发布时间： Fri Sep 14 16:16:47 CST 2018 供稿人：许捷
本文原载于《商法》2018年7/8月|第9辑第7期，北京仲裁委员会授权转发。
调解会成为未来商业交易中一种主要的争议解决方式吗？近期即将在联合国国际贸易法委员会（贸法会）第51届大会上审议的《联合国关于调解所产生的国际和解协议公约》草案文本（公约草案）已获得通过，并将以《新加坡公约》为名在新加坡开放缔约。笔者试以此文简要介绍公约草案的重要条文，并就中国大陆地区的调解机制简析该公约草案可能产生的影响及带来的机遇。
2014年贸法会第47届大会上，经由部分现代调解服务行业较为发达的国家指出“扩大调解的使用范围的一个障碍是，通过调解达成的和解协议执行起来比仲裁裁决可能更为困难……不利于商业当事人诉诸调解。”并提议贸法会第二工作组着手开始“拟订一项关于通过调解达成的国际商事和解协议可执行性的多边公约，并以《纽约公约》促进仲裁发展的同样方式鼓励调解。”
透过这一公约草案出台的背景可以看出，以尽可能便利的方式解决国际商事贸易往来中的争端始终是国际争议解决发展的方向，这也符合贸法会设立的宗旨，即“减少或消除各国的国际贸易法律存在的差异，以及给贸易流通造成的障碍”。而调解在一些国家和地区成功的实践，逐渐获得了国际社会的认可。这一点也在公约草案的序言部分得以重申，“本公约当事方……注意到国际和国内商业实务越来越多地使用调解替代诉讼，考虑到使用调解办法产生显著益处……深信就调解所产生的国际和解协议确立一种可为法律、社会和经济制度不同的国家接受的框架，将有助于发展和谐的国际经济关系”。
在中国大陆地区，调解是当下社会治理及司法改革的热点之一。在具体的行政政策和司法政策层面均不乏对于调解机制建设的具体设想，例如《关于完善矛盾纠纷多元化解机制的意见》（中办发〔2015〕60号）及《关于进一步深化多元化纠纷解决机制改革的意见》（法发〔2016〕-14号）两份文件均试图将调解这一独立、专业的争议解决机制作为多元化争议解决机制建设的重中之重加以推动。然而上述两份文件对于调解机制后续的执行保障安排与公约草案的适用范围略有差异，或将影响调解机制在国际贸易往来中更好地发挥其争议解决功能。例如，在《关于进一步深化多元化纠纷解决机制改革的意见》中对于委派、委托调解程序的安排似将使得通过该种方式获取的调解结果无法适用于公约草案的范围。
公约草案第1条第3款规定“本公约不适用于……（a）以下和解协议：（一）经由法院批准或者系在法院相关程序过程中订立的协议；（二）可在该法院所在国作为判决执行的协议；（b）已记录在案并可作为仲裁裁决执行的协议。”公约草案的此种规定旨在“将司法程序或仲裁程序过程中达成的和解协议排除在外，其目的是避免出现可能的漏洞或者避免与现有公约和未来公约的可能重叠，即《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（1958年，纽约）（《纽约公约》）、《关于法院选择协议的公约》（2005年）（《法院选择公约》），以及海牙国际私法会议正在拟订的2016年关于判决的公约初步草案。”
显然，中国大陆地区的政策制定者或需要进一步厘清现有的、庞杂的调解体系，明确调解的独立性和中立性，并对可能到境外寻求执行救济的争议提前设计更为顺畅的调解路径，籍此切实在公约草案项下发挥调解在解决争议方面的功能和作用。同样，对于中国大陆地区的仲裁机构而言，公约草案的出台或许是进一步修订仲裁规则的契机，让当事人可以结合案件和执行地等实际情况选择使用仲裁中的调解或是独立的调解等不同的争议解决方式。
公约草案第4条对于寻求跨国执行的调解协议之形式要求还列明了“当事人根据本公约依赖于和解协议，应向寻求救济所在公约当事方主管机关出具……（b）显示和解协议产生于调解的证据，例如：（一）调解员在和解协议上的签名；（二）调解员签署的表明进行了调解的文件；（三）调解过程管理机构的证明；或者（四）在没有第（一）目、第（二）目或者第（三）目的情况下，可为主管机关接受的其他任何证据。”这意味着，调解员及调解过程管理机构，也即通常意义上的调解组织对于调解结果和过程的证明将会成为适用公约草案的前提条件，这必将给当下蓬勃发展的行业调解组织、民间调解组织带来一轮新的国际化发展机遇。
公约草案第5条对于拒绝准予救济的理由列明了数种公约当事方主管机关可以否定调解协议执行效力的情形，其中包括“根据当事人有效约定的和解协议管辖法律，或者在没有就此指明任何法律的情况下，根据在第4条下寻求救济所在公约当事方主管机关认为应予适用的法律，无效、失效或者无法履行”，和解协议中的义务“不清楚或者无法理解”，以及“调解员严重违反适用于调解员或者调解的准则，若非此种违反，该当事人本不会订立和解协议”三种情形值得特别关注。
首先，在试图适用公约草案寻求事后救济的调解过程中，调解参与各方需要尽可能明确具体和解协议的管辖法律，或至少确保和解协议内容不存在违反可能的法律规范而无效、失效或者无法履行的情形。调解的法律专业属性在这一规定中得以充分体现。当前中国大陆地区参与调解的主体众多。除人民调解机制外，对于一般的行业调解、民间调解尚未设有统一的门槛、准入标准。因此，对于在中国大陆地区拟在公约草案框架下使用调解的当事人而言，选择较为成熟、有一定公信力的调解员或调解机构，将会有助于后续顺畅获得执行利益。
其次，对于和解协议的内容是否为清楚，或者是否影响理解显然也需要当事人和调解员结合争议情况和执行地的法律规则重点关注。就此而言，具有丰富争议解决经验的法律服务行业群体，如律师、法官、仲裁员等对于可执行性的良好把握或将成为一种专业优势。但需注意的是，调解与诉讼、仲裁在权责判断与争议解决两种功能性侧重的不同是调解这种争议解决机制发挥价值的基础之一。过于强调法律服务行业的专业优势，进而使之成为其他行业专业人才进入调解行业的壁垒，也可能会阻碍调解机制更好地发挥争议解决的功能。
最后，对于调解的行为准则，尤其涉及调解的具体流程、方式及技巧规范问题，在世界范围内尚未有较为成熟、可以通用的研究成果。调解在中国大陆地区乃至受中华文明影响的国家和地区有悠久的传统和广泛的实践，就此而言，若在丰富的实践案例中有效梳理出一套符合中国文化背景、中国法律传统的调解行为准则，或将有助于在国际争议解决行业发展的过程中拿出“中国调解标准”，配合中国企业“走出去”和“一带一路”倡议落实过程中的争议解决需求，有效地指引调解员运用专业知识有效地促进当事人沟通、帮助当事人评估，并最终解决争议。
本次公约草案的形成过程历时四年，笔者有幸作为北京仲裁委员会/ 北京国际仲裁中心代表团成员，自第二工作组第六十五届会议开始参与草案文本的磋商讨论，深感中国大陆地区的调解行业发展不仅需要“开发内需”，实现诉讼分流之目的，更需要积极关注国际争议解决行业对于调解机制的讨论，提升现有调解机制的水准和定位。调解行业“扩大外需”或许也能够成为长远的发展目标之一。若公约草案顺利通过，且“一带一路”沿线国家能够成为缔约国的情况下，调解或将成为诉讼和仲裁之外，另一种主要的争端解决机制，最终促进“一带一路”沿线国家和地区的商业贸易往来。
Will mediation become the main mechanism to resolve disputes in future commercial transactions? During the 51st commission session of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), the Draft Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation has been adopted and will be opened for signing during the so-called Singapore Convention. In this article, the author will briefly introduce the key elements and clauses in the draft convention, and briefly analyze the influences and opportunities it may bring to China’s mediation mechanisms.
During UNCITRAL’s 47th session in 2014, certain countries, with relatively developed mediation services, pointed out that “one obstacle to greater use of conciliation was that settlement agreements reached through conciliation might be more difficult to enforce than arbitral awards”, which served as a “disincentive to commercial parties to mediate”. These countries proposed that UNICTRAL’s working group II “develop a multilateral convention on the enforceability of international commercial settlement agreements reached through conciliation, with the goal of encouraging conciliation in the same way that the New York Convention had facilitated the growth of arbitration”.
From the background of the production of the draft convention, it is clear that the ultimate goal of the development of international dispute resolution mechanism is to resolve, as effectively and conveniently as possible, conflicts stemming from international commercial transactions. Such a goal is consistent with UNCITRAL’s mandate to “reduce or eliminate the differences among states’ international trade laws, and the obstacles they bring to trade flows”.
The successful mediations in certain countries and regions are gradually gaining international recognition, which is emphasized in the preamble to the draft convention, stating: “The parties to this convention … noting that mediation is increasingly used in international and domestic commercial practice as an alternative to litigation … convinced that the establishment of a framework for international settlement agreements resulting from mediation that is acceptable to states with different legal, social and economic systems would contribute to the development of harmonious international economic relations.”
In China, mediation is one of the focal points of current governance of society and legal reforms. There are specific concepts to establish mediation mechanisms in both specific administrative and legislative policies, such as the Suggestions on Optimization of Diverse Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and the Suggestions on Further Reform Diverse Dispute Resolution Mechanisms. Both documents regard the development of an independent and professional dispute resolution mechanism as being of critical importance. However, the two documents differ in their approaches to the enforcement of mediation results and the scope of application of the draft convention, which may prevent mediation from better performing its function in international trade.
For example, the arrangement of commission and designation of mediation procedure detailed in the Suggestions on Further Reform Diverse Dispute Resolution Mechanisms prevent the draft convention from being applicable to mediation results obtained through such arrangements.
Convention draft article 1(3) provides: this convention does not apply to settlement agreements … (a)(i) that have been approved by a court or concluded in the course of proceedings before a court; (ii) that are enforceable as a judgment in the state of that court; and (b) that have been recorded and are enforceable as an arbitral award. The purpose of such stipulation from the draft convention is to avoid possible overlap with existing and future conventions, namely the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958), the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (2005) and the 2016 preliminary draft convention on judgments, under preparation by the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
Clearly, the legislators and policymakers in China need to untangle further the current complicated mediation systems, clarify the independence and neutrality of mediation, and design, in advance, more streamlined approaches to mediation for disputes that potentially may seek enforcement relief beyond the borders and, thus, tangibly utilize the functions of mediation under the draft convention. Similarly, for arbitration institutions in China, the draft convention may be an opportunity to amend arbitration rules further to allow parties to choose different dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation within arbitration or independent mediation, to accommodate better different practical situations.
Article 4 of the draft convention, with regards to the settlement agreements that seek enforcement internationally, provides that:
A party relying on a settlement agreement under this convention must supply to the competent authority of the party to the convention where relief is sought: (b) evidence that the settlement agreement resulted from mediation, such as: (1) the mediator’s signature on the settlement agreement; (2) a document signed by the mediator indicating that the mediation was carried out; (3) an attestation by the institution that administered the mediation; or (4) in the absence of (1), (2) or (3), any other evidence acceptable to the competent authority.
Such a stipulation means that evidence regarding mediation results and procedures, provided by mediators and mediation institutions, will be prerequisite for the draft convention to be applicable. Such a prerequisite will surely bring new international development opportunities to the currently growing industrial and civil mediation institutions.
Article 5 of the draft convention listed several scenarios where competent authorities from a party to the draft convention are allowed to deny enforceability of the settlement agreement, from which the following three are especially notable: (1) When the settlement agreement is “null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed under the law to which the parties have validly subjected it, or, failing any indication thereon, under the law deemed applicable by the competent authority of the party to the convention where relief is sought under article 4”; (2) “The obligations in the settlement agreement are not clear or comprehensible”; and (3) “When there was a serious breach by the mediator of standards applicable to the mediator or the mediation without which breach that party would not have entered into the settlement agreement.”
First, in mediations that attempt to rely on the draft convention to seek relief, parties to mediation must clarify applicable laws to the specific settlement agreement as much as possible, or at least ensure that the content of the settlement agreement does not potentially violate any laws and regulations, causing it to be nullified. Such stipulation fully demonstrates the requirement of legal expertise in mediation. Currently, there are many entities involved in mediation. Apart from people’s mediation, there is no standardized threshold for practices of ordinary industrial and civil mediation. Therefore, for parties employing mediation under the framework of draft convention in China, choosing an experienced and credible mediator or mediation institution would be helpful to streamline the process of enforcement.
Second, the parties and mediators should pay special attention to the clarity and comprehensibility of the content of the settlement agreement by considering them along with the circumstances surrounding the disputes and the applicable law of the place of enforcement. On this aspect, legal service practitioners such as attorneys, judges and arbitrators, with experience and expertise in dispute resolution, will gain professional advantages from their outstanding grasp of the legal enforceability of the agreements.
It should be noted, however, that different emphasis of mediations on weights of rights and obligations and dispute resolutions over arbitration and litigation are a key basis of their value. Overemphasizing the professional advantages of legal service practitioners and, as such, creating barriers for people from other trades and industries to enter the process, may prevent it from fulfilling its role as a dispute resolution mechanism.
Finally, there is currently no relatively mature and universally applicable criterion regarding mediation’s standard of conduct, especially in its specific process, method of proceeding and techniques. Mediation has profound historical traditions and has been widely practised on the mainland and the Greater China region.
If a standard of conduct of mediation that accommodates the mainland’s cultural background and legal tradition can be developed from past experience, it will help China to produce a “Chinese standard of mediation” in the international dispute resolution arena and, as a result, assist Chinese enterprises to grow internationally. It will also help to satisfy the need for dispute resolution in the implementation of the Belt and Road initiative, and will effectively guide mediators to employ their expertise to promote communications between the parties, and assist them to evaluate and eventually resolve their disputes.
The draft convention took four years to take shape. The author has been fortunate enough to participate in the discussion and negotiation of its drafting since working group II’s 65th meeting as a representative of Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Centre.
China’s mediation industry needs more than internal development intended to divert domestic litigations, but also to actively pay attention to international dispute resolution arena’s discussions on mediation mechanisms and, thus, improve current levels of capability and standards of professionalism. External expansion may become one of the long-term goals of the development of this aspect.
If the draft convention is to be readily adopted and signed by the Belt and Road states, mediation may become another main dispute resolution mechanism besides arbitration and litigation, and help promote commercial interactions among Belt and Road countries and regions.
作者：北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心品牌管理高级主管许捷
Terence Xu is a senior manager at Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Centre
