范思深
范思深教授(Susan Finder) 是藍海法律查明和商事調解中心法律專家、北京大學國際法學院常駐知名學者、最高人民法院國際商事專家委員。范教授是從事中國司法制度比較研究的專家，她擁有從事涉華法律實務的多年工作經驗。范教授的許多研究成果都發表在其個人博客“最高人民法院觀察”（SPC Monitor）上，哈佛大學法學院圖書館將該博客列入中國法律研究最佳資料來源庫。
我很榮幸有這個機會就中國國際商事法院(CICC)的首批裁定和判決發表意見。本短評將側重中國國際商事法庭的判決和裁定以及仲裁司法審查裁定的重要性。
中國國際商事法庭的運作時間不長，對其運作進行更詳細的分析還為時過早。但從其迄今為止的運作中可以清楚看到的是，中國國際商事法庭選擇其受理的案件非常慎重，只選擇會對中國相關法律發展產生影響的案件。至少從首批裁定可以明顯看出，中國國際商事法庭的判決和裁定對于下級法院的法官和法律界人士來說，可能是重要的“軟先例”，即權威性的裁判，雖然對下級法院沒有約束力，但具有很強的說服力。國內外權威專家均指出，這批裁定填補了中國仲裁法的一項空白。這些裁定也與一些主要法域法院的立場保持了一致，也即盡管雙方當事人的合同并未最后敲定，但雙方都表示有意將爭議提交仲裁。在本文作者看來，這些裁判構成中國發展自己的案例指導制度的一部分，正如第五個司法改革綱要第26項所強調的，特別是“完善類案和新類型案件強制檢索報告工作機制” 。此前，最高人民法院關于落實司法責任制完善審判監督管理機制的意見（試行）曾提及“(六) 在完善類案參考、裁判指引等工作機制基礎上，建立類案及關聯案件強制檢索機制，確保類案裁判標準統一、法律適用統一 ?！?/span>
此外，到目前為止，合議庭均由五名法官組成，全部都是中國法院在跨境問題（包括仲裁司法審查）方面最杰出的專家。由此可見最高人民法院對國際商事法庭案件的重視程度。
本文作者認為，除國際商事法庭案件外，最高人民法院審理或選取的其他案件也將被歸入此類案例。例如，最高人民法院知識產權法庭判決的案件，也可歸為所說的“最高人民法院軟判例”，最高人民法院其他軟判例還包括最高人民法院公報案例、各個業務庭發表的審判業務指導叢書選的案例和各個業務庭專業法官會議案例。我認為，最高人民法院合議庭判決的案件也具有說服力，但是沒有上述幾類案例的說服力強。最高人民法院巡回法庭案例對其轄區內的法院具有很強的說服力。由于立法機關往往來不及修改立法，許多新問題就擺在了法院面前，因此需要以判例來補充法律和司法解釋以正確指導下級法院。我看到中國正在發展自己的判例法，參考傳統法律和外國司法管轄區的做法，但最終確定適合中國特殊國情的規則，這可能包括上文提到的一些要點。國際商事法庭的裁判，無論是裁定還是判決，都將向市場發出重要信號，而且很可能在全球范圍內產生重大影響，因為已有相關文件顯示，爭議合同適用中國法，或者中國法在不同方面予以適用的國際仲裁案件不斷在增加。
英文版
I am honored to have this opportunity to comment on some of the first rulings and judgments of the China International Commercial Court (CICC). This brief commentary will address the significance of CICC judgments and rulings and the CICC arbitration-related rulings.
The CICC has been in operation a short time and it is early days to provide a more detailed analysis of its operations. What is clear from its operations so far is that it is carefully choosing its cases, only selecting cases that will have an impact on the development of relevant Chinese law. What seems evident from the initial rulings, at least, is that the judgments and rulings of the CICC are likely to be significant for lower court judges and members of the legal community as “soft precedents,” authoritative decisions that are highly persuasive although not binding on the lower courts. Authoritative commentators in China and abroad have noted that the arbitration rulings fill a gap in Chinese arbitration law. The rulings are also consistent with the position taken by courts in some major jurisdictions that also find that the parties expressed their intent to arbitrate any dispute although their contract was never finalized. In the view of this commentator, they are part of China developing its own case guidance system, highlighted in item #26 of the 5th Judicial Reform Outline, in particular the phrase “Improve working mechanisms for mandatory searches and reporting of analogous cases and new types of cases” “完善類案和新類型案件強制檢索報告工作機制”. It was previously mentioned in Opinions on Putting a Judicial Responsibility System in Place and Improving Mechanisms for Trial Oversight and Management (Provisional) –“on the foundation of improving working mechanisms such as consulting similar cases and judgment guidance a mechanism is to be established requiring the search of similar cases and relevant cases, to ensure a uniform judgment standard for similar cases, and the uniform application of law “最高人民法院關于落實司法責任制完善審判監督管理機制的意見（試行）, (六) 在完善類案參考、裁判指引等工作機制基礎上，建立類案及關聯案件強制檢索機制，確保類案裁判標準統一、法律適用統一?！?/span>
Moreover, thus far, five judges formed the members of the collegial panel, all of whom are the Chinese court’s most outstanding specialists on cross-border issues, including the judicial review of arbitration. This indicates the importance to which the Supreme People’s Court attaches to CICC cases.
In this commentator’s view, addition to CICC cases, other cases decided by or selected by the Supreme People’s Court would be classified as such. For example, cases decided by the Supreme People’s Court Intellectual Property Rights Court 最高人民法院知識產權法庭 would also be allocated to the category that I call “Supreme People’s Court soft precedents.” Other Supreme People’s Court soft precedents would include cases in the Supreme People’s Court Gazette 最高人民法院公報案件, cases in the trial guides published by the various operational divisions 各個業務庭發表的審判業務指導叢書選的案件，and cases of the specialized judges committees of the SPC operational divisions 和各個業務庭專業法官會議案件。
In my view, cases decided by the collegial panels of the Supreme People’s Court are also persuasive, but not as persuasive as Supreme People’s Court cases in the categories described above. Supreme People’s Court circuit court cases are very persuasive to the courts within their jurisdiction. This case law is needed to supplement law and judicial interpretations and guide the lower courts correctly, as many new issues come before the courts before the legislative organs have time to amend legislation. I see China evolving its own case law, looking to traditional law and foreign jurisdictions for reference, but settling upon rules that fit China’s special situation, that may include some of the points I mention above. CICC decisions, whether rulings or judgments, will send important signals to the market, and are likely to be significant worldwide, as there is a documented increase in international arbitration cases where either the contract in dispute is governed by Chinese law or Chinese law is relevant in various ways.
