第三届专家调解员培训项目举行

第三届专家调解员培训项目举行

第三届专家调解员培训项目举行

赫曼·诺尔特博士

2021年3月27日(星期六),瑞中法协举行了第三届专家调解员培训项目。继第十五届全球论坛-欧盟与中国投资现状全球论坛之后的周六,本次培训的重点是投资争端的解决。瑞中法协向伦敦36集团的御用律师Philip Hackett表示感谢。Philip为本次培训项目编写了一份全面的案例研究,双方当事人(一方为投资者,一方为东道国)及其律师、以及调解人进行模拟调解。该案例的投资者是中国人,投资项目与非洲一个虚构国家的基础设施项目有关。中国私人投资者与非洲联邦政府就供水系统的交付和安装签订了合同。该争议焦点为在非洲国家法律框架下该合同的法律效力。这既导致了投资者与当地政府的商业争端,也导致了投资者母国与东道国双边投资条约下的投资争端。

双方并未选择会造成高成本和高风险的争端解决方式,而是试图通过调解的方式解决争端。为此,他们找到来自尼日利亚拉各斯的经验丰富的调解员 Agada Elachi博士和来自中国的韩正律师两位调解员,以及委托了大成资深合伙人周争平先生、墨西哥的. Ana Jaimes女士和美国的Peter Pettibon先生。

调解过程如下:首先调解员与双方一同举行一场会谈,对案件、调解行为和当事人的立场进行初步讨论,双方先前就争端以书面形式交换了立场。随后,模拟调解开始,双方当事人解释他们的立场,紧接着,调解员私下分别会见双方,探讨双方对争议解决的共识点。之后,调解员与双方再次举行会谈,会谈后双方可以达成大致解决办法。调解员和双方也会商定双方调解协议的编写以及相应时间表。一旦双方就协议条款达成一致,该协议应当提交调解员。根据中国已经加入的新加坡调解公约,调解协议将可执行。

此调解过程向参与者展示了普通法管辖区首选的争端促进型方法(Facilitative Approach)与大陆法系国家普遍采用的更具评估性方法(Evaluative Approach)之间的区别。在本届专家调解员培训项目的最后一部分,专家评论员就模拟调解发表了意见。日本仲裁员协会主席Yoshihiro Takatori先生非常清楚地解释了这一差异。辅助性调解是指调解员尽可能避免涉及案情的实质性问题,而非采用评估式的方法向当事人表明对抗性程序的风险。Agada Elachi博士偏向于使用辅助性方法,而韩正先生则以评估性方法向各方提供咨询、说明影响案件的一些问题。中国政法大学教授覃华平教授也做了总结,并期待活动的长期开展。

在这方面,Pettibone先生非常清楚地解释了Arb/Med程序的优点,即当事方从仲裁开始,表明各自立场是否有强有力支撑,使当事方更容易接受调解。

培训将继续进行,并举办进一步的活动。下一次培训主题很可能与纯粹的投资者与国家争端有关。这些培训课程的目的是和经验丰富的从业人员讨论有关调解程序的问题,而不是对案件作实质性的判断裁决。

 

3rd SCLA Mediation Expert Training Program Held on Last Saturday

 Hermann Knott

On Saturday, March 27, 2021, the SCLA held its 3rd Mediation Training Program. Following the 15th Global Forum on Investment conditions between EU and China the training event was focused on investment disputes. SCLA is very grateful to Philip Hackett, QC, from the 36 Group in London for having prepared a comprehensive case study which was the basis of a mock mediation conducted between the parties‘ advocates and two mediators, one from the investor‘s state one from the host state. The investment originated from China, the project related to an infrastructure project in an imaginary country in Africa. The Chinese private investor had entered into a contract with the government of a Federal State of the African country regarding the delivery and installation of a water supply system. A dispute arose with regard to the legality of the contract under the laws oft he African country. This resulted in both a commercial dispute with the local government and an investor dispute with the Federal State under the assumed Bilateral Investment Treaty between that country and China.

Instead of resolving both disputes separately causing high costs and the risk of conflicting results the Parties attempted to resolve the disputes by way of mediation. For this purpose Dr. Agada Elachi, an experienced mediator from Lagos, Nigeria, and Mr. Max Han, a seasoned Chinese lawyer, were the two mediators. There were also renowned lawyers serving as advocates oft he parties, Mr. David Zhou, a senior partner from Dentons, Mrs. Ana Jaimes, from Mexico, and Mr. Peter Pettibone from the United States.

The mediation was structured in such way that first the mediators met with both parties to have a preliminary discussion of the case, the conduct oft he mediation and the position of the parties. The parties had previously exchanged their positions regarding the disputes in writing. The mock mediation then opened with both parties explaining their positions. Then the mediators met privately with each side separately to explore common ground for a settlement. After reconvening in plenary the broad terms of a settlement could be agreed between the parties. The mediators and the parties then agreed a timetable for the preparation and discussion ofthe settlement agreement between the parties. Once the parties had agreed on the terms ofthe agreement itf should be presented to the mediators. It was assumed that a mediation agreement would be enforceable under the Singapore Mediation Convention to which China is already a party.

The mediation process showed to the participants the difference between a facilitative approach, as preferred by common law jurisdictions, and a more evaluative approach, as prevalent in civil law countreies. In the last part ofthe session in which expert commentators contributed their remarks to the mock mediation.Mr. Yoshihiro Takatori, a leading expert on mediation and arbitration from Japan, explained the difference in very clear terms. Facilitative mediation means that the mediator refrains to the largest extent possible from addressing any aspect ofthe mnerits ofthe case, whereas using an evaluative style the mediator may address substantive aspects to show the parties the risks of adversial procedures. Dr. Agada Elachi used a more facilitative style, whereas Mr. Max Hans acted in a more evaluative way by advising the parties also about apsects affecting the  merits of the case.

In this regard Mr. Pettibone explained very wellthe advantages of Arb/Med procedures, wehere the parties start with an arbitration which shows the strengths and weaknesses of the respective positions and makes the parties more amenable to accept mediation.

 It was agreed that the training shall continue  with further events. The next event will most likely relate to a pure investor-state dispute. The purpose of these training sessions is to discuss and experience from seasoned practitioners the procedure of medidation, not finding the reight result on the merits.


原文始发于微信公众号(瑞中法协):第三届专家调解员培训项目举行

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on pinterest
Pinterest

发表评论

您的电子邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注