後投保協議時代的兩岸商務仲裁－－以兩岸投保協議第十四條第四款前段之解釋與適用為中心

Commercial Arbitration After the Cross-Strait Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement －Focused on the Interpretation and Application of Article 14 (4) of the Cross-Strait Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement

海峽兩岸投資保障和促進協議於2012年8月簽署後，海基會隨即於其出版之《兩岸經貿》九月號登載：依據兩岸投保協議第14條第4款前段：「商務糾紛的當事雙方可選擇兩岸的仲裁機構及當事雙方同意的仲裁地點」之規定，臺商和中國大陸國營企業或其他私人公司發生糾紛，當事人「可選擇兩岸仲裁機構」、「仲裁地點可選第三地」，並且有「臺灣仲裁機構可至大陸仲裁」之突破。然而，大陸現行仲裁法制依個案是否具有涉外因素，區別為具有涉外因素的「涉外仲裁」與不具有涉外因素的「國內仲裁」。臺商在大陸設立之子公司若擬將其與大陸自然人或企業的商務糾紛提付仲裁，在別無其他涉外因素的情況下，該案件為國內仲裁，依大陸司法實務，國內仲裁案件之當事人不得約定境外的仲裁機構、不得約定在境外進行仲裁；同時，大陸最高人民法院曾經在「旭普林案」中表示拒絕承認國際商會在上海作成的仲裁判斷，則在中國大陸仲裁法制架構下，應如何理解及適用上引兩岸投保協議第14條第4款前段的約定？在實務上可能面臨哪些問題，殊值吾人深入探討。

After entering into the Cross-Strait Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement, the Straits Exchange Foundation immediately published in the “Straits Business Monthly” that: The first sentence of Article 14 (4) of the Cross-Strait Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement provides that “[T]he parties to a commercial dispute may designate an arbitration institution of either side of the Strait and agree on the seat of arbitration.” Pursuant to this provision, in the event where a dispute arises between a Taiwanese company and a Chinese state-owned enterprise or other Chinese private company, the parties may “designate an arbitration institution of either side of the Strait” and “agree on the seat of arbitration located in a third place.” Furthermore, it is a breakthrough that a Taiwanese arbitration institution may administer arbitration cases in Mainland China. However, the current arbitration regime of Mainland China distinguishes between an arbitration involving foreign elements (foreign-related arbitration) and an arbitration that does not involve any foreign elements (domestic arbitration). Under such regime, if a subsidiary established by a Taiwanese company in Mainland China wishes to refer a commercial dispute with a Chinese citizen or company to arbitration, where such dispute does not involve any foreign elements, the said dispute would be fall within the category of a domestic arbitration. According to the judicial practice in Mainland China, parties to a domestic arbitration cannot agree to refer the dispute to an arbitration institution outside Mainland China and cannot agree to arbitrate in a place outside of Mainland China. Moreover, the Supreme People’s Court of the PRC in the Züblin case had refused to recognize the arbitration award made by the International Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai. As such, it is worth observing how, under the current arbitration regime, Article 14 (4) of the Cross-Strait Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement should be interpreted and applied, as well as the problems that the parties may encounter in practice.