Issues of Extraterritorial Arbitration in Non-Foreign-Related Disputes

Abstract

As China further liberalises and marketises, a new type of dispute has emerged. This type of dispute is domestic and has no foreign-related elements, but is submitted for arbitration outside China. The orthodox standard for determining whether a dispute is foreign-related — The Theory of Three Essentials of Legal Relation — is too simplistlic and rigid. The addition of 'catch-all provisions' in the evolution of laws and regulations demonstrates that China normatively foresees cases with unorthodox foreign-related elements. Specifically on the determination of foreign-related elements in arbitation, existing arbitration rules in China have not expressly precluded disputes without foreign-related elements to be submitted to arbitration outside China. Despite this, judicial practice and judicial rationality tends to dismiss the validity of such arbitrations. 2015 was a watershed moment for the judicial attitude towards the issue. At the end of 2015, Shanghai Golden Landmark case have removed the restrictions to determination method of foreign-related elements that has been in place for a long time, a breakthrough in recognising unorthodox foreign-related elements. From the perspective of interactivity between law and economic development, the arbitration system in China needs to open up further in the context of 'Belt and Road' and free trade zones, and the breakthrough in recognising new forms of foreign-elements has great implications.

随着我国对外开放和市场经济的进一步深入，实践中衍生出无涉外因素的国内争议提交域外仲裁这类新型案件。从学理上，判断涉外因素的主流标准“法律关系三要素说”存在简单僵化的弊端；从立法上，法律规定演变的过程中新增了“兜底条款”，这意味着我国从规范上预设到了非典型涉外因素案件的出现。具体到涉外因素在仲裁中的认定，我国现有的仲裁法体系没有明确禁止无涉外因素的仲裁案件提交域外仲裁，然而此前的司法实践和裁判思路却倾向于否定此类仲裁的有效性。我国司法实践对于无涉外因素争议提交域外仲裁的态度，以2015年为重要分水岭，前后显现出较大的转变，最终在2015年底的上海黄金置地案中打破了长期以来对涉外因素认定的禁锢，对非典型涉外因素的识别实现重大突破。从法律与经济发展互动的角度观察，“一带一路”和自贸区建设的大经济环境需要中国仲裁制度的进一步开放，而其中涉外因素识别的突破对此意义重大。