） 专 业，国际法学（全日制） 研究方向，国际经济法 作者姓名，韦卫玲 指导教师，张国元 国际商事仲裁机构参与中国仲裁市场的竞争主要可以通过两种方式，第一， 国际商事仲裁机构直接在我国开设常设机构，承揽我国内地的相关仲裁业务。这 种方式的结果是国际商事仲裁机构直接和我国内地的仲裁机构进行竞争，通过这 一方式在我国内地仲裁市场进行竞争。第二，国际商事仲裁机构出于种种原因（例 如某国的未准入他国的国际商事仲裁机构，经济上的考虑等）选择不在我国内地 设立常设机构，但依然将我国作为仲裁地点（仲裁规则或者当事人的约定导致我 国内地成为仲裁地）。此处需要特别强调，本文以第一种方式为研究视角，分析 我国内地引入国际商事仲裁机构的必要性和可行性。所以本文提到我国内地引入 国际商事仲裁机构时都特指国际商事仲裁机构在我国内地设立常设机构的情形。 本文第一章介绍了我国内地引入国际商事仲裁机构的现状并总结了相关实 践的特征。2015 年国务院发布《进一步深化中国（上海）自由贸易试验区改革 开放方案的通知》（以下简称《深化改革方案》）。根据该《深化改革方案》，中国 （上海）自由贸易试验区支持国际知名商事争议解决机构入驻，提高商事纠纷仲 裁国际化程度。该规定是国际商事仲裁机构入驻我国内地的法律依据，明确规定 支持国际商事仲裁机构的入驻，即允许国际商事仲裁机构在中国（上海）自由贸 易试验区设立常设机构。《深化改革方案》公布之后，部分国际商事仲裁机构开 始入驻中国（上海）自由贸易试验区。这是国际商事仲裁机构在我国内地设立的 常设机构第一次进入公众视野，引发社会各界的广泛关注。但实际上，这并非我2 国内地首次尝试引入国际商事仲裁机构。在这之前，2011 年前海深港现代服务 业合作区引进香港仲裁机构。此后于 2017 年，国务院也批准国际商事争议解决 机构在北京设立代表机构（但需要京津冀协同发展战略总体要求）。此外，中国 法学会统一协调下组织创建了中非联合争议解决机制，设立了中非联合仲裁上海 中心、北京中心和深圳中心。虽然和在前海深港现代服务业合作区、中国（上海） 自由贸易试验区和北京市的实践相比，中非联合争议解决机制下设立的中非联合 仲裁上海中心、北京中心和深圳中心并非严格意义上的常设机构（经咨询这些仲 裁委员会的工作人员，了解到这三个中心实质上是北京仲裁委员会、上海国际仲 裁中心和深圳国际仲裁院，只是采取了“一套班子两块牌子”的做法），但这一 举措给我国内地引入国际商事仲裁机构提供了设立“联合仲裁”的新思路，所以 笔者进行了介绍。总而言之，这些创新举措体现了我国内地允许国际商事仲裁机 构在我国内地设立常设机构的积极尝试，但目前仅在特定区域进行，且相关规定 大多仅为原则性规定，引入国际商事仲裁机构后续进展缓慢。 本文第二章主要研究我国内地引入国际商事仲裁机构的必要性。第一，我国 内地引入国际商事仲裁机构的一大顾虑是国际商事仲裁机构在我国内地设立常 设机构之后势必会加剧我国内地仲裁市场的竞争，给我国内地的仲裁市场带来冲 击。根据司法部召开的工作会议记录，截止到去年底（2018 年）全国仲裁委员 会已经超过 250 家，比 2017 年增长 127%。由此可见，我国内地的仲裁市场正处 在快速发展的阶段。但与此同时，我国内地的仲裁制度还远达不到完善的地步。 此外，国际优秀的商事仲裁机构具有的较强竞争力也使我国内地的仲裁机构面临 着较大的挑战。而目前“一带一路”的建设亟需我国提高我国的仲裁行业水平， 以提高我国内地在“一带一路”的争议解决相关建设中的话语权。因此，不可否 认，国际商事仲裁机构通过设立常设机构的方式进入我国内地（接下来甚至在我 国内地受理和管理仲裁案件）必然会加剧我国内地仲裁市场的竞争，甚至给我国 内地仲裁机构的发展带来不可逆的负面影响，但是我国在改革开放开放其他行业 的过程中，同样面临这样的风险，因噎废食终究不是长远之计。为了我国内地商 事仲裁服务业的健康发展，提高我国商事仲裁机构在国际仲裁市场上的竞争力， 充分参与“一带一路”建设中的争议解决机制的构建，并提高在“一带一路”建 设中的话语权，允许国际商事仲裁机构在我国内地设立常设机构不失为一个可行3 的选择。第二，不可否认，允许国际商事仲裁机构在我国内地设立常设机构并非 我国内地引入国际商事仲裁机构的唯一方式。自从中国（上海）自由贸易试验区 允许国际商事仲裁机构设立常设机构之后，我国内地也有学者研究与此相关的问 题，但是这些文献的关注点并不只在于国际商事仲裁机构在我国内地设立的常设 机构，而是更多地在于国际商事仲裁机构不在我国内地设立常设机构，只是根据 因为具体案件中当事人的约定或者仲裁规则的指引在我国内地仲裁这一种方式 （虽然不同路径之间不是绝对排斥的关系）。目前，司法实践虽然我国内地法院 还未对我国内地的仲裁市场开放进行直接回应，但是在“龙利得公司案”中法院 认可了当事人将我国内地的涉外案件提交给国际商事仲裁机构的仲裁协议的效 力，并在“德高钢铁公司案”中，将国际商事仲裁机构做出的仲裁裁决认定为“非 内国裁决”，并予以承认和执行。至此，在实践中，国际商事仲裁机构在我国内 地已经可以受理我国内地当事人的仲裁案件，参与我国内地仲裁市场的竞争。但 不可否认的是，目前围绕这种模式下的仲裁裁决的承认与执行和司法监督等方面 还存在争议，这种模式在我国内地也并非毫无障碍。此外，出于市场准入和经济 方面的考虑，国际商事仲裁机构在其所在国家/地区之外设立常设机构的实践并 不算多见。譬如，中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会在香港设立分支机构，但是该常 设机构未在香港受理和管理案件。不过，我国内地向来有重视仲裁机构的倾向， 亦有管理和监督仲裁机构的历史和倾向，还曾在组建仲裁机构的过程中享有《仲 裁法》规定的权力以及由此带来的一些隐形的管理和监督仲裁机构的权力。因此， 从这个方面考虑，结合我国内地对于仲裁的不信任的态度，或许允许国际商事仲 裁机构在我国内地设立常设机构并接受我国内地相关部门的管理和监督，更容易 被我国内地的相关部门所接受。此外，近年来，其他国家亦有允许国际商事仲裁 机构在本国设立常设机构的实践，譬如伦敦国际仲裁中心和迪拜当地的仲裁机构 合作设立了迪拜国际金融中心-伦敦国际仲裁院（DIFC-LCIA）并可以仲裁案件。 又如，2019 年 4 月 4 日，俄罗斯联邦司法部下设的完善仲裁审理委员会当日召 开会议并作出决定，为香港国际仲裁中心颁发常设仲裁机构许可证。自此，香港 国际仲裁中心得以在俄罗斯设立常设机构并受理案件。结合本章分析，笔者认为， 虽然此类在内地设立的常设机构会与我国内地现有的仲裁机构构成竞争关系，加 剧整个市场的竞争，亦非我国内地对外开放仲裁市场的唯一途径，但是结合我国4 内地对于仲裁的不信任的态度并从仲裁机构所在国在管理和监督仲裁机构方面 的权力（包括隐形的权力）考虑，以及相关的国际实践，或许允许国际商事仲裁 机构在我国内地设立常设机构是一个更容易被我国内地相关部门接受的选择。 本文在第三章主要讨论我国内地引入国际商事仲裁机构的可行性。第一，国 际商事仲裁机构的市场准入是国际商事仲裁机构在我国内地设立常设机构首先 要面对的问题。目前，虽然中国（上海）自由贸易试验区和北京（需要满足一定 条件）允许国际商事仲裁机构入驻，但是这只是我国内地在改革过程中在特定区 域的尝试，在内地的其他区域，国际商事仲裁机构的市场准入仍存在争议。首先， 仲裁的性质存在争议，目前有关仲裁的性质的学说主要有司法权论、自治论、混 合论和契约论，这些学说体现了仲裁发展过程中公权力和私权利之间关系的演 变，也充分说明了仲裁的特殊性。仲裁本身的特殊性决定了其与其他服务有所区 别，影响我国内地乃至其他国家对于仲裁的定性，从而影响我国内地对于引入国 际商事仲裁机构的态度。其次，对于仲裁服务是否属于国际贸易服务的范畴亦存 在争议。我国内地学者在谈及仲裁市场的对外开放时，我国内地的学者大多仅简 单分析《服务贸易总协定》的规定。对此，笔者通过分析《服务贸易总协定》的 中有关“服务贸易”的定义、我国内地在加入《服务贸易总协定》时提交的《服 务贸易具体承诺减让表》、国际知名的商事仲裁机构的所在国家/地区提交的《服 务贸易具体承诺减让表》的规定、以及我国内地在加入《服务贸易总协定》时提 交的《服务贸易具体承诺减让表》中开放的“法律服务”的规定，认为我国加入 《服务贸易总协定》时，确实未将仲裁视为对外开放的服务贸易范畴。此外，在 我国内地与其他国家签订的国际条约中，亦未提及国际商事仲裁机构的准入。基 于前述研究结果，笔者认为，在国际法层面上，我国内地并不负有准入我国商事 仲裁机构的义务，可以自行决定是否引入国际商事仲裁机构。最后，笔者分析了 我国内地相关的规定，认为我国内地的一些规定中有将仲裁视为法律服务的倾 向，但是在《负面清单（2018 年版）》未对商事仲裁的市场准入进行规定。所以， 除了在中国（上海）自由贸易试验区和北京市等特殊区域内，我国内地对于国际 商事仲裁的市场准入采取规定不明确但事实上并未准入（除了特殊区域）的态度。 第二，在我国内地的仲裁制度不完善的情况下，国际商事仲裁机构在我国内地设 立常设机构将会遇到非常多的问题。对此，笔者选择两个方面进行研究，即这些5 常设机构的组织形式以及准入之后做出的仲裁裁决的国籍认定问题。首先是这些 常设机构的组织形式。目前在我国内地的相关立法对于国内的仲裁机构的组织形 式未做明确规定，实践中曾有一些规范性法律文件将我国内地的仲裁机构作为事 业单位来管理。多家国际商事仲裁机构入驻中国（上海）自由贸易试验区时，是 作为外国企业的驻华代表机构做了商事登记，但是因为国际商事仲裁机构并不属 于《外国企业常驻代表机构登记管理条例》（2013）中规定的“外国企业”，所以 这一安排并不符合法律规定。2016 年 4 月 28 日《中华人民共和国境外非政府组 织境内活动管理法》（2016）颁布之后，这些入驻中国（上海）自由贸易试验区 的国际商事仲裁机构变更登记为非政府组织。至此，国际商事仲裁机构在我国内 地设立的常设机构的组织形式的问题得以解决。其次，是这些常设机构在我国内 地仲裁的仲裁裁决的国籍认定问题。目前我国内地在仲裁裁决的国籍认定上采取 的是仲裁机构所在地标准，但是这些常设机构的所在地是在我国内地还是设立该 常设机构的国际商事仲裁机构所在地是个问题。对此类仲裁裁决的国籍认定结果 将会影响我国内地法院对此类仲裁裁决行使司法监督权和采用的承认与执行模 式。总而言之，在明确国际商事仲裁机构的市场准入问题之前，国际商事仲裁机 构无法在我国内地设立常设机构（中国（上海）自由贸易试验区等特殊区域除外）， 国目前国际商事仲裁机构在我国内地设立的常设机构的组织形式的问题得以解 决，但国际商事仲裁机构在我国内地设立的仲裁机构将会面临诸多问题，例如在 明确国际商事仲裁机构在我国内地做出的裁决的国籍之前，此类常设机构做出的 仲裁裁决的承认与执行和司法监督面临障碍。 [关键词]国际商事仲裁机构；现状；必要性；可行性1 The Study of Necessity and Feasibility of Introducing International Commercial Arbitration Institutions into Mainland China (Abstract) Major: International Law Research area: International Economic Law Author: Weiling Wei Advisor: Guoyuan Zhang International commercial arbitration institutions can compete in the Chinese arbitration market in two ways. First, international commercial arbitration institutions engage in China's arbitration business by means of establishing commercial institutions in China and compete with Chinese arbitration institutions. Second, the foreign arbitration institution does not set up an institution in China, but selects the place of arbitration as China according to the arbitration rules to be applied in a particular arbitration case or the agreement between the parties in the arbitration agreement. It should be noted that this paper analyzes the necessity and feasibility of introducing international commercial arbitration institutions in China from the perspective of the aforementioned first way. Therefore, this article refers to the introduction of international commercial arbitration institutions in China, specifically referring to the establishment of permanent institutions in China by international commercial arbitration institutions. In April 2015, the State Council promulgated the Notice on Further Deepening the Reform and Opening-up Plan of the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone (hereinafter referred to as the “Deepening Reform Plan”), clearly stipulating that “supporting internationally renowned commercial dispute resolution agencies to settle2 in and improve internationalization of domestic commercial dispute arbitration.” After the publication of the Deepening Reform Plan, some international commercial arbitration institutions began to enter the Shanghai Free Trade Zone. This is the first time that a permanent establishment established by an international commercial arbitration institution in China has entered the public eye, which has aroused widespread concern from all walks of life. But in fact, this is not the first time competent Chinese government have tried to introduce an international commercial arbitration institution in China. Prior to this, the 2011 Shenzhen-Shenzhen Shenzhen-Hong Kong Modern Service Industry Cooperation Zone has tried to introduce Hong Kong arbitration institutions. Thereafter, in 2017, the State Council approved the establishment of a representative office in Beijing on the premise of meeting the overall requirements of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei coordinated development strategy. In addition, under the unified coordination of the Chinese Law Society, the China-Africa Joint Dispute Resolution Mechanism was established. Although compared with the practice in Qianhai Shenzhen-Hong Kong Modern Service Industry Cooperation Zone, Shanghai Free Trade Zone and Beijing Municipality, the China-Africa Joint Arbitration Beijing Center, Nairobi Center and Shenzhen Center established under the China-Africa Joint Dispute Resolution Mechanism are not strictly speaking. The permanent establishment (substantially the arbitration institution in China, adopting the two sets of brand approach), but provided new ideas for the introduction of international commercial arbitration institutions in China. All in all, these innovative measures reflect the positive attempts of China to allow international commercial arbitration institutions to establish permanent institutions in China, but these measures are only carried out in specific regions, and most of the relevant provisions are only principled, and the introduction of international commercial arbitration institutions is progressing slow. The second chapter mainly studies the necessity of introducing international commercial arbitration institutions in China. First, a major concern of the introduction of international commercial arbitration institutions in China is that international3 commercial arbitration institutions will intensify competition in the domestic arbitration market after establishing permanent establishments in China, which will have an impact on the arbitration market in China. According to the latest information from the Ministry of Justice, as of the end of 2018, a total of 255 arbitration committees were established nationwide, an increase of 127% over 2017. This shows that the arbitration market in China is at a stage of rapid development. At the same time, however, the arbitration system in China is far from perfect. In addition, the strong competitiveness of internationally renowned commercial arbitration institutions has also made China face greater challenges. In addition, the current construction of the “Belt and Road” requires China to improve the level of China's arbitration industry in order to improve the voice of China in the construction of disputes related to the “Belt and Road”. Therefore, the author believes that although the introduction of international commercial arbitration institutions may bring risks to the commercial arbitration industry in China, China is also facing such risks in the process of reform and opening up other industries. In order to improve the competitiveness of China's commercial arbitration institutions in the international arbitration market, fully participate in the construction of the dispute resolution mechanism in the construction of the “Belt and Road” and to improve Chinese competitiveness in the construction of the “Belt and Road”, allowing international commercial arbitration institutions to establish permanent institutions in China is a viable option. Secondly, it is undeniable that allowing international commercial arbitration institutions to establish permanent establishments in China is not the only way to introduce international commercial arbitration institutions in China. Previously, the academic community focused more on the aforementioned second way (although the different paths are not absolutely exclusive). At present, although the domestic courts have not directly responded to the opening of the arbitration market in China, the court has approved the arbitration agreement of the parties to submit foreign-related cases in China to international commercial arbitration institutions. Effectively, and in the “Gerco Steel Company Case”, the arbitral award made by the international commercial arbitration institution was recognized as “non-international4 ruling” and was recognized and implemented. So far, in a non-strict sense, international commercial arbitration institutions have been able to participate in the arbitration competition in China's domestic market by accepting arbitration cases from domestic parties in China. However, it is undeniable that there is still controversy surrounding the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards under this model and judicial supervision. This model is facing some obstacles as well in China. In addition, for market access and economic considerations, it is not uncommon for international commercial arbitration institutions to establish permanent establishments outside their respective countries. For example, the China International Economic has set up branches in Hong Kong, but the permanent establishment has not accepted and managed cases in Hong Kong. However, there has been a tendency to attach importance to arbitration institutions in China, and also have the history and inclination to manage and supervise arbitration institutions. Chinese competent authorities have also enjoyed the powers stipulated in the Arbitration Law and some invisible in the process of forming an arbitration institution, managing and supervising the power of the arbitration institution. Therefore, considering this aspect, combined with the attitude of China’s distrust of arbitration, it is more likely to be accepted by competent Chinese authorities in China to establish permanent institutions in China and to make these permanent institutions exposed to the management and supervision of relevant departments in China. In the third chapter, this paper mainly discusses the feasibility of introducing international commercial arbitration institutions in China. First, the market access of international commercial arbitration institutions is the first problem that international commercial arbitration institutions must face when setting up permanent institutions in China. At present, although the Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone and Beijing (need to meet certain conditions) allow international commercial arbitration institutions to settle in, this is only an attempt by our country in a specific region during the reform process. In other regions of the Mainland, the market access of international commercial arbitration institutions is still controversial. First of all, the nature of arbitration is controversial. At present, the doctrines on the nature of arbitration5 mainly include judicial power, autonomy, mixed theory and contract theory. These doctrines reflect the evolution of the relationship between public power and private rights in the process of arbitration development. The particularity of arbitration itself determines its differentiation from other services, affecting the nature of arbitration in China and other countries, and thus affecting the attitude of China in introducing international commercial arbitration institutions. Secondly, there is also controversy over whether arbitration services are in the scope of international trade services. When mainland scholars in China talk about the opening up of the arbitration market, most scholars in China will analyze the provisions of the General Agreement on Trade in Services. In this regard, the author analyzes the definition of service trade in the General Agreement on Trade in Services, the Special Commitment Schedule for Service Trade submitted by China in the General Agreement on Trade in Services, and internationally renowned commercial arbitration, the provisions of the “Special Commitments for Service Trade Concessions” submitted by the country where the organization is located, and the “Legal Services” opened in the “Special Commitments for Service Trade Concessions” submitted by China’s accession to the General Agreement on Trade in Services. The stipulations submitted by China when joining the General Agreement on Trade in Services, it did not regard arbitration as a category of service trade that was open to the outside world. In addition, in international treaties signed with other countries in China, there is no mention of the market access of international commercial arbitration institutions. Based on the above research results, the author believes that at the level of international law, China does not have the obligation to enter into commercial arbitration institutions in China, and it is possible to decide whether to introduce an international commercial arbitration institution. Finally, the author analyzes the relevant regulations in China, and believes that some of the provisions in China have the tendency to regard arbitration as a legal service, but the “Negative List (2018 Edition)” does not regulate the market access for commercial arbitration. Therefore, except in the Shanghai Free Trade Zone and special areas such as Beijing, China's domestic market regulations for international commercial arbitration are not clear, but in fact there is no access. Second, based on6 the fact that the arbitration system in China is not perfect, international commercial arbitration institutions will encounter many problems in setting up permanent institutions in China. In this regard, the author chooses two aspects to study, that is, the organization of these permanent establishments and the issue of nationality determination of arbitral awards made after admission. The first is the organizational form of these permanent institutions. At present, the relevant legislation in China has not clearly defined the organization form of domestic arbitration institutions. In practice, there have been some normative legal documents to manage the arbitration institutions in China as institutions. When many international commercial arbitration institutions entered the Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone, they registered as commercial representative offices of foreign companies in China, but because international commercial arbitration institutions are not part of the The foreign enterprise specified in the Regulations on the Registration and Administration of Permanent Representatives of Foreign Enterprises (2013), so this arrangement does not comply with the law. After the promulgation of the Law on the Administration of Domestic Activities of Non-Governmental Organizations Outside the People's Republic of China (2016) on April 28, 2016, these international commercial arbitration institutions stationed in the Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone were registered as non-governmental organizations. So far, the issue of the organizational form of the permanent establishments established by international commercial arbitration institutions in China has been resolved. Secondly, it is the issue of the nationality of the arbitral awards of these permanent establishments in China. At present, the domesticity of the arbitration award in China is based on the location of the arbitration institution. The problem is that the location of these permanent establishments is the location of the international commercial arbitration institution in China or the establishment of the permanent establishment. The results of the nationality determination of such arbitral awards will affect the judicial supervision power and the recognition and enforcement mode adopted by the courts in China. All in all, before clarifying the market access issues of international commercial arbitration institutions, international commercial arbitration institutions cannot establish permanent establishments in China (except for7 special areas such as the Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone). Before laws and regulations clearly stipulated the nationality of the arbitration awards made by these permanent institutions, the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards made by international commercial arbitration institutions in China and the judicial supervision faced obstacles. 【Key words】Foreign commercial arbitration institutions; Current status; Necessity; Feasibility1 目 录 导 言..........................................................................................................1 一、问题的提出..............................................................................................1 二、研究价值及意义......................................................................................2 三、文献综述..................................................................................................2 四、主要研究方法..........................................................................................6 五、报告结构..................................................................................................6 六、报告主要创新及不足..............................................................................6 第一章 我国内地引入国际商事仲裁机构的现状................................ 8 第一节 我国内地引入国际商事仲裁机构相关的实践.......................................8 一、允许国际商事仲裁机构入驻上海自由贸易实验区..............................8 二、允许国际知名商事争议解决机构在北京设立代表机构....................10 三、在前海深港现代服务业合作区引进香港仲裁机构............................10 四、尝试建立仲裁机构间的合作................................................................11 第二节 我国内地引入国际商事仲裁机构相关实践的特征.............................12 一、我国内地积极尝试引入国际商事仲裁机构........................................12 二、我国内地仅在特定区域引入国际商事仲裁机构................................13 三、相关规定大多仅为原则性规定............................................................13 四、引入国际商事仲裁机构后续进展缓慢................................................13 本章小结...............................................................................................................14 第二章 我国内地引入国际商事仲裁机构的必要性分析..................15 第一节 设立常设机构，加剧我国内地仲裁市场竞争.....................................15 一、我国内地仲裁机构竞争力有待提高....................................................15 二、国际商事仲裁机构竞争力实力较强....................................................17 第二节 设立常设机构，并非开放仲裁市场的唯一路径.................................18 一、路径一，允许国际商事仲裁机构在我国内地仲裁............................19 二、路径二，允许国际商事仲裁机构在我国内地设立常设机构............23 本章小结...............................................................................................................26 第三章 我国内地引入国际商事仲裁机构的可行性分析..................282 第一节 国际商事仲裁机构的市场准入存在争议.............................................28 一、仲裁的性质存在争议............................................................................28 二、商事仲裁服务与国际服务贸易的关系存在争议................................31 三、国内法律法规对引入国际商事仲裁机构的规定................................41 第二节 引入国际商事仲裁机构后需注意的问题.............................................43 一、常设机构的组织形式............................................................................43 二、常设机构做出的仲裁裁决的国籍认定................................................45 本章小结...............................................................................................................49 结 语................................................................................................... 51