編者按
2018年11月3日，以“國際商事訴訟與多元化糾紛解決機制”為主題的第三屆“前海法智論壇”在深圳市麒麟山莊順利召開。論壇由最高人民法院等單位作為支持機構，由深圳市中級人民法院、深圳市法學會、深圳市司法局、深圳市人民政府法制辦公室、深圳前海合作區人民法院、深圳市前海深港現代服務業合作區管理局和深圳市藍?，F代法律服務發展中心聯合主辦。論壇期間，藍海中心對各位專家學者進行專題采訪。小編將陸續與大家分享嘉賓們的精彩觀點。本期作客“藍海貴賓室”的是最高人民法院國際商事專家委員會委員、新加坡國際商事法庭法官、香港大學法學院教授、藍海法律專家芮安牟。
最高人民法院國際商事專家委員會委員、新加坡國際商事法庭法官、香港大學法學院教授芮安牟在第三屆前海法智論壇上作主題發言
BCI：芮安牟教授，首先恭賀您今年8月被最高人民法院國際商事法庭（CICC）聘為商事法庭專家委員，對于CICC的建設您有何建議或期許？
芮安牟：對中國而言，尤其是在“一帶一路”建設的背景下，成立CICC是邁出的令人興奮的一步。我們目前仍處于推動和發展CICC成為解決“一帶一路”跨境商事爭端的優選法庭的早期階段。CICC目前剛設立，在完善規則和程序（以及其他方面）仍有許多工作亟待完成。
The CICC is an exciting step for China, especially in the context of the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI). We are still in the early stages of developing and promoting the CICC to become a preferred forum for the resolution of cross-border commercial disputes arising out of the BRI. The CICC is only newly established and much work remains to be done in terms of refining its rules and procedures with that objective (among others) in mind.
BCI：國際仲裁在國際商事糾紛中承擔著重要角色。請問您如何定位國際商事仲裁與國際商事訴訟的關系？
芮安牟：訴訟與仲裁二者有其存在的必要，且相互補充。
今天國際仲裁面臨的問題，正是由于仲裁員過于執著仲裁的合法程序，致使仲裁變得講究技術性且費用昂貴。但是，截至目前，國際社會普遍認為暫無其它爭端解決方式可與之競爭。1958年的《紐約公約》使國際仲裁被認為是當事人維護跨境商事權利的最佳方式。時至今日，訴訟都無法與《紐約公約》相提并論，因為后者可在全世界范圍內申請獲得承認與執行。
即便如此，訴訟目前正在逐漸成為仲裁的替代措施。特別是2005年《海牙選擇法院協議公約（海牙公約）》（中國已于2017年9月17日簽署加入，但目前尚未獲得批準）的簽署。目前在全球范圍內，共計有32個司法管轄區（31個國家和1個區域經濟一體化組織（REIO）（歐洲聯盟）加入了2005年《海牙公約》。未來幾年，預計將會有更多的國家加入。因此，借助2005年《海牙公約》和海牙國際私法會議正在談判起草的《外國民商事判決承認與執行公約》，將推動訴訟判決如國際仲裁裁決一樣在世界范圍內易于執行。
當下重要的，是借助訴訟制衡國際仲裁。兩種爭端解決方式間的競爭，必然將全面降低國際商事爭端的解決成本。如果仲裁的成本過于昂貴，當事人將會在商業合同中約定選擇訴訟作為爭端解決的方式而非選擇仲裁。相反，如果訴訟費用過高，則當事人將可能采取相反做法。
調解作為爭端解決的另一方式，將在明年見證新發展。2019年8月，《新加坡公約》將開放簽署?！缎录悠鹿s》的主要內容是承認和執行跨境調解協議。這意味著，至少有三種跨境強制執行商業權利的模式可供選擇：依據《紐約公約》進行仲裁；依據《海牙選擇法院協議公約》或即將成稿的《外國民商事判決承認與執行公約》提起訴訟；以及依據《新加坡公約》進行調解。
正如前文所述，讓商事主體在解決跨境商事爭端時有多種不同選擇，將有助于降低跨境商事爭端解決的成本，包括在“一帶一路”沿線國家內。
Both are necessary. They complement each other.
The problem today with international arbitration is that, due to due-process paranoia among arbitrators, it has become too technical and too expensive. But, at present, international arbitration is regarded as having no viable competitor as a mode of dispute resolution. Because of the 1958 New York Convention, international arbitration is perceived to be the best way to enforce a party’s commercial rights across borders. Litigation until recently has had no equivalent to the New York Convention that allows for the ready enforcement of judgments worldwide.
Nevertheless, litigation is gradually developing as an alternative to arbitration. In particular, there is now the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Agreement Convention (which China signed on September 17, 2017, but to which China has yet to accede). There are now 32 jurisdictions (31 states and one Regional Economic Integration organization (REIO) (namely, the European Union)) that have acceded to the 2005 Hague Convention. More states are likely to sign up in the coming years. Therefore, in the future, through the 2005 Hague Convention and the new convention for the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters that is currently being drafted by the Hague Conference, judgments will be as readily enforceable as arbitral awards internationally.
It is important to develop international litigation to be a counterpoise to international arbitration as a mode of dispute resolution. The competition between the two modes of dispute resolution will reduce the cost of international commercial dispute resolution across the board. If arbitration is too expensive, parties will insert a choice of court agreement into their commercial contract instead of an arbitration agreement. If litigation becomes too expensive, parties will do the reverse.
Mediation will witness an exciting development as an alternative mode of dispute resolution next year. In August 2019 the Singapore Convention will be open for signature. The Singapore Convention will provide for the recognition and enforcement of mediated settlement agreements across borders. That means, there will be at least three different ways to enforce one’s commercial rights internationally: by arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention; by litigation pursuant to the Hague Choice of Court Agreement Convention or the forthcoming Hague Convention: and by mediation through the Singapore Convention.
As I have mentioned, giving businesses a choice in terms of options for resolving their commercial disputes, will help lower the cost of cross-border dispute resolution generally, including within the BRI.
BCI：芮安牟教授，您非常注重法律專業培訓和交流，例如去年您就參與了藍海中心與深圳法院共同策劃的“普通法裁判思維研修班”，能談談您為什么如此看重教育？在當今的環境下，您認為優秀的法律從業者，應該著重培養哪些方面的素質和技能？
芮安牟：今天的法律系學生未來將成為律師、法官和法學教授。他們的工作將不可避免的影響著普通人的日常生活。
積累法律專業經驗不可能一蹴而就，需要多年的學習與工作積累，還需要不斷地思考與反思。它不僅僅要求人們理解法律條文的字面解釋，還需要了解周圍的世界，以及人們在日常生活中遭遇的商業和經濟問題。
當然，閱讀法律專業書籍是必要的，但這遠遠不夠，我們不能僅從法律專業書籍中汲取知識。我們還需要進行實踐，與人交往，體驗生活。鑒于對學習和實踐提出的更高要求，學生們從17或18歲開始研究法律并不算早，與教授和社會公眾進行積極且深入廣泛的對話，話題不僅僅局限于法律本身，還包括法律在改善公民生活方面的意義。
大學提供了一個教育環境，年輕學生可以成長為對社會有獨特見解的法律人。
Today's law students will be the lawyers and (eventually) judges and law professors of the future. Their work will inevitably affect the lives of ordinary people.
Gaining experience in the law is not something that can happen overnight. It takes years of study and work. It requires much thought and reflection. It is not just a matter of focusing on the letter of the law. It also involves getting to know about the world around one and the day-to-day commercial and financial difficulties that people everywhere encounter in the course of living their daily lives and when engaging in trade with each other.
One cannot pick up such knowledge from law books alone. Of course, one must read lawbooks. But that will not be enough. One needs to venture out, meet ordinary people, and experience the ups and downs of life. Given there is much to learn and much to do, it is not too early for students, from the moment they start their law studies at 17 or 18 years of age, to engage in an active and informed dialogue among themselves, with their professors, and with the members of public, not just about what the law is, but also what the law can be in the sense of improving citizens’ lives.
The university offers a nurturing environment where young students can mature into the discerning lawyers that society needs.
BCI：請問芮安牟教授，您在審理案件時如何解決查明外國法問題？對于藍海中心這樣的專業域外法律查明機構，您有什么看法？
芮安牟：就外國法查明而言，我的經驗主要集中于香港和新加坡的普通法司法管轄區。
在香港，法院通常采用傳統的普通法模式，通過專家證人的方式進行外國法查明。該方法高效，但其缺點是成本昂貴。
大陸法系采用各種方法來查明外國法律。例如，某些大陸法系司法管轄區的法官通過簡單的互聯網檢索方式以了解外國法律，但依然需要聽取當事人關于某個特定的外國法律的互聯網來源是否可靠的爭論。該方法適用于涉案金額較小的案件時，充分展現其實用性，若采用普通法系的查明方式，即讓法律專家制作外國法的查明報告并接受法庭詢問則成本過高。
自從成為新加坡國際商事法院（SICC）（普通法和大陸法法院）的法官后，我逐漸接觸到了查明外國法律的不同方式。我認為這是值得CICC等國際商事法庭深入探討的問題。我們需要結合實際情況對不同的查明方法持開放態度。
我認為，像藍海中心這樣的機構，在探索外國法查明的不同方式，研究各種查明方式的優點與缺點方面起引領作用。藍海中心通過研究不同司法管轄區內查明外國法律的方式，可以幫助法官們了解各種查明外國法律的方法。其次，廣泛討論外國法查明方法可以拓寬法官的思路。法官不可避免地會固守于一些傳統的查明方法（因為這些方法是經過有效驗證的），他們需要證實其它新型查明方法的有效性。藍海中心的研究旨在探索，除了使用傳統普通法下的外國法查明方法外，是否還有其它方法可以以最低的成本高效地進行外國法查明。
In terms of foreign law, my experience has been in the common law jurisdictions of Hong Kong and Singapore.
In Hong Kong, the courts typically employ the traditional common law method of proving foreign law through expert evidence. The method is highly effective. But the problem is that the method can be expensive.
Civil law jurisdictions employ a variety of methods to ascertain foreign law. Civil law judges in certain jurisdictions, for instance, may simply consult the internet to learn about foreign law, subject always to hearing argument from the parties on whether (say) a particular internet source of foreign law is reliable. This method has the advantage of being inexpensive. It may be practical, where only a relatively small amount is at stake in a dispute, to use this method rather than the more expensive common law method of having experts prepare reports on foreign law and subjecting those experts to cross-examination.
Since becoming a judge of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) (which is both a common law and a civil law court), I have become more aware of the different ways of proving foreign law. I think that is what international commercial courts like the CICC have to explore. We need to be open to the possibility of using different methods depending on the circumstances of particular cases.
I believe that an organization such as BCI can assist in leading research into the different approaches to proving foreign law, their strengths and weaknesses. By looking into how foreign law is proved in different jurisdictions, BCI can help to open judges’ minds to the variety of methods available for proving foreign law. Judges of necessity are conservative. They stick to traditional ways, because they have been tried and tested. They have to be convinced of the efficacy of alternatives. BCI’s research can help to show whether methods apart from (say) the traditional common law approach can also be effective in establishing the content of foreign law to a high degree of accuracy at a minimal cost.
BCI：芮安牟教授，這次是您第三次參加“前海法智論壇”，請問您對“前海法智論壇”印象如何？您認為“前海法智論壇”可以發揮哪些作用？
芮安牟：“前海法智論壇”有助于促進交流，參會嘉賓在論壇中不斷產生新的想法，大家一起關注未來可能會發生的問題，以及嘗試尋找這些問題的有效解決措施。
未來，藍海中心可以嘗試不僅與中國國內，也可以與其他司法管轄區，特別是與亞洲的類似機構合作。例如，藍海中心可以與新加坡國家法官學院、新加坡亞洲商法研究所等合作，還可以與香港大學司法研究課程進行合作，這些可能會產生協同效應。藍海中心與這些相關機構的合作將有助于明確當前“一帶一路”沿線司法管轄區商事法律間彼此同質化的程度。
The Qianhai Legal Intelligence Forum helps to stimulate discussion. It is a venue for raising new ideas, looking to the future to see what problems are likely to arise and what solutions may be effective to deal with those problems.
For the future, BCI might consider working in cooperation with similar institutions not just in China, but also in other jurisdictions, especially in Asia. For instance, there may be synergies to be gained from BCI working with the National Judges College in Singapore, the Judicial Studies Program of the University of Hong Kong, and the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) also in Singapore. Cooperation would help to identify the degree to which the commercial laws of BRI jurisdictions are converging.
