×

打开微信,扫一扫二维码
订阅我们的微信公众号

×

扫码分享

EN
首页>汉盛研究>国际商事仲裁中的软规则——IBA 国际仲裁取证规则

国际商事仲裁中的软规则——IBA 国际仲裁取证规则

2025-09-03   梁维维,康倩婷

一、IBA 规则的起源与发展

由国际律师协会(International Bar Association,简称 IBA)制定的 IBA 规则,是国际仲裁领域里重要的软法规则。得益于 IBA 成员覆盖普通法、大陆法、伊斯兰法等多元法律体系(Jurisdiction),这些规则得以兼顾不同法律传统的特点。比如核心的《IBA 国际仲裁取证规则》,一方面借鉴普通法 “程序对抗性”,允许当事人借助质证、请求出示文件等手段推进事实查明;另一方面秉持大陆法 “效率优先” 理念,让仲裁庭能主动管控取证的范围与时间,很好地调和了不同法域当事人对仲裁程序的期待。

从发展背景分析,国际仲裁的当事人常因来自不同法域,受法律传统差异影响,面临取证规则冲突、证人准备方式不一致等问题,且长期缺乏统一指引;另一方面,国内立法受本国体系限制,国际公约又以仲裁裁决的承认与执行为核心,二者均难以应对电子证据出示、跨法域证人传唤等新出现的问题。为此,作为全球具有广泛影响力的律师组织,IBA 自 20 世纪 80 年代起便启动规则制定工作,逐步填补国际仲裁程序中的软法空白。现阶段,IBA 规则核心体系包含《IBA 国际仲裁取证规则》IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration),《IBA 国际仲裁利益冲突指引》IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration),《IBA 国际仲裁当事人代理指引》(IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration)三类关键文件,尽管没有国家强制力作为支撑,却在国际仲裁实践中承担着重要的指引功能。

这种指引价值已被实践数据充分印证。根据2016 年《IBA 仲裁软法接受度报告》[i]IBA Report on the Acceptance of Soft Law in Arbitration),在接受调查的仲裁从业者所知案件中,48% 的国际仲裁案件明确适用该规则,80% 的仲裁庭将其视为 “非强制性参考依据”(Non-Mandatory Reference),90% 的案件中仲裁庭会遵循规则核心条款;且在中东、亚太、北美、欧洲等主要国际仲裁区域,程序中提及《IBA 国际仲裁取证规则》的案件比例均超 50%,这充分体现其广泛的全球影响力。

二、IBA 国际仲裁取证规则关键条文的摘要与评析

IBA 国际仲裁取证规则仅有9条,内容包括适用范围、证据事项的征询、文件、事实证人、当事人指定专家、仲裁庭指定专家、勘验检查、证据听证会以及证据的采信与评估。以下为笔者对规则重点条款的解读与评析。

IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration[ii]


Article 3 Documents


Within the time-limit set by the Arbitral Tribunal, each Party shall produce to the Arbitral Tribunal and the other Parties all documents that are available to it and upon which it relies, including publicly available documents and documents in the public domain, except for documents already produced by another Party.


Within the time-limit set by the Arbitral Tribunal, any Party may submit a Request for Production to the Arbitral Tribunal and the other Parties.


A Request for Production shall include the following:

(a) (i) a description sufficient to identify each document requested for production; or

(ii) if it is reasonably believed that a category of documents exists, a detailed and specific description (including subject matter) of the category of documents requested for production; if the documents are stored electronically, the requesting Party may specify, or the Arbitral Tribunal may require the requesting Party to specify, particular files, search terms, names, and any other means by which the documents can be efficiently and economically searched.

(b) a statement of the relevance and materiality of the documents requested for production to the outcome of the case;

(c) (i) a statement by the requesting Party that the documents requested for production are not in its possession, custody, or control, or a reason why it would be unreasonable for it to produce the documents, and

(ii) the reasons why the requesting Party believes that the documents requested for production are in the possession, custody, or control of another Party.

第三条是围绕书面证据documentary evidence的规定,其对提交书面证据的义务、文件披露要求、程序、标准、异议、仲裁庭裁决考量因素、补充提交文件、披露文件的形式与翻译等作出了比较细致的规定。从上述规定可以发现,虽然国际仲裁中的仲裁庭和我国民事诉讼中“谁主张,谁举证”件存在差别,但是在某种程度上,二者在获取证据上展现了一定的主观能动性。与我国司法体系相比较,区别在于我国未有明确关于法庭或仲裁庭签发“证据开示指令”的细化规定,亦未对不遵守该指令的后果进行明确。

结合笔者的办案观察,仲裁庭在文件披露环节(Documents Production)的裁定审查路径如下:

首先审查披露请求是否合格,即请求是否符合《IBA规则》第3.3条关于“文件明确描述、关联性与重要性说明、被请求方控制文件理由”的要求,若不符合,如文件类别描述过窄或过于宽泛则直接驳回请求;

其次核查文件是否处于被请求方的占有、保管或控制范围内,依据《IBA规则》第3.3c条,若确认文件不处于被请求方控制下,驳回请求;

最后判断是否存在不可披露的例外情形,即文件是否涉及“与案件无关或对结果无重要影响”“法律豁免特权”或“强制性商业保密”,若不存在此类情形则裁定“应披露”,存在则驳回。

Article 4 Fact Witnesses


Within the time - limit set by the Arbitral Tribunal, each Party shall identify the witnesses on whose testimony it relies and the issues to which that testimony relates.


Any person, including a Party or a Party's officer, employee or other agent, may serve as a witness.


It shall not be improper for a Party, its officer, employee, legal advisor or other agent to interview its witnesses or potential witnesses.


The Arbitral Tribunal may require any Party to submit to the Arbitral Tribunal and the other Parties a written statement ("Witness Statement") of each witness on whose testimony the Party relies, other than a witness who will testify pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 10. If the Evidentiary Hearing is to be held on different issues (such as liability and damages), the Arbitral Tribunal or the Parties may, by agreement, schedule the submission of Witness Statements in relation to each Evidentiary Hearing.


Each Witness Statement shall include:

(a) the full name and address of the witness, his or her present and past relationship (if any) with any Party and, if relevant and material to the dispute or the subject matter of the Witness Statement, his or her background, qualifications, training and experience;

(b) a complete and detailed description of the facts and the source of the witness's information concerning those facts, sufficient to serve as evidence of the matters in dispute;

(c) a confirmation of the truth of the matters stated; and

(d) the signature of the witness and the date and place of signature.


If a witness is unable to attend the Evidentiary Hearing to give oral testimony, the Party seeking to rely on the witness's testimony may apply to the Arbitral Tribunal for permission to present the witness's testimony by video - link, audio - link or other means of telecommunication. The Arbitral Tribunal shall decide whether to grant such permission, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the reasons for the witness's inability to attend, the importance of the witness's testimony, and the feasibility and fairness of presenting the testimony by the requested means.


If a witness is unable to attend the Evidentiary Hearing to give oral testimony and the Arbitral Tribunal does not grant permission for the witness's testimony to be presented by video - link, audio - link or other means of telecommunication, the Witness Statement may be admitted as evidence only if the Arbitral Tribunal determines that there are exceptional circumstances justifying its admission.


The Arbitral Tribunal may, at any time before the conclusion of the arbitration, require any Party to produce any Witness Statement or other statement of a witness that has not been previously produced, if the Arbitral Tribunal considers that the statement is relevant and material to the outcome of the case.


Each witness who is called to give oral testimony at an Evidentiary Hearing shall be subject to cross - examination by the other Parties.

If a Party intends to call a witness who has not been identified in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 1, it shall obtain the permission of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal shall decide whether to grant such permission, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the reasons for the failure to identify the witness, the importance of the witness's testimony, and the fairness of allowing the witness to testify.

第四条是关于事实证人Witness Statement)的规则。与大陆法系不同,英美法系和国际仲裁中的事实通常通过对于案件事实有切身了解的事实证人来确立,因此证人证言内容证人出庭要求及其证言的排除规则尤为重要。值得注意的是,本规则中第4.3 条明确规定,当事人、其高级职员、雇员、法律顾问或其他代理人会见其证人或潜在证人并与其商讨可能给出的证言,不应被视为不当行为。这意味着当事人及代理人与证人进行面谈和讨论其证言,只要代理人秉正其证言符合证人所了解的真实情况。

Article 5 Party - Appointed Experts


Each Party may appoint one or more experts to report on specific issues determined by the Party.


The report of a Party - Appointed Expert shall be in writing and shall include:

(a) the full name and address of the expert, his or her present and past relationship (if any) with any Party and, if relevant and material to the dispute or the subject matter of the report, his or her background, qualifications, training and experience;

(b) a statement of the issues or questions referred to the expert;

(c) a description of the expert's approach, methodology and reasoning in arriving at his or her conclusions;

(d) the expert's conclusions, including any findings, opinions and recommendations;

(e) a confirmation that the expert has read the IBA Rules of Evidence and understands his or her duty to be independent and objective;

(f) a list of any literature, studies, reports, or other materials relied upon by the expert in preparing the report; and

(g) the signature of the expert and the date and place of signature.

The Party - Appointed Expert shall make himself or herself available for questioning at an Evidentiary Hearing by the Arbitral Tribunal and the other Parties.

第五条是关于当事人指定专家(Party-Appointed Experts)的核心规则,包括专家资格、作证事项范围,专家报告需含资质、分析逻辑、结论依据等内容,以及报告修订补充机制强调专家意见需独立客观,不受当事人干预。

实践中,仲裁庭常组织双方专家围绕已提交报告开专项会议,对共识内容记录确认,避免重复质证;对异议问题,要求专家明确异议观点以及说明相关依据

四、由IBA 规则引发的常见的司法争议

根据笔者的办案经验与观察,双方当事人多就以下环节围绕IBA 规则引发争议、辩论:
1)PO1环节:涉及“证据提交时限”“证人证言的提交时间”,如一方提出不同意引用IBA规则,称案涉证据的援引与开示不受时间限制。

2)PO3环节:涉及文件披露申请与质证,如一方主张仲裁庭未按规则保障充分质证的权利,或抗辩对方申请文件已经超出IBA规则允许的范围,或超出允许期限,构成“证据突袭”。

五、案例研讨

2009 年 5 月 27 日,中国第一重型机械股份公司(以下简称 “一重公司”)与山特维克材料科技有限公司(以下简称 “山特维克公司”)签订《CPR1000 核电蒸发器 U 型管购货合同》,约定因合同引发的争议提交国际商会仲裁院(International Chamber of Commerce Court of Arbitration,简称ICC)依其规则仲裁,仲裁地为北京。后因 2011 年日本福岛核电站事故,中国政府调整核电项目审批政策,一重公司无法获得涉案 U 型管相关订单,遂与山特维克公司协商终止部分合同及退还预付款事宜,协商无果后,一重公司于 2019 年 4 月向 ICC 提起仲裁,要求山特维克公司返还预付款,山特维克公司则提出反请求,主张一重公司违约并要求赔偿损失。仲裁过程中,双方约定适用 2017 年 3 月 1 日生效的《国际商会仲裁规则》,且根据1号程序令及4号程序令内容,双方当事人与独任仲裁员接受《IBA 国际仲裁取证规则》的指。一重公司后就山特维克公司在仲裁程序中证人证言环节中附随提交证据的行为不合法向北京市第四中级人民法院申请撤销仲裁裁决。

一重公司称,根据《第 1 号程序令》第 13 段、第 19 段及《第 1 号程序时间表》,双方应于 2020 年 1 月 20 日前提交所有事实主张、法律论据及证据,非经独任仲裁员特别许可不得逾期提交新证据。但山特维克公司在 2020 年 1 月 20 日后,假借证人证言名义提交新证据,如 2020 年 6 月 14 日通过 Daniel Bjur 的第一份证人证言修改生产成本损失计算依据,2020 年 7 月 5 日通过第二轮证人证言补充利润损失计算的新事实及证据,且部分证据存在遮盖、形成日期不明等问题,构成 “证据突袭”,违反上述程序约定。

独任仲裁员未保障其质证权利。一重公司称,其就山特维克公司提交的新证据真实性、合法性、关联性多次提出异议,要求核对原件并申请紧急文件披露以评估损失,但独任仲裁员未予理会,未给予其充分质证机会,且因疫情原因仲裁改为线上开庭,导致其无法线下核对证据原件,严重损害其程序权益。

北京市第四中级人民法院审查认为,《IBA 取证规则》第 4.5 条(b)对证人证言附随证据有明确要求,且《第 1 号程序令》《第 1 号程序时间表》未禁止证人证言附随此前未提交的证据,结合一重公司自身亦存在类似操作的事实如证人何明、王仲、吴琼的证言所附证据,山特维克公司的行为不构成“逾期提交新证据”,不违反程序约定。

法院指出,《IBA 取证规则》作为国际仲裁领域协调取证争议的重要 “软法”,其指导作用不限于文件披露环节,在证人证言等取证关键环节亦有适用空间。本案中,双方当事人与独任仲裁员均接受该规则指导,一重公司将规则适用范围限缩于文件披露环节的主张,缺乏事实与实践依据,不予支持。

因此,一重公司关于“未获充分质证权” 的主张不成立,法院裁定驳回撤销仲裁裁决的申请。

六、结语言

尽管软法面临“缺乏强制力”“可能增加程序复杂性” 等批评,但它通过平衡法律差异、提升可预测性、整合最佳实践,为国际仲裁提供了不可替代的价值。未来随着国际仲裁的快速发展,IBA 等机构制定的软法将继续应对新挑战(如数字化仲裁、跨境投资争议新场景),维持国际仲裁的活力与公正性。


注释:

  1. The IBA Arbitration Guidelines and Rules SubcommitteeReport on the Reception of the IBA Arbitration Soft Law Products IBA Arbitration projectsTT 108, 110, 111, 113 (2016)

  2. https://www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=def0807b-9fec-43ef-b624-f2cb2af7cf7b 


相关研究