范思深
范思深教授(Susan Finder) 是蓝海法律查明和商事调解中心法律专家、北京大学国际法学院常驻知名学者、最高人民法院国际商事专家委员。范教授是从事中国司法制度比较研究的专家，她拥有从事涉华法律实务的多年工作经验。范教授的许多研究成果都发表在其个人博客“最高人民法院观察”（SPC Monitor）上，哈佛大学法学院图书馆将该博客列入中国法律研究最佳资料来源库。
我很荣幸有这个机会就中国国际商事法院(CICC)的首批裁定和判决发表意见。本短评将侧重中国国际商事法庭的判决和裁定以及仲裁司法审查裁定的重要性。
中国国际商事法庭的运作时间不长，对其运作进行更详细的分析还为时过早。但从其迄今为止的运作中可以清楚看到的是，中国国际商事法庭选择其受理的案件非常慎重，只选择会对中国相关法律发展产生影响的案件。至少从首批裁定可以明显看出，中国国际商事法庭的判决和裁定对于下级法院的法官和法律界人士来说，可能是重要的“软先例”，即权威性的裁判，虽然对下级法院没有约束力，但具有很强的说服力。国内外权威专家均指出，这批裁定填补了中国仲裁法的一项空白。这些裁定也与一些主要法域法院的立场保持了一致，也即尽管双方当事人的合同并未最后敲定，但双方都表示有意将争议提交仲裁。在本文作者看来，这些裁判构成中国发展自己的案例指导制度的一部分，正如第五个司法改革纲要第26项所强调的，特别是“完善类案和新类型案件强制检索报告工作机制” 。此前，最高人民法院关于落实司法责任制完善审判监督管理机制的意见（试行）曾提及“(六) 在完善类案参考、裁判指引等工作机制基础上，建立类案及关联案件强制检索机制，确保类案裁判标准统一、法律适用统一 。”
此外，到目前为止，合议庭均由五名法官组成，全部都是中国法院在跨境问题（包括仲裁司法审查）方面最杰出的专家。由此可见最高人民法院对国际商事法庭案件的重视程度。
本文作者认为，除国际商事法庭案件外，最高人民法院审理或选取的其他案件也将被归入此类案例。例如，最高人民法院知识产权法庭判决的案件，也可归为所说的“最高人民法院软判例”，最高人民法院其他软判例还包括最高人民法院公报案例、各个业务庭发表的审判业务指导丛书选的案例和各个业务庭专业法官会议案例。我认为，最高人民法院合议庭判决的案件也具有说服力，但是没有上述几类案例的说服力强。最高人民法院巡回法庭案例对其辖区内的法院具有很强的说服力。由于立法机关往往来不及修改立法，许多新问题就摆在了法院面前，因此需要以判例来补充法律和司法解释以正确指导下级法院。我看到中国正在发展自己的判例法，参考传统法律和外国司法管辖区的做法，但最终确定适合中国特殊国情的规则，这可能包括上文提到的一些要点。国际商事法庭的裁判，无论是裁定还是判决，都将向市场发出重要信号，而且很可能在全球范围内产生重大影响，因为已有相关文件显示，争议合同适用中国法，或者中国法在不同方面予以适用的国际仲裁案件不断在增加。
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” “完善类案和新类型案件强制检索报告工作机制”. 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 “最高人民法院关于落实司法责任制完善审判监督管理机制的意见（试行）, (六) 在完善类案参考、裁判指引等工作机制基础上，建立类案及关联案件强制检索机制，确保类案裁判标准统一、法律适用统一。”
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 最高人民法院知识产权法庭 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 最高人民法院公报案件, cases in the trial guides published by the various operational divisions 各个业务庭发表的审判业务指导丛书选的案件，and cases of the specialized judges committees of the SPC operational divisions 和各个业务庭专业法官会议案件。
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.
