国际商事仲裁中的证据问题研究
|
摘要
国际商事仲裁已经成为国际商事争议解决的优选方式。证据问题因直接关系到裁判结果,是国际商事仲裁实践中的核心问题。在各国仲裁立法和大多仲裁规则对仲裁证据问题涉及不多的情况下,国际商事仲裁实践中当事人尤其是仲裁庭在确定和适用证据规则方面往往发挥非常重要的作用。
在国际商事仲裁规则的确定与适用中,以下矛盾关系的平衡成为关键,直接影响到国际商事仲裁作为争议解决机制的优点的发挥:首先,不同法律文化的平衡。国际商事仲裁的当事人、代理人以及仲裁员分别来自不同的法系或国家,而各国在证据文化上冲突比较大,如何平衡不同法律文化之间的冲突必然成为国际商事仲裁中证据事项的处理的关键问题之一。其次,效率与公平的平衡。关于国际商事仲裁效率与公平的关系,理论上存在着不同的观点。事实上,在仲裁实践包括证据事项的处理中,两者的兼顾非常重要,许多仲裁规则明文强调两者不可偏废,否则国际商事交易的当事人会丧失对国际商事仲裁的信心。最后,规则的灵活性与可预见性的平衡。灵活性是国际商事仲裁的本质特征,不过,可预见性的缺乏以及合理预期不能得到保护会让当事人对国际商事仲裁望而却步。因此,在当今的国际商事仲裁领域,一些专门的仲裁证据规则不仅已然被编纂,而且发挥着不可忽视的作用。
本文主要以不同法律文化的平衡、效率与公平的平衡以及规则的灵活性与可预见性的平衡为视角,审视国际商事仲裁中的证据问题。本文除引言和结语外,共有七章,二十万多字。
第一章,“国际商事仲裁证据规则的编纂与发展趋势”。其一,本章探讨了国际商事仲裁证据规则的渊源具有多元性和多层次性。其二,它阐释了在国际商事仲裁领域,专门仲裁证据规则的编纂逐渐受到重视,其中尤其是国际律师协会(IBA)1999年制订的《IBA证据规则》具有里程碑意义,为国际商事仲裁证据规则的国际化与协调化作出巨大贡献。国际商事仲裁证据规则的编纂出现了软法化趋势,现存的证据规则主要是以软法形式编纂的专门仲裁证据规则。其三,由于国际商事仲裁领域存在着反对制订仲裁证据规则的观点,本章进一步反思了国际商事仲裁是否需要专门的证据规则。最后,从整体上看,各种渊源的仲裁证据规则出现了协调化趋势。
第二章,“国际商事仲裁中证据规则的确定与适用”。其一,本章阐述了当事人和仲裁庭在确定与适用仲裁证据规则中的作用;其二,它探讨了当事人和仲裁庭确定证据规则的自由的界限。它受到仲裁程序准据法的强制性规则,其中主要是正当程序条款的限制。另外,由于仲裁庭缺乏强制性权力,证据事项的处理离不开法院的介入,当事人和仲裁庭处理证据事项的自由也受到仲裁地法院规则的影响。其三,它论述了为什么国内证据法不应严格适用于国际商事仲裁,同时论证了在客观上仲裁参与人所在各国国内证据法仍然对该国国际商事仲裁证据规则的确定与适用产生巨大影响。其四,它以《IBA证据规则》为例论述了国际商事仲裁证据软法所发挥的作用,尽管大多仲裁没有明确约定适用《IBA证据规则》,《IBA证据规则》仍然对国际商事仲裁证据规则的确定与适用产生一定影响。
第三章,“国际商事仲裁中书证的出示”。书证尤其是同期书证已被许多仲裁界人士认可为最重要的证据形式,而书证的出示是不同法律文化之间存在冲突比较大的领域之一。
其一,本章论述了国际商事仲裁中书证出示的一般问题,包括不同的书证来源对书证出示的影响与产生的问题,书证出示时间问题,以及书证出示涉及的保密性问题。其二,它讨论了国际商事仲裁中仲裁庭要求当事人进行书证出示的权力以及出示的范围和条件。它在阐释了两大法系在书证出示方面存在着较大的法律文化冲突的基础上,重点探讨了国际商事仲裁中仲裁庭命令当事人出示其持有的书证的出示,并阐述了以《IBA证据规则》为代表的国际标准化实践中,仲裁庭依当事人请求或自行命令另一方当事人进行书证出示的范围和条件。另外,还探讨了当事人拒绝执行出示书证的命令的救济。其三,它进一步探讨电子文件的出示问题。随着现代商业中电子技术的普遍应用,大量证据是以电子文件的形式生成,电子文件具有容易复制和修改、难以彻底删除等特点,而且电子文件的出示造成更为沉重的成本和负担,尽管国际商事仲裁书证出示的基本原则同样适用于电子文件的出示,这仍然对国际商事仲裁实践带来一些新的问题;继而探讨了电子文件的“出示范围”、“费用承担”、“出示形式”等一系列问题。
第四章,“国际商事仲裁中言辞证据的提供”,涉及言辞证据包括证人证言、专家证据的准备与提供,它是不同法律文化之间冲突比较大的另一领域。其一,本章阐述了在国际商事仲裁一般实践中,证人的提供、证人书面证言、以及证人出庭作证等方面不同法律文化的冲突与融合。其二,它探讨了专家证人的资格,仲裁庭在指定专家证人的自由裁量权,行使该权力是否、以及什么情况下会违反正当程序,书面和口头专家证据的准备与提供。其三,它分析了两种专家证人模式各自的利弊,在国际商事仲裁中如何克服相应弊端,以及两种模式共存的原因。
第五章,“国际商事仲裁取证的法院协助”。仲裁庭不具有强制性权力,当对方当事人或第三人拒绝提供仲裁所需证据时,法院是否能提供有效的协助成为关键,这直接关系到相关案件在事实认定上的准确性,甚至影响仲裁地作为国际商事仲裁中心的声誉。
其一,本章论述了国际商事仲裁取证的法院协助的一般理论问题,涉及作为法院提供协助的理论基础即国际商事仲裁的性质、国际商事仲裁取证需要法院介入的必要性,各国支持仲裁的政策与理念,以及法院协助国际商事仲裁取证制度的价值取向。其二,它梳理了各国法院对本国国际商事仲裁中取证协助问题上的立场,得出大多国家为国际商事仲裁取证提供协助的基本事实,并对各国相关制度的基本内容与特点进行了总结和分析;其三,它梳理了一些国家的法院对外国仲裁取证是否提供协助的立场,事实上只有少数国家明确支持,也有一些国家的立场模糊不清或摇摆不定,大多数国家对此仍持观望态度。近几年有些国家开始改变立场,呈现出了一种国际趋势,即国内法院越来越多地为外国仲裁提供取证协助。最后,本章又进一步对国际上各国国内法院在协助外国仲裁取证的总体现状进行了理论分析,并提出展望和设想。
第六章,“国际商事仲裁中证据的审查认定”。证据的审查与认定是作出公正裁决的关键环节,在仲裁与诉讼中都是如此。但国际商事仲裁与诉讼在证据审查认定的立法与实践存在比较大的差别。
其一,本章论述了在国际商事仲裁中,仲裁庭对证据的相关性、可采性以及重要性上享有广泛的自由裁量,不需要严格适用各国尤其是普通法国家繁杂的可采性规则,并针对国际商事仲裁中一些具体的证据可采性问题结合国际实践进行了探讨。其二,论述了作为国际商事仲裁实践中的难题的特免权问题。各国普遍承认对特免权的保护,但特免权的种类与范围各有差异甚至同一法系内部也各不相同。另外,对于国际商事仲裁中特免权的性质识别,理论上存在着各种观点。本章认为应当认定特免权具有双重属性。另外基于国际商事仲裁中的法律适用因联结点众多,涉及多个国家的法律,它提出各种法律选择方法,比如复合保护标准;“最惠国原则”,合同约定方法,统一标准方法等等。另外,鉴于证据或信息是否受特免权保护需要先对其内容进行审查认定,而如何进行审查也是仲裁实践中面临的一个问题,处理不当会导致正当程序的违反。它介绍了重要的一种认定方法,即通过委托中立的第三人进行审查并由后者向仲裁庭提供报告。其三,它探讨了在国际商事仲裁中证据的证明力问题,它应当交由仲裁庭自由裁量,而不是事先确定,这与一些大陆法国家采取的“法定证据制度”不同。而关于证据采信标准,即证明标准,论述了对于国际商事仲裁而言,“盖然性权衡”或“优势证据”相比而言是适合的证明标准,除非在特殊案中,比如欺诈、贿赂等情形,可以要求更高的盖然性。其四,在国际商事仲裁中,进行不利推定是仲裁庭认定案件事实的程序“工具”。本章对国际商事仲裁中的不利推定涉及的以下问题进行了详细论述:仲裁庭进行不利推定的权力依据是什么?进行不利推定须要具备什么条件?是否以及什么情况下可以针对第三人的不配合行为进行不利推定?仲裁庭的自由裁量权的界限在哪里?
第七章,“我国国际商事仲裁中的证据问题”,审视了我国国际商事仲裁中的证据规则的确定与适用,从整体特征到具体问题,通过与国际化实践进行比较,
发现不足,并提出建议。其一,本章从证据规则和仲裁实践两个层面整体审视我国国际商事仲裁中证据事项处理的现状与问题。在阐释我国国际商事仲裁证据规则的确定与适用中存在的严重的“诉讼化”与“本地化”倾向的基础上,分析了其中主要的原因,并针对这些原因提出对策与建议。其二,它阐述了在我国国际商事仲裁实践中,证据的收集与提供方面存在的诸多不足。其三,它介绍了我国立法在法院协助国际商事仲裁取证方面存在的重大缺失,并提出在借鉴各国立法经验的基础上,构建我国的仲裁取证的法院协助制度。其四,它针对在证据的审查认定方面我国国际商事仲裁实践与理论中的问题,提出我国仲裁界人士应该明智地摆脱不合适宜的法律文化的桎梏,在证据的审查认定方面借鉴国际化实践,尤其应当认可国际商事仲裁中的特免权。
国际商事仲裁中的证据是近几年国际仲裁界研究的热点问题,而我国学者相关的论述还不够充分。本文以国际商事仲裁的效率与公平、法律文化以及规则的灵活性与可预见性的冲突与平衡为视角,通过理论分析与实证分析相结合、比较分析等方法对国际商事仲裁中的证据问题进行研究,并试图为我国国际商事仲裁中的证据规则的确定与适用提供理论指导,以实现我国仲裁的国际化,进一步提升我国作为国际商事仲裁中心的地位。
International commercial arbitration now becomes an important, even the most preferred method of dispute resolution. Since evidentiary issues relate to the result of the award directly, they are important to any mechanism of dispute settlement including international commercial arbitration. The legislation on arbitration in almost every country provides just a few provisions on evidence, and such is the case with great majority of the institutional rules. Thus the tribunals play an important role in determining the evidentiary rules in international arbitral practice.
To determine the rules of evidence in international commercial arbitration properly, several relationships should be handled and balanced very well. First, the participants in international commercial arbitration come from different countries with different legal cultures. One of the key issues to be resovled in determining evidentiary rules properly is how to balance the different legal cultures. Secondly, as to the relationships between efficiency and fairness of international commercial arbitration, there exist conflicting viewpoints. It is necessary to balance their relationship in practice. Otherwise, the parties to international transactions will lose the confidence for international commercial arbitration, because efficiency and fairness of international commercial arbitration are both important factors considered when they choose arbitration other litigation. Thirdly, flexibility is the spirit of international commercial arbitration. However, the lack of fundamental predictability and un-availablity of protection for reasonable expectation will disappoint the parties to arbitration. Thus, many specific arbitral rules of evidence have been compiled, and they play a more and more important role in international arbital practice. Balancing the relationship between flexibility and predictability, different legal cultures, and efficiency and fairness properly are the preconditions to wide acceptance of the arbitral rules of evidence.
So, the thesis makes a research on evidence in international commercial arbitration from the perspective of balancing the relationships mentioned above. The thesis sets out in seven parts, besides the introduction and conclusions, with more than 200 thousands of Chinese characters.
Chapter I, the Compilation and Its Tendency of Evidentiary Rules in International Commercial Arbitration. First, it discusses the sources and characters of evidentiary rules in international commercial arbitration, and then it illustrates that more and more attention was paid on the compilation of specific evidentiary rules in international commercial arbitration, among which IBA Rules is one of such successful examples. In fact, these rules take the form of soft law. Following that, due to the hot debate on the necessity of evidentiary rules in international arbitration, it explores the reasons for compilation of those rules. In the end, it makes a further study on the tendency of development of these evidentiary rules of international arbitration, namely they become harmonized to a very large extent.
Chapter II, the Determination and Application of Evidentiary Rules in International Commercial Arbitration. First, it introduces the role that the parties and the tribunal play in determining the evidentiary rules in international commercial arbitration. Secondly, it discusses the limit of the freedom enjoyed by the parties and the tribunal in determining the evidentiary rules in international commercial arbitration. One of them is mandatory rules of the law governing the arbitral procedure, and the other is the rules on whether the court provides assistance in taking evidence for international commercial arbitration. Thirdly, it discusses why evidence law should not be applied strictly in international commercial arbitration, but illustrates that the legal cultures of the participants have a really great impact on the determination of evidentiary rules in international commercial arbitration. Finally, it illustrates that international soft law of evidence in the example of IBA Rules plays an important role in the practice of international commercial arbitration, even if the parties don’t agree to the applicability of IBA Rules explicitely.
Chapter III, Document Production in International Commercial Arbitration. It first introduces the general issues on documents production, and then emphasizes that the US-syle discovery should be not apppicable to international commercial arbitration for the reason of efficiency, and finally discusses the tribunal’s power of ordering the parties to produce unfavorable documents and the scope and requirements of document production. Moreover, it introduces the remedies a party to arbitration may obtain in case of the parties and the third parties’refusal to produce the required documents. Following that, it covers the issue of disclosure of e-documents. It make and description of attributes of e-document and the potential problems and chanlenges they bring about to international commercial arbitration, and further explores such issues as the scope of e-document production, the form of e-document production, and the burden of costs. In light of the unmature practice of e-doucment production, it is submitted that the rules of e-document production should be determined by the parties’agreement, or by the tribunal consulting with the parties as soon as the arbitral procedure begins.
Chapter IV, Presentation of Oral Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration. First, it illustrates the cultural harmonization in the aspects of presentation of witness, written statement, and witness’s attending evidentiary hearings in international arbitral procedures. Secondly, it discusses the issues such as qualification of expert, the discretion of the tribunal to designate experts, the due process relating to expert’s discretion, expert report and expert witness’s examination. Thirdly, it analyzes the reasons why party-designated expert and tribunal-designated expert co-exist, their advantages and disadvantages, the way to choose the mode and overcome their disadvantages in context of international commercial arbitration.
Chapter V, National Court’s Assistance in Taking Evidence for International Commercial Arbitration. Because the arbitral tribunals have no coercive power, and in case of non-cooperation of the parties or the third parties to produce the required evidence, whether or not the national court’s assistance could be sought is very important for the reason that the material evidence un-available affects the accuracy of awards, even the country’s reputation as seat of arbitration. First, it discusses the fundamental theories on national court’s assistance in taking evidence for international commercial arbitration, such as the nature of international commercial arbitration, the shortages of arbitral tribunal’s power, the general tendency of pro-arbitration policy implemented world-widely. Secondly, it introduces the positions of different countries on national court’s assistance in taking evidence for international commercial arbitration conducted domestically, and reaches a conclusion that most countries admit such judicial assistance, and analyzes the characters of the rules of those countries on court’s assistance. Thirdly, it makes a further study on the positions of different countries on national court’s assistance in taking evidence for foreign arbitration, reaches a conclusion that just a few countries hold a clear position to support foreign arbitration in the aspect of taking evidence, further analyzes the reasons and puts forward to some proposals.
Chapter VI, Admissibility and Assessment of Evidence in International commercial arbitration. First, it discusses the tribunal’s discretion in determining the relevance and admissibility of evidence, and why there is no necessity of considering the complex rules on Evidence of admissibility in common countries. Secondly, it covers the issue of privilege, which is recognized world-widely. it discusses the categories and nature of privilege, explores the approach to determine the applicable law to privilege, such as the closest connection principle, contract approach, uniform approach, the most favorable nation approach, and introduces a method to identify whether the information is protected by privilege, i.e., appointing a neutral expert, whose mission is to provide expert report to the parties and the tribunal, to check the information. Thirdly, it discusses the tribunal’s discretion in determining the materiality and weight of evidence, and the standard of proof in international commercial arbitration. Fourthly, since drawing adverse inference is a procedural tool to make clear the disputed fact, it discusses the following questions: what is the source of the tribunal’s power of drawing adverse inference? What requirements should be met in drawing adverse inference? Whether and in what circumstances adverse inference could be drawn against the third party? Where is the limit of the tribunal’s discretion in drawing adverse inference?
Chapter VII, the Evidentiary Issues in Chinese International Arbitration. It first introduces the status and the problems on the rule-making and related practice on evidence in Chinese international arbitration, then illustrates that the the phenomenon of judicialisation and localization exiting in determining and applying evidentiary rules in Chinese international arbitration, analyzes the main reasons, and puts forward to the countermeasures and proposals.
It then illustrates the problems existing in the aspects of gathering and presenting evidence, after that, it introduces the defect existing in Chinese legislation on the court’s assistance in taking evidence for international commercial arbitration, and puts forward to some proposals on establishment of rules on court’s assistance in taking evidence for international commercial arbitration. Finally, as to the admissibility and assessment of evidence, it suggests that the arbitral practice should not be influenced too much by Chinese litigation. Moreover, as to the standard of proof, preponderance of evidence should be applied, and proof in a convincing manner is not applicable in Chinese international arbitration, like that in civil litigation.
While the evidence in international commercial arbitration is a hot-debated issue in the field of international commercial arbitration in recent years, it is still not paid enough attention in China. The present thesis makes a comparative study on the issue of evidence in international commercial arbitration, in both theoretical and empirical approach, and in the perspective of balancing the relationship between efficiency and fairness, between the different legal cultures, and between flexibility and predictability, and aims to provide guidance for the practice of evidentiary matters in Chinese international arbitration, and to promote the status of China as center of international arbitration with good reputation.
在国际商事仲裁规则的确定与适用中,以下矛盾关系的平衡成为关键,直接影响到国际商事仲裁作为争议解决机制的优点的发挥:首先,不同法律文化的平衡。国际商事仲裁的当事人、代理人以及仲裁员分别来自不同的法系或国家,而各国在证据文化上冲突比较大,如何平衡不同法律文化之间的冲突必然成为国际商事仲裁中证据事项的处理的关键问题之一。其次,效率与公平的平衡。关于国际商事仲裁效率与公平的关系,理论上存在着不同的观点。事实上,在仲裁实践包括证据事项的处理中,两者的兼顾非常重要,许多仲裁规则明文强调两者不可偏废,否则国际商事交易的当事人会丧失对国际商事仲裁的信心。最后,规则的灵活性与可预见性的平衡。灵活性是国际商事仲裁的本质特征,不过,可预见性的缺乏以及合理预期不能得到保护会让当事人对国际商事仲裁望而却步。因此,在当今的国际商事仲裁领域,一些专门的仲裁证据规则不仅已然被编纂,而且发挥着不可忽视的作用。
本文主要以不同法律文化的平衡、效率与公平的平衡以及规则的灵活性与可预见性的平衡为视角,审视国际商事仲裁中的证据问题。本文除引言和结语外,共有七章,二十万多字。
第一章,“国际商事仲裁证据规则的编纂与发展趋势”。其一,本章探讨了国际商事仲裁证据规则的渊源具有多元性和多层次性。其二,它阐释了在国际商事仲裁领域,专门仲裁证据规则的编纂逐渐受到重视,其中尤其是国际律师协会(IBA)1999年制订的《IBA证据规则》具有里程碑意义,为国际商事仲裁证据规则的国际化与协调化作出巨大贡献。国际商事仲裁证据规则的编纂出现了软法化趋势,现存的证据规则主要是以软法形式编纂的专门仲裁证据规则。其三,由于国际商事仲裁领域存在着反对制订仲裁证据规则的观点,本章进一步反思了国际商事仲裁是否需要专门的证据规则。最后,从整体上看,各种渊源的仲裁证据规则出现了协调化趋势。
第二章,“国际商事仲裁中证据规则的确定与适用”。其一,本章阐述了当事人和仲裁庭在确定与适用仲裁证据规则中的作用;其二,它探讨了当事人和仲裁庭确定证据规则的自由的界限。它受到仲裁程序准据法的强制性规则,其中主要是正当程序条款的限制。另外,由于仲裁庭缺乏强制性权力,证据事项的处理离不开法院的介入,当事人和仲裁庭处理证据事项的自由也受到仲裁地法院规则的影响。其三,它论述了为什么国内证据法不应严格适用于国际商事仲裁,同时论证了在客观上仲裁参与人所在各国国内证据法仍然对该国国际商事仲裁证据规则的确定与适用产生巨大影响。其四,它以《IBA证据规则》为例论述了国际商事仲裁证据软法所发挥的作用,尽管大多仲裁没有明确约定适用《IBA证据规则》,《IBA证据规则》仍然对国际商事仲裁证据规则的确定与适用产生一定影响。
第三章,“国际商事仲裁中书证的出示”。书证尤其是同期书证已被许多仲裁界人士认可为最重要的证据形式,而书证的出示是不同法律文化之间存在冲突比较大的领域之一。
其一,本章论述了国际商事仲裁中书证出示的一般问题,包括不同的书证来源对书证出示的影响与产生的问题,书证出示时间问题,以及书证出示涉及的保密性问题。其二,它讨论了国际商事仲裁中仲裁庭要求当事人进行书证出示的权力以及出示的范围和条件。它在阐释了两大法系在书证出示方面存在着较大的法律文化冲突的基础上,重点探讨了国际商事仲裁中仲裁庭命令当事人出示其持有的书证的出示,并阐述了以《IBA证据规则》为代表的国际标准化实践中,仲裁庭依当事人请求或自行命令另一方当事人进行书证出示的范围和条件。另外,还探讨了当事人拒绝执行出示书证的命令的救济。其三,它进一步探讨电子文件的出示问题。随着现代商业中电子技术的普遍应用,大量证据是以电子文件的形式生成,电子文件具有容易复制和修改、难以彻底删除等特点,而且电子文件的出示造成更为沉重的成本和负担,尽管国际商事仲裁书证出示的基本原则同样适用于电子文件的出示,这仍然对国际商事仲裁实践带来一些新的问题;继而探讨了电子文件的“出示范围”、“费用承担”、“出示形式”等一系列问题。
第四章,“国际商事仲裁中言辞证据的提供”,涉及言辞证据包括证人证言、专家证据的准备与提供,它是不同法律文化之间冲突比较大的另一领域。其一,本章阐述了在国际商事仲裁一般实践中,证人的提供、证人书面证言、以及证人出庭作证等方面不同法律文化的冲突与融合。其二,它探讨了专家证人的资格,仲裁庭在指定专家证人的自由裁量权,行使该权力是否、以及什么情况下会违反正当程序,书面和口头专家证据的准备与提供。其三,它分析了两种专家证人模式各自的利弊,在国际商事仲裁中如何克服相应弊端,以及两种模式共存的原因。
第五章,“国际商事仲裁取证的法院协助”。仲裁庭不具有强制性权力,当对方当事人或第三人拒绝提供仲裁所需证据时,法院是否能提供有效的协助成为关键,这直接关系到相关案件在事实认定上的准确性,甚至影响仲裁地作为国际商事仲裁中心的声誉。
其一,本章论述了国际商事仲裁取证的法院协助的一般理论问题,涉及作为法院提供协助的理论基础即国际商事仲裁的性质、国际商事仲裁取证需要法院介入的必要性,各国支持仲裁的政策与理念,以及法院协助国际商事仲裁取证制度的价值取向。其二,它梳理了各国法院对本国国际商事仲裁中取证协助问题上的立场,得出大多国家为国际商事仲裁取证提供协助的基本事实,并对各国相关制度的基本内容与特点进行了总结和分析;其三,它梳理了一些国家的法院对外国仲裁取证是否提供协助的立场,事实上只有少数国家明确支持,也有一些国家的立场模糊不清或摇摆不定,大多数国家对此仍持观望态度。近几年有些国家开始改变立场,呈现出了一种国际趋势,即国内法院越来越多地为外国仲裁提供取证协助。最后,本章又进一步对国际上各国国内法院在协助外国仲裁取证的总体现状进行了理论分析,并提出展望和设想。
第六章,“国际商事仲裁中证据的审查认定”。证据的审查与认定是作出公正裁决的关键环节,在仲裁与诉讼中都是如此。但国际商事仲裁与诉讼在证据审查认定的立法与实践存在比较大的差别。
其一,本章论述了在国际商事仲裁中,仲裁庭对证据的相关性、可采性以及重要性上享有广泛的自由裁量,不需要严格适用各国尤其是普通法国家繁杂的可采性规则,并针对国际商事仲裁中一些具体的证据可采性问题结合国际实践进行了探讨。其二,论述了作为国际商事仲裁实践中的难题的特免权问题。各国普遍承认对特免权的保护,但特免权的种类与范围各有差异甚至同一法系内部也各不相同。另外,对于国际商事仲裁中特免权的性质识别,理论上存在着各种观点。本章认为应当认定特免权具有双重属性。另外基于国际商事仲裁中的法律适用因联结点众多,涉及多个国家的法律,它提出各种法律选择方法,比如复合保护标准;“最惠国原则”,合同约定方法,统一标准方法等等。另外,鉴于证据或信息是否受特免权保护需要先对其内容进行审查认定,而如何进行审查也是仲裁实践中面临的一个问题,处理不当会导致正当程序的违反。它介绍了重要的一种认定方法,即通过委托中立的第三人进行审查并由后者向仲裁庭提供报告。其三,它探讨了在国际商事仲裁中证据的证明力问题,它应当交由仲裁庭自由裁量,而不是事先确定,这与一些大陆法国家采取的“法定证据制度”不同。而关于证据采信标准,即证明标准,论述了对于国际商事仲裁而言,“盖然性权衡”或“优势证据”相比而言是适合的证明标准,除非在特殊案中,比如欺诈、贿赂等情形,可以要求更高的盖然性。其四,在国际商事仲裁中,进行不利推定是仲裁庭认定案件事实的程序“工具”。本章对国际商事仲裁中的不利推定涉及的以下问题进行了详细论述:仲裁庭进行不利推定的权力依据是什么?进行不利推定须要具备什么条件?是否以及什么情况下可以针对第三人的不配合行为进行不利推定?仲裁庭的自由裁量权的界限在哪里?
第七章,“我国国际商事仲裁中的证据问题”,审视了我国国际商事仲裁中的证据规则的确定与适用,从整体特征到具体问题,通过与国际化实践进行比较,
发现不足,并提出建议。其一,本章从证据规则和仲裁实践两个层面整体审视我国国际商事仲裁中证据事项处理的现状与问题。在阐释我国国际商事仲裁证据规则的确定与适用中存在的严重的“诉讼化”与“本地化”倾向的基础上,分析了其中主要的原因,并针对这些原因提出对策与建议。其二,它阐述了在我国国际商事仲裁实践中,证据的收集与提供方面存在的诸多不足。其三,它介绍了我国立法在法院协助国际商事仲裁取证方面存在的重大缺失,并提出在借鉴各国立法经验的基础上,构建我国的仲裁取证的法院协助制度。其四,它针对在证据的审查认定方面我国国际商事仲裁实践与理论中的问题,提出我国仲裁界人士应该明智地摆脱不合适宜的法律文化的桎梏,在证据的审查认定方面借鉴国际化实践,尤其应当认可国际商事仲裁中的特免权。
国际商事仲裁中的证据是近几年国际仲裁界研究的热点问题,而我国学者相关的论述还不够充分。本文以国际商事仲裁的效率与公平、法律文化以及规则的灵活性与可预见性的冲突与平衡为视角,通过理论分析与实证分析相结合、比较分析等方法对国际商事仲裁中的证据问题进行研究,并试图为我国国际商事仲裁中的证据规则的确定与适用提供理论指导,以实现我国仲裁的国际化,进一步提升我国作为国际商事仲裁中心的地位。
International commercial arbitration now becomes an important, even the most preferred method of dispute resolution. Since evidentiary issues relate to the result of the award directly, they are important to any mechanism of dispute settlement including international commercial arbitration. The legislation on arbitration in almost every country provides just a few provisions on evidence, and such is the case with great majority of the institutional rules. Thus the tribunals play an important role in determining the evidentiary rules in international arbitral practice.
To determine the rules of evidence in international commercial arbitration properly, several relationships should be handled and balanced very well. First, the participants in international commercial arbitration come from different countries with different legal cultures. One of the key issues to be resovled in determining evidentiary rules properly is how to balance the different legal cultures. Secondly, as to the relationships between efficiency and fairness of international commercial arbitration, there exist conflicting viewpoints. It is necessary to balance their relationship in practice. Otherwise, the parties to international transactions will lose the confidence for international commercial arbitration, because efficiency and fairness of international commercial arbitration are both important factors considered when they choose arbitration other litigation. Thirdly, flexibility is the spirit of international commercial arbitration. However, the lack of fundamental predictability and un-availablity of protection for reasonable expectation will disappoint the parties to arbitration. Thus, many specific arbitral rules of evidence have been compiled, and they play a more and more important role in international arbital practice. Balancing the relationship between flexibility and predictability, different legal cultures, and efficiency and fairness properly are the preconditions to wide acceptance of the arbitral rules of evidence.
So, the thesis makes a research on evidence in international commercial arbitration from the perspective of balancing the relationships mentioned above. The thesis sets out in seven parts, besides the introduction and conclusions, with more than 200 thousands of Chinese characters.
Chapter I, the Compilation and Its Tendency of Evidentiary Rules in International Commercial Arbitration. First, it discusses the sources and characters of evidentiary rules in international commercial arbitration, and then it illustrates that more and more attention was paid on the compilation of specific evidentiary rules in international commercial arbitration, among which IBA Rules is one of such successful examples. In fact, these rules take the form of soft law. Following that, due to the hot debate on the necessity of evidentiary rules in international arbitration, it explores the reasons for compilation of those rules. In the end, it makes a further study on the tendency of development of these evidentiary rules of international arbitration, namely they become harmonized to a very large extent.
Chapter II, the Determination and Application of Evidentiary Rules in International Commercial Arbitration. First, it introduces the role that the parties and the tribunal play in determining the evidentiary rules in international commercial arbitration. Secondly, it discusses the limit of the freedom enjoyed by the parties and the tribunal in determining the evidentiary rules in international commercial arbitration. One of them is mandatory rules of the law governing the arbitral procedure, and the other is the rules on whether the court provides assistance in taking evidence for international commercial arbitration. Thirdly, it discusses why evidence law should not be applied strictly in international commercial arbitration, but illustrates that the legal cultures of the participants have a really great impact on the determination of evidentiary rules in international commercial arbitration. Finally, it illustrates that international soft law of evidence in the example of IBA Rules plays an important role in the practice of international commercial arbitration, even if the parties don’t agree to the applicability of IBA Rules explicitely.
Chapter III, Document Production in International Commercial Arbitration. It first introduces the general issues on documents production, and then emphasizes that the US-syle discovery should be not apppicable to international commercial arbitration for the reason of efficiency, and finally discusses the tribunal’s power of ordering the parties to produce unfavorable documents and the scope and requirements of document production. Moreover, it introduces the remedies a party to arbitration may obtain in case of the parties and the third parties’refusal to produce the required documents. Following that, it covers the issue of disclosure of e-documents. It make and description of attributes of e-document and the potential problems and chanlenges they bring about to international commercial arbitration, and further explores such issues as the scope of e-document production, the form of e-document production, and the burden of costs. In light of the unmature practice of e-doucment production, it is submitted that the rules of e-document production should be determined by the parties’agreement, or by the tribunal consulting with the parties as soon as the arbitral procedure begins.
Chapter IV, Presentation of Oral Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration. First, it illustrates the cultural harmonization in the aspects of presentation of witness, written statement, and witness’s attending evidentiary hearings in international arbitral procedures. Secondly, it discusses the issues such as qualification of expert, the discretion of the tribunal to designate experts, the due process relating to expert’s discretion, expert report and expert witness’s examination. Thirdly, it analyzes the reasons why party-designated expert and tribunal-designated expert co-exist, their advantages and disadvantages, the way to choose the mode and overcome their disadvantages in context of international commercial arbitration.
Chapter V, National Court’s Assistance in Taking Evidence for International Commercial Arbitration. Because the arbitral tribunals have no coercive power, and in case of non-cooperation of the parties or the third parties to produce the required evidence, whether or not the national court’s assistance could be sought is very important for the reason that the material evidence un-available affects the accuracy of awards, even the country’s reputation as seat of arbitration. First, it discusses the fundamental theories on national court’s assistance in taking evidence for international commercial arbitration, such as the nature of international commercial arbitration, the shortages of arbitral tribunal’s power, the general tendency of pro-arbitration policy implemented world-widely. Secondly, it introduces the positions of different countries on national court’s assistance in taking evidence for international commercial arbitration conducted domestically, and reaches a conclusion that most countries admit such judicial assistance, and analyzes the characters of the rules of those countries on court’s assistance. Thirdly, it makes a further study on the positions of different countries on national court’s assistance in taking evidence for foreign arbitration, reaches a conclusion that just a few countries hold a clear position to support foreign arbitration in the aspect of taking evidence, further analyzes the reasons and puts forward to some proposals.
Chapter VI, Admissibility and Assessment of Evidence in International commercial arbitration. First, it discusses the tribunal’s discretion in determining the relevance and admissibility of evidence, and why there is no necessity of considering the complex rules on Evidence of admissibility in common countries. Secondly, it covers the issue of privilege, which is recognized world-widely. it discusses the categories and nature of privilege, explores the approach to determine the applicable law to privilege, such as the closest connection principle, contract approach, uniform approach, the most favorable nation approach, and introduces a method to identify whether the information is protected by privilege, i.e., appointing a neutral expert, whose mission is to provide expert report to the parties and the tribunal, to check the information. Thirdly, it discusses the tribunal’s discretion in determining the materiality and weight of evidence, and the standard of proof in international commercial arbitration. Fourthly, since drawing adverse inference is a procedural tool to make clear the disputed fact, it discusses the following questions: what is the source of the tribunal’s power of drawing adverse inference? What requirements should be met in drawing adverse inference? Whether and in what circumstances adverse inference could be drawn against the third party? Where is the limit of the tribunal’s discretion in drawing adverse inference?
Chapter VII, the Evidentiary Issues in Chinese International Arbitration. It first introduces the status and the problems on the rule-making and related practice on evidence in Chinese international arbitration, then illustrates that the the phenomenon of judicialisation and localization exiting in determining and applying evidentiary rules in Chinese international arbitration, analyzes the main reasons, and puts forward to the countermeasures and proposals.
It then illustrates the problems existing in the aspects of gathering and presenting evidence, after that, it introduces the defect existing in Chinese legislation on the court’s assistance in taking evidence for international commercial arbitration, and puts forward to some proposals on establishment of rules on court’s assistance in taking evidence for international commercial arbitration. Finally, as to the admissibility and assessment of evidence, it suggests that the arbitral practice should not be influenced too much by Chinese litigation. Moreover, as to the standard of proof, preponderance of evidence should be applied, and proof in a convincing manner is not applicable in Chinese international arbitration, like that in civil litigation.
While the evidence in international commercial arbitration is a hot-debated issue in the field of international commercial arbitration in recent years, it is still not paid enough attention in China. The present thesis makes a comparative study on the issue of evidence in international commercial arbitration, in both theoretical and empirical approach, and in the perspective of balancing the relationship between efficiency and fairness, between the different legal cultures, and between flexibility and predictability, and aims to provide guidance for the practice of evidentiary matters in Chinese international arbitration, and to promote the status of China as center of international arbitration with good reputation.
引文
1、韩德培、韩健著:《美国国际私法导论》,法律出版社1991年版。
2、[英]艾伦·雷德芬等著:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版。
3、[瑞]费恩·迈德森:《瑞典商事仲裁(第三版)》,李虎、顾华宁译,法律出版社2008年版。
4、于喜富著:《国际商事仲裁的司法监督与协助——兼论中国的立法与司法实践》,知识产权出版社2006年版。
5、汪祖兴著:《国际商会仲裁研究》,法律出版社2005年版。
6、赵秀文著:《国际商事仲裁及其适用法律研究》,法律出版社2002年版。
7、丁颖著:《美国商事仲裁制度研究》,武汉大学出版社2007年版。
8、谢新胜著:《国际商事仲裁程序法的适用》,中国检察出版社2009年版。
9、[美]米尔建·达马斯卡:《漂移的证据法》,李学军等译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
10、杨良宜著:《英美证据法》,法律出版社2003年版。
11、周湘雄著:《英美专家证人制度研究》,中国检察出版社2006年版。
12、韩波著:《民事证据开示制度研究》,中国人民大学出版社2005年版。
13、吴丹红著:《特免权制度研究》,北京大学出版社2008年版。
14、何家弘,刘品新著:《证据法学》,法律出版社2004年版。
15、张友好著:《书证收集与程序保障》,中国检查出版社2010年版。
16、纪格非著:《证据能力论——以民事诉讼为视角的研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2005年版。
17、尹伟民著:《国际民事诉讼中证据能力问题研究》,法律出版社2008年版。
1、韩德培主编:《国际私法问题专论》,武汉大学出版社2004年版。
2、刘晓红主编:《国际商事仲裁专题研究》,法律出版社2009年版。
3、乔欣主编:《比较商事仲裁》,法律出版社2004年版。
4、赵秀文主编:《国际商事仲裁法》,中国人民大学出版社2008年版。
5、赵秀文主编:《国际商事仲裁法》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
6、张斌生主编:《仲裁法新论(第三版)》,厦门大学出版社2008年版。
7、张卫平主编:《外国民事证据制度研究》,清华大学出版社2003年版。
8、何家弘主编:《证据法学研究》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
1、刘晓红:《从国际商事仲裁证据制度的一般特质看我国涉外仲裁证据制度的完善》,载《政治与法律》2009年第5期。
2、宋朝武:《仲裁证据的非诉化及其路径选择》,载《河南社会科学》2010年第3期。
3、姜霞:《论仲裁证据制度的独立性》,载《湘潭大学学报》2007年第5期。
4、汪祖兴:《民事诉讼证据规则与仲裁证据规则的差异性解读》,载《广东社会科学》2005年第4期。
5、吴定喜,林浩,陈艳恩:《国际商务仲裁中当事人应如何选择证据收集规则》,载《天中学刊》2001年第6期。
6、范铭超、陆佩华:《商事仲裁中构建专家证人制度的若干关键问题》,载《求索》2007年第1期。
7、范铭超:《论我国商事仲裁中构建专家证人制度》,载《法治论丛》2005年第1期。
8、杜开林:《对一起仲裁证据保全案的评析—兼论现行仲裁证据保全法律规定的不足》,载《法律适用》2003年第5期。
9、周清华,古俊峰,戴晨:《寻求平衡—国际商事仲裁秘密性问题研究》,载《大连海事大学学报》2005年第2期。
10、何家弘:《证据的审查与认定原理论纲》,载《法学家》2008年第3期。
11、汤维建:《达马斯卡证据法思想初探》,载《甘肃政法学院学报》2005年第3期。
12、尹伟民:《域外证据的特别证明程序探析》,载《大连海事大学学报》2007年第1期。
13、汤维建、陈巍:《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定的创新与不足》,载《法商研究》2005年第3期。
14、黄松有:《证据开示制度比较研究》,载《政法论坛》2000年第5期。
15、[美]L.S.温伯格,J.W.温伯格:《论美国的法律文化》,载《法学译丛》1985年第1期。
1、丁伟:《论国际商事仲裁与国际民事诉讼法律适用的主要区别》,载《仲裁研究》(第2辑),法律出版社2004年版。
2、杨良宜,杨大明:《国际商事仲裁中的证据—问题领域与最新发展》,载《中国海商法年刊》(第13卷),法律出版社2003年版。
3、毕玉谦:《证据规则在仲裁实践中的运用(上)》,载《北京仲裁》(第52辑),法制出版社2004年版。
4、毕玉谦:《证据规则在仲裁实践中的运用(下)》,载《北京仲裁》(第53辑),法制出版社2004年版。
5、陈忠谦:《试析民商事仲裁中的证据制度》,载《仲裁研究》(第16辑),法律出版社2008年。
6、王小莉:《仲裁语境下域外证据之认定》,在《仲裁研究》(第19辑),法律出版社2009年版。
7、王学权:《从办案秘书的视角看仲裁庭审若干细节问题》,载《北京仲裁》(第72辑),法制出版社2010年版。
8、齐玎:《仲裁程序中的证据认证规则初探》,载《仲裁研究》(第18辑),法律出版社2009年版。
1、王琴:《国际商事仲裁证据规则及其完善》,中国政法大学学位论文,2011年。
2、赵琳:《我国国际商事仲裁领域域外证据的取得与证明》,中国政法大学学位论文,2010年。
3、杨丽萍:《国际商事仲裁证据开示制度研究》,外交学院硕士学位论文,2010年。
4、王菁:《国际商事仲裁证据规则若干问题研究》,外交学院硕士学位论文,2009年。
5、许振东:《论国际商事仲裁中证据规则的运用及完善》,上海交通大学硕士学位论文,2008年。
6、陈纬人:《国际商务仲裁证据法则与其所涉仲裁判断之承认及执行》,台湾大学硕士论文,2008年。
7、赵宗钰:《国际商事仲裁证据问题研究》,中国海洋大学硕士学位论文,2007年。
8、王佳:《国际商事仲裁中的证据规则与事实》,山东大学硕士学位论文,2006年。
9、李红海:《国际商事仲裁证据制度若干问题研究》,中国政法大学硕士学位论文,2005年。
10、谢菁菁:《国际商事仲裁中的证据》,中国人民大学硕士学位论文,2004年。
11、徐鹏:《国际商事仲裁证据程序模式研究》,武汉大学硕士学位论文,2003年。
12、张红智:《社会主义市场经济条件下民商事仲裁证据规则的完善》,中国海洋大学硕士学位论文,2003年。
1、中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会历年工作报告,http://cn.cietac.org/AboutUS/AboutUS.shtml (访问日期:2011年10月1日)。
2、梁慧星:《关于对仲裁机构实行税收优惠政策的建议》, http://www.iolaw.org.cn/showNews.asp?id=26162, (访问日期:2011年10月1日)。
1. Ali Yesilirmak, Provisional Measures In International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2005.
2. Bruce Harris, Rowan Planterose &Jonathan Tecks, The Arbitration Act 1996, a Commentary (4th Ed.), Blackwell Science (UK), 2007.
3. Jerome A. Cohen et al., Arbitration in China: a practical guide, Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2004.
4. Craig, Park and Paulsson, International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2000.
5. Christoph Liebscher, The healthy awards, Kluwer Law International, 2003
6. David D. Caron AT. AL., the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: a Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006.
7. Domenico Di Pietro and Martin Plate, Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards, 2001.
8. Gary B.Born, International commercial Arbitration: Commentary and Materials, Kluwer Law International, 2001.
9. Georgios Petrochilos, Procedural law in international arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2004.
10. Henri C.Alvarez, Model Law Decisions: Cases Applying the Uncitral Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2003.
11. Jean-Louis delvolve, French arbitration Law and Practice, Kluwer Law International, 2003.
12. Julian D M Lew QC, Loukas A Mistelis, Stefan M Kroll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2003.
13. Margaret L. Moses, The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
14. Martin Odams De Zylva, Reziya Harrison, International commercial arbitration: developing rules for the new millennium, Jordans Publishing Limited, 2000.
15. Mauro Rubino-Sammartano, International Arbitration Law and Practice, Citic Publishing House, 2003.
16. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues: a Study on Evidence before International Tribunals, Kluwer Law International, 1996.
17. Philippe Fouchard et al., Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration, Citic Publishing House, 2004.
18. Pieter Sanders, Quo Vadis Arbitration? -sixty Years of ArbitrationPractice---A Comparative Study, Kluwer Law International, 1999.
19. Sutton, Kendall and Gill,Russell on Arbitration, Sweet & Maxwell, 1997.
20. Tibor Varady, International commercial arbitration: a transnational perspective, Thomson/West, 2006.
21. Yves Derains and Eric A. Schwartz, A Guide to the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2nd ed.), Kluwer Law International, 2005.
22. SI Strong, Research and Practice in International Commercial Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2009.
23. Jean-Francois Poudret & Sébastien Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration (2d ed.) , Sweet & Maxwell, 2007.
1. Albert Jan Van Den Berg ed., Planning Efficient Arbitration Proceedings, Kluwer Law International, 1996.
2. Albert Jan Van Den Berg ed., International Arbitration 2006: Back to Basics? Kluwer, 2007
3. Laurent Levy, V.V. Veeder ed., Arbitration and Oral Evidence, ICC Publishing S.A., 2005.
4. Stefan N.Frommel, Conflicting Legal Cultures in Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 1999.
5. Peter V. Eijsvoogel ed., Evidence in International Arbitration Proceedings, Young Lawyers International, 1994.
6. Albert Jan Van Den Berg ed., Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards, Kluwer Law International, 1999.
7. Teresa Giovannini and Alexis Mourre, Written Evidence and Discovery in International Arbitration: New Issues and Tendencies, ICC Publishing S.A.,2009.
8. G.M.Beresford Hartwell ed., The Commercial Way to Justice, Kluwer Law International, 1997.
9. David J Howell ed., Electronic Disclosure in International Arbitration, Juris Publishing, 2008.
10. David D. Caron & Jonh R.Crook ed., The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and The Process of International Claims Resolution, Transnational Publisher, 2000.
11. Rufus V. Rhoades, Daniel M. Kolkey, Richard Chernick, ed., Practitioner’sHandbook on International Arbitration and Mediation, 2007.
12. Ste′phane Nahrath and Fre′de′ric Varone ed., Rediscovering Public Lawand Public Administration in Comparative Policy Analysis: A Tribute to Peter Knoepfel, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 2009.
13. Steven V. Berti et al., ed., International Arbitration in Switzerland, Kluwer Law International/Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 2000.
14. John Fellas ed., International Business Litigation & Arbitration (PLI Litig. & Admin. Practice, Course Handbook Series No. 704), 2003.
1. Anna Conley, A New World Discovery: The Ramifications of Two Recent Federal Courts’Decisions Granting Judicial Assistance to Arbitral Tribunals Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1782, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol. 17, 2006.
2. Bagner H. Confidentiality: A Fundamental Principle in International Commercial Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 18, 2001.
3. Bradley J. Freedman and Gregory N. Harney, Obtaining Evidence from Canada: the Enforcement of Letters Rogatory by Canadian Courts, U.B.C. Law Review, Vol. 21, 1987.
4. Bruce A. McAllister and Amy Bloom, the Use of Evidence in Admiralty Proceedings: Evidence in Arbitration, J. Mar. L. & Com., Vol. 34, 2003.
5. Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008.
6. C.Chatterjee, The Reality of The Party Autonomy Rule In international arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol.20 (6), 2003.
7. Cher Seat Dever, Electronic Discovery /Disclosure: From Litigation to International Arbitration, Arbitration, Vol.74, 2008.
8. Craig Tevendale and Ula Cartwright-Finch, Privilege in International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 26, 2009.
9. David T. Stowell and Adam K. Treiger, Contract Provisions for Evidence Rulings in Arbitration, Los Angeles Lawyer, Vol. 22,1999.
10. David T. Stowell and Adam K. Treiger, Preparing against unfavorable evidentiary rulings in arbitration, Los Angeles Lawyer, Vol. 22,1999.
11. E.D.D. Tavender Q.C., Considerations of Fairness in the Context of Internatioanl Commercial Arbitrations, Alberta Law Review, Vol. 34, 1996.
12. Elena V. Helmer,International Commercial Arbitration: Americanized, Civilized, or Harmonized, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., Vol. 19, 2003.
13. Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Globalization of arbitral procedure,Vand. J. Transnat'l L., Vol. 36, 2003.
14. Gabtielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Soft Law in International Arbitration: Codification and Normativity, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 1, 2010.
15. George M. Von Mehren and Claudia T.Salomon, Submitting Evidence in an International Arbitration: The Common Lawyer’s Guide, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 20, 2003.
16. Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, The Production of Documents in International arbitration– A Commentary on Article 3 of the New IBA Rules of Evidence, 18 Arbitration International, Vol. 18, 2002.
17. Javier H. Rubinstein and Britton B. Guerrina, The Attorney-Client Privilege and International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol.18 (6), 2001.
18. Jerome A. Cohen, Time to Fix China’s Arbitration, Far Eastern Economic Rev., Vol. 168, 2005.
19. Klaus Peter Berger, Evidentiary Privileges: Best Practice Standards versus/ and Arbitral Discretion, Arb. Int., Vol. 22, 2006.
20. Klaus Peter Berger, The International Arbitrator’s Dilemma: Transnational Procedure versus Home Jurisdiction, Arbitration International, Vol. 25, 2009.
21. Lawrence W. Newman, International Arbitration Hearings: Showdown or Denouement?Tul. J. Int’l & Comp.L., Vol. 5, 1997.
22. Kaufmann-Kohler and B?rtsch, discovery in international arbitration: how much is too much, Schieds VZ, Heft 1, 2004.
23. Lucy Reed & Jonathan Sutcliffe, The“Americanization”of International Arbitration? Mealey's Int'l Arb. Rep., Vol. 16, 2001.
24. Michael Bühler and Carroll Dorgan, Witness Testimony Pursuant to 1999 IBA rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration,Vol., 17(1), 2000.
25. Michael E. Schneider, Technical Experts in International Arbitration,Association Suisse de l’arbitrage Bulletin, Vol.3, 1993.
26. Michael Penny, Letters of Request: Will a Canadian Court Enforce a Letter of Request from an International Arbitral Tribunal? Am. Rev. Int’l. Arb., Vol. 12, 2001.
27. Nicolas C. Ulmer, A Comment on "The 'Americanization' of International Arbitration?," Mealey's Int'l Arb. Rep., Vol.16, 2001.
28. Nana Japaridze, Reconciling the Pursuit of Fairness and Justice with Preserving the Nature of International Commercial Arbitration, Hofstra L. Rev., Vol.36, 2008.
29. Nathalie Voser and Anna Katharina Mueller, Appointment of Experts by the Arbitral Tribunal: the Civil Law Perspective, Bus. L. Int'l, Vol.7, 2006.
30. Nathan D. O'Malley and Shawn C. Conway, Document Discovery in International Arbitration: Getting the Documents You Need, Transnat'l Law, Vol.18, 2005.
31. Nathan D. O’Malley, The Procedural Rules Governing the Production of Documentary Evidence in International Arbitration, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol.8, 2009.
32. Norah Gallagher, Legal Privilege in International Arbitration, International Arbitration Law Review, Issue 2, 2003.
33. Osamu Inoue, The Due Process Defense to Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.11, 2000.
34. Paul D. Friedland & Lucy Martinez, Arbitral Subpoenas under U.S. Law and Practice, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.14, 2003.
35. P.D. O’Neill, The Power of Arbitrators to Award Monetary Sanctions for Discovery Abuse, Dispute Resolution J. Vol. 60, 2006.
36. Peter Ashford, Documentary Discovery and International Commercial Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.17, 2006.
37. Piero Bernaradini, Role of International Arbitrator, Arbitration International, Vol. 20, 2004.
38. Reinmar Wolff, Judicial Assistance By German Courts In Aid of International Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.19, 2008.
39. Richard M. Mosk and Tom Ginsburg,Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Int’l & Comp.L.Q., Vol. 50, 2001.
40. Rolf Trittmann and Boris Kasolowsky, Taking Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings between Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, UNSW Law Journal, Vol. 31, 2008.
41. Robert A. Weiner and B. Ted Howes,Arbitration discover: When should discovery provisions be included in an arbitration agreement? Disp. Resol. Mag., Vol.5, 1999.
42. Roger Paul Alford, The American Influence on International Arbitration, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol.19, 2003.
43. Ruth Fenton, A Civil Matter for a Common Expert: How Should Parties and Tribunals Use Experts in International Commercial Arbitration, Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J., Vol.6, 2006.
44. Siegfried H. Elsing and John M. Townsend, bridging the common law civil law divide in arbitration, Arbitration International, Vol.18 (1), 2002.
45. Sharpe, Jeremy K., Drawing Adverse Inferences from the Non-production of Evidence, Arbitration International, Vol.22, 2006.
46. The IBA Working Party, Commentary on the New IBA Rules of Evidence, Business Law International, Issue2, 2000.
47. William W. Park, Arbitration's Protean Nature: The Value of Rules and the Risks of Discretion, Arb. Int'l, Vol.19, 2003.
48. LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009.
49. Tom Ginsburg, The culture of Arbitraiton, Vand.J. Transnational Law, Vol.36, 2003.
50. Susan L. Karamanian, Overstating the "Americanization" of International Arbitration: Lessons from ICSID, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., Vol.19, 2003.
51. Hans Bagner, Need for Rules of Evidence in International Arbitration, Int’l Bus. Law, Vol.25, 1997.
52. Fabian von Schlabrendorff,Ethical standards for arbitrators, hybrid proceedings, rules of transnational law: Are we moving towards a uniform law of international arbitration? Belgrade Law Review, Vol.57, 2009.
53. Richard W. Naimark & Stephanie E. Keer, International Private Commercial Arbitration: Expectationsand Perceptions of Attorneys and Business People, Int'l Bus. Law, Vol.30, 2002.
54. Jonathan L. Greenblatt and Peter Griffin, Towards the Harmonization of International Arbitration Rules: Comparative Analysis of the Rules of the ICC, AAA, LCIA and CIETAC, Arbitration International, Vol.17, 2001.
55. Richard Garnett, International Arbitration Law: Progress towards Harmonisation, Melb. J. Int'l L., Vol.3, 2002, p.406.
1. 1999 IBA Working Party & 2010 IBA Rules of Evidence Review Subcommittee, Commentary on the revised text of the 2010 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, Dispute Resolution International, May 2011, http://www.ibanet.org/Publications/DRI_online_May2011.aspx, Sep.1, 2011.
2. Emma Morales, Admissibility of evidence in arbitration proceedings, at http://www.twobirds.com/English/News/Articles/Pages/Admissibility_evidence_arbitration_proceedings.aspx, May 29, 2010.
3. RICS, The Role and Performance of the Expert Valuation Witness (1999), at http://www.rics.org/site/download_feed.aspx?fileID=2051&fileExtension=PDF, Sep. 29, 2010.
4. Ellis D Baker: The Expert in Dispute Resolution: a Common Law Perspective, at http://www.whitecase.com/ebaker/, Sep. 29, 2010.
5. Sasha Carbone, NYC Bar Association Report Suggests Best Practices for§1782 Discovery, Dispute Resolution Journal, Nov.-Jan., 2009, at http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/evidence-witnesses/11776109-1.html, Jan. 25, 2010.
6. John Beechey, The ICDR Guidelines for Information Exchanges in International Arbitration: An Important Addition to the Arbitral Toolkit, Dispute Resolution Journal, Aug-Oct 2008, at http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/labor-employment-law-alternative-dispute-resolution/11651108-1.html, Jun. 25, 2009.
7. Luke Nottage, The Procedural Lex Mercatoria: the Past, Present, and Future of International Commercial Arbitration, CDAMS Symposium, Kobe University, Sept.2003, p.21, at http://www.cdams.kobe-u.ac.jp/archive/dp03-1.pdf, May 8, 2009.
1. Minmetals Germany GmbH v. Ferco Steel [1999] 1 All ER 315
2. National Casualty Company v. First State Insurance Group,430 F.3d 492(1st Cir. 2005)
3. Commercial Solvents Corp. v. L.A. Liquid Fertilizer Co.,20 F.R.D. 359, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 1957).
4. Chevron Transportation Corp. v. Astro Vencedor Compania Naviera, 300 F. Supp. 179 (S.D.N.Y. 1969).
5. Gulf Coast Indus. Workers Union v. Exxon Co. USA, 70 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. 1995).
6. Hoteles Condado Beach v. Union of Tranquistes Local 901, 763 F.2d 34 (1st Cir. 1985).
7. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. McCullough, 764 F. Supp. 1365 (D. Ariz. 1991).
8. Terk Technologies Corp. v. Dockery, F. Supp. 2d 706 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
9. Intel v. Advanced Micro Devices, 542 U.S.241(2004).
10. Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann International, 168 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 1999).
11. NBC v. Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., 165 F.3d 184, 188-97 (2d Cir. 1999).
12. Germany v.Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce(1997), 31 O.R. (3d) 684
13. Nova Scotia v. Frame [1997] O.J. No. 5425
14. R. v. Zingre [1981] 2 S.C.R. 392
15. B.F. Jones Logistics Inc. v. Rolko [2004] O.J. No. 3518.
16. McCarthy v. Menin and United States Securities and Exchange Commission (1963), 2 O.R. 154
17. Commerce & Industries Co. of Canada v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London [2002] 2 All E.R. 204, 206 (Comm)
18. Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. v. Balfour Beatty Construct Ltd. [1993] A.C. 334 (H.L.)
19. Hussman(Europe)v. Al Ameen Development & Trade (2000) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 83(QBD(Comm. Ct).
20. CA Paris 25 Nov. 1999 Burkinabe des ciments et materiaux (CIMAT) v. Societe des ciments d’Abidjan (SCA)[2001] Rev Arb 165
21. Laminoirs-Trefileries-Cableries de Lens, S.A. (LTCL) v. Southwire Co., 484F. Supp. 1063, 1067 (N.D. Ga. 1980).
22. Generica Ltd. v. Pharmaceutical Basics, Inc. (PBI), 125 F.3d 1123, 1129-30 (7th Cir. 1997).
23. Harvey Alum. v. United Steelworkers of America, 263 F. Supp.488 (C. D. Cal. 1967).
24. Minmetals Germany GmbH v. Ferco Steel [1999] 1 All ER 315.
25. ABB AG. v. Hochtief Airport GmbH & Athens International Airport [2006] APP.L.R.
26. RosInvest Co UK Ltd v Russian Federation, SCC Case No.V079/2005 (2007).
27. Hussman v. Al Ameen, (2000) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 83.
28. Paklito Investment Ltd. v. Klockner East Asia Ltd. [1993] HKLR 39.
29. Ranko Group v. Antarctic Maritime [1998] ADRLN 35(QBD).
1参见联合国贸易法委员会《关于组织仲裁程序的说明》引言。
2 William W. Park, Arbitration's Protean Nature: The Value of Rules and the Risks of Discretion, Arb. Int'l, Vol.19, 2003, p.293.
1 Mauro Rubino-Sammartano, International Arbitration Law and Practice, Citic Publishing House, 2003, pp.56-59; SI Strong, Research and Practice in International Commercial Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 25-26.
1 Gabtielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Soft Law in International Arbitration: Codification and Normativity, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 1, 2010, p13.
2 See e.g., Fabian von Schlabrendorff,Ethical Standards for Arbitrators, Hybrid Proceedings, Rules of Transnational Law: Are We moving towards a Uniform Law of International Arbitration? Belgrade Law Review, Vol.57, 2009, p.104. 1999 IBA Working Party & 2010 IBA Rules of Evidence Review Subcommittee, Commentary on the revised text of the 2010 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, Dispute Resolution International May 2011, http://www.ibanet.org/Publications/DRI_online_May2011.aspx, Sep.1, 2011.
1 Arthur L. Marriott, Pros and Cons of More Detailed Arbitration Laws and Rules, in Planning Efficient Arbitration Proceedings (Albert Jan Van Den Berg ed., 1996), p.69.
2 Arthur L. Marriott, Pros and Cons of More Detailed Arbitration Laws and Rules, in Planning Efficient Arbitration Proceedings (Albert Jan Van Den Berg ed.,) 1996, p.69.
3 Arthur L. Marriott, Pros and Cons of More Detailed Arbitration Laws and Rules, in Planning Efficient Arbitration Proceedings, (Albert Jan Van Den Berg ed., 1996), pp.70-71.
4 John Fellas et al., Selected Materials in International Litigations and Arbitration, in John Fellas, International Business Litigation & Arbitration (PLI Litig. & Admin. Practice, Course Handbook Series No. 704), 2003, 1243.
5 William W. Park, Arbitration's Protean Nature: The Value of Rules and the Risks of Discretion, Arb. Int'l, Vol.19, 2003, p.288.
1 Hans Bagner, Need for Rules of Evidence in International Arbitration, Int’l Bus. Law, Vol.25, 1997, 178.
2 William W. Park, Arbitration's Protean Nature: The Value of Rules and the Risks of Discretion, Arb. Int'l, Vol.19, 2003, p.290.
1郭玉军:《经济全球化与法律协调化、统一化》,载《武汉大学学报》2001年第2期。
2宋连斌:《中国仲裁的国际化、本土化与民间化》,载《暨南学报》2006年第5期。另外参见Jonathan L. Greenblatt and Peter Griffin, Towards the Harmonization of International Arbitration Rules: Comparative Analysis of the Rules of the ICC, AAA, LCIA and CIETAC, Arbitration International, Vol.17, 2001,p.110.
1 Tom Ginsburg, The culture of Arbitraiton, Vand.J. Transnational Law, Vol.36, 2003, pp.1339-1344.
1《纽约公约》第5条第1款d项规定,“仲裁庭的组成或仲裁程序同当事人之间的协议不符,或者当事人间没有这种协议时,同进行仲裁的国家的法律不符……”,执行地法院可以拒绝承认与执行该仲裁裁决。
2 Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Staff, The commercial way to justice, Kluwer Law International, 1997, p.53.
3 Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Staff, The commercial way to justice, Kluwer Law International, 1997, pp.55-56.
1 Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Globalization of arbitral procedure,Vand. J. Transnat'l L., Vol. 36, 2003, p.1315.
2赵秀文著:《国际商事仲裁及其适用法律研究》,法律出版社2002年版,第96页。
3谢新胜著:《国际商事仲裁程序法的适用》,中国检察出版社2009版,第87页。
4 [瑞]费恩·迈德森:《瑞典商事仲裁(第三版)》,李虎、顾华宁译,法律出版社2008年版,第248页。
1谢新胜著:《国际商事仲裁程序法的适用》,中国检察出版社2009版,第109页。
1 David T. Stowell and Adam K. Treiger, Contract Provisions for Evidence Rulings in Arbitration, Los Angeles Lawyer, Vol.22, 1999, p.19.
1 Georgios Petrochios, Procedural Law in International Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp219-223.
1 Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Staff, The commercial way to justice, Kluwer Law International, 1997, p.69.
2 Piero Bernaradini, Role of International Arbitrator, Arbitration International, Vol. 20, 2004, p.121.
3 Piero Bernaradini, Role of International Arbitrator, Arbitration International, Vol. 20, 2004, p.120.
5《关于组织仲裁程序的说明》第7条至第9条。
6 Piero Bernaradini, Role of International Arbitrator, Arbitration International, Vol. 20, 2004, pp.116-117.
1 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第284页。
2 C.Chatterjee, The Reality of The Party Autonomy Rule In international arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol.20 (6), 2003, p.539.
3须要注意的是,《纽约公约》的这个条文中“进行仲裁的国家的法律”没有将仲裁地的强制性法律规则排除在外。
4 ICC1512/1971号仲裁,转引自谢新胜著:《国际商事仲裁程序法的适用》,中国检察出版社2009版,第112页。
1参见谢新胜著:《国际商事仲裁程序法的适用》,中国检察出版社2009版,第112页。
1 Ali Yesilirmak, Provisional Measures In International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2005, 102。
2朱克鹏著:《国际商事仲裁的法律适用》,法律出版社1999年版,第300页。
2 Osamu Inoue, The Due Process Defense to Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.11, 2000, pp.266-273.
1 Rolf Trittmann and Boris Kasolowsky, Taking Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings Between Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, UNSW Law Journal, Vol. 31, 2008, p.337.
1“Unless the parties any time agree otherwise in writing, the Arbitral Tribunal shall have the power:…(f) to decide whether to apply or not any strict rule of evidence (or any other rule) as to admissibility, relevance and weight of any material tendered by a party or any matter of fact or expert opinion”
1刘作翔著:《论法律文化》,载《法学研究》1988年第1期。
2 L.S.温伯格,J.W.温伯格:《论美国的法律文化》,载《法学译丛》1985年第1期。
3汤维建:《试论美国的民事诉讼法律文化》,载《法律科学》2000年第3期。
1 See e.g., Rechard H. Kreindler, Benefiting from oral testimony of expert witness, in Laurent Levy and V.V. Veeder, Arbitration and Oral Evidence, ICC Publishing S.A., 2005, p.88.
2 Mustill勋爵1976年发表的观点,参见Craig, Park and Paulsson, International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration, New York, 2000, p.423.
1 Nicolas C. Ulmer, A Comment on "The 'Americanization' of International Arbitration?," Mealey's Int'l Arb. Rep., Vol.16, 2001, p.24.
2 Roger Paul Alford, The American Influence on International Arbitration, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol.19, 2003, pp.80-83.
2 Susan L. Karamanian, Overstating the "Americanization" of International Arbitration: Lessons from ICSID, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., Vol.19, 2003, 34.
3 Elena V. Helmer, International Commercial Arbitration: Americanized, Civilized, or Harmonized, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., Vol. 19, 2003,pp.66-67.
1 Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Globalization of arbitral procedure, Vand. J. Transnat'l L., Vol. 36, 2003, p.1324.
2 Unpublished, ICC No. 14082, Procedural Order No.1.
3 RosInvest Co UK Ltd v Russian Federation, SCC Case No.V079/2005 (2007).
4 Marc Blessing, Introduction to Arbitration– Swiss and International Perspectives, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 2000, p. 288.
5 Alexandre Flu¨ckiger,‘Why Do We Obey Soft Law?’in Ste′phane Nahrath and Fre′de′ric Varone (eds), Rediscovering Public Law and Public Administration in Comparative Policy Analysis: A Tribute to Peter Knoepfel, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 2009, pp.45–62.
1 Nathan D. O’Malley, The Procedural Rules Governing the Production of Documentary Evidence in International Arbitration, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol.8, 2009,p.36; Gabtielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Soft Law in International Arbitration: Codification and Normativity, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 1, 2010, p14.
2 Jean-Francois Poudret & Sébastien Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration (2d ed.), Sweet & Maxwell, 2007, p.553.“[The IBA Rules] will not only have a bearing in the arbitral proceedings but also at a later stage when the award is subject to judicial review.”
3 X. v. A., Decision of 28 March 2007, ASA Bulletin, Vol.25(3),2007, pp. 610–617.关于该案例,另参见Marc Blessing, Introduction to Arbitration– Swiss and International Perspectives, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 2000, p. 288.
1 ABB AG. v. Hochtief Airport GmbH & Athens International Airport [2006] APP.L.R.
2 Bruce Harris, Rowan Planterose &Jonathan Tecks, The Arbitration Act 1996 (4th Ed.), a Commentary, Blackwell Science (UK), 2007, pp.166–167; ABB AG. v. Hochtief Airport GmbH & Athens International Airport [2006] APP.L.R., p.388 and 390.
1 Cher Seat Dever, Electronic Discovery /Disclosure: From Litigation to International Arbitration, Arbitration, Vol.74, 2008, p.382.
2有观点认为,《ICC仲裁规则》的该条规定体现了职权主义。Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Staff, The commercial way to justice, Kluwer Law International, 1997, 60.
3 Minmetals Germany GmbH v. Ferco Steel[1999] 1 All ER 315.
1 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第318页。
2 Carters (Merchants) Ltd. (UK) v. Francesco Ferraro (Italy)) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration IV (1979), pp.275-279.
1 P v. F Oberlandesgericht [Court of Apeal] Hamburg, 3 April 1975. 2 Yearbook. Comm. Arb’n 241(1977)转引自Tibor Varady, John J. Barcelo III, Arthur T. von Mehren, International commercial arbitration, west group, 1999, 418.
2 See e.g. CA Paris 18 January 1983 Sporprom Service v. Polyfrance Immo [1984] Rev Arb 87 with note by Mayer.
3 Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, The Production of Documents in International arbitration: A Commentary on Article
3 of the New IBA Rules of Evidence, 18 Arbitration International, Vol. 18, 2002, p.412.
1 Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, The Production of Documents in International arbitration– A Commentary on Article
3 of the New IBA Rules of Evidence, 18 Arbitration International, Vol. 18, 2002, pp.525-426.
1《IBA证据规则》前言第3款。
2 Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, The Production of Documents in International arbitration: A Commentary on Article
3 of the New IBA Rules of Evidence, 18 Arbitration International, Vol. 18, 2002, p.412.
3 Peter Ashford, Documentary Discovery and International Commercial Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.17, 2006, pp.114-115.
4 Bagner H. Confidentiality: A Fundamental Principle in International Commercial Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 18(2), 2001, pp243 - 249.
5郭玉军、梅秋玲:《仲裁的保密性问题研究》,载《法学评论》,2004年第2期。
1周清华,古俊峰,戴晨:《寻求平衡—国际商事仲裁秘密性问题研究》,载《大连海事大学学报》,2005第2期。
1 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第321页。
2 Rolf Trittmann and Boris Kasolowsky, Taking Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings Between Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, UNSW Law Journal, Vol. 31, 2008, p.336.
1黄松有:《证据开示制度比较研究》,载《政法论坛》2000年第5期,第114页。
2关于什么情况下适合在仲裁协议中约定美国式的书证开示的讨论,请参见Robert A. Weiner and B. Ted Howes, Arbitration discover: When should discovery provisions be included in an arbitration agreement? Disp. Resol. Mag., Vol.5, 1999, pp. 31-33.
1 Kaufmann-Kohler and B?rtsch, discovery in international arbitration: how much is too much, Schieds VZ, Heft 1, 2004, p.20.
2 Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, The Production of Documents in International arbitration: A Commentary on Article
3 of the New IBA Rules of Evidence, 18 Arbitration International, Vol. 18, 2002, pp.417-418.
3 ABB AG v. Hochtief Airport GmbH, EWHC 388 (Comm).
1 Kaufmann-Kohler and B?rtsch, discovery in international arbitration: how much is too much, Schieds VZ, Heft 1, 2004, p.19.
1 Sandifier, Durward, V., Evidence Before International Tribunals, The University Press of Virginia, 1975, p.147.
2 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第316页。
3参见1996年《英国仲裁法》第42条,《美国联邦仲裁法》第7条,《德国民事诉讼法》第1050条和第142条。
1 FRCP rr.26(f), 16(b) and Practice Direction CPR 31 2A.2, 2A.3.
1《IBA证据规则》第3条第3款a项ii目。
2参见《英国民事诉讼法第31条实践指南》第2A.4段。
1《ICC仲裁规则》第14条第1款,第15条第1款,《LCIA仲裁规则》第5条第2款,《AAA国际仲裁规则》第16条。
2 Zubulake v UBS Warburg LLC. 217 F.R.D. 309 (SDNY, 2003).
3 See P.D. O’Neill, The Power of Arbitrators to Award Monetary Sanctions for Discovery Abuse, Dispute Resolution J. Vol. 60, 2006, p.1.
1 Lawrence W. Newman, International Arbitration Hearings: Showdown or Denouement?Tul. J. Int’l & Comp.L., Vol. 5, 1997, p.394.
1Christian Borris, the Reconciliation of Conflicts Between Common Law and Civil law Principles in the Arbitration Process, in Conflicting Legal Cultures in Commercial Arbitration (Stefan N. Frommel and Barry A.K. Rider eds.), Kluwer Law International 1999, p.16.
1 The IBA Working Party, Commentary on the New IBA Rules of Evidence, Business Law International, Issue2, 2000, p.28.
2《IBA证据规则》第4条第9款。
3 Michael Bühler and Carroll Dorgan, Witness Testimony Pursuant to 1999 IBA rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration,Vol.17(1), 2000, p.16.
4 Michael Bühler and Carroll Dorgan, Witness Testimony Pursuant to 1999 IBA rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration,Vol., 17(1), 2000, p16.
1《UNCITRAL仲裁规则》第15条,《ICC仲裁规则》第15条,《LCIA仲裁规则》第14条均规定在当事人未做约定之前提下,将程序进行的权力交由仲裁庭决定。
2 Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. N National Bank of Pakistan [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223, 269.
3 Iron Ore Company of Canada v. Argonaut Shipping, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1985), ICCA Yearbook XII (1978), 173.
1 Derains& Schwartz, A Guide to the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2nd ed.), Kluwer Law International, 2005, p. 276.
2 Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co., Inc. v. Societe Generale de l'Industrie du Papier (RAKTA) 508 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1974).
3 508 F.2d 969,975-6 (2d Cir. 1974))
4 see eg., Domenico Di Pietro and Martin Plate, Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards, 2001, p.157; Steven L.Smith, Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards under the New York Convention, in Practitioner’s Handbook on International Arbitration and Mediation, 2007, p.305-306;丁颖著:《美国商事仲裁制度研究》,武汉大学出版社2007年版,第304-305页;Osamu Inoue, The Due Process Defense to Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.11, 2000, pp.251-252.
5 Tempo Shain Corp. v. Bertek, Inc., 120 F.3d 16, 21(2d Cir. 1997).
1 263 F. Supp.488 (C. D. Cal. 1967).
2比如,在美国,Griffin Indus. Inc. v. Petrojam, 58 F. Supp. 2a 212, 219 (S.D. N.Y. 1999).在该案件中,法院认为“庭审在大多数仲裁程序中是明智的,但仲裁员并不是在每个案件中都进行庭审理”。在英国,Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. v. National Bank of Pakistan [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223,269.
3 Yves Derains and Eric A. Schwartz, A Guide to the ICC Rules of Arbitration(2nd ed.), Kluwer Law International, 2005, p. 276.
1 Lawrence W. Newman, International Arbitration Hearings: Showdown or Denouement?Tul. J. Int’l & Comp.L., Vol. 5, 1997, p.395.
1参见《IBA证据规则》第8条第2款。
2 Laminoirs-Trefileries-Cableries de Lens, S.A. (LTCL) v. Southwire Co., 484 F. Supp. 1063, 1067 (N.D. Ga. 1980).
3 125 F.3d 1123, 1129-30 (7th Cir. 1997).
4 The Due Process Defense to Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 11 Am. Rev. Int'l Arb. 247, 264-5 (2000).
1《IBA证据规则》第8条第3款。
2 Elena V. Helmer,International Commercial Arbitration: Americanized, Civilized, or Harmonized, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., Vol. 19, 2003,p.53.
3 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第328页。
4 Michael Bühler and Carroll Dorgan, Witness Testimony Pursuant to 1999 IBA rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration,Vol.17(1), 2000, p26.
1 Elena V. Helmer,International Commercial Arbitration: Americanized, Civilized, or Harmonized, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., Vol. 19, 2003, p.53.
2不过,经仲裁员同意后,当事人可以向法院申请,要求法院协助证人或专家经宣誓后作证和当事人作出诚实声明后接受调查(参见《瑞典仲裁法》第26条)。
3 Moreover, Art. 8(1)(j)of 2000 Canada Arbitration Rules of ADR Chambers provides that the arbitrator may order sthat any party or witness shall be examined on oath or affirmation, and may for that purpose administer any necessary oath or take any necessary affirmation;
1 Paul A. Gélinas, Evidence through Witness, in Laurent Levy, V.V. Veeder, Arbitration and Oral Evidence, ICC Publishing S.A. 2004, p.46.
1《IBA证据规则》第6条第2款。
2 Ruth Fenton, A Civil Matter for a Common Expert: How Should Parties and Tribunals Use Experts in International Commercial Arbitration, Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J., Vol.6, 2006, p.282.
3 Ruth Fenton, A Civil Matter for a Common Expert: How Should Parties and Tribunals Use Experts in International Commercial Arbitration, Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J., Vol.6, 2006, p.285.
4 Michael E. Schneider, Technical Experts in International Arbitration, Association Suisse de l’arbitrage Bulletin, vol.3, 1993, p.454.
1《IBA证据规则》第6条第2款。
2比如,《ICC仲裁规则》第20条第4款,《瑞士国际仲裁规则》第27条第1款。
1 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第331页。
2参见《UNCITRAL仲裁规则》第26条,《SCC仲裁规则》第22条。
3 Air Intergulf v. SECA, Paris Ct. App. (1980) (unreported).转引自Ruth Fenton, A Civil Matter for a Common Expert: How Should Parties and Tribunals Use Experts in International Commercial Arbitration, Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J., Vol.6, 2006, p.283.
4 CA Paris 25 Nov. 1999 Burkinabe des ciments et materiaux (CIMAT) v. Societe des ciments d’Abidjan (SCA)[2001] Rev Arb 165 with note Cohen.
5 BayObLG 15 December 1999[2000] no.2 RPS 16.
6 Philippe Fouchard et,al, Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration, Citic Publishing House, 2004, p.704.
7 Michael E. Schneider, Technical Experts in International Arbitration, Association Suisse de l’arbitrage Bulletin, vol.3, 1993, p.454.
1 MauroRubino-sammartan, International Arbitration Law & Practice, Citic Publishing House, 2003, p.701.
2 [1999]1 Lloyd’s Rep.862(QBD(Comm. Ct).)
3 Allison and Holtzmann, The Tribunal’s Use of Experts, in David D. Caron & Jonh R.Crook, The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal And The Process of International Claims Resolution, Transnational Publisher, 2000, p.271.
1《IBA证据规则》第5条第5款。另外,其他许多仲裁规则也都明确规定了当事人对独立专家证人质证的权利,比如,《AAA国际仲裁规则》第22条第第4款,《ICC仲裁规则》第20条第4款,《SCC仲裁规则》第29条第3款,德国仲裁协会仲裁规则第27条第3款。
2《ICC仲裁规则》第3款,《IBA证据规则》第6条第6款。
3《IBA证据规则》第8条第1款。
4 David Brown, Oral evidence and expert in arbitration, in Laurent Levy and V.V. Veeder, Arbitration and Oral Evidence, ICC Publishing S.A., p.2005.
1《IBA证据规则》第8条第3款d项。
2《IBA证据规则》第8条第3款。
3 Michael E. Schneider, Technical Experts in International Arbitration, Association Suisse de l’arbitrage Bulletin, Vol.3, 1993,pp.464-465.
1Rolf Trittmann and Boris Kasolowsky, Taking Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings Between Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, UNSW Law Journal, Vol. 31(1), 2008, p.339.
2《IBA证据规则》第8条第3款f项.。
3《IBA证据规则》第5条第2款a项和c项。
4《IBA证据规则》第6条第3款。
1比如参见Siegfried H. Elsing and John M. Townsend, bridging the common law civil law divide in arbitration, Arbitration International, Vol.18 (1), 2002, p.1.
2 Pierre A.Karrer, The Civil Law and Common Law Divide-An International Arbitrator Tells, Dispute Resolution Journal, Feb-Apr, 2008, pp.72-81.
1 Sigvard Jarvin, Leading Arbitration Seats-A Comparative View, in Conflicting Legal Cultures in Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International 1999, p.44.
1在国际商事仲裁中,许多情况下,对关键证据的保全可以成功地导致和解。参见Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008, p.59.
1 Reinmar Wolff, Judicial Assistance By German Courts In Aid of International Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.19, 2008, p.153.
2 Reinmar Wolff, Judicial Assistance By German Courts In Aid of International Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.19, 2008, p.166.
3 Reinmar Wolff, Judicial Assistance By German Courts In Aid of International Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.19, 2008, p.154.
1 Rolf Trittmann and Boris Kasolowsky, Taking Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings Between Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, UNSW Law Journal, Vol. 31, 2008, p.336.
2 Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008, p.51.
3 See e.g., Philippe Fouchard et al., Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration, Citic Publishing House, 2004, p.728. Reinmar Wolff, Judicial Assistance By German Courts In Aid of International Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.19, 2008, p.149.
4 Philippe Fouchard et al., Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration, Citic Publishing House, 2004, p.728.
5 Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008, p.51.
6依据法国新仲裁法,法院对仲裁取证的协助由支持法官(juge d’appui)负责,在国际商事仲裁中该支持法官是巴黎高等法院原讼法庭的庭长(the President of the Tribunal de grande instance of Paris)。
7《法国民事诉讼法》第1449条。
1 9 U.S.C.§7 (2006).
2 9 U.S.C.§7 (2006).
3 Paul D. Friedland & Lucy Martinez, Arbitral Subpoenas under U.S. Law and Practice, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.14, 2003, p.228.
1 1999年《瑞典仲裁法》第25条和第26条。
2《瑞士联邦私法典》第184条第2款规定,需要国家当局协助取证的,仲裁庭或者征得仲裁庭同意的一方当事人可以请求仲裁庭所在地的法院予以协助。该法院应适用自己的法律。
3 2010年《新加坡国际仲裁法》第13和第14条。
4《香港仲裁条例》第2GC条。
5《台湾仲裁法》第26条规定:“仲裁庭得通知证人或鉴定人到场应询。但不得令其具结。证人无正当理由而不到场者,仲裁庭得声请法院命其到场。”
6 Art.1469 of CPC provides“If the president considers the application well-founded, he or she shall order that the relevant original, copy or extract of the deed or item of evidence be issued or produced, under such conditions and guarantees as he or she determines, and, if necessary, attach penalties to such order.”
1后一立法例包括1996年《英国仲裁法》第2条第3款,第43条和第44条,《德国民事诉讼法》第1082条,2010年《新加坡国际仲裁法》第12A条第1款b项,《香港仲裁条例》第2GG条。
2比如,《德国民事诉讼法》第1062条,《香港仲裁条例》第2GG条,1974年《澳大利亚仲裁法》第22条和第23条,以及《瑞士联邦国际私法》第183条。
1《奥地利民事诉讼法》第602条第2句。
2 Nathan D. O'Malley and Shawn C. Conway, Document Discovery in International Arbitration: Getting the Documents You Need, Transnat'l Law, Vol.18, 2005, p.379.
3 Conclusions and Recommendations Adopted by the Special Commission The Practical Operation of the Hague Apostille,Evidence and Service Conventions, 28 October 10 4 November 2003.
4 Council Regulation No. 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001, Art. 1, 2001 O.J.(L 174) 1, 3 (EC).
5 See Analytical Commentary on Draft Text of a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: Report of theSecretary-General (A/CN.9/264), p.131 et seq.
1 [1993] A.C. 334, 358-59 (H.L.)
2 Commerce & Industries Co. of Canada v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, [2002] 2 All E.R. 204, 206 (Comm)
3 Michael Penny, Letters of Request: Will a Canadian Court Enforce a Letter of Request from an International Arbitral Tribunal? Am. Rev. Int’l. Arb., Vol. 12, 2001, p.249; Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. v. Legacy Hotels Real Estate Investment Trust (2003), 36 C.P.C. (5th) 138.)
4 Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, s. 46(1).各省也有类似立法,比如在多伦多,the Evidence Act, R.S.O.1990, c,E. 23, s.60(1).
3 It provides"district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal."
4 NBC v. Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., 165 F.3d 184, 188-97 (2d Cir. 1999).
5 168 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 1999).
1 In re Oxus Gold PLC, 2006 WL 2927615 (D.N.J. Oct. 11, 2006); In re Roz Trading Ltd., 469 F.Supp. 2d 1221 (N.D. Ga. 2006).
2 Reinmar Wolff, Judicial Assistance By German Courts In Aid of International Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.19, 2008, p.171.
1 See e.g., Reinmar Wolff, Judicial Assistance By German Courts In Aid of International Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.19, 2008, p.149; Philippe Fouchard et al., Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration, Citic Publishing House, 2004, p.728; Jean-Francois Poudret & Sébastien Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration (2d ed.), Sweet & Maxwell, 2007, p.670.
2 [瑞]费恩·迈德森:《瑞典商事仲裁(第三版)》,李虎、顾华宁译,法律出版社2008年版,第160页(脚注180)。
1 Bradley J. Freedman and Gregory N. Harney, Obtaining Evidence from Canada: the Enforcement of Letters Rogatory by Canadian Courts, U.B.C. Law Review, Vol. 21,1987, p.351.
1纪格非著:《证据能力论——以民事诉讼为视角的研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2005年版,第140页。
1 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第317页。
2 Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues: a Study on Evidence before International Tribunals, Kluwer Law International, 1996, p.189.
3赵秀文编著:《国际商事仲裁案例评析》,法制出版社2009年版,第205-209页。
1当然,也有极个别国家的仲裁立法采取了不同的立场,比如《葡萄牙仲裁法》第18条第1款规定,民事诉讼法认可的证据均可提交给仲裁庭。可见,葡萄牙对仲裁中证据可采性的认定采用了诉讼中的证据可采性标准。
2 David T. Stowell and Adam K. Treiger, Contract Provisions for Evidence Rulings in Arbitration, Los Angeles Lawyer, Vol.22, 1999, p.21.
1 [瑞]费恩·迈德森:《瑞典商事仲裁(第三版)》,李虎、顾华宁译,法律出版社2008年版,第158页(脚注169)。
2 Philippe Fouchard et al., Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration, Citic Publishing House, 2004, p.695.
3 Peter Ashford, Documentary Discovery and International Commercial Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.17, 2006, p.115.
4 Case No. 6465, 121 J.D.I.1088, 1090(1994),转引自Philippe Fouchard et al., Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration, Citic Publishing House, 2004, p.696.
5 Siegfried H. Elsing and John M. Townsend, bridging the common law civil law divide in arbitration, ArbitrationInternational, Vol.18 (1), 2002, p.3.
1 Siegfried H. Elsing and John M. Townsend, bridging the common law civil law divide in arbitration, Arbitration International, Vol.18 (1), 2002, p.3.
2 Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, The Production of Documents in International arbitration– A Commentary on Article
3 of the New IBA Rules of Evidence, 18 Arbitration International, Vol. 18, 2002, pp.413-414.
1 Nathalie Voser and Anna Katharina Mueller, Appointment of Experts by the Arbitral Tribunal: the Civil Law Perspective, Bus. L. Int'l, Vol.7, 2006, p.73.
2比如,1998年《英国民事诉讼规则》第31条第13款。
3 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第335页。
1 Christoph Liebscher, The healthy awards, Kluwer Law International,2003,p.271.
2 Christoph Liebscher, The healthy awards, Kluwer Law International,2003,p.345.
1 Bruce A. McAllister and Amy Bloom, The Use of Evidence in Admiralty Proceedings: Evidence in Arbitration, J. Mar. L. & Com., Vol. 34, 2003,p.52.
2 Emma Morales, Admissibility of evidence in arbitration proceedings, available at http://www.twobirds.com/English/News/Articles/Pages/Admissibility_evidence_arbitration_proceedings.aspx
3 Bonar v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 835 F.2d 1378, 1383 (11th Cir. 1988). See also Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Lambros, 1 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (M.D. Fla. 1998).
4 Norah Gallagher, Legal Privilege in International Arbitration, International Arbitration Law Review, Issue 2, 2003, p.45.
1 Craig Tevendale and Ula Cartwright-Finch, Privilege in International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 26, 2009, pp.823-829.
2参见杨良宜著:《英美证据法》,法律出版社2003年版,第172页。
3 Richard M. Mosk and Tom Ginsburg,Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Int’l & Comp.L.Q., Vol. 50, 2001, p.383.
1 ALI & UNIDROIT, Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil Procedures, Cambridge University Press 2005, p.142.
2 Klaus Peter Berger, Evidentiary Privileges: Best Practice Standards versus/ and Arbitral Discretion, Arb. Int., Vol. 22, 2006, p.507.
3 Klaus Peter Berger, Evidentiary Privileges: Best Practice Standards versus/ and Arbitral Discretion, Arb. Int., Vol. 22, 2006, p.505.
3 Klaus Peter Berger, Evidentiary Privileges: Best Practice Standards versus/ and Arbitral Discretion, Arb. Int., Vol. 22, 2006, p.509.
4 Kaufmann-Kohler and B?rtsch, discovery in international arbitration: how much is too much, Schieds VZ, Heft 1, 2004, p.19; Richard M. Mosk and Tom Ginsburg,Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Int’l & Comp.L.Q., Vol. 50, 2001, p.377.
1 Richard M. Mosk and Tom Ginsburg,Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Int’l & Comp.L.Q., Vol. 50, 2001, p.379.
2丁伟:《论国际商事仲裁与国际民事诉讼法律适用的主要区别》,载《仲裁研究》(第2辑),法律出版社2004年版,第26页。
3 Kaufmann-Kohler and B?rtsch, discovery in international arbitration: how much is too much, Schieds VZ, Heft 1, 2004, pp.13-24.
4 Javier H. Rubinstein and Britton B. Guerrina, The Attorney-Client Privilege and International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol.18 (6), 2001,p.587.
1 Craig Tevendale and Ula Cartwright-Finch, Privilege in International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 26, 2009, pp.837-838.
1何家弘主编:《证据法学研究》,中国人民大学出版社,2007年版,第96-97页。
2 Anne Veronique Schlaepfer, Witness Statement, in Laurent Levy, V.V. Veeder ed., Arbitration and Oral Evidence, ICC Publishing S.A., 2005, p.72.
1 (2000) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 83.
2何家弘:《证据的审查与认定原理论纲》,载《法学家》,2008年第3期。
1 Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) ALL ER 372 ,373 - 374.
2 [1950] All ER 458.
3 [1956]3 All ER 970 - 978.
4 Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Staff, The commercial way to justice, Kluwer Law International, 1997, pp.56-58.
1 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第318页。
2 David D. Caron AT. AL., the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: a Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p.570.
1 [1956] 3 All ER 970- 978.
2李浩著:《民事证明责任研究》,法律出版社2003年版,第194页。
3 Bryan A. Garner. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed.), Thomson West, 2004, p.793.
1 Sandifier, Durward, V., Evidence Before International Tribunals, The University Press of Virginia, 1975, p.147.
2杨良宜,杨大明:《国际商事仲裁中的证据——问题领域与最新发展》,载《中国海商法年刊》(第13卷),法律出版社,2003年版,第88页。
3 300 F. Supp. 179 (S.D.N.Y. 1969).
1 Bruce A. McAllister and Amy Bloom, The Use of Evidence in Admiralty Proceedings: Evidence in Arbitration, J. Mar. L. & Com., Vol. 34, 2003, pp.43-44.
2 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第316页。
1 See The IBA Working Party, Commentary on the New IBA Rules of Evidence, Business Law International, Issue2, 2000, p.34.
2 Sharpe, Jeremy K., Drawing Adverse Inferences from the Non-production of Evidence, Arbitration International, Vol.22, 2006, p.551.
1 Bryan A. Garner. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed.), Thomson West, 2004, p.1228.
1 BG 25 July 1997 [2000] Bull ASA 96.
2 Craig Tevendale and Ula Cartwright-Finch, Privilege in International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 26, 2009, pp.823-829.
3杨良宜著:《英美证据法》,法律出版社2003年版,第172页。
4 Richard M. Mosk and Tom Ginsburg,Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Int’l & Comp.L.Q., Vol.
50, 2001, p.383.
2姜霞:《论仲裁证据制度的独立性》,载《湘潭大学学报》,2007年第5期。
3谢新胜著:《国际商事仲裁程序法的适用》,中国检察出版社2009年版,第133页。
1汪祖兴:《民事诉讼证据规则与仲裁证据规则的差异性解读》,载《广东社会科学》2005年,第4期。
2上海仲裁委员会根据2002年4月25日根据录音整理的资料。转引自杜开林:《对一起仲裁证据保全案的评析——兼论现行仲裁证据保全法律规定的不足》,载《法律适用》2003年第5期。
3 See e.g., LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p8.
4 Jerome A. Cohen, Time to Fix China’s Arbitration, Far Eastern Economic Rev., Vol. 168, 2005, p.33.
5即《司法部关于执行〈外国律师事务所驻华代表机构管理条例〉的规定》第32条。
1宋朝武:《仲裁证据的非诉化及其路径选择》,载《河南社会科学》,2010年第3期。
1 LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p8.
2陈忠谦:《试析民商事仲裁中的证据制度》,载《仲裁研究》(第16辑),法律出版社2008年版,第5页。
1 LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p14.
1 LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p12. Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008, p.58.
2《贸仲规则》第39条和《北仲规则》第34条仅仅笼统地规定了质证;中国海事仲裁委员会仲裁规则第36条和37条则相对具体地规定了申请证人出庭、提交必要的身份证明和接受质询的义务等问题。
3徐昕:《法官为什么不相信证人?》,载《法学精粹》2008年第3期。
4在实践中,如果双方当事人同意的情况下,仲裁庭可以允许当事人书面质证代替庭审中的质证。LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p16.王学权:《从办案秘书的视角看仲裁庭审若干细节问题》,载《北京仲裁》(第72辑),法制出版社,第188页。
5 LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p16.
6 LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p12.
1 Jonathon Crook, Leading Arbitration Seats in the Far East: A Comparative View, in Conflicting Legal Cultures in Commercial Arbitration (Stefan N. Frommel and Barry A.K. Rider eds.), Kluwer Law International 1999,pp.69-70.
2《仲裁法》第44条规定:“仲裁庭对专门性问题认为需要鉴定的,可以交由当事人约定的鉴定部门鉴定,也可以由仲裁庭指定的鉴定部门鉴定……。”
3《贸仲规则》第38条第1款;另参见《北仲规则》第32条第1款,《海仲规则》第45条第1款等。
4毕玉谦:《证据规则在仲裁实践中的运用(下)》,载《北京仲裁》(第53辑),法制出版社2004年版,第42页。
5范铭超:《论我国商事仲裁中构建专家证人制度》,载〈法治论丛〉2005年第1期。
6比如,《贸仲规则》第38条第2款,《北仲规则》第32条第3款。
1毕玉谦:《证据规则在仲裁实践中的运用(下)》,载《北京仲裁》(第53辑),法制出版社2004年版,第44页。
2 Paklito Investment Ltd. v. Klockner East Asia Ltd. [1993] HKLR 39.
1 Andreas S. Lowenfeld, International Arbitration as Omelette: What Goes into the Mix, in Conflicting Legal Cultures in Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 1999, p.25.
1于喜富著:《国际商事仲裁的司法监督与协助——兼论中国的立法与司法实践》,知识产权出版社2006年版,第338页。
2 Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008, p.58.
1 Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008, p.56.
1刘晓红:《从国际商事仲裁证据制度的一般特质看我国涉外仲裁证据制度的完善》,载《政治与法律》,2009年第5期,第95页;姜霞:《论仲裁证据制度的独立性》,载《湘潭大学学报》,2007年第5期;宋朝武:《仲裁证据的非诉化及其路径选择》,载《河南社会科学》,2010年第3期。LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p8(“Many Chinese arbitrators subconsciously or consciously make reference to these rules of evidence as guidance in their arbitration practice. Some of them even cite the court rules of evidence in support of their decision on evidence. This is especially so when an arbitrator is a retired judge”).
2《民事证据规定》第69条规定,与一方当事人或者其代理人有利害关系的证人出具的证言不能单独作为认定案件事实的依据。
3参见纪格非:《边沁证据法学思想的当代解读》,载《法制与社会》2010年第6期。该文试图通过这一案例说明,对于民事证据是否具有可采性的判断,依据日常生活经验比具有技术性特点的可采性规则更为合理,同样,国际商事仲裁中仲裁员行使自由裁量权一般也应依据前者而不是后者。
4张斌生:《仲裁法新论(第三版)》,厦门大学出版社2008版,第208页。另参见齐玎:《仲裁程序中的证据认证规则初探》,载《仲裁研究》(第18辑),法律出版社2009年版,第45页。
1毕玉谦:《证据规则在仲裁实践中的运用》(上),载《北京仲裁》(第52辑),法制出版社2004年版,第47-48页。
1王小莉:《仲裁语境下域外证据之认定》,载《仲裁研究》(第19辑),法律出版社2009年版,第9页。
2尹伟民:《域外证据的特别证明程序探析》,载《大连海事大学学报》2007年第1期。
3尹伟民:《域外证据的特别证明程序探析》,载《大连海事大学学报》2007年第1期。
1 LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p16.
2宋朝武:《仲裁证据的非诉化及其路径选择》,载《河南社会科学》,2010年第3期。
3有观点认为,仲裁庭不能因当事人未提交对自己不利的证据进行不利推定,乔欣编著:《比较商事仲裁》,
1参见汪祖兴:《民事诉讼证据规则与仲裁证据规则的差异性解读》,载《广东社会科学》,2005年第4期;Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008, pp.54-55.
1 Kaufmann-Kohler and B?rtsch, discovery in international arbitration: how much is too much, Schieds VZ, Heft 1, 2004, p.20.
2、[英]艾伦·雷德芬等著:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版。
3、[瑞]费恩·迈德森:《瑞典商事仲裁(第三版)》,李虎、顾华宁译,法律出版社2008年版。
4、于喜富著:《国际商事仲裁的司法监督与协助——兼论中国的立法与司法实践》,知识产权出版社2006年版。
5、汪祖兴著:《国际商会仲裁研究》,法律出版社2005年版。
6、赵秀文著:《国际商事仲裁及其适用法律研究》,法律出版社2002年版。
7、丁颖著:《美国商事仲裁制度研究》,武汉大学出版社2007年版。
8、谢新胜著:《国际商事仲裁程序法的适用》,中国检察出版社2009年版。
9、[美]米尔建·达马斯卡:《漂移的证据法》,李学军等译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
10、杨良宜著:《英美证据法》,法律出版社2003年版。
11、周湘雄著:《英美专家证人制度研究》,中国检察出版社2006年版。
12、韩波著:《民事证据开示制度研究》,中国人民大学出版社2005年版。
13、吴丹红著:《特免权制度研究》,北京大学出版社2008年版。
14、何家弘,刘品新著:《证据法学》,法律出版社2004年版。
15、张友好著:《书证收集与程序保障》,中国检查出版社2010年版。
16、纪格非著:《证据能力论——以民事诉讼为视角的研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2005年版。
17、尹伟民著:《国际民事诉讼中证据能力问题研究》,法律出版社2008年版。
1、韩德培主编:《国际私法问题专论》,武汉大学出版社2004年版。
2、刘晓红主编:《国际商事仲裁专题研究》,法律出版社2009年版。
3、乔欣主编:《比较商事仲裁》,法律出版社2004年版。
4、赵秀文主编:《国际商事仲裁法》,中国人民大学出版社2008年版。
5、赵秀文主编:《国际商事仲裁法》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
6、张斌生主编:《仲裁法新论(第三版)》,厦门大学出版社2008年版。
7、张卫平主编:《外国民事证据制度研究》,清华大学出版社2003年版。
8、何家弘主编:《证据法学研究》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
1、刘晓红:《从国际商事仲裁证据制度的一般特质看我国涉外仲裁证据制度的完善》,载《政治与法律》2009年第5期。
2、宋朝武:《仲裁证据的非诉化及其路径选择》,载《河南社会科学》2010年第3期。
3、姜霞:《论仲裁证据制度的独立性》,载《湘潭大学学报》2007年第5期。
4、汪祖兴:《民事诉讼证据规则与仲裁证据规则的差异性解读》,载《广东社会科学》2005年第4期。
5、吴定喜,林浩,陈艳恩:《国际商务仲裁中当事人应如何选择证据收集规则》,载《天中学刊》2001年第6期。
6、范铭超、陆佩华:《商事仲裁中构建专家证人制度的若干关键问题》,载《求索》2007年第1期。
7、范铭超:《论我国商事仲裁中构建专家证人制度》,载《法治论丛》2005年第1期。
8、杜开林:《对一起仲裁证据保全案的评析—兼论现行仲裁证据保全法律规定的不足》,载《法律适用》2003年第5期。
9、周清华,古俊峰,戴晨:《寻求平衡—国际商事仲裁秘密性问题研究》,载《大连海事大学学报》2005年第2期。
10、何家弘:《证据的审查与认定原理论纲》,载《法学家》2008年第3期。
11、汤维建:《达马斯卡证据法思想初探》,载《甘肃政法学院学报》2005年第3期。
12、尹伟民:《域外证据的特别证明程序探析》,载《大连海事大学学报》2007年第1期。
13、汤维建、陈巍:《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定的创新与不足》,载《法商研究》2005年第3期。
14、黄松有:《证据开示制度比较研究》,载《政法论坛》2000年第5期。
15、[美]L.S.温伯格,J.W.温伯格:《论美国的法律文化》,载《法学译丛》1985年第1期。
1、丁伟:《论国际商事仲裁与国际民事诉讼法律适用的主要区别》,载《仲裁研究》(第2辑),法律出版社2004年版。
2、杨良宜,杨大明:《国际商事仲裁中的证据—问题领域与最新发展》,载《中国海商法年刊》(第13卷),法律出版社2003年版。
3、毕玉谦:《证据规则在仲裁实践中的运用(上)》,载《北京仲裁》(第52辑),法制出版社2004年版。
4、毕玉谦:《证据规则在仲裁实践中的运用(下)》,载《北京仲裁》(第53辑),法制出版社2004年版。
5、陈忠谦:《试析民商事仲裁中的证据制度》,载《仲裁研究》(第16辑),法律出版社2008年。
6、王小莉:《仲裁语境下域外证据之认定》,在《仲裁研究》(第19辑),法律出版社2009年版。
7、王学权:《从办案秘书的视角看仲裁庭审若干细节问题》,载《北京仲裁》(第72辑),法制出版社2010年版。
8、齐玎:《仲裁程序中的证据认证规则初探》,载《仲裁研究》(第18辑),法律出版社2009年版。
1、王琴:《国际商事仲裁证据规则及其完善》,中国政法大学学位论文,2011年。
2、赵琳:《我国国际商事仲裁领域域外证据的取得与证明》,中国政法大学学位论文,2010年。
3、杨丽萍:《国际商事仲裁证据开示制度研究》,外交学院硕士学位论文,2010年。
4、王菁:《国际商事仲裁证据规则若干问题研究》,外交学院硕士学位论文,2009年。
5、许振东:《论国际商事仲裁中证据规则的运用及完善》,上海交通大学硕士学位论文,2008年。
6、陈纬人:《国际商务仲裁证据法则与其所涉仲裁判断之承认及执行》,台湾大学硕士论文,2008年。
7、赵宗钰:《国际商事仲裁证据问题研究》,中国海洋大学硕士学位论文,2007年。
8、王佳:《国际商事仲裁中的证据规则与事实》,山东大学硕士学位论文,2006年。
9、李红海:《国际商事仲裁证据制度若干问题研究》,中国政法大学硕士学位论文,2005年。
10、谢菁菁:《国际商事仲裁中的证据》,中国人民大学硕士学位论文,2004年。
11、徐鹏:《国际商事仲裁证据程序模式研究》,武汉大学硕士学位论文,2003年。
12、张红智:《社会主义市场经济条件下民商事仲裁证据规则的完善》,中国海洋大学硕士学位论文,2003年。
1、中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会历年工作报告,http://cn.cietac.org/AboutUS/AboutUS.shtml (访问日期:2011年10月1日)。
2、梁慧星:《关于对仲裁机构实行税收优惠政策的建议》, http://www.iolaw.org.cn/showNews.asp?id=26162, (访问日期:2011年10月1日)。
1. Ali Yesilirmak, Provisional Measures In International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2005.
2. Bruce Harris, Rowan Planterose &Jonathan Tecks, The Arbitration Act 1996, a Commentary (4th Ed.), Blackwell Science (UK), 2007.
3. Jerome A. Cohen et al., Arbitration in China: a practical guide, Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2004.
4. Craig, Park and Paulsson, International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2000.
5. Christoph Liebscher, The healthy awards, Kluwer Law International, 2003
6. David D. Caron AT. AL., the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: a Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006.
7. Domenico Di Pietro and Martin Plate, Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards, 2001.
8. Gary B.Born, International commercial Arbitration: Commentary and Materials, Kluwer Law International, 2001.
9. Georgios Petrochilos, Procedural law in international arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2004.
10. Henri C.Alvarez, Model Law Decisions: Cases Applying the Uncitral Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2003.
11. Jean-Louis delvolve, French arbitration Law and Practice, Kluwer Law International, 2003.
12. Julian D M Lew QC, Loukas A Mistelis, Stefan M Kroll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2003.
13. Margaret L. Moses, The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
14. Martin Odams De Zylva, Reziya Harrison, International commercial arbitration: developing rules for the new millennium, Jordans Publishing Limited, 2000.
15. Mauro Rubino-Sammartano, International Arbitration Law and Practice, Citic Publishing House, 2003.
16. Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues: a Study on Evidence before International Tribunals, Kluwer Law International, 1996.
17. Philippe Fouchard et al., Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration, Citic Publishing House, 2004.
18. Pieter Sanders, Quo Vadis Arbitration? -sixty Years of ArbitrationPractice---A Comparative Study, Kluwer Law International, 1999.
19. Sutton, Kendall and Gill,Russell on Arbitration, Sweet & Maxwell, 1997.
20. Tibor Varady, International commercial arbitration: a transnational perspective, Thomson/West, 2006.
21. Yves Derains and Eric A. Schwartz, A Guide to the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2nd ed.), Kluwer Law International, 2005.
22. SI Strong, Research and Practice in International Commercial Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2009.
23. Jean-Francois Poudret & Sébastien Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration (2d ed.) , Sweet & Maxwell, 2007.
1. Albert Jan Van Den Berg ed., Planning Efficient Arbitration Proceedings, Kluwer Law International, 1996.
2. Albert Jan Van Den Berg ed., International Arbitration 2006: Back to Basics? Kluwer, 2007
3. Laurent Levy, V.V. Veeder ed., Arbitration and Oral Evidence, ICC Publishing S.A., 2005.
4. Stefan N.Frommel, Conflicting Legal Cultures in Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 1999.
5. Peter V. Eijsvoogel ed., Evidence in International Arbitration Proceedings, Young Lawyers International, 1994.
6. Albert Jan Van Den Berg ed., Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards, Kluwer Law International, 1999.
7. Teresa Giovannini and Alexis Mourre, Written Evidence and Discovery in International Arbitration: New Issues and Tendencies, ICC Publishing S.A.,2009.
8. G.M.Beresford Hartwell ed., The Commercial Way to Justice, Kluwer Law International, 1997.
9. David J Howell ed., Electronic Disclosure in International Arbitration, Juris Publishing, 2008.
10. David D. Caron & Jonh R.Crook ed., The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and The Process of International Claims Resolution, Transnational Publisher, 2000.
11. Rufus V. Rhoades, Daniel M. Kolkey, Richard Chernick, ed., Practitioner’sHandbook on International Arbitration and Mediation, 2007.
12. Ste′phane Nahrath and Fre′de′ric Varone ed., Rediscovering Public Lawand Public Administration in Comparative Policy Analysis: A Tribute to Peter Knoepfel, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 2009.
13. Steven V. Berti et al., ed., International Arbitration in Switzerland, Kluwer Law International/Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 2000.
14. John Fellas ed., International Business Litigation & Arbitration (PLI Litig. & Admin. Practice, Course Handbook Series No. 704), 2003.
1. Anna Conley, A New World Discovery: The Ramifications of Two Recent Federal Courts’Decisions Granting Judicial Assistance to Arbitral Tribunals Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1782, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol. 17, 2006.
2. Bagner H. Confidentiality: A Fundamental Principle in International Commercial Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 18, 2001.
3. Bradley J. Freedman and Gregory N. Harney, Obtaining Evidence from Canada: the Enforcement of Letters Rogatory by Canadian Courts, U.B.C. Law Review, Vol. 21, 1987.
4. Bruce A. McAllister and Amy Bloom, the Use of Evidence in Admiralty Proceedings: Evidence in Arbitration, J. Mar. L. & Com., Vol. 34, 2003.
5. Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008.
6. C.Chatterjee, The Reality of The Party Autonomy Rule In international arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol.20 (6), 2003.
7. Cher Seat Dever, Electronic Discovery /Disclosure: From Litigation to International Arbitration, Arbitration, Vol.74, 2008.
8. Craig Tevendale and Ula Cartwright-Finch, Privilege in International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 26, 2009.
9. David T. Stowell and Adam K. Treiger, Contract Provisions for Evidence Rulings in Arbitration, Los Angeles Lawyer, Vol. 22,1999.
10. David T. Stowell and Adam K. Treiger, Preparing against unfavorable evidentiary rulings in arbitration, Los Angeles Lawyer, Vol. 22,1999.
11. E.D.D. Tavender Q.C., Considerations of Fairness in the Context of Internatioanl Commercial Arbitrations, Alberta Law Review, Vol. 34, 1996.
12. Elena V. Helmer,International Commercial Arbitration: Americanized, Civilized, or Harmonized, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., Vol. 19, 2003.
13. Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Globalization of arbitral procedure,Vand. J. Transnat'l L., Vol. 36, 2003.
14. Gabtielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Soft Law in International Arbitration: Codification and Normativity, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 1, 2010.
15. George M. Von Mehren and Claudia T.Salomon, Submitting Evidence in an International Arbitration: The Common Lawyer’s Guide, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 20, 2003.
16. Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, The Production of Documents in International arbitration– A Commentary on Article 3 of the New IBA Rules of Evidence, 18 Arbitration International, Vol. 18, 2002.
17. Javier H. Rubinstein and Britton B. Guerrina, The Attorney-Client Privilege and International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol.18 (6), 2001.
18. Jerome A. Cohen, Time to Fix China’s Arbitration, Far Eastern Economic Rev., Vol. 168, 2005.
19. Klaus Peter Berger, Evidentiary Privileges: Best Practice Standards versus/ and Arbitral Discretion, Arb. Int., Vol. 22, 2006.
20. Klaus Peter Berger, The International Arbitrator’s Dilemma: Transnational Procedure versus Home Jurisdiction, Arbitration International, Vol. 25, 2009.
21. Lawrence W. Newman, International Arbitration Hearings: Showdown or Denouement?Tul. J. Int’l & Comp.L., Vol. 5, 1997.
22. Kaufmann-Kohler and B?rtsch, discovery in international arbitration: how much is too much, Schieds VZ, Heft 1, 2004.
23. Lucy Reed & Jonathan Sutcliffe, The“Americanization”of International Arbitration? Mealey's Int'l Arb. Rep., Vol. 16, 2001.
24. Michael Bühler and Carroll Dorgan, Witness Testimony Pursuant to 1999 IBA rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration,Vol., 17(1), 2000.
25. Michael E. Schneider, Technical Experts in International Arbitration,Association Suisse de l’arbitrage Bulletin, Vol.3, 1993.
26. Michael Penny, Letters of Request: Will a Canadian Court Enforce a Letter of Request from an International Arbitral Tribunal? Am. Rev. Int’l. Arb., Vol. 12, 2001.
27. Nicolas C. Ulmer, A Comment on "The 'Americanization' of International Arbitration?," Mealey's Int'l Arb. Rep., Vol.16, 2001.
28. Nana Japaridze, Reconciling the Pursuit of Fairness and Justice with Preserving the Nature of International Commercial Arbitration, Hofstra L. Rev., Vol.36, 2008.
29. Nathalie Voser and Anna Katharina Mueller, Appointment of Experts by the Arbitral Tribunal: the Civil Law Perspective, Bus. L. Int'l, Vol.7, 2006.
30. Nathan D. O'Malley and Shawn C. Conway, Document Discovery in International Arbitration: Getting the Documents You Need, Transnat'l Law, Vol.18, 2005.
31. Nathan D. O’Malley, The Procedural Rules Governing the Production of Documentary Evidence in International Arbitration, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol.8, 2009.
32. Norah Gallagher, Legal Privilege in International Arbitration, International Arbitration Law Review, Issue 2, 2003.
33. Osamu Inoue, The Due Process Defense to Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.11, 2000.
34. Paul D. Friedland & Lucy Martinez, Arbitral Subpoenas under U.S. Law and Practice, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.14, 2003.
35. P.D. O’Neill, The Power of Arbitrators to Award Monetary Sanctions for Discovery Abuse, Dispute Resolution J. Vol. 60, 2006.
36. Peter Ashford, Documentary Discovery and International Commercial Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.17, 2006.
37. Piero Bernaradini, Role of International Arbitrator, Arbitration International, Vol. 20, 2004.
38. Reinmar Wolff, Judicial Assistance By German Courts In Aid of International Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.19, 2008.
39. Richard M. Mosk and Tom Ginsburg,Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Int’l & Comp.L.Q., Vol. 50, 2001.
40. Rolf Trittmann and Boris Kasolowsky, Taking Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings between Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, UNSW Law Journal, Vol. 31, 2008.
41. Robert A. Weiner and B. Ted Howes,Arbitration discover: When should discovery provisions be included in an arbitration agreement? Disp. Resol. Mag., Vol.5, 1999.
42. Roger Paul Alford, The American Influence on International Arbitration, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol.19, 2003.
43. Ruth Fenton, A Civil Matter for a Common Expert: How Should Parties and Tribunals Use Experts in International Commercial Arbitration, Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J., Vol.6, 2006.
44. Siegfried H. Elsing and John M. Townsend, bridging the common law civil law divide in arbitration, Arbitration International, Vol.18 (1), 2002.
45. Sharpe, Jeremy K., Drawing Adverse Inferences from the Non-production of Evidence, Arbitration International, Vol.22, 2006.
46. The IBA Working Party, Commentary on the New IBA Rules of Evidence, Business Law International, Issue2, 2000.
47. William W. Park, Arbitration's Protean Nature: The Value of Rules and the Risks of Discretion, Arb. Int'l, Vol.19, 2003.
48. LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009.
49. Tom Ginsburg, The culture of Arbitraiton, Vand.J. Transnational Law, Vol.36, 2003.
50. Susan L. Karamanian, Overstating the "Americanization" of International Arbitration: Lessons from ICSID, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., Vol.19, 2003.
51. Hans Bagner, Need for Rules of Evidence in International Arbitration, Int’l Bus. Law, Vol.25, 1997.
52. Fabian von Schlabrendorff,Ethical standards for arbitrators, hybrid proceedings, rules of transnational law: Are we moving towards a uniform law of international arbitration? Belgrade Law Review, Vol.57, 2009.
53. Richard W. Naimark & Stephanie E. Keer, International Private Commercial Arbitration: Expectationsand Perceptions of Attorneys and Business People, Int'l Bus. Law, Vol.30, 2002.
54. Jonathan L. Greenblatt and Peter Griffin, Towards the Harmonization of International Arbitration Rules: Comparative Analysis of the Rules of the ICC, AAA, LCIA and CIETAC, Arbitration International, Vol.17, 2001.
55. Richard Garnett, International Arbitration Law: Progress towards Harmonisation, Melb. J. Int'l L., Vol.3, 2002, p.406.
1. 1999 IBA Working Party & 2010 IBA Rules of Evidence Review Subcommittee, Commentary on the revised text of the 2010 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, Dispute Resolution International, May 2011, http://www.ibanet.org/Publications/DRI_online_May2011.aspx, Sep.1, 2011.
2. Emma Morales, Admissibility of evidence in arbitration proceedings, at http://www.twobirds.com/English/News/Articles/Pages/Admissibility_evidence_arbitration_proceedings.aspx, May 29, 2010.
3. RICS, The Role and Performance of the Expert Valuation Witness (1999), at http://www.rics.org/site/download_feed.aspx?fileID=2051&fileExtension=PDF, Sep. 29, 2010.
4. Ellis D Baker: The Expert in Dispute Resolution: a Common Law Perspective, at http://www.whitecase.com/ebaker/, Sep. 29, 2010.
5. Sasha Carbone, NYC Bar Association Report Suggests Best Practices for§1782 Discovery, Dispute Resolution Journal, Nov.-Jan., 2009, at http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/evidence-witnesses/11776109-1.html, Jan. 25, 2010.
6. John Beechey, The ICDR Guidelines for Information Exchanges in International Arbitration: An Important Addition to the Arbitral Toolkit, Dispute Resolution Journal, Aug-Oct 2008, at http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/labor-employment-law-alternative-dispute-resolution/11651108-1.html, Jun. 25, 2009.
7. Luke Nottage, The Procedural Lex Mercatoria: the Past, Present, and Future of International Commercial Arbitration, CDAMS Symposium, Kobe University, Sept.2003, p.21, at http://www.cdams.kobe-u.ac.jp/archive/dp03-1.pdf, May 8, 2009.
1. Minmetals Germany GmbH v. Ferco Steel [1999] 1 All ER 315
2. National Casualty Company v. First State Insurance Group,430 F.3d 492(1st Cir. 2005)
3. Commercial Solvents Corp. v. L.A. Liquid Fertilizer Co.,20 F.R.D. 359, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 1957).
4. Chevron Transportation Corp. v. Astro Vencedor Compania Naviera, 300 F. Supp. 179 (S.D.N.Y. 1969).
5. Gulf Coast Indus. Workers Union v. Exxon Co. USA, 70 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. 1995).
6. Hoteles Condado Beach v. Union of Tranquistes Local 901, 763 F.2d 34 (1st Cir. 1985).
7. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. McCullough, 764 F. Supp. 1365 (D. Ariz. 1991).
8. Terk Technologies Corp. v. Dockery, F. Supp. 2d 706 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
9. Intel v. Advanced Micro Devices, 542 U.S.241(2004).
10. Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann International, 168 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 1999).
11. NBC v. Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., 165 F.3d 184, 188-97 (2d Cir. 1999).
12. Germany v.Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce(1997), 31 O.R. (3d) 684
13. Nova Scotia v. Frame [1997] O.J. No. 5425
14. R. v. Zingre [1981] 2 S.C.R. 392
15. B.F. Jones Logistics Inc. v. Rolko [2004] O.J. No. 3518.
16. McCarthy v. Menin and United States Securities and Exchange Commission (1963), 2 O.R. 154
17. Commerce & Industries Co. of Canada v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London [2002] 2 All E.R. 204, 206 (Comm)
18. Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. v. Balfour Beatty Construct Ltd. [1993] A.C. 334 (H.L.)
19. Hussman(Europe)v. Al Ameen Development & Trade (2000) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 83(QBD(Comm. Ct).
20. CA Paris 25 Nov. 1999 Burkinabe des ciments et materiaux (CIMAT) v. Societe des ciments d’Abidjan (SCA)[2001] Rev Arb 165
21. Laminoirs-Trefileries-Cableries de Lens, S.A. (LTCL) v. Southwire Co., 484F. Supp. 1063, 1067 (N.D. Ga. 1980).
22. Generica Ltd. v. Pharmaceutical Basics, Inc. (PBI), 125 F.3d 1123, 1129-30 (7th Cir. 1997).
23. Harvey Alum. v. United Steelworkers of America, 263 F. Supp.488 (C. D. Cal. 1967).
24. Minmetals Germany GmbH v. Ferco Steel [1999] 1 All ER 315.
25. ABB AG. v. Hochtief Airport GmbH & Athens International Airport [2006] APP.L.R.
26. RosInvest Co UK Ltd v Russian Federation, SCC Case No.V079/2005 (2007).
27. Hussman v. Al Ameen, (2000) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 83.
28. Paklito Investment Ltd. v. Klockner East Asia Ltd. [1993] HKLR 39.
29. Ranko Group v. Antarctic Maritime [1998] ADRLN 35(QBD).
1参见联合国贸易法委员会《关于组织仲裁程序的说明》引言。
2 William W. Park, Arbitration's Protean Nature: The Value of Rules and the Risks of Discretion, Arb. Int'l, Vol.19, 2003, p.293.
1 Mauro Rubino-Sammartano, International Arbitration Law and Practice, Citic Publishing House, 2003, pp.56-59; SI Strong, Research and Practice in International Commercial Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 25-26.
1 Gabtielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Soft Law in International Arbitration: Codification and Normativity, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 1, 2010, p13.
2 See e.g., Fabian von Schlabrendorff,Ethical Standards for Arbitrators, Hybrid Proceedings, Rules of Transnational Law: Are We moving towards a Uniform Law of International Arbitration? Belgrade Law Review, Vol.57, 2009, p.104. 1999 IBA Working Party & 2010 IBA Rules of Evidence Review Subcommittee, Commentary on the revised text of the 2010 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, Dispute Resolution International May 2011, http://www.ibanet.org/Publications/DRI_online_May2011.aspx, Sep.1, 2011.
1 Arthur L. Marriott, Pros and Cons of More Detailed Arbitration Laws and Rules, in Planning Efficient Arbitration Proceedings (Albert Jan Van Den Berg ed., 1996), p.69.
2 Arthur L. Marriott, Pros and Cons of More Detailed Arbitration Laws and Rules, in Planning Efficient Arbitration Proceedings (Albert Jan Van Den Berg ed.,) 1996, p.69.
3 Arthur L. Marriott, Pros and Cons of More Detailed Arbitration Laws and Rules, in Planning Efficient Arbitration Proceedings, (Albert Jan Van Den Berg ed., 1996), pp.70-71.
4 John Fellas et al., Selected Materials in International Litigations and Arbitration, in John Fellas, International Business Litigation & Arbitration (PLI Litig. & Admin. Practice, Course Handbook Series No. 704), 2003, 1243.
5 William W. Park, Arbitration's Protean Nature: The Value of Rules and the Risks of Discretion, Arb. Int'l, Vol.19, 2003, p.288.
1 Hans Bagner, Need for Rules of Evidence in International Arbitration, Int’l Bus. Law, Vol.25, 1997, 178.
2 William W. Park, Arbitration's Protean Nature: The Value of Rules and the Risks of Discretion, Arb. Int'l, Vol.19, 2003, p.290.
1郭玉军:《经济全球化与法律协调化、统一化》,载《武汉大学学报》2001年第2期。
2宋连斌:《中国仲裁的国际化、本土化与民间化》,载《暨南学报》2006年第5期。另外参见Jonathan L. Greenblatt and Peter Griffin, Towards the Harmonization of International Arbitration Rules: Comparative Analysis of the Rules of the ICC, AAA, LCIA and CIETAC, Arbitration International, Vol.17, 2001,p.110.
1 Tom Ginsburg, The culture of Arbitraiton, Vand.J. Transnational Law, Vol.36, 2003, pp.1339-1344.
1《纽约公约》第5条第1款d项规定,“仲裁庭的组成或仲裁程序同当事人之间的协议不符,或者当事人间没有这种协议时,同进行仲裁的国家的法律不符……”,执行地法院可以拒绝承认与执行该仲裁裁决。
2 Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Staff, The commercial way to justice, Kluwer Law International, 1997, p.53.
3 Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Staff, The commercial way to justice, Kluwer Law International, 1997, pp.55-56.
1 Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Globalization of arbitral procedure,Vand. J. Transnat'l L., Vol. 36, 2003, p.1315.
2赵秀文著:《国际商事仲裁及其适用法律研究》,法律出版社2002年版,第96页。
3谢新胜著:《国际商事仲裁程序法的适用》,中国检察出版社2009版,第87页。
4 [瑞]费恩·迈德森:《瑞典商事仲裁(第三版)》,李虎、顾华宁译,法律出版社2008年版,第248页。
1谢新胜著:《国际商事仲裁程序法的适用》,中国检察出版社2009版,第109页。
1 David T. Stowell and Adam K. Treiger, Contract Provisions for Evidence Rulings in Arbitration, Los Angeles Lawyer, Vol.22, 1999, p.19.
1 Georgios Petrochios, Procedural Law in International Arbitration, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp219-223.
1 Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Staff, The commercial way to justice, Kluwer Law International, 1997, p.69.
2 Piero Bernaradini, Role of International Arbitrator, Arbitration International, Vol. 20, 2004, p.121.
3 Piero Bernaradini, Role of International Arbitrator, Arbitration International, Vol. 20, 2004, p.120.
5《关于组织仲裁程序的说明》第7条至第9条。
6 Piero Bernaradini, Role of International Arbitrator, Arbitration International, Vol. 20, 2004, pp.116-117.
1 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第284页。
2 C.Chatterjee, The Reality of The Party Autonomy Rule In international arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol.20 (6), 2003, p.539.
3须要注意的是,《纽约公约》的这个条文中“进行仲裁的国家的法律”没有将仲裁地的强制性法律规则排除在外。
4 ICC1512/1971号仲裁,转引自谢新胜著:《国际商事仲裁程序法的适用》,中国检察出版社2009版,第112页。
1参见谢新胜著:《国际商事仲裁程序法的适用》,中国检察出版社2009版,第112页。
1 Ali Yesilirmak, Provisional Measures In International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 2005, 102。
2朱克鹏著:《国际商事仲裁的法律适用》,法律出版社1999年版,第300页。
2 Osamu Inoue, The Due Process Defense to Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.11, 2000, pp.266-273.
1 Rolf Trittmann and Boris Kasolowsky, Taking Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings Between Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, UNSW Law Journal, Vol. 31, 2008, p.337.
1“Unless the parties any time agree otherwise in writing, the Arbitral Tribunal shall have the power:…(f) to decide whether to apply or not any strict rule of evidence (or any other rule) as to admissibility, relevance and weight of any material tendered by a party or any matter of fact or expert opinion”
1刘作翔著:《论法律文化》,载《法学研究》1988年第1期。
2 L.S.温伯格,J.W.温伯格:《论美国的法律文化》,载《法学译丛》1985年第1期。
3汤维建:《试论美国的民事诉讼法律文化》,载《法律科学》2000年第3期。
1 See e.g., Rechard H. Kreindler, Benefiting from oral testimony of expert witness, in Laurent Levy and V.V. Veeder, Arbitration and Oral Evidence, ICC Publishing S.A., 2005, p.88.
2 Mustill勋爵1976年发表的观点,参见Craig, Park and Paulsson, International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration, New York, 2000, p.423.
1 Nicolas C. Ulmer, A Comment on "The 'Americanization' of International Arbitration?," Mealey's Int'l Arb. Rep., Vol.16, 2001, p.24.
2 Roger Paul Alford, The American Influence on International Arbitration, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol.19, 2003, pp.80-83.
2 Susan L. Karamanian, Overstating the "Americanization" of International Arbitration: Lessons from ICSID, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., Vol.19, 2003, 34.
3 Elena V. Helmer, International Commercial Arbitration: Americanized, Civilized, or Harmonized, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., Vol. 19, 2003,pp.66-67.
1 Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Globalization of arbitral procedure, Vand. J. Transnat'l L., Vol. 36, 2003, p.1324.
2 Unpublished, ICC No. 14082, Procedural Order No.1.
3 RosInvest Co UK Ltd v Russian Federation, SCC Case No.V079/2005 (2007).
4 Marc Blessing, Introduction to Arbitration– Swiss and International Perspectives, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 2000, p. 288.
5 Alexandre Flu¨ckiger,‘Why Do We Obey Soft Law?’in Ste′phane Nahrath and Fre′de′ric Varone (eds), Rediscovering Public Law and Public Administration in Comparative Policy Analysis: A Tribute to Peter Knoepfel, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 2009, pp.45–62.
1 Nathan D. O’Malley, The Procedural Rules Governing the Production of Documentary Evidence in International Arbitration, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol.8, 2009,p.36; Gabtielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Soft Law in International Arbitration: Codification and Normativity, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 1, 2010, p14.
2 Jean-Francois Poudret & Sébastien Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration (2d ed.), Sweet & Maxwell, 2007, p.553.“[The IBA Rules] will not only have a bearing in the arbitral proceedings but also at a later stage when the award is subject to judicial review.”
3 X. v. A., Decision of 28 March 2007, ASA Bulletin, Vol.25(3),2007, pp. 610–617.关于该案例,另参见Marc Blessing, Introduction to Arbitration– Swiss and International Perspectives, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 2000, p. 288.
1 ABB AG. v. Hochtief Airport GmbH & Athens International Airport [2006] APP.L.R.
2 Bruce Harris, Rowan Planterose &Jonathan Tecks, The Arbitration Act 1996 (4th Ed.), a Commentary, Blackwell Science (UK), 2007, pp.166–167; ABB AG. v. Hochtief Airport GmbH & Athens International Airport [2006] APP.L.R., p.388 and 390.
1 Cher Seat Dever, Electronic Discovery /Disclosure: From Litigation to International Arbitration, Arbitration, Vol.74, 2008, p.382.
2有观点认为,《ICC仲裁规则》的该条规定体现了职权主义。Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Staff, The commercial way to justice, Kluwer Law International, 1997, 60.
3 Minmetals Germany GmbH v. Ferco Steel[1999] 1 All ER 315.
1 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第318页。
2 Carters (Merchants) Ltd. (UK) v. Francesco Ferraro (Italy)) Yearbook Commercial Arbitration IV (1979), pp.275-279.
1 P v. F Oberlandesgericht [Court of Apeal] Hamburg, 3 April 1975. 2 Yearbook. Comm. Arb’n 241(1977)转引自Tibor Varady, John J. Barcelo III, Arthur T. von Mehren, International commercial arbitration, west group, 1999, 418.
2 See e.g. CA Paris 18 January 1983 Sporprom Service v. Polyfrance Immo [1984] Rev Arb 87 with note by Mayer.
3 Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, The Production of Documents in International arbitration: A Commentary on Article
3 of the New IBA Rules of Evidence, 18 Arbitration International, Vol. 18, 2002, p.412.
1 Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, The Production of Documents in International arbitration– A Commentary on Article
3 of the New IBA Rules of Evidence, 18 Arbitration International, Vol. 18, 2002, pp.525-426.
1《IBA证据规则》前言第3款。
2 Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, The Production of Documents in International arbitration: A Commentary on Article
3 of the New IBA Rules of Evidence, 18 Arbitration International, Vol. 18, 2002, p.412.
3 Peter Ashford, Documentary Discovery and International Commercial Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.17, 2006, pp.114-115.
4 Bagner H. Confidentiality: A Fundamental Principle in International Commercial Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 18(2), 2001, pp243 - 249.
5郭玉军、梅秋玲:《仲裁的保密性问题研究》,载《法学评论》,2004年第2期。
1周清华,古俊峰,戴晨:《寻求平衡—国际商事仲裁秘密性问题研究》,载《大连海事大学学报》,2005第2期。
1 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第321页。
2 Rolf Trittmann and Boris Kasolowsky, Taking Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings Between Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, UNSW Law Journal, Vol. 31, 2008, p.336.
1黄松有:《证据开示制度比较研究》,载《政法论坛》2000年第5期,第114页。
2关于什么情况下适合在仲裁协议中约定美国式的书证开示的讨论,请参见Robert A. Weiner and B. Ted Howes, Arbitration discover: When should discovery provisions be included in an arbitration agreement? Disp. Resol. Mag., Vol.5, 1999, pp. 31-33.
1 Kaufmann-Kohler and B?rtsch, discovery in international arbitration: how much is too much, Schieds VZ, Heft 1, 2004, p.20.
2 Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, The Production of Documents in International arbitration: A Commentary on Article
3 of the New IBA Rules of Evidence, 18 Arbitration International, Vol. 18, 2002, pp.417-418.
3 ABB AG v. Hochtief Airport GmbH, EWHC 388 (Comm).
1 Kaufmann-Kohler and B?rtsch, discovery in international arbitration: how much is too much, Schieds VZ, Heft 1, 2004, p.19.
1 Sandifier, Durward, V., Evidence Before International Tribunals, The University Press of Virginia, 1975, p.147.
2 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第316页。
3参见1996年《英国仲裁法》第42条,《美国联邦仲裁法》第7条,《德国民事诉讼法》第1050条和第142条。
1 FRCP rr.26(f), 16(b) and Practice Direction CPR 31 2A.2, 2A.3.
1《IBA证据规则》第3条第3款a项ii目。
2参见《英国民事诉讼法第31条实践指南》第2A.4段。
1《ICC仲裁规则》第14条第1款,第15条第1款,《LCIA仲裁规则》第5条第2款,《AAA国际仲裁规则》第16条。
2 Zubulake v UBS Warburg LLC. 217 F.R.D. 309 (SDNY, 2003).
3 See P.D. O’Neill, The Power of Arbitrators to Award Monetary Sanctions for Discovery Abuse, Dispute Resolution J. Vol. 60, 2006, p.1.
1 Lawrence W. Newman, International Arbitration Hearings: Showdown or Denouement?Tul. J. Int’l & Comp.L., Vol. 5, 1997, p.394.
1Christian Borris, the Reconciliation of Conflicts Between Common Law and Civil law Principles in the Arbitration Process, in Conflicting Legal Cultures in Commercial Arbitration (Stefan N. Frommel and Barry A.K. Rider eds.), Kluwer Law International 1999, p.16.
1 The IBA Working Party, Commentary on the New IBA Rules of Evidence, Business Law International, Issue2, 2000, p.28.
2《IBA证据规则》第4条第9款。
3 Michael Bühler and Carroll Dorgan, Witness Testimony Pursuant to 1999 IBA rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration,Vol.17(1), 2000, p.16.
4 Michael Bühler and Carroll Dorgan, Witness Testimony Pursuant to 1999 IBA rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration,Vol., 17(1), 2000, p16.
1《UNCITRAL仲裁规则》第15条,《ICC仲裁规则》第15条,《LCIA仲裁规则》第14条均规定在当事人未做约定之前提下,将程序进行的权力交由仲裁庭决定。
2 Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. N National Bank of Pakistan [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223, 269.
3 Iron Ore Company of Canada v. Argonaut Shipping, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1985), ICCA Yearbook XII (1978), 173.
1 Derains& Schwartz, A Guide to the ICC Rules of Arbitration (2nd ed.), Kluwer Law International, 2005, p. 276.
2 Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co., Inc. v. Societe Generale de l'Industrie du Papier (RAKTA) 508 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1974).
3 508 F.2d 969,975-6 (2d Cir. 1974))
4 see eg., Domenico Di Pietro and Martin Plate, Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards, 2001, p.157; Steven L.Smith, Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards under the New York Convention, in Practitioner’s Handbook on International Arbitration and Mediation, 2007, p.305-306;丁颖著:《美国商事仲裁制度研究》,武汉大学出版社2007年版,第304-305页;Osamu Inoue, The Due Process Defense to Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.11, 2000, pp.251-252.
5 Tempo Shain Corp. v. Bertek, Inc., 120 F.3d 16, 21(2d Cir. 1997).
1 263 F. Supp.488 (C. D. Cal. 1967).
2比如,在美国,Griffin Indus. Inc. v. Petrojam, 58 F. Supp. 2a 212, 219 (S.D. N.Y. 1999).在该案件中,法院认为“庭审在大多数仲裁程序中是明智的,但仲裁员并不是在每个案件中都进行庭审理”。在英国,Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. v. National Bank of Pakistan [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223,269.
3 Yves Derains and Eric A. Schwartz, A Guide to the ICC Rules of Arbitration(2nd ed.), Kluwer Law International, 2005, p. 276.
1 Lawrence W. Newman, International Arbitration Hearings: Showdown or Denouement?Tul. J. Int’l & Comp.L., Vol. 5, 1997, p.395.
1参见《IBA证据规则》第8条第2款。
2 Laminoirs-Trefileries-Cableries de Lens, S.A. (LTCL) v. Southwire Co., 484 F. Supp. 1063, 1067 (N.D. Ga. 1980).
3 125 F.3d 1123, 1129-30 (7th Cir. 1997).
4 The Due Process Defense to Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 11 Am. Rev. Int'l Arb. 247, 264-5 (2000).
1《IBA证据规则》第8条第3款。
2 Elena V. Helmer,International Commercial Arbitration: Americanized, Civilized, or Harmonized, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., Vol. 19, 2003,p.53.
3 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第328页。
4 Michael Bühler and Carroll Dorgan, Witness Testimony Pursuant to 1999 IBA rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration,Vol.17(1), 2000, p26.
1 Elena V. Helmer,International Commercial Arbitration: Americanized, Civilized, or Harmonized, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., Vol. 19, 2003, p.53.
2不过,经仲裁员同意后,当事人可以向法院申请,要求法院协助证人或专家经宣誓后作证和当事人作出诚实声明后接受调查(参见《瑞典仲裁法》第26条)。
3 Moreover, Art. 8(1)(j)of 2000 Canada Arbitration Rules of ADR Chambers provides that the arbitrator may order sthat any party or witness shall be examined on oath or affirmation, and may for that purpose administer any necessary oath or take any necessary affirmation;
1 Paul A. Gélinas, Evidence through Witness, in Laurent Levy, V.V. Veeder, Arbitration and Oral Evidence, ICC Publishing S.A. 2004, p.46.
1《IBA证据规则》第6条第2款。
2 Ruth Fenton, A Civil Matter for a Common Expert: How Should Parties and Tribunals Use Experts in International Commercial Arbitration, Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J., Vol.6, 2006, p.282.
3 Ruth Fenton, A Civil Matter for a Common Expert: How Should Parties and Tribunals Use Experts in International Commercial Arbitration, Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J., Vol.6, 2006, p.285.
4 Michael E. Schneider, Technical Experts in International Arbitration, Association Suisse de l’arbitrage Bulletin, vol.3, 1993, p.454.
1《IBA证据规则》第6条第2款。
2比如,《ICC仲裁规则》第20条第4款,《瑞士国际仲裁规则》第27条第1款。
1 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第331页。
2参见《UNCITRAL仲裁规则》第26条,《SCC仲裁规则》第22条。
3 Air Intergulf v. SECA, Paris Ct. App. (1980) (unreported).转引自Ruth Fenton, A Civil Matter for a Common Expert: How Should Parties and Tribunals Use Experts in International Commercial Arbitration, Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J., Vol.6, 2006, p.283.
4 CA Paris 25 Nov. 1999 Burkinabe des ciments et materiaux (CIMAT) v. Societe des ciments d’Abidjan (SCA)[2001] Rev Arb 165 with note Cohen.
5 BayObLG 15 December 1999[2000] no.2 RPS 16.
6 Philippe Fouchard et,al, Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration, Citic Publishing House, 2004, p.704.
7 Michael E. Schneider, Technical Experts in International Arbitration, Association Suisse de l’arbitrage Bulletin, vol.3, 1993, p.454.
1 MauroRubino-sammartan, International Arbitration Law & Practice, Citic Publishing House, 2003, p.701.
2 [1999]1 Lloyd’s Rep.862(QBD(Comm. Ct).)
3 Allison and Holtzmann, The Tribunal’s Use of Experts, in David D. Caron & Jonh R.Crook, The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal And The Process of International Claims Resolution, Transnational Publisher, 2000, p.271.
1《IBA证据规则》第5条第5款。另外,其他许多仲裁规则也都明确规定了当事人对独立专家证人质证的权利,比如,《AAA国际仲裁规则》第22条第第4款,《ICC仲裁规则》第20条第4款,《SCC仲裁规则》第29条第3款,德国仲裁协会仲裁规则第27条第3款。
2《ICC仲裁规则》第3款,《IBA证据规则》第6条第6款。
3《IBA证据规则》第8条第1款。
4 David Brown, Oral evidence and expert in arbitration, in Laurent Levy and V.V. Veeder, Arbitration and Oral Evidence, ICC Publishing S.A., p.2005.
1《IBA证据规则》第8条第3款d项。
2《IBA证据规则》第8条第3款。
3 Michael E. Schneider, Technical Experts in International Arbitration, Association Suisse de l’arbitrage Bulletin, Vol.3, 1993,pp.464-465.
1Rolf Trittmann and Boris Kasolowsky, Taking Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings Between Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, UNSW Law Journal, Vol. 31(1), 2008, p.339.
2《IBA证据规则》第8条第3款f项.。
3《IBA证据规则》第5条第2款a项和c项。
4《IBA证据规则》第6条第3款。
1比如参见Siegfried H. Elsing and John M. Townsend, bridging the common law civil law divide in arbitration, Arbitration International, Vol.18 (1), 2002, p.1.
2 Pierre A.Karrer, The Civil Law and Common Law Divide-An International Arbitrator Tells, Dispute Resolution Journal, Feb-Apr, 2008, pp.72-81.
1 Sigvard Jarvin, Leading Arbitration Seats-A Comparative View, in Conflicting Legal Cultures in Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International 1999, p.44.
1在国际商事仲裁中,许多情况下,对关键证据的保全可以成功地导致和解。参见Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008, p.59.
1 Reinmar Wolff, Judicial Assistance By German Courts In Aid of International Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.19, 2008, p.153.
2 Reinmar Wolff, Judicial Assistance By German Courts In Aid of International Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.19, 2008, p.166.
3 Reinmar Wolff, Judicial Assistance By German Courts In Aid of International Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.19, 2008, p.154.
1 Rolf Trittmann and Boris Kasolowsky, Taking Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings Between Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, UNSW Law Journal, Vol. 31, 2008, p.336.
2 Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008, p.51.
3 See e.g., Philippe Fouchard et al., Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration, Citic Publishing House, 2004, p.728. Reinmar Wolff, Judicial Assistance By German Courts In Aid of International Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.19, 2008, p.149.
4 Philippe Fouchard et al., Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration, Citic Publishing House, 2004, p.728.
5 Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008, p.51.
6依据法国新仲裁法,法院对仲裁取证的协助由支持法官(juge d’appui)负责,在国际商事仲裁中该支持法官是巴黎高等法院原讼法庭的庭长(the President of the Tribunal de grande instance of Paris)。
7《法国民事诉讼法》第1449条。
1 9 U.S.C.§7 (2006).
2 9 U.S.C.§7 (2006).
3 Paul D. Friedland & Lucy Martinez, Arbitral Subpoenas under U.S. Law and Practice, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.14, 2003, p.228.
1 1999年《瑞典仲裁法》第25条和第26条。
2《瑞士联邦私法典》第184条第2款规定,需要国家当局协助取证的,仲裁庭或者征得仲裁庭同意的一方当事人可以请求仲裁庭所在地的法院予以协助。该法院应适用自己的法律。
3 2010年《新加坡国际仲裁法》第13和第14条。
4《香港仲裁条例》第2GC条。
5《台湾仲裁法》第26条规定:“仲裁庭得通知证人或鉴定人到场应询。但不得令其具结。证人无正当理由而不到场者,仲裁庭得声请法院命其到场。”
6 Art.1469 of CPC provides“If the president considers the application well-founded, he or she shall order that the relevant original, copy or extract of the deed or item of evidence be issued or produced, under such conditions and guarantees as he or she determines, and, if necessary, attach penalties to such order.”
1后一立法例包括1996年《英国仲裁法》第2条第3款,第43条和第44条,《德国民事诉讼法》第1082条,2010年《新加坡国际仲裁法》第12A条第1款b项,《香港仲裁条例》第2GG条。
2比如,《德国民事诉讼法》第1062条,《香港仲裁条例》第2GG条,1974年《澳大利亚仲裁法》第22条和第23条,以及《瑞士联邦国际私法》第183条。
1《奥地利民事诉讼法》第602条第2句。
2 Nathan D. O'Malley and Shawn C. Conway, Document Discovery in International Arbitration: Getting the Documents You Need, Transnat'l Law, Vol.18, 2005, p.379.
3 Conclusions and Recommendations Adopted by the Special Commission The Practical Operation of the Hague Apostille,Evidence and Service Conventions, 28 October 10 4 November 2003.
4 Council Regulation No. 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001, Art. 1, 2001 O.J.(L 174) 1, 3 (EC).
5 See Analytical Commentary on Draft Text of a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: Report of theSecretary-General (A/CN.9/264), p.131 et seq.
1 [1993] A.C. 334, 358-59 (H.L.)
2 Commerce & Industries Co. of Canada v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, [2002] 2 All E.R. 204, 206 (Comm)
3 Michael Penny, Letters of Request: Will a Canadian Court Enforce a Letter of Request from an International Arbitral Tribunal? Am. Rev. Int’l. Arb., Vol. 12, 2001, p.249; Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. v. Legacy Hotels Real Estate Investment Trust (2003), 36 C.P.C. (5th) 138.)
4 Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, s. 46(1).各省也有类似立法,比如在多伦多,the Evidence Act, R.S.O.1990, c,E. 23, s.60(1).
3 It provides"district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal."
4 NBC v. Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., 165 F.3d 184, 188-97 (2d Cir. 1999).
5 168 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 1999).
1 In re Oxus Gold PLC, 2006 WL 2927615 (D.N.J. Oct. 11, 2006); In re Roz Trading Ltd., 469 F.Supp. 2d 1221 (N.D. Ga. 2006).
2 Reinmar Wolff, Judicial Assistance By German Courts In Aid of International Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.19, 2008, p.171.
1 See e.g., Reinmar Wolff, Judicial Assistance By German Courts In Aid of International Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.19, 2008, p.149; Philippe Fouchard et al., Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration, Citic Publishing House, 2004, p.728; Jean-Francois Poudret & Sébastien Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration (2d ed.), Sweet & Maxwell, 2007, p.670.
2 [瑞]费恩·迈德森:《瑞典商事仲裁(第三版)》,李虎、顾华宁译,法律出版社2008年版,第160页(脚注180)。
1 Bradley J. Freedman and Gregory N. Harney, Obtaining Evidence from Canada: the Enforcement of Letters Rogatory by Canadian Courts, U.B.C. Law Review, Vol. 21,1987, p.351.
1纪格非著:《证据能力论——以民事诉讼为视角的研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2005年版,第140页。
1 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第317页。
2 Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues: a Study on Evidence before International Tribunals, Kluwer Law International, 1996, p.189.
3赵秀文编著:《国际商事仲裁案例评析》,法制出版社2009年版,第205-209页。
1当然,也有极个别国家的仲裁立法采取了不同的立场,比如《葡萄牙仲裁法》第18条第1款规定,民事诉讼法认可的证据均可提交给仲裁庭。可见,葡萄牙对仲裁中证据可采性的认定采用了诉讼中的证据可采性标准。
2 David T. Stowell and Adam K. Treiger, Contract Provisions for Evidence Rulings in Arbitration, Los Angeles Lawyer, Vol.22, 1999, p.21.
1 [瑞]费恩·迈德森:《瑞典商事仲裁(第三版)》,李虎、顾华宁译,法律出版社2008年版,第158页(脚注169)。
2 Philippe Fouchard et al., Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration, Citic Publishing House, 2004, p.695.
3 Peter Ashford, Documentary Discovery and International Commercial Arbitration, Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., Vol.17, 2006, p.115.
4 Case No. 6465, 121 J.D.I.1088, 1090(1994),转引自Philippe Fouchard et al., Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration, Citic Publishing House, 2004, p.696.
5 Siegfried H. Elsing and John M. Townsend, bridging the common law civil law divide in arbitration, ArbitrationInternational, Vol.18 (1), 2002, p.3.
1 Siegfried H. Elsing and John M. Townsend, bridging the common law civil law divide in arbitration, Arbitration International, Vol.18 (1), 2002, p.3.
2 Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, The Production of Documents in International arbitration– A Commentary on Article
3 of the New IBA Rules of Evidence, 18 Arbitration International, Vol. 18, 2002, pp.413-414.
1 Nathalie Voser and Anna Katharina Mueller, Appointment of Experts by the Arbitral Tribunal: the Civil Law Perspective, Bus. L. Int'l, Vol.7, 2006, p.73.
2比如,1998年《英国民事诉讼规则》第31条第13款。
3 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第335页。
1 Christoph Liebscher, The healthy awards, Kluwer Law International,2003,p.271.
2 Christoph Liebscher, The healthy awards, Kluwer Law International,2003,p.345.
1 Bruce A. McAllister and Amy Bloom, The Use of Evidence in Admiralty Proceedings: Evidence in Arbitration, J. Mar. L. & Com., Vol. 34, 2003,p.52.
2 Emma Morales, Admissibility of evidence in arbitration proceedings, available at http://www.twobirds.com/English/News/Articles/Pages/Admissibility_evidence_arbitration_proceedings.aspx
3 Bonar v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 835 F.2d 1378, 1383 (11th Cir. 1988). See also Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Lambros, 1 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (M.D. Fla. 1998).
4 Norah Gallagher, Legal Privilege in International Arbitration, International Arbitration Law Review, Issue 2, 2003, p.45.
1 Craig Tevendale and Ula Cartwright-Finch, Privilege in International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 26, 2009, pp.823-829.
2参见杨良宜著:《英美证据法》,法律出版社2003年版,第172页。
3 Richard M. Mosk and Tom Ginsburg,Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Int’l & Comp.L.Q., Vol. 50, 2001, p.383.
1 ALI & UNIDROIT, Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil Procedures, Cambridge University Press 2005, p.142.
2 Klaus Peter Berger, Evidentiary Privileges: Best Practice Standards versus/ and Arbitral Discretion, Arb. Int., Vol. 22, 2006, p.507.
3 Klaus Peter Berger, Evidentiary Privileges: Best Practice Standards versus/ and Arbitral Discretion, Arb. Int., Vol. 22, 2006, p.505.
3 Klaus Peter Berger, Evidentiary Privileges: Best Practice Standards versus/ and Arbitral Discretion, Arb. Int., Vol. 22, 2006, p.509.
4 Kaufmann-Kohler and B?rtsch, discovery in international arbitration: how much is too much, Schieds VZ, Heft 1, 2004, p.19; Richard M. Mosk and Tom Ginsburg,Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Int’l & Comp.L.Q., Vol. 50, 2001, p.377.
1 Richard M. Mosk and Tom Ginsburg,Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Int’l & Comp.L.Q., Vol. 50, 2001, p.379.
2丁伟:《论国际商事仲裁与国际民事诉讼法律适用的主要区别》,载《仲裁研究》(第2辑),法律出版社2004年版,第26页。
3 Kaufmann-Kohler and B?rtsch, discovery in international arbitration: how much is too much, Schieds VZ, Heft 1, 2004, pp.13-24.
4 Javier H. Rubinstein and Britton B. Guerrina, The Attorney-Client Privilege and International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol.18 (6), 2001,p.587.
1 Craig Tevendale and Ula Cartwright-Finch, Privilege in International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 26, 2009, pp.837-838.
1何家弘主编:《证据法学研究》,中国人民大学出版社,2007年版,第96-97页。
2 Anne Veronique Schlaepfer, Witness Statement, in Laurent Levy, V.V. Veeder ed., Arbitration and Oral Evidence, ICC Publishing S.A., 2005, p.72.
1 (2000) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 83.
2何家弘:《证据的审查与认定原理论纲》,载《法学家》,2008年第3期。
1 Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) ALL ER 372 ,373 - 374.
2 [1950] All ER 458.
3 [1956]3 All ER 970 - 978.
4 Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Staff, The commercial way to justice, Kluwer Law International, 1997, pp.56-58.
1 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第318页。
2 David D. Caron AT. AL., the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: a Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2006, p.570.
1 [1956] 3 All ER 970- 978.
2李浩著:《民事证明责任研究》,法律出版社2003年版,第194页。
3 Bryan A. Garner. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed.), Thomson West, 2004, p.793.
1 Sandifier, Durward, V., Evidence Before International Tribunals, The University Press of Virginia, 1975, p.147.
2杨良宜,杨大明:《国际商事仲裁中的证据——问题领域与最新发展》,载《中国海商法年刊》(第13卷),法律出版社,2003年版,第88页。
3 300 F. Supp. 179 (S.D.N.Y. 1969).
1 Bruce A. McAllister and Amy Bloom, The Use of Evidence in Admiralty Proceedings: Evidence in Arbitration, J. Mar. L. & Com., Vol. 34, 2003, pp.43-44.
2 [英]艾伦·雷德芬等:《国际商事仲裁法律与实践(第四版)》,林一飞、宋连斌译,北京大学出版社2005年版,第316页。
1 See The IBA Working Party, Commentary on the New IBA Rules of Evidence, Business Law International, Issue2, 2000, p.34.
2 Sharpe, Jeremy K., Drawing Adverse Inferences from the Non-production of Evidence, Arbitration International, Vol.22, 2006, p.551.
1 Bryan A. Garner. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed.), Thomson West, 2004, p.1228.
1 BG 25 July 1997 [2000] Bull ASA 96.
2 Craig Tevendale and Ula Cartwright-Finch, Privilege in International Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 26, 2009, pp.823-829.
3杨良宜著:《英美证据法》,法律出版社2003年版,第172页。
4 Richard M. Mosk and Tom Ginsburg,Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration, Int’l & Comp.L.Q., Vol.
50, 2001, p.383.
2姜霞:《论仲裁证据制度的独立性》,载《湘潭大学学报》,2007年第5期。
3谢新胜著:《国际商事仲裁程序法的适用》,中国检察出版社2009年版,第133页。
1汪祖兴:《民事诉讼证据规则与仲裁证据规则的差异性解读》,载《广东社会科学》2005年,第4期。
2上海仲裁委员会根据2002年4月25日根据录音整理的资料。转引自杜开林:《对一起仲裁证据保全案的评析——兼论现行仲裁证据保全法律规定的不足》,载《法律适用》2003年第5期。
3 See e.g., LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p8.
4 Jerome A. Cohen, Time to Fix China’s Arbitration, Far Eastern Economic Rev., Vol. 168, 2005, p.33.
5即《司法部关于执行〈外国律师事务所驻华代表机构管理条例〉的规定》第32条。
1宋朝武:《仲裁证据的非诉化及其路径选择》,载《河南社会科学》,2010年第3期。
1 LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p8.
2陈忠谦:《试析民商事仲裁中的证据制度》,载《仲裁研究》(第16辑),法律出版社2008年版,第5页。
1 LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p14.
1 LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p12. Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008, p.58.
2《贸仲规则》第39条和《北仲规则》第34条仅仅笼统地规定了质证;中国海事仲裁委员会仲裁规则第36条和37条则相对具体地规定了申请证人出庭、提交必要的身份证明和接受质询的义务等问题。
3徐昕:《法官为什么不相信证人?》,载《法学精粹》2008年第3期。
4在实践中,如果双方当事人同意的情况下,仲裁庭可以允许当事人书面质证代替庭审中的质证。LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p16.王学权:《从办案秘书的视角看仲裁庭审若干细节问题》,载《北京仲裁》(第72辑),法制出版社,第188页。
5 LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p16.
6 LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p12.
1 Jonathon Crook, Leading Arbitration Seats in the Far East: A Comparative View, in Conflicting Legal Cultures in Commercial Arbitration (Stefan N. Frommel and Barry A.K. Rider eds.), Kluwer Law International 1999,pp.69-70.
2《仲裁法》第44条规定:“仲裁庭对专门性问题认为需要鉴定的,可以交由当事人约定的鉴定部门鉴定,也可以由仲裁庭指定的鉴定部门鉴定……。”
3《贸仲规则》第38条第1款;另参见《北仲规则》第32条第1款,《海仲规则》第45条第1款等。
4毕玉谦:《证据规则在仲裁实践中的运用(下)》,载《北京仲裁》(第53辑),法制出版社2004年版,第42页。
5范铭超:《论我国商事仲裁中构建专家证人制度》,载〈法治论丛〉2005年第1期。
6比如,《贸仲规则》第38条第2款,《北仲规则》第32条第3款。
1毕玉谦:《证据规则在仲裁实践中的运用(下)》,载《北京仲裁》(第53辑),法制出版社2004年版,第44页。
2 Paklito Investment Ltd. v. Klockner East Asia Ltd. [1993] HKLR 39.
1 Andreas S. Lowenfeld, International Arbitration as Omelette: What Goes into the Mix, in Conflicting Legal Cultures in Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, 1999, p.25.
1于喜富著:《国际商事仲裁的司法监督与协助——兼论中国的立法与司法实践》,知识产权出版社2006年版,第338页。
2 Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008, p.58.
1 Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008, p.56.
1刘晓红:《从国际商事仲裁证据制度的一般特质看我国涉外仲裁证据制度的完善》,载《政治与法律》,2009年第5期,第95页;姜霞:《论仲裁证据制度的独立性》,载《湘潭大学学报》,2007年第5期;宋朝武:《仲裁证据的非诉化及其路径选择》,载《河南社会科学》,2010年第3期。LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p8(“Many Chinese arbitrators subconsciously or consciously make reference to these rules of evidence as guidance in their arbitration practice. Some of them even cite the court rules of evidence in support of their decision on evidence. This is especially so when an arbitrator is a retired judge”).
2《民事证据规定》第69条规定,与一方当事人或者其代理人有利害关系的证人出具的证言不能单独作为认定案件事实的依据。
3参见纪格非:《边沁证据法学思想的当代解读》,载《法制与社会》2010年第6期。该文试图通过这一案例说明,对于民事证据是否具有可采性的判断,依据日常生活经验比具有技术性特点的可采性规则更为合理,同样,国际商事仲裁中仲裁员行使自由裁量权一般也应依据前者而不是后者。
4张斌生:《仲裁法新论(第三版)》,厦门大学出版社2008版,第208页。另参见齐玎:《仲裁程序中的证据认证规则初探》,载《仲裁研究》(第18辑),法律出版社2009年版,第45页。
1毕玉谦:《证据规则在仲裁实践中的运用》(上),载《北京仲裁》(第52辑),法制出版社2004年版,第47-48页。
1王小莉:《仲裁语境下域外证据之认定》,载《仲裁研究》(第19辑),法律出版社2009年版,第9页。
2尹伟民:《域外证据的特别证明程序探析》,载《大连海事大学学报》2007年第1期。
3尹伟民:《域外证据的特别证明程序探析》,载《大连海事大学学报》2007年第1期。
1 LU Song, GU Huaning, China’s Rules of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration, China Law Reporter, Vol. 5, 2009, p16.
2宋朝武:《仲裁证据的非诉化及其路径选择》,载《河南社会科学》,2010年第3期。
3有观点认为,仲裁庭不能因当事人未提交对自己不利的证据进行不利推定,乔欣编著:《比较商事仲裁》,
1参见汪祖兴:《民事诉讼证据规则与仲裁证据规则的差异性解读》,载《广东社会科学》,2005年第4期;Bryant Yuan Fu Yang and Diane Chen Dai, Tipping The Scale to Bring to Balanced Approach: Evidence Disclosure in Chinese International Arbitration, Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y, Vol. 17, 2008, pp.54-55.
1 Kaufmann-Kohler and B?rtsch, discovery in international arbitration: how much is too much, Schieds VZ, Heft 1, 2004, p.20.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |