UK and International Experience in the Admission, Regulation and Operation of Arbitral Institutions (仲裁机构准入、监管和运作之英国及国际经验)

Abstract

English abstract: States increasingly compete for arbitration users because it helps them to offload the courts, create business opportunities for domestic lawyers and serviced related to law (experts, interpreters, witnesses, conference organizers, hospitality industry). Foreign law firms also actively set up branches of their firms in what they perceive as arbitration hubs. In addition, the popularity of a particular jurisdiction among arbitration users sends a powerful signal to foreign investors about the rule of law and enhances the prestige of the arbitration venue.

This report shows that successful arbitration hubs such as London and Singapore appreciate the economic benefits that international arbitration can bring to them and create favorable conditions for arbitration institutions and users. This report concludes that most jurisdictions do not adopt any special rules for admission of foreign arbitral institutions. Moreover, some jurisdictions (e.g., Singapore) actively adopt various measures to liberalize access of arbitration users and institutions.

London and Singapore are respectively number one and number three most popular seats of arbitration in the world. Arbitration venues in Russia, which takes a more restrictive approach to regulating arbitration, are nowhere near the top of the list of preffered arbitration venues. On the contrary, many arbitration users with Russian and foreign law elements prefer to resolve their disputes abroad. The example of Singapore suggests that active policies to encourage international arbitration can result in impressive results, bringing economic and reputational benefits.

From the regulatory point of view, what matters in most jurisdictions is not whether the arbitration institution is foreign or domestic, but whether the award is foreign (e.g., issued in another jurisdiction). In accordance with the New York Convention, foreign (e.g., rendered abroad) arbitral awards are enforced with domestic courts playing a ‘policing’ role. Domestic courts can set aside arbitral rendered in the territory within their jurisdiction or refuse recognition/enforcement for awards rendered in foreign jurisdictions.

Leading international arbitral institutions register offices overseas to better cooperate with local partners and parties for marketing, training and case management. Some arbitral institutions setting up branches in various jurisdictions but usually this does not change the legal status of their awards under their domestic arbitration laws or the New York Convention.

Mandarin abstract: 国家对仲裁用户的竞争与日俱增，因为这有助于国家减轻法庭的负担，为国内律师和法律相关服务业者（专家、翻译、证人、会议组织者、酒店业）创造业务机会。外国律师事务所也积极在它们认为是仲裁中心的地方设立分所。此外，如果特定辖区受到仲裁用户的欢迎，那它就向外国投资人传递一个法治的有力信号，加强了仲裁地的声誉。

此报告表明成功的仲裁中心，比如伦敦和新加坡，非常看重国际仲裁可以给当地带来的经济效益，会为仲裁机构和用户创造了优惠的条件。此报告总结道：大多数辖区都不会针对外国仲裁机构采用任何特殊的准入规则。此外，有些辖区（例如新加坡）积极采用各种措施放宽仲裁用户和机构的准入。

伦敦和新加坡分别是世界第一和第三受欢迎的仲裁地。俄罗斯采用更具限制性的方法，在仲裁用户首选仲裁地榜单中距离榜首位置甚远。相反，很多具有俄罗斯和外国法律要素的仲裁用户倾向于在境外解决自己的纠纷。新加坡的例子表明鼓励国际仲裁的积极政策可能带来引人瞩目的成果，创造经济收益，提高声誉。

从监管的角度来看，在大多数辖区，重要的并不是仲裁机构是外国的还是国内的，而是在于裁决是不是外国的（例如另一辖区的问题）。根据《纽约公约》，外国（例如境外作出的）仲裁裁决是通过扮演“监管”角色的国内法庭执行的。国内法庭可以驳回其管辖区域作出的仲裁裁决，或者拒绝承认/执行在外国辖区作出的裁决。

顶尖的国际仲裁机构在境外注册业务机构，以便与本地合作伙伴和当事人更好地合作，完成营销、培训和案件管理。有些仲裁机构在各个辖区设立了分部，但这通常并未改变其裁决在国内仲裁法或者《纽约公约》项下的法律地位。

Note: Downloadable document available in English and Mandarin.

Keywords: arbitral institutions, commercial arbitration, arbitration regime, institutional arbitration, ad hoc arbitration, enforcement

JEL Classification: F21, K33, K40