础协议管辖法律的瑞士法律);ICC 第 6162 号案件的最终裁决,XVII Y.B. Comm.Arb.153, 160-62 (1992)(对仲裁协议适用作为仲裁地法律的瑞士法律;拒绝适用管辖基础合同的实体法);国际商会第 4381 号案件的裁决,113 J.D.I. (Clunet) 1102, 1104 (1986)(仲裁条款不受管辖基础合同的法律的约束;仲裁条款的有效性可在不参考任何国家法律的情况下确定);国际商会第 1507 号案件的终局裁决,引自 S. Jarvin & Y. Derains (eds.)。Derains (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 19741985 215, 216 (1990)(适用仲裁地法律,而非基础合同中法律选择条款所选择的法律)。
296 E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 9425\mathbf{9 4 2 5} (1999 年)。
297 Bernardini, 仲裁条款:297 Bernardini, Arbitration Clauses: Achieving Effectiveness in the Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards. 40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 197, 201 (1999):40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 197, 201 (1999). 298 见第 4.04[A][3]节。
299 Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB v. Lithuania [2005] EWHC 2437, $76 (Comm)(英国高等法院)。另见 Tonicstar Ltd 诉 Am. Home Assur.Home Assur.Co. [2004] EWHC 1234, 911\mathbf{9 1 1} (Comm)(英国高等法院)("在我看来,整个合同的适当法律显然是英国法律。......我不认为仲裁协议的适用法律不同于将其纳入其中的再保险合同的适用法律")。
300 见§4.04[A][3];2003 年 1 月 24 日的判决,XXX Y.B. Comm.Arb.509, 515 (Oberlandesgericht Hamburg) (2005) ("law applicable to the disputed legal relationship [is] applied to the arbitration agreement where no choice of law had been made specifically for the arbitration agreement"); BMO v. BMP, [2017] 3 SLR 267, ศ||39-40 (Singapore High Court.)(在基础合同中没有明示法律选择的情况下,作为当事人默示选择管辖基础合同的越南法律也管辖仲裁协议);2000 年 3 月 10 日的判决,Krauss Maffei Verfahrenstechnik GmbH 诉 Bristol Myers Squibb,XXVI Y.B. Comm.Arb.816, 820 (Italian Corte di Cassazione) (2001)(适用意大利法律,通过《罗马公约》的法律选择规则管辖基础合同,而非外国仲裁地的法律)。另见《美国国际商事仲裁和投资者与国家间仲裁法重述》第 4-14 条评注 b (2019)("如果当事人未约定管辖仲裁协议的法律体系(明示或默示),则包括仲裁协议在内的合同中的一般法律选择条款决定适用法律。如果双方当事人未选择任何法律管辖仲裁协议或管辖合同的一般法律,则提交仲裁的事项受仲裁地法律管辖,而无需诉诸其法律选择规则")。
301 例如,见 G. Petrochilos, Procedural Law in International Arbitration 33 (2004)("仲裁协议的适当法律,如无相反情况,将遵循(主要)仲裁地的适当法律。
");M. Mustill & S. Boyd, Commercial Arbitration 63 (2d ed. 1989)("出发点是确定体现仲裁的合同的适当法律。作为一般规则,仲裁协议将受相同的法律管辖,因为它是基本合同实质内容的一部分");Collins,The Law Governing the Agreement and Procedure in International Arbitration in England,载于 J. Lew(编辑),Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration 127(1987 年)("仲裁协议的适当法律通常与它构成其一部分的合同的适当法律相同")。
302 B. Goldman, Arbitrage (Droit International Privé ), in P. Francescakis (ed.), Encyclopédie Dalloz:Droit International |59 (1968).
303 例如,见 ICC 第 9987 号案件裁决,Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co.诉巴基斯坦宗教事务部,2(4) Int'l J. Arab Arb.370, 389 (2010) ("In the absence of any contrary express agreement, the proper Law of the Arbitration Agreement shall be the same as that which is applicable to the Main Agreement, such law being the Law of Pakistan which is the law that has the closest connections/nexus with the agreement"); Award in ICC Case No.9480, discussed in Grigera Naón, Choice-of-Law Problems in International Commercial Arbitration, 289 Recueil des Cours 9, 55-56 (2001) (parties' arbitration clause is presumptively governed by law governing underlying contract); Final Award in ICC Case No.J. Arnaldez, Y. Derains & D. Hascher (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1991-1995 467, 469 (1997) ("it is reasonable and natural ... to submit the arbitration clause to the same law as the underlying contract"); Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.212, 215 (1992)(适用管辖基础合同的法律,而非仲裁地法律)。
305 见第 3.02[E]节。另见 A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 145-46 (1981).
306 见§1.04[E][7];§2.02[C];第4章;§19.03;§19.05-19.06。另见Preston诉Ferrer案,552 U.S. 346, 363 (U.S. S.Ct. 2008)("'协调'当事人采用AAA [R]规则和选择加利福尼亚法律[在整个合同的法律选择条款中]的'最佳方式'是[在整个合同的法律选择条款中]采用AAA [R]规则和选择加利福尼亚法律。
合同]是将后者理解为包括有关当事人实质性权利和义务的规定,而不是国家'限制仲裁员权力的特别规则'")(引用 Mastrobuono 诉 Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc、514 U.S. 52, 64 (U.S. S.Ct. 1995)); Mastrobuono, 514 U.S. at 64 (choice-of-law clause "encompass[es] substantive principle that New York courts would apply," but does not include arbitration law).
309 参见§11.01[B];§15.01;§15.04;§15.07。另见 Y. Derains & E. Schwartz, AA Guide to the ICC Rules of Arbitration 111-14 (2d ed. 2005); J. Lew, L. Mistelis & S. Kröll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration |6-23 (2003).
312 见,例如,Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §§187-88 & §218 comment a (1971);Judgment of 4 August 1993 , Owerri Commercial Inc. v. Dielle Srl , XIX Y.B. Comm.Arb.703, 706 (Hague Gerechtshof) (1994); Bernardini, Arbitration Clauses:实现仲裁条款适用法律的有效性》,载于 A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:Blessing, The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards: 40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 197 (1999);Blessing, The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:New York Convention 40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 168 (1999); Lew, The Law Applicable to the Form and Substance of the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 114 (1999).
313 见《罗马公约》第 4 条;《罗马第一规则》第 4 条。4; Rome I Regulation, Art.4; Interim Award in ICC Case No.Arb.134 (1986) (citing closest relationship standard, although contract contained choice-oflaw clause); Judgment of 4 August 1993, Owerri Commercial Inc.Arb.703, 706 (Hague Gerechtshof) (1994) ("The court is of the opinion ... that the closest connection is with English law")。另见 L. Collins 等人 (编),Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 9||16-016-019 (15th ed. 2012 & Update 2018);E. Gaillard & J. Savage (编),Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 9/425 et seq. (1999);J. Lew, L. Mistelis & S. Kröll,Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 96-60 (2003)。
320 见,例如,Partial Award in ICC Case No. 6719 , 121 J.D.I. (Clunet) 1071, 1072 (1994)("法院认为,与可仲裁性问题联系最密切的国家法律[是]仲裁地的法律,特别是如果仲裁地已由当事各方共同商定");Award in ICC Case No.5730 , 117 J.D.I. (Clunet) 1029, 1033-34 (1990); Interim Award in ICC Case No.Arb.134 (1986) (considering argument for closest connection standard, although contract contained express choice-oflaw clause);Lew, The Law Applicable to the Form and Substance of the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 114, 142 (1999).
323 See E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 9|9426, 434 (1999) (closest connection test gives rise to "great uncertainty" because of difficulty giving weight to various connecting factors).另见 R. David,Arbitration in International Trade 219-20 (1985)("法院[关于仲裁协议适用法律的]偶尔声明不能被解释为对某一学说的坚持,而只是为了以方便的方式解释法院是如何在特定案件中得出解决方案的")。
立陶宛[2005] EWHC 2437, बा976-77 (Comm)(英国高等法院)("仲裁协议规定在伦敦进行仲裁,并默示受英国法律管辖")与 Svenska Petroleum Exploration ABvA B v .Lithuania [2005] EWHC 2437, बा976-77 (Comm)(英国高等法院)("在没有特殊情况下,仲裁协议的适用法律与管辖其构成部分的合同的法律相同")和 Sonatrach Petroleum Corp.Ferrell Int'l Ltd [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 627, 932 (Comm)(英国高等法院)("如果实体合同包含明确的法律选择,但仲裁协议没有单独包含明确的法律选择,则后一协议将受明确选择用于管辖实体合同的法律体系管辖")。
325 见第 4.04[A][2][c]-[d]节。 326 见第 4.04[A][2][e]节。
327 Bernardini, 仲裁条款:327 Bernardini, Arbitration Clauses: Achieving Effectiveness in the Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards. 40 Years Application of the New York Convention 197, 201 (1999):40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 197, 201 (1999).另见 Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co. v. Ministry of Religious Affairs, Pakistan , Partial Award in ICC Case No.337, 367 (2010) ("we see no reason to apply the Pakistan Arbitration Acts to the present Arbitration, the seat of which is not within Pakistan"); Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.156, 161 (1989) ("《国际商会仲裁规则》第 26 条[现为第 35 条]规定,仲裁员应尽一切努力确保裁决在法律上可执行。由于仲裁地为巴黎市(法国),仲裁庭研究了法国法律(《新民事诉讼法》第 1492 至 1497 条),得出结论认为,上述法律中没有任何内容与争议仲裁条款的完全有效性和效力相冲突");国际商会第 4392 号案件的裁决,引自 S. Jarvin & Y. Derains (eds.).Derains (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1974-1985 473, 474 (1990) ("arbitrator must verify the validity of the arbitration agreement according to the law in the seat of the arbitral tribunal"); Interim Award in ICC Case No.Arb.97, 99 (1987)("如果......仲裁庭认为协议中没有明确的适用法律条款,那么奥地利法律
必须作为仲裁地的法律提出");J. Lew, L. Mistelis & S. Kröll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 9||6-69 to 71 (2003).
328 N. Blackaby et al. (eds.), Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration 93.12\mathbf{9 3 . 1 2} (5th ed. 2009).
329 例如,见国际商会第 8385 号案件裁决,引自 J.-J. Arnaldez, Y. Derains & D. Hascher (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 19962000474 (2003)("所有三个体系[国际、纽约和比利时]都承认,至少在某些情况下,公司面纱可以被揭开");国际商会第 6850 号案件终局裁决,XXIII Y.B. Comm.Arb.37, 38-40 (1998) (cumulatively applying both German and French law to validity of arbitration clause and issues of capacity); Interim Award in ICC Case No.Arb.41, 44-45 (1995);Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.156, 160-62 (1989)(累积适用国际商会规则、仲裁地法律、管辖基础合同的法律和贸易惯例);国际商会第 4695 号案件临时裁决,XI Y.B. Comm.Arb.149 (1986)(累积适用可能相关的法律以维护仲裁协议的有效性);国际商会第 953 号案件的裁决,III Y.B. Comm.Arb.214, 215 (1978).另见 ICC 第 7722 号案件终局裁决,XXXII Y.B. Comm.Arb.13, 27-28 (2007) ("本案中的任何情况都使我们认为对 X 国及其法律的依附与本次听证有最密切的关系。......在本案中,我们注意到,X 国法律被明确选择为合同的适当法律。......在本案中,我们注意到,X 国法律被特别选定为合同的适当法律。");2008 年 8 月 19 日的判决,DFT 4A_128/2008,94.1.1(瑞士联邦法院,2008 年 8 月 19 日);2008 年 8 月 19 日的判决,DFT 4A_128/2008,94.1.1(瑞士联邦法院,2008 年 8 月 19 日)。 Trib.)("关于仲裁协议的主观影响的问题--争议在于哪些当事人受协议约束,以及确定协议中未提及的一个或多个第三方在多大程度上属于协议的属人管辖范围--涉及案情实质,因此属于[《国际商事仲裁示范法》]第 178(2)条的范畴。178(2) [SLPIL] 条。这个问题属于瑞士法律的管辖范围,因为无法确定合同当事人是否会将仲裁协议提交给另一部法律,而该法律所预期的另外两种可能性是
有时也对适用于当事方争议案情的实体法采取同样的方法。见第 19.03[D][3][d]节。
330 累积法在分析上不同于确认原则(另有讨论)。累积分析法并不像效力原则那样,根据单一的国内法来确认仲裁协议的效力。见 §19.03[D][3] [d]; B. Berger & F. Kellerhals, International and Domestic Arbitration in Switzerland 9372\mathbf{9 3 7 2} (2d ed. 2010); Wenger, in S. Berti et al. (eds.), International Arbitration in Switzerland Art.178, 924\mathbf{9 2 4} (2000)。相反,累积分析着眼于所有可能适用的国内法,而没有为这些不同法律之间的冲突提供指导。
331 例如,见国际商会第 17818 号案件的最终裁决,XLIV Y.B. Comm.Arb.30, 43 (2019)(对仲裁协议的有效性适用法国法律和跨国原则);国际商会第 17050 号案件的裁决,29 ASA Bull.634, 934 (2011) ("it is unnecessary to decide the issue of the law governing the arbitration agreement, since the Parties' rights and obligations flow directly from the contract (the Agreement), and the terms of the arbitration agreement, referring to the ICC Rules"); Award in ICC Case No.125, 185 (2012)(尽管有法国法律选择条款,仲裁员仍可决定仲裁协议的有效性,"而无需适用任何符合国际公共政策要求的国内法");Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co. v. Ministry of Religious Affairs, Pakistan , Partial Award in ICC Case No.337, 352 (2010) ("those transnational general principles and usages reflecting the fundamental requirements of justice in international trade and the concept of good faith in business"); Interim Award in ICC Case No.Arb.149 (1986); Award in ICC Case No. 4381 , 113 J.D.I. (Clunet) 1102, 1104 (1986) (validity of arbitration clause can be determined without reference to any national law); Judgment of 9 May 1996 , Arabe des Engrais Phosphates et Azotes v. Gemanco Srl, XXII Y.B. Comm.Arb.737, 741 (Italian Corte di Cassazione) (1997) ("The law governing the arbitration clause - that is, the law governing the arbitration clause.
333 E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 9428 (1999).例如,见 1957 年 4 月 10 日的判决,Myrtoon S.S. v. Agent Judiciaire du Tresor, JCP G 1957, II, 10078(巴黎上诉法院);1955 年 12 月 9 日的判决,Goldschmidt v. Viz et Zoon, 1956 Dalloz 217(巴黎上诉法院)。
334 见国际商会第 5485 号案件的最终裁决,XIV Y.B. Comm.Arb.156, 162 (1989) (treating ICC Rules as applicable law, but interpreting Rules as requiring tribunal to "make every effort to ensure that the award is enforceable at law," and therefore referring also to French law as law of place of arbitration).
335 见,例如,国际商会第 14046 号案件的最终裁决,XXXV Y.B. Comm.Arb.241, 245 (2010) ("In the case at hand, the arbitration clause does not contain any reference to the law applicable to it. As the consequence of thereof, the validity of the arbitration clause must be examined in the case of the arbitration.因此,仲裁条款的有效性必须根据仲裁地的法律,即瑞士法律来审查。");ICC Case No.9548, discussed in Grigera Naón, Choice-of-Law Problems in International Commercial Arbitration, 289 Recueil des Cours 9, 41-42 (2001) (Article 178(2) of Swiss Law on Private International Law is mandatory choice of law rule for arbitration seated in Switzerland); Award in ICC Case No.7373, discussed in Grigera Naón, Choice-ofLaw Problems in International Commercial Arbitration, 289 Recueil des Cours 9, 71 (2001) (applying law of arbitral seat to validity of arbitration agreement because tribunal reasoned that this is mandatory for arbitration seated in the Netherlands); Award in ICC Case No.
国际商事仲裁,289 Recueil des Cours 9, 76 (2001)(适用《瑞士国际私法》第 178(3)条,理由是该条强制适用于在瑞士进行的仲裁)。
336 国际商会第 10760 号案件的裁决,在 Grigera Naón, Choice-ofLaw Problems in International Commercial Arbitration, 289 Recueil des Cours 9, 44 (2001) 中讨论。
345 《贸易法委员会示范法》第34(2)(a)(i), 36(1)(a)(i).见 P. Binder, International Commercial Arbitration and Mediation in UNCITRAL Model Law Jurisdictions 449 (4th ed. 2019); H. Holtzmann & J. Neuhaus, A Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Legislative History and Comment 915-16, 1058-59 (1989):H. Holtzmann & J. Neuhaus, A Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: Legislative History and Commentary 915-16, 1058-59 (1989); Ortolani, Article 34:Ortolani, Article 34: Application for Setting Aside as Exclusive Recourse Against Arbitral Award, in I. Bantekas et al . (eds.), UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration:870 (2020);Polkinghorne et al :拒绝承认或执行的理由,同上,第 943 页。
346 UNCITRAL, Digest of Case Law on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 176 (2012) ("Few cases discuss the law governing the arbitration agreement in greater detail"). 347 见第 1.04[B][1][a]节。 348 见第 4.04[B][3][a]节。
349 见第 4.04[A][1][b][iv]节;第 4.04[A][3]节。
350 见§4.04[A][1][b][v];§4.04[A][3]。
351 Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS 诉 OOO Ins.Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, $170 (U.K. S.Ct.);Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v. Kout Food Group [2020] EWCA Civ 6, 937\mathbf{9 3 7} (English Ct. App.);Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SAS A v. Enesa Engenharia SAS A [2012] EWCA Civ 638, [[25\llbracket 25 (English Ct. App.)("适当的法律通过对以下三个阶段进行调查来确定:(i) 明示选择;(ii) 明示选择;(iii) 明示选择。App.) ("the proper law is to be determined by undertaking a three-stage enquiry into (i) express choice, (ii) implied choice and (iii) closest and most real connection"); Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal v. VSC Steel Co.Ltd [2014] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 479,【101(2)】(英国高等法院);Arsanovia Ltd 诉 Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings [2012] EWHC 3702, 98\mathbf{9 8} (Comm)(英国高等法院)。
352 见第 4.04[A][3][a]节;第 4.04[A][5][a]节。
353 Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB v. Lithuania [2005] EWHC 2437, 976\mathbf{9 7 6} (Comm)(英国高等法院)。
354 Sonatrach Petroleum Corp. (BVI) v. Ferrell Int'l Ltd [2002] 1 All ER 627, 932\mathbf{9 3 2} (Comm)(英国高等法院)。
362 见 Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA 诉 Enesa Engenharia SA [2012] EWCA Civ 638, థ|26-27(英格兰上诉法院);Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal 诉 VSC Steel Co.Ltd [2014] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 479,【101(2)】(英国高等法院);Arsanovia Ltd v. Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings [2012] EWHC 3702, థ 1717-211717-21 (Comm)(英国高等法院)(基础合同中的法律选择条款(选择印度法律)是管辖仲裁协议的默示法律选择,尽管仲裁地在伦敦)。
363 Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Ins.Chubb [2020] UKSC 38,【170(英国最高法院);Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v. Enesa Engenharia SA [2012] EWCA Civ 638,9T26-27(英国上诉法院)。
365 比较 L. Collins (ed.), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 9 16-017 (14th ed. 2006) ("If there is an express choice of law to govern the contract as a whole, the arbitration agreement will also be governed by that law") ( emphasis added) with L. Collins et al.),Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 916-017\mathbf{9 1 6 - 0 1 7} (第 15 版,2012 年)("如果明确选择了管辖整个合同的法律,则仲裁协议也将受该法律管辖")(着重部分由作者标明)与 Glick & Venkatesan, Choosing the Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement, in N. Kaplan & M. Moser 合著的《选择仲裁协议的管辖法律》(第 15 版,2006 年)("如果明确选择了管辖整个合同的法律,则仲裁协议也将受该法律管辖")(着重部分由作者标明)。
(编辑), Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Choice of Law in International Arbitration:Liber Amicorum Michael Pryles 131, 135 (2018) ("The current position in English law - at least before the level of the Supreme Court - may thus be illustrated by this example.如果矩阵合同明确受纽约法律管辖,而当事人选择伦敦作为仲裁地,则英国法院将把当事人视为默示选择纽约法律作为仲裁协议的管辖地,除非有一些额外因素--即仲裁地选择之外的因素--指向英国法律或(至少)远离纽约法律")。另见 Trukhtanov, The Proper Law of Arbitration Agreement:A Farewell to Implied Choice?,2012 Int'l Arb.Rev. 140, 142("在 CvDC v D 之前,司法和学术界的正统观点是,仲裁协议的适当法律与实体合同的适用法律不同是例外情况,前者是实体合同的'附属物'和'组成部分'。 CvDC v D 采取了相反的做法,即'(可分割的)仲裁协议的法律与仲裁地的法律不同的情况很少见'")。
366 Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Ins. Co.Chubb [2020] EWCA Civ 574, बा91-105 (English Ct. App.).
367 Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Ins. Co.Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, T170 (U.K. S.Ct.) (citing G. Born, International Commercial Arbitration 1403 (2d ed. 2014)).
378 E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 9425\mathbf{9} 425 (1999).另见 Mastrobuono 诉 Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc.,514 U.S. 52, 59-63 (U.S. S.Ct. 1995)。
379 英国上诉法院最近在Kabab-Ji案中的判决很好地说明了这一点,法院认为当事人对协议的(模板)定义将法律选择条款延伸到仲裁条款。Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v. Kout Food Group [2020] EWCA Civ 6, 962(英国上诉法院)。在 Kabab-Ji 案中,当事人有意以这种方式选择管辖其仲裁协议的法律的可能性微乎其微。最近的进一步发展是,巴黎上诉法院不同意英国上诉法院的意见,适用所在地法,即法国法,拒绝撤销裁决。见 2020 年 6 月 23 日的判决,案件号 17/22943(巴黎上诉法院)。
381 见§4.04[A][1];G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements:G. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing 73 (5th ed. 2016). 382 见第 4.04[A][3]节。
383 See id .
384 见第 4.04[A][1][b][iv]节;第 4.04[A][3]节。
385 见第 4.04[A][2][b]节。
386 瑞士国际私法,第 178(3)条。178(3).
387 另见 Bärtsch & Petti, The Arbitration Agreement, in E. Geisinger & N. Voser (eds.), International Arbitration in Switzerland: AA Practitioners Handbook 29 (2d ed. 2013); B. Berger & F. Kellerhals, International and Domestic Arbitration in Switzerland【 369 ( 2 d ed. 2010) ("The conflict of laws rule in PILS, Art.第 178(2)条遵循有利于有效原则。它使仲裁庭能够将根据当事人选择的法律或根据主合同适用的法律无效的仲裁协议视为有效,条件是该协议至少满足瑞士法律对合同订立的实质性要求");Karrer, The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement, 26 Sing.26 Sing.L.J. 849, 918\mathbf{9 1 8} (2014);J.-F. Poudret & S. Bess.Poudret & S. Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration 9300 (2d ed. 2007) ("In Switzerland, Art.在瑞士,[《瑞士国际私法法》]第 178(2)条确立了有利于有效性的法律冲突规则,规定仲裁协议只要'符合当事各方选择的法律、管辖争议实质的法律以及特别是适用于主要协议的法律的要求,或者最终符合瑞士法律的要求',即为实质有效。因此,只要仲裁协议根据这三种法律中的一种有效,仲裁员就拥有管辖权。178, 922\mathbf{9 2 2} (2000 年)("[瑞士法律]扩大了从赞成有效的角度考虑的法律范围")。
388 D. Girsberger & N. Voser, International Arbitration:178(2) SPILA 也旨在确保可预测性并减少对裁决的质疑");Muller & Riske, in M. Arroyo (ed.), Arbitration in Switzerland:Muller & Riske, in M. Arroyo (ed), Arbitration in Switzerland: The Practitioner's Guide Art.178, 71, 81-82 (2018). 389 见第 4.02[A][2][c]节。
390 1993 年 12 月 20 日判决,Municipalité de Khoms El Mergeb 诉 Dalico,1994 Rev. Arb.116, 117 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1) (emphasis added).另见第 4.02[A][2][c]节。
392 例如,见 2006 年 7 月 11 日判决,PT Andhika Lines 诉 AXA,案件号 03-19838,JCP G 2006,IV,2778(法国最高法院民事法庭,1)(当事各方的共同意 图是以有利于承运人注册地的管辖权条款取代仲裁协议,导致仲裁协议无效);1997 年 5 月 21 日判决,Renault 诉 V 2000,1997 Rev. Arb.537 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1); Judgment of 7 April 2011, 2011 Rev. Arb.747 (Paris Cour d'Appel) (arbitration agreement's validity depends on common intent of parties; no reference to any national law needed); Judgment of 24 February 2011, Sidermetal v. Arcelor Int'l Exp. , 2005 Rev. Arb.787, 787 (Paris Cour d'Appel) ("arbitration agreement is not subject to any formal rule [regle de forme] but is subject to a validity principle depending on the sole intention of the parties"); Judgment of 10 June 2004 , Bargues Agro Indus.SA v. Young Pecan Cie, XXX Y.B. Comm.Arb.499, 502 (Paris Cour d'Appel) (2005) ("According to a substantive provision of French international arbitration law, the parties' intention suffies to validate an arbitration agreement. Hence, that agreement not fall under the law.因此,该协议不属于国内法的管辖范围,因为它是完全自主的,在形式上也是如此。");1999 年 11 月 25 日判决,SA Burkinabe des Ciments et Matériaux 诉 Société des Ciments d'Abidjan,2001 Rev. Arb.165 (Paris Cour d'Appel).另见 J.-L. Delvolvé、G. Pointon 和 J. Rouche,《法国仲裁法与实践》993(2009 年);E. Gaillard 和 J. Savage(编),《Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration》 9436\mathbf{9 4 3 6} (1999 年)。
393 See, e.g. , Judgment of 22 March 1976 , III Y.B. Comm.Arb.283, 283 (Tunis Ct. First Inst.) (1978) ("I]tis generally accepted that international commercial relations are subject to their own customs.由此可见,目前的问题不再取决于当事人的属人法,而是取决于合同的标的物。后者是双方当事人意愿的结果,构成他们自己的法律,因为合同是国际合同,一方面是为了满足双方当事人的需要[原文如此],另一方面是为了符合国际商业习惯")。另见非洲商法统一组织《仲裁法统一法》,第 4 条("仲裁协议应符合国际商业惯例")。仲裁协议应独立于主合同。仲裁协议的有效性不受合同无效的影响,仲裁协议应解释为:"......"。
根据当事人的共同意愿,不一定要参照国内法")。
394 例如,见 2016 年 3 月 16 日判决,M. Ali Marzooq Ali Bin Kamil Al Shamsi 诉 Shackleton,2016 Rev. Arb.636 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1) ("By virtue of a substantive/material rule of international arbitration law, the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement shall be assessed without reference to domestic law, and only by reference to the parties' common will to resort to arbitration ..."); Judgment of 8 July 2009 , Société d'Etudes et Représentations Navales et Industrielles v Air Sea Broker Ltd, 2009 Rev. Arb.529 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1); Judgment of 20 December 2018, Cameroun v. SPRL Projet Pilote Garoubé, 2019 Rev. Arb.472 (Paris Cour d'Appel); Judgment of 18 December 2018, New Euro.Corporate Advisory Ltd v. Innova 5/LP-ès Qualités de Liquidateur de la Société Twelve Hornbeams Sarl, 2018 Rev. Arb.847 (Paris Cour d'Appel) ("According to a substantive rule of international arbitration law, the existence and validity of an international arbitration agreement depends only on the common intention of the parties, without it be necessary to make reference to a national law"); Judgment of 7 April 2011, 2011 Rev. Arb.747, 750 (Paris Cour d'Appel)("根据适用于在法国进行的仲裁的国际仲裁的重要规则,仲裁协议在法律上独立于基础合同;因此,其存在和可执行性应根据当事人的共同意愿进行评估,但须遵守国际公共政策,而无需参照国内法")。另见 Hook, Arbitration Agreements and Anational Law:28 J. Int'1 Arb. 175, 180-81 (2011)("其最显著的特点之一是,法国法院不依赖法律选择方法来确定仲裁协议的有效性或存在性,而是采用所谓的实质有效性方法,将契约理论和自治理论的要素结合起来。实质有效性规则的作用是将仲裁协议与法国强制性法律和国际公共政策之外的任何适用法律分离开来。因此,由于仲裁协议独立于国家法律而存在,有关其形成或有效性的问题必须根据法国的国际公共政策原则来解决,这些原则包括:
根据法国法律,这在国际背景下是至关重要的")。
395 See, e.g. , Final Award in ICC Case No.Resol.Bull.114("法国和国际仲裁裁决都普遍认为,仲裁协议的存在、有效性和范围'只需参考跨国规则和贸易惯例'即可。......这些规则与国内法解释合同时通常采用的规则相同。它们包括:(i) 诚信原则;(ii) 有效解释原则;(iii) 反向解释原则。......仲裁庭将根据这三项普遍接受的原则解释仲裁条款")。(引自 E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 9475\mathbf{9 4 7 5} (1999)); Partial Award in ICC Case No.337, 353 (2010) (assessing validity and scope of arbitration agreement "by reference to those transnational general principles and usages reflecting the fundamental requirements of justice in international trade and the concept of good faith in business"); Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.54 (2003)(设在法国的仲裁庭对仲裁条款的实质有效性适用国际原则,而非国内法);国际商会第 8938 号案件终局裁决,XXIV Y.B. Comm.Arb.174, 176 (1999);Partial Award in ICC Case No.Arb.80 (1998)(仲裁庭在确定仲裁协议的有效性时有权偏离国内法并适用一般法律原则);ICC Case No. 5721 , 117 J.D.I. (Clunet) 1019, 1023 (1990); Interim Award in ICC Case No.Arb.131, 134 (1984)(适用 "特别是法国判例法 "并通过 "符合国际公共政策,特别是在法国 "的结果);ICC 第 2375 号案件的裁决,103 J.D.I. (Clunet) 973 (1976)。
399 见 XL Ins. Ltd 诉 Owens Corning [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 500, 507 (QB) (English High Ct.);N. Blackaby et al. (eds.), Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration 9I3.22-25\mathbf{9} \boldsymbol{I} \mathbf{3 . 2 2 - 2 5} (5th ed. 2009)。
400 关于讨论国际仲裁协议引起的法律选择问题的美国判决,见,例如,Lindo 诉 NCL (Bahamas) Ltd, 652 F.3d 1257, 1264 (11th Cir. 2011);Todd 诉 S.S. Mut. Underwriting Ass'n (Bermuda) Ltd, 601 F.3d 329, 334 (5th Cir. 2010);Thomas 诉 Carnival Corp.Underwriting Ass'n (Bermuda) Ltd , 601 F.3d 329, 334 (5th Cir. 2010); Thomas v. Carnival Corp.Ltd , 601 F.3d 329, 334 (5th Cir. 2010); Thomas v. Carnival Corp. , 573 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2009); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Argonaut Ins. Co.401 F.3d 529 (3d Cir. 2005); Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2004); Bridas SAPIC v. Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2003); InterGen NV v. Grina 344 F.3d 134 (1st Cir. 2003); Gen. Elec.Co. 诉 Deutz AG, 270 F.3d 144, 154-55 (3d Cir. 2001);U.S. Titan, Inc. 诉 Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co.411 (4th Cir. 2000);Smith/Enron Cogeneration LP v. Smith Cogeneration Int'l, Inc.,198 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999);Becker Autoradio U.S.A., Inc. v. Becker Autoradiowerk GmbH, 585 F.2d 39, 43 nn.8, 9 (3d Cir. 1978);Cvoro v. Carnival Corp., 2018 WL 1660669, at *3-4 (S.D. Fla.); Pysarenko v. Carnival Corp., 2014 WL 1745048, at *5 (S.D. Fla.); FR 8 Singapore Pte Ltd v. Albacore Maritime Inc., 754 F.Supp.2d 628 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Coimex Trading (Suisse) SAS A v. Cargill Int'l SA , 2005 WL 1216227 (S.D.N.Y.); A.T. Cross Co. v. Royal Selangor(s) Pte, Ltd , 217 F.Supp.2d 229, 234-35 (D.R.I. 2002); W. of England Ship Owners Mut.Ins. Ass'n (Luxembourg) v. Am.Marine Corp.1992 WL 37700, at *4 (E.D. La.); Marchetto v. DeKalb Genetics Corp. United Grain Growers, Ltd, 441 F.Supp. 778, 781 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), aff'd mem.评注见 Diamond, Choice of Law Clauses and Their Preemptive Effect upon the Federal Arbitration Act:评注见 Diamond, Choice of Law Clauses and Their Preemptive Effect upon the Federal Arbitration Act: Reconciling the Supreme Court with Itsself, 39 Ariz.L. Rev. 35 (1997);Friedland & Hornick, The Relevance of International Standards in the Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements Under the New York.
Convention , 6 Am.Rev. Int'l Arb.149 (1995);Malloy, Current Issues in International Arbitration, 15 Trans.Law.43, 48-52 (2002);Thrope, A Question of Intent:Choice of Law and the International Arbitration Agreement , 54 Disp.Resol.J. 16 (1999).
401 U.S. v. Little Lake Misere Land Co., 412 U.S. 580, 591 (U.S. S.Ct. 1973);Clearfield Trust Co. v. U.S. , 318 U.S. 363, 374-75 (U.S. S.Ct. 1943)。另见 §1.04[B][1][e]。
402 评论见 Aksen, Prima Paint 诉 Flood & Conklin:What Does It Mean?43 St. John's L. Rev. 1, 22-23 (1968);Drahozal, In Defence of Southland:101 (2002);Furnish, Commercial Arbitration Agreements and the Uniform Commercial Code , 67 Cal.Rev. 317 (1979);Hirshman, The Second Arbitration Trilogy:Hirshman, The Second Arbitration Trilogy: The Federalization of Arbitration Law, 71 Va.Rev. 1305 (1985);Sturges & Murphy, Some Confusing Matters Relating to Arbitration Under the United States Arbitration Act, 17 L. & Contemp.Probs.580 (1952).
403 Garvey & Heffelfinger, Towards Federalizing U.S. International Commercial Arbitration Law, 25 Int'l Law.209 (1991).
404 U.S. FAA, 9 U.S.C. §2; §1.04[B][1][e][ii] ; §2.01[A][2] 。保留条款保留了在其他情况下适用的州合同法,这些法律涉及国内仲裁协议的订立和有效性问题,但联邦法律优先于那些对国内仲裁协议特别不友好的州法律。见§1.04[B][1][e][iii];Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 630-31 (U.S. S.Ct. 2009);Perry v. Thomas , 482 U.S. 483 (U.S. S.Ct. 1987)。
405 Shearson/Am.Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 225-26 (U.S. S.Ct. 1987) (quoting Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 51011 (U.S. S.Ct. 1974)).
408 Moses H. Cone Mem.Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (U.S. S.Ct. 1983) (emphasis added).另见 AT&T Mobility LLC 诉 Concepcion 案,563 U.S. 333, 343 (U.S. S.Ct. 2011)。
409 Volt Info.科学公司诉斯坦福大学案,489 U.S. 468, 478 (U.S. S.Ct. 1989)。另见 AT&T Mobility, 563 U.S. at 343; Rent-A-Ctr, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 65 (U.S. S.Ct. 2010) ("The FAA ... requires courts to enforce [arbitration agreements] according to their terms"); Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg Co、388 U.S. 395, 404 n. 12 (U.S. S.Ct.1967)(国会的意图是 "使仲裁协议与其他合同一样具有可执行性,但不是更具有可执行性")。
410 Buckeye 支票兑现公司,546 U.S. at 443。
411 见 Preston, 552 U.S. at 349 ("The Act, which rested on Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, ... calls for the application, in state as well as federal courts, of federal substantive law regarding arbitration"); Buckeye Check Cashing, 546 U.S. at 446 ("this arbitration law applies in state as well as federal courts"); Volt Info., 489 U.S. at 477 n.6.
412 见 Preston, 552 U.S. at 353("FAA 对与之冲突的州法律的置换'现已确立'")(引用 Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos.1995)); Buckeye Check Cashing, 546 U.S. at 447-49; Volt Info, 489 U.S. at 477 ("The FAA contains no express preemption provision, nor does it reflect a congress intentional to occupy the entire field of arbitration.但即使国会没有完全取代州在某一领域的规定,州法律也可能在与联邦法律实际冲突的范围内被优先适用");Perry, 482 U.S. at 491。
413 Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., 513 U.S. at 269, 272-73; Southland Corp., 465 U.S. at 10.
414 见 Preston, 552 U.S. at 349-50(加利福尼亚州法律授予劳工专员对某些申诉的专属管辖权,该管辖权已被联邦行政法所取代)。
415 Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 683 (U.S. S.Ct. 1996)("蒙大拿州的第一页通知要求所管辖的不是'任何合同',而是'须经仲裁'的具体且唯一的合同,它与联邦法律相冲突,因此被联邦措施所取代")。
416 AT&T Mobility LLC, 563 U.S. at 339-43(尽管双方当事人同意放弃集体诉讼程序,但适用州法中的不合情理规则来要求使用集体诉讼程序的做法被联邦航空法所禁止)。
417 U.S. FAA, 9 U.S.C. §2 (emphasis added).见§1.04[B][1][e][ii];§2.01[A][2]。
418 Doctor's Assocs., 517 U.S. at 687; Perry, 482 U.S. at 489 ("Section 2, therefore, embodies a clear federal policy of requiring arbitration unless the agreement to arbitrate ... is revocable 'upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract""); Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc.469 F.3d 1257, 1268 (9th Cir. 2006)。
419 Rent-A-Ctr, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 67-68 (U.S. S.Ct. 2010)。
420 参见,例如,AT&T Mobility, 563 U.S. at 339("法院不得'依赖仲裁协议的独特性作为州法认定强制执行不合情理的依据,因为这将使法院能够实现......州立法机构不能实现的'")(引用 Perry, 482 U.S. at 493 n.9);Doctor's Assocs.,517 U.S. at 687。
421 AT&T Mobility, 563 U.S. at 341("虽然 §2 的保留条款保留了普遍适用的合同抗辩,但其中没有任何内容表明有意保留阻碍实现 FAA 目标的州法律规则")。
422 见§§1.04[B][1][e][ii]-[iv];§4.04[A][2][j][v];Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 630-31 (U.S. S.Ct. 2009)。
423 见第 4.04[A][2][j][v](3)节。
424 Doctor's Assocs., 517 U.S. at 687。另见 Arthur Andersen, 556 U.S. at 630-31("第 2 条明确保留了关于撤销的外部法律体系。......因此,'州法'适用于确定哪些合同具有约束力。
§
")(着重号为原文所加)(引用 Perry, 482 U.S. at 483, 493);First Options of Chicago, Inc.Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 (U.S. S.Ct.1995)("在决定双方是否同意对某一事项(包括可仲裁性)进行仲裁时,法院一般......应适用管辖合同订立的普通州法原则")。
425 参见,例如,AT&T Mobility, 563 U.S. at 337("[FAA §2中的]这一保留条款允许协议因'普遍适用的合同抗辩,如欺诈、胁迫或不合情理'而无效")(引用 Doctor's Assocs.
Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 229 (2d Cir. 2016) ("The threshold question of whether the parties indeed agreed to arbitrate is determined by state contract law principles"); Quilloin v. Tenet HealthSystem Philadelphia, Inc., 673 F.3d 221, 230 (3d Cir. 2012)("我们通常适用州合同原则来确定仲裁协议是否不合情理");In re Checking Account Overdraft Litg.685 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2012)(对仲裁协议适用南卡罗来纳州的不合情合理法);Bank of Am., NAv.UMB Fin.Servs.618 F.3d 906, 912 (8th Cir. 2010)("州合同法管辖诉讼当事人之间是否存在可执行的仲裁协议这一门槛问题");Sultan v. Coinbase, Inc.d 156, 159 (E.D.N.Y. 2019); Mason v. Regions Bank , 2017 WL 10742443, at *2 (W.D. Tex.) ("courts apply ordinary state contract law principles to the question of the parties formulating a valid agreement to arbitrate").
426 例如,见 Cohen 诉 Wedbush, Noble, Cooke, Inc.841 F.2d 282, 285 (9th Cir. 1988) ("[联邦仲裁法]制约着我们对本案的处理。......因此,针对仲裁的抗辩的可用性和有效性应适用联邦标准。"),被 Ticknor 诉 Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc., 265 F.3d 931, 941-42 (9th Cir. 2001) ("we must overrule [Cohen ] as far as [it] hold[s] that state law adhesion contract principles may not be invoked to bar arbitrability of disputes under the [FAA]").
427 比较 Halprin v. Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC , 2009 WL 1351456 (D.N.J.)(适用新泽西州法律冲突规则以确定是否使指定弗吉尼亚州法律的法律选择条款生效)与 Sphere Drake Ins.d 26, 32 n. 3 (2d Cir. 2001)(合同规定纽约州和新泽西州的法律适用于因合同产生的争议;"[法院]酌情考虑纽约州和新泽西州的法律,以解决与合同订立有关的问题");Todd v. S.S. Mut.Underwriting Ass'n, Ltd, 2011 WL 1226464, at *5 (E.D. La.) ("Louisiana courts have held that the validity of an arbitration agreement is determined by the law selected in the agreement itself"); Tierra Right of Way Servs., 2011 WL 2292007, at *2 n.2 (D. Ariz.) (合同规定 "本协议根据美国法律订立并受其管辖、解释和执行");Tierra Right of Way Servs.
根据纽约州法律解释",法院认为 "不合情理分析以纽约州法律为指导")。
428 例如,见 Mastrobuono 诉 Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc.514 U.S. 52, 52 (U.S. S.Ct. 1995);Cape Flattery Ltd v. Titan Maritime, LLC , 647 F.3d 914, 921 (9th Cir. 2011);Sovak v. Chugai Pharm.Co.,280 F.3d 1266, 1270 (9th Cir. 2002)(一般法律选择条款不推翻 FAA 适用的推定);Roadway Package Sys., Inc. 诉 Kayser, 257 F.3d 287, 288-89 (3d Cir. 2001),因其他理由被推翻,Hall St.552 U.S. 576 (U.S. S.Ct. 2008);UHC Mgt Co. v. Computer Sciences Corp.v. Computer Sciences Corp. , 148 F.3d 992, 996-97 (8th Cir. 1998)(法院不会 "将仲裁协议解释为排除 FAA 的适用,除非当事人如此解释协议的意图非常明确");Ferro Corp. v. Garrison Indus.d 926, 937 (6th Cir. 1998)(合同中选择俄亥俄州法律的一般法律选择条款并不能证明当事人明确选择俄亥俄州法律来确定仲裁协议的范围);Alfa Laval U.S. Treasury, Inc.857 F.Supp.2d 404, 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)(仲裁协议中的法律选择条款仅包含所选州的 "实质性权利和义务,而非州在替代法庭之间的权力分配");Jung 诉 Ass'n of Am.Med.Colleges, 300 F.Supp.2d 119, 152 (D.D.C. 2004) ("Numerous courts of appeals have concluded that Mastrobuono requires that the intent of the contracting parties to apply state arbitration rules or law to arbitration proceedings ... be explicitly stated in the contract and that ... a general choice of law provision does not evidence such intent").
430 见,例如,David L. Threlkeld & Co. v. Metallgesellschaft Ltd, 923 F.2d 245, 249-50 (2d Cir. 1991); Bakoss v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, 2011 WL 4529668, at *5 (E.D.N.Y.) (联邦法律适用于仲裁协议的可执行性)。
431 见§4.04[B][3][b];Copape Produtos de Pétroleo Ltda v. Glencore Ltd, 2012 WL 398596 (S.D.N.Y.)(适用由普遍接受的合同法原则和《统一商法典》组成的联邦普通法来确定仲裁协议的存在和有效性);Nanosolutions, LLC v. Prajza, 793 F.Supp.2d 46, 54 n. 5 (D.D.C. 2011) ("In cases arising under the New York Convention, ... there are 'compelling reasons to apply federal law, which is already well-developed, to the question of an agreement to arbitrate is enforceable"") (引用 Smith/Enron Cogeneration LP, Inc.198 F.3d 88, 96 (2d Cir. 1999)); JSC Surgutneftegaz v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 2005 WL 1863676, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.); W. of England Ship Owners Mut.保险协会(卢森堡)诉 Am.Marine Corp ., 1992 WL 37700, at *4 (E.D. La.) (applying federal law, not Louisiana or English law, to decide whether arbitration agreement was "null and void"); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Denmark, 607 F.Supp. 1016, 1018-20 (E.D. Mo. 1985) (FAA and New York Acts.1985 年)(《联邦仲裁法》和《纽约公约》"规定了管辖国际商业合同中仲裁条款的适用性和有效性的相关联邦成文法");Antco Shipping Co. v. Sidermar SpA, 417 F.Supp. 207, 215 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)(在分析仲裁协议是否无效时适用联邦公共政策)。
440 First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 (U.S. S.Ct. 1995)。
441 Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 630-31 (U.S. S.Ct. 2009)。
442 参见,例如,Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Bhd of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 292 (U.S. S.Ct. 2010)(在分析仲裁协议时适用 "管辖合同订立的普通......原则");Arthur Andersen, 556 U.S. at 631(适用 "州法的'传统原则'");Jaludi v. Citigroup, 933 F.3d 246, 254 (3d Cir. 2019)("因此,我们适用'管辖合同订立的普通州法原则'来确定随后的仲裁协议是否
取代先前协议")(引用 Century Indem.Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, 584 F.3d 513, 524 (3d Cir. 2009)); Applied Energetics, Inc.诉 NewOak Capital Mkts, LLC , 645 F.3d 522, 526 (2d Cir. 2011)("在决定是否存在仲裁的合同义务时 "适用纽约合同法原则);Will-Drill Res., Inc.293 F.3d 563, 566 (2d Cir. 2002)("因为仲裁协议是合同的产物......双方是否同意仲裁的最终问题由州法律决定");Ruiz 诉 New Avon LLC, 2019 WL 4601847, at *7 (S.D.N.Y.); Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc.384 F.Supp.3d 254, 263 (E.D.N.Y. 2019);Fellerman v. Am. Retirement Corp.Retirement Corp.Imperial Plaza Inc.,2010 WL 1780406, at *2 (E.D. Va.);Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 901 A.2d 381, 392 (N.J. 2006)("州合同法原则通常适用于确定是否存在有效的仲裁协议");Anderson v. Ashby, 873 So.2d 168, 192 (Ala. 2003)。
443 如上文所述,美国联邦法律已经确定了什么构成联邦仲裁法下的 "仲裁 "协议(有别于调解或其他 ADR 协议)。见 §§2.02[B] et seq.
444 参见,例如,BOSC,Inc. v. Bd of County Comm'ners, 853 F.3d 1165, 1170 (10th Cir. 2017); Doscher v. Sea Port Group Sec.Doscher v Sea Port Group Sec., LLC, 832 F.3d 372, 385 (2d Cir. 2016) ("The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Act, especially §2, 'is a congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements' whose effect 'is to create a body of federal substantive law of arbitrability, applicable to any arbitration agreement within the coverage of the Act") (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. , 460 U.S. at 24); Casa del Caffe Vergnano SpA v. ItalFlavors, LLC, 816 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 2016)d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 2016) ("Because this case arises under Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, the issue of whether the Commercial Contract constituted a binding agreement is governed by federal common law"); Vedachalam v. Tata Am.Int'l Corp ., 477 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1086 (N.D. Cal. 2007), aff'd, 339 F.App'x 761 (9th Cir. 2009) (applying federal common law of contracts to decide on the existence of international arbitration agreement); InterGen NV v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134, 143 (1st Cir. 2003); Int'l Paper Co. v. Schwabedissen Maschinen & Anlagen.
GmbH,206G m b H, 206 F.3d 411, 417 n. 4 (4th Cir. 2000) (FAA and New York Convention "create a body of federal substantive law of arbitrability, applicable to any arbitration agreement within the coverage of the Act"); David L. Threlkeld & Co.d 245, 249-50 (2d Cir. 1991) ("有争议的国际商业交易受联邦仲裁法管辖"); Psara Energy, Ltd v. Space Shipping, Ltd, 2018 WL 6929342, at *2 (E.D. Tex.) ("简而言之,[编纂了《纽约公约》的]FAA 就仲裁协议的可执行性制定了实体联邦法"); Glencore Ltd v. Degussa Eng'd Carbons LP, 848 F.Supp.2d 410, 435-36 (S.D.N.Y. 2012);Copape Produtos de Pétroleo Ltda v. Glencore Ltd, 2012 WL 398596, at *4 n. 33 (S.D.N.Y.); Changzhou AMEC E. Tools & Equip.Co. v. E. Tools & Equip.诉 E. Tools & Equip., Inc., 2012 WL 3106620, at *13 (C.D. Cal.)(对当事人是否同意仲裁协议的问题适用联邦法律); JSCJ S C Surgutneftegaz 诉哈佛大学校长和研究员案,2005 WL 1863676, at *2 (S.D.N. Y.); Coimex Trading.);Coimex Trading (Suisse) SA 诉 Cargill Int'l SA,2005WL1216227S A, 2005 \mathrm{WL} 1216227 , at *1 (S.D.N.Y.) ("确定是否存在仲裁协议取决于联邦法律,而非州法律");DaPuzzo 诉 Globalvest Mgt Co.714, 718-20 (S.D.N.Y. 2003);Filanto SpA 诉 Chilewich Int'l Corp.789 F.Supp. 1229, 123436 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(适用联邦法律,而非州法律)。比较 21 Williston on Contracts §57:56 (4th ed. 1990 & Update 2013)("[《纽约公约》和《联邦仲裁法》]创建了一套适用于任何仲裁协议的可仲裁性联邦实体法。 一般来说,联邦法律,而非法院所在州及其法律冲突规则,管辖是否达成仲裁协议的问题")。
445 U.S. Titan, Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co. , 241 F.3d 135, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2001)。
446 Khan v. Parsons Global Servs., Ltd , 480 F.Supp.2d 327, 338 (D.D.C. 2007), rev'd on other grounds , 521 F.3d 421 (D.C. Cir. 2008)。
447 参见,例如,Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2015);Quilloin v. Tenet HealthSystem Philadelphia, Inc ., 673 F.3d 221, 228 (3d Cir. 2011);Bridas SAPIC v. Turkmenistan, 447 F.3d 411, 416 n. 5 (5th Cir. 2006)(对仲裁协议适用联邦普通法,尽管有英国法律选择条款且仲裁地在瑞典);
Sarhank Group v. Oracle Corp.Sarhank Group v Oracle Corp. , 404 F.3d 657, 662 (2d Cir. 2005) (rejecting argument that arbitration agreement was binding on U.S. non-signatory under Egyptian law because "[i]t]it is American federal arbitration law that controls"); Smith/Enron Cogeneration LP v. Smith Cogeneration Int'l, Inc.198 F.3d 88, 96 (2d Cir. 1999) (对仲裁协议的可执行性适用联邦法律); McDermott Int'l, Inc. v. Lloyds Underwriters of London, 944 F.2d 1199 (5th Cir. 1991); David L. Threlkeld & Co. v. Metallgesellschaft Ltd, 923 F.2d 245, 249-50 (2d Cir. 1991); Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co.815 F.2d 840, 845 (2d Cir. 1987)(仲裁协议的有效性 "根据联邦法律确定,联邦法律包括普遍接受的合同法原则");Rhone Mediterranee v. Lauro, 712 F.2d 50, 53-54 (3d Cir. 1983)(对仲裁协议的可执行性适用联邦普通法,而不是当事人选择的意大利法律);Glencore Ltd v. Degussa Eng'd Carbons LP, 848 F.Supp.2d 410, 43536 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)(对仲裁协议的存在适用联邦普通法);Copape Produtos de Pétroleo Ltda v. Glencore Ltd, 2012 WL 398596, at *4 n. 33 (S.D.N.Y.) (适用联邦法律);Nanosolutions, LLC v. Prajza, 793 F.Supp.2d 46, 54 n. 5 (D.D.C. 2011);Apple & Eve, LLC v. Yantai N. Andre Juice Co. , 499 F.Supp.2d 245, 251 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)("没有美国联邦法院适用外国法律并宣布根据该国法律仲裁条款无效的案例"),因其他原因被撤销,610 F.Supp.2d 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2009); Khan v. Parsons Global Servs. 2008 年);Filanto SpA 诉 Chilewich Int'l Corp., 789 F.Supp. 1229, 1236 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)。
450 见 §4.04[A][2][j][v] (4)。另见 Progressive Cas.Co. v. C.A. Reaseguradora Nacional de Venezuela , 991 F.2d 42, 46 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Thus, while §2 of the [FAA] preempts state law which treats arbitration agreements differently from any other contracts, it also 'preserves general principles of state contract law as rules of decision on whether the parties have entered into an agreement to arbitrate."")
452 见,例如,Steel Corp. of Philippines v. Int'l Steel Servs.354 F.App'x 689, 692-93 (3d Cir. 2009) (推定仲裁地法律适用于仲裁协议); Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 364 F.3d 274, 292 n. 43 (5th Cir. 2004) ("Certain sections and comments of the Restatement ... support a determination that Swiss law [i.e.、适用于仲裁协议"); AOA O Techsnabexport 诉 Globe Nuclear Serv.d 144, 153 (D.D.C. 2018)(对仲裁协议适用仲裁地法律);Nissho Iwai Corp. v. MV Joy Sea , 2002 A.M.C. 1305, 1311 (E.D. La. 2002)(仲裁地法律是管辖仲裁协议的默示法律选择);Spier v. Calzaturificio Tecnica, SpA, 71 F.Supp.2d 279, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)(将意大利法律作为仲裁地法律适用于仲裁协议的有效性);Bergesen v. Lindholm , 760 F.Supp. 976, 981 n. 9 (D. Conn. 1991)(引用《第二次重述》中的主张,即 "当事人选择仲裁地可证明其意图是该仲裁地的法律管辖整个合同")。
453 参见,例如,Yavuz v. 61 MM, Ltd, 465 F.3d 418, 428 (10th Cir. 2006)("在国际背景下",没有理由 "法院选择条款不应[不]根据缔约各方选择的法律进行解释");摩托罗拉信贷公司诉 Uzan, 388 F.3d 39, 51 (2d Cir. 2004)("如果被告希望援引争议协议中的仲裁条款,他们也必须接受管辖这些协议的瑞士法律选择条款");Motorola Credit Corp.Ltd v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 263 F.3d 26, 32 n. 3 (2d Cir. 2001) (FAA "does not preempt choice-of-law clause"); Progressive Cas.Co. v. C.A. Reaseguradora Nacional de Venezuela , 991 F.2d 42, 45-46 (2d Cir. 1993)(对国际仲裁协议的订立适用州合同法);Milanovich v. Costa Crociere, SpA, 954 F.2d 763, 766 (D.C. Cir. 1992)(适用法律选择条款所选择的法律)。
诉 Eagle Bulk Shipping Inc.诉 Eagle Bulk Shipping Inc. , 138 F.Supp.3d 629, 642-43 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (法律选择条款选择英国法律管辖仲裁协议);GAR Energy & Assocs.诉 Ivanhoe Energy Inc. , 2011 WL 6780927 (E.D. Cal.) (对仲裁协议的有效性适用普遍适用的州合同法);A.O.A. 诉 Doe Run Res. Corp.,2011 WL 6091724, at *2 (E.D. Mo.) (适用州合同法确定国际仲裁协议的当事方);CCP Sys. AGA G v. Samsung Elecs.Corp., Ltd , 2010 WL 2546074 (D.N.J.)(对非签署方问题适用法律选择条款所选择的法律); FR8F R 8 Singapore Pty Ltd v. Albacore Maritime Inc.754 F.Supp.2d 628, 636 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)(在确定可仲裁性时适用当事人选择的英国法律);Frydman v. Cosmair, Inc.1995 WL 404841, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.) ("The court must look to the state law which governed the contract formation.......由于此处争议的合同是法国公民之间在法国订立的,因此在确定合同是否构成仲裁协议时适用法国法律")。
454 例如,见 Errato 诉 Am.Express Co., 2019 WL 3997010, at *7 (D. Conn.) (applying "most significant relationship test" under Connecticut law to select law governing arbitration agreement); Harrington v. Atl.Sounding Co. , 2007 WL 2693529, at *3 (E.D.N.Y.) ("法院将适用新泽西州法律,因为......该州与仲裁协议和当事人之间的雇佣关系具有最重要的关系"),因其他原因被撤销,602 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2010);Jureczki v. Banc One Tex., NA , 252 F.Supp.2d 368, 371 (S.D. Tex. 2003)(适用德克萨斯州法律,因为 "与仲裁条款关系最密切的州是德克萨斯州,[因为原告]是德克萨斯州居民,原告的存款账户是在德克萨斯州开立和维护的,而且有争议的仲裁条款规定'在提交索赔时包括[原告]邮寄地址的联邦司法管辖区'是仲裁地");Owen v. MBPXL Corp.173 F.Supp.2d 905, 912-13 (N.D. Iowa 2001)(爱荷华州法律与仲裁协议的关系最为密切,因为除其他原因外,协议是在雇员受雇于爱荷华州时订立的);Specht 诉 Netscape, 150 F.Supp.2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)(加利福尼亚州与诉讼的关系最为密切,因为产品是由公司设计的)。
455 最后,如上文所述,其他美国下级法院采用了第三种方法,认为如果明确无误地表明这是当事人的意图,则法律选择条款将被解释为选择管辖仲裁协议的法律。见 §4.02[A] [2][d] ; Portland Gen.Co. v. Liberty Mut.Co. , 862 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2017) (纳入国际商会规则构成 "明确无误的证据"); Brennan v. Opus Bank, 2015 WL 4731378, at *3 (9th Cir.) ("To overcome the default application of federal arbitrability law, parties to an arbitration agreement must 'clearly and unmistakably designate that non-federal arbitrability law applies"") (quoting Cape Flattery Ltd v. Titan Maritime, LLC, 647 F.3d 914, 921 (9th Cir. 2011)); Ario v. Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds, 618 F.3d 277, 293 (3d Cir. 2010); ASUS Computer Int'l vv .InterDigital, Inc., 2015 WL 5186462, at *3 (N.D. Cal.); Westbrook Int'l, LLC v. Westbrook Techs., 17 F.Supp.2d 681, 684 (E.D. Mich. 1998)。
460 见§4.04[A][2][j][v](2); Monfared v. St. Luke's Univ. Health Network , 767 F.App'x 377, 379 (3d Cir. 2019); Cape Flattery Ltd, 647 F.3d at 922; Century Indem.Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's , 584 F.3d 513, 522 (3d Cir. 2009) ("The [FAA] ... creates a body of federal substantive law establishing and governing the duty to honor agreements to arbitrate disputes"); Genesco, Inc.d 840, 845-46 (2d Cir. 1987) (applying federal common law to determine whether party validly agreed to arbitration in an agreement governed by Convention); Morse v. Levine, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219277, at *23 (S.D.N.Y.); Authenment v. Ingram Barge Co.d 672 (E.D. La. 2012)(尽管有英国法律选择条款,法院的法律选择分析导致适用联邦海事法来确定非签署人是否受仲裁协议约束);Changzhou AMEC E. Tools & Equip.Co. v. E. Tools & Equip.,2012 WL 3106620 (C.D. Cal.)(注意到法院在处理仲裁协议适用法律时不适用外国法律选择条款的判决);Maritima de Ecologia, SA de CV 诉 Sealion Shipping Ltd, 2011 WL 1465744 (S.D.N.Y.) (尽管当事人选择英国法律管辖争议,法院仍适用联邦法律确定仲裁协议的存在);Powertrain Prod.Sys., LLC v. Nemak of Canada Corp.,2009 WL 3757106, at *3 (E.D. Mich.) ("在解决可仲裁性问题时必须首先考虑美国的联邦法律(即[FAA]),即使本案中的当事人同意仲裁将'按照'《加拿大仲裁法》进行");Storm LLC v. N.Y. (尽管当事人选择英国法律管辖争议,但法院适用联邦法律来确定仲裁协议是否存在);Powertrain Prod. Sys., LLC v. Nemak of Canada Corp. Telenor Mobile Commc'ns, 2006 WL 3735657, at *8 n.4 (S.D.N.Y.)(S.D.N.Y.) ("The weight of the authority suggests that in [cases under the New York Convention], federal law governs the issue of the parties have agreed to arbitrate") (emphasis in original); Borsack v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd , 974 F.Supp. 293, 299 n. 5 (S.D.N. Y 1997) ("where jurisdiction is alleged under chapter 2 of [FAA], the issue of the enforceability and validity of the arbitration shall be the federal law.Y 1997)("在根据 [FAA] 第 2 章声称有管辖权的情况下,仲裁条款的可执行性和有效性问题受联邦法律管辖");Rhone Mediterranee 诉 Lauro , 555 F.Supp. 481, 484(D.V.I. 1982)("无论是外国法律还是特定州(或地区)的法律都不能选择--只有联邦法律才有控制权"),被维持原判,712 F.2.d 50(3d Cir.50 (3d Cir. 1983); Diamond
Waterproofing Sys. v. 55 Liberty Owners Corp.4 N.Y.3d 247, 254 (N.Y. 2005)(尽管基础合同中的法律选择条款选择了纽约法律,但仍适用联邦普通法)。
462 见,例如,Hogan 诉 SPAR Group Inc.914 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir. 2019)(适用联邦普通法确定非签署方是否受仲裁协议约束);Sourcing Unlimited, Inc.526 F.3d 38, 41, 46-47 (1st Cir. 2008) (applying federal common law to determine whether non-signatory was bound by arbitration agreement on estoppel theory); InterGen NV v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134, 143-44 (1st Cir. 2003); Int'l Paper Co. v. Schwabedissen Maschinen & Anlagen GmbH, 206 F.3411, 417 n. 4 (4th Cir. 2000) (FAA and New York Convention "'create a body of federal substantive law of arbitrability, applicable to any arbitration agreement within the coverage of the Act'.......因为确定......签约人是否受[合同]约束不涉及合同订立或有效性方面的州法律问题,我们期待'可仲裁性联邦实体法'来解决这一问题")。(引用 Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. , 460 U.S. at 24);Smith/Enron Cogeneration LP 诉 Smith Cogeneration Int'l, Inc.,198 F.3d.88, 96 (2d Cir. 1999)(对包含得克萨斯州法律选择条款的合同中的仲裁条款适用联邦法律)。
463 See, e.g. , Ario v. Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds, 618 F.3d 277, 289 (3d Cir. 2010) ("Although Volt ... addressed only the domestic FAA, the principles undergirding those decisions apply to the [New York] Convention's implementing legislation"; holding that parties may agree to apply state law standards to international arbitration agreement, but must use "clear and unambiguous language" to do so); Johnson v. Gruma Corp. , 614 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2010) (where parties clearly agree to apply the state law, courts must apply state standard); Doctor's Assocs.614 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2010)(在当事人明确同意适用州法的情况下,法院必须适用州标准);Doctor's Assocs.d 126, 131 (2d Cir. 1997)("即使在合同中包含一般法律选择条款,也不要求对可仲裁性问题适用州法律,除非双方明确表示州仲裁法适用于特定问题");Sonic Auto.
484 Apple & Eve, LLC v. Yantai N. Andre Juice Co. , 499 F.Supp.2d 245, 251 (E.D.N.Y. 2007), vated on other grounds, 610 F.Supp.2d 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)。
485 See, e.g. , Suazo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd , 822 F.3d 543, 552 (11th Cir. 2016); Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289, 1302 (11th Cir. 2005) (rejecting application of state-law principles of unconscionability in "null and void" analysis under Article II of Convention); Eazy Elecs、LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc., 226 F.Supp.3d 68, 74 (D.P.R. 2016)(驳回根据《纽约公约》就仲裁协议提出的不合情理抗辩);Estibeiro v. Carnival Corp.,2012 WL 4718978 (S.D. Fla.)(沿用 Bautista 案,拒绝将不合情理作为《公约》第二条下的抗辩理由);Matthews 诉 Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd, 728 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1329-30 (S.D. Fla. 2010)("程序上不合情理的传统原则......不符合《纽约公约》规定的仲裁协议可执行性抗辩的有限范围......)。
公约》");Lathan 诉 Carnival Corp., 2009 WL 6340059, at *2 (S.D. Fla.) ("The Eleventh Circuit also made clear that state law principles of unconscionability do not fit within the limited scope of defenses allowed by the Convention"); Polychronakis v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 2008 WL 5191104, at *3 n.2 (S.D. Fla.) ("Plaintiff also seems to argue that the agreement was unconscionable.......法院认为这不是《公约》授权的积极抗辩。");Khan 诉 Parsons Global Servs., Ltd , 480 F.Supp.2d 327, 339-40 (D.D.C. 2007)(拒绝将不合情理作为仲裁协议可执行性的抗辩:"就其本质而言,不合情理的抗辩旨在促进那些与确定性认定相悖的信条,即:政策、公平以及在法律条文之外对法院自由裁量权的诉求"),因其他理由被撤销,521 F.3d 421(华盛顿特区巡回法院,2008 年)。
486 参见,例如,Aggarao 诉 MOL Ship Mgt Co. , 675 F.3d 355, 373 (4th Cir. 2012)(拒绝在仲裁执行阶段适用公共政策抗辩,因为抗辩 "不能'在国际范围内中立地'适用")(引用 Lindo 诉 NCL (Bahamas), Ltd, 652 F.31257, 1278 (11th Cir. 2011)); Maxwell v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd, 454 F.App'x 709, 710 (11th Cir. 2011) ("public policy is not a valid defense to enforcement of an arbitration agreement" because it cannot "be applied neutralrally throughout the world"); Eazy Elecs、LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc., 226 F.Supp.3d 68, 74 (D.P.R. 2016) (rejecting public policy defense based assertedly inconvenient forum under New York Convention); Dev.菲律宾银行诉 Chemtex Fibers Inc.617 F.Supp. 55, 57 n. 12 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)("很明显,《公约》并未考虑将当地公共政策的表达作为索赔可仲裁性的障碍")。
494 见 §4.04[A] 。大多数权威机构援引各种理由,得出结论认为,第二条要求适用某些国内法来决定仲裁协议在《纽约公约》下是否 "无效"。例如,见国际商会第 5730 号案件裁决,117 J.D.I.(Clunet)1029, 1032-33(1990 年)("忠实于甚至是国际仲裁的传统概念,本法庭认为,仲裁协议要有效,其效力必须来自对法律秩序的依附,即使各方当事人可自由选择后者")。另见 B. Berger & F. Kellerhals, International and Domestic Arbitration in Switzerland 9328 (3d ed. 2015);Contini, International Commercial Arbitration:联合国承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》,8 Am.8 Am. J. Comp.L. 283, 296 (1959) (since Article II(3) is silent, courts may make determination on basis of forum law, including forum choice-of-law rules); J.-L. Delvolvé, J. Rouche & G. Pointon, French Arbitration Law and Practice 993 (2009); Graffi, Securing Harmonized Effects of Arbitration Agreements Under the New York Convention , 28 Hous. J. Intl L. 6 (2009).J. Int'l L. 663, 694-97 (2006);Hook, Arbitration Agreements and Anational Law:A Question of Intent?,28 J. Int'l Arb.175 (2011)(根据英国法律,"任何对管辖仲裁协议的国内法的默示或明示选择都必须被推翻");Pisar, The United Nations Convention on Foreign Arbitral Awards , 33 S. Cal.L. Rev. 14, 16 (1959) (Article II(3) refers to national conflict of laws rules); J.-F.Poudret & S. Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration 9180\mathbf{9} \mathbf{1 8 0} (2d ed. 2007)。
496 国际统一私法协会的《国际合同通则》和《欧洲合同法通则》等国际商业法典的发展表明,假以时日,一个令人满意的仲裁协议国际法律制度可能会形成。但目前还很难断定这种制度已经存在。见 Linarelli, Analytical Jurisprudence and the Concept of Commercial Law, 114 Penn.见 Linarelli, Analytical Jurisprudence and Concept of Commercial Law, 114 Penn. St.
505 一些评论者认为第二条第(3)款没有详细说明国际标准。A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958123 (1981)("协议何时被视为无效等问题可能还是取决于一些国内法,因为公约没有对这些措词应作何理解提供太多指导")。没有详细说明是公约一般 "宪法 "起草风格的特点,与公约规定的国际标准的性质有关,而不是与是否存在这种标准有关。
507 这一标准的存在是无可争议的,下文将对此进行讨论。见 §§5.01[B][2] et seq .
508 § 1.04 [A][1].
509 这一分析与美国国内 FAA 下的分析相似:"[仲裁协议]应是有效的、不可撤销的和可执行的,除非根据法律或衡平法中存在的撤销任何合同的理由。美国联邦航空局,9 U.S.C. §2。见 AT&TA T \& T Mobility LLC 诉 Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 337 (U.S. S.Ct. 2011)(根据 FAA §2,仲裁协议可 "因普遍适用的合同抗辩而无效......但不能因以下抗辩而无效:......")。
仅适用于仲裁或其含义来自于有争议的仲裁协议这一事实"); Perry v. Thomas , 482 U.S. 483, 490 (U.S. S.Ct. 1987); §5.01[B][2] .
510 见§4.04[A][2][j][v];§4.04[A][4][b]。
511 见§1.04[A][1][c];§4.04[A][1][b]。
512 《维也纳条约法公约》,第 26、31(3)条(1969 年);A. McNair, The Law of Treaties 493 (1961 年)。26, 31(3) (1969); A. McNair, The Law of Treaties 493 (1961). 513 见第 4.04[A][1][b]节。
535 See, e.g., Steel Corp. of Philippines v. Int'l Steel Servs.354 F.App'x 689, 692-93 (3d Cir. 2009) (推定仲裁地法律适用于仲裁协议); Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 364 F.3d 274, 291 (5th Cir. 2004) ("Under the New York Convention, an agreement specified the place of the arbitration creates a presumption that the procedural law of that place applies to the arbitration"); Balkan Energy Ltd v. Ghana, 302 F.Supp.3d 144, 152-53 (D.D.C. 2018)("由于当事人在仲裁条款中指定荷兰海牙为仲裁地,因此荷兰法律为仲裁协议的适用法律"),上诉被驳回,2018 WL 5115572 (D.C. Cir.).
536 例如,见 1931 年 10 月 2 日判决,DFT 57 I 295(瑞士联邦法庭);1994 年 11 月 24 日判决, XXI Y.B. Comm.Arb.635, 638 (Rotterdam Rechtbank) (1996) ("law applicable to the arbitration agreement is the law of the place of arbitration"); FirstLink Inv. Corp.Ltd v. GT Payment Pte Ltd,[2014] SGHCR 12, 916\mathbf{9 1 6} (新加坡高等法院)。
Ct.)("In the absence of indications to the contrary, parties have implied chosen the law of the seat as the proper law to govern the arbitration agreement, in a direct competition between the chosen substantive law and the law of the chosen seat of arbitration. All things are equal, mere fact an express substantive law in the main contract would not alone enough to displace parties' intention to have the law of the seat be the proper law of the arbitration agreement.在所有条件都相同的情况下,仅仅在主合同中明确实体法这一事实本身并不足以取代当事人将所在地法律作为仲裁协议适当法律的意图"),在 BCY v. BCZ , [2017] 3 SLR 357 (Singapore High Ct.) 一案中受到质疑;Citation Infowares Ltd v. Equinox Corp.,(2009) 7 SCC 220, 115 (Indian S.Ct.)("在没有任何相反意图的情况下,可推定当事人有意将[合同]的适当法律以及管辖[仲裁]协议的法律与同意进行仲裁的国家的法律相同");Nat'l Thermal Power Corp. v. Singer Co.XVIII Y.B. Comm.Arb.403, 406 (Indian S.Ct. 1992) (1993) ("Where ... there is no express choice of the law governing the contract as a whole, or the arbitration agreement as such, a [rebuttable] presumption may arise that the law of the country of the arbitration is the proper law of the arbitration agreement agreed to be held"); Judgment of 29 October 2015 , Case No. 2013 Da 74868, 938 (S. Korean S.Ct.) (2015) ("As provided in Art.纽约公约》第五(1)(a)条规定,仲裁协议的成立和有效性应受相关当事人指定的管辖仲裁协议的法律管辖。如果未指定,则应适用仲裁地所在国的法律。...").
542 1995 年 3 月 21 日的判决,XXII Y.B. Comm.Arb.800, 804-05 (Swiss Fed. Trib.) (1997); Judgment of 24 January 2003, 11 Sch 06/01, 918 (Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht) ("Pursuant to Art.根据《德国民法典》第 27(4)条和第 31(1)条根据《欧洲民法典》第 27(4)条和第 31(1)条,(10) 当事人关于适用法律的协议的存在和有效性受在合同或条款有效的情况下适用的法律管辖。[欧洲商事合同委员会》在这一点上规定,必须根据约定仲裁地所在国的法律解释合同。...");1990 年 2 月 3 日的判决,Della Sanara Kustvaart:Bevrachting & Overslagbedrijf BV v. Fallimento Cap.Giovanni Coppola Srl, XVII Y.B. Comm.Arb.542, 543 (Genoa Corte di Appello) (1992) ("Considering the eadem ratio and the close connection between [art. II(3) and V], the criteria for the evaluation of the arbitration clause which are to be applied in enforcement proceedings must also be applied when the clause is invoked in order to derogate from the jurisdiction of the national courts").
547 L. Collins et al. (eds.), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 932-110932-110 (15th ed. 2012 & Supp. 2019) ("There are three English decisions which ... [are] in different different degrees, authority for the view that the question whether a concluded contract came into existence depended on the putative governing law").见 Union Transp. plc 诉 Cont'l Lines SA [1992] 1 WLR 15(上议院);The Parouth [1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 351(英格兰上诉法院);Albeko Schuhmaschinen 诉 Kamborian Shoe Mach.Co. (1961) 111 LJ 519(英国高等法院)。
550 例如,见 2003 年 1 月 24 日的判决,11 Sch 06/01, [[18\llbracket 18 (Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht)("根据第 27(4)条以及第 27(5)条和第 27(6)条")。根据第 27(4)条和《德国民法典》第 31(1)条根据《欧洲民法典》第 27(4)条和第 31(1)条,(10) 当事人关于适用法律的协议的存在和有效性受在合同或条款有效的情况下应适用的法律的管辖。[欧洲商事合同委员会》在这一点上规定,必须根据约定仲裁地所在国的法律解释合同。......");1995 年 3 月 21 日判决,XXII Y.B. Comm.Arb.800, 804-05 (Swiss Fed. Trib.) (1997); Judgment of 3 February 1990 , Della Sanara Kustvaart:Bevrachting & Overslagbedrijf BV v. Fallimento Cap.Giovanni Coppola Srl, XVII Y.B. Comm.Arb.542, 543 (Genoa Corte di Appello) (1992) ("Considering the eadem ratio and the close connection between [Articles II(3) and V], the criteria for the evaluation of the arbitration clause which are to be applied in enforcement proceedings must also be applied when the clause is invoked in order to derogate from the jurisdiction of the national courts")。 551 见第 4.04[A][2]节。
552 见 §4.04[A][2][d]。
553 见§4.04[A][2][e];Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Ins. Co.Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, 1170 (U.K. S.Ct.);Glick & Venkatesan, Choosing the Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement, in N. Kaplan & M. Moser (eds.), Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Choice of Law in International Arbitration. Liber Amicorum Michael Pryles 131, 135 (2018):Liber Amicorum Michael Pryles 131, 135 (2018)("英国法目前的立场--至少在最高法院层面之前--可以用这个例子来说明。如果矩阵合同明确受纽约法律管辖,而当事人选择伦敦作为仲裁地,则英国法院将把当事人视为默示选择纽约法律作为仲裁协议的管辖地,除非有一些额外因素--即仲裁地选择之外的因素--指向英国法律或(至少)远离纽约法律");Pearson, Sulamérica v. Enesa:Pearson, Sulamérica v. Enesa: The Hidden Pro-Validation Approach Adopted by the English Courts with respect to the Proper Law of the Arbitration Agreement, 29 Arb. Int'1 115 (2013).Int'1 115 (2013)。
566 见 Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v. Kout Food Group [2020] EWCA Civ 6, 966 (English Ct. App.); Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v. Enesa Engenharia SA [2012] EWCA Civ 638, 926 (English Ct. App.);
BCYB C Y v. BCZ, [2017] 3 SLR 357, 960 (Singapore High Ct.).另见《美国国际商事和投资者与国家间仲裁法重述》§2.14 记者注 d(2019 年)。
578 See, e.g. , Ario v. Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds, 618 F.3d 277, 289 (3d Cir. 2010) ("Although Volt ... addressed only the domestic FAA, the principles undergirding those decisions apply to the [New York] Convention's implementing legislation"; holding that parties may agree to apply state law standards to international arbitration agreement, but must use "clear and unambiguous language" to do so); Johnson v. Gruma Corp. , 614 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2010) (where parties clearly agree to apply the state law, courts must apply state standard); Doctor's Assocs.614 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2010)(在当事人明确同意适用州法的情况下,法院必须适用州标准);Doctor's Assocs.d 126, 131 (2d Cir. 1997)("即使在合同中包含一般法律选择条款,也不要求对可仲裁性问题适用州法律,除非双方明确表示州仲裁法适用于特定问题");Sonic Auto.
609 See, e.g. , Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.30, 43 (2019)(不适用选择土耳其法律的法律选择条款,而适用法国法律);Award in ICC Case No.Arb.47, 57 (2011) ("arbitration agreements should be interpreted in a way that leads to their validity in order to give effect to the intention of the parties to submit their disputes to arbitration"); Partial Award in ICC Case No.Arb.80 (1998)(适用有效性原则以维护含糊仲裁条款的有效性);国际商会第 6162 号案件的终局裁决,引自 J.-J. Arnaldez, Y. Derains & D. Hascher (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1991-1995 75, 84 (1997)(考虑到管辖实质性争议的埃及法律会使仲裁协议无效这一事实);国际商会第 5485 号案件的终局裁决,XIV Y.B. Comm.Arb.156, 912-14912-14 (1989);Partial Award in ICDR Case No.Intell.Mat.,929(仲裁员认为,只有在首先考虑巴拿马法律是否使仲裁协议无效之后,当事人才有效地选择了巴拿马法律);苏黎世商会 11 月 25 日的初步裁决。
1994 , XXII Y.B. Comm.Arb.211 (1997).另见 Lew, The Law Applicable to the Form and Substance of the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards. 40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 114, 139-40 (1999):并非所有此类裁决都明确依赖于生效原则。例如,一项裁决支持仲裁条款的有效性,将国际商会仲裁规则视为 "管辖仲裁协议的法律渊源"。国际商会第 5485 号案件的最终裁决,XIV Y.B. Comm.Arb.156, 161 (1989).
611 见,例如,§4.02[B];§4.04[A][2];Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Ins. Co.Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, ศ95-109 (U.K. S.Ct.)。2014))(赞同 "合同当事人不可能合理地打算使其合同中的重要条款(如仲裁条款)无效的原则",认为这是一种 "目的性解释的形式,其目的是尽可能以一种能够实现--而不是违背--当事人可被视为已经考虑到的目的或宗旨的方式来解释合同的语言")。Rhone Mediterranee v. Lauro, 712 F.2d 50, 54 (3d Cir. 1983)("无论是法院地国的狭隘利益,还是与争端有更重要关系的国家的利益,都不应被允许取代[国际仲裁协议有效]的推定。维护仲裁协议的方法最符合《公约》的政策");Farrell 诉 Subway Int'l, BV, 2011 WL 1085017 (S.D.N.Y.) (拒绝适用法律选择条款,因为这样做会使仲裁协议无效);Apple & Eve, LLC 诉 Yantai N. Andre Juice Co.d 245, 251 (E.D.N.Y. 2007), vacated on other grounds, 610 F.Supp.2d 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) ("no United States federal cases where a court has applied the law of the foreign country and declared that an arbitration clause would be invalid under that country's law'); Star Shipping AS v. China Nat'l Foreign Trade Transp.Corp.[1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 445, 452 (English Ct. App.) ("The Court will always tend to favor the interpretation which gives a sensible and effective interpretation to the arbitration clause"); XL Ins. Ltd v. Owens Corning [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 500, 506-08 (QB) (English High Ct.) (giving effect to English
仲裁地法,使协议有效,而不是纽约法,纽约法似乎使协议无效);1994 年 2 月 24 日判决,公共工程部诉 Bec Frères 案,XXII Y.B. Comm.Arb.682 (Paris Cour d'Appel) (1997) (refusing to Tunisian law, under which arbitration agreement would be void, in order to give effect to parties' agreement); Judgment of 16 October 2003 , 22 ASA Bull.364 (Swiss Fed. Trib.) (2004); Hamlyn & Co. v. Talisker Distillery [1894] AC 202, 215 (House of Lords) ("It is more reasonable to hold that the parties contracted with the common intention of giving entire effect to every clause, rather than of mutilating or destroying one of the most important provisions.")。另见 Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v. Enesa Engenharia SA [2012] EWCA Civ 638, 9|90-31(英格兰上诉法院)(拒绝适用选择巴西法律的法律选择条款,因为当事人不可能有意选择会导致仲裁协议无效的法律); BCYB C Y v. BCZB C Z , [2017] 3 SLR 357(新加坡高等法院);FirstLink Inv. Corp.Ltd v. GT Payment Pte Ltd, [2014] SGHCR 12, Phi q\boldsymbol{\Phi} \boldsymbol{q} 14, 15 (Singapore High Ct.)("当事人不会打算让仲裁协议在其他法律(包括所选实体法)下有效,但在仲裁地法律下却被宣布无效,因为这样做很有可能导致裁决无法执行"),在 BCYB C Y v. BCZB C Z , [2017] 3 SLR 357 (Singapore High Ct.) 一案中受到质疑;Pearson, Sulamérica v. Enesa:Pearson, Sulamérica v. Enesa: The Hidden ProValidation Approach Adopted by the English Courts with respect to the Proper Law of the Arbitration Agreement, 29 Arb. Int'l 115 (2013).International 115 (2013).
614 Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Ins. Co.Chubb [2020] UKSC 38,995(英国最高法院)。
615 同上,第 9/95-109106 页(英国最高法院)(引自 G. Born,《国际商事仲裁》(2014 年第 2 版))。
616 FirstLink Inv.Ltd v. GT Payment Pte Ltd,[2014] SGHCR 12,$17(新加坡高等法院)("法律应赋予这一明确意图最充分的效力,因此赋予仲裁协议效力的解释应优于会使协议无效的其他解释"),在 BCYB C Y v. BCZB C Z , [2017] 3 SLR 357(新加坡高等法院)一案中受到质疑。
618 见 W. Craig, W. Park & J. Paulsson, International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration 95.07 (3d ed. 2000); E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 9 T446 et seq. (1999); Leong & Tan, The Law Governing Arbitration Agreements:BCY v. BCZ and Beyond, 30 Sing.L.J. 70, 929.L.J. 70, 929 (2018)("生效原则在国际仲裁法中得到充分支持。它在原则上也是合理的,因为理性的商业当事人所期望的国际仲裁协议所适用的法律,以及最能实现该协议目的的法律,就是使仲裁协议生效的法律体系。");Miles & Goh, A Principled Approach Towards the Law Governing Arbitration Agreements, in N. Kaplan & M. Moser (eds.), Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Choice of Law in International Arbitration. Liber Amicorum Michael Pryles:Liber Amicorum Michael Pryles 385 (2018) (validation principle "may be the only principled way to reconcile the divergent views while also acknowledging the compelling arguments behind them"); Nazzini, The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement:Nazzini, The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement: Towards Transnational Principles , 65 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 681, 700.L.Q.681,700-02 (2016)("法院应制定或更有力地适用确认原则。有一种推定,即当事人有意使其选择的法律维护仲裁协议的有效性。");Nacimiento, Article V(1)(a)V(1)(a) , in H. Kronke et al. (编辑), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards:承认和执行外国仲裁裁决:纽约公约全球评注》,第 205、220、227 页(2010 年)("这种[有利于仲裁协议有效性的]推定与普遍适用的原则相一致,即在解释仲裁协议时,法院和法庭应尽可能紧跟当事人的意图。......一般来说,普通
国际惯例支持仲裁条款的有效性");Wenger, in S. Berti et al. (eds.), International Arbitration in Switzerland Art.178, 922\mathbf{9 2 2} (2000)("瑞士法律比《纽约公约》更有利于仲裁:它从有利于有效性的角度扩大了应考虑的法律范围,从两个法律体系增加到三个法律体系,并增加了适用于争端的法律");Fouchard, Suggestions to Improve the International Efficacy of Arbitral Awards , in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 601, 604-05 (1999); Hanotiau, The Law Applicable to Arbitrability, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 146, 156-57 (1999); Paulsson, Arbitrability, Still Through A Glass Darkly, in ICC, Arbitration in the Next Decade 95, 102-04 (1999) (proposing codification of validation principle in revised New York Convention);Derains, Determination de la Lex Contractus, in ICC, L'Apport de la Jurisprudence Arbitrale 1, 28 (1986) (law should presume that parties "did not want to locate their contractual relationship in a legal system which is not ready to welcome it as it was originally conceived")。 619 见 §4.03[B][4][e]。
627 Glick & Venkatesan, Choosing the Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement, in N. Kaplan & M. Moser (eds.), Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Choice of Law in International Arbitration. Liber Amicorum Michael Pryles 131, 148-49 (2018):Liber Amicorum Michael Pryles 131, 148-49 (2018)
628 见,例如,§4.02[A][2];§19.04[A][6][d]。另见 H. Gaudemet-Tallon, JurisClasseur Europe Traité, Fasc.3201, எT102-04 (1996); M. Giuliano & P. Lagarde, Report on the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations , O.J. C 282 31/10/1980, Art.9; P. Nygh, Autonomy in International Contracts 119 (1999); R. Plender & M. Wilderspin, The European Contracts Convention:9910-09 et seq. (2d ed. 2001);Richman & Riley, The First Restatement of Conflict of Laws on the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of Its Successor:The First Restatement of Conflict of Laws on the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of Its Successor: Contemporary Practice in Traditional Courts , 56 Md.L. Rev. 1196, 1215-16 (1997)(讨论了美国各州高利贷法中的有效性原则);R. Weintraub, Commentary on the Conflict of Laws 371 (6th ed. 2010)(当选择的法律会使交易无效,而客观适用的法律会使交易成立时,应保护当事人免于做出不明智或不知情的选择)。
629 见 §4.04[B]; §19.04。
630 BNA630 B N A 诉 BNB,[2019] SGHC 142、
𝟡
(Singapore High Ct.); Chan & Teo, Ascertaining the Proper Law of an Arbitration Agreement:The Artificiality of Inferring Intention When There is None , 37(5) J. Int'1 Arb.635, 643-44 (2020);Glick & Venkatesan, Choosing the Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement, in N. Kaplan & M. Moser (eds.), Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Choice of Law in International Arbitration:Liber Amicorum Michael Pryles 131, 149 (2018). 631 见第 19.04[A]节。 632 见第 1.02[B][6]节。 633 见第 4.04[B]节。 634 见第 19.04[C]节。
635 见 §§6.01 及其后。
636 见第 4.04[B][3][b]、[d]-[e]节。
637 在更一般的国际私法背景下,法律选择协议会引起法律冲突问题,这是公认的。
这就要求进行特殊类型的法律选择分析。见《罗马公约》,第 3(1)条;《罗马一条例》,第 3(2)条。3(1); Rome I Regulation, Art.3(1); Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §§187-88 (1971); L. Collins et al. (eds.), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 932-083\mathbf{9 3 2 - 0 8 3} , 9/93-124 to 125, (15th ed. 2012 & Update 2018).另见 Wallis 诉 AD Astra Recovery Servs., 2011 WL 745961, at *2 (E.D. Wis.) (适用威斯康星州法律冲突规则,以确定是否使指定堪萨斯州法律管辖仲裁条款的法律选择条款生效);Halprin v. Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC , 2009 WL 1351456 (D.N.J.) (适用新泽西州法律冲突规则,以确定是否使指定弗吉尼亚州法律的法律选择条款生效)。
638 见援引的权威§4.04[A][2][e]。
639 见§19.01;§19.04[A]。
640 见
§
.一些判决采用了 "最密切联系 "测试,另一些判决则采用了累积性法律选择分析,即考虑所有可能适用的冲突规则所选择的实体法。例如,见 Grigera Naón, Choice-of-Law Problems in International Commercial Arbitration , 289 Recueil des Cours 9 (2001)。在其他情况下,国家法院适用自己的法律选择规则。
661 《纽约公约》第 V(1)(a)条(着重部分由作者标明)。661 《纽约公约》,第五(1)(a)条(着重部分由作者标明)。见 Nacimiento, in H. Kronke et al. (eds.), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards:见 Nacimiento, in H. Kronke et al. (eds.), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on the New York Convention 205 (2010);Schramm, Geisinger & Pinsolle, Article II, in H. Kronke et al. (eds.), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards:A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 282-83 (1981) (describing drafting history of choice of law rule in Article V(1)(a)).
662 参见,例如,Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, BV v. Consorcio Barr SA, 377 F.3d 1164, 1171 (11th Cir. 2004);OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corp.2017 WL 4351758, at *11 (S.D. Tex.); Yukos Capital Sarl v. OAO Samaraneftegaz, 2012 WL 3055863, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.); Changzhou AMEC E. Tools & Equip.Co. v. E. Tools & Equip., 2012 WL 3106620, at *9-10 (C.D. Cal.); Encyclopaedia Universalis, SA v. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 2003 WL 22881820, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd in relevant part, 403 F.3d 85, (2d Cir. 2005); Henry v. Murphy , 2002 WL 24307, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.); Overseas Cosmos, Inc., 1997 WL 757041, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.).另见§4.03[A][2];§26.05[C][1][f][i](1)。
663 See, e.g. , N. Blackaby et al. (eds.), Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration 993.09 et seq.例如,N Blackaby et al (ed.), Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration 993.09 et seq. (6th ed.) (2015 年)("根据《纽约公约》,如果仲裁协议由当事人选择的管辖该协议的法律判定为有效,或者在没有任何此类选择的情况下,由仲裁地的法律判定为有效,则该协议有效");Nacimiento, Article V(1)(a)V(1)(a) , in H. Kronke et al (eds.), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards:纽约公约全球评注》205, 223 (2010) (" V(1)(a)dots\mathrm{V}(1)(\mathrm{a}) \ldots 条明确规定当事人对仲裁协议的法律选择优先");Patocchi & Jermini, in S. Berti et al . (eds.), International Arbitration in Switzerland:瑞士的国际仲裁:《瑞士国际私法》第 176-194 条的介绍和评注";Patocchi & Jermini, in S. Berti et al .
法律规约》第 194 条,968(2000 年);Schramm, Geisinger & Pinsolle, Article II , in H. Kronke et al.194, 968 (2000); Schramm, Geisinger & Pinsolle, Article II, in H. Kronke et al. (eds.), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. A Global Commentary on New York Convention 37, 54 (2010); A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958267 (1981):A Global Commentary on the New York Convention 37, 54 (2010);A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958267 (1981)。
667 见 Adolphsen, in T. Rauscher, P. Wax & J. Wenzel (eds.), Münchener Kommentar Zivilprozessordnung Art.V, 923\mathbf{9 2 3} (5th ed. 2016);Hass, Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, New York, June 10, 1958 , in F.-B. Weigand (ed.), International Law Journal of International Arbitral Law, No.Weigand (ed.), Practitioner's Handbook on International Arbitration Art.Nacimiento,第 V(1)(a)V(1)(a) 条,载于 H. Kronke 等(编),《外国仲裁裁决的承认和执行》:纽约公约全球评注》,第 205, 224 页(2010 年)。 668 见第 19.04[E][1]节。
669 相反的评论是不合理和没有说服力的。见 A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 292-93 (1981).
670 见§4.04[A][1][b][v];Rhone Mediterranee v. Lauro , 712 F.2d 50, 52-54 (3d Cir. 1983)(意大利法律,适用于基础合同,不适用于仲裁协议无效);Ledee v. Ceramiche Ragno , 684 F.2d 184, 186-87 (1st Cir. 1982) (Puerto Rican law, applicable to underlying contract, not applied to invalidate arbitration agreement); Farrell v. Subway Int'l, BV, 2011 WL 1085017, at *7-9 (S.D.N.Y.); Apple & Eve, LLC v. Yantai N. Andre Juice Co.d 245, 251 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)(尽管无法确定中国法院是否会执行仲裁协议,但仍强制要求在中国进行仲裁,并指出法院可以找到 "没有美国联邦法院适用外国法律并宣布仲裁条款根据美国法律无效的案例")。
681 在几乎所有国际私法背景下,包括在选择适用于基础合同的实体法和仲裁程序法时,当事人的自主权都受到制约。见 §11.03[E][1]; §11.05[B]; §19.03[B]; Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §187(2) (1971); Rome Convention, Arts.3(3), 5(2), 6(1), 7; Rome I Regulation, Arts.3(3), 9; G. Born & P. Rutledge, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts 742-44 (6th ed. 2018); L. Collins et al. (eds.), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 916-018\mathbf{9 1 6 - 0 1 8} (15th ed. 2012 & Update 2018)。特别是,如下文所述,当事人的法律选择协议通常会受到公共政策和强制性法律的限制。参见§19.03[B][6]。原则上,这些相同类型的限制同样适用于当事人自主选择管辖其国际仲裁协议的法律。
687 《欧洲公约》第 VI(2)条。687 《欧洲公约》,第 VI(2)条。评注见 Hascher, 《1961 年欧洲国际商事仲裁公约》:评注见 Hascher, European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 1961: Commentary , XX Y.B. Comm.Arb.1006, 1027-28 (1995);§1.04[a][2];§4.02[a][1]。
693 UNCITRAL Model Law, Arts.34(2)(a)(i), 36(1)(a)(i).见 P. Binder, International Commercial Arbitration and Mediation in UNCITRAL Model Law Jurisdictions 449 (4th ed. 2019); H. Holtzmann & J. Neuhaus, A Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Legislative History and Comment 915-16, 1058-59 (1989):H. Holtzmann & J. Neuhaus, A Guide to UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: Legislative History and Commentary 915-16, 1058-59 (1989). 694 见 §4.02[A][2][a]。
697 See, e.g. , Judgment of 17 September 1998, XXIV Y.B. Comm.Arb.645, 646 (Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht) (1999) ("arbitration agreement is not invalid according to English law, which on which the parties agreed"); W. Grain Cleaning & Processing v. Lashburn AG Ventures
Ltd,[2003] SKCA 60, 98\mathbf{9 8} (Saskatchewan Ct. App.)("在本司法管辖区,第一步......是确定当事人是否选择了法律。如果合同对双方具有约束力,法院将予以尊重。");BNA 诉 BNB,[2019] SGHC 142, 917 (b)(新加坡高等法院); BCYB C Y 诉 BCZB C Z , [2017] 3 SLR 357, 940(新加坡高等法院)(仲裁协议的准据法通过三步测试确定,第一步是双方明确选择法律);Recyclers of Australia Pty Ltd 诉 Hettinga Equip.Inc.,[2000] 175 ALR 725(澳大利亚联邦法院)(根据基础合同中的法律选择条款选择的爱荷华州法律适用于仲裁条款的有效性);Citation Infowares Ltd v. Equinox Corp.,(2009) 7 SCC 220, 115 (Indian S.Ct.)(当事人有 "自由选择......仲裁协议的实体法以及管辖仲裁行为的程序法");Nat'l Thermal Power Corp. v. Singer Co.XVIII Y.B. Comm.Arb.403, 406 (Indian S.Ct. 1992) (1993) ("The parties have the freedom to choose the law governing an international commercial arbitration agreement ... as well as the procedural law governing the conduct of the arbitration"); Nirma Ltd v. Lurgi Energie und Entsorgung GmbH, XXVIII Y.B. Comm. Arb.Arb.790, 803 (Gujarat High Ct. 2002) (2003).
698 XL Ins.Ltd诉Owens Corning [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep.500,506 (QB)(英国高等法院)。另见 AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLC v. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2011] EWCA Civ 647, 1189(英国上诉法院)("根据英国法律冲突原则,当事人选择英国法律仲裁协议的自主权优先");Naviera Amazonica Peruana SA v. Compania Internacional de Seguros del Peru [1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 116(英国上诉法院)。
699 戴尔计算机公司诉消费者联盟,2007 SCC 34(加拿大最高法院)。
700 关于将所选择的管辖基本合同的法律适用于仲裁条款的裁决,见 Aloe Vera of Am., Inc. v. Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd , [2006] 3 SLR 174, 961(新加坡高等法院)。
701 见 §§4.04[B][3][c] -[e]; Pearson, Sulamérica v. Enesa:Pearson, Sulamérica v. Enesa: The Hidden Pro-Validation Approach Adopted by the English Courts with respect to the Proper Law of the Arbitration Agreement, 29 Arb. Int'1 115 (2013).Int'1 115 (2013).
702 见第 4.04[A][1][b]节。 703 见第 1.04[B][1][a]节。
704 见第 4.04[A][2][j][v]节。
705 见第 4.04[A][2][j][v](1)节。
706 FAA 案文本身并未涉及仲裁协议的管辖法律问题。
707 Volt Info.v. Stanford Univ. , 489 U.S. 468, 470, 479 (U.S. S.Ct. 1989)。Volt 案的裁决源于一起国内案件,涉及当事人的法律选择条款(选择加利福尼亚州法律)是否适用于与执行当事人的仲裁协议有关的问题(特别是加利福尼亚州法律中允许中止仲裁程序的条款的适用性)。同上,第 470-73 页。尽管如此,法院的意见在口述中更广泛地论述了当事人自主选择仲裁协议适用法律的问题。
708 Coastal Caisson Corp. v. E.E. Cruz/NAB/Frontier-Kemper, 2007 WL 2285936, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.), rev'd in part on other grounds, 346 F.App'x 717, 720 (2d Cir. 2009)。
710 见 CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 56 U.S. 95, 96 (U.S. S.Ct. 2012);Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 26 (U.S. S.Ct. 1991);Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.,473 U.S. 614, 628 (U.S. S.Ct. 1985)("既然达成了仲裁协议,当事人就应遵守协议,除非国会本身表明有意排除对有争议的法定权利放弃司法救济");Matthews v. Ultimate Sports Bar, LLC, 2016 U.S. S.Ct. 1991("既然达成了仲裁协议,当事人就应遵守协议,除非国会本身表明有意排除对有争议的法定权利放弃司法救济")。Ultimate Sports Bar, LLC, 2016 WL 4035655, at *1 (N.D. Ga.) ("也可能存在排除仲裁的法律限制,例如国会明确表示要在司法机构审理某些索赔");Jallow vv .Convergenz LLC, 2015 WL 12831722, at *1 (S.D. Tex.) ("Just as it is the congressional policy manifested in the [FAA] that requires courts to construe liberally the scope of arbitration agreements covered by that Act, it is the congressional intention expressed in some other statute which the courts must rely on to identify any category of claims as to which agreements to arbitrate will be held unenforceable");
Meyer 诉 T-Mobile U.S.A. Inc.836 F.Supp.2d 994, 1004-05 (N.D. Cal. 2011);Will 诉 Parsons Evergreene, LLC, 2008 WL 5330681, at *5 (D. Colo.);Wells 诉 Mobile County Bd of Realtors, Inc.387 So.2d 140 (Ala. 1980);§4.04[A][2][j][v] .
711 例如,见 Internaves de Mexico SA de CV v. Andromeda S.S. Corp.898 F.3d 1087, 1092 (11th Cir. 2018)("FAA 反映了仲裁是合同事项这一首要原则。根据其文本,法院必须根据仲裁协议的条款严格执行仲裁协议。");Escobar v. Celebration Cruise Operator, Inc.d 1279, 1286 (11th Cir. 2015)("根据《纽约公约》以及最高法院和巡回法院的先例,有一个强有力的推定支持自由协商的合同法律选择和法院选择条款,这一推定在国际商务领域特别适用");Telenor Mobile Commc'ns AS v. Storm LLC, 584 F.3d 396, 411 n. 11 (2d Cir. 2009) (giving effect to parties' agreement that their contract would be governed by New York law "without giving effect to any conflicts of laws principles ... which would result in the application of the laws of another jurisdiction"); Motorola Credit Corp.d 39, 51 (2d Cir. 2004)(关于仲裁协议的解释,"尊重当事人的法律选择完全符合 FAA 的宗旨");Int'l Minerals & Res., SAS A v. Pappas, 96 F.3d 586, 592 (2d Cir. 1996);Batson Yarn & Fabrics Mach.Group, Inc. v. Saurer-Allma GmbH-Allgauer Maschinenbau , 311 F.Supp. 68, 77 (D.S.C. 1970)("当事人可自由选择管辖仲裁协议所设定权利的适用法律,法院将对该选择予以执行,这一点不存在争议");Necchi Sewing Mach. Sales Corp.Sales Corp. v. Carl, 260 F.Supp. 665, 667 (S.D.N.Y. 1966) ("作为一般主张,当事人可自由选择管辖仲裁协议所设定权利的适用法律");Kamaya Co. Prop. Consultants, Ltd, 959 P.2d 1140, 1142 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998)("虽然 FAA 对当事人是否同意对特定合同争议进行仲裁作出了规定,但合同的法律选择条款是法院在适用 FAA 时必须考虑的相关因素")。
712 Mayakan v. Carnival Corp.721 F.Supp.2d 1201, 1203 n. 5 (M.D. Fla. 2010)。
713 见§4.04[A][2][j][v];Rhone Mediterranee v. Lauro, 712 F.2d 50, 5254 (3d Cir. 1983)(意大利法律,适用于基础合同,不适用于使仲裁协议无效);Ledee v. Ceramiche Ragno, 684 F.2d 184, 186-87 (1st Cir. 1982)(波多黎各法律,适用于合同,不适用于使仲裁协议无效);Eazy Elecs & Tech.d 184, 186-87 (1st Cir. 1982) (Puerto Rican law, applicable to contract, not applied to invalidate arbitration agreement); Eazy Elecs.226 F.Supp.3d 68, 77-78 (D.P.R. 2016)(拒绝适用适用于基础合同的法律使仲裁协议无效);Farrell v. Subway Int'l, BV, 2011 WL 1085017, at *7-9 (S.D.N.Y.) (拒绝适用法律选择条款,因为这样做会使协议的法定人数选择条款无效);Apple & Eve, LLC v. Yantai N. Andre Juice Co.Ltd, 499 F.Supp.2d 245, 251 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)(尽管无法确定中国法院是否会执行仲裁协议,但仍强制在中国进行仲裁),因其他原因被撤销,610 F.Supp.2d 226, 231 (E.D.N.Y. 2009); Acosta v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd, 303 F.Supp.2d 1327 (S.D. Fla. 2003); Marchetto v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 711 F.Supp. 936, 940 (N.D. Ill. 1989) (refusing to deny effect to arbitration clause allegedly invalid under law of foreign arbitral seat:"最高法院愿意执行仲裁协议的基本假设是,《公约》的签署国将尊重仲裁协议,并拒绝根据签署国特有的法律原则对仲裁提出质疑")。
715 See, e.g. , Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.473 U.S. 614 (U.S. S.Ct. 1985); Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2015); Cape Flattery Ltd v. Titan Maritime, LLC, 647 F.3d 914, 921 (9th Cir. 2011) ("We therefore conclude ... that courts should apply federal arbitrability law absent 'clear and unmistakable evidence' that the parties agreed to apply non-federal arbitrability law") (quoting First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 (U.S. S.Ct. 1995)); Ario v. Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds, 618 F.3d 277, 288 (3 Cir. 2011).d 277, 288 (3d Cir. 2010) ("Although the FAA allows parties to choose state-law arbitration standards, they cannot 'opt out' of the FAA"); Bridas SAPIC v. Turkmenistan, 447 F.3d 411 (5th Cir. 2006); Int'l Paper Co. v. Schwabedissen Maschinen.
& Anlagen GmbH, 206 F.3d 411, 417 n. 4 (4th Cir. 2000) ("[FAA and New York Convention] 'create a body of federal substantive law of arbitrability, applicable to any arbitration agreement within the coverage of the Act'. ... Because the determination whether ... a nonsignatory bound by the [contract] presents no state law question of contract formation or validity, we look to the 'federal substantive law of arbitrability' to resolve this question.......因为确定......非签署人是否受[合同]约束不涉及合同订立或有效性的州法律问题,所以我们参照'可仲裁性的联邦实体法'来解决这个问题")。(引自 Mitsubishi Motors Corp. , 473 U.S. at 631);Smith/Enron Cogeneration LP v. Smith Cogeneration Int'l, Inc.198 F.3d 88, 96 (2d Cir. 1999);Campaniello Imps.有限公司诉 Saporiti Italia SpA, 117 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 1997);Thomson-CSF 诉 Am.Arb.Ass'n, 64 F.3d 773 (2d Cir. 1995);Hernandez 诉 San Gabriel Temp.Staffing Servs., LLC , 2018 WL 1582914, at *3 (N.D. Cal.) ("In the Ninth Circuit, parties may agree 'to have arbitrability governed by nonfederal arbitrability law,' but this requires 'clear and unmistakable evidence' of the parties' intent to do so.") (quoting Cape Flattery Ltd , 2018 WL 1582914, at *3 (N.D. Cal.).(引用 Cape Flattery Ltd , 647 F.3d at 921);Amtax Holdings 463, LLC v. KDF Communities-Hallmark, LLC, 2018 WL 4743386, at *4 (C.D. Cal.); Villarreal v. Perfection Pet Foods, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54643, at *8-9 (E.D. Cal.); Holzer v. Mondadori, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37168, at *22 (S.D.N.Y.).另见 Ecuador v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 376 F.Supp.2d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), rev'd on other grounds, 638 F.3d 384, 391 n. 6 (2d Cir. 2011)。见§4.08;§19.04[C]。其他美国下级法院的判决将联邦普通法规则适用于国际仲裁协议的有效性。见 §4.04[A][2][j][v] 。 716 见,例如:Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v. Enesa Engenharia SAS A [2012] EWCA Civ 638, [[25\llbracket 25 (英格兰上诉法院);AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLC v. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2011] EWCA Civ 647, 9189\mathbf{9 1 8 9} (英格兰上诉法院);Peterson Farms Inc.App.); Peterson Farms Inc. v. C&M Farming Ltd [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 603 (QB) (English High Ct.); XL Ins. Ltd v. Owens Corning [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 500, 506 (QB) (English High Ct.).另见 R. Merkin, Arbitration Law 97.8 (1991 年及 2019 年 7 月更新)("鉴于仲裁协议和基础合同的可分割性,即使指定的法律与相关的基础合同无关,明示条款......也将被视为最终条款。
合同");D. Sutton, J. Gill & M. Gearing, Russell on Arbitration ब2119(2015 年第 24 版)。
717 印度工会诉 McDonnell Douglas Corp .[1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 49, 50 (QB)(英国高等法院)(着重部分由作者标明)。比较 Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v. Balfour Beatty Constr.Ltd [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 7, 15 (English Ct. App.) (Section 5(2)(b) of English Arbitration Act, 1975 [replaced by §103(2)(b) of Arbitration Act, 1996], "suggests ... that the validity of an arbitration agreement is governed by the law which parties have chosen").
718 Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA [2012] EWCA Civ 638, 9IT2930; AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLC [2011] EWCA Civ 647, 1189("无论如何,根据英国法律冲突原则,当事人选择英国法律仲裁协议的自主权优先");Arsanovia Ltd v. Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings [2012] EWHC 3702, $8\$ 8 (Comm) (English High Ct.) ("法院首先决定当事人是否明示或默示选择英国法律仲裁协议")。Arsanovia Ltd v. Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings [2012] EWHC 3702, $8\$ 8 (Comm)(英国高等法院)("法院首先决定当事人是否明示或默示选择了适用于仲裁协议的法律;如果是,法院则执行当事人的选择");Peterson Farms Inc.[Ltd [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 500, 506.
719 Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA [2012] EWCA Civ 638, 99\mathbf{9} 9 (着重部分由作者标明)。
720 L. Collins et al. (eds.), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 9 16-017 (15th ed. 2012 & Update 2018) ("If there is an express choice of law to govern the arbitration agreement, that choice will be effective, irrespective of the law applicable to the contract as a whole"); R. Merkin, Arbitration Law बा97.8-12 (1991 & Update July 2019).另见 1996 年《英国仲裁法》第 103(2)条("如果裁决所针对的人证明......仲裁协议在当事人所适用的法律下无效,则可拒绝承认或执行该裁决")(着重部分由作者标明);D. Sutton, J. Gill & M. Gearing, Russell on Arbitration 92-11992-119 (24th ed. 2015).
721 见 Pearson, Sulamérica v. Enesa:见 Pearson, Sulamérica v. Enesa: The Hidden Pro-Validation Approach Adopted by the English Courts with respect to the Proper Law of the Arbitration Agreement, 29 Arb.Int'1 115, 125 (2013) ("A.
722 Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Ins.Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, โศ95-109 (U.K. S.Ct.); Hamlyn & Co. v. Talisker Distillery [1894] AC 202, 215 (House of Lords)。见§19.04[A][6][d]。
723 关于英国法院历史做法的一个最新例外,见Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v. Kout Food Group [2020] EWCA Civ 6 (English Ct. App.),在该案中,仲裁员适用仲裁地法律(法国法律)得出存在有效仲裁协议的结论,但法院适用了一般法律选择条款所声称选择的法律,使当事人的仲裁协议无效。法院没有收到,也显然没有考虑适用有效性原则或英国司法判决的历史模式,即适用使当事人协议有效的法律。
725 B. Berger & F. Kellerhals, International and Domestic Arbitration in Switzerland 99400-02\mathbf{9} \mathbf{9 4 0 0 - 0 2} (3d ed. 2015); P. Lalive, J.-F. Poudret & C. Reymond, Le Droit de l'Arbitrage Interne et International en Suisse 99400-02\mathbf{9} \mathbf{9 4 0 0 - 0 2} (Art.P. Lalive, J.-F. Poudret & C. Reymond, Le Droit de l'Arbitrage Interne et International en Suisse Art.178, 915\mathbf{9 1 5} (1989); J.-F.Poudret & S. Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration 9300\mathbf{9 3 0 0} (2d ed. 2007);Wenger, in S. Berti et al. (eds.), International Arbitration in Switzerland Art.178, 9922,25 (2000) ("The PILS emphasizes the importance of party autonomy by naming first the law chosen by the parties") (emphasis in original). 726 见第 4.04[B][5]节。
727 B. Berger & F. Kellerhals, International and Domestic Arbitration in Switzerland 9393 (3d ed. 2015); P. Lalive, J.-F. Poudret & C. Reymond, Le Droit de l'Arbitrage Interne et International en Suisse Art.P. Lalive, J.-F. Poudret & C. Reymond, Le Droit de l'Arbitrage Interne et International en Suisse Art.178, 915\mathbf{9 1 5} (1989); Wenger, in S. Berti et al. (eds.), International Arbitration in Switzerland Art.178, 9925-27 (2000) ("If the agreement to arbitrate is valid under Swiss law, it can therefore still be uphold even if it were invalid under the law explicitly chosen by the parties").
728 例如,见 1963 年 5 月 7 日判决,Ets Raymond Gosset 诉 Carapelli,JCP G 1963,II,13, $405\$ 405 (法国最高法院民事法庭第 1 号)(支持仲裁条款的自主性);1983 年 10 月 21 日判决,Isover-Saint-Gobain 诉 Dow Chem.法国,1984 Rev. Arb.98, 100 (Paris Cour d'Appel) ("applicable to the determination of the scope and the effects of the arbitration clause ... does not necessarily coincide with the law applicable to the substance of the dispute"); Judgment of 25 January 1972, Aguero v. Laporte, 1973 Rev. Arb.158, 159 (Paris Cour d'Appel)("[仲裁协议]的履行不一定受管辖[基础合同]的法律管辖")。
729 见§7.03[B];2011 年 4 月 7 日的判决,2011 Rev. Arb.747, 750 (Paris Cour d'Appel) ("according to a substantive rule of international arbitration law applicable to an arbitration seated in France, the arbitration clause is legally independent from the main contract in which it is included, and subject to public international policy, its existence and validity depends only on the common intention of the parties, without it be necessary to make reference to national law"); Judgment of 30 March 2004 , Uni-Kod v. Ouralkali, 2005 Rev. Arb.959 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1); Judgment of 20 December 1993, Municipalité de Khoms El Mergeb v. Dalico, 1994 Rev. Arb.116, 117 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1) ("according to a substantive rule of international arbitration law, the arbitration clause is legally independent from the main contract in which it is included or which refer to it and, if no mandatory provision of French law or international public policy (ordre public) is affected, that its existence and its validity depends on only the common intention of the parties, without it be necessary to make reference to a national law"); J.- L. Delvolvé, J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.- J.L. Delvolvé, J. Rouche & G. Pointon, French Arbitration Law and Practice 993 (2d ed. 2009); J.-F.Poudret & S. Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration 9180\mathbf{9} \mathbf{1 8 0} (2d ed. 2007)。
730 Judgment of 31 May 2001 , UNI-KOD Sarl v. Ouralkali, XXVI Y.B. Comm.Arb.1136, 1139 (Paris Cour d'Appel) (2001), aff'd , Judgment of 30 March 2004, 2004 Rev. Arb.723 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1).
737 中国最高法院,2005 年 12 月 26 日《关于适用〈中华人民共和国仲裁法〉若干问题的司法解释》, [2006] 法释第 7 号。另见 Davis Standard Corp. v. Ningbo Xiecheng Elec.见 Davis Standard Corp. v. Ningbo Xiecheng Elec. Wire Ltd. , [2004] Minsi Tazi No. 13 (Chinese S.Ct.), discussed in Weidong, Law Applicable to Arbitration Agreements in China, XI Y.B. Private Int'l L. 255, 260-61 (2009).
738 魏东,中国仲裁协议适用法律,XI Y.B. Private Int'l L. 255, 258 (2009)。例如,见南通港闸造船厂诉 IHDA Shipbuilding Servs.BV, [2006] Wuhai Fashangzi No. 81 (Chinese S.Ct.), discussed in Weidong, Law Applicable to Arbitration Agreements in China, XI Y.B. Private Int'l L. 258 (2009).
645, 651 (1995) ("least where the law chosen has some connection to the dispute and does not yield the result that violating fundamental public policy of the forum, courts will generally apply the parties' chosen law even though645, 651 (1995)("至少在所选择的法律与争议有某种联系且不会产生违反法院地基本公共政策的结果的情况下,法院一般会适用当事人选择的法律,即使法院地本来有管辖权规定有关商业关系的规则")。
742 1988 年《西班牙仲裁法》第 9(6)条。9(6).见《西班牙仲裁法》,序言 III(根据修订后的西班牙仲裁法,"如果仲裁协议受第 9(6)条所述三种法律制度中的任何一种管辖:当事人选择的法律、适用于争议实质的法律或西班牙法律,则仲裁协议有效");2001 年 7 月 23 日的判决,XXXI Y.B. Comm.Arb.825, 831 (Spanish Tribunal Supremo) (2006) ("there is here a clear submission to the substantive law of the specific AAA Rules and the laws of the State of New York"); Mantilla-Serrano, The New Spanish Arbitration Act, 21 J. Int'l Arb.367, 371 (2004) ("In international arbitration, the principle in favorem validitatis finds its fullest expression in Article 9.6, which turns to the most favorable choice of law for establishing validity of the arbitration agreement and arbitrability of the dispute")。
751 See, e.g. , Final Award in ICC Case No.Intelligence Mat.,बा157-58(将当事人对基础合同的巴西法律选择适用于仲裁协议);ICC 第 10579 号案件的裁决,在 Grigera Naón, Choice-of-Law Problems in International Commercial Arbitration, 289 Recueil des Cours 9, 4546 (2001) 中讨论;ICC 第 6850 号案件的最终裁决,XXIII Y.B. Comm.Arb.37, 38 (1998) (将基础合同中的法律选择条款适用于仲裁协议); Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.212, 215 (1992);Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.186 (1992); Interim Award in ICC Case No.Arb.149 (1986); Award in ICC Case No. 4504 , 113 J.D.I. (Clunet) 1118 (1986) (arbitration agreement was, as a result of parties' choice of law, subject to law different from that of underlying contract); Award in ICC Case No. 4381 , 113 J.D.I. (Clunet) 1102, 1103 (1986); Interim Award in ICC Case No.Arb.131, 133 et seq. (1984);Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.111, 115 (1989).
Evonik 声称不受其约束的[合同]中的同一条款。因此,以法律选择条款为依据无异于自说自话");厄瓜多尔诉 ChevronTexaco Corp., 376 F.Supp.2d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), rev'd on other grounds, 638 F.3d 384, 391 n. 6 (2d Cir. 2011); Javier v. Carnival Corp.2010 WL 3633173, at *3 (S.D. Cal.) ("显然,《海员协议》对巴拿马法律的选择无关紧要。如果不这样做,而是实际参考巴拿马有关合同订立的法律,就会将 Seafarer 协议视为有效协议")。另见 W. Craig, W. Park & J. Paulsson, International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration 9\mathbf{9} [5.07 (3d ed. 2000)("当事人可自行决定其仲裁协议的有效性问题适用何种法律,这似乎有点像 Baron von Munchhausen 用自己的辫子将自己从沼泽中拽出来")。
754 《罗马公约》第 8(1)条;《罗马第一规则》第 8(2)条。8(1); Rome I Regulation, Art.10(1); L. Collins et al. (eds.), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 9932R106, 32-108 (15th ed. 2012 & Update 2018) ("The effect of the [Rome] Regulation is to refer questions relating to the existence of a contract to the putative governing law"); M. Giuliano & P. Lagarde, Report on the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, O.J. C 282 31/10/1980, Art.8 ("This provision is also applicable with regard to the existence and validity of the parties' consent as to choose of the law applicable").
755 Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §218 comment a (1971) ("仲裁协议是合同的一种。适用于一般合同的法律选择规则也应适用于它们。在有关其有效性的问题上,这一点从未受到质疑。)
适当法律");Compania Naviera Micro SA 诉 Shipley Int'l, Inc.[1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 351, 353 (English Ct. App.); Egon Oldendorff v. Liberia Corp.[1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 64 (QB) (English High Ct.)(根据推定的适当法律确定推定仲裁条款的有效性);L. Collins et al. (eds.), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 9|932R-106, 32-110-13 (15th ed. 2012 & Update 2018);R. Merkin, Arbitration Law 97, (1971), pp.Merkin, Arbitration Law 97.6 .1 (1991 & Update August 2018) ("The validity of an agreement to arbitrate must, under English conflict of laws rules, be tested by reference to the law which - assuming the validity of the clause - would have applied to it").
757 见第 4.04[A][1][b]节。
758 如上所述,这与其他法律选择制度的做法是一致的。见第 4.04[A][2]节。
759 见第 4.04[A]-[B]节。 760 见第 4.04[A][1][b]节。
761 适用法律选择规则所确定的法律可能反过来规定,如果仲裁协议根据履行地的法律是非法的,则该协议不可执行。例如,见《法律冲突重述(第二版)》§§202(1)-(2)(1971 年)("(1) 非法性对合同的影响由适用 §§187-188 规则所选择的法律决定。(2) 如果在履行地履行合同是非法的,合同通常会被拒绝执行。");Ralli Bros 诉 Compañia Naviera Sota y Aznar [1920] 2 KB 287(英格兰法院上诉案);Tamil Nadu Elec.Bd 诉 St-CMS Elec.Co.Pvt Ltd [2007] EWHC 1713, 946 (Comm)(英国高等法院)(根据英国法律,"只要根据合同履行地所在国的法律,合同的履行是非法的",合同就不可执行);L. Collins 等人(编),Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 9|92.190-93(第 15 版,2012 年和 2018 年更新)。
762 见§19.04[B][1];Kreindler, Aspects of Illegality in the Formation and Performance of Contracts , in A. van den Berg (ed.), International Commercial Arbitration: Important Contemporary Questions 209, 249-50 (2003)。See also Y.Derains, Les Commissions Illicites 65-68 (1992); El-Kosheri & Leboulanger, L'Arbitrage Face à la Corruption et aux Trafics d'Influence, 1984 Rev. Arb. 3, 13; Lalive, Ordre Public Transnational (ou Réellement International) et Arbitrage International , 1986 Rev. Arb. 329, 355.
766 见§4.04[B][2][b][ii];《罗马公约》,第 3(3)、7(1)条;《罗马一条例》,第 3(3)、7(1)条。3(3), 7(1); Rome I Regulation, Arts.3(3), 9; Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §187(2) (1971).如下文所述,大多数发达的法律冲突规则规定,在有关外国与相关行为或交易有非常实质性关系的有限情况下,适用外国强制性法律和公共政策。见 §§19.04[B][2] & [5] 。另见 Grigera Naón,《国际商事仲裁中的法律选择问题》,289 Recueil des Cours 9, 85 (2001)("人们不禁要问,在特殊--很可能是例外--情况下,国际仲裁法庭在判断其管辖权时(很可能与可仲裁性问题有关),是否不应考虑并可能适用不属于通常管辖仲裁条款的法律或法律规则的警察法")。
767 见第 4.04[B][2][b][iii]节。 768 见同上。
769 《罗马公约》第 3(3)、7(1)条;《罗马第一规则》第 3(3)、7(1)条。3(3), 7(1); Rome I Regulation, Arts.3(3), 9; Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §187(2) (1971).
770 评注见 Arfazadeh, Arbitrability Under the New York Convention:The Lex Fori Revisited , 17 Arb.Int'l 73 (2001);Brekoulakis, Law Applicable to Arbitrability:Revisiting the Revisited Lex Fori, in L. Mistelis & S. Brekoulakis (eds.), Arbitrability:International and Comparative Perspectives 99 (2009); Grigera Naón, Choice-of-Law Problems in International Commercial Arbitration , 289 Recueil des Cours 9 (2001); Hanotiau, The Law Applicable to Arbitrability , 26 Sing. Acad.L.J. 874 (2014)L.J. 874 (2014);Hanotiau, L'Arbitrabilité, 296 Recueil des Cours 29 (2002);Hanotiau, The Law Applicable to Arbitrability, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:40 Years of
纽约公约的适用》,第 146 页(1999 年);Hanotiau, What Law Governs the Issue of Arbitrability?12 Arb.Int' 391 (1996);L. Mistelis & S. Brekoulakis (eds.), Arbitrability:L. Mistelis & S. Brekoulakis (eds.), Arbitrability: International and Comparative Perspective (2009); Paulsson, Arbitrability, Still Through A Glass Darkly, in ICC, Arbitration in the Next Decade 95 (1999).
771 Böckstiegel, Public Policy and Arbitrability , in P. Sanders (ed.), Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration 177, 184 (1987).另见 JSC Surgutneftegaz v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 2005 WL 1863676, at *3 n.5 (S.D.N.Y.) ("根据第 II 条,不清楚执行管辖区的法律是否适用于可执行性问题,还是其他法律控制,如仲裁地的法律、适用于争议的实体法或一般法律原则")。
772 一般参见 Arfazadeh, 《纽约公约》下的可仲裁性:The Lex Fori Revisited , 17 Arb.Int'l 73 (2001); Blessing, The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards. 40 Years Application of New York Convention 168-69 (1999):40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 168-69 (1999).
775 《纽约公约》第 V(2)(a)条(着重部分由作者标明);A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 368-75 (1981).V(2)(a) (emphasis added);A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 368-75 (1981)。
778 例如,见 Scherk 诉 Alberto-Culver Co.,417 U.S. 506, 519 n.14(U.S. S.Ct.1974);Meadows Indem.Co. v. Baccala & Shoop Ins. Servs.760 F.Supp. 1036, 1042 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)(驳回根据第五条第(2)款,将寻求执行裁决的州的法律管辖不可仲裁性的论点);Rhone Mediterranee v. Lauro , 555 F.Supp. 481, 485 (D.V.I. 1982),aff'd, 712 F.2d 50 (3d Cir. 1983)(驳回意大利法律应适用于不可仲裁性的论点,因为意大利是被告的居住地和营业地);1985 年 10 月 4 日的判决,XIV Y.B. Comm.Arb.618, 619-20 (Brussels Cour d'Appel) (1989).另见 G. Haight,《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》:27-28 (1958);Hanotiau, What Law Governs the Issue of Arbitrability?,12 Arb.12 Arb. Int'1 391, 399-401 (1996);J. Lew, L. Mistelis & S. Kröll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 99-33 (2003)("法庭不愿以根据可能的执行地或甚至另一相关国家的法律争议不可仲裁为由拒绝管辖权")。
779 见 2004 年 10 月 15 日的判决,Colvi NV 诉 Interdica,XXXI Y.B.Comm.Arb。Arb.587, 591 (Belgian Cour de Cassation) (2006) ("The lex fori that is applied when assessing arbitrability at the stage of arbitrability in the case.
在反对缺乏管辖权的情况下,承认和执行也决定争端是否可仲裁");1999 年 9 月 20 日的判决,Matermaco SA 诉 PPM Cranes, Inc.XXV Y.B. Comm.Arb.673, 675 (Brussels Tribunal de Commerce) (2000) ("The similarity between [Article] II(1) and [Article] V(2)(a) and a consistent interpretation of the Convention require that the arbitrable nature of a dispute be determined ... under the same law, namely, the lex fori ").另见 Arfazadeh, 《纽约公约》下的可仲裁性:The Lex Fori Revisited , 17 Arb.Int'1 73, 76 (2001); C. Reithmann & D. Martiny, Internationales Vertragsrecht 92380\mathbf{9 2 3 8 0} (7th ed. 2010); A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958152 (1981) ("it must be presumed that for the enforcement of the arbitration agreement also the lex fori governs the question of arbitrabability")。
780 Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd, 652 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 2011); In re U.S. Lines, Inc.197 F.3d 631, 639 (2d Cir. 1999); Alghanim v. Alghanim , 828 F.Supp.2d 636, 658 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ("Art. II(1) of the Convention ... contemplates exceptions to arbitrability grounded in domestic law") (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler ChryslerPlymouth, Inc.473 U.S. 614, 639 n. 21 (U.S. S.Ct. 1985)); Judgment of 16 November 2006 , Van Hopplynus Instruments v. Coherent Inc.2006 年 11 月 16 日的判决,Van Hopplynus Instruments v. Coherent Inc.,案件编号 C.02.0445.F,8(比利时最高上诉法院)("无论何时提出争端的可仲裁性 质,都必须根据受理法官的法律来决定,因为这一性质决定国家法院和法庭何时有效地缺乏管 辖权")。另见 Hanotiau, The Law Applicable to Arbitrability, 26 Sing.L.J. 874, 874, 874, 874, 874, 874, 874L.J. 874, 883 (2014)("更好的观点 "是,被请求执行仲裁协议的法院应适用其本国法律)。
787 见 E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 9655\mathbf{9} \mathbf{6 5 5} (1999 年);Kaufmann-Kohler & Lévy, Insolvency and International Arbitration in H. Peter, N. Jeandin & J. Kilborn (eds.), The Challenges of Insolvency Law Reform in the 21st Century:257, 260 (2006)("原则上,在瑞士进行国际仲裁的仲裁员不会适用不同法律制度下存在的任何可仲裁性禁止或限制")。
788 See, e.g. , JLM Indus. v. Stolt-Nielsen SA, 387 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2004) (rejecting argument that English law was applicable because London was likely seat); Alghanim v. Alghanim, 828 F.Supp.2d 636, 659-63 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (rejecting argument that Kuwaiti law was relevant to subject matter arbitrability).另见 Hanotiau, What Law Governs the Issue of Arbitrability?, 12 Arb.12 Arb. Int'1 391, 395 (1996)("原则上,争议的可仲裁性不应通过适用仲裁地的法律来决定")。 789 见第 4.05[A][1]节。
790 See, e.g. , JLM Indus.v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., 815 F.2d 840, 848-49 (2d Cir. 1987) (applying U.S. federal law without considering impact of Japanese law as law of arbitral seat); Meadows Indem.Co. v. Baccala & Shoop Ins. Servs.760 F.Supp. 1036, 1043 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)(适用有利于仲裁争议解决的美国联邦政策,尽管有主张称格恩西岛法律应适用于可能寻求执行裁决的地方)。同样,在 Mitsubishi 和 Scherk 案中,美国最高法院完全依据美国法律来确定反托拉斯和证券索赔是否能够在国际争端中通过仲裁解决--尽管同时相当重视《纽约公约》和当事人交易的国际性。三菱汽车公司案,473 U.S. 614;Scherk 案,417 U.S. 506。但值得注意的是,Scherk 案和三菱案都涉及美国法定索赔的可仲裁性。从法院的意见(未涉及法律选择问题)中无法清楚地看出,如果涉及外国法定索赔,三菱和 Scherk 法院会参照哪个国家的法律。
791 See, e.g. , Judgment of 12 February 1985, 1986 Rev. Arb.47 (French Cour de Cassation Soc.); E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 9/941, 559 (1999).
792 See, e.g., Swiss Law on Private International Law, Art.177(1); Judgment of 16 October 2003, 22 ASA Bull.364, 387-88 (Swiss Fed. Trib.) (2004); Judgment of 8 July 2003 , DFT 129 III 675 (Swiss Fed. Trib.); Judgment of 16 May 1995, 14 ASA Bull.667, 671-72 (Swiss Fed. Trib.) (1996); Judgment of 2 September 1993 , Nat'l Power Corp. v. Westinghouse, DFT 119 II 380, 384 (Swiss Fed. Trib.); Judgment of 23 June 1992 , DFT 118 II 353, 355 (Swiss Fed. Trib.).另见 Bärtsch & Petti, The Arbitration Agreement, in E. Geisinger & N. Voser (eds.), International Arbitration in Switzerland:25, 38-40 (2d ed. 2013);F. Knoepfler & P. Schweizer, Arbitrage International 265, 267-68 (2003)。
793 See, e.g. , Judgment of 24 November 1994 , XXI Y.B. Comm.Arb.635, 638-39 (Rotterdam Rechtbank) (1996) (refusing to consider possible nonarbitrability of dispute under law of third state (other than arbitral seat or enforcement forum), when that law was not relied on in arbitral proceedings).
794 例如,见 2006 年 11 月 16 日的判决,Van Hopplynus Instruments 诉 Coherent Inc.例如,见 2006 年 11 月 16 日判决,Van Hopplynus Instruments 诉 Coherent Inc.,案件号 C.02.0445.F,8(比利时最高法院)("《纽约公约》第二(3)条和第五(1)或 (2)条并不排除在拒绝管辖权阶段将法院地法适用于争端的可仲裁性问题,也不要求将此问题完全提交合同适用法");1999 年 9 月 20 日判决,Matermaco SA 诉 PPM Cranes, Inc.XXV Y.B. Comm.Arb.673, 675-76 (Brussels Tribunal de Commerce) (2000) (refusing to stay litigation, based on agreement to arbitrate in Belgium, because Belgian law provided for nonarbitrability of dispute)。比较 1994 年 10 月 5 日的判决,Van Hopplynus 诉 Coherent Inc.XXII Y.B. Comm.Arb.637, 640-42 (Brussels Tribunal de Commerce) (1997)(驳回"《纽约公约》[第]V(2)(a)条明文提到了仲裁地法 "的论点)。
795 See, e.g. , Judgment of 27 April 1979 , VI Y.B. Comm.Arb.229 (Italian Corte di Cassazione) (1981)(意大利公司与受雇于沙特阿拉伯的意大利雇员之间的争端不可在沙特阿拉伯仲裁,因为根据意大利法律,雇佣争端不可仲裁);1994 年 5 月 7 日判决,Fincantieri-Cantieri Navali Italiani SpA 诉伊拉克国防部军备供应局,XXI Y.B. Comm.Arb.594, 599-600 (Genoa Corte di Appello) (1996); Judgment of 18 July 1987 , XVII Y.B. Comm. Arb.Arb.534, 535 (Bologna Tribunale) (1992) ("Italian law applies to review arbitrability").
796 See, e.g. , F. Schwarz & C. Konrad, The Vienna Rules:例如,见 F. Schwarz & C. Konrad, The Vienna Rules: A Commentary on International Arbitration in Austria 9\mathbf{9} ||27.058-59 (2009 年)。
Y.B. Comm.Arb.594, 600 (Genoa Corte di Appello) (1996).
801 见 G. Haight,《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》:van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958153 (1981) ("All courts [have] decided the question of arbitrability exclusively under their own law and [have] not take[n] account of the law of the country where the arbitration was to take place or was taking place")。另见 Brekoulakis,《适用于可仲裁性的法律》:重新审视 Revisited Lex Fori, in L. Mistelis & S. Brekoulakis (eds.), Arbitrability:International and Comparative Perspectives 99, 100 (2009) ("prominence of lex fori as the most relevant law to determine arbitrability remains unquestionable"); Hanotiau, The Law Applicable to Arbitrability , 26 Sing. Acad.L.J. 874, 874, 874, 874, 874, 874, 874L.J. 874, 884 (2014)("更好的观点 "是被要求执行仲裁协议的法院应适用其本国法律);Nacimiento, Article V(1)(a)V(1)(a) , in H. Kronke et al. (eds.), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards:Nacimiento, in H. Kronke et al (eds), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on the New York Convention 205, 222 (2010) ("Under the Convention, arbitrability is thus governed by the law of the enforcing court and not by the law applicable to the arbitration agreement")。 802 见第 4.05[A][1]节。
803 Hanotiau, The Law Applicable to Arbitrability, 26 Sing.学术杂志》(Acad.L.J. 874、
𝟙
(2014)("这是[纽约公约]第二条第(1)款和第五条第(1)款(a)项以及[欧洲公约]第六条第(2)款明确规定的解决办法");Hanotiau, What Law Governs the Issue of Arbitrability?,12 Arb.12 Arb. Int'1 391, 393 (1996)。
804 Hanotiau, The Law Applicable to Arbitrability, 26 Sing.L.J. 874, 116 (2014); Hanotiau, What Law Governs the Issue of Arbitrability?L.J. 874, 116 (2014); Hanotiau, What Law Governs the Issue of Arbitrability?,12 Arb.12 Arb. Int'l 391, 393-94 (1996)。
805 See, e.g. , Award in ICC Case No.Arb.241, 251 (2010)(对不可仲裁性问题适用瑞士法律,因为瑞士是"......仲裁地,因此......也是必须据以决定可仲裁性问题的法律");Partial Award in ICC Case No.
87 (2000)(对申诉的可仲裁性适用法国仲裁地的法律,驳回基于外国法的不可仲裁性申诉,因为没有证据表明法国的国际公共政策包含类似规则);国际商会第 8594 号案件的裁决,在 Grigera Naón, Choice-of-Law Problems in International Commercial Arbitration, 289 Recueil des Cours 9, 79-80 (2001)(对申诉的可仲裁性适用瑞士仲裁地的法律)中讨论;国际商会第 8420 号案件的部分裁决,XXV Y.B. Comm.Arb.328, 331 (2000) ("arbitrability of this litigation is governed by the lex arbitri"); Award in ICC Case No.Derains (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1974-1985 546, 548-49 (1990) (arbitration clause and issue of nonarbitrability are governed by law of arbitral seat (Switzerland), not law governing underlying contract).另见 D. Girsberger & N. Voser, International Arbitration:参见 D. Girsberger & N. Voser, International Arbitration: Comparative and Swiss Perspectives 80 (3d ed. 2016)(对于在瑞士进行的仲裁,可仲裁性 "完全由《瑞士私法》第 177 条管辖")。在大多数情况下,......[仲裁]法庭根据仲裁地的规定[(lex loci arbitri)]决定争端的可仲裁性")。 806 见第 4.05[A][1]节。
807 例如,在涉及 B 国法律规定的法定保护的证券争议中,B 国肯定地将争议提交仲裁,很难理解为什么 B 国的政策在另一国进行的仲裁中被剥夺效力。
808 见 §4.05[A][1] ; §6.02[G] 。
809 见§6.02[G];§19.04[B][5];《罗马公约》,第 3(3)、7(1)条;《罗马一条例》,第 3(3)、7(1)条。3(3), 7(1); Rome I Regulation, Arts.3(3), 9; Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §187(2)(b) (1971).
合同的履行为非法。在考虑是否使这些规定生效时,应考虑其性质和目的以及适用或不适用的后果");《罗马公约》第 7(1)条("在根据本公约适用一国法律时,可使与该情况有密切联系的另一国法律的强制性规则生效。7(1)条("在根据本公约适用一国法律时,如果根据另一国法律,无论合同适用何种法律,都必须适用与该情况有密切联系的另一国法律的强制性规则,在此范围内,可使这些规则生效。在考虑是否使这些强制性规则生效时,应考虑其性质和目的以及适用或不适用的后果")。另见《法律冲突重述(第二版)》§187(2) (1971);M. Giuliano & P. Lagarde,《关于合同义务法律适用公约的报告》,O.J. C 282 31/10/1980,Art.7, 9[3 ("The judge must be given a power of discretion, in particular in the case where contradictory mandatory rules of two different countries both purport to simultaneously be applicable to one and the same situation, and where a choice must necessarily be made between them"); §§19.04[B][5][b] -[c] .
哈佛学院院长与研究员案,2005 WL 1863676, 3 (S.D.N.Y.) (refusing to consider argument that issues of Russian internal corporate governance were nonarbitrable under Russian law);Meadows Indem.Co. v. Baccala & Shoop Ins. Servs.760 F.Supp. 1036, 1043 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (refusing to consider arguments that claims were not arbitrable under Guernsey law and instead applying U.S. "federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute resolution").See also Partial Award in ICC Case No.Arb.328 (2000)(在瑞士开庭的仲裁庭拒绝适用意大利关于劳动争议的不可仲裁性规则)。
818 见 Scherk 诉 Alberto-Culver Co.417 U.S. 506, 515-16 (U.S. S.Ct. 1974); Quintette Coal Ltd v. Nippon Steel Corp.50 BCLR2d 207, $27\$ 27 (B.C. Ct. App. 1990) ("it will be necessary for national courts to subordinate domestic notions of arbitrability to the international policy favoring commercial arbitration"); W. Craig, W. Park & J. Paulsson, International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration 95.07 (3d ed., 2000) ("Such an objection is not yet.2000 年)("当不可仲裁性规则据称源于规定适用于争端实质内容的国内法以外的国内法时,这种反对意见尤其难以接受--但即使是同一部法律,不可仲裁性规则,即使可以证明国内法院将其适用于国内交易,是否应在国际范围内有效,也是值得怀疑的。......另一种说法是,国内立法的效力如果不是被抵消,也应该被削弱,因为它不适用于国际交易(或者说国内立法可能违反国际法,而国际法即使在国家范围内也是至高无上的),而合同规定的安全性要求在国际范围内得到特别高度的承认,不受国家保护主义的影响")。
819 见§19.04[B][5];§25.02;§26.03;B. Berger & F. Kellerhals, International and Domestic Arbitration in Switzerland 9274\mathbf{9 2 7 4} (3d ed. 2015)("在瑞士开庭的仲裁员只有在有充分理由相信就案情实质作出裁决会违反基本法律原则,使裁决根本不符合跨国法律和道德价值的情况下,才需要遵守关于可仲裁性的'外国'强制性规则");A. Bucher & P.Y.Tschanz, International Arbitration in Switzerland 976 (1988) (Swiss courts should treat disputes as nonarbitrable where parties agree upon Swiss arbitration "only for the purpose of avoiding mandatory court jurisdiction of such foreign legal system for matters such as antitrust, labor relations or exchange controls"); Vischer, in D. Girsberger et al. (eds.), Zürcher Kommentar zum IPRG Art.177, $22 (2d ed. 2004)(法院应无视外国不可仲裁性条款,除非它们构成 "国际公共政策 "的一部分)。反驳 1992 年 6 月 23 日的判决,DFT 118 II 353, 358 (Swiss Fed. Trib.) ("由于立法者根据条款的性质而非其适用的法律选择了可仲裁性标准,原则上没有必要考虑外国法律对争端可仲裁性的限制和禁止"); P. Lalive, J.-F. Poudret & C. Reym.P. Lalive, J.-F. Poudret & C. Reymond, Le Droit de l'Arbitrage Interne et International en Suisse Art.177, 9|9-5 (1989).
820 See, e.g. , Partial Award in ICC Case No.Arb.328 (2000)(在瑞士开庭的法庭拒绝适用意大利关于劳资纠纷的不可仲裁规则);国际商会第 6379 号案件的最终裁决,XVII Y.B. Comm.Arb.212 (1992)(拒绝执行比利时的不可仲裁性规则,因为当事人选择了意大利法律来管辖仲裁协议,而且根据意大利法律,仲裁条款是有效的);JSC Surgutneftegaz 诉哈佛大学校长和研究员案,2005 WL 1863676, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.)(拒绝考虑俄罗斯内部公司治理问题根据俄罗斯法律不可仲裁的论点)。 821 见第 6.03[C]节。 822 见同上。
830 例如,见 Thyssen Canada Ltd v. Mariana Maritima SA, [2000] 3 FC 398, 123 (Canadian Fed. Ct. App.) (refusing to consider issues of Romanian law, allegedly requiring nonarbitrability of dispute subject to arbitration in London: "It is not the role of this Court in proceedings initiated under the federal Commercial Arbitration Act to make determinations as to the proper law of a particular contract. ... [I]t is for the arbitration panel in London to determine the proper law of a contract(or) ")。......应由伦敦的仲裁小组确定合同的适当法律")。
831 见§1.04[A][1][c];§4.04[A][1][b]。
832 与此相一致,一些评论家主张,"在审查国际争端的客观可仲裁性时,法院必须适用其对国际公共政策的概念"。E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 9559\mathbf{9 5 5 9} (1999).虽然将范围留给了国家法院,但这一分析的基础是对个别缔约国具有约束力的 "国际公共政策 "概念。 833 见第 6.02[B]节。
845 Hub Power Co. v. Pakistan WAPDA, 16 Arb.International 439 (2000) (Pakistan S.Ct. 2000)。见 §6.04 .
846 Himpurna Cal.Himpurna Cal. Energy Ltd v. PT (Persero) Perusahaan Listruik Negara, Final Award in Ad Hoc Case of 4 May 1999, XXV Y.B. Comm.Arb.13, 31-32 (2000).见第 6.04 节。
849 见第 1.04[A][1]节。另见 1994 年 10 月 5 日的判决,Van Hopplynus 诉 Coherent Inc.,XXII Y.B. Comm.Arb.637 (Brussels Tribunal de Commerce) (1997) (refusing to apply nonarbitrability rule of local (Belgian) law, citing fact that Belgian courts would permit choice-of-forum clause selecting foreign courts involving same claims); van Houtte, L'Arbitrabilité de la Résiliation des Concessions de Vente Exclusive, in R. Vander Elst (ed.), Mélanges Offes (Mélanges Offes).), Mélanges Offerts à Raymond Vander Elst 821 (1986)(反对 "比利时法院接受......其外国同事无视 1961 年法律[关于某些分销终止的不可仲裁性],但不容忍外国仲裁员也这样做 "的做法)。
854 见
§
.如下文所述,《公约》第二条所载关于仲裁协议形式有效性的国际统一标准不适用于协议的实质有效性。见 §4.06[A][1]; A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958177 (1981) (" 第二(2)条的统一规则只涉及仲裁协议的形式。它不涉及仲裁协议有效性的其他方面--也称为实质有效性--这些方面原则上必须根据适用的法律来判断。)(着重号为原文所加)。
860 A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958287 (1981).比较 Patocchi & Jermini, in S. Berti et al . (eds.), International Arbitration in Switzerland:194, 967 (2000).194, 967 (2000); A. Samuel, Jurisdictional Problems in International Commercial Arbitration 82-84 (1989).另见 1984 年 2 月 7 日判决,Tradax Export SA 诉 Amoco Iran Oil Co.,XI Y.B. Comm.Arb.532, 533-34 (Swiss Fed. Trib.) (1986) ("It results from the text of the Convention itself... that Art.在适用公约的情况下,这些规则取代国内法。......因此,必须完全根据这些条约规定来解决有关仲裁条款的有效性问题")。
865 UNCITRAL, Report on the Work of its Thirty-Ninth Session, Recommendation Regarding the Interpretation of Article II, Paragraph 2, and Article VII, Paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards , U.N. Doc.A/61/17, Annex II (2006); UNCITRAL, Revised Articles of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and the Recommendation Regarding the Interpretation of Article II, Paragraph 2, and Article VII, Paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards , U.N.G.A. Resol.第 61/33 号,附件二(2006 年)。 866 见第 1.04[A][1][e]节。
867 参见§5.02[A][2][f]。另见 Schramm, Geisinger & Pinsolle, Article II, in H. Kronke et al. (eds.), Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards:见 Schramm, Geisinger & Pinsolle, Article II, in H Kronke et al .在宽松的
868 UNCITRAL, Report on the Work of its Thirty-Ninth Session, Recommendation Regarding the Interpretation of Article II, Paragraph 2, and Article VII, Paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards , U.N. Doc. A/61/17, Annex 2 (2006).A/61/17,附件 2(2006 年)。
869 见 §1.04[A][1][c][ii] ; §2.01[A][1][a] ; §4.04[B][2][b] ; §5.01[B][2] ;
§
§
.如果第 II(2)条的清单被解释为排他性的,则第 VII 条也适用。见 Landau, The Requirement of A Written Form for An Arbitration Agreement:见 Landau, The Requirement of A Written Form for An Arbitration Agreement: When "Written" Means "Oral," in A. van den Berg (ed.), International Commercial Arbitration:19, 73 (2003) ("If the word 'include' in Article II(2) indicates an exhaustive criteria, the question comes on whether national courts may apply their own more liberal laws (where these exist) under Article VII(1) of the Convention, rather than the stricter requirements of the Convention").
872 1985 年《贸易法委员会示范法》原文第 7(2)条规定"见 H. Holtzmann & J. Neuhaus, Guide of the UNCITRAL Model Law of the United States of America and the United States of America,《贸易法委员会示范法》,第 7(2)条。另见 H. Holtzmann 和 J. Neuhaus,《贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法指南》:立法史和评注 260-64 (1989);§5.02[A][5][a]。示范法》2006 年修订本提供了新的(减少的)形式要求,也载于第 7 条。见 §5.02[A][5][a] 。
874 U.S. FAA, 9 U.S.C. §1; English Arbitration Act, 1996, §5(3); Swiss Law on Private International Law, Arts.瑞士国际私法,第 176(1)、178(1)条;瑞士民事诉讼法,第 353(1)、358 条。瑞士民事诉讼法》第 353(1)、358 条;《荷兰民事诉讼法》第 1021 条;《新加坡国际仲裁法》第 2 条。1021;新加坡《国际仲裁法》第 2A 条;日本《仲裁法》第 13 条。13.如下所述,这些国内法规定往往比《纽约公约》第二条第(2)款的形式要求更为宽松。见 §5.02[A][5] 。
875 例如,见 2011 年 11 月 24 日判决,EGPC 诉 NATGAS,2012 Rev. Arb.134 (Paris Cour d'Appel); Judgment of 18 November 2010, République de Guinée Équatoriale v. SA Bank Guinea Équatorial , 2010 Rev. Arb.980 (Paris Cour d'Appel) (appellant cannot rely on formal requirements for arbitration agreement imposed by its domestic law); Judgment of 10 June 2004 , Bargues Agro Indus.SA v. Young Pecan Cie, XXX Y.B. Comm.Arb.499, 502 (Paris Cour d'Appel) (2005) ("According to a substantive provision of French international arbitration law, the parties' intention suffas to validate an arbitration agreement. Hence, that agreement not fall under the law.因此,该协议不属于国家法律的管辖范围,因为它是完全自主的,在形式方面也是如此")。
877 U.S. FAA, 9 U.S.C. §1; English Arbitration Act, 1996, §5; Swiss Law on Private International Law, Arts.176(1)、178(1)条;《瑞士民事诉讼法》,第353(1)、358条;《比利时仲裁法》,第178(1)条。瑞士民事诉讼法》第 353(1)、358 条;《比利时司法法典》第 1681 条。1681.见 P. Binder, International Commercial Arbitration and Mediation in UNCITRAL Model Law Jurisdictions 35 (4th ed. 2019); H. Holtzmann
& J. Neuhaus, AA Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration:立法史和评注 258 (1989 年)。
878 Thyssen Canada Ltd v. Mariana Maritima SA, [2000] 3 FC 398 (Canadian Fed. Ct. App.); Nanisivik Mines Ltd v. Canarctic Shipping Co. , [1994] 2 FC 662 (Canadian Fed. Ct. App.); Dongnam Oil & Fats Co. v. Chemex Ltd, [2004] FC 1732 (Canadian Fed. Ct.); Ferguson Bros. of St.,[1999] O.J. No. 1887(安大略省最高法院);Schiff Food Prods.Inc. v. Naber Seed & Grain Co. , [1996] CanLII 7144 (Saskatchewan Q.B.)。
879 例如,见国际商会第 16168 号案件裁决,引自 J.- J. Arnaldez, Y. Derains & D. Hascher (eds.), 国际商会仲裁裁决汇编 20122015205 (2018);XL Ins.J. Arnaldez, Y. Derains & D. Hascher (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 20122015205 (2018); XL Ins. Ltd v. Owens Corning [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 500, 508 (QB) (English High Ct.); Judgment of 20 January 1987 , Bomar Oil NV v. Entreprise Tunisienne d'Activités Pétrolières, 1987 Rev. Arb.482 (Paris Cour d'Appel), rev'd on other grounds , Judgment of 11 October 1989, 1990 Rev. Arb.134 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1); Judgment of 27 March62 , Compagnie Marchande de Tunisie v. Costa de Marfil, JPC G 1963, II, 13036 (Paris Cour d'Appel); Judgment of 29 September 1959 , Goldschmidt v. Cottaropoulos, 88 J.D.I. (Clunet) 168 (Aix-en-Provence Cour d'Appel) (1961); O. Lando, Contracts , III International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law 102 (1977).
881 See §4.02[B] ; Judgment of 21 September 2005, XXXI Y.B. Comm.Arb.679 (German Bundesgerichtshof) (2006) (suggesting that formal requirements applicable to arbitration agreement were governed by law chosen by parties' choice-of-law agreement).
884 《罗马公约》第 9(4)条(规定了 "行为发生地国的法律 "作为替代理由);《罗马一 条条例》第 9(5)条。4; Judgment of 1865 April 18 , D.P., I, 9342\mathbf{9 3 4 2} (1865) (French Cour de Cassation Req.); Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §199(2) (1971) ("Formalities which meet the requirements of the place of the parties execute the contract will normally be acceptable").
885 See, e.g. , Award in ICC Case No.Derains (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1974-1985 473-76 (1990).
886 例如,见 1987 年 1 月 20 日判决,Bomar Oil NV 诉 Entreprise Tunisienne d'Activités Pétrolières,1987 Rev. Arb.482 (Paris Cour d'Appel), rev'd on other grounds , Judgment of 11 October 1989 , 1990 Rev. Arb.134 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1).比较 Lew, The Law Applicable to the Form and Substance of the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and 裁决:40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 141-42 (1999). 887 见第 4.06[B][1]节。
888 见第 4.04[A][4][c]节;第 4.04[B][6][d]节。
889 见§4.04[A][1][b][iv];§4.04[A][3]。
890 见第 4.04[A][4][c]节;第 4.04[B][6][d]节。
891 Rome I Regulation, Art.11(3)(如果合同符合 "当事人当时惯常居所所在国的法律 "的形式要求,则合同正式有效); 《罗马公约》第 9(4)条;M. Giuliano & P. Lagarde, 关于合同义务适用法律公约的报告,O.J. C 282 312, pp.9(4); M. Giuliano & P. Lagarde, Report on the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, O.J. C 282 31/10/1980, Art.9.
892 瑞士国际私法,第 124(1)条("如果合同符合适用于合同的法律或合同执行地的法律,则合同正式有效");1963 年 5 月 28 日的判决,JCP 1964,J.124(1) ("A contract is formally valid if it conforms either to the law applicable to the contract or to the law of the place of the contract was executed"); Judgment of 28 May 1963 , JCP 1964, II, 13347, 11 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1) ("The 'locus regit actum' rule does not prevent international contracts to pass in France in the form determined by the foreign law governing their substance");L.1)("'locus regit actum'规则并不妨碍国际合同在法国以管辖其实质内容的外国法律确定的形式通过");L. Collins 等人(编),Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 9/16.023-26 (第 15 版,2012 年及 2018 年更新)。另见《法律冲突重述(第二版)》§ 188 评注 b(1971 年)。
898 例如,见 Lew, The Law Applicable to the Form and Substance of the Arbitration Clause, in A. van den Berg (ed.), Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards:40 Years of Application of the New York Convention 139 (1999) (concluding that, in practice, when faced with choice-of-law issue, arbitrators have assessed formal validity of arbitration clause under whichver law, when applied, would validate arbitration clause); Mayer, L'autonomie de l'Arbitre
《国际组织对其自身管辖权的评估》,217 Recueil des Cours 319, III 114\boldsymbol{I} \boldsymbol{I} \boldsymbol{I} 114 et seq .(1989 年)。 899 见第 4.06[B][1]节。
900 见同上。比较 Landau, The Requirement of A Written Form for An Arbitration Agreement:当 "书面 "意味着 "口头 "时,in A. van den Berg (ed.), International Commercial Arbitration:19, 67 (2003) ("If an arbitration agreement is valid under its own applicable law in respect of form, it is unlikely to be defeated by Article II (2), [but] national courts do not always take this approach").
904 这是大多数评注的结论。例如,见 E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration uarr454\uparrow 454 (1999); Heiskanen, Forbidding Dépeçage:Heiskanen, Forbidding Dépeçage: Law Governing Investment Treaty Arbitration, 32 Suffolk Trans.Lew、L. Mistelis & S. Kröll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration 96-51\mathbf{9 6 - 5 1} (2003); A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 276-77 (1981) ("The draftfters of the Convention left open the question how the law applicable to a party - also referred to as the 'personal law' - is to be determined. The question must be resolved by the law of a party.因此,这个问题必须通过寻求执行仲裁裁决的法院的法律冲突规则来解决。......第 V(1)(a)\mathrm{V}(1)(\mathrm{a}) 条中的短语给出了一种半途而废的冲突规则,因为什么被视为属人法仍需由法院地的冲突规则来确定。)
905 W. Craig, W. Park & J. Paulsson, International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration 95.02 n. 3 (3d ed. 2000)。
906 N. Blackaby et al. (eds.), Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration 92.31\mathbf{9} 2.31 (6th ed. 2015); A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958276 (1981).
909 第 34(2)(a)(i)条省略了《纽约公约》中 "对其适用的法律 "一语。贸易法委员会示范法》,第 34(2)(a)(i)条。贸易法委员会示范法》,第 34(2)(a)(i)条。另见《贸易法委员会示范法》第 36(1)(a)条36(1)(a); H. Holtzmann & J. Neuhaus, A Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration:第 1059(2)(1)条。以贸易法委员会为基础的《德国民事诉讼法典》第 1059(2)(1)(a)条提及 "适用于[当事人]的法律",但未指明如何选择该法律。德国 ZPO,§1059(2)(1)(a)。
911 例如,见 Grigera Naón, Choice-of-Law Problems in International Commercial Arbitration, 289 Recueil des Cours 9, 98-99 (2001)(拒绝对行为能力问题适用国内法;认为国际原则使仲裁协议不受 "直接或间接限制诉诸国际仲裁 "的国内法的影响)。另见《意大利民事诉讼法典》第 808 条("仲裁协议的有效性")。808 ("The validity of the arbitration clause shall be evaluated independently from the underlying contract; nevertheless, the capacity to enter into the contract includes the capacity to agree to the arbitration clause"); Svenska Petroleum Exploration ABvA B v .Lithuania (No. 2) [2006] EWCA Civ 1529, 97\mathbf{9 7} (English Ct. App.) (applying Lithuanian law to conclude that Lithuania was bound by arbitration agreement, which specified application of Lithuanian law "supplemented, where required, by [international rules] if they do not contradict" Lithuanian law); Judgment of 10 April 1990 , XVII Y.B. Comm.Arb.568 (S. Korean S.Ct.) (1992)(将英国法律作为仲裁地法律和管辖基础合同的法律适用于代理人的能力问题);L. Collins et al. (eds.), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 916-027\mathbf{9 1 6 - 0 2 7} n. 59 (15th ed. 2012 & Update 2018)("答案应取决于管辖仲裁协议的法律,而非相关国家的法律,但仲裁协议应与相关国家的法律相一致。
1996 年法案,第 103(2)(a)节(以及《纽约公约》中的相应条款)表明,在强制执行的情况下不 是这样")。912 See, e.g. , Final Award in ICC Case No.Arb.30 (2019) ("The capacity of a corporation to enter into an agreement is governed primarily by its statutes and by the law of its place of incorporation."); Award in ICC Case No.7373, discussed in id. at 98-99 ("The question of capacity and power of authority to sign a contract is generally governed by the law of the domicile or the national law of the concerned person. This solution followed almost all countries.几乎所有大陆法系和英美法系国家都遵循这一解决办法。");国际商会第 7337 号案件临时裁决,XXIV Y.B. Comm.Arb.149, 151 (1999) ("legal capacity of a party is determined according to the law at its place of domicile"); Award in ICC Case No. 6476, discussed in id. at 100-01 ("wide-spread practice ... regards questions of capacity as relating to status and the personal law"); Award in ICC Case No.同上,第 105 n. 94 页(2001 年)("一般来说,行为能力问题由当地法律(lex domicilii )管辖");国际商会第 4381 号案件的裁决,113 J.D.I. (Clunet) 1102, 1106 (1986)("每一方当事人同意仲裁的行为能力由该当事人的属人法管辖");5 月 5 日 1976,V1976, \mathrm{~V} Y.B. Comm.Arb.217, 218 (Swiss Fed. (1980) ("all problems concerning the legal status of a legal entity are governed by the law of the State in which it has its seat and from which it derives its legal capacity"); Judgment of 23 April 1997, Dalmine SpA v. M&M Sheet Metal Forming Mach.AG, XXIV Y.B. Comm.Arb.709 (Italian Corte di Cassazione) (1999) (applying Italian law to issue of capacity of general manager to conclude arbitration agreement for Italian company).
913 国际商会第 2694 号案件裁决,引自 S. Jarvin & Y. Derains (eds), 国际商会 1974-1985 年仲裁裁决汇编 320-25 (1990)。Derains (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1974-1985 320-25 (1990).
915 Judgment of 31 March 2009 , Vivendi SA v. Deutsche Telekom AG , 28 ASA Bull.104, 109 (Swiss Fed. Trib.) (2010).另见 Aebi & Frey, Impact of Bankruptcy on International Arbitration Proceedings:A Special Case Does Not Make A General Rule , 28 ASA Bull.113 (2010);Karrer, The Swiss Federal Supreme Court Got It Wrong, Wrong, Wrong and Wrong A Fourth Time , 28 ASA Bull.111 (2010);Naegeli, 破产与仲裁:What Should Prevail?The Impact of Bankruptcy on Pending Arbitral Proceedings , 2010 Austrian Y.B. Int'l Arb.193.
917 例如,见 Bärtsch & Petti, The Arbitration Agreement, in E. Geisinger & N. Voser (eds.), International Arbitration in Switzerland:B. Berger & F. Kellerhals, International and Domestic Arbitration in Switzerland 9348\mathbf{9 3 4 8} (3d ed. 2015) ("作为仲裁一方当事人的资格不受[瑞士国际私法]第 178(2)条特别冲突法规则的管辖。178(2)条[瑞士国际私法]的特别冲突法规则管辖。相反,它由适用于个人和法律实体法律行为能力的[《瑞士国际私法》]一般冲突法规则的适用法律决定。......就法律实体的行为能力而言,第 187(1)条的 "最密切联系检验标准 "通常会导致 "最密切联系 "的结果。......对于法律实体的行为能力,第 187(1)条的'最密切联系测试'通常会导致公司注册地的法律");N. Blackaby 等(编),Redfern 和 Hunter on International Arbitration 9T2.34-41 (第 6 版,2015 年);Blessing,Drafting An Arbitration Clause,in M. Blessing(编),The Arbitration Agreement:其多方面的关键问题》,32, 44 (1994) ("能力问题通常由合并法,即各方的国内法管辖");D. Girsberger & N. Voser, International Arbitration:D. Girsberger & N. Voser, International Arbitration: Comparative and Swiss Perspectives 80 (3d ed. 2016) ("In most cases the law of a party's nationality or domicile dots\ldots or the law of the seat or place of incorporation ... is applied"); P .Lalive, J.-F.Poudret & C. Reymond, Le Droit de l'Arbitrage Interne et
International en Suisse Art.178, 919\mathbf{9 1 9} (1989) ("For arbitration taking place in Switzerland one might be tempted to apply the alternative connecting factor of Art.瑞士国际私法》]第 178(2)条有利于仲裁协议的实质有效性。大多数作者都正确地拒绝了这一解决方案,并认为行为能力受属人法管辖"); MantillaSerrano, International Arbitration and Insolvency Proceedings , 11 Arb.51, 63 (1995) ("Regarding matters concerning the capacity of the insolvent party (or its representatives) to pursue the arbitration, the arbitrators consistently refer these issues to the personal law of the party, which for corporations is generally the law of the place of incorporation")。
918 例如,见 Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §198(b) (1971);Foustoucos, Conditions Required for the Validity of An Arbitration Agreement, 5(4) J. Int'l Arb.113, 117 (1988).比较 L. Collins 等人 (eds.), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 932 R 168 (15th ed. 2012 & Update 2018) ("The capacity of an individual to enter into a contract is governed by the law of the country with the contract is most closely connected or by the law of his domicile and residence")。
919 见,例如,Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §302(b) (1971);A. Foustoucos, Conditions Required for the Validity of An Arbitration Agreement, 5(4) J. Int'l Arb.113, 117 (1988).
921 国际法研究所,II Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, Resolutions on Arbitration in Private International Law (Neuchâtel) 396 (1959).见第 4.04[A][2][c]节。
922 见 §4.03[A][3]; §4.04[B][6][d]; §4.05[C] 。
923 见 §4.04[A][3] ; §4.06[B][4] 。
924 国际商会第 7373 号案件中的裁决,在 Grigera Naón, Choice-ofLaw Problems in International Commercial Arbitration, 289 Recueil des Cours 9, 98-99 (2001)中讨论;《法律冲突重述》(第二版)§§198(1)-(2)(1971)("(1) 当事人的缔约能力由适用§§187188 的规则所选择的法律决定。(2) 当事人的缔约能力通常在以下情况下得到支持
")。另见 L. Collins 等(主编),Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 930R-020(第 15 版,2012 年及 2018 年更新)("(1) 公司进行任何法律交易的能力既受公司章程的约束,也受约束有关交易的国家法律的约束。(2) 与公司章程有关的所有事项均受公司注册地法律的管辖")。
925 见 2004 年 6 月 10 日判决,Bargues Agro Indus.SA v. Young Pecan Cie, XXX Y.B. Comm.Arb.499, 502 (Paris Cour d'Appel) (2005) ("Since arbitration clauses are thus independent of national provisions, the lack of capacity of the representative of one of the parties to conclude an arbitration agreement is not evaluated pursuant to a national law, but rather directly by the court when examining the facts of the case, [to determine] whether the other party could legitimately and in good faith believe that this power was not lacking"). See Judgment 10 June 2004 , Bargues Agro Indus SA v Young Pecan Cie, XXX Y. B. Comm. Arb.另见 2009 年 7 月 8 日判决,Société d'Etudes et Représentations Navales et Industrielles v. Air Sea Broker Ltd, 2009 Rev. Arb.529 (French Cour de Cassation Civ. 1); Judgment of 18 November 2010 , République de Guinée Équatoriale v. SA Bank Guinea Équatorial , 2010 Rev. Arb.980 (Paris Cour d'Appel); Judgment of 22 March 1976, III Y.B. Comm.Arb.283 (Tunis Ct. First Inst.) (1978) ("[I]tis generally accepted that international commercial relations are subject to their own customs.......[本]问题不再取决于当事方的属人法,而是取决于合同的标的。后者是双方当事人意愿的结果,构成他们自己的法律,因为合同是国际合同,一方面是为了满足双方当事人的需要[原文如此],另一方面是为了符合国际商业习惯")。
930 1992 年 10 月 13 日的判决,11 ASA Bull.68, 78 (Swiss Fed. Trib.) (1993) ("[Article 177(2)] follows from the principle of good faith which applies just as much to a state participating in international economic transactions as it does to private persons.该条款的意图是避免国家在与私人签订协议时利用其立法权为自己谋利,从而使仲裁程序受挫")。
933 这些主题有时与行为能力问题相混淆,但更正确的是被视为权力或公司权力问题。见 §5.03[F][1]; Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws §292 (1971); Devaud, La Convention d'Arbitrage Signée par un Représentant sans Pouvoirs , 23 ASA Bull.2, 3-5 (2005). 934 见第 1.04[A][1][f]节。
935 见
§
§
.另见 A. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958226 (1981) ("New York Convention does not provide a solution for the question under which law the form of the authorization to conclude an arbitration agreement is to be judged")。
936 E. Gaillard & J. Savage (eds.), Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration 9/468-70 (1999). 937 见第 4.04[A][4][c]节。
938 见国际商会第 14617 号案件的裁决,引自 J.-J. Arnaldez, Y. Derains & D. Hascher (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 2012-2015 119 (2018)(将德国法律适用于所称代表与委托人之间的关系,因为德国是代理人行事的地 方);2003 年 9 月 4 日的判决,XXX Y.B. Comm.Arb.528 (Oberlandesgericht Celle) (2005);Restatement (Second) Conflict of Arb.
Laws §292(2) (1971);Rees & Flesch, Agency and Vicarious Liability in Conflict of Laws, 60 Colum.L. Rev. 764, 767-68 (1960)。另见 ICC 第 6850 号案件的最终裁决,XXIII Y.B. Comm.Arb.37 (1998)(独任仲裁员考虑了所选择的管辖基础合同的法律(法国法律)和公司注册地的法律(德国),得出结论认为,两名代理人个人不受他们代表公司签署的合同中仲裁条款的约束,而该公司在签署合同时缺乏法人资格);1997 年 4 月 23 日的判决,Dalmine SpA 诉 M&M Sheet Metal Forming Mach.AG, XXIV Y.B. Comm.Arb.709, 710 (Italian Corte di Cassazione) (1999) (determination of authority of representatives who executed agreement was issue of capacity, governed by law of party's domicile, not law of arbitration agreement:"在有争议的《纽约公约》条款[第五(1)(a)条]中,行为能力不仅指自然人实施行为的能力,而且指任何能力,包括实施行为的法律能力--着眼于所谓的特殊法律无行为能力--以及自然人和法人的能力");Razumov,The Law Governing the Capacity to Arbitrate,in A. van den Berg (ed.),Planning Efficient Arbitration Proceedings:适用于国际仲裁的法律》,260(1996 年)。
939 2005 年 11 月 8 日 GMAA 案件裁决,XXXI Y.B. Comm.Arb.66 (2006)(当事人代表签订仲裁协议的权力受管辖仲裁协议的法律,而非当事人或代表住所的法律管辖);Derains, Observation on Final Award in ICC Case No. 4381 , in S. Jarvin, Y. Derains & J.-J. Arnaldez (eds.), Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1986-1990 268, 271 (1994).
941 见§5.03[F][3];《奥地利民法典》,§1008(行使合同权力的代理人缔结仲裁协议需要特别授权书,涉及特定商业背景的情况除外);G. Zeiler, Schiedsverfahren §§577-618 ZPO idF des SchiedsRÄG 2006 §584, ศ 28 et seq. (2006)(代理人代表委托人缔结仲裁协议的权力必须是书面的)。另见 Oberhammer, Rechtspolitische Schwerpunkte der SchiedsRPOÄG 2006 §584, ศ 28 etq.
Arbitration Law Reform , in B. Kloiber et al.Kloiber et al. (eds.), Das Neue Schiedsrecht: Schiedsrechts-Änderungsgesetz 2006 93, 106 et seq .(2006); A. Reiner, The New Austrian Arbitration Law: Arbitration Act 200673 et seq .(2006).尽管奥地利执业律师表示严重反对,但最近对奥地利仲裁法的修订(SchiedsrechtsÄnderungsgesetz 2012, 3/51 ME)并未对该条款进行修改。见 C. Koller, Abschluss Durch Schiedsvereinbarungen Durch Rechtsgeschaeftliche VertreterProblemfelder de Lege Lata , Ecolex 878 (2011).