剩余裁量权的法律适用:以《纽约公约》第五条的司法实践为视角（英文）

日期:19-06-19 来源: 作者:admin

摘要(Abstract)：

I. SUPERVISORY COURT AND ENFORCEMENT COURT In any arbitration under the auspice of the New York Convention (hereinafter referred to as the Convention), the court in‘the country where the award was made’,.commonly understood to be the seat (member-state) of arbitration, has the right to, in exercising its power to supervise arbitration activities within the

关键词(KeyWords)：

基金项目(Foundation):

作者(Author): 梁景威;

Email:

参考文献(References)：

1 Article V(l)(a)of the New York Convention.
2 Hebei Import&Export Corp v. Polyteck Engineering Co Ltd[1999] 2 HKCFAR 111-140, at 136 C-E.
3 Articles V(1)(e)and VI of the New York Convention.
4 Id., article VI.
5 The term'non-domestic'appears to embrace awards which, although made in the state of enforcement, are treated as'foreign'under its law because of some foreign element in the proceedings, e.g. another State's procedural laws are applied.
6 That is, an international commercial arbitral award issued in the recognizing or enforcing state or territory, that is, in the same territory as the forum in which recognition and enforcement is sought.
7 Article 1 of the Geneva Convention of 1927; and EMMANUEL GAILLARD&GEORGE A. BERMANN, GUIDE ON CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS NEW YORK, at 132(Brill Nijhoff, 2017).
8 Id., 22l; article 1(d)of the Geneva Convention of1927.
9 ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, THE NEW YORK ARBITRATION CONVENTION OF 1958:TOWARDS A UNIFORM INTERPRETATION, at 333(Kluwer Law International, 1981); and EMMANUEL GAILLARD&GEORGE A. BERM ANN, supra note 7,221.
10 EMMANUEL GAILLARD&GEORGE A. BERMANN, supranote 7, 222.
11 NOTE OF SECRETARIAT ON FUTHER WORK IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONALCOMMERCIAL ARBITRATION, at A/CN.9/169 paras 6-9(United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 1979).
12 John Honnold, The United Nations Comnission on International Trade Law:Mission and Methods, 27 Am J Comp L 201(1979).
13 HOWARD M HOLTZMANN&JOSEPH E NEUHAUS, A GUIDE OF UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMENTARY, at 1055-1056(Kluwer Law, 1994).
14 UNCITRAL, NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT:MODEL LAW ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION:DRAFT ARTICLES 37 TO 41 ON RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF AWARD AND RECOURSE AGAINST AWARD, in YEARBOOK OF THE UNCITRAL, vol XIV, notes 3 and 12, at 92-93(1983).
15 Paragraph 143 of the Report of the Seventh Session.
16 As prescribed by articles 35 and 36 of the Model Law.
17 PT First Media TBK(formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK)v. Astro Nusantara International BV and others and anotherappeal[2013] SGCA 57, Singapore Court of Appeal's judgment bySundareshMenon CJ, para. 7l.
18 Paklito Investment Ltd v. Klockner East Asia Ltd[1993] 2 HKLR 39, at 48-49.
19 Dal l ah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v. Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of Pakistan[2011] 1 AC 763.
20 Id., para. 28.
21 Id., para. 103.
22 Supra note 2, 136.
23 Supra note 3.
24 Supra note 4.
25 Section 44(2)of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance(Cap. 609)being its Hong Kong equivalent.
26 EMMANUEL GAILLARD&GEORGE A. BERMANN, supra note 7, 133.
27 Id.
28 Id.,134.
29 Id.
30 As held obita dictum by Rix LJ in the Court of Appeal judgment in Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v. Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of Pakistan[2009] EWCA Civ 755, para. 89.
31 Supra note 3, article V.
32 Sections 103(1)and(2)of English s 1996 Arbitration Act.
33 Supra note 9, 265.
34 China Agribusiness Development Corporation v. Balli Trading[1998]2 LLR 76.
35Id., section 44 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance(Cap. 609).
36 EMMANUEL GAILLARD&GEORGE A. BERM ANN,supra note 7, 133.
37 Sanum Investments Limited v. ST Group Co., Ltd[2018] SGHC 141 at paras. 111 and 115 per Belinda Ang Saw Ean J.
38 A phase having been used by Mr. Justice Tang PJ during the hearing at the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal.
39 China Nanhai Oil Joint Service Corporation Shenzhen Branch v. Gee Tai Holdings Co Ltd[1995] 2 HKLR 215.
40 Supra note 2.
41 Section 44(2)(e)of the Arbitration Ordinance(Cap. 341)being its Hong Kong equivalent.
42 China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission.
43 Section 44(2)of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance(Cap. 609).
44 ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, supra note 9, 185.
45 Article V of the New York Colnvention's Hong Kong equivalent.
46 China Nanhaicase[1995] 2 HKLR 215, at 226.
47 Section 44(2)(c)of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance(Cap. 341)being its Hong Kong equivalent.
48 Id., section 44(3).
49 Supra note 2, 137, citing China Nanhaicase[1995] 2 HKLR 215, at 226.
50 Section 2AA(1)of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance reads:'The object of this Ordinance is to facilitate the fair and speedy resolution of disputes by arbitration without unnecessary expense'. The passage of the judgment was stated in paras 93-94 therein.
51 Supra note 2, 138D-G.
52 Its Hong Kong equivalent being section 44(2)of the Ordinance.
53 Supra note 2, 136 1.
54 Supranote 17, paras. 100-123, 125-132.
55 Id., paras. 205-219, 222-224.
56 Supra note 3, article V(l)(e).
57 Supra note 30, para. 89 per Rix LJ. An issue estoppel arises in the situation where'a party is precluded from contending the contrary of any precise point which, having once been distinctly put in issue, has been solemnly and with certainty determined against him'(quoted from para 18 of Kwan J(as Her Ladyship then was)in Re Chime Corp Ltd(No 2)[2003] 2 HKLRD 945).
58 EMMANUEL GAILLARD&GEORGE A. BERMANN, supra note 7, 133.
59 Supra note 3, article V(l)(e).
60 Supra note 30, paras. 58 and 61 per Moore-Bick LJ and paras. 74, 87 and 89 per Rix LJ; and supra note 19, para. 67 to 69 per Lord Mance JSC and para. 127 and 131 per Lord Collins of Mapesbury JSC(in the Supreme Court).
61 Dardana Ltd v. Yukos Oil Company Petroalliance Services Co Ltd[2002] 2 Lloyds Law Rep 326, at§§8 and 18 per Mance LJ.
62 Kanoria v. Guinness[2006] 2 All ER(Comm)413, at§25 per Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ and§30 per May LJ.
63 Hong Kong equivalent is section 89(2)(f)(ii)of the Arbitration Ordinance(Cap. 609).
64 Supra note 2, 231F.
65 Supra note 30, para. 89 per Rix LJ(in the Court of Appeal).
66 Yukos Capiral Sarl v. OJSC Oil Co Rosneft[2014] EWHC 2188(Comm).
67 Malicorp Ltd v. Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt[2015] EWHC 36l(Comm).
68 GARY BORN, INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION, at 3636-3638(Wolters Kluwer Law&Business, 2014).
69 Supra note 19, paragraph 67.
70 Dardana Ltd v. Yukos Oil Co[2002] 1 All ER(Comm)819.
71 Dana Shipping and Trading SA v. Sino Channel Asia Limited[2017] 1 HKC 281.
72 Hilmarton Ltd v. Omnium de traitement et de valorization(1995)XX Yearbook Comm Arb 663-665.
73 Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation-OTV v. Hilmarton(1994)XIX Yearbook Comm Arb 214-222.
74 Cour d'Appel de Paris'decision oftheA rab Republic of Egypt v. ChromalloyAeroservices, Inc.(1997)XXII Yearbook Com Arb 691-695.
75 Article l502 of the New Code of Civil Procedure.
76 Supra note 3, article V(1)(e).
77 Sanum Investments Limited v. ST Group Co., Ltd[2018] SGHC 141 at para. 111 and 115 per Belinda Ang Saw Ean J.
78 Supra note 38.
79 Because of various possible reasons, for example:first,'[arbitration] agreement is not valid under... the law of the country where the award was made'(article V(1)(a)of the Convention); second,'The composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure...was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place'(article V(l)(d)of the Convention);third,'The award... has been set aside... by a competent authority of the country in which... that award was made'(article V(l)(e)of the Convention).
80 Supra note 3, article V(l)(e).
81 Astro v. Fir.st Media[2018] HKCFA 12(the Astro case)on April 11,2018.
82 Arbitral tribunal comprising Sir Gordon Langley, Sir Sion Tuckey and Stewart C Boyd CBE QC.
83 Supranote 17, Sundaresh Menon CJ delivered the judgment of the SCA Astro Judgment.
84 Initially, it was ruled by the arbitral tribunal comprising Sir Gordon Langley, Sir Sion Tuckey and Stewart C Boyd CBE QC that on the true construction of rule 24(b)of the 2007 Singapore International Arbitration Centre(SIAC)Rules Rule 24(b):'In addition and not in derogation of the powers conferred by any applicable law of the arbitration, the Tribunal shall have the power to:...(b)allow other parties to be joined in the arbitration with their express consent, and make a single final award determining all disputes among the parties to the arbitration'. That it had power to join persons, such as the same 6th to 8th Respondents therein as additional parties in the arbitral proceedings.
85 Instead of the supervisory court under articles V(l)(a),(d)and(e)of the New York Convention.
86'The parties to the agreement referred to in art. II were... is not valid... under the law of the country where the award was made'.Its Hong Kong equivalent is section 44(2)(b)of the Ordinance:'Enforcement of a Convention award may be refused if the person against whom it is invoked proves...(b)that the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law to which the parties subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made'.
87 Lord Collins of Mapesbury JSC in the Dallah UKSC Judgment, at 828, para. 77; and para. 20 of HKCFA Astro judgment.
88 Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Astro Judgment, paras. 62, 85 and 90.
89 NIGEL BLACKABY ET AL, REDFERN AND HUNTER ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION, at 127(Oxford University Press, 2009).
90 Section 42(2)states:'unless an award is set aside, it is treated as binding for all purposes between the parties as between whom it is made, see section 42(2)of the Ordinance.'
91 Supra note 30, Dallah COA Judgment[2011] 1 AC 763, para.89.
92 Van den Berg's view, see ALBERT JAN VAN DEN BERG, supra note 9, 265.
93 As in the China Agribusinesscase[1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 76.
94 Reflected in section 44(2)of the Arbitration Ordinance.
95 Supra note 19, 836, para. 102.
96 Id., 843, para. 126.
97 Id., 844, para. 127.
98 Supra note l7, para.92.
99 Supra note 81, Astro Judgment by Hong Kong Court of Appeal, para. 44 and 47, citing Gao Haiyan v. Keeneye Holdings[2012] 1HKLRD 627 at para.65 to 69 and Mimmetals Germany GmbH vFerco Steel Ltd[1999] CLC 647 at 661.
100 Kwan Lee Construction Co Ltd v. Elevator Parts Engineering Co Ltd[1997] HKLRD 965 at 973.
101 Costellow v. Somerset County Council[1993] 1 WLR 256 at 263-264.
102 TheDecurion[2012] 1 HKLRD 1063.
103 Id.,para.11.
104 Tema Bahrain Holding Company Wll v. A1 Shamsi and Others[2013] 1 Lloyd's Rep 86.
105 Supra note 77, HKCFA Astro Judgment, para. 65.
106 Supra note 19, para. 126-128, by Lord Collins of Mapesbury JSC.
107 Supra note 19, para 67, by Lord Mance.
108 That was, the granting of extension of time for First Media in applying for its opposing enforcement of the undead Singapore award and, at the same time, gave an insight as to whether or not an undead award should be given its life and if so, how alive such award should be by way of its being recognized and enforced.

上一篇：藏区非物质文化遗产的法律保护:以藏族习惯法与知识产权法为视角的考察（英文）

下一篇：我国环境诉讼禁令裁量要件的优化路径（英文）

参考文献(References)：

友情链接