北京字典价格联盟

仲裁法律思维的特色与目的 Exploring the mindset of an arbitrator

商法月刊2018-05-15 16:18:58
争议摘要
北京仲裁委员会





For the English version, please scroll down.


论是律师、法学教授、法官还是仲裁员,他们的判断常源于对于法律有没有规定、怎么规定、规定和问题之间的对应关系等等这样一个思维的结论。可见,法律群体的思维是紧扣着法律来进行的,这就是法律思维。

如果说仲裁不同于诉讼或者其他争议解决程序,那么仲裁员的法律思维是否会在目的和方法上与通常的法律思维有所差别呢?例如,律师的法律思维当然要按法律规定、尊重事实、坚持正义公平的价值理念。但是,律师的法律思维目的在于为委托人即自己当事人的合法权益进行争取。即便当事人是违约行为,也要使他在合理范围内减轻责任,这是律师法律思维的特点。法学教授的基本思维也大致相同,但他们在分析不同的案件时更多侧重于法理,更加关注这个案件应该使用什么样的理论,依据什么样的规则,得出来判断结论应该如何。这可能会造成他们与律师的法律思维在法律依据的适用选择上出现差异。

而仲裁员的法律思维,笔者认为应该更靠近法官的法律思维,他们法律思维的目的在于要解决当事人之间的争议,而这一目的和法官的法律思维目的是一致的,就是公正裁决。尤其考虑到仲裁的发展需要以市场的信任作为基础,保证结果的正义性、公平性可谓是仲裁法律思维最重要的一个目的。

这种仲裁法律思维的目的性特点要体现在哪些方面呢?一要体现在仲裁案件审理当中不同方案的取舍——仲裁庭对于某个案件有不同的裁决方案,符合公正裁决目的才是不同裁决方案取舍的唯一标准;二要体现在解释适用法律之中——裁判案件难免要解释法律,不同的解释意见和解决方案也只能以公正正义这个目的作为取舍评判的标准;三要体现在对于一个裁决结果的判断上——仲裁裁决的优劣用什么来评价?有很多评价的标准,但是其中最重要的是公正。公正的裁决无论有什么缺点,它起码都是正确的,像体制不完善、有错别字、解释不透彻,和公正比起来都不要紧。结果是公正的,它就起码是合格的。

公正裁决这个目的,是仲裁事业发展的根基。从这个角度上说,公正性是衡量仲裁员好坏、仲裁机构服务质量优劣、仲裁行业是否能够基业长青的唯一的指标。怎样保证公正?要靠人。仲裁机构应该以公正作为仲裁法律思维的目标和方法贯彻到仲裁员队伍培养的始终。仲裁员对正义和公正的法律思维要有一种向往和信念,落实在工作中,不能有任何偏向。

当然,一个公正正直的人不等于就能作出公正的裁决。保证公正裁决还要靠理性和专业。法律素质、法律方法、法律基础、行业经验、仲裁经验乃至人生经验,结合在一起就支撑起了仲裁队伍的理性和专业。一个非常正直公正的人想要作出公正的裁决,要以高水平法律素质作为基础,凭借丰富的专业知识和经验对争议问题建立高超的法律认知。这就是有别于其他法律群体的法律思维——仲裁法律思维所必须要具备的特点。从这一点来说,对于仲裁员队伍的仲裁法律思维培养和要求,正是北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心事业不断发展的内生动力。


DISPUTE DIGEST
BAC


Exploring the mindset of an arbitrator


The collective mentality of legal professionals is always similar in applying laws to facts. Advocates, professors, judges or arbitrators are all used to verifying the existence, the content and the relevance of rules and issues. Claims on solid grounds, precise fact finding, and convincing reasoning characterize the mentality of the legal profession. In short, legal professionals focus heavily on laws and facts while they are thinking, so that is the basis of legal mentality.

If something distinguishes arbitration from litigation and other dispute resolutions, could it be the outcome and methods of arbitrators’ mentality? Take a comparison to advocates’ mentality as an example. Advocates should of course advise in line with laws, respect the facts and uphold the integrity of justice. However, the advocates’ mentality is usually to fight for a bigger slice of pie or, in an adversarial situation, to fight for minimum losses and liability. It is the nature of advocacy. 

Professors’ mentality is similar, but they are used to focusing more on theories in different cases. Professors compare different theories and rules, and then conclude an answer. As a result of different mentalities, advocates and professors may have different answers to matters and make different choices addressing the issues. 

By contrast, the mentality of arbitrators, which the author thinks is more similar to the mentality of judges, focuses on resolving disputes for parties. They call for the same thing – a fair and justifiable binding outcome. Fairness and justice is particularly important to ensuring the prosperity of arbitration because the whole industry is built on the trust of parties – the trust for a fair and justifiable outcome. That should be a key aspect of the mentality of arbitrators. 

What does the uniqueness of arbitrators’ mentality reflect in practice? First, approaches to fact finding and reasoning in a vague situation call for following mentality: When an arbitral tribunal faces different possibilities and contradicting facts, fairness and justice are the standards to determine the right approach. 

Second, different applications of laws and rules call for the following mentality: The opinions of the essence of laws and rules may be different among different arbitrators. Fairness and justice are also the standard to tell right from wrong. 

Third, the assessment of an award calls for the following mentality: Is it fair and justifiable? This is the most important question we can ask in evaluating the quality of arbitral awards, although we have many other indicators. Fairness and justice override other flaws in arbitral awards, such as the incompletion of the format, mistakes with wording, insufficient elaboration, etc. As long as an award is fair and justifiable, we can say it is acceptable. 

The arbitration industry is rooted in this mentality. It is a key way to tell the good from the bad among arbitrators and institutional arbitration services. It is also a key way to measure the potential of the arbitration industry in future. So how does one support the arbitrators’ mentality? It depends on the arbitrator. The arbitration institution must encourage fairness and justice in its team of arbitrators. Arbitrators must ceaselessly pursue and firmly believe in fairness and justice. 

However, a fair and justifiable arbitral award requires more than a fair-minded person. Insightful thinking and professional understanding play important roles in the arbitrator’s mentality. Legal professionalism, skill with hearings, a well established regime, and abundance in specialized expertise, arbitration practices, and even life experience help back up an insightful and professional mentality. 

A fair-minded person may understand dispute matters insightfully and professionally only if he/she is equipped with legal proficiency, specialized expertise and abundant experience. That is, and must be, the uniqueness of arbitrators’ mentality, which distinguishes arbitrators from other legal professions. In that respect, we can say that our efforts to cultivate and uphold the arbitrators’ mentality guarantee the prosperity of Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Centre in the long run.


作者:北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心主任梁慧星;北仲仲裁秘书许捷对文章内容亦有贡献 

Liang Huixing is the chairman of Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Centre. BAC/BIAC’s case manager Terence Xu also contributed to the article