发布时间： Wed Apr 11 16:05:57 CST 2018
文化和法律传统通常塑造了争议解决的目标和价值，个中差异进而影响了对不同争议程序的偏好。对于混合争议解决模式的利弊分析深深根植于这种文化和法律传统的差异之上，尤其对于同一第三方参与的“调解- 仲裁”或是“仲裁-调解”程序：前者指调解员在调解程序中“换帽子”成为仲裁员，后者指仲裁员在仲裁程序中“换帽子”成为调解员。
美国的文化根植于个人权利、法治、程序正当、机会平等的理念之上。因此，其争议解决的内生动力更侧重于程序目标的实现，例如当事人自治、选择自由以及独立决策。此外，大量的程序安排围绕着程序正当和法定程序的要求。
久而久之，律师群体在塑造各种争议解决程序时施加了巨大的压力，塑造了美国争议解决体系的“万有引力”。为了弥补往往昂贵且冗长的诉讼体系在解决争议功能上的短板，四十年前开始，一场“争议解决的无声革命”在美国徐徐展开。调解现在被众多法院接受为替代诉讼的争议解决方式，数以千计的职业调解员活跃在争议解决领域。但是，律师群体仍然在调解启动的时机和调解的特征塑造两个维度施加着巨大的影响。律师调解员通常会为当事人分析其在法庭上胜败的几率，并借此建议相应的和解方案。在诉讼案件中调解员的胜任与否通常情况下只有法律知识和庭审经验两个指标衡量。
更有甚者，律师群体也渐渐朝诉讼化的方向在塑造商事仲裁程序。许多的诉讼实践实实在在地影响着国际商事仲裁。或许正因如此，国际商事仲裁与其发端之初相比越来越拖延、越来越昂贵，如今越来越多的从业者开始关注裁决前的和解谈判，甚至正式庭审前的和解谈判，并在谈判和裁判不同的“车道”间来回切换。施特劳斯争议解决学院与商事仲裁员实践学院的一项调研显示，美国的仲裁员在其参与的仲裁案件中经历了更高的和解率；大部分仲裁员认可在进行庭前程序管理时，当事人的动议和信息交换方式将会对和解的可能性产生影响。
相较于美国，中国的文化和法律传统被认为更侧重于集体利益、遵从权威、关注长远和务实。调解在中国已有数千年的历史，并且传统上被认为是某种权威人士的天然职责，而非一项职业的活动，这包括官员、法官，以及仲裁员。中国的法官和仲裁员经常会主动“换帽子”以此帮助当事人寻求和解的可能。对于中国的争议解决用户来说，这种混合型争议解决模式通常是令人满意的，这多是出于对社会稳定、和谐以及对权威的期望方面的考虑。
作为对比，美国的律师和争议解决从业者往往会质疑仲裁员与调解员在同一争议中身份混同的合理性。他们对于裁判程序经常聚焦于仲裁员的中立性。这种顾虑在于如果调解时已经通过单方接触获知了一方当事人的保密信息，他们在仲裁裁判时将不自觉地受到影响——这有违严格的中立。与此同时，这种顾虑还包括在调解未果时调解员将转化为仲裁员的担忧之下，当事人或许难以开诚布公地探讨案情，从而阻碍调解程序的效用。
在混合型争议解决模式的实践中，也很有可能受到美国法律职业“万有引力”的牵引，阻止调解员、仲裁员之间的功能互补。律师群体往往希望主导并掌控争议解决程序，将调解员和仲裁员的角色分清界限，从而强化律师对于程序控制和结果影响方面的能力。
另一方面，许多的美国仲裁员和调解员都表示自己有时会在自己的争议解决程序中“换帽子”。他们的论点是，出于更快速、高效地解决争议及实现私密性的要求或者其他一些具体的原因，许多个体的当事人主观上希望利用“调解- 仲裁”或“仲裁- 调解”的程序。
除了前文的差异对比，不同的争议解决观点、实践向着融合的趋势在不断发展。年轻一代的争议解决从业者能够在不同的文化背景下体验不同的争议解决路径。北仲以及其他一些知名的争议解决机构在不断国际化的争议解决市场中竞争，也因此不断推动着国际化的争议解决实践。
近年来，包括联合国国际贸易法委员会第二工作组最近通过的跨国执行调解协议文本草案在内，许多推动调解的国际应用之努力或产生深远的影响。争议解决程序更加合理和高效是促使争议解决程序在形式化与去形式化之间此消彼长、进行创新的初心。就争议解决实践而言，正如一句中国俗语所说“月盈则亏，水满则溢”。
作者：Thomas Stipanowich教授，北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心仲裁员、美国佩伯 代因大学施特劳斯争议解决学院院长。北仲高级主管许捷对文章亦有贡献
Culture and legal tradition often determine what goals and values are associated with dispute resolution,and so influence process choices.Views of mixed-mode dispute resolution processes such as single-neutral Med-Arb,in which a mediator changes hats and becomes an arbitrator in the course of resolving a dispute, or Arb-Med, in which an arbitrator changes hats to become a mediator, are heavily influenced by culture and legal tradition.
The US has a culture focused on the rights of individuals, the rule of law,procedural due process and equality of opportunity. So in dispute resolution much emphasis has always been placed on process goals such as party autonomy,freedom of choice and independence in decision making. In addition, there is considerable emphasis on fair procedures and the application of legal norms.
In the US, lawyers exert tremendous pressure on dispute resolution processes – a kind of professional “gravitational pull”. The modern “quiet revolution in dispute resolution” that began four decades ago in the US was in many ways a response to the shortcomings of an often costly and time consuming litigation system.
Mediation is very widely used as an alternative to resolution by courts, and many thousands of dispute resolution professionals are active mediators.However, lawyers have continued to have significant influence on the timing and nature of mediation, with the emphasis being on lawyer mediators who frequently evaluate parties’ chances of success in court and offer proposals for a resolution. Competence as a mediator in a litigated case is very often measured in terms of legal knowledge and experience in trial practice.
THOMAS STIPANOWICH
In addition, lawyers have tended to shape commercial arbitration processes to be more and more like litigation. These practices have also had an influence on international commercial arbitration.Perhaps because commercial arbitration tends to be more protracted and more costly than in earlier decades, there is more emphasis on negotiated settlement prior to award, or even prior to hearing.
US practitioners are now accustomed to negotiating or mediating during the course of arbitration, moving back and forth between the “lanes” of negotiation and adjudication. According to a recent study conducted by Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution and the College of Commercial Arbitrators on Arbitration Practice, arbitrators in the US are experiencing higher rates of settlement of their cases, and most arbitrators acknowledge that their management of the prehearing process, party motions and information exchange may have an impact on the possibility of settlement.
In contrast to the U.S., China’s culture and legal tradition are founded on the collective good, adherence to authority,and long-term pragmatic considerations.Mediation, which has been used for thousands of years in China, is traditionally practised by figures of authority such as officials, judges, and arbitrators,and is tied to these roles as opposed to a discrete professional activity.
Chinese judges and arbitrators regularly offer to “change hats” to help parties explore settlement. This Chinese practice of mixed-mode dispute resolution is generally satisfactory to the users in light of the cultural emphasis on community stability and harmony, and the role of authority figures.
In the US, by way of contrast, lawyers and dispute resolution professionals often express doubts about the appropriateness of mixing the roles of arbitrator and mediator in regard to a particular dispute.
Because of their focus on due process in adjudication and the importance of an impartial arbitrator, they are concerned that if a mediator discusses a case in private with each party, he or she may learn confidential information that unduly influences their decision in arbitration.
At the same time, they fear that if parties know their mediator is going to become an arbitrator if no settlement occurs, they may be reticent about openly discussing their case, and therefore undermine the efficacy of the mediation process.
There is also the possibility that the “pushback” against combining the roles of mediator and arbitrator reflects the gravitational pull of the US legal profession.Lawyers tend to dominate and control dispute resolution processes,and keeping the roles of mediator and arbitrator separate tends to reinforce the ability of lawyers to control the process and affect the outcome.
On the other hand, many US arbitrators and mediators have indicated that they do sometimes “change hats”during the course of dispute resolution.They justify this on the basis that individual parties sometimes want Med-Arb or Arb-Med in order to make dispute resolution quicker or more efficient, to preserve confidentiality, or for other specific reasons.
Despite the differences described above, there are strong forces aimed at greater harmonization of perspectives and practices in dispute resolution.Many younger practitioners in the field of dispute resolution have had firsthand experience with different approaches in different cultures.
The BAC/BIAC and other leading organizations in the field are taking important steps towards more standardized international practice as they compete in an increasingly integrated international marketplace for dispute resolution. Current efforts aimed at promoting greater international use of mediation, including proposals of UNCITRAL Working Group II aimed at international enforcement of mediated settlements, may have far-reaching impact.
The creative drive towards more appropriate and effective forms of dispute resolution is one element of larger cycles in which formalization and institutionalization ultimately stimulate a search for new and less formal alternatives.When it comes to dispute resolution,as the Chinese idiom says, “The moon waxes only to wane, and water surges only to overflow.”
Professor Thomas Stipanowich is an arbitrator at Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Center (BAC/BIAC),and the Dean of Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Pepperdine University. BAC/BIAC’s senior manager, Terence Xu, also contributed to the article
