境外仲裁中的临时措施在中国的可执行性

境外仲裁中的临时措施在中国的可执行性境外仲裁的仲裁庭下令采取的，或者境外法院为支持仲裁而下令采取的临时措施，能否在中国内地的法院得到承认和执行，一直是大家关心的问题。一、临时措施的含义和作用国际仲裁中的临时措施，是指仲裁庭或有管辖权的法院在仲裁程序开始前或进行过程中，根据仲裁程序所适用的法律和规则，应一方当事人申请，为保全证据或财产等目的而采取的临时性的保全或保护措施。由于各国仲裁法和仲裁实践的多样性，“临时措施”（ProvisionalMeasures）亦被称作“中间措施”、“保全措施”或“临时保护措施”等。本文以“临时措施”统称仲裁中的这一类措施。仲裁庭或有管辖权的法院所采取的及时、适当、有强制力的临时措施，能够起到维持现状、保全证据及防止恶意转移财产的作用，在国际仲裁中得到了广泛应用。一般情况下，临时措施针对的当事人倾向于执行这些措施，维护仲裁庭或法庭的权威，避免在仲裁程序、裁决结果、费用承担等方面或适用法律规定的其他方面承担不利后果。但是，某些当事人为隐藏证据、转移财产，宁可承担上述不利后果，亦不愿配合执行临时措施。此时，临时措施能否强制执行，就殊为关键。二、中国仲裁法关于临时措施的规定在回答上述问题之前，我们需要了解中国法律关于仲裁中的临时措施的规定。根据相关法律规定和司法实践，中国仲裁法下的临时措施具有以下特点：(2)第一，从临时措施的种类上说，中国仲裁法规定的临时措施种类较少，仅限于财产保全和证据保全。财产保全适用于“因另一方当事人的行为或者其他原因，可能使裁决不能执行或者难以执行的”（《仲裁法》(3)第二十八条），其保全的范围“限于请求的范围，或者与本案有关的财物”（《民事诉讼法》(4)第九十四条）；证据保全适用于“证据可能灭失或者以后难以取得的情况”（《民事诉讼法》第七十四条），针对的是与案件相关的证据。在中国仲裁法中不存在禁令等旨在限制某种行为或要求不作为的临时措施(5)（如《联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》(6)，下文称“《示范法》”，第17条第2款a项和b项），也不存在强制证人出庭提供证言的措施（如英格兰ArbitrationAct1996(7)第44条第2款a项）。第二，从临时措施的申请主体来看，申请者仅限于中国内地仲裁机构审理的仲裁案件中的当事人。《民事诉讼法》和《仲裁法》仅涉及国内仲裁中的临时措施，而未就境外仲裁中的当事人能否向中国法院申请财产保全、证据保全等临时措施作出相应规定。第三，从临时措施的管辖上说，在中国有权决定是否采取临时措施的权力专属于人民法院。根据《仲裁法》第二十八条和第四十六条的规定，仲裁机构仅负责转交当事人提出的财产保全或证据保全的申请，无权下令采取临时措施；仲裁庭同样没有下令采取临时措施的权力。中国仲裁法的这一限制与英国、法国等主要仲裁地的仲裁制度及示范法的规定均不同。第四，从时间上说，中国仲裁法的临时措施仅限于在仲裁过程中申请。《民事诉讼法》规定了诉前财产保全，但《民事诉讼法》和《仲裁法》都未规定仲裁前的财产或证据保全。《最高人民法院关于人民法院执行工作若干问题的规定（试行）》(8)第12条则将涉外仲裁中的财产保全限定在仲裁过程中。虽然在司法实践中存在部分法院比照诉前财产保全进行仲裁前财产保全的个案，但大多数人民法院仍不接受仲裁前财产保全的申请。三、境外仲裁庭采取的临时措施的可执行性在境外仲裁中，仲裁庭可能以命令、禁令的形式采取临时措施，也可能根据适用的仲裁规则或仲裁法的规定，以“裁决”的形式采取临时措施。下面分情况讨论：1、以命令、禁令形式采取的临时措施仲裁庭以命令、禁令等形式采取的临时措施，具有临时性、中间性和程序性，显然不属于《联合国承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（“《纽约公约》”）(9)和《最高人民法院关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的安排》（“《安排》”）(10)承认的“仲裁裁决”。因此，在《纽约公约》另一缔约国领土内或在香港特区作出的此类临时措施，不能根据《纽约公约》或《安排》在中国内地获得承认和执行。2、以裁决形式采取的临时措施许多仲裁地的法律或仲裁规则均允许仲裁庭以“裁决”的方式采取临时措施。例如，为香港和新加坡采纳的《示范法》，其第17条第2款规定，“临时措施是以裁决书为形式的或另一种形式的任何短期措施”；国际商会国际仲裁院的《仲裁规则》第23条也授权仲裁庭在其认为适当的时候，采用裁决的形式采取临时措施。那么，当事人能否根据《纽约公约》或《安排》向中国法院申请承认和执行关于临时措施的“裁决”呢？InternationalCommercialArbitration,UNCITRAL,32ndSess.,UNDoc.A/CN.9/460，第28页至31页，见联合国网站/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V99/827/50/IMG/V9982750.pdf?OpenElement（最后访问日期2010年11月8日）。

11、相关的技术咨询和技术服务价款与技术转让价款需开在同一张发票上。

12、见杨弘磊法官《中国内地司法实践视角下的〈纽约公约〉问题研究》，法律出版社2006年版，第32页、50页、311页。

13、见《最高人民法院关于不予承认和执行国际商会仲裁院仲裁裁决的请示的复函》（[2008]民四他字第11号）。

14、见赵秀文教授《从永宁公司案看公共政策作为我国法院拒绝执行外国仲裁裁决的理由》，发表于《法学家》2009年第4期。

15、一般认为，临时措施不属于国家间相互承认和执行法院裁判的范围。

16、例如，《中华人民共和国和科威特国关于民事和商事司法协助的协定》第十七条第三款规定：“本协定不适用于保全措施或临时措施，但与支付生活费有关的事项除外。”

China'sEnforceabilityofProvisionalMeasuresinOffshoreArbitrationbyZhangShouzhi,HuKeandXuBeibeiProvisionalmeasuresinoffshorearbitration(1)areeitherorderedbythearbitraltribunal,orissuedbyanoffshorecourtinaidofarbitration.IthasalwaysbeenofgreatconcernwhethersuchprovisionalmeasurescanbeenforcedbytheCourtsinChina.I.DefinitionandPurposeofProvisionalMeasuresProvisionalmeasuresininternationalarbitrationarethoseinterimmeasuresofprotectiongrantedbyanarbitraltribunaloracourtofcompetentjurisdictionattherequestofapartybeforeorduringthearbitrationproceeding.Theseinterimmeasuresprovideappropriatemeasurestopreserveevidence,assetsorstatusquoinaccordancewiththelawsandrulesapplicabletosucharbitration.Astherearedifferencesamongarbitrationlawsinotherjurisdictionsaroundtheworld,provisionalmeasuresarealsocalled"interimmeasures","preservationmeasures",or"interimmeasureofprotection",whichwillbecollectivelyreferredtoas"ProvisionalMeasures"inthisarticle.Ifanarbitraltribunaloracourtofcompetentjurisdictiontakesproper,timelyandcompulsoryProvisionalMeasures,suchmeasurescanservethepurposetomaintainthestatusquo,preserveevidence,andpreventmalicioustransferofassets.Therefore,suchmeasuresarewidelyusedininternationalarbitration.Normally,thepartytowhomtheProvisionalMeasuresareappliedagainstisinclinedtocarryouttheProvisionalMeasuresasdirectedandshowdeferencetothearbitraltribunalorthecourt,inordertoavoidbearingunfavorableconsequencesinarbitrationproceedings,thearbitralaward,orexpenseallocationsandotheraspectsundertheapplicablerules.Sometimes,however,inordertoconcealevidenceortransferassets,apartywouldratherriskbearingsuchunfavorableconsequencesthancarryouttheProvisionalMeasures.Undersuchcircumstances,theenforcementofProvisionalMeasuresbecomescritical.II.ProvisionalMeasuresunderChineseArbitrationLawsBeforeansweringtheabovequestion,weneedtounderstandtheProvisionalMeasuresinarbitrationunderChinalaw.Accordingtotherelevantlawsandregulationsandjudicialpractice,thereareseveralfeaturesregardingProvisionalMeasuresunderChinesearbitrationlaw:(2)First,inrespectofProvisionalMeasures,thereareonlytwocategoriesunderthePRCArbitrationLaw("ArbitrationLaw")(3),namelyassetpreservationandevidencepreservationTheformerappliestocircumstanceswhere"thearbitralawardmightnotbeabletobeenforcedorbecomedifficulttobeenforcedduetotheactsoftheotherpartyorotherreasons"(Article28oftheArbitrationLaw),andtheassetstobepreservedarelimited"withinthescopeofthecaseortheassetsinvolvedinthecase"(Article94ofthePRCCivilProcedureLaw,(4)"CivilProcedureLaw").Thelatterappliestocircumstanceswhere"theevidencemightbelostforeverormaybedifficulttobeobtainedinthefuture"(Article74oftheCivilProcedureLaw)anditistargetedattheevidencerelevanttothecase.UnderChineseArbitrationlaws,therearenoProvisionalMeasuresaimedatpreventingorrefrainingfromtakingactionsuchasinjunctions(5)(asinArticle17.2(a)and17.2(b)oftheUNCITRALModelLawonInternationalCommercialArbitration(6)),noraretheremeasurestoforcethewitnesstoappearincourt(asinArticle44.2(a)ofEnglishArbitrationAct1996(7)).Second,astotherequestingpartywhocanapplyforProvisionalMeasures,onlypartiesinanonshorearbitration(administeredbydomesticarbitrationcommissions)canapplyforProvisionalMeasures.TheCivilProcedureLawandtheArbitrationLawonlydealwithProvisionalMeasuresarisingfromonshorearbitrationsandremainsilentonwhetherthepartiesinoffshorearbitrationscanapplytotheChinesecourtforProvisionalMeasuressuchasassetprotectionandevidencepreservation.Third,astothejurisdictionandpowertograntProvisionalMeasures,thePeople'scourtinChinahasexclusivejurisdictiontodeterminewhetherornottoadopttheProvisionalMeasures.PursuanttoArticles28and36oftheArbitrationLaw,arbitrationcommissionsonlyforwardtherequestingparty'sapplicationsforassetand/orevidencepreservationtothePeople'sCourt,andtheyhavenocompetencetoorderProvisionalMeasures.Similarly,thearbitraltribunalsdonothavetheauthoritytoenforcetheProvisionalMeasures.Thisisobviouslyastrictrestriction,andalsoamajordistinctionofChineseArbitrationlawsasopposedtothearbitrationlawsoftheUKandFranceaswellastheModelLaw.Fourth,astothetimingforrequestingProvisionalMeasures,underChineseArbitrationlaws,therequestingpartycanapplyitonlyduringthearbitrationproceeding.TheCivilProcedureLawhasspecificprovisionsonassetpreservationpriortolitigation,butneithertheCivilProcedureLawnortheArbitrationLawtouchesuponasset/evidencepreservationpriortoanarbitrationproceeding.PursuanttoArticle12oftheProvisionalRegulationoftheSupremePeople'sCourtonQuestionsConcerningtheEnforcementbyPeople'sCourt,(8)theassetpreservationinforeign-relatedarbitrationscanpossiblymadeonlyduringthearbitrationproceeding.Thoughthereareincidentalcaseswheresomecourtsfollowedtheprincipleunderlyingtheassetpreservationpriortolitigationanddirectedthemeasureofassetpreservationpriortoarbitration,mostcourtsstilldeclinetosupporttheapplicationsforassetpreservationpriortoarbitration.III.EnforceabilityofProvisionalMeasuresOrderedbyanOffshoreArbitralTribunalInoffshorearbitration,thearbitraltribunalmaygrantProvisionalMeasuresintheformoforder,injunctionorawardinaccordancewiththeapplicablearbitrationrulesorlaws.Therecanbeseveralscenarios:A.ProvisionalMeasuresintheFormofOrderorInjunctionTheProvisionalMeasuresintheformoforderorinjunctiongrantedbythearbitraltribunal,aretemporary,interimandprocedural,whichareapparentlynotthe"arbitralawards"undertheUnitedNationsConventionontheRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwards(the"NewYorkConvention")(9)andtheArrangementoftheSupremePeople'sCourtConcerningMutualEnforcementofArbitralAwardsbetweentheMainlandandtheHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegion(the"Arrangement").(10)Therefore,suchProvisionalMeasuresmadeintheterritoryofacontractingstatetotheNewYorkConventionorintheHongKongSARcannotberecognizedandenforcedinMainlandChinaundertheNewYorkConventionortheArrangement.B.ProvisionalMeasuresintheFormofAwardUndermanyarbitrationlawsandrules,thearbitraltribunalcangranttheProvisionalMeasuresintheformof"award".Forexample,Article17(2)oftheModelLaw,whichhasbeenadoptedbyHongKongandSingapore,statesthat"aninterimmeasureisanytemporarymeasure,whetherintheformofanawardorinanotherform".AnotherexampleisArticle23oftheICCArbitrationRules,whichgrantsthearbitraltribunalthepowertoorderinterimmeasuresintheformofawardwheneveritdeemsappropriate.ThisraisesthequestionwhetherapartytoarbitrationcanapplytoaChinesecourtinordertorecognizeandorenforcean"award"concerningProvisionalMeasuresbasedontheNewYorkConventionortheArrangement.AsoftodaynocasehasbeenfoundinjudicialpracticetoverifythespecificcriteriaoftheChinesecourt.However,itmightbedifficulttoconvincetheChinesecourttoacceptapplicationsforrecognizingandenforcingtheawardconcerningtheProvisionalMeasures,forthefollowingreasons:First,theProvisionalMeasuresevenintheformofawardaretemporary,interimandproceduralinnatureandsubjecttothefinalaward,whichmeansthatsuchmeasurescanberevokedoramendedbythearbitraltribunalinthesubsequentarbitrationprocess.AstheNewYorkConventiondoesnotdefinetheterm"award",theprevailingviewinjudicialpracticeamongthecourtsofsomecontractingjurisdictions,isthattheNewYorkConventiondoesnotapplytointerimawards(11).SomejudgesintheChinesecourtshaveheldtheopinionthatapreconditiontorecognizingandenforcingforeignawardsinChinaisthatsuchawardsmustbefinal(12).Therefore,theProvisionalMeasuresevenintheformofaward,intheeyeoftheChinesecourt,mightstillnotqualifyas"arbitralawards"undertheNewYorkConventionortheArrangementandthustheycannotberecognizedorenforcedinChina.Second,astotheawardconcerningProvisionalMeasures,theremightbeaquestionofwhetherthemattercanbesettledthrougharbitrationundertheChinalaw.ArticleV(2)oftheNewYorkConventionprovidesthat,"recognitionandenforcementofanarbitralawardmayalsoberefusedifthecompetentauthorityinthecountrywhererecognitionandenforcementissoughtfindsthat:(a)thesubjectmatterofthedifferenceisnotcapableofsettlementbyarbitrationunderthelawsofthecountry."Article7(2)oftheArrangementissimilaronsamesubject.Asmentionedabove,underChineseArbitrationlaws,thePeople'scourthasexclusivejurisdictiontograntProvisionalMeasures,whilethearbitrationcommissionsandarbitraltribunalshavenopowertodoso.ThismeansthatProvisionalMeasuresmightbeconsiderednotabletobearbitratedunderChinalaw.NocasehasbeenfoundinChinathattherecognitionandenforcementisrefusedbasedonthelackofabilitytobearbitratedunderArticleV(2)andthereisnoconclusivedecisionyetonwhetherProvisionalMeasuresarematterswhichcannotbesettledbyarbitration.However,inHemofarmDD,etal.v.JinanYongningPharmaceuticalCo.Ltd.,whereHermofarmDDappliedforrecognizingandenforcingICCarbitralawardNo.13464/MS/JB/JEM(the"YongningCase"),ShandongHighPeople'sCourtheldthat"thedisputearisingoutoforinconnectionwiththelegalityandjustificationoftheapplicationforassetpreservationinlitigationwasnotarbitrable."(13)Commentariessaidthat,"ICCmadeawardonmatterswhichhadalreadyadjudicatedbytheChinesecourt,whichoffendedtheexclusivejurisdictionoftheChinesecourtsunderthecurrentChineselawtograntandenforcetheprovisionalmeasuresonthedisputedassetsunderthearbitrationagreement."(14)Insummary,underthecurrentChineseArbitrationlaws,eveniftheProvisionalMeasurestaketheformof"award",suchawardsmightstillbeineligibleforrecognitionandenforcementbytheChinesecourt.IV.EnforceabilityofProvisionalMeasuresOrderedbyanOffshoreCourtMostnationalarbitrationlawshavespecificprovisionsonthemeasuresissuedbycourtinaidofarbitration.SuchprovisionsgrantthecourtthepowertotakeProvisionalMeasuresupontherequestofparties.ItraisesthequestionwhethersuchProvisionalMeasuresorderedbyanoffshorecourtcanbeenforcedbytheChinesecourt.Suchpossibilityisslim.First,ChineselawsaresilentontheChinesecourt'spowerandobligationsinrespectofProvisionalMeasuresinoffshorearbitration.Therefore,thereisnolegalbasisundertheChineselawfortheChinesecourttoadoptProvisionalMeasuressupportingoffshorearbitration.Second,therecognitionandenforcementoftheProvisionalMeasuresinconnectionwitharbitrationorderedbyanoffshorecourtarenotwithinthejurisdictionoftheNewYorkConventionortheArrangement.ThussuchProvisionalMeasurescannotbeenforcedundertheNewYorkConventionortheArrangement.Third,underthebilateraljudicialassistancetreatiesonmutuallyrecognizingandenforcingjudicialjudgmentsbetweenChinaandothercountries,itisveryuncertainwhetherordersregardingProvisionalMeasuresissuedbythecourtqualifyas"judgments"withinthetreatiesandnocasescanbefoundinthepublicdomaintotestonthisissue.(15)SomebilateraltreatiesconcludedbyChinaandothercountriesexpresslyexcludetheProvisionalMeasuresfromtheciviljudgmentsthatcanberecognizedandenforcedbetweencountries,suchasthetreatiesonjudicialassistanceincivilandcommercialmattersbetweenChinaandKuwait,(16)theUnitedArabEmiratesandTunis.Last,fromtheperspectiveofjudicialpractice,nocasesintheChinesecourtcanbefoundinthepublicdomainwhichrecognizeandenforcejudgmentsandordersgrantedbyforeignandHongKongcourtsonProvisionalMeasures.V.ConclusionInsummary,underthecurrentChineseArbitrationLaw,theProvisionalMeasuresarisingoutoforinconnectionwithoffshorearbitrationareunlikelytoberecognizedandenforcedbytheChinesecourts.ThoughthepartywhorefusestocomplywiththeProvisionalMeasuresmaybearunfavorableconsequencesunderthearbitrationrulesandapplicablelaws,thefinalarbitrationawardmightalsobecomeworthlessfortheprevailingpartyasaresultoftheuncooperativebehaviorofthedisobedientparty.AsChina-relatedinternationalarbitrationsincrease,thisproblemwillbecomemoreserious.Itisadvisablethatin-housecounselsandpracticingattorneysgivethisissueconsiderablethoughtwhendraftingrelevantarbitrationclauses.TheYongningCasesuggeststhatitispossibleforapartytocircumventthearbitrationclausesandapplydirectlytotheChinesecourtforappropriateProvisionalMeasures.tofreezeassetsorobtainevidenceinconnectionwiththedispute,andultimatelyincreasetheirchancetosucceed.Notes:

1、OffshorearbitrationincludesforeignarbitrationandarbitrationconductedinHongKong,MacauandTaiwan.HongKong,MacauandTaiwanareterritoriesofthePeople'sRepublicofChinabutremainindependentjurisdictionsanditraisesthequestionofinterregionaljudicialassistanceinjudiciaryandarbitrationareas.AstherearemuchfewerinternationalarbitrationsconductedinMacauandTaiwan,andHongKongisoneofthemajorarbitrationforums.SothisarticlefocusesontheprovisionalmeasuresinforeignandHongKongarbitrations.

2、PursuanttotheSpecialMaritimeProcedureLaw,thecompulsivemeasuresinthemaritimelawsuitandarbitration,includesmaritimeclaimpreservation,maritimeinjunctionandmaritimeevidencepreservation,allofwhichcanberequestedbeforearbitration.ThisisdifferentfromtheCivilProcedureLawandtheArbitrationLaw.

3、PromulgatedonAugust31,1994;implementedonSeptember1,1995.

4、PromulgatedandimplementedonApril9,1991;amendedforthethirdtimeonOctober28,2007.

5、Somejudicialinterpretationshavegrantedthecourtthepowertoorderinjunctionintheintellectualdisputes,forexample,"InterpretationoftheSupremePeople'sCourtConcerningQuestionsonApplicationofLawtoPre-litigationSuspensionofInfringementofExclusiveRighttoUseTrademarkandtoEvidencePreservation","InterpretationoftheSupremePeople'sCourtConcerningQuestionsontheApplicationoflawtopre-litigationSuspensionof