2023年4月7日
本次圆桌讨论的主持人 Hermann Knott 先生首先介绍了研讨嘉宾：Philip Hackett 先生、Godson Ugochukwu 先生、Paweł Sikora 先生、Peter J. Pettibone 先生和 Jian Chen 先生。
2020年争议解决经验
Mr. Hermann Knott then turned to the first topic which was the experiences with alternative dispute resolution in 2020, and asked Mr. Jian Chen about his experiences insofar. Mr. Jian Chen first answered in Chinese. Then he explained in English the rising importance of virtual hearings which became more and more acceptable because of the caseload and the financial pressure which the Parties are facing. Mr. Philip Hackett added the UK perspective and explained that initially everyone was under shock due to the pandemic. Then there was a tendency towards finding alternative ways of dispute resolution. The commercial courts in London already had provisions on the digital filing of claims and the remote taking of evidence. That is the reason why the Court system very quickly caught up with the situation. The judges were very flexible and so very rapidly remote hearings were being held. The same is true for arbitration: the system for digital submission and remote hearing was already in place. Therefore, there has been a very quick adjustment to the situation caused by the pandemic. Mr. Peter J. Pettibone added the US perspective and explained that the arbitration community adjusted very rapidly to virtual hearings. As a result, the acceptance of the new virtual is now widespread. Mr. Godson Ugochukwu added the African experience and explained that also in Africa dispute resolution was in person until the pandemic broke out. Now, the arbitration community is moving towards online-practices. However, this is not out of choice but out of necessity. Then, Mr. Hermann Knott asked Mr. Paweł Sikora to give the European perspective, in particular whether online-Arbitration has led to challenges of arbitrational awards for lack of due process. Mr. Paweł Sikora explained that although the legislation was in place the Courts were very reluctant to rely on it to hold online-hearings before the outbreak of the pandemic. However, since March/April 2020 the Courts very easily adapted.
争议解决中的成本意识
随后，Hermann Knott 先生询问了研讨嘉宾关于争议解决机制趋势的看法，不论是临时仲裁还是机构仲裁、快速程序等。Godson Ugochukwu 先生解释说，就此而言成本考量是一个主要因素。Paweł Sikora 先生根据自己的经验证实了这一点。
替代性争议解决的未来
随后，Hermann Knott 先生转向替代性争议解决的未来，特别是中国也签署的《新加坡调解公约》的影响。Jian Chen 先生首先对中国调解的未来发表了看法。他解释说，一旦《新加坡调解公约》对中国产生约束力，经调解达成的和解协议就可以在中国获得执行。在中国批准《新加坡公约》之前，中国当事人可以依靠该公约在已对其产生约束力的司法管辖区执行调解和解协议。国有企业的影响也是一个重要方面。另一个方面是中国法院系统面临着日益增加的案件量。在此背景下，法院鼓励当事人寻求调解。Peter J. Pettibone 先生补充说，从美国的角度来看，调解也在取得进展。在某些情况下，法院甚至可能要求当事人在提起法院诉讼之前先寻求调解，即所谓的 推定调解。Philip Hackett 先生补充说，根据英国《民事诉讼规则》，如果当事人未能采取调解，将会面临诉讼费用方面的惩罚。仲裁正变得越来越昂贵。在此背景下，当事人正在将调解视为一种争议解决机制。支持调解的另一个理由是当事人希望继续保持商业合作。Godson Ugochukwu 先生补充说，在非洲，调解也在取得进展。在尼日利亚的商业诉讼中，当事人在向法院起诉前需要先经过调解。Paweł Sikora 先生补充说，在波兰，调解并不非常流行。许多当事人认为调解更适合小型家庭案件，而不适合商业争议解决。
讨论
Hermann Knott 先生补充说，他在两年前曾遇到一个案件，其中寻求调解的一方（一位来自阿根廷的客户）被另一方（一家德国制药公司）认为很软弱，仅仅因为其寻求调解。随后，Tianze Zhang 先生用中文向他的中国同事提出了一个问题。Hermann Knott 先生点评道，这个问题是关于裁决的执行，并请研讨嘉宾发表意见。Philip Hackett 先生解释说，根据英国法律，避免执行裁决的一种方法是指控原始交易中存在欺诈。Godson Ugochukwu 先生表示赞同。
