孔繁琦律師
(中華民國仲裁協會理事、仲裁人、工程仲裁委員會主任委員)

我國政府近年來大力推動離岸風電，經濟部能源局已採遴選與競價機制，擇定開發商負責各潛力場址風場之開發，期於民國114年前完成併聯，並接續進行區塊開發。而為因應離岸風電產業國產化要求，外國開發商則需將一定規模的工程交由我國廠商承作。

外國開發商與本國廠商簽訂的各項工程契約，大多約定採仲裁、「調解—仲裁」或「爭議裁決/審議委員會(DB)—仲裁」等方式處理爭議。而仲裁地與仲裁機構，則多數約定在新加坡國際仲裁中心仲裁，部分約定在開發商母國仲裁機構或國際商會仲裁院仲裁，甚少約定在我國仲裁機構仲裁者。

由於離岸風電各項工作，包括水下基礎、海纜、塔架與風機等，其製造成本鉅、精度要求高，加上施工場址又位於氣候與海象不穩定的臺灣海峽，施工瑕疵、工作物毀損、施工船到場延誤與滯船等風險均高，極易產生金額較大之工程款計價、扣罰與逾期罰款爭議。如約定在外國仲裁，對於我國廠商影響甚鉅。仲裁地如何選擇，實有近一步探討必要。
 
仲裁地選擇考量因素
契約當事人選擇仲裁地之考量因素，主要為仲裁進行是否方便、仲裁費用（包括仲裁人、仲裁機構及代理人費用）是否合理、仲裁地國是否支持仲裁、其法律制度是否適合處理爭議標的、是否加入紐約公約，其仲裁判斷是否易於他國強制執行等。更深層而論，仲裁地選擇則具有戰略意義，當事人可藉由選擇較昂貴仲裁場所的方式，增加對方求償成本，以達有效排除對方求償的目的。
 
離岸風電外國開發商選擇仲裁地之實際考量
以選擇在臺灣與新加坡仲裁相比較，雖然在臺灣進行仲裁，不論程序進行便利性、仲裁與代理人費用合理性、或是仲裁迅速性，均較新加坡為優，然外國開發商基於對於仲裁機構的信賴、對於依循UNCITRAL模範法規範進行仲裁的熟悉、以及以英文為仲裁程序語言的要求，多仍堅持以新加坡為仲裁地。而因外國開發商常在新加坡仲裁，對於當地仲裁人與代理律師之瞭解與信賴、以及代理律師對於外國開發商之忠誠，均較我國廠商處於優勢地位，外國開發商基於獲得有利仲裁結果的戰略考量，選擇新加坡為仲裁地，亦可理解。

此外，離岸風電採計畫性融資，我國銀行承貸意願低，多數由外國銀行承貸。為控管風險，避免爭議處理結果的不確定，外國銀行亦不願輕易改變必須在新加坡或開發商母國仲裁之慣習核貸條件，而此亦為外國開發商堅持選擇外國仲裁地的理由。

相對而言，我國廠商往往較重視契約價格與承作能量，甚少將仲裁地作為議約重點。而有求償意識之廠商，在無議約優勢及外國開發商的堅持下，除金額較小的零星契約外，幾無說服外國開發商同意於臺灣仲裁的案例，最多僅能爭取以我國法為準據法，以為因應。

選擇以臺灣為仲裁地的利點與必要性
基於以下理由，針對臺灣離岸風電工程及運維作業所生爭議，選擇以臺灣為仲裁地實有其必要性；對於離岸風電關聯產業與臺灣仲裁發展之整體面向而言，亦屬有利：

一、降低我國廠商求償門檻，爭取公平處理爭議的機會
因我國廠商多為承包商，始終處於向外國開發商請求工程款的請求方地位；若我國廠商有施工瑕疵或逾期責任，外國開發商亦可直接以扣留工程款或沒收銀行履約保證金保証書之方式因應，最終仍須由我國廠商向外國開發商提出請求。

然而，如在外國仲裁，其仲裁費用遠高於在臺灣仲裁(以爭議標的新台幣10億元為例，在臺灣仲裁，應繳納仲裁費總計約510餘萬元，但在新加坡國際仲裁中心仲裁，仲裁庭與仲裁機構之費用，平均為1,430餘萬元，最高達1,910餘萬元；若在國際商會仲裁院仲裁，費用則平均為1,510餘萬元，最高更達2,330餘萬元)，委任代理律師之費用亦遠高於臺灣。約定在外國仲裁，無疑是設下了我國廠商的求償門檻，求償金額若非高於新台幣4、5千萬，幾無跨海提出仲裁的實益。再加上約定以仲裁地國法為準據法，並以英文仲裁，我國廠商更將陷於仲裁武器不平等的困境，可能蒙受鉅額虧損甚至倒閉。將仲裁地約定在臺灣，降低我國廠商求償門檻，爭取公平處理爭議之機會，對於我國廠商實有必要。

二、迅速解決爭議，避免處理時間過長，增加我國廠商財務負擔
選擇在臺灣仲裁，仲裁庭必須於組成後6個月內做出仲裁判斷，必要時僅得依職權延長3個月。此仲裁迅速的特性，為臺灣仲裁一向引以為傲的特色。

相較於臺灣仲裁的迅速，在新加坡國際仲裁中心仲裁的時間，依其公開資料(僅至2016年)平均為13.8個月，近年來因該機構受理仲裁案件數量增加，仲裁人與代理律師繁忙，平均仲裁時間應更為延長；而依香港國際仲裁中心網站公布資料，該機構仲裁時間平均為15.8個月；依國際商會公開資訊，其仲裁院處理仲裁案件的時間平均更高達26個月。選擇在臺灣仲裁，顯然較外國仲裁更能迅速解決爭議，減輕我國廠商無法即時取得爭議款項的財務負擔。

三、避免我國廠商因準據法適用衝突所面臨之風險
以外國為仲裁地，通常均搭配仲裁地國法為準據法，而我國廠商於辦理分包時，因對於外國法律不瞭解，且實際施工場域又在臺灣，通常於分包契約仍約定以我國法為準據法，並無能力透過約定採相同外國準據法的方式，將法律適用不一致的風險移轉分包商，只能自行承擔此風險。

再者，離岸風電工程於我國施作，尚須遵守我國法令及標準，約定以仲裁地國法為準據法，亦會面臨爭議處理結果與我國行政法令衝突的問題，此風險亦將由我國廠商承擔。

因此，將仲裁地約定於臺灣，並約定以我國法為準據法，可避免我國廠商因準據法適用衝突所面臨的風險。而維持整個離岸風電計畫均適用我國法律之一致性，亦可避免法令衝突爭議，增加計畫穩定性。

四、落實產業國產化的政策目標，扶植跨國合約管理及爭議處理專業
政府推動離岸風電產業國產化，除促成接單訂約外，考量外國開發商具有採購與議約優勢，更應保護我國廠商能夠簽訂公平合理的契約，無阻礙地取得合理利潤，如此我國廠商才有能力繼續參與後續運維、機組汰換更新、區塊開發、甚至進一步參與海外離岸風電工程。將仲裁地約定在臺灣，可以確保我國廠商獲得公平處理爭議之機會，產業國產化政策目標方能有效實現。

此外，仲裁地約定在臺灣尚可帶動臺灣跨國合約管理、爭議諮詢與處理等相關服務業的發展，亦可提升臺灣仲裁機構處理跨國工程爭議的能力與聲譽，整體效益更大。

其實，外國開發商選擇在臺灣仲裁，仍有爭議迅速解決、費用合理、詢問會及調查證據較為方便、在臺灣強制執行並無障礙的優點。且我國司法院近年來大力推動ADR，法院原則上均尊重仲裁判斷，撤仲比例低，屬對於仲裁友善的國家，外國開發商實無排除在臺灣仲裁的理由。

如何促進當事人選擇臺灣為仲裁地
受制外國開發商具有議約優勢的現實，縱使我國廠商全面提升爭議處理意識，仍難有效夠說服開發商同意在臺灣仲裁。就此，我國廠商除可透過約定以我國法為準據法、在臺灣召開詢問會、允許以中英文雙語進行仲裁等變通方式，降低武器不平等的風險外，仍有賴政府積極採取下列作為，促使當事人選擇在臺灣仲裁：

由於離岸風電施工場址位於我國境內，且係由我國廠商先行墊款施作，開發商投入建設成本最終又是透過全民繳納之電費而回收，政府要求外國開發商於臺灣處理爭議，而非交由無關之外國機構處理，並非不合理。期待經濟部正視此問題，以積極態度協助我國廠商，設法將仲裁地移回臺灣，落實產業在地化，維護我國廠商應有權益。

Selection of Arbitral Seat for Taiwan's Offshore Wind Power Project's Operation and Maintenance Disputes

Frank Kung
(CAA Director, Arbitrator, Chair of CAA Construction Committee)
 

Offshore wind power has been one of the most important governmental projects in recent years. As part of the wind power development scheme, Taiwan's government imposes certain local content requirements on foreign developers winning the bid under which a percentage of construction works must be completed by local partners. Most of the contracts between foreign developers and local companies have chosen arbitration, "mediation-arbitration" or "dispute adjudication/review (DB) - arbitration" as their dispute resolution mechanism.

However, when it comes to the choice of the seat of arbitration and arbitral institutional, most parties predominately prefer Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), while others agree to arbitrate at the developer's home country or at the International Court of Arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce. The parties seldom select arbitral institutions in Taiwan.

As the wind power project entails significant risks, high financial value disputes are likely to arise and may impose even heavier burden on local companies if arbitration is seated in a foreign country. Accordingly, this article explores the choice of arbitral seat for the wind power project.

Considerations of choosing a seat of arbitration
The parties' choice of arbitral seat is usually based on convenience, costs of arbitration (including the fees of arbitrators, arbitration institution and party representatives), the proposed seat's arbitration-friendliness and the suitability of its legal system to deal with the subject matter of the dispute, as well as its accession to the New York Convention and the enforceability of the arbitral awards. Additionally, some parties might act opportunistically by choosing a seat of arbitration that is prohibitively expensive to dissuade the other party from making a claim.

Foreign Developers' Practical Considerations regarding Seat of Arbitration
Although Taiwan is a better choice than Singapore in terms of convenience and swiftness of arbitral proceedings as well as reasonableness of fees for arbitration and representation, however most foreign developers still insist on using Singapore because of their trust in UNCITRAL Model Law and the need to conduct arbitration in English. As a result, foreign developers who are more familiar with Singapore's legal framework and legal community may have an advantage over Taiwanese parties when the arbitration is seated in Singapore.

Foreign developers also favor Singapore as the seat of arbitration because of financing considerations. When assessing whether to finance the project, international banks usually demand the developers to choose a seat of arbitration familiar to them, so that they can better assess the risk of non-recovery when the project does not go well.

On the contrary, Taiwanese companies tend to place more emphasis on contract price and capacity to perform the contract, often without considering the seat of arbitration. Others who are aware of the importance of the seat have been generally unsuccessful in persuading their foreign partners to agree to arbitrate in Taiwan, except in some rare cases involving relatively small contract price.

Advantages and Necessity of Choosing Taiwan as the Seat of Arbitration
For the following reasons, it is necessary to choose Taiwan as the seat of arbitration for disputes involving wind power project:

1. lower threshold for claims by Taiwanese companies and fair(er) opportunity in dispute resolution
Since Taiwanese companies currently participate in the wind power project as contractors and subcontractors, foreign developers may simply withheld payments to force Taiwanese companies to perform the contract. If Taiwanese companies may only seek remedies through a foreign-seated arbitration, the prohibitively high costs and language barriers will effectively and significantly put Taiwanese parties at an disadvantageous position.

It is thus necessary to stipulate Taiwan as the seat of arbitration, in pursuit of lower threshold of claims and fair opportunity to present the case.

2. Swift resolution of disputes
Arbitrations seated in Taiwan are required by law to be concluded with a final award within six months after the tribunal's constitution. The tribunal only has one opportunity to extend this time limit for another three months. This legislative approach ensures the renowned status of Taiwan-seated arbitrations as a speedy dispute resolution mechanism.

Compared to the speed of Taiwan arbitrations, the average time for arbitration at the SIAC is 13.8 months according to publicly available information (as of 2016 only), which has been lengthened in recent years due to increased number of arbitration cases handled by the institution and the busy schedule of arbitrators and lawyers. Similarly, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) has an average arbitration time of 15.8 months. The ICC arbitration takes even longer,  with a reported average of 26 months. It is thus more efficient to arbitrate in Taiwan than in other seats.

3. Avoiding Conflicts between Applicable laws
In the case of subcontracting, because of the lack of understanding of foreign laws and the fact that the actual construction site is in Taiwan, the contractors usually agree to use the laws of Taiwan as the governing law, but cannot transfer the risk of inconsistent application of laws to the subcontractor by agreeing to use the same foreign governing law.

Furthermore, offshore wind power projects in Taiwan must comply with Taiwan's laws and standards. If the law of the seat is chosen as the governing law of the contract, conflict between Taiwan's laws and the governing law of the contract is likely to rise.

4. Promoting domestic industry and professional community in cross-border contract management and dispute resolution
By promoting Taiwan as the seat of arbitration, the government can ensure that Taiwanese companies will be given a fair opportunity to present their case more effectively. This is in line with the policy objective of fostering domestic industry. In addition, this approach will also help the development of Taiwan's transnational contract management and dispute resolution services, thereby enhancing the capacity and reputation of Taiwan's arbitral institutions. The overall benefit is significant.

For foreign developers, Taiwan-seated arbitration also offers the advantages of speedy dispute resolution, reasonable costs, convenient hearings and evidence-taking. Taiwan is an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction with a supportive judiciary in terms of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, as well as active promotion of ADR in recent years.

How to Persuade the Parties to Choose Taiwan as the Seat of Arbitration
As foreign developers often have greater bargaining power, it is difficult to convince them to agree to arbitrate in Taiwan. In this regard, Taiwanese companies can at least try to choose Taiwanese law as the governing law of the contract and to choose Taiwan as the venue of arbitration. However, governmental support remains indispensable in the following areas. 

(1) The government should assist Taiwanese companies and foreign developers in formulating fair and reasonable dispute settlement clauses, as well as encourage Taiwanese financial institutions to act as joint lenders to reduce the difficulties arising from foreign financial institutions' insistence on foreign-seated arbitrations.

(2) The Bureau of Energy, Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) should directly require Taiwan-seated arbitration as a condition for winning the bid of participating in the wind power project.