從中國大陸司法實踐論紐約公約第五條「公共政策」之可預測性

Predictability of the “Public Policy” Stipulated in Article V of the New York Convention under the Judicial Practice in Mainland China

陳希佳(Helena Hsi-Chia Chen)

指導教授 ： 羅昌發

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/博士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.00944

摘要

儘管「公共政策」是不確定的法律概念，但從觀察國際公約的沿革與制定過程、國際上重要學者的闡述、相關案例、國際法學會所投注的努力與研究報告、以及以比較法的方法來研究主要國家的立法例等方式，可發現國際上對於《紐約公約》第5條第2項b款所定「公共政策」之核心意義仍然具有高度共識。詳細深入研究中國大陸相關法制、法規、司法解釋、學者論述等，再綜合觀察中國大陸所有已公開、筆者能搜集所得的相關中國大陸司法案例，以探討近二十年來，中國大陸人民法院如何解釋及適用「公共政策」以及與之相類似的「社會公共利益」，可提出結論如下：

一、 就規範用語而言，中國大陸仲裁法制中，傳統上的規範用語為「社會公共利益」。至於「公共政策」乙詞，則是在《紐約公約》對中國大陸生效後，才開始使用的用語；並且，從最高人民法院所頒布相關的司法解釋，可見最高人民法院在用語的選擇上，相當審慎：最高人民法院在解釋及適用《紐約公約》時，使用「公共政策」乙詞。相對地，在涉及中國大陸人民法院執行在香港或澳門作成之仲裁判斷、臺灣仲裁機構仲裁判斷時，其用語則為「社會公共利益」。此外，在涉及撤銷或不予執行國內仲裁判斷或涉外仲裁判斷時，其用語亦為「社會公共利益」（關於是否可以「違反社會公共利益」為由，撤銷或不予執行國內仲裁判斷或涉外仲裁判斷？涉及中國大陸民事訴訟法與仲裁法二者規定的不一致，相關討論，請參見本論文第三章第二節第二、（二）部分）。

二、 關於「公共政策」與「社會公共利益」兩者之意義與內涵是否有所不同？在中國大陸司法實務的解釋及適用上有無區別？單純就文義而言，「公共政策」與「社會公共利益」兩者固然有所區別：「公共政策」較狹；「社會公共利益」較廣。但從司法實踐觀察，真正的區別恐不在於法規用語為「公共政策」或「社會公共利益」，而在於人民法院是在什麼類型的案件中解釋和適用「公共政策」與「社會公共利益」。若是在涉及執行在香港、澳門作成的仲裁判斷或臺灣仲裁機構的仲裁判斷時，雖然相關法規用語為「社會公共利益」，但最高人民法院審理的標準，應與其在關於承認與執行外國仲裁判斷時，適用《紐約公約》第5條第2項b款所定「公共政策」的標準相同。相對地，在法規用語均為「社會公共利益」的情況下，人民法院在關於不予執行國內仲裁判斷的案件中，就「社會公共利益」所為的解釋，即顯然廣於人民法院在關於不予執行涉外仲裁判斷的案件中，就「社會公共利益」所為的解釋。

三、 筆者迄今尚未見任何人民法院以「損害社會公共利益」為由，拒絕認可及執行臺灣地區仲裁機構仲裁判斷的案例。但比較《最高人民法院關於內地與香港特別行政區相互執行仲裁裁決的安排》、《最高人民法院關於內地與澳門特別行政區相互認可和執行仲裁裁決的安排》及《最高人民法院關於人民法院認可臺灣地區有關法院民事判決的規定》（其第19條規定：申請認可「臺灣地區仲裁機構裁決的，適用本規定」），可以發現：《最高人民法院關於人民法院認可臺灣地區有關法院民事判決的規定》中有若干規定並不適用於認可及執行仲裁判斷的案件；並且，本《規定》第19條僅述及「臺灣地區仲裁機構裁決」，而未包括在臺灣作成之臨時仲裁判斷，與香港及澳門之《安排》（其規範包括在香港、澳門作成的機構仲裁判斷與非機構/臨時仲裁判斷）相較，顯有失衡等，可見中國大陸關於人民法院認可及執行在臺灣作成之仲裁判斷的規範，尚有諸多待完善之處，實有必要予以全盤整理、針對此制定單獨的規範。

四、 從時間的角度觀察，中國大陸早期的司法實踐顯示：確實曾經存在「以維護社會公共利益之名，遂行地方保護主義之實」，過度寬廣地解釋「社會公共利益」的現象。後來，最高人民法院從制度面著手進行調整，就關於「涉外仲裁協議是否有效」、「不予執行涉外仲裁判斷」、「撤銷涉外仲裁判斷」及「申請承認和執行外國仲裁判斷」等四大類型的案件，建立了集中管轄及報告制度，並且規定此類案件循報告制度上報後，均劃歸最高人民法院民事審判第四庭審理。這整套制度面的設計，一方面有利於統一人民法院的見解；另一方面也有助於摒除地方保護主義，在實務上已發揮相當的功能。再配合《最高人民法院公報》及《涉外商事海事審判指導》等期刊的發行，不定期地公布最高人民法院在此類案件中關於解釋及適用「社會公共利益」與「公共政策」之「具有典型意義」、「有一定指導作用」的見解，大大地提高了人民法院見解的透明度，以及「公共政策」此概念在中國大陸的可預測性。

五、 比較最高人民法院關於解釋及適用《紐約公約》第5條第2項b款所定「公共政策」的案例與國際上就此之共識，可發現最高人民法院的見解與國際共識的見解基本上相當一致。

六、 深入研究中國大陸自適用《紐約公約》以來，第一件，也是迄今唯一一件以違反公共政策為由，拒絕承認及執行外國仲裁判斷的海慕法姆案，可發現最高人民法院對於「中國的司法主權和中國法院的司法管轄權」相當注重，可能據仲裁庭在仲裁判斷中之論理內容認定其「侵犯了中國的司法主權和中國法院的司法管轄權」。特別是將海慕法姆案與路易達孚案及廣夏文化案一併觀察，更可見最高人民法院對於「中國的司法主權和中國法院的司法管轄權」的重視程度。

七、 綜合觀察最高人民法院在海慕法姆案、六盤水案與上海市第二中級人民法院在利夫糖果案此三個案件中的見解，加上理解中國大陸仲裁法制關於國內仲裁案件與涉外仲裁案件的區別規範，就可以了解人民法院如何藉由「公共政策」在六盤水案與利夫糖果案等此類案件中的適用，維繫了區別國內仲裁案件與涉外仲裁案件這個相當具有「中國特色」的法律規範架構。因此，使得《紐約公約》第5條第2項b款之「公共政策」在此類案例中的解釋及適用，也隨之相當具有中國特色。

關鍵字

公共政策 ； 公共秩序 ； 社會公共利益 ； 紐約公約 ； 承認及執行外國仲裁判斷

並列摘要

Although “public policy” is an uncertain legal concept, through researching relevant international conventions, articles of important scholars, relevant cases and reports published by International Law Association and conducting a comparative study on major countries’ legislations, one may still find that the international community has reached certain consensus about the core meaning of “public policy” stipulated in Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention. Regarding the interpretation and application of “public policy” and “social and public interest” (a term similar to public policy) by the PRC courts, after a careful study of the relevant legislations in the mainland China and relevant PRC court cases available to the author, the author concludes that:
1. In terms of terminology, the traditional term used in PRC arbitration law was “social and public interest.” The term “public policy” came into play after the PRC’s accession to the New York Convention. Moreover, from the judicial interpretations issued by the Supreme People’s Court of the PRC (“SPC”), one may easily observe that SPC is rather vigilant in choosing the terms: it uses the term “public policy” when dealing with cases involving the New York Convention. By contrast, in cases involving enforcement of arbitral awards made in Hong Kong or Macau and in cases involving enforcement of awards made by Taiwanese arbitration institutions, the SPC uses the term “social and public interest.” In addition, the SPC uses the term “social and public interest” in cases involving revocation or non-enforcement of domestic arbitral awards or foreign-related arbitral awards. (For discussions about whether “social and public interest” is one of the grounds to revoke or refuse enforcement of domestic arbitral awards or foreign-related arbitral awards, please see: Chapter 3, Section 2, Para., 2 (2) of this Dissertation.)
2. A simple reading of the texts may suggest that “social and public interest” is broader than “public policy.” However, a careful analysis of relevant PRC courts’ jurisprudence reveals that the interpretation and application of “public policy” and “social and public interest” actually depend on the kind of cases in which the term is being applied to. For example, when interpreting and applying “social and public interest ” in cases involving enforcement of arbitral awards made in Hong Kong, the SPC actually adopts the same standard as when it is interpreting “public policy” under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention. As another example, the PRC courts tend to interpret the term “social and public interest” more broadly in cases involving non-enforcement of domestic arbitral awards than in cases involving non-enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards.
3. “The Supreme People’s Court’s Provisions on the People’s Courts’ Recognition of Civil Judgments of the Relevant Courts of the Taiwan Region” is not a proper legal ground for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in Taiwan. A specific law to regulate the PRC courts’ recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in Taiwan is needed.
4. Early Chinese judicial practice indicated that the phenomenon of interpreting “social and public interest” so broadly was to protect local interest in the name of social and public interest. Later, the SPC announced provisions to centralize the jurisdiction of the following four types of cases in certain courts:
(1) cases regarding the validity of a foreign-related arbitral agreement;
(2) cases regarding non-enforcement of a foreign-related arbitral award;
(3) cases regarding revocation of a foreign-related arbitral award; and
(4) cases regarding recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.
The SPC has also adopted the so-call “Reporting System” and stipulated that if any of the above types of cases is reported to the SPC through the Reporting System, the case shall be reviewed by the Fourth Civil Tribunal of the SPC. The PRC judicial practice has proved that the above mechanism adopted by the SPC has been very helpful to unify the lower courts’ legal opinions and to eradicate local protectionism.
5. The PRC judicial practice has also demonstrated that, basically, the SPC’s interpretation and application of “public policy” under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention have been rather consistent with the majority views commonly shared in the international community.
6. A close scrutiny of the Hemofarm case (海慕法姆案) reveals that the SPC is very concerned with “the judicial sovereignty of the PRC and the jurisdiction of the PRC court.” In the Hemofarm case (海慕法姆案), the SPC reviewed the reasoning of the arbitral tribunal in its award and concluded that the arbitral award violated “the judicial sovereignty of the PRC and the jurisdiction of the PRC court.” The SPC’s particular concern about “the judicial sovereignty of the PRC and the jurisdiction of the PRC court” becomes even more evident if we read the SPC’s reply letter in the Hemofarm case (海慕法姆案) together with its reply letters in the Louis Dreyfus case (路易達孚案) and the Guangxia Culture case (廣夏文化案).
7. If we review the PRC courts’ reasoning in the Liupanshui case (六盤水案) and the Leaf Confectionery case (利夫糖果案) with the background knowledge of the distinction between domestic arbitration and foreign-related arbitration under the mainland China law regime, we can appreciate how the PRC court maintains the special legal framework of distinguishing domestic arbitration from foreign-related arbitration by interpreting and applying the concept of “public policy” in cases such as the Liupanshui case (六盤水案) and the Leaf Confectionery case (利夫糖果案). The interpretation and application of “public policy” under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention in such kind of cases are therefore flavored with Chinese characteristics.

並列關鍵字

Public Policy ； Public Order ； Social and Public Interest ； New York Convention ； Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

參考文獻

一、國際公約與聯合國國際貿易法委員會之文件

網頁：聯合國國際貿易法委員會網站，

王欽彥（2011），〈我國只有機構仲裁而無個案（ad hoc）仲裁？─最高法院99年度台抗字第358號裁定背後之重大問題─〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，171期，頁193-198。

萬鄂湘、于喜富（2007），〈我國仲裁司法監督制度的最新發展—評最高人民法院關於適用仲裁法的司法解釋〉，《法學評論》，141期，頁73-79。

Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards，執行外國仲裁判斷公約