Singapore convention -peter neumann (bilingual -- final)

新加坡调解公约对国际商事仲裁的挑战：
威胁或改革的催化剂？
The Challenge of the Singapore Convention to
International Commercial Arbitration:
Threat or Catalyst for Reform ?
彼得诺伊曼
Peter Neumann
2019. 04. 20
© 2019 Peter A. Neumann. All rights reserved.
1

Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Overview of the Singapore Convention
 The Convention as a threat to the international commercial
arbitration (“ICA”) community
 But only a minor threat?
 Potential headwinds facing the Convention – a US legal perspective
• Concerns regarding money laundering and corruption
• Incompatibility with key features of US mediation
• Risk of expensive, contentious challenges in court
 Conclusion
© 2019 Peter A. Neumann. All rights reserved. 2

目录
 介绍
 新加坡调解公约的概述
 公约对于国际商事仲裁(ICA)界是否产生威胁
 是否只是较小的威胁？
 公约面临的潜在阻碍 —美国律师界的观点
• 对洗钱和腐败的担忧
• 与美国调解程序关键特点的不相容性
• 产生争议及费用昂贵的诉讼风险
 总结

Introduction
• The Singapore Mediation Convention (Convention) will open for signature
on August 1, 2019
• The Convention is largely a response to growing dissatisfaction with rising
costs and delays of international commercial arbitration (ICA) proceedings
• Similar concerns about US arbitration have led to the decline of domestic
commercial arbitration; mediation continues to grow more popular in the
US.
• The Convention attempts to succeed where the UNCITRAL Model Law on
Conciliation failed by providing for enforceability of international mediated
settlement agreements (MSAs), similar to that of international arbitral
awards under the New York Convention (NYC)
• Supporters of the Convention expect it to lead to widespread use of
mediation to resolve international disputes
• Should the global ICA community be concerned?

介绍
• 新加坡调解公约(“公约”)将于2019年8月1日开放签署
• 公约主要是对于国际商事仲裁(ICA)日益增长的成本和延迟所产生的不
满而作出的回应
• 对仲裁的类似担忧导致美国国内商事仲裁的衰落; 调解在美国的受欢
迎度持续提高
• 公约试图通过规定国际调解协议(MSAs)的可强制执行性 —类似于纽约
公约(NYC)下的国际仲裁裁决的可强制执行性 — 从而解决联合国贸易
法委员会调解示范法未能奏效的情形
• 公约的支持者期望公约能带来广泛使用调解来解决国际争端的局面
• 全球的ICA界是否应该担忧？

Overview of Singapore Convention
• Generally follows the approach of the NYC
• Accompanied by an UNCITRAL Model Law proposed for its implementation
• Obligates member States to enforce an “agreement resulting from mediation”
(Convention MSAs) that is:
• “concluded in writing”
• to resolve a “commercial” dispute
• that is “international” at the time of its conclusion
• Permits a party to invoke its Convention MSA as res judicata with respect to issues
it resolves, “in accordance with its rules of procedure” of the member State in
which enforcement is sought
• Scope of coverage excludes MSAs:
 That are court approved or supervised, and enforceable as judgements; or
 That have been recorded and are enforceable as an arbitral award

新加坡调解公约的概述
• 大致遵循NYC的方法
• 同时提出了一项联合国贸易法委员会的示范法，以便执行该法
• 要求成员国执行以下“调解协议”（公约MSA），即：
• “以书面形式达成的”
• 为解决“商业”纠纷的
• 在达成时属于“国际” 问题的
• 允许一方“按照执行地所在成员国的程序规则”就其要解决的问题援引其公约
MSA作为既决事项
• 其中不包括以下范围的MSA
• 经法院批准或监督，并可作为判决强制执行的；或
• 已被记录并可作为仲裁裁决强制执行的

N.Y. Convention & Singapore Convention Compared
N.Y. Convention
(and mainstream jurisprudence)
Singapore Convention
Seat/Place Each arbitration has a juridical
“seat” (place of arbitration)
There is no place of mediation; MSAs are
fully international
Proc. Law NYC arbitration ultimately
governed by law of seat (lex arbitri)
Unclear. Possible relevance of local law
governing mediation and contract
formation?
Permitted
Reservations
Reciprocity _________
_______ “Opt-in” reservation available (i.e. parties
to MSA not bound by Convention absent
express election)
_______ Sovereign reservation (State may exempt its
MSAs from Convention)

纽约公约和新加坡公约的比较
纽约公约
（以及主流法学）
新加坡公约
地点每个仲裁都有一个司法地（仲裁
地点）
没有调解地; MSA完全是国际化的
程序法纽约公约仲裁最终受仲裁地法律
(lex arbitri)管辖
不明确，可能与当地调解和缔结合同的
管辖法律具有相关性
允许的保留
互惠性（对等性） _________
_______ “选择性”保留（若未明确选择，则MSA的
缔约方不受公约约束）
_______ 主权保留（国家可以从公约中免除其国
的MSA）

Challenges Under the NYC and Convention Compared
N.Y. Convention
(also [Model Law] and mainstream
jurisprudence)
Singapore Convention
Who
Decides?
Tribunal competent to decide on
jurisdictional challenges
Only courts at place of enforcement (but
mediator can withdraw)
Place Courts of the seat are primary
forum for challenge award
Courts of each place of enforcement
Timing Jurisdictional challenges can be
brought at beginning
All challenges take place after MSA
concluded
Grounds
for
Challenge
Invalidity of arb. agreement Invalidity of MSA
Due Process: Lack of notice;
“otherwise unable to present case”
Due Process: “serious breach by the
mediator of standards applicable to the
mediator or the mediation” and causality.
Award beyond scope of arb. agt. N/A
Public policy; not arbitrable Public policy; not capable of mediation

纽约公约和新加坡公约项下异议之比较
纽约公约
（也是[示范法]以及主流法学）
新加坡公约
谁决定？裁判庭有权裁定管辖权异议只有执行地的法院（但调解员可以退出）
地点仲裁地法院是异议裁决的主要法
院
每个执行地的法院
时间可以在一开始就提出管辖权异议所有异议都需发生在MSA达成之后
异议的理由
仲裁协议无效 MSA无效
正当法律程序：缺乏通知; “否则
无法陈述案件”
正当法律程序：“调解员严重违反适用于
调解员或调解的标准” 和因果关系
裁决超出仲裁协议范围不适用
公序良俗; 不可仲裁公序良俗; 不能调解

Is the Convention a threat to ICA?
• Historical experience of commercial arbitration in the US
• Very popular in earlier years due to speed and cost advantages over litigation
• Declining utilization in recent years; steady rise of mediation (see following tables).
• From 1997 to 2011 (trailing 3 years), use of arbitration to resolve corporate/commercial
disputes declined from 85% to 62.3%
• The Convention could substantially increase attractiveness of international
mediation over ICA
• Potentially avoids uncertainties of MSAs recorded as consent awards through “med-arb”
process (subject to challenge due to lack of a “difference”)
• Per 2011 CIArb survey, average overall costs of international arbitration were
approximately GBP 1,580,000 (USD 2.6 million or EUR 2 million at 2011 exchange rates)
for Claimants, and approximately 10% less for Respondents
• Disputes can be resolved by mediation in a single day to a few weeks, resulting in much
lower costs than arbitration
• Will demand for arbitrators and arbitration counsel in ICA decline?
• Increased attractiveness of tiered disputes clauses
• Parties more likely to mediate/conciliate in earnest

公约对于国际商事仲裁是否产生威胁?
• 美国商事仲裁的历史经验
• 由于速度和成本优于诉讼，早年就非常受欢迎
• 近年来仲裁利用率下降;调解稳步上升（见下表）
• 从1997年到2011年（过去3年所用数据），使用仲裁解决公司/商业纠纷的比例从85
％下降到62.3％
• 公约可能会大大提高国际调解相对于ICA的吸引力
• 可能避免通过“调解-仲裁”流程将MSA作为仲裁庭根据调解协议制作的裁决书的不
确定性（由于缺乏“差异”而可能受到质疑）
• 根据2011年特许仲裁员学会(CIArb)的调查，申请人的国际仲裁总费用平均约为
1,580,000英镑（按照2011年汇率为260万美元或200万欧元），被申请人的平均总
费用约少于申请人平均总费用的10％
• 争议可以在一天到几周内通过调解解决，从而导致比仲裁低很多的成本
• 对ICA仲裁员和仲裁律师的需求是否会下降？
 分级争议解决条款的吸引力会提高
 有争议的双方更有可能认真调解

美国国内仲裁使用率的下降 (1997年至2011年)

美国国内调解使用率的上升 (1997年至2011年)

. . . but only a minor threat?
• All things considered, will the Convention substantially enhance the attractiveness
of international commercial mediation?
• In U.S. practice MSAs are inherently more likely to be voluntarily performed than court
judgments
• The parties voluntarily reach a resolution they feel is reasonable and feasible to perform
• Reduces likelihood of not fulfilling settlement terms
• For example: a structured settlement reflecting a party’s ability to pay more likely to be
performed than a lump-sum money judgement.
• Will the Convention enforcement mechanism encourage claimants to pursue aggressive
terms that respondents are less likely to perform voluntarily?
• Potential headwinds could impact the Convention’s acceptance and
implementation
• Concerns that it could be abused to hide money laundering and corruption
• Lack of international mediation culture and internationally recognized ethical standards
for mediators
• Fundamental incompatibility with certain features of US mediation
• Law – confidentiality and evidence rules
• Risk of expensive court challenges could reduce attractiveness

. . . 是否仅仅构成较小的威胁？
• 综合考虑，公约到底是否会增加国际商事调解的吸引力？
• 在美国的实践中，MSA本身比法院判决更有可能被自愿履行
• 各方自愿达成了各自认为合理且可履行的解决方案
• 因此降低了不履行和解义务的可能性
• 例如：采纳一份反应当事人付款能力的有结构条理性的和解协议，与要求一次性支全部
金额的法院判决相比，更有可能履行
• 公约的执行机制是否会鼓励申请人争取更激进的条款，使被申请人自愿履行条款
的可能性降低？
• 公约面临的潜在“逆风”，有可能会影响对其的接受和执行
• 担忧公约可能被滥用于隐藏洗钱和腐败行为
• 缺少国际调解文化和国际公认的调解员道德标准
• 与美国调解程序的某些特征有根本性的不相容性
• 法律层面 — 保密和证据规则
• 昂贵的诉讼风险可能会影响国际调解的吸引力

Potential Headwinds – Anti Money Laundering
(AML) and Anti-Corruption Concerns
• “Awards on agreed terms” (also know as “consent awards”) in ICA have been
criticized as being used to conceal corrupt payments through the NYC enforcement
regime
• Mediation is fundamentally less transparent than ICA
• Foreign domestic courts lacking international experience are less likely than ICA
tribunals to be alert to “tell-tale” signs of foreign/international illegal practices
• Contrasting roles of international arbitrators and mediators:
• Arbitrators in ICA proceedings generally have the power and discretion to refuse to record
MSAs as NYC consent awards if they suspect corrupt purposes; they should decline
jurisdiction due to lack of a “difference” (a pre-requisite for NYC application).
• Mediators, by contrast, are primarily facilitators, while the disputants
retain full autonomy to conclude an MSA; the mediator’s sole duty, if any, may be to
quietly withdraw.

潜在的逆风 — 反洗钱（AML）和反腐败问题
• ICA中的“仲裁庭根据调解协议制作的裁决书”（“调解裁决书”）一直以来
被诟病，因为可以通过NYC执行机制隐藏贿赂款
• 调解从根本性上不如ICA透明
• 缺乏国际经验的外国国内法院很可能不会对外国/国际非法行为迹象的“暗示
”保持警惕，警惕性不如ICA仲裁庭
• 国际仲裁员和调解员的对比：
• ICA仲裁员如果怀疑有贿赂目的，他们通常有权拒绝将MSA记录为NYC调解
裁决书；他们应该以缺乏 “差异”为由（NYC 申请的先决条件）而拒绝
管辖
• 与仲裁员相比，调解员主要是一个促进者，争议双方有完全的自主权来缔
结MSA ；调解员唯一的职责（如有）可能是悄然退出

Potential Headwinds – Lack of International Mediation Culture &
Internationally Recognized Ethical Standards
• Popularity and wide acceptance of mediation in the US grew out of a fairly
universal legal culture; mediation developed “in the shadow of the courthouse”
• There is much wider variation in legal culture internationally
• Common law vs. civil law vs. mixed jurisdictions
• E.G. widely varying thresholds to bring suit:
• EU Continental civil law systems require well-developed case
• US Federal “notice pleading” followed by extensive discovery
• Variation in independence and efficiency of the judiciary among national legal systems
• Differing views of individual rights vs. societal interests (e.g. U.S. emphasis on individual
rights; Chinese emphasis on social harmony)
• Ethical standards applicable to international arbitrators vs. mediators
• Relatively well developed and universal for arbitrators (e.g. IBA Guidelines on Conflicts
of Interest in International Arbitration 2014）
• There are no comparably universal standards for international mediators

潜在的逆风 — 缺少国际调解文化和国际公认的道德标准
• 美国调解的广泛普及和接受源于一种相当普遍的法律文化; 调解在“法院的影
子下”成长
• 国际上法律文化的差异更为广泛
• 英美法系与欧陆法系与混合法系的区别
• 例如提起诉讼的门槛差别很大：
• 欧陆法系要求成熟完善的案件
• 美国联邦“通知式诉状”，要求随后广泛的证据开示
• 各国法律制度中司法机构的独立性和效率各不相同
• 对个人权利和社会利益上观点的不同（例如：美国强调个人权利; 中国人强调社
会和谐）
• 适用于国际仲裁员的道德标准与适用于国调解员的道德标准之比较
• 国际仲裁员的道德标准相对成熟和普遍适用（例如，IBA 2014年国际仲裁中的利
益冲突指南）
• 国际调解员的道德标准，没有相对普遍适用的标准

Potential Headwinds – Incompatibility with
U.S. Mediation Law and Practice (1)
• Key legal features of US mediation (but note variations among US states)
• Confidentiality and evidence rules
• What occurs in mediation may not be used in court
• Mediation confidentiality strictly observed (e.g. California Evidence Code Sec. 1119)
• VERY limited exceptions, mainly involving criminal conduct
• Legal Accountability of Mediators
• Absent criminal violations, mediators in the US generally have no legal liability (but do have reputational
and market accountability)
• US courts generally reluctant to support challenges to domestic MSAs based on procedural unfairness
(particularly if opposing party represented by counsel)
• Implications of prevalent US mediation law and practice
• Mediators at minimal risk of being compelled to testify about mediation proceedings
• High level of party trust in mediation confidentiality
• Scrutiny of mediator conduct in open court highly unlikely
• Mediators have sense of safety, promotes large pool of highly qualified mediators

潜在的逆风 — 与美国调解法律及实践不相容 (一)
• 美国调解的主要法律特征（但美国各州之间存在差异）
• 保密和证据规则
• 调解中发生的事情无法在法庭上采用
• 严格遵守调解保密规定（例如加州证据法规第1119条）
• 非常有限的例外，主要涉及犯罪行为
• 调解员的法律责任
• 如果没有犯罪行为，美国的调解员通常没有法律责任（但确实有声誉影响和市场责任）
• 美国法院一般不愿支持以程序不公平为由针对美国国内MSA的质疑（特别是如果质疑方由律师代理
）
• 美国调解法律和惯例的潜在优势
• 调解员被迫就调解程序作证的风险极小
• 双方对调解保密的高度信任
• 基本不会在公开法庭上对调解员行为进行审查
• 调解员有安全感，促进大量高素质的合格调解员

Potential Headwinds – Incompatibility with
U.S. Mediation Law and Practice (2)
• Challenges based on mediator misconduct (Convention (Art. 5(1)(e)) -- elements
• “There was a serious breach by the mediator”
• “of standards applicable to the mediator or the mediation”
• “without which breach that party would not have entered into the settlement
agreement”
• Implications
• Convention implementation would entail substantial amendments to existing U.S.
mediation confidentiality and evidentiary exclusion laws
• Difficult to determine just what standards are applicable in an overseas mediation of an
international dispute by a foreign mediator – could require an expensive “battle of the
experts” in US courts
• Prospects of expensive contested motion practice over admissibility of evidence
• Judges may be hampered by lack of jurisprudence surrounding mediator misconduct
• Risk of scrutiny, subpoena would likely have a chilling effect on mediators
• Could the Convention actually undermine the attractiveness of mediation?

潜在的逆风 — 与美国调解法律及实践不相容 (二)
• 基于调解员不当行为的质疑（公约(第5(1)(e)条）- 构成要件
• “调解员严重违反”
• “适用于调解员或调解的标准”
• “如果没有该违反行为，该方不会签订和解协议”
• 含义
• 公约的实施将需要对现有的美国调解保密和证据排除法进行实质性修改
• 难以确定外国调解员在国际争端的海外调解中适用哪些标准 - 可能需要在美国法
院进行昂贵的“专家之战”
• 实践中昂贵的有争议的动议相对于证据可采纳性的前景
• 由于缺乏关于调解员不当行为的判例，法官可能会受到阻碍
• 受到审查的风险，传票可能会对调解员产生寒蝉效应
• “公约”有可能会实际降低调解的吸引力吗？

Conclusion
• The Singapore Convention should not be viewed as threat to ICA
• ICA is a victim of its own success
• The Singapore Convention reflects underlying user demand for increased availability of
ADR internationally
• If widely adopted, the Convention will help fill an important legal gap by enhancing
enforceability of “untethered” MSAs that are not under supervision of a court or
arbitral tribunal.
• The Convention should be a catalyst for ICA to further embrace ADR, in particular
by facilitating “arb – med -- arb” under the NYC framework
• Awards on agreed terms can be recorded as enforceable New York Convention awards
• Institutional rules can be amended to lower the cost threshold of commencing
arbitration and reducing delays (such as may occur when forming a full tribunal)
• International harmonization of mediation rules and mediator ethical standards
should be a top priority for proponents of the Convention

总结
• 不应将新加坡公约视为对ICA的威胁
• ICA 泰极生否
• 新加坡公约反映了国际上潜在的对ADR不断增加的用户需求
• 鉴于“无拘无束”的MSA不受法院或仲裁庭监督，如果新加坡公约得到广泛采
用，则该公约将通过提高 MSA的可执行性来帮助填补重要的法律空白
• 该公约应成为ICA进一步接受ADR的催化剂，特别是通过促进NYC框架下的
“arb-med-arb（仲裁-调解-仲裁）”
• 调解裁决书可以作为NYC裁决记录在案并执行
• 可以修改机构规则以降低仲裁的费用门槛并减少延误（例如在组成一个完整的仲
裁庭时可能发生的延误）
• 对调解规则和调解员道德标准进行国际协调应该是 “公约”支持者的首要任
务

Thank You!
谢谢!

Singapore convention -peter neumann (bilingual -- final)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Singapore convention -peter neumann (bilingual -- final)

Similar to Singapore convention -peter neumann (bilingual -- final) (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Singapore convention -peter neumann (bilingual -- final)