A newly announced agreement between Hong Kong and mainland China is set to formalize the reciprocal enforcement of interim measures supporting arbitration carried out in the two markets. Lawyers say this is a game-changer cross-border disputes spanning the two regions, and will help internationalise the mainland’s dispute resolution system.
The Supreme People's Court and the Department of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) recently signed the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. As the first document on interim measures in aid of arbitral proceedings signed by mainland China and other jurisdictions, it aims to treat Hong Kong arbitral proceedings and mainland arbitral proceedings similarly in terms of interim measures in arbitration.
Under the arrangement, the parties to arbitral proceedings seated in Hong Kong may apply to mainland courts for interim measures; likewise, parties to arbitral proceedings seated in the mainland may apply to HKSAR courts for injunctions and other interim measures. After the implementation of the arrangement, the courts in the mainland and Hong Kong will be able to ensure the smooth enforcement of arbitral awards through preventive remedies, so as to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the parties more effectively.
"From the perspective of Hong Kong, this is an advantage brought to Hong Kong under the principle of 'one country, two systems', and it further consolidates Hong Kong's position as an international legal and dispute resolution center in the Asia-Pacific region," says Heidi Chui, a partner at Stevenson, Wong & Co.
"The arrangement is a game changer in terms of interim measures in arbitration – it is conducive to the further interaction and integration between Hong Kong and the mainland legal community, and is also conducive to the further internationalization of the mainland's commercial arbitration practice," adds Cui Qiang, a partner at Commerce & Finance Law Offices.
Sun Wei, a partner at Zhong Lun Law Firm, sees the arrangement as one of the important steps in the internationalisation of arbitration in China. “The Supreme People's Court has made great progress in international judicial assistance in recent years: firstly, it has re-established the criteria for determining whether a court has the jurisdiction over arbitrations; secondly, it has approved ad hoc arbitrations in specific areas (Shanghai Free Trade Zone) since 2017; and thirdly, it established two international commercial courts in 2018 to advocate 'one-stop' dispute resolution solution," says Sun.
"Under this general trend, the signing of the arrangement marks a new big step forward for China. Next, China may sign arrangements for interim measures in arbitration with more different jurisdictions, and these steps will gradually push forward the revision of China's arbitration law," Sun adds.
VITAL STEP
In terms of arbitral procedure law, the Arbitration Ordinance of Hong Kong adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, which is widely used internationally. According to the Arbitration Ordinance, parties to arbitral proceedings in any place may apply to the courts of Hong Kong for interim measures, including those in the mainland.
"However, parties to arbitral proceedings seated outside the mainland in general cannot apply to courts in the mainland for interim measures, including arbitral proceedings in Hong Kong. That is to say, before the signing of the Arrangement, it is very difficult for Hong Kong arbitration institutions and parties to arbitral proceedings seated in Hong Kong to apply to courts of the Mainland for interim measures, which was a headache for parties involved in arbitral proceedings seated in Hong Kong," notes Chui.
Before the signing of the arrangement, in case of companies that are registered in Hong Kong but with actual operations and major assets located in the mainland, it was very difficult for Hong Kong arbitration institutions and parties concerned to apply to courts in the mainland for interim measures.
"In this case, before a party concerned files a request for arbitration or even during an arbitration proceeding in Hong Kong, the other party has dissipated or transferred its assets on the mainland; thus the party may end up with nothing but a mere sheet of document – an arbitral award – even if they win the arbitration, while the other party's property on the mainland cannot be effectively enforced," Chui adds.
"Because of lacking the legal basis, courts on the mainland usually refuse to handle applications for interim measures in arbitration filed by parties or institutions located outside the Mainland China, except for maritime cases," Cui points out.
The signing of the arrangement is a vital step. It has opened a new chapter for the Mainland and Hong Kong in terms of interim measures in aid of arbitral proceedings, and previous problems concerning interim measures are expected to be solved through it.
Sun echoes the opinions of Chui and Cui, and he further points out that behavioural preservation is a rather complex issue compared with property preservation and evidence preservation. “Hong Kong has been very mature in this respect, but the implementation of behavioural preservation on the mainland is limited to the areas of letter of credit payment and letter of guarantee payment. If, after the Arrangement comes into effect, the mainland still does not do much in the field of behavioral preservation, which is not equal to the support given by the courts of Hong Kong, the significance of the implementation of the arrangement will inevitably be impaired,” says Sun.
He also notes that the arrangement does not include the ad hoc arbitration procedure in Hong Kong into the scope of adjustment, and the mainland judicial practice has always been conservative about the ad hoc arbitration system.
“If we have a closer look at Paragraph 3 of Article 9 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Providing Judicial Protection for the Construction of Pilot Free Trade Zones, we will see that the judicial practice on the mainland currently only allows the parties concerned to conduct ad hoc arbitration within the specified scope,” says Sun.
“It stipulates that ‘the arbitration agreement may be deemed valid if the enterprises registered in the pilot free trade zones agree with each other that the disputes will be resolved through arbitrations conducted at specific locations on the mainland, in accordance with the specific arbitration rules, and by specific persons,’” he adds.
In Sun's opinion, although the provision does not explicitly refer to "arbitration proceedings conducted by specific persons at specific locations and in accordance with specific arbitration rules" as ad hoc arbitrations, the legal community generally believes that through the aforesaid stipulation, the Supreme Court has approved enterprises registered in free trade zones to conduct ad hoc arbitrations on the mainland.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
The arrangement has greatly enhanced the attractiveness of Hong Kong as an international dispute resolution center for legal practitioners in Hong Kong and entities that choose Hong Kong as the place of arbitration, and also provides more protection for the enforcement of Hong Kong arbitral awards on the mainland. Chui from Stevenson, Wong & Co. says that that "(the signing of the Arrangement) is undoubtedly great news for the Hong Kong arbitration community and parties that are guarding against 'deadbeats.’"
"But it should be noted that the Arrangement has not yet entered into force. How to effectively implement the Arrangement after its entry into force and whether it can achieve its purpose still need to be further tested by practice and time," Cui from Commerce & Finance points out.
"Since the arrangement is the first document signed by the mainland and Hong Kong on interim measures in arbitration, in the early stage of its implementation, there might be a lot of arbitration related matters need to be discussed and communicated between the mainland and Hong Kong. All in all, the mainland and Hong Kong have quite different judicial requirements concerning the interim measures in arbitration. But I believe that through the joint efforts of the courts of the two places, the arrangement will create a great space for the development of arbitration in both the mainland and Hong Kong," said Chui.
Talking about bringing more business for lawyers, the signing of the arrangement provides the Mainland lawyers with more access to international arbitration business. Sun from Zhong Lun points out that "the mainland lawyers can help Hong Kong lawyers to better complete the matters related to interim measures in arbitration on the mainland; meanwhile, the mainland lawyers can have more opportunities to have more exposure to overseas business, which will greatly help the them to improve their international dispute resolution skills and promote the cooperation of lawyers across jurisdictions."
According to data released by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), the number of parties concerned from mainland China ranked second in the statistics of the nationality of the parties who chose the HKIAC in 2015 and 2016.
Hong Kong is becoming one of the most popular seats for arbitrations in the Asia-Pacific region, not only because of its rich experience in handling international arbitration cases, but also its wealth of arbitrators and excellent infrastructures.
According to Chui, the advantages and competitiveness of Hong Kong as an arbitration place are mainly manifested in five aspects: first, Hong Kong has an internationally recognized independent and impartial judicial system; secondly, according to the principle of the Basic Law, Hong Kong still retains the common law system, which means that Hong Kong's common law experience can provide great convenience for parties concerned in international arbitration cases that may involve multiple jurisdictions; thirdly, practicing lawyers from different jurisdictions can provide Hong Kong with diverse legal support thus making Hong Kong a strong and open legal environment; fourthly, Hong Kong lawyers are well versed in Eastern and Western cultures and languages; and fifthly and finally, Hong Kong has a proper system to ensure that parties to arbitral proceedings in Hong Kong can recover assets and debts from many countries or regions around the world.
Chui stresses that the fifth point above is particularly important: if arbitral awards cannot be recognized and enforced in the courts of countries or regions outside Hong Kong, winning arbitral proceedings would be meaningless. In the absence of reciprocal agreements, it could be difficult to enforce rulings rendered by a court of one jurisdiction in another jurisdiction. However, arbitral awards made in Hong Kong can be recognized and enforced in the courts of 159 jurisdictions under the New York Convention.
At present, Hong Kong ranks third in the world's most popular arbitration seats; it is closely related to the continuous investment of the Hong Kong government in the innovation of dispute resolution methods in recent years. It is worth noting that with support of the Hong Kong government, eBRAM, an online dispute resolution and trading platform, has been established by a not-for-profit organization to provide safe and efficient online dispute resolution services for businesses to solve cross-border commercial disputes.
"The Hong Kong government will provide nearly 150 million HK dollars for the development and initial operation of the platform, and hopes to promote the development of legal technology in Hong Kong through this platform. Therefore, we could see that simplifying the arbitration procedure and improving the efficiency of arbitration is the new direction of the future development of arbitration, and 'legal technology + arbitration' will also be a new trend in the future," Chui says.
FURTHER INTEGRATION WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
China acceded to the New York Convention in 1987, and signed the Hague Choice of Court Convention in 2017. The signing of the Arrangement has actually brought China closer to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Sun from Zhong Lun pointed out that these are important indicators for the improvement of the legal environment in China; and meanwhile, it facilitates the integration of China's arbitration rules with international standards, thereby better protecting the vital interests of foreign investors and Chinese companies in overseas investment.
"Just a few months before the signing of the Arrangement, the Supreme People's Court and the Department of Justice of Hong Kong also signed the Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Under the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (which becomes effective on February 1, 2000), the civil and commercial judgments and arbitral awards between the Mainland and Hong Kong have been fully covered," said Chui.
With the approaching of August 1, 2019, the date of signing the Singapore Mediation Convention, there has been a heated debate in the Mainland with regard to "whether China should become the first members signing the Convention."
Singapore has always been a rival of Hong Kong in terms of building an Asia-Pacific dispute resolution center. Some believe that if the Mainland signs the Singapore Mediation Convention, it would in fact endorse Singapore and might have an adverse impact on Hong Kong's construction of the Asia-Pacific Dispute Resolution Center. "As a matter of fact, whether or not the Mainland signs the Convention will directly determine whether Hong Kong can fully enjoy the dividends brought by the Convention," Sun from Zhong Lun uttered the key point.
"Generally speaking, the direction and progress of the development of international judicial assistance largely depend on the consensus among all countries involved with regard to international trade, economic globalization, trade liberalization, commercial dispute settlement, legal market access and protection. In addition, historical experience also tells us that it may take a long time for international judicial assistance to achieve milestone development," Cui from Commerce & Finance pointed out.
"China is playing an increasingly important role in international trade and is gradually aligning itself with international standards in the judicial field. China's arbitration institutions are also actively participating in the formulation and discussion of international practices and rules. In this context, on the one hand, Chinese dispute resolution lawyers have more and more opportunities to participate in international legal affairs; on the other hand, they are facing more and more challenges in terms of intellectual aspects, languages, legal cultures and specialization," Cui added.
ISSUES TO BE CLARIFIED
With regard to the jurisdiction of the application for interim measures in arbitral proceedings in Hong Kong, Sun from Zhong Lun suggested that there are two issues to be clarified: firstly, the parties and lawyers involved in arbitral proceedings in Hong Kong are not familiar with the judicial arrangements in the Mainland regarding the centralized jurisdiction of foreign-related cases, thus calling on the Supreme People's Court to compile a list of domestic and foreign-related cases jurisdiction courts and their jurisdictions as soon as possible to facilitate the implementation of the Arrangement; and secondly, the connection between the Arrangement and the preservation-related function of the international commercial courts of the Supreme People's Court still needs to be clarified.
The Supreme People's Court established two international commercial courts last year. According to the relevant judicial interpretations and supporting documents, the international commercial courts of the Supreme People's Court have jurisdiction over the application for interim measures in international commercial arbitral proceedings filed by the parties concerned. The General Office of the Supreme People's Court has also confirmed the list of the first batch of international commercial arbitration and mediation agencies.
Taking the HKIAC as an example, it is currently not included in the list of the first batch of international commercial arbitration and mediation agencies. If, in the future, it becomes one of the agencies, parties to the arbitral proceedings under its administration may apply to the international commercial courts of the Supreme People's Court for interim measures or according to the Arrangement, apply to the courts of the Mainland for interim measures. "The Supreme People's Court should clarify the specific jurisdictional courts in this case, so as to avoid confusion in the application of the law," Sun pointed out.
If it is confirmed in the future that "the international commercial courts of the Supreme People's Court and the corresponding intermediate courts both have jurisdiction, and the parties may choose the jurisdictional court themselves." Then from the perspective of the parties to arbitral proceedings, how to distinguish which is a better choice?
Sun said, "We recommend to apply directly to the intermediate courts: on the one hand, the international commercial courts handle cases across the whole country and thus are under much pressure, but its staffing is rather tight; on the other hand, the preservation rulings made by the international commercial courts can be designated to the people's courts at lower levels for enforcement. Given this provision and taking into account the strict time requirements for arbitration preservation, it would be more advantageous for the parties to apply for preservation directly to the intermediate court with jurisdiction because they could obtain decisions on preservation more quickly."
Sun also pointed out that there is no clear stipulation in the Arrangement on whether the Arrangement has retroactivity after its entry into force. But in his opinion, the Arrangement aims to support arbitration work in the Mainland and Hong Kong and to facilitate the enforcement of arbitral awards in both areas. Therefore, there is no need to impose too many restrictions on the retroactivity of the Arrangement.
着眼双赢
内地与香港商签的第七项司法协助安排，正式确认了内地与香港两地法院达成就仲裁程序相互协助保全安排的决定。律师们表示，更紧密顺畅的跨法域合作将改变“游戏规则”，也必然提升内地争议解决机制的国际化程度。
最高院和香港律政司近期签署了《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院就仲裁程序相互协助保全安排》（以下简称《安排》）。作为内地与其他法域签署的第一份有关仲裁保全协助的文件，《安排》在保全方面将香港仲裁程序与内地仲裁程序类似对待，允许香港仲裁程序的当事人向内地法院申请保全；同时，内地仲裁程序的当事人也可向香港特区法院申请强制令以及其他临时措施。
《安排》实施后，两地法院将可通过预防性救济措施来保证仲裁裁决的顺利执行，以更加有效地维护当事人的合法权益。
“从香港的角度看，这是‘一国两制’下为香港带来的优势，并进一步巩固香港作为亚太地区国际法律和争议解决中心的地位。” 史蒂文生黄律师事务所合伙人徐凯怡律师首先谈到。
“《安排》在仲裁保全方面具有颠覆性，既有利于香港和内地法律共同体的进一步互动与融合、也有利于内地在商事仲裁实践方面进一步国际化。” 通商律师事务所合伙人崔强律师指出。
中伦律师事务所合伙人孙巍律师认为，“《安排》的签署是中国仲裁国际化的重要步骤之一。最高院近些年在国际司法协助方面取得了长足进步：一是重新确定了法院对仲裁裁决籍属的认定标准；二是2017年开始在特定区域（上海自贸区）认可了临时仲裁；三是2018年建立了国际商事法院，倡导‘一站式’争议解决方案。”
“在这个大趋势下看，《安排》的签署标志着我们又向前迈了一大步。接下来，中国可能跟更多不同法域签署保全安排，这些步骤安排又会逐渐推动我国仲裁法的修改。”孙巍律师补充道。
打通“任督二脉”
在仲裁程序法方面，香港的《仲裁条例》采用了《联合国国际商事仲裁示范法》这一国际上广泛采用的仲裁法。根据香港《仲裁条例》规定，香港可以对包括内地在内的域外仲裁提供保全协助。
“但内地一般不能对包括香港在内的域外仲裁提供保全协助。也就是说，在此前未签署《安排》的情况下，香港仲裁机构和当事人较难以向内地法院申请保全协助，这一点为很多在香港参与仲裁的当事人较为苦恼的问题。” 徐凯怡律师告诉ALB。
长久以来，那些在香港注册成立、但实际运营和主要财产位于内地的公司，在《安排》签署前，香港仲裁机构和当事人都难以针对上述这些公司向内地法院申请保全协助。
“该种情况下，当事人在香港进行仲裁之前或过程中，对方已经在内地将其资产耗散或转移，导致即使当事人在仲裁中胜诉，到头来也可能只拿到一纸空文，在内地的财产并不能得到有效的执行。”徐凯怡律师谈到。
事实确实如此。“由于缺乏法律依据，内地法院对域外仲裁提出的保全申请通常不予处理，海事案件除外。”崔强律师指出。
《安排》的签署为打通内地与香港保全协助“任督二脉”开启了新篇章，之前存在的保全方面的问题有望迎刃而解。
孙巍律师进而指出，相较财产保全和证据保全，行为保全是个颇为复杂的问题，香港在这方面已经做得非常成熟，但内地关于行为保全的实施还仅限于信用证支付、保函支付领域。如果《安排》生效后，内地依然在行为保全方面较少作为，与香港法院给与的行为保全措施支持不对等，那《安排》实施的意义难免要打些折扣。
还需指出的是，《安排》未将发生在香港的临时仲裁程序纳入调整范围，内地司法在实践中历来对临时仲裁制度持保守态度。
细读最高院关于自贸区司法保障意见的第九条第三款规定，会发现：内地司法实践目前仅在小范围允许当事人进行临时仲裁。
规定中写道“在自贸试验区内注册的企业相互之间约定在内地特定地点、按照特定仲裁规则、由特定人员对有关争议进行仲裁的，可以认定该仲裁协议有效。”在孙巍律师看来，该规定尽管未将“在特定地点、按照特定仲裁规则、由特定人员进行的仲裁程序”明确为临时仲裁，但业界普遍认为最高院通过上述规定，表明认可在自贸区注册的企业之间发生在内地的临时仲裁程序。
机遇与挑战
对于国际争议解决中心的香港、香港法律执业人士以及选择香港仲裁的客户等多方主体而言，《安排》大幅度提高了选择在香港进行仲裁的吸引力，也大幅度为在中国内地执行香港仲裁裁决提供多一重保障，徐凯怡律师认为，“对于香港仲裁界，或是防范‘老赖’的当事人，无疑是莫大的喜讯。”
“同时也应注意到《安排》尚未生效，生效后如何有效执行、能否达到其设立目的，尚有待实践和时间的进一步检验。”崔强律师指出。
“由于《安排》是第一份内地与香港签署的有关仲裁保全安排文件，因此在《安排》开始实施的初期阶段，可能会存在大量需要内地与香港在仲裁事务上相互交流和沟通的地方，毕竟内地与香港对于保全有不同的司法要求。但相信通过两地法院的通力合作，《安排》能为两地仲裁事业带来巨大发展空间。”徐凯怡律师谈到。
从促进律师业务的角度看，《安排》的签署也让内地律师能更多接触到国际仲裁业务，孙巍律师指出，“内地律师可以接力香港律师在内地更好地完成保全事项的对接。在此过程中，内地律师能有更多机会接触到域外业务，这对提升内地律师的国际争议解决技巧、提升跨法域间的律师合作，都有非常大的促进作用。”
据香港国际仲裁中心公布的数据显示，2015年和2016年选择香港国际仲裁中心的当事人国籍统计数据中 ，来自中国内地的当事人数量排名一直位居第二。
香港正成为亚太地区最受欢迎的仲裁地之一，不仅因香港有丰富的处理国际仲裁案件的经验，其法律人才和基础设施配套也是最为完善的。
据徐凯怡律师介绍，香港作为仲裁地的优势和竞争力主要体现在五个方面：首先，香港有着广受国际认可的独立与公正的司法制度；第二，在围绕《基本法》的原则下，香港仍保留着普通法制度，意味着在可能涉及多个不同法域的国际仲裁案件中，香港的普通法经验能为当事人提供了极大便利；第三，香港拥有来自不同法域的执业律师为客户提供着多元的法律服务，并形成了专业且开放的法律环境；第四，香港律师深谙东西方文化与语言；第五，香港有妥善的制度，保障在港仲裁的当事人可以追索得到处于全球诸多国家或地区的资产与债务。
徐凯怡律师强调，上述第五点尤为重要：仲裁裁决若不能在香港以外的国家或地区的法院得到承认与执行，即使在仲裁程序中胜利也会变得毫无意义。不同司法区域的法院判决，在没有互惠约定的情况下，在另一司法区域执行可能会比较困难。但在香港作出的仲裁裁决，可根据《纽约公约》在全球目前159个司法区域的法院得到承认和执行。
目前，香港在全球最受欢迎的仲裁地中位列第三，这跟香港政府近年来持续在争议解决方式创新的投入不无关系。值得关注的是由香港政府支持、由非政府机构筹建的网上争议解决及交易平台eBRAM，旨在为跨境商贸纠纷提供安全高效的在线争议解决服务。
“香港政府将为该平台的开发和初期运作提供近一亿五千万港币的支持，并希望通过此平台，促进香港的法律科技发展。不难看出，简化仲裁程序并提高仲裁效率是未来仲裁发展的新方向，‘法律科技+仲裁’也将会是未来发展的新趋势。”徐凯怡律师介绍说。
与国际进一步接轨
中国早在1987年就加入了《纽约公约》，2017年签署了《海牙法院选择公约》，如今《安排》的签署实际上使中国进一步靠近了《联合国国际商事仲裁示范法》。孙巍律师指出，这些都是中国法治环境提高的重要指标，同时也使中国的仲裁规则更多与国际通行规则接轨，进而更好保护外国投资者和中国企业境外投资的切身利益。
“就在《安排》签署的前几个月，最高院与香港律政司还签署了《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和执行民商事案件判决的安排》。截至目前，在《安排》、《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和执行民商事案件判决的安排》以及2000年2月1日正式施行的《最高人民法院关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的安排》的基础上，内地与香港之间可承认和执行民商事判决和仲裁裁决已经基本全面覆盖。”徐凯怡律师提及。
随着2019年8月1日签署期的临近，围绕《新加坡调解公约》在内地逐渐引起热议，争论焦点在于“我国应否成为《公约》首批签署国”。
香港与新加坡历来在打造亚太争议解决中心方面存在一定竞争关系。有观点认为，内地如果加入《新加坡调解公约》，将对新加坡产生背书作用，可能对香港建设亚太争议解决中心产生不利影响。“事实上，香港在这一问题上的核心利益恰恰在于，内地会否加入公约将直接决定香港能否充分享受公约带来的红利。”孙巍律师道出关键所在。
“总体来说，国际司法协助向什么方向发展、以什么速率发展，很大程度上取决于各国就国际贸易、经济全球化、贸易自由化、商务争端解决、法律市场准入与保护等方面达成和凝聚的共识及程度。另外，历史经验也告诉我们，国际司法协助要达成里程碑式发展，可能要花费较长时间。”崔强律师指出。
“中国在国际贸易中日益扮演重要角色，在司法领域逐渐向国际标准看齐，中国仲裁机构也在积极参与国际实践及规则的创设和讨论。在此背景下，中国争议解决律师一方面参与国际法律事务的机会越来越多，另一方面，面临来自知识、语言、法律文化、专业化等方面的挑战也越来越大。”崔强律师补充道。
未决事项尚待明确
就香港仲裁程序保全申请的管辖，孙巍律师提示还有两个问题尚待明确：第一，香港仲裁程序当事人、律师不熟悉内地司法实践关于涉外案件集中管辖的安排，呼吁最高院尽快汇总一份国内涉外案件管辖法院及其辖区的清单，配合《安排》的落地实施；第二，《安排》与最高院国际商事法庭保全职能的衔接问题尚待明确。”
最高院在去年设立了国际商事法庭。依据相关司法解释及配套文件，最高院国际商事法庭管辖国际商事仲裁程序中当事人提出的保全申请，最高院办公室厅也确定了首批国际商事仲裁及调解机构名单。
以香港国际仲裁中心为例，其目前未被纳入首批国际商事仲裁及调解机构名单。未来如果成为其中的一员，则其管理的仲裁案件的当事人既可以向最高院国际商事法庭申请仲裁保护，也可以依据《安排》向内地法院申请保全。“最高院为此应明确该种情况下具体的管辖法院，避免当事人在法律适用上的困惑。”孙巍律师指出。
如将来明确“最高院国际商事法庭与相应中级法院均有管辖权，当事人可自行选择管辖法院”，那从当事人角度，该如何分辨哪种选择更优？
孙巍律师建议道，“我们建议直接向中级法院进行申请：一方面，国际商事法庭面向全国，将承担较大办案压力，但人员配置紧张；另一方面，国际商事法庭作出的保全裁定可以指定下级人民法院执行。鉴于这个规定、且考虑到仲裁保全通常时间要求较为紧迫，当事人如直接向有管辖权的中级法院申请保全，将更有利于快速获得保全裁定。”
此外，《安排》也未对其生效后是否具有溯及力这一问题予以明确，但从《安排》的本意看，其目的是支持内地与香港的仲裁、便利裁决执行。既然如此，就没有必要对《安排》的溯及力作过多限制。”孙巍律师指出。
To contact the editorial team, please email ALBEditor@thomsonreuters.com.
