编者按
2018年11月3日，以“国际商事诉讼与多元化纠纷解决机制”为主题的第三届“前海法智论坛”在深圳市麒麟山庄顺利召开。论坛由最高人民法院等单位作为支持机构，由深圳市中级人民法院、深圳市法学会、深圳市司法局、深圳市人民政府法制办公室、深圳前海合作区人民法院、深圳市前海深港现代服务业合作区管理局和深圳市蓝海现代法律服务发展中心联合主办。论坛期间，蓝海中心对各位专家学者进行专题采访。小编将陆续与大家分享嘉宾们的精彩观点。本期作客“蓝海贵宾室”的是最高人民法院国际商事专家委员会委员、新加坡国际商事法庭法官、香港大学法学院教授、蓝海法律专家芮安牟。
最高人民法院国际商事专家委员会委员、新加坡国际商事法庭法官、香港大学法学院教授芮安牟在第三届前海法智论坛上作主题发言
BCI：芮安牟教授，首先恭贺您今年8月被最高人民法院国际商事法庭（CICC）聘为商事法庭专家委员，对于CICC的建设您有何建议或期许？
芮安牟：对中国而言，尤其是在“一带一路”建设的背景下，成立CICC是迈出的令人兴奋的一步。我们目前仍处于推动和发展CICC成为解决“一带一路”跨境商事争端的优选法庭的早期阶段。CICC目前刚设立，在完善规则和程序（以及其他方面）仍有许多工作亟待完成。
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：国际仲裁在国际商事纠纷中承担着重要角色。请问您如何定位国际商事仲裁与国际商事诉讼的关系？
芮安牟：诉讼与仲裁二者有其存在的必要，且相互补充。
今天国际仲裁面临的问题，正是由于仲裁员过于执着仲裁的合法程序，致使仲裁变得讲究技术性且费用昂贵。但是，截至目前，国际社会普遍认为暂无其它争端解决方式可与之竞争。1958年的《纽约公约》使国际仲裁被认为是当事人维护跨境商事权利的最佳方式。时至今日，诉讼都无法与《纽约公约》相提并论，因为后者可在全世界范围内申请获得承认与执行。
即便如此，诉讼目前正在逐渐成为仲裁的替代措施。特别是2005年《海牙选择法院协议公约（海牙公约）》（中国已于2017年9月17日签署加入，但目前尚未获得批准）的签署。目前在全球范围内，共计有32个司法管辖区（31个国家和1个区域经济一体化组织（REIO）（欧洲联盟）加入了2005年《海牙公约》。未来几年，预计将会有更多的国家加入。因此，借助2005年《海牙公约》和海牙国际私法会议正在谈判起草的《外国民商事判决承认与执行公约》，将推动诉讼判决如国际仲裁裁决一样在世界范围内易于执行。
当下重要的，是借助诉讼制衡国际仲裁。两种争端解决方式间的竞争，必然将全面降低国际商事争端的解决成本。如果仲裁的成本过于昂贵，当事人将会在商业合同中约定选择诉讼作为争端解决的方式而非选择仲裁。相反，如果诉讼费用过高，则当事人将可能采取相反做法。
调解作为争端解决的另一方式，将在明年见证新发展。2019年8月，《新加坡公约》将开放签署。《新加坡公约》的主要内容是承认和执行跨境调解协议。这意味着，至少有三种跨境强制执行商业权利的模式可供选择：依据《纽约公约》进行仲裁；依据《海牙选择法院协议公约》或即将成稿的《外国民商事判决承认与执行公约》提起诉讼；以及依据《新加坡公约》进行调解。
正如前文所述，让商事主体在解决跨境商事争端时有多种不同选择，将有助于降低跨境商事争端解决的成本，包括在“一带一路”沿线国家内。
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，您非常注重法律专业培训和交流，例如去年您就参与了蓝海中心与深圳法院共同策划的“普通法裁判思维研修班”，能谈谈您为什么如此看重教育？在当今的环境下，您认为优秀的法律从业者，应该着重培养哪些方面的素质和技能？
芮安牟：今天的法律系学生未来将成为律师、法官和法学教授。他们的工作将不可避免的影响着普通人的日常生活。
积累法律专业经验不可能一蹴而就，需要多年的学习与工作积累，还需要不断地思考与反思。它不仅仅要求人们理解法律条文的字面解释，还需要了解周围的世界，以及人们在日常生活中遭遇的商业和经济问题。
当然，阅读法律专业书籍是必要的，但这远远不够，我们不能仅从法律专业书籍中汲取知识。我们还需要进行实践，与人交往，体验生活。鉴于对学习和实践提出的更高要求，学生们从17或18岁开始研究法律并不算早，与教授和社会公众进行积极且深入广泛的对话，话题不仅仅局限于法律本身，还包括法律在改善公民生活方面的意义。
大学提供了一个教育环境，年轻学生可以成长为对社会有独特见解的法律人。
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：请问芮安牟教授，您在审理案件时如何解决查明外国法问题？对于蓝海中心这样的专业域外法律查明机构，您有什么看法？
芮安牟：就外国法查明而言，我的经验主要集中于香港和新加坡的普通法司法管辖区。
在香港，法院通常采用传统的普通法模式，通过专家证人的方式进行外国法查明。该方法高效，但其缺点是成本昂贵。
大陆法系采用各种方法来查明外国法律。例如，某些大陆法系司法管辖区的法官通过简单的互联网检索方式以了解外国法律，但依然需要听取当事人关于某个特定的外国法律的互联网来源是否可靠的争论。该方法适用于涉案金额较小的案件时，充分展现其实用性，若采用普通法系的查明方式，即让法律专家制作外国法的查明报告并接受法庭询问则成本过高。
自从成为新加坡国际商事法院（SICC）（普通法和大陆法法院）的法官后，我逐渐接触到了查明外国法律的不同方式。我认为这是值得CICC等国际商事法庭深入探讨的问题。我们需要结合实际情况对不同的查明方法持开放态度。
我认为，像蓝海中心这样的机构，在探索外国法查明的不同方式，研究各种查明方式的优点与缺点方面起引领作用。蓝海中心通过研究不同司法管辖区内查明外国法律的方式，可以帮助法官们了解各种查明外国法律的方法。其次，广泛讨论外国法查明方法可以拓宽法官的思路。法官不可避免地会固守于一些传统的查明方法（因为这些方法是经过有效验证的），他们需要证实其它新型查明方法的有效性。蓝海中心的研究旨在探索，除了使用传统普通法下的外国法查明方法外，是否还有其它方法可以以最低的成本高效地进行外国法查明。
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，这次是您第三次参加“前海法智论坛”，请问您对“前海法智论坛”印象如何？您认为“前海法智论坛”可以发挥哪些作用？
芮安牟：“前海法智论坛”有助于促进交流，参会嘉宾在论坛中不断产生新的想法，大家一起关注未来可能会发生的问题，以及尝试寻找这些问题的有效解决措施。
未来，蓝海中心可以尝试不仅与中国国内，也可以与其他司法管辖区，特别是与亚洲的类似机构合作。例如，蓝海中心可以与新加坡国家法官学院、新加坡亚洲商法研究所等合作，还可以与香港大学司法研究课程进行合作，这些可能会产生协同效应。蓝海中心与这些相关机构的合作将有助于明确当前“一带一路”沿线司法管辖区商事法律间彼此同质化的程度。
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.
