回上
一頁
一頁
中華民國112年10月
Oct. 2023
Oct. 2023
10月24、25日台北國際仲裁暨調解研討會Highlights from the Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation
「2023台灣仲裁週」系列活動的重要軸心-「台北國際仲裁暨調解研討會」，於10月24日、25日於台北市政大公企中心登場，來自歐洲、美洲及亞太地區等12個國家或地區、20名專家學者，針對國際爭端解決機制的未來可能發展與熱門議題，包括AI世代對現行仲裁與調解運作的影響、線上爭端解決、國際投資與貿易爭端解決的變革等，進行論文發表與討論。
研討會由本會與台大法律學院亞洲WTO暨國際衛生法與政策中心共同合辦，特別邀請瑞士伯恩大學世界貿易研究院（WTI）Peter Van den Bossche教授，進行主題演講，就WTO現行爭議解決機制作了省思，並展望國際貿易爭端解決的未來。
合影 Group photo
AI對爭議解決可能產生影響之研討
有感於近年因全球大環境的改變，人工智能（Artificial Intelligence，AI）的興起，對於各產業界的生態造成鉅大影響，成為未來發展趨勢的關鍵因素; 國際會議上午及下午兩個場次即針對AI對爭議解決可能產生影響的各個面向進行研討。第一場次以“AI於國際爭議解決的發展”為題進行研討；Anthony A. Abad教授(Ateneo de Manila University)表示，AI對爭議解決機制正在進行變革，因此有需要就現有的法律架構進行檢視；而國際競爭法(International Competition Law)得以提供作為其基礎。國際仲裁人 Mr. Joe Liu首先引用2022年歐盟人工智能法案(EU Artificial Intelligence Act)介紹對AI的定義，並且分析AI對仲裁機制的好處，包括時間和費用的節省、正確性和一制性，以及具可預測性；然而其亦可能有產生偏頗、隱私保密的疑慮、論理的匱乏，和倫理道德等風險。Mr. Liu於結論時提及，AI也許不會取代律師，然而不擅於使用AI的律師將會被取代。Mr. Sean Shih則於同一場次中論述到，AI於仲裁機制中可能的運用面向，包括其可針對個案分析勝敗比率、賠償金額及可能產生的費用、擬定仲裁協議中的仲裁條款、文件審閱與資料分析、選定適當的仲裁人和撰擬法律文件。然而，有關是否有AI仲裁人的可能，則必須先克服科技及法制等面向產生的障礙。
第二場次同樣邀請多位專家學者就“新興科技就爭議解決的適用”此一議題發表演說。Mark L. Shope教授(國立陽明交通大學)有趣的嘗試用ChatGPT進行台灣及美國的律師考試，結果顯示，如果是需要進行深入思考性的問題時，其整體表現差強人意。其同時並引述、檢視ABA Model rules of Professional Conduct、ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct及Silicon Valley Guidelines on the use of AI in arbitration 2023中的條文規範，認為這些規範得以作為觸及倫理議題時所必要的依據。另位講者Mr. Shr-Shian Chen(國立台灣大學碩士研究生)則探討AI對智慧財產保護的影響，表示因AI產業的快速發展，現有的法制未能及時因應，所以建議也許能透過強制調解的機制做為緩衝。
會議現場 The conference
互動討論 Discussion and interaction
「多邊投資法庭」及「世界貿易組織中調解機制」之探討
講者羅傑(倫敦國王學院博士候選人)發表論文「多邊投資法庭」時提到，聯合國國際貿易法第三工作小組(UNCITRAL WG III) 就投資人與地主國爭端解決機制(Investor-State Dispute Settlement, ISDS)所產生的疑慮，包括仲裁人的獨立與公正、時間與金錢的耗費、法規適用的正確性與一致性等問題。於是在WG III中，歐盟為首的一部份國家即提倡應進行了架構變革-以類似於世界貿易組織(World Trade Organization, WTO)爭端解決體系的架構，設立一多邊投資法庭(Multilateral Investment Court, MIC)。
然而若從合約的不完整性及授權(Delegation)理論的角度觀察，投資法庭的正當性恐將受到與WTO爭端解決機構相似的挑戰。以第三方司法機構而言，可依其程序上的自主性(授權的強度)分為受託人(Trustee)及代理人(Agent)兩種模式；前者的獨立性較高、比較不會受到控制、並且得以實現特定的規範價值，看似較為理想。然正因其決策不受設立者控制，設立者可能事後發現不合其利益時，直接停止支持該機制。此即WTO爭端解決機制面臨目前困境的原因之一。因此，整體而言，由具受託人模式的國際組織取代投資仲裁庭，也許不會在短時間內受到普遍的支持；但部分彈性較大的機制，例如選擇性同意(opt-in)的上訴機制也許會得到使用者接受。
Dr. Rajesh Sharma (RMIT University)介紹世界貿易組織(WTO)中的調解機制與其執行，並就現況提出新的觀點與建議。調解併同和解與斡旋，為世貿組織中爭議解決的程序。然而調解並未被善加利用；其不像協商具有強制性，且僅得於要求協商後開啟程序，亦無條文規範或規劃。而調解協議得否於世貿組織執行並不清楚，但如果爭議為商業屬性且無保留(reservation)，則得適用新加坡公約(Singapore Convention)，但依究並不完備。Dr. Sharma認為，可藉由制定更為詳細的程序規則、於諮詢程序前即得開啟調解程序、調解人名單的建立與維護、納入仲裁人執行法規、連結世界貿易組織的執行機制等使該調解機制更具效率。
國際仲裁中即決撤銷機制
Dr. Lars Marker (Partner of Nishimura & Asahi) 介紹國際仲裁中即決撤銷機制。即決撤銷源起於國際投資爭端解決中心 (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID) 2006年仲裁規則第41(5)條，後於2022年修正；條文規定任一當事人得於仲裁庭組成的45天內，對明顯無法律依據的聲明提出異議，而該條意旨乃在尋求程序利益與正當程序間的平衡。目前於國際商務仲裁中採有此一規定的包括：2016新加坡國際仲裁中心仲裁規則第29條、2023斯德哥爾摩國際中心仲裁規則第39條、2018香港國際仲裁中心仲裁規則第43條、及2021國際商會仲裁規則第22條。這些規定與ICSID不同之處在於，其得異議的範圍包括請求與答辯，以及仲裁庭有權限決定是否准予即決程序。
雖然部分即決撤銷得以精簡後續的程序，但因需要於程序中另外聲請、進行詢問會及作成決定，因而形成額外的負擔；即決撤銷並無法確保其合宜性與效率，但有時候確實能達到其效用。
外國投資者保護的分類
Dr. Vera Korzun (University of Akron)於演講中介紹「外國投資者保護的分類」；目前投資人與地主國間之紛爭解決 (Investor - State Dispute Settlement, ISDS) 因缺乏透明性、判斷的一致性、上訴機制及仲裁人資格等問題而面臨合法性的危機。若欲進行改革，首先是否需要釐清國際投資法及爭端解決的使用者，進而設計適宜使用者的機制。近期學術上及數據資料分析顯示，欲得知聲請人國籍的困難之一，在於名義上的聲請人與初始投資者的國籍並不一致。而是否有必要將這兩者分類，可以思考是否只想保護真正的投資者；抑或若不覺得有分別兩者的必要時，則應該停止責難濫用協定 (Treaty-shopping) 的聲請人。
線上及加密貨幣爭議解決
David Allen Larson教授(Mitchell Hamline University)自其紐約經驗介紹線上爭議解決(Online Dispute Resolution, ODR)時表示，ODR能夠改善當事人因心理畏懼、時間、交通等不克出席法院的困境。而線上信用卡收取債權專案(Online Credit Card Debt Collection Pilot Project)為紐約州統一法院制度所建置，該方式得以減少因消費者在沒有律師所以無法提出答辯，因而獲得缺席判決的機率，並且增加接近使用法院的機會。線上系統的兩個階段包括：第一階段為「專家系統」，提供瞭解程序、消費者保護及財務資源等協助；第二階段為「架構式協商-選擇適用調解」。而這樣的線上方式因提供法律資訊的服務，亦對債務人更妥適的保護，因此是較好的選擇。Larson教授也提到殘疾人士對ODR近用性(Accessibility)的問題；因疫情加速了科技的使用，然而弱勢族群包括殘障人士，卻被排除於數位世界之外。聯合國殘障人士權利公約(United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, CRPH)第9條，即在推廣殘障人士對新資訊及傳播科技包括網際網路的使用，以及第13條確保法院的可及性，皆基於近用性為基本人權的意旨所制定。
Tamar Meshel教授(University of Alberta)針對加密貨幣的爭議解決由作一介紹。因加密貨幣具有身份認證、管轄權、證據搜集等問題，並且很容易為駭客侵入，同時其爭議解決機制尚未被規範，因此產生加密貨幣相關爭議。使用者針對潛在的爭議所選擇的解決方式包括調解、仲裁、訴訟或是某一特定平台的機制。而仲裁有三種態樣：傳統仲裁、線上加密貨幣仲裁及使用特定內部機制的仲裁。當選擇仲裁時，大部份的平台偏好機構仲裁，普遍選擇美國仲裁協會(American Arbitration Association, AAA)及其規則。相較於訴訟，選擇仲裁的平台傾向先行正式或非正式的爭議解決。而有關加密貨幣仲裁的最新發展包括：仲裁判斷於內國法院執行所面臨的挑戰、相關規範例如英國數位爭議解決規則中規定，仲裁庭應於被任命後30天內做出決定，以及新興鏈上仲裁(on-chain arbitration)機制的發展。
講師Professor David Allen Larson
楊岳平教授 Professor Yueh-Ping (Alex) Yang
On October 24th and 25th, the Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation, a collaborative endeavor by the Chinese Arbitration Association (CAA) and the Asian Center for WTO & International Health Law and Policy (ACWH) of National Taiwan University College of Law, took place at the Center for Public and Business Administration Education, National Chengchi University (NCCU).
This high-level conference brought together a diverse group of 20 experts and professionals from 12 countries and regions. The agenda focused on contemporary and pressing topics in the field of arbitration and mediation. Discussions revolved around the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on arbitration and mediation processes, advancements in online dispute resolution, and evolving trends in international investment and trade dispute resolution.
A highlight of the event was the keynote address by Professor Peter Van den Bossche, the distinguished Director of Studies and Professor of International Economic Law at the World Trade Institute of the University of Bern. Professor Van den Bossche offered profound insights in his speech, titled “Reflections on the Future of International Trade Dispute Resolution”, providing valuable perspectives on the evolving landscape of international trade disputes.
The conference served as a vital platform for exchanging ideas and exploring the intersection of technology and law in the realm of international dispute resolution. It underscored the growing importance of adapting law to technological advancements and changing global dynamics in the fields of arbitration and mediation.
Exploring AI's Role in Dispute Resolution at the Taipei International Conference
During the first two sessions of the Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation, discussions centered on the transformative impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on various industries, with specific focus on international dispute resolution.
In the first session, Professor Anthony A. Abad from Ateneo de Manila University emphasized that AI is revolutionizing dispute resolution mechanisms. He highlighted the need for a reassessment of current legal frameworks to ensure fairness, suggesting that International Competition Law could serve as a foundation. Mr. Joe Liu, an independent arbitrator, provided a penetrating analysis of AI's definition under the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. He discussed AI's benefits in arbitration, such as time and cost efficiency, accuracy, consistency, and predictability. However, he also cautioned against potential biases, ethical dilemmas, and a lack of transparent reasoning in AI systems. Liu clearly stated, “AI won't replace lawyers, but lawyers who use AI will replace lawyers who don't.”
Mr. Sean Shih from Baker & McKenzie explored AI's possible applications in arbitration, including case study analysis, drafting clauses, document review, data analysis, arbitrator selection, and legal document drafting. He also touched upon the nascent concept of AI arbitrators, noting the legal and technological hurdles that need to be overcome.
The second session shifted focus to "The Application of Emerging Technology to Dispute Resolution." Professor Mark L. Shope from National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University shared his experiment of using ChatGPT for the Taiwan and US bar exams, revealing its limitations in deep-thinking tasks. He also reviewed various ethical guidelines from the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Silicon Valley Guidelines on the use of AI in arbitration 2023.
Mr. Shr-Shian Chen, an LL.M. candidate at National Taiwan University, discussed AI's role in intellectual property protection. With the rapid development of the AI industry and the current legal system's struggle to keep pace, Chen suggested that compulsory mediation to be used as a practical interim solution.
These sessions underscored the evolving nature of dispute resolution in the age of AI, highlighting both its potential benefits and the challenges that need to be addressed.
Insights into Multilateral Investment Courts and WTO Mediation at the Taipei Conference
The third session of the Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation featured noteworthy discussions on international dispute resolution mechanisms, with special focus on the Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) and mediation in World Trade Organization (WTO) disputes.
Mr. Chieh Lo, a Ph.D. candidate from King's College London, delved into the concept of the MIC in his presentation titled “Multilateral Investment Court.” He pointed out that the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (UNCITRAL WG III) has raised concerns regarding the impartiality and independence of arbitrators in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, in addition to issues of time, cost, and consistency in the application of law. In response, some European Union (EU) countries are advocating for a structural reform to establish the MIC, paralleling to the dispute resolution system of the WTO.
Lo, however, pointed out potential challenges to the legitimacy of the MIC, drawing parallels with the WTO. He elaborated on the concepts of "Trustee" and "Agent" in the context of third-party judicial institutions, distinguishing them based on their autonomy. While a "Trustee" model offers greater independence and adherence to normative values, it risks losing support from its establishers if it fails to meet their expectations, a challenge currently faced by the WTO. Lo suggested that a "Trustee-like" international body might not gain widespread support soon. However, an opt-in appellate mechanism, incorporating some "Trustee" elements, could be more favorable.
Dr. Rajesh Sharma, a Senior Lecturer from RMIT University, presented “Mediation of WTO Dispute and Its Enforcement: New Perspective.” He explained that mediation in the WTO, grouped with conciliation and good offices, is a voluntary process initiated after consultation requests. Unlike compulsory consultation, mediation lacks solid rules and varies in enforceability. For commercial disputes within states, it is mostly enforceable under the Singapore Convention, provided there are no reservations by the parties.
Dr. Sharma proposed enhancing the effectiveness of WTO mediation by detailing procedural rules, allowing pre-consultation mediation, maintaining a mediators' list, incorporating a mediators' code of conduct, and linking it to the WTO enforcement mechanism.
These discussions highlighted the evolving landscape of international dispute resolution, exploring innovative approaches to improve effectiveness and legitimacy in systems like the MIC and WTO mediation.
互動討論 Discussion and interaction
合影 Group photo
Dr. Lars Marker Highlights Summary Dismissal in International Arbitration at Taipei Conference
The fourth session of the Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation featured an insightful presentation by Dr. Lars Marker, a Partner at Nishimura & Asahi. Dr. Marker's talk focused on the topic of "Summary Dismissal in International Arbitration," tracing its origins and described its current applications.
Dr. Marker began by discussing the genesis of summary dismissal in the realm of international arbitration, pointing to the 2006 ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) Arbitration Rule Article 41(5), which underwent an amendment in 2022. This rule allows a party to object to a claim that is manifestly without legal merit, requiring a written submission to be filed within 45 days following the constitution of the Tribunal.
He then explored how this concept has been adopted in international commercial arbitration, referencing various rules from prominent arbitration institutions. These include Article 29 of the SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre) Rules 2016, Article 39 of the SCC (Stockholm Chamber of Commerce) Rules 2023, Article 43 of the HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre) Rules 2018, and Article 22 of the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Rules 2021. Dr. Marker highlighted the key differences between these commercial arbitration rules and those of ICSID. Notably, commercial arbitration rules cover both claims and defenses and grant the tribunal discretion in deciding whether to allow a summary procedure.
Dr. Marker also discussed the practical implications of summary dismissal in arbitration proceedings. While it can streamline the process, he noted that it often requires additional efforts due to the necessity of separate submissions, hearings, and decisions for partial summary dismissals.
The session provided valuable insights into the evolving practice of summary dismissal in international arbitration, underscoring its potential to enhance the efficiency of arbitration proceedings while also acknowledging the complexities it generates or causes.
會議現場 The conference
互動討論 Discussion and interaction
Dr. Vera Korzun Discusses Bifurcation in Foreign Investor Protection at Taipei Conference
In an enlightening session of the Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation, Dr. Vera Korzun, an Associate Professor at the University of Akron, delivered a compelling presentation on “Bifurcating Foreign Investor Protection.” Her speech addressed the current challenges and potential reforms in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system.
Dr. Korzun highlighted the ongoing crisis in ISDS, characterized by issues such as lack of transparency, inconsistent award decisions, and questions surrounding the qualifications of arbitrators. She emphasized the importance of identifying the primary users of International Investment Law and Dispute Settlement as a precursor to designing effective mechanisms catered to their needs.
A significant concern Dr. Korzun raised was the difficulty in ascertaining the nationality of claimants in investment disputes, often due to inconsistencies between the initial investors and subsequent claimants. This discrepancy raises questions about who should be considered a 'real investor' and thus be entitled to protection under investment treaties.
Dr. Korzun posited that if the intention is to protect only genuine investors, it becomes necessary to differentiate between initial investors and claimants. However, if the goal is broader, covering a range of investors, then penalizing claimants for treaty shopping – the practice of strategically using treaties to gain advantages in dispute resolution – should be reconsidered.
Her presentation shed light on the complexities of international investment law and the need for nuanced approaches to reforming investor protection and dispute resolution mechanisms.
Exploring Online Dispute Resolution and Crypto Dispute Resolution at Taipei Conference
The fifth session of the Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation featured two distinguished speakers who explore the realms of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and Crypto Dispute Resolution.
Professor David Allen Larson from Mitchell Hamline University shared insights into ODR, drawing from his New York experience. He highlighted how ODR addresses challenges that prevent parties from appearing in court, such as fear, time constraints, and transportation issues. Professor Larson discussed the Online Credit Card Debt Collection Pilot Project under the New York State Unified Court System, which has helped reduce default judgment rates and increased access to justice. The project's online system operates in two stages: an initial expert system providing process understanding and financial assistance, followed by structured negotiation with a mediation option. He emphasized that this approach not only improves access to legal services but also ensures better protection for debtors. Additionally, Professor Larson touched upon the importance of ODR accessibility for persons with disabilities, especially in the context of the digital divide exacerbated by COVID-19. He referenced the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), emphasizing its provisions on technology access (Article 9) and justice access (Article 13).
Professor Tamar Meshel from the University of Alberta Canada presented on “Crypto Dispute Resolution.” She outlined the challenges unique to cryptocurrency, including issues related to identity, jurisdiction, evidence discovery, vulnerability to hackers, and regulatory gaps. These factors contribute to the complexity of crypto-related disputes. Professor Meshel explained that the preferred mechanisms for resolving such disputes include mediation, arbitration, litigation, or platform-specific mechanisms. She highlighted three types of arbitration in the crypto context: traditional arbitration, online crypto-arbitration, and arbitration using specialized internal mechanisms. Most attendees favor institutional arbitration, often choosing the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and its rules.
Compared to litigation, platforms opting for arbitration tend to require prior formal or informal dispute resolution more frequently. Recent developments in Crypto-Arbitration, as pointed out by Professor Meshel, include challenges in enforcing arbitration awards in domestic courts, the implementation of the U.K.'s Digital Dispute Resolution Rules mandating tribunal decisions within 30 days, and the emergence of new on-chain arbitration mechanisms.
These presentations provided valuable perspectives on the evolving landscape of dispute resolution in the digital age, highlighting the innovative approaches being developed in ODR and crypto dispute resolution.
第二場次同樣邀請多位專家學者就“新興科技就爭議解決的適用”此一議題發表演說。Mark L. Shope教授(國立陽明交通大學)有趣的嘗試用ChatGPT進行台灣及美國的律師考試，結果顯示，如果是需要進行深入思考性的問題時，其整體表現差強人意。其同時並引述、檢視ABA Model rules of Professional Conduct、ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct及Silicon Valley Guidelines on the use of AI in arbitration 2023中的條文規範，認為這些規範得以作為觸及倫理議題時所必要的依據。另位講者Mr. Shr-Shian Chen(國立台灣大學碩士研究生)則探討AI對智慧財產保護的影響，表示因AI產業的快速發展，現有的法制未能及時因應，所以建議也許能透過強制調解的機制做為緩衝。
會議現場 The conference
互動討論 Discussion and interaction
「多邊投資法庭」及「世界貿易組織中調解機制」之探討
講者羅傑(倫敦國王學院博士候選人)發表論文「多邊投資法庭」時提到，聯合國國際貿易法第三工作小組(UNCITRAL WG III) 就投資人與地主國爭端解決機制(Investor-State Dispute Settlement, ISDS)所產生的疑慮，包括仲裁人的獨立與公正、時間與金錢的耗費、法規適用的正確性與一致性等問題。於是在WG III中，歐盟為首的一部份國家即提倡應進行了架構變革-以類似於世界貿易組織(World Trade Organization, WTO)爭端解決體系的架構，設立一多邊投資法庭(Multilateral Investment Court, MIC)。
然而若從合約的不完整性及授權(Delegation)理論的角度觀察，投資法庭的正當性恐將受到與WTO爭端解決機構相似的挑戰。以第三方司法機構而言，可依其程序上的自主性(授權的強度)分為受託人(Trustee)及代理人(Agent)兩種模式；前者的獨立性較高、比較不會受到控制、並且得以實現特定的規範價值，看似較為理想。然正因其決策不受設立者控制，設立者可能事後發現不合其利益時，直接停止支持該機制。此即WTO爭端解決機制面臨目前困境的原因之一。因此，整體而言，由具受託人模式的國際組織取代投資仲裁庭，也許不會在短時間內受到普遍的支持；但部分彈性較大的機制，例如選擇性同意(opt-in)的上訴機制也許會得到使用者接受。
Dr. Rajesh Sharma (RMIT University)介紹世界貿易組織(WTO)中的調解機制與其執行，並就現況提出新的觀點與建議。調解併同和解與斡旋，為世貿組織中爭議解決的程序。然而調解並未被善加利用；其不像協商具有強制性，且僅得於要求協商後開啟程序，亦無條文規範或規劃。而調解協議得否於世貿組織執行並不清楚，但如果爭議為商業屬性且無保留(reservation)，則得適用新加坡公約(Singapore Convention)，但依究並不完備。Dr. Sharma認為，可藉由制定更為詳細的程序規則、於諮詢程序前即得開啟調解程序、調解人名單的建立與維護、納入仲裁人執行法規、連結世界貿易組織的執行機制等使該調解機制更具效率。
國際仲裁中即決撤銷機制
Dr. Lars Marker (Partner of Nishimura & Asahi) 介紹國際仲裁中即決撤銷機制。即決撤銷源起於國際投資爭端解決中心 (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID) 2006年仲裁規則第41(5)條，後於2022年修正；條文規定任一當事人得於仲裁庭組成的45天內，對明顯無法律依據的聲明提出異議，而該條意旨乃在尋求程序利益與正當程序間的平衡。目前於國際商務仲裁中採有此一規定的包括：2016新加坡國際仲裁中心仲裁規則第29條、2023斯德哥爾摩國際中心仲裁規則第39條、2018香港國際仲裁中心仲裁規則第43條、及2021國際商會仲裁規則第22條。這些規定與ICSID不同之處在於，其得異議的範圍包括請求與答辯，以及仲裁庭有權限決定是否准予即決程序。
雖然部分即決撤銷得以精簡後續的程序，但因需要於程序中另外聲請、進行詢問會及作成決定，因而形成額外的負擔；即決撤銷並無法確保其合宜性與效率，但有時候確實能達到其效用。
外國投資者保護的分類
Dr. Vera Korzun (University of Akron)於演講中介紹「外國投資者保護的分類」；目前投資人與地主國間之紛爭解決 (Investor - State Dispute Settlement, ISDS) 因缺乏透明性、判斷的一致性、上訴機制及仲裁人資格等問題而面臨合法性的危機。若欲進行改革，首先是否需要釐清國際投資法及爭端解決的使用者，進而設計適宜使用者的機制。近期學術上及數據資料分析顯示，欲得知聲請人國籍的困難之一，在於名義上的聲請人與初始投資者的國籍並不一致。而是否有必要將這兩者分類，可以思考是否只想保護真正的投資者；抑或若不覺得有分別兩者的必要時，則應該停止責難濫用協定 (Treaty-shopping) 的聲請人。
線上及加密貨幣爭議解決
David Allen Larson教授(Mitchell Hamline University)自其紐約經驗介紹線上爭議解決(Online Dispute Resolution, ODR)時表示，ODR能夠改善當事人因心理畏懼、時間、交通等不克出席法院的困境。而線上信用卡收取債權專案(Online Credit Card Debt Collection Pilot Project)為紐約州統一法院制度所建置，該方式得以減少因消費者在沒有律師所以無法提出答辯，因而獲得缺席判決的機率，並且增加接近使用法院的機會。線上系統的兩個階段包括：第一階段為「專家系統」，提供瞭解程序、消費者保護及財務資源等協助；第二階段為「架構式協商-選擇適用調解」。而這樣的線上方式因提供法律資訊的服務，亦對債務人更妥適的保護，因此是較好的選擇。Larson教授也提到殘疾人士對ODR近用性(Accessibility)的問題；因疫情加速了科技的使用，然而弱勢族群包括殘障人士，卻被排除於數位世界之外。聯合國殘障人士權利公約(United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, CRPH)第9條，即在推廣殘障人士對新資訊及傳播科技包括網際網路的使用，以及第13條確保法院的可及性，皆基於近用性為基本人權的意旨所制定。
Tamar Meshel教授(University of Alberta)針對加密貨幣的爭議解決由作一介紹。因加密貨幣具有身份認證、管轄權、證據搜集等問題，並且很容易為駭客侵入，同時其爭議解決機制尚未被規範，因此產生加密貨幣相關爭議。使用者針對潛在的爭議所選擇的解決方式包括調解、仲裁、訴訟或是某一特定平台的機制。而仲裁有三種態樣：傳統仲裁、線上加密貨幣仲裁及使用特定內部機制的仲裁。當選擇仲裁時，大部份的平台偏好機構仲裁，普遍選擇美國仲裁協會(American Arbitration Association, AAA)及其規則。相較於訴訟，選擇仲裁的平台傾向先行正式或非正式的爭議解決。而有關加密貨幣仲裁的最新發展包括：仲裁判斷於內國法院執行所面臨的挑戰、相關規範例如英國數位爭議解決規則中規定，仲裁庭應於被任命後30天內做出決定，以及新興鏈上仲裁(on-chain arbitration)機制的發展。
講師Professor David Allen Larson
楊岳平教授 Professor Yueh-Ping (Alex) Yang
On October 24th and 25th, the Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation, a collaborative endeavor by the Chinese Arbitration Association (CAA) and the Asian Center for WTO & International Health Law and Policy (ACWH) of National Taiwan University College of Law, took place at the Center for Public and Business Administration Education, National Chengchi University (NCCU).
This high-level conference brought together a diverse group of 20 experts and professionals from 12 countries and regions. The agenda focused on contemporary and pressing topics in the field of arbitration and mediation. Discussions revolved around the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on arbitration and mediation processes, advancements in online dispute resolution, and evolving trends in international investment and trade dispute resolution.
A highlight of the event was the keynote address by Professor Peter Van den Bossche, the distinguished Director of Studies and Professor of International Economic Law at the World Trade Institute of the University of Bern. Professor Van den Bossche offered profound insights in his speech, titled “Reflections on the Future of International Trade Dispute Resolution”, providing valuable perspectives on the evolving landscape of international trade disputes.
The conference served as a vital platform for exchanging ideas and exploring the intersection of technology and law in the realm of international dispute resolution. It underscored the growing importance of adapting law to technological advancements and changing global dynamics in the fields of arbitration and mediation.
Exploring AI's Role in Dispute Resolution at the Taipei International Conference
During the first two sessions of the Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation, discussions centered on the transformative impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on various industries, with specific focus on international dispute resolution.
In the first session, Professor Anthony A. Abad from Ateneo de Manila University emphasized that AI is revolutionizing dispute resolution mechanisms. He highlighted the need for a reassessment of current legal frameworks to ensure fairness, suggesting that International Competition Law could serve as a foundation. Mr. Joe Liu, an independent arbitrator, provided a penetrating analysis of AI's definition under the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. He discussed AI's benefits in arbitration, such as time and cost efficiency, accuracy, consistency, and predictability. However, he also cautioned against potential biases, ethical dilemmas, and a lack of transparent reasoning in AI systems. Liu clearly stated, “AI won't replace lawyers, but lawyers who use AI will replace lawyers who don't.”
Mr. Sean Shih from Baker & McKenzie explored AI's possible applications in arbitration, including case study analysis, drafting clauses, document review, data analysis, arbitrator selection, and legal document drafting. He also touched upon the nascent concept of AI arbitrators, noting the legal and technological hurdles that need to be overcome.
The second session shifted focus to "The Application of Emerging Technology to Dispute Resolution." Professor Mark L. Shope from National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University shared his experiment of using ChatGPT for the Taiwan and US bar exams, revealing its limitations in deep-thinking tasks. He also reviewed various ethical guidelines from the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Silicon Valley Guidelines on the use of AI in arbitration 2023.
Mr. Shr-Shian Chen, an LL.M. candidate at National Taiwan University, discussed AI's role in intellectual property protection. With the rapid development of the AI industry and the current legal system's struggle to keep pace, Chen suggested that compulsory mediation to be used as a practical interim solution.
These sessions underscored the evolving nature of dispute resolution in the age of AI, highlighting both its potential benefits and the challenges that need to be addressed.
Insights into Multilateral Investment Courts and WTO Mediation at the Taipei Conference
The third session of the Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation featured noteworthy discussions on international dispute resolution mechanisms, with special focus on the Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) and mediation in World Trade Organization (WTO) disputes.
Mr. Chieh Lo, a Ph.D. candidate from King's College London, delved into the concept of the MIC in his presentation titled “Multilateral Investment Court.” He pointed out that the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (UNCITRAL WG III) has raised concerns regarding the impartiality and independence of arbitrators in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, in addition to issues of time, cost, and consistency in the application of law. In response, some European Union (EU) countries are advocating for a structural reform to establish the MIC, paralleling to the dispute resolution system of the WTO.
Lo, however, pointed out potential challenges to the legitimacy of the MIC, drawing parallels with the WTO. He elaborated on the concepts of "Trustee" and "Agent" in the context of third-party judicial institutions, distinguishing them based on their autonomy. While a "Trustee" model offers greater independence and adherence to normative values, it risks losing support from its establishers if it fails to meet their expectations, a challenge currently faced by the WTO. Lo suggested that a "Trustee-like" international body might not gain widespread support soon. However, an opt-in appellate mechanism, incorporating some "Trustee" elements, could be more favorable.
Dr. Rajesh Sharma, a Senior Lecturer from RMIT University, presented “Mediation of WTO Dispute and Its Enforcement: New Perspective.” He explained that mediation in the WTO, grouped with conciliation and good offices, is a voluntary process initiated after consultation requests. Unlike compulsory consultation, mediation lacks solid rules and varies in enforceability. For commercial disputes within states, it is mostly enforceable under the Singapore Convention, provided there are no reservations by the parties.
Dr. Sharma proposed enhancing the effectiveness of WTO mediation by detailing procedural rules, allowing pre-consultation mediation, maintaining a mediators' list, incorporating a mediators' code of conduct, and linking it to the WTO enforcement mechanism.
These discussions highlighted the evolving landscape of international dispute resolution, exploring innovative approaches to improve effectiveness and legitimacy in systems like the MIC and WTO mediation.
互動討論 Discussion and interaction
合影 Group photo
Dr. Lars Marker Highlights Summary Dismissal in International Arbitration at Taipei Conference
The fourth session of the Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation featured an insightful presentation by Dr. Lars Marker, a Partner at Nishimura & Asahi. Dr. Marker's talk focused on the topic of "Summary Dismissal in International Arbitration," tracing its origins and described its current applications.
Dr. Marker began by discussing the genesis of summary dismissal in the realm of international arbitration, pointing to the 2006 ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) Arbitration Rule Article 41(5), which underwent an amendment in 2022. This rule allows a party to object to a claim that is manifestly without legal merit, requiring a written submission to be filed within 45 days following the constitution of the Tribunal.
He then explored how this concept has been adopted in international commercial arbitration, referencing various rules from prominent arbitration institutions. These include Article 29 of the SIAC (Singapore International Arbitration Centre) Rules 2016, Article 39 of the SCC (Stockholm Chamber of Commerce) Rules 2023, Article 43 of the HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre) Rules 2018, and Article 22 of the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Rules 2021. Dr. Marker highlighted the key differences between these commercial arbitration rules and those of ICSID. Notably, commercial arbitration rules cover both claims and defenses and grant the tribunal discretion in deciding whether to allow a summary procedure.
Dr. Marker also discussed the practical implications of summary dismissal in arbitration proceedings. While it can streamline the process, he noted that it often requires additional efforts due to the necessity of separate submissions, hearings, and decisions for partial summary dismissals.
The session provided valuable insights into the evolving practice of summary dismissal in international arbitration, underscoring its potential to enhance the efficiency of arbitration proceedings while also acknowledging the complexities it generates or causes.
會議現場 The conference
互動討論 Discussion and interaction
Dr. Vera Korzun Discusses Bifurcation in Foreign Investor Protection at Taipei Conference
In an enlightening session of the Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation, Dr. Vera Korzun, an Associate Professor at the University of Akron, delivered a compelling presentation on “Bifurcating Foreign Investor Protection.” Her speech addressed the current challenges and potential reforms in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system.
Dr. Korzun highlighted the ongoing crisis in ISDS, characterized by issues such as lack of transparency, inconsistent award decisions, and questions surrounding the qualifications of arbitrators. She emphasized the importance of identifying the primary users of International Investment Law and Dispute Settlement as a precursor to designing effective mechanisms catered to their needs.
A significant concern Dr. Korzun raised was the difficulty in ascertaining the nationality of claimants in investment disputes, often due to inconsistencies between the initial investors and subsequent claimants. This discrepancy raises questions about who should be considered a 'real investor' and thus be entitled to protection under investment treaties.
Dr. Korzun posited that if the intention is to protect only genuine investors, it becomes necessary to differentiate between initial investors and claimants. However, if the goal is broader, covering a range of investors, then penalizing claimants for treaty shopping – the practice of strategically using treaties to gain advantages in dispute resolution – should be reconsidered.
Her presentation shed light on the complexities of international investment law and the need for nuanced approaches to reforming investor protection and dispute resolution mechanisms.
Exploring Online Dispute Resolution and Crypto Dispute Resolution at Taipei Conference
The fifth session of the Taipei International Conference on Arbitration and Mediation featured two distinguished speakers who explore the realms of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and Crypto Dispute Resolution.
Professor David Allen Larson from Mitchell Hamline University shared insights into ODR, drawing from his New York experience. He highlighted how ODR addresses challenges that prevent parties from appearing in court, such as fear, time constraints, and transportation issues. Professor Larson discussed the Online Credit Card Debt Collection Pilot Project under the New York State Unified Court System, which has helped reduce default judgment rates and increased access to justice. The project's online system operates in two stages: an initial expert system providing process understanding and financial assistance, followed by structured negotiation with a mediation option. He emphasized that this approach not only improves access to legal services but also ensures better protection for debtors. Additionally, Professor Larson touched upon the importance of ODR accessibility for persons with disabilities, especially in the context of the digital divide exacerbated by COVID-19. He referenced the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), emphasizing its provisions on technology access (Article 9) and justice access (Article 13).
Professor Tamar Meshel from the University of Alberta Canada presented on “Crypto Dispute Resolution.” She outlined the challenges unique to cryptocurrency, including issues related to identity, jurisdiction, evidence discovery, vulnerability to hackers, and regulatory gaps. These factors contribute to the complexity of crypto-related disputes. Professor Meshel explained that the preferred mechanisms for resolving such disputes include mediation, arbitration, litigation, or platform-specific mechanisms. She highlighted three types of arbitration in the crypto context: traditional arbitration, online crypto-arbitration, and arbitration using specialized internal mechanisms. Most attendees favor institutional arbitration, often choosing the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and its rules.
Compared to litigation, platforms opting for arbitration tend to require prior formal or informal dispute resolution more frequently. Recent developments in Crypto-Arbitration, as pointed out by Professor Meshel, include challenges in enforcing arbitration awards in domestic courts, the implementation of the U.K.'s Digital Dispute Resolution Rules mandating tribunal decisions within 30 days, and the emergence of new on-chain arbitration mechanisms.
These presentations provided valuable perspectives on the evolving landscape of dispute resolution in the digital age, highlighting the innovative approaches being developed in ODR and crypto dispute resolution.
如您不希望收到本報信息，請點選取消訂閱仲裁報。
If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please click HERE.