摘要：
案例：中国某海外工程公司承包了波兰的某大型建筑项目, 承包商与分包商均为中国的建筑商，它们之间签订了该工程的分包合同，该工程在波兰如期开始施工，但该项目仅进行了一年多时间,因各种原因波兰方面就提出解除合同，并索取巨额的赔偿。由于该纠纷涉及到承包商与分包商之间的违约问题，在诉讼中承包商与分包商的一方认为应适用不动产所在地波兰法律，另一方认为由于双方均为中国建筑商，理应适用中国法律，这就产生了涉外建筑工程分包合同的多国法律冲突与适用问题。
Case: A construction engineering company of China (the “Contractor”), has contracted a large-scale construction project in Poland and subcontracted the project to a Subcontractor, which is also a Chinese builder, by entering into a subcontract thereof. Construction of the project commenced as scheduled and proceeded for only over one year before the Poland party proposed termination of the subcontract for various reasons and claimed for a large sum of compensation. The claim involves a dispute over breach of contract between the Contractor and the Subcontractor. In the litigation process, one party thereto claimed that the laws of Poland shall govern by reason that the real estate of the project is located in Poland; while the other party thereto claimed that the laws of China shall govern by reason that both parties to the subcontract are Chinese builders. This gives rise to a matter on conflict of laws of various countries and the governing laws in respect of a subcontract of foreign construction engineering project.
I.涉外建设工程分包合同的法律主体
Legal Entities of Subcontract of Foreign Construction Engineering Project
在国际工程承包领域，由于项目工程大，总承包商往往会将工程的某些部分或总工程量的一定比例分派给一些符合资质条件的分包商完成。而在分包过程中若出现分包合同不能正常履行而导致分包商违约或因分包商的责任导致总承包商的额外损失的情况下，就会产生业主、总承包商与分包商三者之间的法律关系。
In the practice of contract for international engineering projects, general contractors of large-scale projects generally assign certain part(s) of the projects (or make assignment of the total project quantity by certain proportion) to subcontractors with corresponding qualifications. In case of breach of contract by the subcontractors due to failure of proper performance of corresponding subcontracts or in case of any extra losses sustained by the general contractors for reasons attributed to the subcontracts, legal relations among the project owners, general contractors and subcontractors come into existence.
FIDIC是国际咨询工程师联合会的简称，其制定的许多规范性文件广泛应用于国际工程承包项目。《FIDIC土木工程施工合同》的合同条件中规定分包可以由业主和承包商在签订合同时指定好，或由工程师指令承包商雇用分包商承担部分工作。对于指定分包商（Nominated Subcontractor），FIDIC合同条件规定若产生若承包商反对雇用指定分包商，而业主却坚持使用分包商的情况下，承包商对于分包商出现的问题不需要向业主承担责任。但这与我国关于业主、总承包商与分包商的规定是相冲突的，我国《建设工程施工合同（示范文本）》38.3条有对分包的原则性规定：“工程分包不能解除承包人任何责任与义务。承包人应在分包场地派驻相应管理人员，保证本合同的履行。分包单位的任何违约行为或疏忽导致工程损害或给发包人造成其他损失，承包人承担连带责任。”由此可以看出，我国相关规定要求承包商对因分包商造成的损失也应承担相应连带责任。这样一来，我国涉外建设工程承包合同的法律关系更加复杂化，一个国际建设工程承包关系会涉及多个承包商与分包商，它们往往位于不同的国家，在适用法律问题上就会牵涉到管辖权的冲突。
The acronym “FIDIC” stands for the International Federation of Consulting Engineers. Many of its regulatory documents apply extensively to international engineering contract projects. Under FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Works of Civil Engineering Construction, the owner and the contractor under a contract for works of civil engineering construction may stipulate matters on subcontract upon entering into the contract, or the contractor may, under the engineer’s instructions, employ a subcontractor to undertake part of the contract project. As to the nominated subcontractor, under FIDIC Conditions of Contract, if the contractor refused to employ a nominated subcontractor and the owner insisted on employing a subcontractor, the contractor shall not be held liable to the owner for any matter caused by the subcontractor. Such provisions are in conflict with provisions of China on the relations among the owners, general contractors and subcontractors. According to provisions of subcontracting principle under Article 38.3 of the Sample of PRC's Construction Engineering Contract, “project subcontracting shall not release a contractor from any liability or obligation under a construction engineering contract; the contractor shall dispatch relevant management personnel to station on the site of subcontracting to ensure performance of the contract; the contractor shall be jointly and severally liable for any damages to the project or other losses to the contract-offering party caused by any breach or negligence of subcontractors”, the contractor shall be jointly and severally liable for losses caused by the subcontractor. Such conflict of laws makes legal relations under foreign construction engineering contracts more complicated. An international construction engineering contract may involve many contractors and subcontractors from different countries, giving rise to conflict of governing laws.
II. 我国涉外建设工程分包合同关系的法律适用
Laws Governing Relations under a Foreign Construction Engineering Contract in China
我国《建设工程施工合同（示范文本）》37.1款在承发包双方解决争端问题上做了如此规定：“发包人承包人在履行合同时发生争议，可以和解或者要求有关主管部门调解。当事人不愿和解、调解或者和解、调解不成的，双方可以在专用条款内约定一种方式解决争议：第一种解决方式：双方达成仲裁协议，向约定的仲裁委员会申请仲裁；第二种解决方式：向有管辖权的人民法院起诉。”由此可以看出，仲裁或诉讼为我国建设工程施工合同发生纠纷时可选择的争端解决方式。
With respect of settlement of dispute between a contract-offering party and the contractor, Article 37.1 of the Sample of PRC's Construction Engineering Contract stipulates as follows: any dispute arising from performance of the contract by either the contract-offering party or the contractor may be settled through amicable consultation or through mediation presided by relevant competent authorities. In case of either parties’ unwillingness to or failure to reach a settlement through amicable consultation or mediation, both parties may select one of the following dispute settlement methods pursuant to special provisions: one method is to submit an arbitration agreement concluded by and between both parties to an arbitration commission as agreed for arbitration; the other method is to initiate litigation proceedings with a people’s court of competent jurisdiction. It can be seen that arbitration and litigation are two optional methods available for settlement of disputes over construction engineering contracts in China.
由于涉外建筑工程的业主、承包商与分包商分布在不同国家，在发生纠纷时，究竟适用哪一国的法律是在实务中出现的较多的问题。我国现有法律并未对涉外建筑工程承包与分包合同纠纷案件管辖权作出明确规定，在法律适用上主要依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》与《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》相关规定，而在FIDIC发布的标准合同版本中，并没有限制或明确约定有关适用特别法律的条款。国内外法律中的部分相关条款如下：
Due to the fact that the owner, contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) under a foreign construction engineering project may come from different countries, the fairly commonly seen problem in practice is, in case of any dispute arising from the project, by the laws of which country shall the dispute be governed. Prevailing laws of China contain no expressive provisions on foreign construction engineering contracts or jurisdictions on cases of disputes over subcontract. In China, disputes on governing laws are mainly settled pursuant to relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of PRC and the Law of the Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations. In the FIDIC conditions of contract, the FIDIC forms are not restricted, nor intended, for use under a particular governing law. Specific domestic and foreign legal provisions on such disputes are as follows:
1、《民事诉讼法》第23条规定，“因合同纠纷发生的诉讼，由被告住所地或者合同履行地法院管辖。”；
As provided for in Article 23 of the Civil Procedure Law of PRC, “A lawsuit brought on a contract dispute shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the defendant has his domicile or where the contract is performed”.
2、《民事诉讼法》第34条规定，“合同或者其他财产权益纠纷的当事人可以书面协议选择被告住所地、合同履行地、合同签订地、原告住所地、标的物所在地等与争议有实际联系的地点的人民法院管辖，但不得违反本法对级别管辖和专属管辖的规定。”；
As provided for in Article 34 of the Civil Procedure Law of PRC, “A party to the contract or other property dispute may choose by written agreement to be under the jurisdiction of the people’s court in the location of the defendant’s domicile, where the contract is performed or signed, in the location of the plaintiff’s domicile, in the location of the subject matter or in other locations which have actual connections with the dispute, provided that the provisions on hierarchical jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction are not violated”.
3、《民事诉讼法》第33条对于不动产纠纷作出专属管辖规定，“因不动产纠纷提起的诉讼，由不动产所在地人民法院管辖。”；
Under Article 33 of the Civil Procedure Law of PRC, exclusive jurisdiction in relation to real estate is provided for as follows: a lawsuit brought on a dispute over real estate shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the estate is located.
4、《民事诉讼法》第266条规定，属于我国人民法院专属管辖的涉外民事案件有：1．在我国履行的中外合资经营企业合同纠纷； 2．在我国履行的中外合作经营企业合同纠纷； 3．在我国履行的中外合作勘探开发自然资源合同纠纷。
As provided for in Article 266 of the Civil Procedure Law of PRC, Actions brought on disputes arising from the performance of (a) contracts for Chinese-foreign equity joint ventures, or (b) contracts for Chinese-foreign contractual joint ventures, or (c) contracts for Chinese-foreign cooperative exploration and development of the natural resources in the People's Republic of China shall fall under the jurisdiction of the people's courts of the People's Republic of China.
5、《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第41条规定：“当事人可以协议选择合同适用的法律。当事人没有选择的，适用履行义务最能体现该合同特征的一方当事人居所地法律或者其他与该合同有最密切联系的法律。”
As provided for in Article 41 of the Law of the Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations, “parties to a contract may choose the laws governing the contract; if they fail to do so, laws of the domicile of one party whose obligation performance demonstrates characteristics of the contract to the highest extent or other laws in closest relationship to the contract shall govern”.
6、《中华人民共和国涉外民事法律关系法律适用法》第36条规定：“不动产物权，适用不动产所在地法律。”
As provided for in Article 36 of the Law of the Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations, “real property rights shall be governed by laws of the place where the real property is located”.
7、《瑞士国际私法》规定：“有关不动产或其使用的合同，由不动产所在地法律支配，但也允许当事人选择。”
Under Switzerland's Federal Code on Private International Law, “contracts in relation to real properties or use thereof shall be governed by laws of the place where the corresponding real properties are located or other laws as chosen by parties to the contracts”.
8、《匈牙利国际私法》第24条规定：“对合同适用双方当事人在订立合同时或之后选择的法律，如果没有选择，则根据本章第25条至29条规定确定对一些特别类型合同的准据法”，其中第26条规定，“有关不动产合同，适用不动产所在地法。”
As provided for in Article 24 of Hungary Private International Law, “the governing laws of a contract may be chosen by both parties thereto upon or after conclusion of the contract; if both parties fail to do so, the governing laws shall be determined in accordance with provisions of Article 25 to 29 of this Chapter which are applicable to some special types of contracts”.
9、《美国第二次冲突法重述》第186条规定：“合同中的问题，依当事人根据第187条规则所选择的法律，或在当事人未作选择时，依照第188条规则所选择的法律。”
As stipulated in Section 186 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, “Issues in contract are determined by the law chosen by the parties in accordance with the rule of Section 187 and otherwise by the law selected in accordance with the rule of Section 188”.
(1) 第187条规定：“1．如果特定问题是当事人通过其合同对该问题的明示规定可以解决的，则依当事人选择用以支配其合同权利义务的州的法律……”
Under Section 187 thereof, “(1) the law of the state chosen by the parties to govern their contractual rights and duties will be applied if the particular issue is one which the parties could have resolved by an explicit provision in their agreement directed to that issue”.
(2) 第188条规定：“当事人未作有效选择时的准据法：
Under Section 188 thereof, “Law governing in absence of effective choice by the parties:
a) 当事人与合同的某个问题有关的权利义务，依在该问题上，按照第六条规定的原则，适用与该交易及当事人有重要联系的那个州的本地法。
The rights and duties of the parties with respect to an issue in contract are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties under the principles stated in the Section 6.
b) 当事人未对法律做有效选择时（见第187条），适用第六条的原则以确定准据法时应考虑的联系包括：
In the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties (see s 187), the contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of s 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include:
(i) 合同缔结地/the place of contracting；
(ii) 合同谈判地/the place of negotiation of the contract；
(iii) 合同履行地/the place of performance,；
(iv) 合同标的物所在地the location of the subject matter of the contract, 以及/and
(v) 当事人的住所、居所、国籍、公司成立地以及营业地/the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties。
对这些联系将按照其对该特定问题的重要程度加以衡量。”
These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue.
由以上规定可以看出，在涉外建筑工程承包合同的诉讼上，虽然对于不动产物权纠纷提起的诉讼适用不动产所在地法律，然而越来越多的规定不再固守这样绝对化的专属管辖，在涉外不动产纠纷中，除了不动产物权上的争议，其他与不动产合同有关的法律适用越来越倾向于尊重意思自治原则，当事人之间可以协议选择合同适用的法律，若未选择，适用最密切联系地的法律。对于涉外建筑工程，中国承包商与外国业主之间对于该不动产物权上的冲突，适用不动产所在地的专属管辖。而对于中国分包商与承包人之间，更多的是涉及合同上的纠纷，那么对于管辖权应该尊重双方协议选择的地点，若无协议选择，则适用最密切联系地。例如，中国方面与波兰方面对于波兰境内的建筑工程的建设纠纷中，若案件中涉及中方的承包商与分包商之间纠纷，按照如上分析，是可以适用中国法律的。
As could be seen from the above provisions, although litigation proceedings with respect to disputes over real property rights under foreign construction engineering contracts shall be governed by the laws of the place where the real property is located, more and more legal provisions no longer persistently adopt absolute exclusive jurisdiction; application of laws governing real property contracts, excluding disputes over real property rights, is increasingly inclined to respect the principle of “party autonomy” under which parties to a contract may choose the governing laws or, in the absence of choice of governing laws, the laws of the place in closest connection to the contract shall govern. Any dispute over real property rights under a foreign construction project between a Chinese builder and a foreign owner shall be governed exclusively by laws of the place where the real property is located; however, disputes between Chinese subcontractors and Chinese contractors, most of which are contractual disputes, shall be governed by the laws chosen by both contractual parties or, in the absence of choice of governing laws, by the laws of the place in closest connection to the contract. For instance, in the case of a dispute between a Chinese contractor and a subcontractor with respect of a construction project located within the territory of Poland undertaken by a Poland party and a Chinese Party, the laws of China shall be the governing laws pursuant to the foregoing analysis.
III.对涉外建筑工程分包合同法律适用的建议
Suggestions on Application of Laws Governing Subcontracts for Foreign Construction Engineering Projects
笔者认为，在涉外建筑工程分包合同的法律适用问题上，应当采用当今国际上的主流观点，即以当事人意思自治为主，最密切联系地为辅的原则。允许当事人选择适用法，也是缔约自由这一合同原则的基本体现。虽然对于工程承包、分包合同的法律适用在《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》及其司法解释上暂无具体的说明。但在《中华人民共和国涉外民事法律适用法》实施之前的《中国国际私法示范法》第101条体现了协定管辖优先的原则，“当事人没有选择法律的，适用合同的最密切联系地法。通常情况下，下列合同的最密切联系地依如下规定确定：（13）工程承包合同，适用工程所在地法。”此条规定从法律上肯定了在涉外建筑工程承包、分包合同法律适用上，将当事人的协定管辖放在优先的位置。
According to the author, the globally prevailing views on application of laws governing foreign construction engineering subcontract shall be adopted, under which the principle of party autonomy shall predominate over the principle of application of laws of the place in closest connection to the subcontract. Allowing contractual parties to choose governing laws is another basic reflection of the principle of freedom of contract. Although the Law of the Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations and its prevailing judicial interpretations contain no specific provisions on application of laws governing contracts and subcontracts of construction projects, the principle of application of laws chosen by contractual parties through agreement is demonstrated in provisions of Article 101 of Model Law of Private International Law of the People's Republic of China, which was promulgated prior to the Law of the Application of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relations, as follows: in the absence of choice of governing laws by contractual parties, the laws of the place in closest connection to the contract shall be applicable. In general circumstances, the laws of the place in closest connection to the following contracts shall be determined as follows: (13) contracts for construction engineering projects shall be governed by the laws of the place where the corresponding projects are located. Such legal provisions acknowledge the dominant position of contractual parties’ choice of laws governing contracts and subcontracts for foreign construction engineering projects.
若双方没有协定管辖，那么应该适用最密切联系地法律，在判断法律适用上考虑与合同本身存在最密切联系的因素，这些因素通常包括合同缔结地，合同履行地，当事人的注册地，主要经营地或者住所、居所地，仲裁条款和当事人选择的法院管辖权条款规定地，财产所在地等。而涉外建筑工程承包、分包合同的最密切联系地则可以根据具体情况视为工程所在地，或是法人主营业地等。若在海外工程中，承包商与分包商有一方或双方是中国建筑商，那么最密切联系是可以适用建筑商的主营业地中国法律的。
If parties to a contract fail to choose any governing law, the laws of the place in closest connection to the contract shall be applicable. In determination of the governing laws, factors in closest connection to the contract itself shall be taken into account. These factors generally include the place of contracting, the place of performance of the contract, the place of incorporation, principal place of business, domicile or residence of each contractual party, place of promulgation of arbitration regulations and rules chosen by contractual parties on jurisdiction of courts, as well as the place where properties are located etc. The place in closest connection to any contract or subcontract for a foreign construction engineering project may be deemed according to actual circumstances to be the place of the project or the principal place of business of contractual parties etc. If either or both the contractor or/and the subcontractor under a subcontract for a foreign construction project is/are Chinese builder(s), the place in closest connection to the subcontract may be the principal place of business of the Chinese builder(s); that is, the laws of China may be the governing laws.
值得注意的是，当事人订立的仲裁协议能够排斥诉讼中的专属管辖。根据我国最高人民法院《关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉若干问题的意见》第305条规定：“依照民事诉讼法第三十四条和第二百四十六条规定，属于法院专属管辖的案件，当事人不得用书面协议选择其他国家法院管辖。但协议选择仲裁裁决的除外。”因此，若涉外建筑工程承包合同的当事人想获得工程所在地之外的国家的法律保护，目前可行的作法是在合同中约定仲裁法院，以保护自身的合法权益。
What is noteworthy is that an arbitration agreement concluded by contractual parties may exclude from the exclusive jurisdiction of courts for litigation. As stipulated in Article 305 of Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Some Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, “according to provisions of Articles 34 and 246 of the Civil Procedure Law, the parties concerned shall not select a foreign court for jurisdiction by a written agreement; unless they stipulate to settle the dispute through arbitration”, for parties to a contract of foreign construction engineering project who intend to have their legal rights and interests protected by laws of any country other than the country where the project is located, the current feasible way is to specify an arbitration tribunal in the contract.
IV. FIDIC 合同下仲裁条款的适用问题
《菲迪克（FIDIC）建设工程施工合同（示范文本）》第26.6条规定，“经DAB对之做出的决定（如果有）未能成为最终的和有约束力的任何争端，除非已获得友好解决，应通过国际仲裁对其作出最终解决，除非双方另有协议：（a）争端应根据国际商会仲裁规则最终解决；（b）争端应由按上述规则任命的3位仲裁人员负责解决；以及（c）仲裁应以第1.4款规定的交流语言进行”。换句话说，这个条款规定，除非当事人有特别协议，那所有因该合同引起的争议应当适用ICC Rules。条文虽然明确规定了仲裁适用条款，但在我国这种仲裁条款是否有效力呢？前述笔者提到，在中国，除了仲裁机构自己，法院也能对仲裁协议是否生效进行裁定或判决，而且当两结果相冲突时，往往以法院判决结果为主。因此笔者将谈论该条仲裁协议在中国法院面前的效力。笔者认为该条文存在两点不足之处会导致该条款在中国的效力有模棱两可的结果。
Under Clause 26.6 of FIDIC Construction Project Contract Template, “Unless settled amicably, any dispute in respect of which the DAB’s decision (if any) has not become final and binding shall be finally settled by international arbitration. Unless otherwise agreed by both parties: (a) the dispute shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce; (b) the dispute shall be settled by three arbitrators appointed in accordance with these Rules; and (c) the arbitration shall be conducted in the language for communications defined in Sub-Clause [law and language]. In other words, this Clause stipulates that, unless otherwise specifically agreed by both parties, all disputes arising from this Contract shall be governed by ICC Rules. Although governing arbitration rules are expressly specified thereunder, it leaves still open the question whether arbitration clause thereunder is valid in China. As previously mentioned by the author, besides arbitration institutions, courts of competent jurisdiction are also competent to rule or judge whether an arbitration agreement is valid; furthermore, in case of inconsistency of rulings between an arbitration institution and a court, the court’s ruling prevails in most cases. The author is of the view that two deficiency of this Clause may lead to an ambiguous answer to the question on validity of the arbitration clause in China.
首先，条文虽然规定了合同适用ICC rules，但是，其却没有规定仲裁协议效力的准据法。关于认定仲裁协议效力的准据法，在以往的司法实践中，中国法院一般是根据国际私法的一般原理予以确定。在中国法院的司法实践中，主要采取以下方法来确定认定仲裁协议的准据法：（1）当事人对仲裁协议效力的准据法有明确约定。这种情况下中国法院即适用当事人选择的准据法认定所涉及的仲裁条款是否有效力。（2）在没有约定认定仲裁协议效力的准据法的情况下，如果约定了仲裁地点，法院即适用当事人约定的仲裁地的法律认定所涉仲裁协议效力。（3）仲裁条款既没有约定认定仲裁协议效力的准据法，有没有约定仲裁地点的情况下，法院会适用法院地法——中国法来认定协议效力。这种在实践中被总结出来的方法被最高人民法院于2006年8月23日公布的法释[2006]7号《关于适用<中华人民共和国仲裁法>若干问题的解释》第16条给予确定，从此上述司法实践被赋予了法律约束力。
Firstly, although ICC rules are stipulated as the applicable arbitration rules thereunder, no law governing the validity of arbitration agreement is specified. With respect to ascertainment of the law governing validity of arbitration agreement, China’s courts, according to their judicial precedents, tend to make ascertainment in line with general principles of the private international law, mainly in the following methods: (1) where a law governing validity of arbitration agreement is expressly stipulated by contractual parties, China’s courts would ascertain validity of the arbitration clause concerned pursuant to such stipulated governing law. (2) If the place of arbitration is stipulated under a contract without any stipulation on the law governing validity of arbitration agreement, the courts would apply the law of the place of arbitration in ascertaining validity of the arbitration agreement concerned. (3) Where neither any law governing validity of arbitration agreement nor any place of arbitration is stipulated under the arbitration clause of a contract, the court would apply laws of the location of the court (i.e. laws of China) in ascertaining validity of the contract. Such methods summed up from practice were affirmed by the Supreme People’s Court through Article 16 of Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Issues concerning Application of the Law of Arbitration of People’s Republic of China [2006] No.7 announced on 23 August, 2006, giving legal binding force to the aforesaid judicial practices.
然而从该建筑合同范本20.6仲裁条款来看，只约定了解决合同争议的证据法，而没有约定认定仲裁协议效力的准据法，也没有规定具体的仲裁地点，因此，在这种情况下，只有当建筑合同被一方当事人提交至中国法院要求确认该仲裁条款的效力之时，中国法院才会依据中国法律来确认该仲裁条款是否有效。
However, as could be seen from Clause 20.6 Arbitration of the Construction Contract Template, only the governing law on dispute resolution rather than on ascertainment of validness of arbitration agreement is stipulated and no place of arbitration is specified. In this case, only when the construction contract is submitted to a China’s court by either contractual party for ascertainment of validity of arbitration clause thereof, the China’s court would make such ascertainment in accordance with the laws of China.
那么接下来的问题就是，如20.6条款样的只约定了仲裁规则而没有规定仲裁机构的仲裁协议在中国法律下是否有效呢？
The next question is, as stipulated in Clause 20.6 thereof, whether an arbitration agreement specifying only arbitration rules without any provision on the place of arbitration is valid under the laws of China?
根据中国仲裁法第16条第2款和第18条的规定，当事人在仲裁协议中没有明确约定仲裁机构，又没有就仲裁机构达成补充协议，就应当认定仲裁协议无效。这是中国对仲裁机构的特殊强调，也是中国仲裁立法不同于其他国家仲裁立法的重要方面。此种原则以及立法精神一直引导着中国法院判案。在最高人民法院于2004年7月5日做出的[2003]民四他字第23号《关于德国旭普林国际有限责任公司与无锡沃可通用工程橡胶有限公司申请确认仲裁协议效力一案的请示的复函》中对于案件所涉及仲裁条款（规定：“仲裁：适用国际商会仲裁规则，在上海仲裁”）的效力明确：“根据我国仲裁法的有关规定，有效的仲裁条款应当同时具备仲裁的意思表示、仲裁的事项和明确的仲裁机构三个方面的内容。本案所涉仲裁条款从字面上看，虽然有明确的仲裁的意思表示、仲裁规则和仲裁地点，但并没有明确指出仲裁机构，因此，应当认定该仲裁条款无效….” 同样，在最高法院2006年4月26日《关于仲裁条款效力请示的复函》（[2006]民四他字第6号）中指出，《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第18条明确规定，仲裁协议对仲裁事项或者仲裁委员会没有约定或者约定不明确的，当事人可以补充协议；达不成补充协议的，仲裁协议无效。由于本案双方当事人在仲裁条款中未约定明确的仲裁机构，且不能达成补充协议，因此仲裁条款无效……”
In accordance with provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 16 and Article 18 of the Arbitration Law of China, if parties to an arbitration agreement neither specify any arbitration institution nor reach any supplementary agreement on arbitration institution, the arbitration agreement shall be deemed as null and void. Great importance is attached to stipulation on arbitration institution. This is the uniqueness of China’s legislation on arbitration which has always been the principle dominating judicial practices of China’s courts. In the Letter of Reply of the Supreme People's Court to the Request for Instructions on the Case concerning the Application of Züblin International GmbH and Wuxi Woke General Engineering Rubber Co., Ltd. for Determining the Validity of the Arbitration Agreement [2003]MSTZ No.23 dated 5 July, 2004, the validity of arbitration clause (i.e. Arbitration: arbitration shall be conducted in Shanghai in accordance with the ICC rules) involved in the case was ascertained as follows: “According to the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Law of China, an effective arbitration clause shall have such three contents as an intention to arbitration, matters for arbitration, and a definite arbitration institution. Seen from the letters of the arbitration clauses involved in this Case, there are clear intention to arbitration, arbitration rules, and place of arbitration, but the arbitration institution is not clearly designated. Therefore, the arbitration clause shall be determined as invalid”. Likewise, in the Letter of Reply of the Supreme People's Court to the Request for Instructions on Validity of the Arbitration Clause [2006] MSTZ No.6 dated 26 April, 2006, it’s pointed out that “As stipulated in Article 18 of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China, if an arbitration agreement contains no or unclear provisions concerning the matters for arbitration or the arbitration commission, the parties may reach a supplementary agreement. If no such supplementary agreement can be reached, the arbitration agreement shall be null and void. Both parties in this case specify no arbitration institution in the arbitration clause and fail to reach any supplementary agreement thereon, the arbitration clause in question is therefore null and void……”
对于如此严苛的仲裁要求，在实践中，并不有利于国际贸易、商业的发展，因此，中国司法界根据实际需要做了一些补充完善。在法释[2006]7号最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国仲裁法》若干问题的解释第4条规定到：仲裁协议仅约定纠纷适用的仲裁规则的，视为未约定仲裁机构，但当事人达成补充协议或者按照约定的仲裁规则能够确定仲裁机构的除外。从条文字面可以看出，相对仲裁法而言，最高院的司法解释扩展了认定仲裁协议有效的标准，即如果当事人只规定适用某仲裁规则而没有约定仲裁机构，如果法院可以通过该规则推导确定一个唯一的仲裁机构，那么该仲裁协议也是有效的。根据这条司法解释，如果当事人在合同中仅约定适用《中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁规则》（CIETAC Rules），该协议可被法院认定为有效。因为在2005版第四条第（三）向中明确规定：“凡当事人约定按照本规则进行仲裁但未约定仲裁机构的，均视为同意将争议提交仲裁委员会仲裁。”此条例被2012版仲裁规则沿袭。最高人民法院在《仅约定适用<国际商会仲裁规则>没有约定仲裁机构，该仲裁条款无效》（2007）民四终字第15号中明确指出：“2005年《中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁规则》就可以被认为是2006年司法解释条款中‘按照约定的仲裁规则能够确定仲裁机构’的情形，而《国际商会仲裁规则》不属于这种情形。
In practice, such stringent legal requirements on arbitration would hinder development of international trade and business. Accordingly, China’s judicial circles made some supplementary adjustments to the Arbitration Law based on actual circumstances. Under Article 4 of Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court concerning Some Issues on Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (Interpretation No.7 [2006]), “where an agreement for arbitration stipulates only arbitration rules applicable to any dispute, it shall be deemed that no arbitration institution is stipulated, unless the parties concerned reach a supplementary agreement thereon or an arbitration institution could be determined pursuant to the arbitration rules as agreed by them”, it could be seen that, as compared to provisions of the Arbitration Law, such interpretation by the supreme court has extended the criteria for ascertainment of validity of arbitration agreement. That is, where parties to a contract stipulate only applicable arbitration rules without agreement on any arbitration institution, the court may determine an exclusive arbitration institution based on the stipulated arbitration rules and such contract may be ascertained as valid by the court. According to this judicial interpretation, a contract merely stipulating CIETAC Rules as the applicable rules in its arbitration clause may be deemed as valid by the court. It’s expressly provided in paragraph 3 of Article 4 of CIETAC Rules (2005 Revision) that “where the parties agree to refer their disputes to arbitration under these Rules without providing the name of an arbitration institution, they shall be deemed to have agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration by the CIETAC”. Such provision is followed by CIETAC Rules (2012 Revision). The supreme court, in its Judgment (2007) MSZZ No.15 that “the arbitration clause is null and void because they specify no arbitration institution but merely ICC rules as the governing arbitration rules”, expressly pointed out that CIETAC Rules (2005 Revision) may be deemed as within the range of the Judicial Interpretation 2006 that “an arbitration institution may be determined pursuant to arbitration rules as stipulated under a contract”, while ICC rules may not.
根据上述法律规定以及司法解释，建筑合同范本中的20.6仲裁条款并不能被中国法院认定为有效力。因为，法院不能从ICC 仲裁规则中推导出唯一的仲裁机构。这一点，也在上述最高人民法院的相关复函中得到确定。然而，笔者认为，ICC2012新规则的颁布与生效，将会改变这一局面。
In accordance with the aforesaid legal provisions and judicial interpretations, Clause 20.6 Arbitration of the Construction Contract Template would not be ascertained as valid by the China’s courts. The reason is that no exclusive arbitration institution could be determined under the ICC rules by China’s courts, which is affirmed by the Supreme People’s Court through the aforesaid relevant letters of reply; however, the author is of the opinion that the upcoming promulgation and effectiveness of new rules ICC2012 will change the current situation.
ICC2012新规则新增加条款第6条第2项规定“凡当事人约定按照本规则进行仲裁，均视为同意将争议提交给国际商会仲裁委员会。“（by agreeing to arbitration under the Rules, the parties have accepted that the arbitration shall be administered by the Court.）其次，新规则第1条第2款也明确到The Court是唯一经授权对仲裁规则项下仲裁活动实施管理的机构，包括对按照仲裁规则所做出的裁决进行核阅、批准。（the court is the only body authorized to administer arbitrations under the Rules including the scrutiny and approval of awards rendered in accordance with the Rules, ）新增加这两条规则，其与CIETAC第四条的规定极为相似，根据这两条规则，我们可以推断出当事人双方在合同中约定所有争议由ICC规则管辖，就等于双方约定了争议由ICC管辖。根据该新规则以及上述提到最高院[2007]民四终字第15号的判决的精神，笔者认为可以从建筑合同范本第20.6项条款推导出，双方已默示的约定将争议提交给国际商会仲裁委。然目前，中国境内暂没有相关法院对这个问题进行确认，们需要等待相关司法解释或者最高院的判例给予回复。
We will see a new provision “Paragraph 2 of Clause 6” added to the new ICC Rules 2012, providing that “by agreeing to arbitration under the Rules, the parties have accepted that the arbitration shall be administered by the Arbitration Commission of the International Chamber of Commerce”. Additionally, it’s also prescribed under Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the new rules ICC2012 that “the court is the only body authorized to administer arbitrations under the Rules including the scrutiny and approval of awards rendered in accordance with the Rules”. According to these two newly added provisions which are quite similar to that under Clause 4 of CIETAC, we can infer that, by stipulating that all disputes shall be governed by ICC rules, both parties have actually agreed that the arbitration shall be administered by ICC. The author is of the opinion that, under the guidance of these new rules ICC2012 and the aforesaid Judgment [2007] MSZZ No.15 made by the Supreme People’s Court, it can be deferred from Clause 20.6 of the Construction Contract Template that both parties thereto have impliedly agreed to submitted disputes thereunder to the Arbitration Commission of ICC. Considering that none of China’s courts has ever made affirmation on this issue, we need to wait for the reply in the form of relevant judicial interpretations or decisions of the Supreme Court.
V.认定仲裁条款效力的准据法
Applicable Law to Determine Validity of Arbitration Clause
最高法院2006年4月26日《关于仲裁条款效力请示的复函》（[2006]民四他字第6号）中指出本案仲裁条款为涉外仲裁条款，首先应明确确认仲裁条款效力的准据法。根据多年司法实践以及本院第二次全国涉外商事海事审判工作会议纪要所确定的原则，当事人在合同中明确约定了仲裁条款效力的准据法的，应当适用当事人明确约定的法律；未约定仲裁条款效力的准据法但约定了仲裁地的，应当适用仲裁地国家或者地区的法律。
The Letter of Reply of the Supreme People's Court to the Request for Instructions on Validity of the Arbitration Clause [2006] MSTZ No.6 dated 26 April, 2006 reads that the arbitration clauses of this case involve foreign elements, thus the first point to make sure is the applicable law to determine the validity of arbitration clause. Based on years’ judicial experience as well as the principles ascertained in the meeting summary of 2nd National Conference of Judicial Work on Commercial and maritime Cases held by this Court, where parties expressly agree in the agreement on the applicable law to determine the validity of arbitration clause, such agreed law shall be applied; where no applicable law to determine the validity of arbitration clause has been agreed on but the place of arbitration has been agreed on, the law of the country or region where the place of arbitration is located in shall be applied.
《纽约公约》（New York Convention 1958 ）第5条第1款第1项规定（Article V（1）（A））：
一、裁决唯有于受裁决援用之一造向申请承认及执行地之主管机关提具证据证明有下列情形之一时，始得依该造之请求，拒予承认及执行：
Article V（1）（A）of New York Convention 1958 reads that:
Recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnished the proof to the competent authority where the recognition and enforcement is sought on one of the following grounds:
（甲）第二条所称协定之当事人依对其适用之法律有某种无行为能力情形者，或该项协定依当事人作为协定准据之法律系属无效，或未指明以何法律为准时，依裁决地所在国法律系属无效者；
(a) The parties to the agreement referred to in article II were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, under the law of the country where the award was made when failing any indication of applicable laws.
附注/Note1：
FIDIC Contract for Construction. Clause 20. CLAIMS, DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION
20.1 Contractor's Claims
20.2 Employer's Claims
20.3 Appointment of the Dispute Adjudication Board
20.4 Failure to Agree Dispute Adjudication Board
20.5 Avoidance of Disputes
20.6 Obtaining Dispute Adjudication Board's Decision
20.7 Amicable Settlement
20.8 Arbitration
20.9 Failure to Comply with Dispute Adjudication Board's Decision
20.10 Disputes Arising during the Operation Service Period
20.11 Expiry of Dispute Adjudication Board's Appointment
附注/Note2：
FIDIC标准合同中没有约定具体适用哪国法的问题。详细如下：
The FIDIC forms are adopted around the world including in the Middle East, South East Asia and Eastern Europe, and widely used in Africa, notably the Red Book, in countries with a common law tradition. The uptake is more limited in countries that have their own domestic highly-developed standard form contracts, such as the USA, UK, Australia, Malaysia and Germany. Nevertheless, the FIDIC forms are not restricted, nor intended, for use under a particular governing law (FIDIC标准合同不限制适用某一具体国家的法律作为合同的准据法), which goes along way to explaining their success and uptake around the world.
《FIDIC Contracts: Law and Practice》，published in 2009
