境外仲裁中的臨時(shí)措施在中國的可執(zhí)行性

境外仲裁中的臨時(shí)措施在中國的可執(zhí)行性境外仲裁的仲裁庭下令采取的，或者境外法院為支持仲裁而下令采取的臨時(shí)措施，能否在中國內(nèi)地的法院得到承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行，一直是大家關(guān)心的問題。一、臨時(shí)措施的含義和作用國際仲裁中的臨時(shí)措施，是指仲裁庭或有管轄權(quán)的法院在仲裁程序開始前或進(jìn)行過程中，根據(jù)仲裁程序所適用的法律和規(guī)則，應(yīng)一方當(dāng)事人申請，為保全證據(jù)或財(cái)產(chǎn)等目的而采取的臨時(shí)性的保全或保護(hù)措施。由于各國仲裁法和仲裁實(shí)踐的多樣性，“臨時(shí)措施”（ProvisionalMeasures）亦被稱作“中間措施”、“保全措施”或“臨時(shí)保護(hù)措施”等。本文以“臨時(shí)措施”統(tǒng)稱仲裁中的這一類措施。仲裁庭或有管轄權(quán)的法院所采取的及時(shí)、適當(dāng)、有強(qiáng)制力的臨時(shí)措施，能夠起到維持現(xiàn)狀、保全證據(jù)及防止惡意轉(zhuǎn)移財(cái)產(chǎn)的作用，在國際仲裁中得到了廣泛應(yīng)用。一般情況下，臨時(shí)措施針對的當(dāng)事人傾向于執(zhí)行這些措施，維護(hù)仲裁庭或法庭的權(quán)威，避免在仲裁程序、裁決結(jié)果、費(fèi)用承擔(dān)等方面或適用法律規(guī)定的其他方面承擔(dān)不利后果。但是，某些當(dāng)事人為隱藏證據(jù)、轉(zhuǎn)移財(cái)產(chǎn)，寧可承擔(dān)上述不利后果，亦不愿配合執(zhí)行臨時(shí)措施。此時(shí)，臨時(shí)措施能否強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行，就殊為關(guān)鍵。二、中國仲裁法關(guān)于臨時(shí)措施的規(guī)定在回答上述問題之前，我們需要了解中國法律關(guān)于仲裁中的臨時(shí)措施的規(guī)定。根據(jù)相關(guān)法律規(guī)定和司法實(shí)踐，中國仲裁法下的臨時(shí)措施具有以下特點(diǎn)：(2)第一，從臨時(shí)措施的種類上說，中國仲裁法規(guī)定的臨時(shí)措施種類較少，僅限于財(cái)產(chǎn)保全和證據(jù)保全。財(cái)產(chǎn)保全適用于“因另一方當(dāng)事人的行為或者其他原因，可能使裁決不能執(zhí)行或者難以執(zhí)行的”（《仲裁法》(3)第二十八條），其保全的范圍“限于請求的范圍，或者與本案有關(guān)的財(cái)物”（《民事訴訟法》(4)第九十四條）；證據(jù)保全適用于“證據(jù)可能滅失或者以后難以取得的情況”（《民事訴訟法》第七十四條），針對的是與案件相關(guān)的證據(jù)。在中國仲裁法中不存在禁令等旨在限制某種行為或要求不作為的臨時(shí)措施(5)（如《聯(lián)合國國際貿(mào)易法委員會(huì)國際商事仲裁示范法》(6)，下文稱“《示范法》”，第17條第2款a項(xiàng)和b項(xiàng)），也不存在強(qiáng)制證人出庭提供證言的措施（如英格蘭ArbitrationAct1996(7)第44條第2款a項(xiàng)）。第二，從臨時(shí)措施的申請主體來看，申請者僅限于中國內(nèi)地仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)審理的仲裁案件中的當(dāng)事人?！睹袷略V訟法》和《仲裁法》僅涉及國內(nèi)仲裁中的臨時(shí)措施，而未就境外仲裁中的當(dāng)事人能否向中國法院申請財(cái)產(chǎn)保全、證據(jù)保全等臨時(shí)措施作出相應(yīng)規(guī)定。第三，從臨時(shí)措施的管轄上說，在中國有權(quán)決定是否采取臨時(shí)措施的權(quán)力專屬于人民法院。根據(jù)《仲裁法》第二十八條和第四十六條的規(guī)定，仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)僅負(fù)責(zé)轉(zhuǎn)交當(dāng)事人提出的財(cái)產(chǎn)保全或證據(jù)保全的申請，無權(quán)下令采取臨時(shí)措施；仲裁庭同樣沒有下令采取臨時(shí)措施的權(quán)力。中國仲裁法的這一限制與英國、法國等主要仲裁地的仲裁制度及示范法的規(guī)定均不同。第四，從時(shí)間上說，中國仲裁法的臨時(shí)措施僅限于在仲裁過程中申請?！睹袷略V訟法》規(guī)定了訴前財(cái)產(chǎn)保全，但《民事訴訟法》和《仲裁法》都未規(guī)定仲裁前的財(cái)產(chǎn)或證據(jù)保全?！蹲罡呷嗣穹ㄔ宏P(guān)于人民法院執(zhí)行工作若干問題的規(guī)定（試行）》(8)第12條則將涉外仲裁中的財(cái)產(chǎn)保全限定在仲裁過程中。雖然在司法實(shí)踐中存在部分法院比照訴前財(cái)產(chǎn)保全進(jìn)行仲裁前財(cái)產(chǎn)保全的個(gè)案，但大多數(shù)人民法院仍不接受仲裁前財(cái)產(chǎn)保全的申請。三、境外仲裁庭采取的臨時(shí)措施的可執(zhí)行性在境外仲裁中，仲裁庭可能以命令、禁令的形式采取臨時(shí)措施，也可能根據(jù)適用的仲裁規(guī)則或仲裁法的規(guī)定，以“裁決”的形式采取臨時(shí)措施。下面分情況討論：1、以命令、禁令形式采取的臨時(shí)措施仲裁庭以命令、禁令等形式采取的臨時(shí)措施，具有臨時(shí)性、中間性和程序性，顯然不屬于《聯(lián)合國承認(rèn)及執(zhí)行外國仲裁裁決公約》（“《紐約公約》”）(9)和《最高人民法院關(guān)于內(nèi)地與香港特別行政區(qū)相互執(zhí)行仲裁裁決的安排》（“《安排》”）(10)承認(rèn)的“仲裁裁決”。因此，在《紐約公約》另一締約國領(lǐng)土內(nèi)或在香港特區(qū)作出的此類臨時(shí)措施，不能根據(jù)《紐約公約》或《安排》在中國內(nèi)地獲得承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行。2、以裁決形式采取的臨時(shí)措施許多仲裁地的法律或仲裁規(guī)則均允許仲裁庭以“裁決”的方式采取臨時(shí)措施。例如，為香港和新加坡采納的《示范法》，其第17條第2款規(guī)定，“臨時(shí)措施是以裁決書為形式的或另一種形式的任何短期措施”；國際商會(huì)國際仲裁院的《仲裁規(guī)則》第23條也授權(quán)仲裁庭在其認(rèn)為適當(dāng)?shù)臅r(shí)候，采用裁決的形式采取臨時(shí)措施。那么，當(dāng)事人能否根據(jù)《紐約公約》或《安排》向中國法院申請承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行關(guān)于臨時(shí)措施的“裁決”呢？InternationalCommercialArbitration,UNCITRAL,32ndSess.,UNDoc.A/CN.9/460，第28頁至31頁，見聯(lián)合國網(wǎng)站/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V99/827/50/IMG/V9982750.pdf?OpenElement（最后訪問日期2010年11月8日）。

11、相關(guān)的技術(shù)咨詢和技術(shù)服務(wù)價(jià)款與技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓價(jià)款需開在同一張發(fā)票上。

12、見楊弘磊法官《中國內(nèi)地司法實(shí)踐視角下的〈紐約公約〉問題研究》，法律出版社2006年版，第32頁、50頁、311頁。

13、見《最高人民法院關(guān)于不予承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行國際商會(huì)仲裁院仲裁裁決的請示的復(fù)函》（[2008]民四他字第11號(hào)）。

14、見趙秀文教授《從永寧公司案看公共政策作為我國法院拒絕執(zhí)行外國仲裁裁決的理由》，發(fā)表于《法學(xué)家》2009年第4期。

15、一般認(rèn)為，臨時(shí)措施不屬于國家間相互承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行法院裁判的范圍。

16、例如，《中華人民共和國和科威特國關(guān)于民事和商事司法協(xié)助的協(xié)定》第十七條第三款規(guī)定：“本協(xié)定不適用于保全措施或臨時(shí)措施，但與支付生活費(fèi)有關(guān)的事項(xiàng)除外?！?/p>

China'sEnforceabilityofProvisionalMeasuresinOffshoreArbitrationbyZhangShouzhi,HuKeandXuBeibeiProvisionalmeasuresinoffshorearbitration(1)areeitherorderedbythearbitraltribunal,orissuedbyanoffshorecourtinaidofarbitration.IthasalwaysbeenofgreatconcernwhethersuchprovisionalmeasurescanbeenforcedbytheCourtsinChina.I.DefinitionandPurposeofProvisionalMeasuresProvisionalmeasuresininternationalarbitrationarethoseinterimmeasuresofprotectiongrantedbyanarbitraltribunaloracourtofcompetentjurisdictionattherequestofapartybeforeorduringthearbitrationproceeding.Theseinterimmeasuresprovideappropriatemeasurestopreserveevidence,assetsorstatusquoinaccordancewiththelawsandrulesapplicabletosucharbitration.Astherearedifferencesamongarbitrationlawsinotherjurisdictionsaroundtheworld,provisionalmeasuresarealsocalled"interimmeasures","preservationmeasures",or"interimmeasureofprotection",whichwillbecollectivelyreferredtoas"ProvisionalMeasures"inthisarticle.Ifanarbitraltribunaloracourtofcompetentjurisdictiontakesproper,timelyandcompulsoryProvisionalMeasures,suchmeasurescanservethepurposetomaintainthestatusquo,preserveevidence,andpreventmalicioustransferofassets.Therefore,suchmeasuresarewidelyusedininternationalarbitration.Normally,thepartytowhomtheProvisionalMeasuresareappliedagainstisinclinedtocarryouttheProvisionalMeasuresasdirectedandshowdeferencetothearbitraltribunalorthecourt,inordertoavoidbearingunfavorableconsequencesinarbitrationproceedings,thearbitralaward,orexpenseallocationsandotheraspectsundertheapplicablerules.Sometimes,however,inordertoconcealevidenceortransferassets,apartywouldratherriskbearingsuchunfavorableconsequencesthancarryouttheProvisionalMeasures.Undersuchcircumstances,theenforcementofProvisionalMeasuresbecomescritical.II.ProvisionalMeasuresunderChineseArbitrationLawsBeforeansweringtheabovequestion,weneedtounderstandtheProvisionalMeasuresinarbitrationunderChinalaw.Accordingtotherelevantlawsandregulationsandjudicialpractice,thereareseveralfeaturesregardingProvisionalMeasuresunderChinesearbitrationlaw:(2)First,inrespectofProvisionalMeasures,thereareonlytwocategoriesunderthePRCArbitrationLaw("ArbitrationLaw")(3),namelyassetpreservationandevidencepreservationTheformerappliestocircumstanceswhere"thearbitralawardmightnotbeabletobeenforcedorbecomedifficulttobeenforcedduetotheactsoftheotherpartyorotherreasons"(Article28oftheArbitrationLaw),andtheassetstobepreservedarelimited"withinthescopeofthecaseortheassetsinvolvedinthecase"(Article94ofthePRCCivilProcedureLaw,(4)"CivilProcedureLaw").Thelatterappliestocircumstanceswhere"theevidencemightbelostforeverormaybedifficulttobeobtainedinthefuture"(Article74oftheCivilProcedureLaw)anditistargetedattheevidencerelevanttothecase.UnderChineseArbitrationlaws,therearenoProvisionalMeasuresaimedatpreventingorrefrainingfromtakingactionsuchasinjunctions(5)(asinArticle17.2(a)and17.2(b)oftheUNCITRALModelLawonInternationalCommercialArbitration(6)),noraretheremeasurestoforcethewitnesstoappearincourt(asinArticle44.2(a)ofEnglishArbitrationAct1996(7)).Second,astotherequestingpartywhocanapplyforProvisionalMeasures,onlypartiesinanonshorearbitration(administeredbydomesticarbitrationcommissions)canapplyforProvisionalMeasures.TheCivilProcedureLawandtheArbitrationLawonlydealwithProvisionalMeasuresarisingfromonshorearbitrationsandremainsilentonwhetherthepartiesinoffshorearbitrationscanapplytotheChinesecourtforProvisionalMeasuressuchasassetprotectionandevidencepreservation.Third,astothejurisdictionandpowertograntProvisionalMeasures,thePeople'scourtinChinahasexclusivejurisdictiontodeterminewhetherornottoadopttheProvisionalMeasures.PursuanttoArticles28and36oftheArbitrationLaw,arbitrationcommissionsonlyforwardtherequestingparty'sapplicationsforassetand/orevidencepreservationtothePeople'sCourt,andtheyhavenocompetencetoorderProvisionalMeasures.Similarly,thearbitraltribunalsdonothavetheauthoritytoenforcetheProvisionalMeasures.Thisisobviouslyastrictrestriction,andalsoamajordistinctionofChineseArbitrationlawsasopposedtothearbitrationlawsoftheUKandFranceaswellastheModelLaw.Fourth,astothetimingforrequestingProvisionalMeasures,underChineseArbitrationlaws,therequestingpartycanapplyitonlyduringthearbitrationproceeding.TheCivilProcedureLawhasspecificprovisionsonassetpreservationpriortolitigation,butneithertheCivilProcedureLawnortheArbitrationLawtouchesuponasset/evidencepreservationpriortoanarbitrationproceeding.PursuanttoArticle12oftheProvisionalRegulationoftheSupremePeople'sCourtonQuestionsConcerningtheEnforcementbyPeople'sCourt,(8)theassetpreservationinforeign-relatedarbitrationscanpossiblymadeonlyduringthearbitrationproceeding.Thoughthereareincidentalcaseswheresomecourtsfollowedtheprincipleunderlyingtheassetpreservationpriortolitigationanddirectedthemeasureofassetpreservationpriortoarbitration,mostcourtsstilldeclinetosupporttheapplicationsforassetpreservationpriortoarbitration.III.EnforceabilityofProvisionalMeasuresOrderedbyanOffshoreArbitralTribunalInoffshorearbitration,thearbitraltribunalmaygrantProvisionalMeasuresintheformoforder,injunctionorawardinaccordancewiththeapplicablearbitrationrulesorlaws.Therecanbeseveralscenarios:A.ProvisionalMeasuresintheFormofOrderorInjunctionTheProvisionalMeasuresintheformoforderorinjunctiongrantedbythearbitraltribunal,aretemporary,interimandprocedural,whichareapparentlynotthe"arbitralawards"undertheUnitedNationsConventionontheRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwards(the"NewYorkConvention")(9)andtheArrangementoftheSupremePeople'sCourtConcerningMutualEnforcementofArbitralAwardsbetweentheMainlandandtheHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegion(the"Arrangement").(10)Therefore,suchProvisionalMeasuresmadeintheterritoryofacontractingstatetotheNewYorkConventionorintheHongKongSARcannotberecognizedandenforcedinMainlandChinaundertheNewYorkConventionortheArrangement.B.ProvisionalMeasuresintheFormofAwardUndermanyarbitrationlawsandrules,thearbitraltribunalcangranttheProvisionalMeasuresintheformof"award".Forexample,Article17(2)oftheModelLaw,whichhasbeenadoptedbyHongKongandSingapore,statesthat"aninterimmeasureisanytemporarymeasure,whetherintheformofanawardorinanotherform".AnotherexampleisArticle23oftheICCArbitrationRules,whichgrantsthearbitraltribunalthepowertoorderinterimmeasuresintheformofawardwheneveritdeemsappropriate.ThisraisesthequestionwhetherapartytoarbitrationcanapplytoaChinesecourtinordertorecognizeandorenforcean"award"concerningProvisionalMeasuresbasedontheNewYorkConventionortheArrangement.AsoftodaynocasehasbeenfoundinjudicialpracticetoverifythespecificcriteriaoftheChinesecourt.However,itmightbedifficulttoconvincetheChinesecourttoacceptapplicationsforrecognizingandenforcingtheawardconcerningtheProvisionalMeasures,forthefollowingreasons:First,theProvisionalMeasuresevenintheformofawardaretemporary,interimandproceduralinnatureandsubjecttothefinalaward,whichmeansthatsuchmeasurescanberevokedoramendedbythearbitraltribunalinthesubsequentarbitrationprocess.AstheNewYorkConventiondoesnotdefinetheterm"award",theprevailingviewinjudicialpracticeamongthecourtsofsomecontractingjurisdictions,isthattheNewYorkConventiondoesnotapplytointerimawards(11).SomejudgesintheChinesecourtshaveheldtheopinionthatapreconditiontorecognizingandenforcingforeignawardsinChinaisthatsuchawardsmustbefinal(12).Therefore,theProvisionalMeasuresevenintheformofaward,intheeyeoftheChinesecourt,mightstillnotqualifyas"arbitralawards"undertheNewYorkConventionortheArrangementandthustheycannotberecognizedorenforcedinChina.Second,astotheawardconcerningProvisionalMeasures,theremightbeaquestionofwhetherthemattercanbesettledthrougharbitrationundertheChinalaw.ArticleV(2)oftheNewYorkConventionprovidesthat,"recognitionandenforcementofanarbitralawardmayalsoberefusedifthecompetentauthorityinthecountrywhererecognitionandenforcementissoughtfindsthat:(a)thesubjectmatterofthedifferenceisnotcapableofsettlementbyarbitrationunderthelawsofthecountry."Article7(2)oftheArrangementissimilaronsamesubject.Asmentionedabove,underChineseArbitrationlaws,thePeople'scourthasexclusivejurisdictiontograntProvisionalMeasures,whilethearbitrationcommissionsandarbitraltribunalshavenopowertodoso.ThismeansthatProvisionalMeasuresmightbeconsiderednotabletobearbitratedunderChinalaw.NocasehasbeenfoundinChinathattherecognitionandenforcementisrefusedbasedonthelackofabilitytobearbitratedunderArticleV(2)andthereisnoconclusivedecisionyetonwhetherProvisionalMeasuresarematterswhichcannotbesettledbyarbitration.However,inHemofarmDD,etal.v.JinanYongningPharmaceuticalCo.Ltd.,whereHermofarmDDappliedforrecognizingandenforcingICCarbitralawardNo.13464/MS/JB/JEM(the"YongningCase"),ShandongHighPeople'sCourtheldthat"thedisputearisingoutoforinconnectionwiththelegalityandjustificationoftheapplicationforassetpreservationinlitigationwasnotarbitrable."(13)Commentariessaidthat,"ICCmadeawardonmatterswhichhadalreadyadjudicatedbytheChinesecourt,whichoffendedtheexclusivejurisdictionoftheChinesecourtsunderthecurrentChineselawtograntandenforcetheprovisionalmeasuresonthedisputedassetsunderthearbitrationagreement."(14)Insummary,underthecurrentChineseArbitrationlaws,eveniftheProvisionalMeasurestaketheformof"award",suchawardsmightstillbeineligibleforrecognitionandenforcementbytheChinesecourt.IV.EnforceabilityofProvisionalMeasuresOrderedbyanOffshoreCourtMostnationalarbitrationlawshavespecificprovisionsonthemeasuresissuedbycourtinaidofarbitration.SuchprovisionsgrantthecourtthepowertotakeProvisionalMeasuresupontherequestofparties.ItraisesthequestionwhethersuchProvisionalMeasuresorderedbyanoffshorecourtcanbeenforcedbytheChinesecourt.Suchpossibilityisslim.First,ChineselawsaresilentontheChinesecourt'spowerandobligationsinrespectofProvisionalMeasuresinoffshorearbitration.Therefore,thereisnolegalbasisundertheChineselawfortheChinesecourttoadoptProvisionalMeasuressupportingoffshorearbitration.Second,therecognitionandenforcementoftheProvisionalMeasuresinconnectionwitharbitrationorderedbyanoffshorecourtarenotwithinthejurisdictionoftheNewYorkConventionortheArrangement.ThussuchProvisionalMeasurescannotbeenforcedundertheNewYorkConventionortheArrangement.Third,underthebilateraljudicialassistancetreatiesonmutuallyrecognizingandenforcingjudicialjudgmentsbetweenChinaandothercountries,itisveryuncertainwhetherordersregardingProvisionalMeasuresissuedbythecourtqualifyas"judgments"withinthetreatiesandnocasescanbefoundinthepublicdomaintotestonthisissue.(15)SomebilateraltreatiesconcludedbyChinaandothercountriesexpresslyexcludetheProvisionalMeasuresfromtheciviljudgmentsthatcanberecognizedandenforcedbetweencountries,suchasthetreatiesonjudicialassistanceincivilandcommercialmattersbetweenChinaandKuwait,(16)theUnitedArabEmiratesandTunis.Last,fromtheperspectiveofjudicialpractice,nocasesintheChinesecourtcanbefoundinthepublicdomainwhichrecognizeandenforcejudgmentsandordersgrantedbyforeignandHongKongcourtsonProvisionalMeasures.V.ConclusionInsummary,underthecurrentChineseArbitrationLaw,theProvisionalMeasuresarisingoutoforinconnectionwithoffshorearbitrationareunlikelytoberecognizedandenforcedbytheChinesecourts.ThoughthepartywhorefusestocomplywiththeProvisionalMeasuresmaybearunfavorableconsequencesunderthearbitrationrulesandapplicablelaws,thefinalarbitrationawardmightalsobecomeworthlessfortheprevailingpartyasaresultoftheuncooperativebehaviorofthedisobedientparty.AsChina-relatedinternationalarbitrationsincrease,thisproblemwillbecomemoreserious.Itisadvisablethatin-housecounselsandpracticingattorneysgivethisissueconsiderablethoughtwhendraftingrelevantarbitrationclauses.TheYongningCasesuggeststhatitispossibleforapartytocircumventthearbitrationclausesandapplydirectlytotheChinesecourtforappropriateProvisionalMeasures.tofreezeassetsorobtainevidenceinconnectionwiththedispute,andultimatelyincreasetheirchancetosucceed.Notes:

1、OffshorearbitrationincludesforeignarbitrationandarbitrationconductedinHongKong,MacauandTaiwan.HongKong,MacauandTaiwanareterritoriesofthePeople'sRepublicofChinabutremainindependentjurisdictionsanditraisesthequestionofinterregionaljudicialassistanceinjudiciaryandarbitrationareas.AstherearemuchfewerinternationalarbitrationsconductedinMacauandTaiwan,andHongKongisoneofthemajorarbitrationforums.SothisarticlefocusesontheprovisionalmeasuresinforeignandHongKongarbitrations.

2、PursuanttotheSpecialMaritimeProcedureLaw,thecompulsivemeasuresinthemaritimelawsuitandarbitration,includesmaritimeclaimpreservation,maritimeinjunctionandmaritimeevidencepreservation,allofwhichcanberequestedbeforearbitration.ThisisdifferentfromtheCivilProcedureLawandtheArbitrationLaw.

3、PromulgatedonAugust31,1994;implementedonSeptember1,1995.

4、PromulgatedandimplementedonApril9,1991;amendedforthethirdtimeonOctober28,2007.

5、Somejudicialinterpretationshavegrantedthecourtthepowertoorderinjunctionintheintellectualdisputes,forexample,"InterpretationoftheSupremePeople'sCourtConcerningQuestionsonApplicationofLawtoPre-litigationSuspensionofInfringementofExclusiveRighttoUseTrademarkandtoEvidencePreservation","InterpretationoftheSupremePeople'sCourtConcerningQuestionsontheApplicationoflawtopre-litigationSuspensionof