international commercial dispute resolution · international commercial dispute resolution ....

国际商事争议解决法律简报 2017年 10月

1

International Commercial

Dispute Resolution

NEWSLETTER October 2017 Issue

AnJie Law Firm

19/F, Tower D1, Liangmaqiao Diplomatic Office Building,

No. 19, Dongfangdonglu, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100600, P.R.China

Tel: +86 (10) 8567 5988 Fax: +86 (10) 8567 5999

中国·北京市朝阳区东方东路19号亮马桥外交办公大楼D1座19层

电话：+ 86 (10) 8567 5988 传真：+ 86 (10) 8567 5999

www.anjielaw.com

安杰国际商事争议解决简报

商事仲裁专刊 2017 年 10 月刊

目录

Table of Contents

国际商事仲裁新闻速递 International Commercial Arbitration News

中国首部《国际投资争端仲裁规则》正式实施..........2 CIETAC Issues Investment Arbitration Rules................2

CIETAC发布新《中国国际商事仲裁年度报告》..........2 CIETAC Releases 2016 Annual Report..........................2

2017 中国仲裁高峰论坛在京召开................................3 2017 China Arbitration Summit Successfully Held........3

中国签署《选择法院协议公约》.................................3 China Signs the Hague Choice of Court Convention.....3

ICSID 发布 2017 年度报告............................................3 ICSID Releases 2017 Annual Report.............................3

HKIAC 拟修订规则.......................................................3 HKIAC Intends to Amend Its 2013 Rules......................3

中国国际商事争议解决热点聚焦 China International Commercial Dispute Resolution

Spotlight

中国法律视角下PPP争议的可仲裁性探究.................4 Arbitrability of PPP Disputes in China..............................4

安杰国际商事仲裁观察 AnJie Observations on International Commercial

Arbitration

最高院对 ARBITRATION IF ANY 仲裁条款效力作出

认定................................................................................9

SPC Clarifies Validity of “ARBITRATION IF ANY”

Clause.............................................................................9


2

【国际商事仲裁新闻速递】

【International Commercial Arbitration News】

中国首部《国际投资争端仲裁规则》正式实施 CIETAC Issues Investment Arbitration Rules

2017 年 9 月 19 日，《中国国际经济贸易仲裁委

员会国际投资争端仲裁规则（试行）》（下称“《贸

仲国际投资仲裁规则》”）在北京发布并于 2017 年

10 月起正式实施。

这是中国仲裁机构第一部国际投资仲裁规则，将

为中国企业解决对外投资争端提供保障。新出台的贸

仲国际投资争端仲裁规则正文共 58 条，在公开审理、

仲裁地、仲裁庭管辖权等方面都吸收和借鉴了国际先

进做法，例如允许对外公开仲裁资料，增强仲裁程序

的透明度等。同时，规则也注重引入中国仲裁的经验

和传统做法，包括“仲裁与调解相结合”等。

On 19 September 2017, the China International

Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission

(“CIETAC”) held a press conference to introduce

China‟s very first investor-state arbitration rules.

China‟s Investor-State Arbitration Rules was drafted by

a group of experienced investor-state arbitration

experts, under organization of the CIETAC. The rules

cover a comprehensive range of issues in investor-state

arbitration. It is the first time China introduces such

arbitration rules. Practitioners believe it will help China

move a great step towards establishing a more

international, transparent and convenient investment

environment, together with the Belt and Road Initiative.

CIETAC 发布新《中国国际商事仲裁年度报告》 CIETAC Releases 2016 Annual Report

9 月 19 日，在中国贸促会举行的新闻发布会上，

中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（“CIETAC”“贸仲

委”）正式发布了《中国国际商事仲裁年度报告

（2016）》。这是贸仲委自 2014 年决定开展中国国

际商事仲裁年度报告系列研究项目以来第三次发布

年度报告，也是国内唯一专门针对中国国际商事仲裁

的发展所做的年度总结。

On September 19, 2017, CIETAC held the Annual

Report on International Commercial Arbitration in

China (2016) (the “Annual Report”) press conference.

The Annual Report on International Commercial

Arbitration in China has received wide attention from

both domestic and international arbitration practitioners

and media circles since it was firstly released in 2015.


3

2017 中国仲裁高峰论坛在京召开 2017 China Arbitration Summit Successfully

Held

2017 年 9 月 21 日，作为 2017 年“中国仲裁周”

系列活动开幕的中国仲裁高峰论坛在北京举办。

本次论坛上，与会专家结合国际仲裁的先进理念

和做法，从中国仲裁实践出发，以“一带一路”倡议、

中国企业“走出去”为背景，就国际仲裁领域界关心

的焦点议题进行了积极互动和热烈讨论，展开了富有

成效的对话交流，并就进一步推动中国仲裁发展，加

强国际商事仲裁交流，深化国际仲裁合作达成了共

识。

2017 China Arbitration Summit (the Summit) was

successfully held in Beijing on September 19-20, 2017.

In the Summit, the experts combined the advanced

theories and practice with China‟s arbitration practice,

had active discussions and fruitful communications on

hot issues concerning international arbitration

community under the background of the „Belt and

Road‟ Initiative and Chinese enterprises‟ going out

process. They agreed on further pushing forward the

development of China‟s arbitration, improvement of

international commercial arbitration communication,

and the strengthening of international arbitration

cooperation.

中国签署《选择法院协议公约》 China Signs the Hague Choice of Court

Convention

2017 年 9 月 12 日，中国政府签署了《选择法院

协议公约》（下称“《公约》”）。目前，《公约》

已有欧盟（适用于除丹麦以外的 28 个成员国）、墨

西哥和新加坡等缔约方，美国、乌克兰等国已签署《公

约》。《公约》适用于国际案件中当事人就民事或商

事事项签订的排他性选择法院协议，被选择法院所作

判决应当根据《公约》得到承认与执行。《公约》如

获得批准并对中国生效，将为中国在民商事判决承认

与执行领域开展对外合作提供新的法律基础。

On 12 September 2017, China signed the Hague

Convention on Choice-of-Court Agreements (the

“Hague Convention”).

The Hague Convention now has 30 contracting states,

including EU (including the UK), Singapore, Mexico

and the US. It serves us legal basis for recognition and

enforcement of court judgments between contracting

states. The Hague Convention will help promote

international trade and investment between China and

other member nations should it be ratified and

effectuated by the Government.

ICSID 发布 2017年度报告 ICSID Releases 2017 Annual Report

2017 年 10 月 13 日， ICSID 批准了《2017 年

ICSID 年度报告》。该报告介绍了 ICSID 在上一财政

年度状态以及案件受理情况等。根据该报告，ICSID

在 2017 年度案件管理、新案件受理以及案件审结数

量方面均达到新高。

ICSID released its Annual Report on 13 October 2017,

introducing its financial and case managing work during

the past year. According to the Annual Report, ICISD

has achieved several breakthroughs in the number of

managing cases, the number of newly accepted cases,

and the number of awards rendered.

HKIAC 拟修订规则 HKIAC Intends to Amend Its 2013 Rules

香港国际仲裁中心（“HKIAC”）规则修订委

员会拟对在 2013 年 11 月 1 日生效的现行 HKIAC

机构仲裁规则进行修订，拟加入第三方资助仲裁等重

要内容。

The HKIAC Rules Revision Committee (the

“Committee”) is considering amendments to the current

version of HKIAC‟s Administered Arbitration Rules,

which came into force on 1 November 2013 (the “2013

Rules”).


4

【中国国际商事争议解决热点聚焦】

【China International Commercial Dispute Resolution Spotlight】

Arbitrability of PPP disputes in China

中国法律视角下 PPP 争议的可仲裁性探究

Arthur Dong

First published on IBA, Public Law Committee Newsletter, July 2016

【中文摘要】在基础设施和公共服务领域推进政府和社会资本合作（以下简称 PPP），对于转变政府职能、激发

市场活力、提升公共服务的质量和效率具有重要意义。随着 PPP 业务的蓬勃开展，其中涉及的法律风险也愈加

引发关注和讨论。本文从中国视角出发，介绍了通过仲裁方式解决 PPP 争议的可行性和必要性等问题。

Introduction

Mr. Han Bin, the vice director of the Social Capital Cooperation Center of the Ministry of Finance delivered

his address to the China First Finance Daily that the Ministry of Finance would soon introduce the third batch

of Chinese Public-Private Partnership ("PPP") programs, following the first batch in 2014 and the second

batch in 2015. The overall amount of investment into the public private partnership in China was over 180

billion in RMB Yuan in 2014, the number of programs was only 30, while in 2015, the above two figures

topped 650 billion and 206 billion in RMB Yuan respectively. It is estimated that those numbers would come

to another break-through this year. Despite the dramatic surge of investment in the public-private partnership

sector, public-private partnership faces many dilemmas. Among these, the resolution of disputes concerning

the PPP draws the most attention. There are different mechanisms of dispute resolution, but it remains

difficult to determine which mechanism is the most dominant for resolving PPP disputes, because there is

ambiguity in the definition about the nature of PPP contracts.

What is PPP under Chinese Legal Context?

A. Definition

PPP is short for Public-Private Partnership. There is no uniform definition for PPP, but the most commonly

known version of the definition comes from United Nations Institute for Raining and Research. In its Report

called,"PPP -For sustainable development" the UN describes PPP as "voluntary and collaborative

relationships among various actors in both public (State) and private (non-State) sectors, in which all

participants agree to work together to achieve a common goal or undertake specific tasks. " The European

Commission's definition of PPP refers to a cooperative relationship between the public sector and the private

sector, the purpose of which is to provide service or projects that are traditionally run by the public sector.

In 2014, the year when PPP arrangements in China really took off, National Development and Reform

Commission of China issued the Guiding Opinions of the National Development and Reform Commission on

Work relating to Public-Private Partnership. The provisions of this policy document define PPP as "[T]he

relationship of benefit and risk sharing and long-term cooperation established by the government with private

capitals by way of franchise, service purchase, equity partnership or otherwise in order to enhance the public

product and service supply capacity and improve supply efficiency."


5

B. The scope of public sectors of PPP in China

Starting from the end of 2013, PPP arrangements in China increased rapidly over the years. Over 30

provinces in China have PPP projects. PPP covers a wide range of industrial sectors in China, but PPP

projects are concentrated in the railway infrastructure sector. Other industrial sectors in which PPPs have

been concluded include :

power generation and distribution,

water and sanitation,

pipelines,

hospitals,

school buildings and teaching facilities,

stadiums,

air traffic control,

railways,

roads,

billing and other information technology systems, and

housing.

C. Characteristics of Chinese PPP

The PPP arrangements can be executed through various forms, namely the BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer),

BOO (Build-Own-Operate), TOT (Transfer-Operate-Transfer) and ROT (Rehabilitate-Operate-Transfer) .

The purpose of the PPP program is to better provide public service to the common people, especially in the

infrastructure building industry. Parties involved in PPP contracts include administrative agencies,

social-capital-backed private investors, enterprises that are set up for operation of PPP projects, banks as the

financing parties, and other parties such as the contractors of the projects, and possibly the sub-contractors .

And the role of the public sector, most often the administrative agencies in the PPP projects, are multiple,

they are parties to the PPP contract, organizers of the PPP program and also the regulator who push the

projects forward and ensure the projects are operated in a legal and sustainable manner.

Resolving Disputes in PPP Contracts

A. The nature of PPP contracts under Chinese law and policy

The key for the operation of PPP projects or arrangements is the PPP contract itself, which means the contract

entered into by the administrative organs and private investors, or civil capital facilitated enterprises.

Resolving disputes arising from PPP contracts faces substantial obstacles in China.

Chinese legislation is hierarchical. The Constitution is at the top of the hierarchy, and then comes laws and

subsequently administrative statutes. There is yet no special law in China enacted to regulate PPP. At the

present time, the fundamental legal documents concerning PPP in China are all at the administrative statutory

level, which has lower legal effect than law, for example, the Guiding Opinions of the National Development

and Reform Commission on Work relating to Public-Private Partnership. Some documents regulating PPP

arrangements are policies promulgated by different ministries or local governments in China, which as such


6

have lower legal effect than law, for example, the Guidelines for Mode of Cooperation for Government and

Social Capital (for Trial Implementation). Therefore, these lower-level directives can hardly be directly

applied as legal basis in court rulings.

B. Traditionally PPP disputes are subject to Administrative Procedure Law

Noticeably, there is a provision in the Administrative Procedure Law of China which provides lawsuits filed

in "cases where an administrative organ is considered to have failed to perform in accordance with the law or

as agreed or modify or terminate in violation of laws the government concession operation agreements, land

or housing expropriation and compensation agreements or other relevant agreements "shall be accepted by the

judicial court. From the above, it can be indicated that, as a major form of concession agreements in China,

PPP contracts are characterized as administrative acts. They are therefore actionable under the Administrative

Procedure Law of China.

In Chinese legal practice, traditional PPP contractual disputes are resolved by administrative litigation. For

example, in the Huijin Company Ltd. v Government of Changchun City case, Huijin is a water discharge

company that entered into contract with the Government of Changchun City to cooperatively exploit water

discharge and sewage treatment business in Changchun City. After years of failure in cooperation projects

operation, the Government issued a decision to terminate the cooperation. Huijin Company therefore filed an

administrative lawsuit against the Government's action and prevailed in the end. This case is a good example

of PPP contractual dispute gets resolved through administrative litigation. The result of this case is among the

very few of administrative lawsuits in which a civil party prevailed over the administrative agencies. Winning

administrative lawsuits can be challenging for civil parties in China.

Many civil parties lose administrative lawsuits against the administrative agencies. In China, local

governments manage the finances of local people's courts. Currently Chinese courts remain financially

dependent upon the local government. Consequently, the judge is often perceived as unable to act as a neutral

adjudicator in administrative lawsuits.

C. New approach: PPP disputes should be defined as civil or even commercial disputes

Typical mechanisms of dispute resolution include litigation, mediation, and arbitration. Under Chinese law,

litigation is further categorized as either civil litigation or administrative litigation. Unlike what is stipulated

in the Administrative Procedure Law, administrative statutes and policies promulgated in the last three or four

years have more often characterized PPP contracts as civil contracts and can therefore be resolved through

civil or commercial litigation, arbitration and mediation, such as the Notice of Promotion and Application of

PPP Model issued by the Ministry of Finance, the Contract Guidelines for PPP Projects issued by the

National Development and Reform Committee, and Measures for the Administration Procurement

Concerning PPP Projects issued by the Ministry of Finance. The difference between civil contracts and

administrative contracts is that parties in the civil contracts are equal in legal status, while parties in the

administrative contracts are not, since public power is involved in the administrative contracts.

Administrative contractual disputes can only be resolved by filing lawsuits to be heard before the

administrative tribunal.

Recent judicial practice in China also shows a trend to define PPP contractual disputes as civil or even

commercial disputes rather than administrative disputes. Taking one of the Fifth Pile of Guideline Cases

issued by the Supreme People's Court of China as an example, Case No. 53 is a PPP contractual dispute

arising from contract between a local bank, a local sewage treatment company, and an SOE. In the decision of

the court, it can be inferred that that all legal relationships were decided to be of a civil contractual nature,

even when administrative agencies are involved.

As alternatives from litigation, arbitration and mediation could be introduced to resolve PPP disputes.

According to the Arbitration Law of China, contractual disputes are arbitrable, just as are other disputes over


7

rights and interests in property between citizens, legal persons and other organizations that are "equal

subjects." Chinese Mediation law contains similar provisions. Because the "administrative" characteristics of

the PPP contract, the parties to the contract are not "equal subjects," so no explicit legal basis permits PPP

contracts to be arbitrated or mediated under Chinese law. Only civil and commercial contractual disputes,

where the parties to which are "equal subjects," are entitled to arbitration or mediation. Due to the more

tolerant and flexible judicial practice in China, characterizing PPP contracts as civil or commercial contracts

would grant a new approach for PPP contractual disputes to be arbitrated or mediated.

Can Arbitration Be Applied to Settlement of PPP Contractual Disputes

If PPP contractual disputes could be defined as civil or commercial contracts, rather than administrative

contracts, then such disputes could be resolved by arbitration. And settling PPP contractual disputes through

arbitration has many advantages.

A. The feasibility of PPP contract arbitration

Theoretically speaking, there are three different kinds of academic opinions regarding the nature of PPP

contract. Namely, the public law contact opinion, the private law contract opinion, and the third one as a

hybrid of the previous two. The mainstream voice in Chinese PPP industry is the third opinion, which agrees

that PPP contracts are both public law and private law in nature. Especially when the principal PPP contract

contains many sub-contracts, the nature of these contracts can vary, and particular situations in different

contracts must be taken into account. The adjudicators in specific cases concerning PPP related disputes have

wide discretion in deciding the nature of the contracts and whether or how to distinguish the public aspects

from the private aspects.

Traditionally, administrative agencies are not equal subjects in civil or commercial contracts. Now, with the

accumulation of judicial practice, PPP practitioners have discerned that it is possible to make a distinction in

PPP contracts as to which part of the contracts is administrative and which part is civil or commercial. When

an administrative party acts as a cooperator instead of a regulator in the PPP contract, the contract is more of

a civil or commercial one entered into by equal subjects, thus disputes arising therefrom can be settled by

arbitration. In the Guidelines for Mode of Cooperation for Government and Social Capital, Article 28

provides that interested parties to the PPP projects are entitled to apply for arbitration or file lawsuits in front

of the People's Court if they are not able to settle the disputes through amicable negotiation. Though the

Guideline is still at trial, it affirms the arbitrability of PPP related disputes.

B. The advantages of resolving PPP contractual disputes through arbitration

Resolving PPP contractual disputes by arbitration is not only feasible, but also advantageous. According to

statistical research in 2015, the rate of final conclusion of PPP contracts was actually very low.

Characterizing PPP contracts as administrative contracts hampers private businesses' investment enthusiasm.

A major concern is that in administrative lawsuits, private parties seldom prevail. However, if PPP

contractual disputes are characterized as civil or commercial contractual disputes, they can be settled through

arbitration instead of litigation. Arbitration offers advantages over litigation in many aspects. Resolving PPP

contractual disputes requires higher levels of special and technical knowledge. Parties can choose

professional and specialized practitioners in the PPP industry to decide the case. Arbitrators with professional

PPP related knowledge are more appropriate candidates to decide the case than judges, because very often

judges are not equipped with professional knowledge in a specific field like the PPP industry. And in return,

bring PPP related disputes to arbitration also reduces the considerable heavy amount of caseload of judges.

Aside from considerations of professionalism and technical expertise, resolving PPP contractual disputes

through arbitration strengthens and safeguards neutrality. Unlike the Chinese judicial system, there are no


8

hierarchical structures within arbitration institutions. This assures the neutrality and independence of the

arbitration tribunal's award. . Therefore, settling disputes through arbitration guarantees more neutrality and

safeguards the ultimate fairness of the decision.

Conclusion

In China, there is no specific law on PPP so far, however, many administrative agencies have published

circulars regarding PPP, and in these administrative policies, the arbitrability and civil or commercial nature

of PPP contracts are affirmed. In addition, in international practice, PPP related disputes are defined as civil

and commercial contracts, in particular in countries where the PPP has developed into a mature stage, special

arbitration institutions are established to resolve PPP related disputes. With the increasing number of PPP

related disputes ever since 2014, defining PPP contractual disputes as civil and commercial disputes and

resolving them through arbitration become a voice for reform of relevant PPP legislation in China. It seems

that Chinese government policy and judicial practice are one step ahead in PPP regulation. Chinese PPP

practitioners are looking forward to the promulgation of a special law to regulate PPP related disputes, which

would affirm the arbitrability of PPP contracts as civil or commercial contracts entered into by "equal

subject" parties.


9

【安杰国际商事仲裁观察】

【AnJie Observations on International Commercial Arbitration】

最高院对 ARBITRATION IF ANY 仲裁条款效

力作出认定

SPC Clarifies Validity of “ARBITRATION IF

ANY” Clause

在本案中（【2016】最高法民他 3 号），通利萨

摩亚船务有限公司（下称“通利公司”）作为出租人，

恒新贸易有限公司（下称“恒新公司”）作为租家，

福建融谊投资发展有限公司（下称“融谊公司”）作

为租家担保人，于 2014 年 11 月 18 日，签订《租船

确认书》。其中，《租船确认书》第 l7 条约定：“G/A

ARBITRATION IF ANY TO BE SETTLED IN HONG

KONG WITH ENGLISH LAW TO APPLY”。其后，

各方就滞期费发生纠纷，通利公司向厦门海事法院提

起诉讼。

一审法院厦门海事法院认定， “ G/A

ARBITRATION IF ANY TO BE SETTLED IN HONG

KONG WITH ENGLISH LAW TO APPLY”的约定，

意为“如果有纠纷在香港仲裁并适用英国法律”。法

院进而依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百七

十一条第一款的规定：“涉外经济贸易、运输和海事

中发生的纠纷，当事人在合同中订有仲裁条款或者事

The parties need to be clear with the choice of the

dispute resolution, clearing the choice of arbitration

could avoid future dispute on the dispute resolution

mechanism selection. The above is reflected in a

recently published case. (4 March, 2016).

Samoa is the ship owner, and FNT is the charter,

FNT‟s affiliated companies FJR took guarantee for

FNT‟s debts over Samoa, three parties thus

concluded a charter party (hereafter as “the

Contract”). In the Contract, parties reach an

agreement of FIXTURE NOTE article 17, which says

“G/A ARBITRATION IF ANY TO BE SETTLED IN

HONG KONG ENGLISH LAW TO APPLY.” And

both parties have agreed with the Chinese meaning as

well. Later, a dispute on demurrage arises. Samoa

filed an action against FNT in front of the Xiamen

Maritime Court (the court of first instance).


10

后达成书面仲裁协议，提交中华人民共和国涉外仲裁

机构或者其他仲裁机构仲裁的，当事人不得向人民法

院起诉”，裁定驳回通利公司的起诉。

通利公司不服一审裁定，提起上诉称：《租船确

认书》第 17 条约定“G／A ARBITRATl0N IF ANY

TO BE SETTLED IN HONG KONG WITH ENGLISH

LAW TO APPLY（若果仲裁在香港并适用英国法

律）”从词义上来看，该条约定并未明确排除诉讼作

为争议的解决方式。并未明确说就租船合同所引发的

争议是以仲裁作为唯一的争议解决方式，也就是说该

约定并未排除诉讼在内的其他争议解决方式。

被上诉人融谊公司答辩称，三方签署的《租船确

认书》即是在租约纠纷发生前，以仲裁条款的方式，

约定将合同争议（如有）提交香港仲裁。基于上述仲

裁条款约定，通利公司应当将本案提交香港仲裁机构

仲裁，而不应在中国法院起诉。因此一审法院裁定驳

回其起诉，是符合法律规定的。通利公司无视仲裁条

款约定，向法院提起诉讼，是违背合同约定的行为，

依法应当予以驳回。

二审法院福建省高级人民法院经审查认为，本案

所涉《租船确认书》内容以中英文表述，其中第 17

条约定 “G/A ARBITRATION IF ANY TO BE

SETTLED IN HONG KONG WITH ENGLISH LAW

TO APPLY”，其下方存在中文文本“若果仲裁在香

港并适用英国法律”，这一约定是双方当事人对涉案

纠纷提起仲裁时的仲裁地点和所适用法律作出的特

别约定，不构成双方之间唯一的纠纷解决方式，并未

排除诉讼管辖。

二审法院层报最高院批复后，最高院同意二审法

院裁判观点，裁定：G/A ARBITRATION IF ANY TO

BE SETTLED IN HONG KONG WITH ENGLISH

LAW TO APPLY 是当事人对涉案纠纷提起仲裁时的

仲裁地点和适用法律所作出的特别约定，不构成双方

之间唯一的纠纷解决方式，并未排除诉讼管辖；厦门

海事法院对本案具有管辖权。

The court of first instance dismisses the suit with the

reason of no jurisdiction. The court of first instance

rules that “G/A ARBITRATION IF ANY TO BE

SETTLED IN HONG KONG WITH ENGLISH LAW

TO APPLY” means if disputes arise, parties should

refer the dispute for arbitration. Therefore, the court

has no jurisdiction over the case. Samoa appeals to

the Fujian High People‟s Court (hereinafter as “High

Court”) for the reason of mis-adjudication of facts,

referring two guiding cases which rule that

“ARBITRATION IF ANY Clause does not exclude

litigation as means of dispute resolution.” High court

agrees with Samoa‟s opinion and overrules the first

instance court‟s decision.

FNT argues the following statement:

1. According to the meaning of the contact. It could

be inferred that dispute resolution of the case should

be jurisdiction of Arbitration of Hong Kong

arbitration institutions, instead of in the Mainland

court.

2. As for the two guiding cases referred by Samoa,

since the parties involved are not the same, therefore,

no decision in the same can be made.

Following the case report system, the High Court

reports this case to the Supreme People‟s Court

(SPC) for review and reply. Supreme people‟s Court

agrees with the decision made by the court of second

instance. It further decides that “G/A ARBITRATION

IF ANY TO BE SETTLED IN HONG KONG WITH

ENGLISH LAW TO APPLY” demonstrates parties‟

agreement to the seat of arbitration and applicable law

when they refer any dispute for arbitration. Regardless,

the above clause does not preclude litigation as another

possible way to resolve disputes. Therefore, Xiamen

Maritime Court has jurisdiction over the case.


免责声明：

1.本刊系内部资料，不用于任何商业用途；2.本刊所编辑的内容并非正式的法律意见，仅供参

考；3.安杰律师事务所保留本刊的所有权利。

This Newsletter provides a general overview of the topics concerned. It is not legal advice and AnJie Law Firm will accept no responsibility for actions taken in reliance on this Newsletter. All rights are reserved by AnJie Law Firm. 电子邮件地址添加或删除：

如果您希望您的电子邮件地址从我们的邮件列表中添加或删除，请联系常琳女士。

电话：+86-10-8567 5954；邮件：[email protected] To un-subscribe from this Newsletter, please contact Ms. CHANG Lin. Tel: +86-10-8567 5954 E-mail: [email protected]

© 2017 安杰律师事务所

保留所有版权

11

如需了解更多信息,敬请联系安杰争议解决团队合伙人。 Please contact partners of the dispute resolution team at AnJie Law Firm for further information.

主编：董箫

Chief Editor: Arthur Dong

编委：王秀娟、谢晓勇、王延妍、叶朗、李慧君、Darren Mayberry，苑宇衡，常琳

Editors: Jansy Wang, Kevin Xie, Flora Wang, Zephyr Ye, Jocelyn Li, Darren Mayberry, Alex Yuan, Lynn Chang

董箫 | 合伙人

Arthur Dong | Partner

Tel: +86 10 8567 5998 | [email protected]

专业方向：国际贸易与投资、IP Expertise Area: Int’l Trade & Investment, IP

詹昊 | 合伙人

Zhan Hao | Partner


专业方向：保险、反垄断 Expertise Area: Insurance, Anti-trust

高苹 | 合伙人

Gao Ping | Partner


专业方向：公司治理、投融资 Expertise Area: Corporate, Investment & Financing

程冰 | 合伙人

Cheng Bing | Partner


专业方向：IP、国际投资 Expertise Area: IP, Int’l Investment

章剑舟 | 合伙人

George Zhang | Partner


专业方向：投资、房地产 Expertise Area: Investment, Real Estate

international commercial dispute resolution · international commercial dispute resolution ....

Documents